Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-12-2002 Planning Commission PacketCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE. Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE' Regular Meeting ROLL CALL Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe, Zutshi and Chair Jackman Absent: Commissioner Roupe and Chair Jackman Staff Planner Livingstone, Director Sullivan, and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 22, 2002 (APPROVED 4-1-0) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of thePublicwill be allowed to address thePlamm~g Commission forup to three minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such Items. However, thePlamm~g Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Commumcahons under Planning Commission direction to Sta f f. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 6, 2002. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15- 90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR - None 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. 1. APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECSION TO ISSUE A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT -BILL BRECK, 20375 SARATOGA -LOS GATOS ROAD; The appeal is to have the Planning Commission reverse an Administrative Decision to allow the removal of two Monterey Pines located at 14480 Oak Street. (APPEAL DENIED 5-0) 2. App. # 02-034 (397-06-087) - NEQUIST,14633 Quito Road; -Request for Design Review approval to demolish the existing 3,821 square foot house and build a new single-story 5,847 square foot house with three car garage. (LIVINGSTONE) (APPROVED 5-0) 3. App. # 02-055 (389-06-002) - STURLA, Saratoga Creek Drive; -Request fora 36- month time extension to the approval of SDR 99-006 a 2-lot land division in the Professional-Administrative Office Zoned District. The property is located on Saratoga Creek drive just south of Cox Avenue. (SULLIVAN) (APPROVED 5-0) 4. App. # 02-023 (397-06-075) -HILLS, 18588 Woodbank Way; -Request for Design Review approval to substantially remodel the existing single-story house. A portion of the existing house will be demolished and rebuilt in approximately the same location. The remodeled portion will include a new 1,438 square foot basement. The total proposed house size with garage and accessory structures will not change. (LIVINGSTONE) (APPROVED 5-0) NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 5. GATEWAY DESIGN GUIDELINES; - Design Guidelines for the Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road Gateway have been prepared to guide new development in this district. The streetscape improvement plan has been adopted to address improvements within the Public streetright-of-way to create a new northern gateway to the City. The Guidelines provide direction for the design of mixed-use projects that introduce a component of residential uses within the Gateway district, as provided for in the General Plan housing element. (The Planning Commission directed Staff to facilitate one additional Task Force Meeting and to contact all members who participated in the past year to give them a draft copy of the Design Guidelines. The Task Force is to report back the findings and comments of the members in mid-August and to hold a fully noticed Public Hearing September 25, 2002) DIRECTOR'S ITEMS - None COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner's sub-committee reports COMMUNICATIONS Written -Minutes from Regular City Council Meetings of March 20, April 17 and May 7, 2002. ADJOURNMENT AT 10:50 PM TO THE NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, June 26, 2002, at 7'00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION LAND USE AGENDA DATE. PLACE. TYPE: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 3:00 p.m. City Hall Parking Lot, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Land Use Commmttee SITE VISITS WILL BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 2002 ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. Application #02-034 2. Application #02-023 3. Appeal - NEQUIST Item 2 14633 Quito Road - HILLS Item 4 18588 Woodbank Way - BRECK Item 1 14480 Oak Street 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 Commmttee at the site visit to answer any questions which may arise. Site visits are generally short (5 to 10 minutes) because of time constraints. Any presentations and testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the public hearing. Please contact staff Tuesday morning for an estimated time of the site visit. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 - 7:00 p.m. _ PLACE' Council Chambers/Civic Theater,13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE Regular Meeting ROLL CALL Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe, Zutshi and Chair Jackman PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES' Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 22, 2002 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member o f the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staf f accordingly regarding Oral Commumcattons underPlanntngCommission direction to staff. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 6, 2002. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15- 90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR - None 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_deuvered 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. 1. APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECSION TO ISSUE A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT -BILL BRECK, 20375 SARATOGA -LOS GATOS ROAD; The appeal is to have the Planning Commission reverse an Administrative Decision to allow the removal of two Monterey Pines located at 14480 Oak Street. 2. App. # 02-034 (397-06-087) - NEQUIST,14633 Quito Road; -Request for Design Review approval to demolish the existing 3,821 square foot house and build a new single-story 5,847 square foot house with three car garage. (LIVINGSTONE) 3. App. # 02-055 (389-06-002) - STURLA, Saratoga Creek Drive; -Request fora 36- month time extension to the approval of SDR 99-006 a 2-lot land division in the Professional-Administrative Office Zoned District. The property is located on Saratoga Creek drive just south of Cox Avenue. (SULLIVAN) 4. App. # 02-023 (397-06-075) -HILLS, 18588 Woodbank Way; -Request for Design Review approval to substantially remodel the existing single-story house. A portion of the existing house will be demolished and rebuilt in approximately the same location. The remodeled portion will include a new 1,438 square foot basement. The total proposed house size with garage and accessory structures will not change. (LIVINGSTONE) NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 5. GATEWAY DESIGN GUIDELINES; - Design Guidelines for the Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road Gateway have been prepared to guide new development in this district. The streetscape improvement plan has been adopted to address improvements within the Public street right-of-way to create a new northern gateway to the City. The Guidelines provide direction for the design of mixed-use projects that mtroduce a component of residential uses withm the Gateway district, as provided for in the General Plan housing element. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS - None COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner's sub-committee reports COMMUNICATIONS Written -Minutes from Regular City Council Meetings of March 20, April 17 and May 7, 2002. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, June 26, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA • If you would like to receive this Agenda via a-mail, please send your e-mail address to plannin sarato¢a.ca us rr f/~//j//~/\//~ /~ V c' JZ l~' - -- MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Jackman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. R(1T.T. ('AT.T. Present: Commissioners Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi Absent: Commissioner Barry and Roupe Staff: Director Tom Sullivan and Planner Lata Vasudevan PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of May 8, 2002. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the regular Planning Commission minutes of May 8, 2002, were approved as submitted. AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry and Roupe ABSTAIN: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communication Items REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on May 16, 2002. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Jackman announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b). Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2002 CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 1 Page 2 u; Application #02-029 (397-17-014) ANDERSON, 19571 Farwell Avenue: Request for Design Review Approval to demolish the main structure and construct a new 4,641 square foot single-story residence. The height of the structure will be 26 feet. The existing guesthouse, greenhouse and workshop on the site will remain. The 43,168 square foot site is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (VASUDEVAN) Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant seeks approval to demolish ahingle-family residence and construct a new 4,641 square foot single-family residence with a maximum height of 26 feet. • Described the new home as including cedar shingle roof and siding material. • Said that a conceptual landscape plan was been provided that shows that no lawn will be placed within 25 feet of the oak trees. • Added that staff has included a Condition of Approval requiring a final landscape plan for review and approval by the City's Arborist. • Stated that this project complies with the requirements of the Residential Design Guidelines. • Informed that there have been no concerns or objections raised by the neighbors. • Recommended Approval and advised that the applicant is in the audience. Commissioner Kurasch asked staff for the existing square footage of the home to be demolished. Planner Lata Vasudevan said she would have to defer response to the applicant. Commissioner Kurasch asked staff how the findings to support this application were reached. Asked how the proposed roof structure could possibly be found compatible with the Residential Design Handbook and expressed concern about the proposed roof design. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that she looked at the overall height of the roof. The feature of concern to Commissioner Kurasch is located toward the center of the home and is rather set back. Commissioner Kurasch said that that her main concern is the impact from the west elevation and , questions whether this design meets policy goals. Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:11 p.m. Mr. Park Miller, Project Architect, 327 Oak Meadow Drive, Los Gatos: • Said that he would be happy to answer any questions. • Clarified the west elevation by saying that he has tried to break up that roof feature with three separate articulations to break up the perceived mass. He added that the gable elements are expressed as a cross element. • Stated that existing heavy landscaping will help mellow the impact on the side property line. .~ Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2002 Page 3 Chair Jackman asked Mr. Miller if he works with the landscaping in his design. Mr. Park Miller said that he coordinates with the Landscape Architect, who is available this evening. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Miller to explain why there is need fora 26-foot high roof on a single story house. Added that there is an inherent impact. Mr. Park Miller: • Stated that the character that they are trying to achieve requires a sloped roof. • Added that the ridge point is centered in the mass of the structure and that the plane is inclining away from the eye. - • Said that he has.tried to articulate this feature and that the height requirement is a direct result of the roof slope and the desires of the o~~vners. • Assured that there will be less impact from this home than from a 26-foot high two-story home. Commissioner Zutshi asked if the pitch line proposed is the same as appears on the sample board. Mr. Park Miller replied somewhat. He added that the sample board is only intended to depict the color and texture of the roofing material rather than the roof pitch. The photo depicts a roof that is taller and more massive than they are proposing. Chair Jackman pointed to Page 3 of the plans, which show the roof as being broken up and offering some variation. Commissioner Kurasch said that she is not questioning the variation but rather the need for the 26-foot height. Mr. Park Miller said that the highest elevation is limited to between 25 and 30 feet in length at the highest ridge. He added that it is also inset from the property lines. Commissioner Kurasch stated that the rest of the house is more interesting that that elevation. Ms. Micki Anderson, Applicant/Owner, 19571 Farwell Avenue, Saratoga: • Pointed out that the orientation of the neighbor's home is away from theirs and their tennis court abuts this side of the property. • She added that there is quite a lot of screening. Mr. Peter Shaw, Project Landscape Architect: ' • Stated that the finish floor level is actually lower than street level, which will help make any impact from the high ridgeline appear fairly insignificant. Chair Jackman asked Mr. Shaw if he plans any landscaping beneath the oak trees. Mr. Peter Shaw assured that his landscape plan will adhere to the report and recommendations made by Arborist Barrie Coates. Planner Lata Vasudevan asked Mr. Miller to provide the square footage for the existing residence. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2002 Page 4 Mr. Park Miller advised that he does not have the precise figure but that it is in the low 3,OOOs. Planner Lata Vasudevan offered the square footage as 3,176 square feet. Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:25 p.m. Commissioner Garakani said that based upon the design, this proposal looks good. The roof pitch has been explained to his satisfaction and he is prepared to support this project. Commissioner Zutshi said that she had concern about the square footage but that staff has cleared that matter up by explaining that attic space is not counted as livable space. - Commissioner Hunter stated that the design of this home is very nice. She added that she has always loved the existing home on this property when passing by and is sorry to see it go. Commissioner Kurasch: • Clarified that she always has concern about maximum roof heights and maximum square footage. • Agreed that this home is nicely designed and very consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. • Said that she did have some concern about the home's size but finds it very nice and believes it will be a nice addition. Chair Jackman agreed and said that the fact that the home is lower than street level will help reduce the impact of the height. Stated that this home is a nice addition that goes with its neighborhood. Added that she too found the original home very nice. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission granted a Design Review Approval to allow the demolition of the main structure and construction of a new 4,641 square foot single-story residence with a maximum height of 26 feet on property at 19571 Farwell Avenue AYES: Garakani, Hunter, .Iackman, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry and Roupe ABSTAIN: None Chair Jackman reminded that there is a 15-day appeal period before this action is final. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 Application #02-040 (503-20-083) - CHYAN, 20870 Verde Vista Lane: Request for Design Review Approval to construct a 5,118 square foot two-story residence with a 602 square foot basement. The height of the structure will be 26 feet. The proposed residence with replace atwo-story home that was demolished in conjunction with a previous Administrative Design Review Approval. The 43,264 (gross) square foot site is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (VASUDEVAN) Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2002 Page 5 • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval to allow the construction of a two- . story, 5,118 square foot single-family residence with a 602 square foot basement and a maximum height of 26 feet. • Added that a demolition and grading and drainage plan were approved with a previous application for this site. Therefore, the site is currently vacant. _ • Stated that the applicant has submitted a new design for the replacement home that consists of a contemporary style home with a series of low pitch rooflines. • Informed that the applicant has spoken with all his neighbors and one has provided a letter of support. • Said that staff finds this proposal to be compatible with the neighborhood in style and height. _ • Pointed out that the City's Arborist has provided recommendations for tree protection and that staff has added Conditions of Approval for a final landscape and grading plan for the site. • Said that nine trees are at risk of damage and Tree No. 4 would have to be removed with this new design to accommodate the driveway. • Stated that the proposal complies with the Residential Design Guidelines and staff is recommending approval. Commissioner Zutshi asked if the basement being-placed beneath the covered porch complies with the newly revised Basement Ordinance. Chair Jackman advised that porch is part of the square footage of the house. Planner Lata Vasudevan clarified that the porch is not counted as square footage but does represent a part of the house's footprint and foundation. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that the porch has a roof and one wall and not three walls. _ Chair Jackman asked staff for clarification that the new Basement Ordinance regulations are not yet in effect. Director Tom Sullivan replied no. He pointed to page A-4 of the plans, which demonstrate that the porch is partially enclosed on two sides and is a part of the house's footprint. Chair Jackman clarified for the audience that new standards are pending that require basements to fit within a structures footprint. This proposal meets that requirement. Commissioner Garakani asked about the energy dissipaters. Chair Jackman explained that these are part of the property's drainage system. Commissioner Kurasch asked for the height of the element over the front doors. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied 17 to 18 feet. Commissioner Kurasch asked why no story poles were erected. Planner Lata Vasudevan answered that had there been nei hbor concerns raised re ardin view g g g impacts, story poles would have been required. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2002 Page 6 Director Tom Sullivan reminded the Commission that their instruction to staff was to use their best judgement on when to require story poles. Commissioner Garakani agreed that no other home is impacted by this building. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that the home above this one might have view impacts. Commissioner Garakani said that that home looks down on this site. Commissioner Hunter agreed that there is potential for view impacts on that home and that it is possible that this neighbor does not realize that potential. Commissioner Garakani stated that there are lots of trees to screen. He added that the story poles are not just for the benefit of neighbors but also serve to assist the Commission in considering potential impacts. Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:41 p.m. Mr. Ghunam Azad, Project Architect, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road: • Said that the demolished home consisted of 3,110 square feet. • Stated that the project site could accommodate a 5,142 square foot home and that they are proposing a 5,118 square foot structure with a 602 square foot basement and a building height of 26 feet. • Advised that the front door feature is 18 feet high. • Said that the roof slope is lower, five to 12. They will use a flat concrete charcoal tile. • Added that the porch, depicted on Plan A-5 is open on three sides. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Azad to explain how this design is compatible with the area. Mr. Ghunam Azad replied that the design is not out of character and that there are similar and compatible styles of architecture in the area with similar features. Commissioner Kurasch expressed concern with the front element as being too large. Pointed out that this area is very low key. Agreed that the fact the project is on a flag lot helps a bit. Mr. Ghunam Azad stressed that the property is not visible from the street. Commissioner Kurasch said that based upon what is already in the area, the size of this home is a concern as well as the height. Pointed out that there are but six or so two-story homes in the entire immediate area. Mr. Ghunam Azad pointed out that two-stories are permitted. Commissioner Kurasch said they allowed at the discretion of this Commission. Mr. Ghunam Azad said that he was under the impression that they could design atwo-story and that they will comply with all requirements. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2002 Page 7 Commissioner Garakani asked why this application is before the Commission. Director Tom Sullivan replied due to the size and height of the house. Per Code, an Administrative Design Review can be approved if a home meets the allowable square footage, is a single story and under 18 feet in height. Any proposed structure over 18 feet in height requires Planning Commission Design Review Approval. Chair Jackman expressed concern- about the amount of impervious surface (9,636 square feet) for this site, including a long driveway, and questioned whether the use of pervious materials might be considered. Mr. Ghunam Azad said that he would consider such a change of material. Director Tom Sullivan advised the Commission that it could impose such a requirement and told Mr. Azad that there are different pavers available that allow drainage. Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:51 p.m. Commissioner Hunter said that this proposal is just fine and that she has no problems with it. Commissioner Kurasch: • Said that she has problems with this design, which was designed to be a standout in an area that does not have standout homes. • Said the design is too much with the two-story and size and feel of the architecture. • Stated that the home appears almost like a block and is too bulky. • Added that just because the home cannot be seen much, it is still important as it will be an example of a two-story for the area and become an example. • Declared that she does not see this design as a representation of what is in the area. Commissioner Garakani asked Commissioner Kurasch what she is suggesting to remedy this design. Commissioner Kurasch replied reduce the second story and scale the house back. Right now it seems too imposing. Additionally, the height of the front porch element should also be reduced so that it is more in keeping with what is in the area. This home would have to be substantially reduced. Commissioner Zutshi agreed that the house appears too massive. However, since this is a flag lot, she does not have a lot of problems with this project. Commissioner Garakani said that he shares some of the concerns of Commissioner Kurasch and that story poles would have been helpful in evaluating this project. Said the design looks good, the materials are okay and the colors are nice. He is currently on the fence on how to vote. Chair Jackman agreed that the project is pretty massive for the neighborhood and that she would feel better if the house were more spread out on the property and not so boxy. Said that she did not feel she could approve this project for this lot. Commissioner Hunter said she had no problems. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2002 Page 8 Commissioner Kurasch recommended a continuance. _ Chair Jackman suggested that the home needs to be redesigned to be lower. Director Tom Sullivan said that the Commission should give direction to the applicant and staff, which appears to be to reduce the mass of the second story and increase the size of the first story. Commissioner Garakani asked how this would reduce mass. Director Tom Sullivan replied by having greater architectural differences in the facade. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Design Review to allow a 5,118 square foot two-story residence with a 602 square foot basement on property located at 20870 Verde Vista Lane. AYES: Hunter and Zutshi NOES: Garakani, Jackman and Kurasch ABSENT: Barry and Roupe ABSTAIN: None The motion failed for lack of a majority. Commissioner Kurasch suggested reducing the size of the home. Chair Jackman said that while the lot supports the proposed square footage, the applicant should bring a different architectural style and bring the structure's height down with a larger first floor and less second story space. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the Architect was not given a chance to discuss his design. Commissioner Kurasch said that the applicant can accept a continuance. Added that she had expressed concerns over bulk during the Public Hearing process. Director Tom Sullivan suggested that the Commission could reopen the Public Hearing. Chair Jackman reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:05 p.m. Mr. Chyan, Owner/Applicant, 20870 Verde Vista Lane, Saratoga: • Commended the Commission for their efforts to protect hillside views for the public. • Stated that their old house was also atwo-story and this new home is only a couple of feet higher that will not adversely impact his neighbors. • Stated that the reason for the large second story is to enjoy views. • Pointed out that their old home had living space on the upper level and that it would represent a big loss if they cannot use that space as living space again in their new home. Commissioner Garakani questioned the placement of the garage. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2002 Page 9 Commissioner Kurasch said that she can understand that the applicant wants to use the property as much as possible. Chair Jackman said that this home is much bigger than the homes in the neighborhood, even though it is on a flag lot. Mr. Ghunam Azad stated that the applicant wants eastern exposures. Chair Jackman stated that the applicant has provided additional explanations and she is ready to support this request. Chair Jackman reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:10 p.m. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission recommended continuation of a request for Design Review Approval to allow a 5,118 square foot two-story residence with a 602 square foot basement on property located at 20870 Verde Vista Lane. AYES: Garakani and Kurasch NOES: Hunter, Jackman and Zutshi ABSENT: Barry and Roupe ABSTAIN: None The motion failed for lack of a majority, Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission granted a Design Review Approval to allow a 5,118 square foot two-story residence with a 602 square foot basement on property located at 20870 Verde Vista Lane. AYES: Hunter, Jackman and Zutshi NOES: Garakani and Kurasch ABSENT: Barry and Roupe ABSTAIN: None Chair Jackman reminded that there is a 15-day appeal period. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 Application #02-083 -CITY OF SARATOGA - Saratoga Woods Neighborhood: The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment would limit existing single story dwellings to single story. An Environmental Initial Study is available for review at the City of Saratoga in the Community Development Department. (SULLIVAN) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Reminded that on January 2, 2002, Council adopted a Resolution directing staff and the Planning Commission to study and report on a proposal to establish asingle-story overlay district for two neighborhoods, Saratoga Woods and Brookview. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2002 Page 10 • Stated that staff conducted a postcard survey of property owners in both neighborhoods. • Said that staff reported the postcard survey results to the Planning Commission on April 10, 2002. • Said that the Planning Commission directed staff to move forward with the drafting of an Ordinance and to schedule a Public Hearing. • Added that the Commission also directed staff to divide the two neighborhoods and start the process with Saratoga Woods, which had a higher percentage of support per the postcard survey results. • Provided an overview of the postcard survey results from the owners in Saratoga Woods. There was a 65 percent return. Typically a 25 percent return is considered a good result with a survey. Of the respondents, 66 percent were in favor of a single-story overlay for the Saratoga Woods neighborhood and 30 percent were opposed. • Stated that staff advertised the Public Hearing and notified the Saratoga Woods homeowners and property owners within 500 feet of the Saratoga Woods neighborhood. • Added that the overlay will exempt existing two-story homes in the neighborhood. Any additions or reconstruction would be limited to single story and overall height of a typical single story. • Stated that while this single story overlay is new to Saratoga, it is conunon in other communities and is a method of protecting the integrity of existing neighborhoods. Chair Jackman asked if an existing two-story were to be destroyed, would it have to be rebuilt as a single-story if this overlay district is in place. Director Tom Sullivan replied that an were an existing two-story to be destroyed after the establishment of this single story overlay, that two story structure could still be rebuilt as they have it now. He added that communications received were provided to the Commissioners. Chair Jackman pointed out that one resident, Mrs. Balyeat expresses concern about an overlay since she is currently planning a second story addition to increase the size of her 1,300 square foot home. Ms. Marcia Parrish states in her letter that second story additions pit neighbor against neighbor. Director Tom Sullivan said that correspondence was received this afternoon from a Mrs. Lu who is not supportive of the restriction to single story homes. Commissioner Zutshi asked if new construction will be restricted to a certain height. Director Tom Sullivan replied that any addition could not be any taller than the single-story homes contiguous to it. Commissioner Kurasch asked how this neighborhood was identified for the single-story overlay. Director Tom Sullivan replied that an application for a second story addition last summer resulted iri petitions being submitted at the Appeal hearing of the Planning Commission decision. The Saratoga Woods neighborhood requested a similar thing several years ago. Commissioner Garakani asked why not overall instead of just one neighborhood. Director Tom Sullivan replied that this neighborhood is still predominately a single-story neighborhood, as is the Brookview neighborhood. If other such neighborhoods are identified, the Commission may hear similar requests from those neighborhoods after the adoption of this overlay. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2002 Page 11 Chair Jackman pointed out that both of these neighborhoods also have active Homeowners Associations. Commissioner Garakani asked if the majority supports. Director Tom Sullivan said that according to the postcard poll, which is not scientific, there is 66 percent support for this single story overlay district in the Saratoga Woods neighborhood. Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing on Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:25 p.m. Mr. David McEachron, 18966 Saratoga Glen Place, Saratoga: • Said that he is involved with the Homeowners Association and has lived in the Saratoga Woods neighborhood for the last 18 years. -- • Stated that he likes the appearance of the neighborhood, which was designed as a single-story neighborhood. • Added that while some other neighborhoods may be designed as two-story neighborhoods, this one is a predominately single-story neighborhood. • Said that privacy impacts and obstruction of views and light occurs on adjacent properties when two story additions are placed in a predominately single-story neighborhood. • Stated that many homes can expand as single-story homes since these are large lots. • Expressed strong support for the restriction to single-story homes in the Saratoga Woods neighborhood. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. McEachron for the size of homes in the neighborhood. Mr. David McEachron replied that homes vary from about 1,300 to over 3,000 square feet. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. McEachron why he feels the existing process for Design Review would not work sufficiently to protect homeowners in his neighborhood. Mr. David McEachron replied that with the existing review process the neighborhood has to be ever vigilant. ____ Mr. Evan Baker, 12324 Obrad Drive, Saratoga: • Advised that he is present as a citizen this evening. • Added that when this single-story overlay goes before Council, he will recuse himself from considering the matter. • Said that he would like to discuss three key items. • Pointed out that originally 150 hours were constructed on seven tracts. All but four homes were single story. Those four were one-and-a-half-story homes or rather single story homes with a room over the garage. There was one original pre-existing two-story in the neighborhood and two were built on the periphery. • Added that the CC&Rs restricted homes to a single story and that still pertains to the original 150 properties. • Stated that 40 additional homes were constructed in two sections, with 36 built by J. Lohr and 14 two-story homes. At Kocich Orchard, twelve homes were constructed with five being two-story, none of which impinged on single-story properties. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2002 Page 12 • Said that a key element of this single-story overlay district is the fact that issue of second stories in Saratoga Woods is not new and has been ongoing since the first application for remodel. The procedures for review have changed. Fairly recently, a homeowner with a 1,200 square foot cottage wanted to add on to that home. The only persons notified were two neighbors. • Stated that since that time; the Saratoga Woods Homeowners Association has kept current on applications for remodel. • Said that he feels strongly about keeping the neighborhood as a single-story since this is the largest subdivision with a highly dominant number ofsingle-story homes in Saratoga. • Said that the homes are on average 16 feet high at the roofline with average square footage between 2,000 and 2,100 square feet. The lots are about 10,000 square feet, although a few are as large as 16,000, one is on a double lot, some lots are as small as 8,500 square feet and only a few homes are as small as 1,000 to 1,300 square feet. • Stated that he has reviewed the proposed Resolution and fmds it to be excellent and well prepared. • Added that prior to the arrival of Director Tom Sullivan, the City was not aware that this option was available. • Thanked the Commission for its time. Chair Jackman asked Mr. Baker why not rely on the CC&Rs. Mr. Evan Baker replied that not all homeowners have copies of the CC&Rs and that there are six to seven different sets of CC&Rs. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Baker what he thinks of the opinions expressed that such an overlay will be too restrictive. Mr. Evan Baker: • Replied that it is a trade off. The vast majority bought homes in this neighborhood because they _ __ liked the appearance of the neighborhood while a few individuals may want the right to add a second story. • Reminded that the side property offset is but 10 feet with 30-foot deep rear yards. Any second story will intrude upon two, three or even four neighboring homes. • Added that most homes/lots in the Saratoga Woods neighborhood are relatively flat with views of the foothills. New residents may have ideas for expanding upwards but most existing neighbors feel strongly about the single-story presence and the privacy that affords. Commissioner Garakani asked if the second story space-is intended for living space or to enjoy views. Mr. Evan Baker said that he could not speculate on the reasons for people to build second story, additions. Commissioner Garakani offered the suggestion that basements may be an option for additions. Mr. Evan Baker agreed that most homes have the flexibility to expand in ways other than a second story. Commissioner Hunter advised that she drove through the Saratoga Woods neighborhood slowly and found that the houses with the rooms over the garages were not displeasing. Added that covering land Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Iv1ay 22, 2002 Page 13 with more home is less pleasing than allowing building over the garage. Questioned whether Mr. Baker was certain that not allowing the room over the garage is a good idea. Mr. Evan Baker pointed out that the rooms over these garages were uniquely designed and do not have a flat ceiling interior. Today's additions over the garage would require the raising of the ridgepole and would change the exterior of the house. The remaining garages in the tract were not constructed to be load bearing. Commissioner Hunter mentioned the potential loss of trees with single story additions to existing single-family residences. Mr. Evan Baker reiterated that many people have told him that the single-story character of this area is what drew them to this neighborhood. People want that kind of uniform neighborhood that they can count on. Reminded that even with a single story overlay, a property owner can apply for a Variance to allow for a second story. Director Tom Sullivan concurred. Mr. Larry Mehringer, 19709 West View Drive, Saratoga: ____ • Stated that Mr. Baker did an eloquent job of describing their neighborhood. • Advised that he has resided in the Saratoga Woods neighborhood for about 18 years and found the design of this neighborhood pleasing. • Added that he lives next door to one of the one and a half story homes and pointed out that there are no side windows on the room over the garage to create privacy impacts. • Described the home behind him as a "monster" home, which is creating noise impacts. • Declared that the notification process should be standard. • Said that he has spoken with many neighbors and most want their neighborhood to stay the way that it is. They are flatlanders and like it that way. • Stated that people are really concerned about their privacy. • Said that this is a great neighborhood with a swim club. • Stated that the proposed Ordinance should go forward and recommends that Council approves it. Mr. David Gremer, 12388 Radokya Dive, Saratoga: • Advised that he has resided in the Saratoga Woods neighborhood for 20 years and finds it to be a wonderful neighborhood characterized by its homes and neighbors. • Agreed that the issue of second story additions does pit neighbor against neighbor and said that he is delighted that this overlay is being considered. • Pointed out that this is more of a rural setting and that second stories affect neighbors, causing crowding and loss of natural light. - • Recommended approval of the single-story overlay district. Commissioner Kurasch stated that it appears that there are lots of long-term residents in the Saratoga Woods neighborhood. Mr. David Gremer agreed, stating that it is a great place and he recommends it. Ms. Andrea Gremer, 12388 Radokya Drive, Saratoga: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2002 - Page 14 • Expressed concerns about privacy impacts and pointed out that the home behind hers is undergoing an addition with increased height that has resulted in windows with views into her bedroom. • Added that she grew up in this home and loved having no visible structure when playing in her backyard as a child. • Stated that it is creepy to have windows that reduce the privacy from her bedroom. Director Tom Sullivan asked Ms. Gremer which home is being remodeled. Ms. Gremer's mother replied from the audience that the house behind them is on Lolly Court. Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 9:02 p.m. Chair Jackman asked staff how new buyers to the area will be made aware of this single-story overlay district that would impact their property. Director Tom Sullivan advised that there are strict real estate disclosure laws when homes are sold. Additionally, the City can record this information and when a title search is done, this overlay restriction would come up for any affected property. Chair Jackman asked if this is the surest way of getting the word out. Director Tom Sullivan: • Pointed out that the Silicon Valley Realtor's Group has been involved in this process since January and that there are penalties for realtors who do not disclose all pertinent information upon a real estate transaction. • Added that the Commission can take action in one or two steps for the recommendation of adoption of a Negative Declaration as well as forwarding a recommendation to Council to adopt the single- story overlay district for the Saratoga Woods neighborhood. Commissioner Kurasch: • Stated that she applauds the neighborhood and the City. • Said that this overlay gives a proactive tool rather than forcing property owners to be reactive. • Expressed appreciation to the comments made in support of the design of this neighborhood as a single-story neighborhood. • Stated that there is a trade off in quality of life for the majority and individual gain. • Said that it is important to listen to the neighborhood as they have spoken acid to respond by putting their desires for asingle-story neighborhood into a codified form. • Said that she is very happy to see this come forward. Commissioner Zutshi: • Stated that she likes the fact that the neighborhood has come forward together in support of the single-story overlay district. • Agreed that if this overlay is recorded with the title, new owners will be made aware of it. • Stated that she likes the idea of disclosure. • Stated that she likes the idea ofretaining asingle-story neighborhood. • Expressed her support for the creation of a single-story overlay district in the Saratoga Woods neighborhood. S Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2002 Page 15 . Chair Jackman: • Said that she had concerns at the beginning and felt that the CC&Rs restricted homes to a single- story already. • Pointed out that no one has expressed support for the right to allow two-story additions at tonight's hearing. • Stated that it appears that single-story homes are the desire of the majority. • Said that she hopes that this overlay will be recorded so that it appears on the title for homes in this neighborhood. Commissioner Hunter: • Stated that she is reluctant to support because of the potential for loss of greenery with single-story additions instead of second-story additions. • Pointed out that 30 percent of the residents did not respond to the postcard survey. • Added that she will support the proposed Ordinance Amendment but reluctantly. Commissioner Garakani: • Said that he shares Commissioner Hunter's concern for potential loss of greenery. • Pointed out that a basement might be another option for residential additions in this neighborhood. • Said that there is probably enough room on most of these lots to expand without a loss of greenery. • Said that this overlay is a way to start. • Suggested that the City may want to consider expanding such an overlay district to other areas of Saratoga. Commissioner Hunter said that she would love to see such an Ordinance that would help protect heritage properties from being torn down. Chair Jackman expressed confidence that new owners would be made aware of the limitations in this neighborhood to single-story. Commissioner Kurasch: • Said that she would like an 18-foot height limitation. • Asked staff how such an overlay district has worked in other communities. Director Tom Sullivan replied that such overlay districts work very well. Explained that at one community for which he worked, property owners had great concern about potential loss of ocean views by taller homes. They were protected with such an overlay zoning. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution accepting the Environmental Initial Study and a second Resolution recommending adoption of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment (Application #02-083) to establish asingle-story overlay district in the Saratoga Woods Neighborhood. AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry and Roupe ABSTAIN: None Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2002 Page 16 *** DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Report on Inconsistencies between the Zoning Code and the Planning Department Handouts (SLTLLIVAI~ _ Director Tom Sullivan: • Pointed out that he has pulled some departmental handouts from circulation when he discovered that there are inconsistencies between the Zoning Code and these handouts. • Said that his staff carefully reviewed each handout, comparing the data to the Zoning Ordinance. • Said that staff now needs direction from the Commission. They can move forward to change the handouts to match Code or, if current practice is more appropriate, staff can take steps to change Code. - • Suggested the need for an added Code regarding the removal of a dead tree. • Said that the 10-day appeal period for a tree removal exists but that there is no requirement to notify neighbors of approval of a Tree Removal Permit. • Said that there is question regarding Tree Protection and how best to measure, using circumference or diameter. Tree Removal and Protection Commissioner Kurasch replied that the diameter is determined from the circumference. The ISA Standard is to measure the diameter at breast height (about four feet off the ground). This is the national standard on how to measure a tree. Director Tom Sullivan said it appears that the Commission is recommending to amend the Ordinance to put the formula for calculating a tree's measurement into the Ordinance and Handouts. Commissioner Zutshi questioned whether people are even aware that a permit is necessary to cut down a dead tree. Chair Jackman replied that this fact has been widely advertised. Director Tom Sullivan said that the handout will be easily understood. Commissioner Garakani asked if the ISA standard should be incorporated. Commissioner Kurasch suggested that staff consult with the City's Arborist on where to measure a tree, be it from two or four feet off the ground. Commissioner Hunter suggested the need for a definition of a dead tree. One dead limb on a tree does not represent a dead tree. Director Tom Sullivan: • Suggested that perhaps a staff inspection, without charge, might be required to assure that a tree for removal is actually a dead tree. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2002 Page 17 4 • Pointed out that trees five-inches or larger in diameter were protected in other communities at which he worked. • Said that he is not certain where Saratoga's standard for 10-inches came from. • Said that an Ordinance change may be required. - • Said that his staff now does inspections of trees where a contract employee used to do them. There are six to seven criteria required. • Said that staff will continue to identify where Code and handouts are different. Commissioner Garakani suggested that staff should review every tree proposed for removal. Chair Jackman asked if it would be possible to establish a Tree Committee. Director Tom Sullivan replied sure and asked the Commission to appoint members to such a Committee. Chair Jackman asked for volunteers. Commissioner Garakani volunteered to serve on a Tree Committee. Commissioner Kurasch also stated her desire to serve on a Tree Committee. Chair Jackman appointed Commissioner Kurasch to Chair the Tree Committee and stated that she would like to see a list of recommended replacement trees established. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the Arborist's Re ort t icall lists native and indi enous trees to P Yl~ Y g the area. Variation to Standards - Director Tom Sullivan stated that the next issue for discussion is the provision to allow a variation to standards that allows the Commission and/or Council to vary all Zoning Ordinance requirements without setting limits as they apply to Conditional Uses (not permitted uses). Said that it would be important to set perimeters, limits and controls or to get rid of this Section completely. Commissioner Kurasch said it would be helpful to see the handouts specifically. Variances Director Tom Sullivan said that the handout lists four items where Variances cannot be submitted; which are not backed up by Ordinance and are actually inconsistent with laws that allow for the right of a hearing. Maximum Allowable Building Size -Average Slope Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the Ordinance has a formula that states that area is equal to the net site area after taking out roads and easements. The handout material states that area counted is gross. Stated that he is more inclined to go with the Ordinance as it is more consistent. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 22; 2002 Page 18 Chair Jackman expressed agreement and instructed staff to trash the handout. r Single-Story/Multi-Story Setbacks Director Tom Sullivan reminded that this issue of how setbacks are handled is already under way and will be before Council very soon. Setbacks Director Tom Sullivan said that the Ordinance is clear on setbacks for two-story residences. The handout states that the whole structure moves forward and not just the second story. If a second story is being added to an existing structure, the hard nose interpretation is that a second story could not be added since the increased setback cannot be achieved. The easier interpretation would be that the second story addition must be set back with an additional penalty. New construction over the height of 18 feet would require the whole building to be moved back. Allowable FAR Director Tom Sullivan reminded that the height requirement is 18 feet. For every foot above 18 feet, the applicant would lose 1.5 percent of allowable FAR. This fact is not mentioned in the handout. Additionally, if ceiling height is above 15 feet, that space has to be double counted. This fact also needs to be added to the handout. Commissioner Zutshi asked Director Sullivan how a setback is calculated when on a slope. Director Tom Sullivan replied that property on a slope is measured on a flat plane. He assured the Commission that staff has received enough direction from the Commission to keep busy updating the information on these handouts. _ COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Kurasch advised that Associate Planner John Livingstone coordinated an Energy ____ Committee meeting. The Committee will be meeting a few more times before coming back before the Commission with an update and/or recommendation. Commissioner Garakani asked staff to look into adjusting the lights in Chambers as they are quite blinding. - Commissioner Kurasch agreed and advised that these lights are very uncomfortable and difficult on the eyes. Chair Jackman advised that she would be on vacation for the next Commission Meeting on June 12`h COMMUNICATIONS Written -Minutes from Regular City Council Meetings of April 17, 2002 and Adjourned Meeting of May 7, 2002. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2002 Page 19 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chair Jackman adjourned the meeting at 10:02 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesda , Y June 12, 2002, to begin at 7 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • ITEM 1 REPORT TO THE PLANNING-COMMISSION Application No.: N/A Location: 14480 Oak Place Appellant/Owner: Bill Breck/Mitch Cutler Staff Planner. - - Thomas Sullivan, AICP Community Development Director Date: June 9, 2002 APN: 397-22-051 -- Department Head 0~000~ E• ~. CASE HISTORY Appeal filed May 9, 2002 Application complete: N/A Notice published __ May 29, 2002- Mailingcompleted May 29, 2002 Posting completed May 30, 2002 PROJECT DESCRIPTION On May 3, 2002, Mitch Cutler applied for a Tree Removal permit to remove two Monterey Pine trees from his Oak Place propemj. His reasons for the removal were beetle infestation and old age. On May 6, 2002, Jeff Britton inspected the trees and approved the requested Tree Removal Permit due to disease and proximity to the main residence on the property. Previous to this, on Apri122, 2002, Barrie Coate prepared an Arborist Report regarding these two pine trees as well as other trees in the general area. Mr. Coate's conclusion was that the pine trees should be removed. Mr. Breck's appeal addressed both pine trees. However, the tree in the rear yard was about 85% removed before the work could be stopped. Mr. Cutler has subsequently had Mr. James Scott, Certified Arborist #97U3I30 review the remaining tree. Mr. Scott concluded that the tree should be removed immediately. Subsequent to this City Arborist Barrie Coate reviewed the Scott report and made a field inspection of the pine tree. Mr. Coate concluded that while he still recommended that the tree be removed, it was not an immediate threat. The Tree Removal Permit was issued with the condition that Mr. Cutler plant two 24 inch replacement trees. .==1rt-cle 1~-50.090 (a) of the Saratoga Zoning Code provides that the decision of the Planning Commission is final and no further appeal may be taken to the City Council. ~! his appeal is just one of several complaints and cross complaints that City Staff, the appeIlant, \ir Cutler and other neighbors are dealing with at this time. ST aFF RECOM MEN DAYTON I~cm~ the appeal and reinstate the Tree Removal Permit. ATTAC H M E?~TS 1 nraft Resolution 2 Arbonst Report prepared by Barrie Coate 3 Arborist Report prepared by James Scott -+. Letter of Appeal filed by Bill Breck ~ Letter From Mitch Cutler 000002 r ~ • • Attachment 1 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION No. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an appeal of a Tree Removal Permit issued to Mitch Cutler of 14480 Oak Place to remove two Monterey Pine trees; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a fuIl opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the Plannug Commission has considered information provided by the City Arbonst who recommended the pine tree be removed NOW, THEREFORE, the Platuung Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section I. After careful consideration of the facts related to the pine tree, the appeal filed by Bill Breck is denied and the Tree Removal Permit is reinstated PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, June 12, 2002 b}- the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ARSE\T: ABSTAI,ti': Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: • Secretary to the Planning Commission 000003 THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 000004 -~ • • • f ~ _ ...--__ _ BARRI E Ci. COATE _ w ' r ~ and ASSOCIATES Horhanur~l Co~ultents 23535 Summit Road _ Los Gatos. CA 95033 4081353-1052 Attachment 2 A COD~IlV~NTARY ON THE EFFECTS OF PERIlVIETER WALL , CONSTRUCTION ON TREES AT 14480 OAK PLACE SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Steve Prosser Public Safety Officer City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Site V sit by: Barrie D. Coate Consulting Arborist April 22, 2002 Job #04-02-070 MAY 0 2 2002 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVEWPN~MI' -- 000005 r- A COMI~NTARY ON THE EFi ECTS OF PERIMETER 'WALL CONSTRUCTION ON TREE. 70.T 14480 OAI: PLACE SpRpTOGA Assignment I was asked by Mr. Prosser to accompany him to 14480 Oak Place in Saratoga on Monday morning, Apri122, 2002 to inspect trees that would be directly affected by the recent installation of the footing for a perimeter wall. We were accompanied by the owner, and his engineer. Summary There are six trees which I was asked to inspect for this report. Two of them are Monterey pine trees (Pi~rus radiates), three are coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia), and one is a black oak (Quercus helloggii). Three of these trees are on this property, and three aze immediately adjacent to the wall location on adjacent property. I do not have a plot plan of the property so tree locations shown on the enclosed sketch are at best approximate. The information gathered from this visit included trunk diameter, approximate tree height, approximate branch spread, approximate distance from the adjoining wall or wall footing. A surveyor's plan will be necessary to display accurate location of the trees in question. All six of the trees reviewed aze in good to excellent condition at this point, the two Monterey pines having abnormally short shoot growth but having a sufficiently full canopy of foliage and sufficiently normal foliage color to be described as quite normal in appearance. Monterey pine #4 has six turpEntine beetle infestation sites at the base of the trunk, the exit tubes being typical of current seasons beetle activity. Tree #3 a fine coast live oak, although having an unbalanced canopy is nonetheless a healthy tree whose minor structural problems can be solved by pruning. This is a co-owned tree with approximately 30% of its trunk on the neighbor's property to the east. Coast live oak tree #5 and black oak tree #6 aze both on the neighbor's property to the north. The construction of the approximately 3 foot wide footing which I was told is 12- to 14 inches of depth and whose upper swface is between 12- and 16-inches below surrounding natural grade will have caused loss of up to 30'/0 of the absorbing root mass' and as a result will have been responsible for damage done by the construction equipment which ' Richard W. Harris, Root Physiology PREPARED BY: BARRIE D. COATE, OONSIJLTING ARBORI3T _ APRII.: 22, 2002 ~~0~0~ A (;OMI~NTARY ON T'HE EFFECTS OF PERI~T'ER WALL CONSTRUCTION ON TREES AT 14480 OAK PLACE 2 .. - SARATOGA - excavated the trench and formed the footing walls and powed the concrete for the footings as well as the loss of absorbing roots displaced by the trench. Summary In using the 7~` edition formula as produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) as amended for use in the Western Chapter ISA, these six trees are valued at $49,531. - - - -' I would estimate loss of a minimum of 10% of the root mass of these trees, independent of the damage done to remaining roots by construction equipment and personnel and would warn that Monterey pines #2 and 4 could decline and die over the next two years from bark beetle (Ips paracorfusus), as a direct result of this root loss and construction activity if immediate, consistent irrigation procedwes and other root protection efforts are not employed. If the applicant wishes to remove pine trees #2 and 4 and replace them with an equivalent value ($6,770) in native trees, I suggest he be allowed to do so. It should be noted that during the installation of the wall footing that the buttress roots _ were left intact by "bridging" them. This will certainly be significant in reducing the degree of effect the process has subjected the trees to, but will not change the loss of absorbing roots or damage done by equipment to remaining absorbing roots Discussion On Monday morning Apri122, 2002, I reviewed the effects on trees a~ the 14480 Oak Place, with Steve Prosser, Public Safety Officer. We found that the six trees along the perimeter, which I was asked to review for this report, had all been severely affected by the construction of the footing for the cement wall, a portion of which wall has already been constructed It should be understood that trees #5 and 6 are on the neighboring property, but half of their canopies extend over this property, and thus those trees are also impacted as much by this construction activity as are the trees whose trunks are entirely on this property. In addition, tree #3 is a co-owned tree, having one-third of its trunk on the adjacent property to the east. Specific information about each of these trees is included in the enclosed data accumulation chart as a result of my measurements of these trees on site on Monday the 22°d. Construction Damage In order to understand the degree of damage done to these trees one has to understand the physiological structure of tree roots, including those of Monterey pine and native oaks. PREPARED BY: IiARRIE D. OOAT$ CONSULTTNO ARBORIST APRIL 22, 2002 Q0~0~~ A COMMENTARY ON THE EFFECTS OF PERIMETER WAIL CONSTRtJCT'tO.7 ON TREES AT ?4480 OAK PLACE 3 SARATOGA The enclosed schematic will show a typical root system of most trees, including these two species and will quickly demonstrate why the installation of a 12- to 14inch deep footing of 2'/i to 3 feet in width, whose top is below the existing surrounding grade will have caused such a deleterious affect on the ability of these trees to absorb water and_ minerals. It must beclearly understood that a broad platform of roots is produced by most tree species with the absorbing root tips emerging upward from 1- to 3-inch diameter roots. into the upper 6- to 12-inches of soil surface, these roots being the only portion of the trees root system capable of absorbing water and minerals. In other words, the excavation of approximately 2 foot deep trenches for the installation of these 12- to 14-inch thick wall footings will certainly have removed all of the absorbing root tips in the area. of those installations as well as the 1- to 2-inch diameter roots from which those absorbing roots arise. In the case of the coast live oak, the trees ~ recuperate from this activity and may resume normal growth and flourish. There can certainly be no guarantee of that, nor should it be assumed that will happen, since this sort of damage often leads to gradual decline and eventual death of the trees over a period of 5-10 years. This condition relates to the trees health, not structure. I was asked if these trees would die and fall over? These are two entirely separate questions which require two entirely separate answers. - A trees ability to maintain health is based entirely on its ability to absorb water and minerals by absorbing root tips and to carry those materials through healthy vascular tissue to the foliage canopy of the tree. When either these root tips or the vascular tissue are disturbed the trees ability to absorb water and minerals are disturbed in direct proportion to the amount of root mass removed In the case of Monterey pine there is an additional hazard since absorbing root removal results ~n the attraction to the weakened Monterey pine by, first, turpentine beetle (Dendroctonus valens), and secondly pine bark beetle (Ips paraconfusus). These two beetles, when combined are the most common cause of death of Monterey pines in most inland areas and specifically in Saratoga. The first instance of turpentine beetle has already begun to appear this spring in the base of Monterey #14 and since we have seen evidence of unusually early pine bark beetle in other parts of Saratoga, I would assume that this early turpentine beetle activity is a duect result of the root damage done by excavation and installation of the wall footings. PREPARED BY: BARRIE D. COATS, CONStJLTINO ARBORLST App, ~ 2002 ooooos A COMMENTARY ON'rHE EFFECTS OF PERIMETER WALL CC~ISTRUCTION ON TREES AT 14480 OAi: PLA~E 4 ,. - . SARATOGA Note that the six turpentine beetle infestation sites at the base on the north side of tree #4 ' (coincidentally on the same side in which roots were damaged by wall footing installation) are all fresh and typical of current. not previous years, activity. The white coffee ground like fi-ass which is kicked out of the tunnels by the adult beetle are obvious evidence around each of these turpentine beetle exit tubes. As a result of this activity, I would expect the Monterey pines to gradually weaken over this summer and possibly next summer, but to die as a result of these beetle infestation which themselves are a direcrt result of root damage. Recommendations for trees ~rhicb are to be retained: 1. I suggest that all fill soil be removed to 3 feet away from around the base of any tree in which soil has been filled above original grade like Monterey pine tree #2. 2. That a platform buffer2, composed of a flinch layer of tree chips or other coarse organic material be laid over all areas beneath the canopies of these trees, those chips to be covered with full shr~ts of 1'/4-inch plywood, tied together to prevent slippage to prevent further soil compression. 3 Soaker hoses be installed halfway between the trunk of each tree and its canopy dripline, beneath the platform buffer. 4 And that these soaker hoses be run for one day every other week, starting as soon as possible, to rewet the soil in areas where compaction will have pre~•ented easy access by oxygen and water into the soil. ARer two months reduce the frequency to once per month for the remainder of 2002. 5 In addition, I suggest~jection of a combination of Mycorrhizal beneficial bacteria into the root zones of the tre,~es by drilling holes on 3 foot centers to inject MycorTreeTM Root SaverTM Mycorrhiurl fungi3 into the root zones of the trees by a certified pest control applicator. 6 The Monterey pines should have a sprinkler set at the base of the tree to irrigate away from the trunk into all areas beneath the canopies in addition to the soaker hoses previously discussed if they are to be preserved. The soil should be moist to at least 12-inches of depth but not saturated 7 Since oak bark beetle (Pseudopithiphorus agriroliae) are attracted to oaks whose roots have been damaged, I suggest spraying all of the effected oak trees this month, with a systemic insecticide such as Cleary's 3336wpTM or by injecting a systemic insecticide into the root mne such as Merit® as soon as possible. 2 Platform Bu$'er s MycorTreeTM Root SaverTM Myicorrhizal fungi PREPARED BY: BARRIE D. COATS, CONSULTING ARBORIST APRII. 22, 2002 000009 A COMMENTARY ON THE EFFECTS OF PERIMETER W ALL CONSTRUCIlON ON TREES AT 14180 OAK PLACE 5 SARATOOA It has not been demonstrated that Merit® systemic insecticide injections aze effective at controlling pine bark beetle in pines, and so injection into the pines root systems cannot be recommended.- Conclusion I would expect the two Monterey pines to gradually decline over the next two summers and die within that time period. - - This does not necessarily mean that they will be candidates for falling over during that time because they seldom fall due to bark beetle infestations until they have been - - dead for at least one full season. _ _ For this reason, I would recommend claiming the entire value of those two Monterey pines as losses. I suggest claiming 20% of the value of each of the oaks as loss due to the removal of 10% of the absorbing roots and compression and oxygen starvation of at least 10% more. The oaks aze valued at $42,761.20% of that is $10,690. I remind staff that these trees could decline over the next several years and that a more objective way to value the proportion of loss is an evaluation of their condition two years from now, the proportion of toss to be calculated at that time. To accomplish this, I would have to take pictures of the canopies at this time to provide a comparison for later use. Respectfully submitted, ~,~ Bam D Coate Enclosures Tree Data Accumulation Chart Guide Lines for Tree Protection Richard W. Harris, Root Physiology MycorTreeT"' Root Savef''I'~ Mycorrhizal fungi Platform Buffer Photo Sketch BDC/sl • PREPARED BY: BARRIE D. OOATE. CONSULTWO ARBORIST APR.II. 2Z, 2002 000010 ob~e: Oak Place ar '~' ~ ~ • J , S atoga Job Address: 14 Oak Place, Saratoga Job # 02-070 A ril ZZ Z00 2 Mea surem enb Con dition Pr unln ablin Nee ds Pestl Diseas e Pro blems Recom mend . BARRIE D COATE ~ , ~ _ ~ and ASSOCIATES ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Noe13531052 ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ W CiM^ G lf030 ~ .. ~ ~ , ~ ® ~ F ~ u~ Z Z vl ~ a~ ~ W W ~ ... < U I~J ® ~' W h- ~ U F a a 2 ~ ''' ~ ~ S F- ~ 3 ' ~ Plant Narrle ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ y y Z ~ ~ O K Z Z C 1 Coast (.lra Oak 32.4 35 55 1 1 2 Qwrcua . In 824 X i27 /sg. h. ~ i 22,250 X sp. class 100% !32,ZSp X cond. 100% ^ i 22,250 i X loc. 70% 15 S75 2 Mon Pkra 35.4 80 35 2 1 3 Total ~ldw Pktw ndafa ~ . . In 884 X i271aq. In. ^ i 28,581 X ap. class 20% ^ 15,312 X card. 8096 ^ i 4 781 X loc. 7096 ^ 3347 3 Coast Llva Oak 21.0 30 44 1 2 3 ToW Valw . In 452 X 127/ sq. In. ^ ; 12,208 X sp. class 10096 112,208 X cord. 9096 i 10,987 X loo. 70% i 7 1 4 Pkra 35.8 80 33 2 1 3 • Tool Vaiw 2 . In 1008 X 127/sq. In. ^ i 27,184 X sp. class 20% ^ iS,433 X cond. 90% ^ i 4890 X loc. 70% ^ 3423 5 Coast Uw Oak 28.0 55 45 1 2 3 I ToW Vatw ~ . in 531 X 127/ sq. in. ~ i 14,328 X sp. class 100% ii 4,328 X cond. 90% i 12,895 X loc. 70'16 ^ ' i 9027 8 Bock Oak 28.0 40 40 1 2 3 Tohl Valw Owrew II . In 815 X 127/ sq. in. ~ = 18,817 X ap class t 00% ~ i 18 817 X cond 90% i 14 95S X loc. 70% ^ i 10489 ~~" O ~ REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES ~ 5-gal ^ S36 15-gala 5120 ~~,- 24"box s 5420 3ti"box ~ 61,320 1 a BEST, 5 =WORST 48"box ~ 55,000 52"box ~ 57,000 72"box ~ 515.000 Paaa 1 of 1 _ i ~J Y ~ ~~ - _ I 3 1 2 -~ ~ ® - 4 --- 14480 Oak Place ~~ ~ 5 6~ \'~ A Commentary on the Effects of Perimeter BARRIE D. COATS and ASSOCIATES wall Construction on Trees at 14480 Oak Place ~~'~~ Preparod for. City of Saratoga m~ss~aea.e ~c~w,u ssmo Steve Pmsser, Public Safety Officer HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANT Date: 22, 2002 CONSULTIIJG ARBORIST Job # 04-02-070 True numbers correspond to evaluaticti charts. All d'mens`°ns and trce loc~ttons 000012 are atmroximate. FROM LAFONDUE FAX NO. : 4068679144 Jun. 01 2002 11:51AM P2 V ~ JAMES S(;U7T Attachment 3 Certified ArboM~st #971/3130 ,- Coirtrac~s l3oense ~667T88 ~. ®onded & I~sue+ed Mazch 28, 2002 ~~ ; M~ i7c~1 e6 / ~~ r /e~ t ~~ ~r ~~ a~-~t PI RE' ~ s `' o~~~e-r-erg M~c~t7~re~ pMe ~ ~/~ o~ !~ s~7e ur~r7 ~2S A~a2 ~v iN ~e t~-~2 ~le~ea. ~S Ucewe~ ~rS 2~,EC ~ S ~z~~e~~ IN -rf~e ~,~c~~y s~S ~D~I! ~eNn ~S (~eCtJ er0 ~o~ ~2oa7~NC,(~oGC,a- Tw o ~ " ~ ~N~O r~~I_, ~_ dQ,oaZ°S ~e ~ ~e•,/ c ~(t ~ , D~~r~e~G-Ct~-P ~t D ~ec~o~•i,o S l,~~S ~..~ 1 ~~3 RePc~rzeio Q ST~~ ~rewlpws aiM.~~hs 7 3 ems. ~ ~ r~~zs ~~-~~ ~,~ ~ D ~/dnM,eZ~e V~ w~u~f cQ~~zbveo~ 9vt-w ~SzdeclCzc~,~ ~ ass nrr., tas burros. c~- sso3o • P~onse ~sae~ ~sa~o~s rte: ~~os~ ~-, 2s~a 000013 JAMES SCOTT Certified Arborist #971 /3130 Contradnra Uoense ~66T?86 eon do ~ ,~ ~~ 14325 Walberry DeiMe, Los Gatos. G 95030 • Plmn~ (408) 3742069 Fax: (408) 3841283 March 28, 2002 "~ ~eFeti cs z~e-7 SU~i`, ~. z+R~e~evaiJ -Cv~Q ~(~vc~S pees r~,e~p I ~~?~~ ~ ~r~1 ~~ S p~fN(rJ~o 7 ~~s7s M~e~ Gvc9.eo~Sf ~~~lov~e Pcse~.~-1 ~'e tie ~ aGw~(~ ~v~ ~ ~~~~ J • • ~~~ J w_~ GQeF~uC e(J +~~~ou wpve p„N~~~~tS ~~a28e da-L~µn_ l ~--R~?toUe~O ~A.s,~ .~ c ~w~ J CIRIK( T 000014 r • ~, /~ 16 ~ - P - ~~ .~~ "~z ~ c~ ,~u~e~~c~"~U a~ ~O Jt~vTec~ ~0 ~`~ ~~ - Attachment 4 S/9~7a~Z z r~1~7~ .Pd ~, hutclel/ G~f'e~~,,,~:e,~ lvv@o owl s ~a'ru.~ Co~ M~rm+n~ ~.,~ o~ ,t~2 ~12~.Y D ~~~~~I~ MAY 0 9 2002 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 0 0 QJ~ OJ~fl' 2037 S Sarw~r~x -dos G ~- Sa~rd{~, c/f ~~~~ ooom.s ~,, r ,~. . ,,, - i ""~ ~ I_ - ``_ r1 ~~ OFFICIAL RECEIPT DATE: ,ir- ~ CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CA 95070 PHONE: (408) 868-1200 FAX: (408) 888-1280 - ~'~ ~~% O RECEIVED FROM: ~~ j ~ (`4y1,..• C- . ~?> ~ f c - ~._._ ' ANIMAL LICENSES 001-2025-421-01.00 $ MAPS/XEROX 001.1040.473-01.00 $ ARBORIST FEE 250.4010.444.02.00 PARK RENTAL 292.6020.462.03.02 BUILDING PERMITS 250-4015.422-01.00 PROPERTYTAXES/SECURED 001.1040.411-01-00 BUILDING RENTAL 292-6020-462.03-01 PLANNING FEES C~ ~'~1 " a~` 250.4010-444.01-00 ~ S (~ BUS TICKETS 001-0000.202.10-01 REFUNDABLE DEP/ BONDS 600.0000.260.10.00 BUSINESS LICENSE TAX 001.1040.413.05.00 RENTAL DEPOSIT 292.0000.260.00-00 DOCUMENT STORAGE FEES 250.4010.444-05.00 SALES TAX 001-1040-412.01-00 DOCUMENT TRANSFER TAX 001.1040.413-01-00 THEATER SURCHARGE 293.6005.462-03.03 DONATIONS-RECREATION 290.6010-471-01.00 TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY 001-1040-413.03-00 ENCROACHMENT PERMITS 001-3035-422-03.00 WIRELESS COMM LEASE 001-1040-462.01-00 ENGINEERING FEES 250-3035-443-02-00 ENVIRONMENTAL FEES 260-5005.444-03.00 FALSE ALARM FEES 001-1040.451-01.00 FINES 8 FORFEITS 001.1040-452-01.00 FOOD SALE/RECREATION 290-6005-445-08.00 FOOD SALE/TEEN SERVICES 290.6010.445-06.00 - FRANCHISE FEES 001-1040-413.04-00 GEOLOGY FEE 250.3035-443.01.00 GRADING PERMITS 250-4015-422-02-00 INTEREST 001.1040-481-0i-00 OTHER APPLJPERMITNO TOTAL {- -'~l ~ ~~ 11 1 /.j-- I RECEIVED BY/DEPT.: ~ i ~. -- r FORM OF PAYMENT: CASH CHECK NO. DEPOSIT f RECEIPT # _~ , ^ 5~ 000016 ~a-xE~ ,G - 30.02. ~~ cify C/ Attachment 5 ~ To: Saratoga Planning Commission ~ 5/23/02 On the date of 4/22/02, Barry Coate, the city arborist recommended removing two Monterey Pine trees tom our property on 14480 Oak Place. I was issued a tree removal permit for this purpose, #02-093. On the morning of 5/9/02 the tree service that I had hired for the job began the prep. for removal of the two trees. On the afternoon of the same day, T was requested to stop work in order to allow a neighbor (Bd1 Wreck) to appeal the tree removal permit. At that time, one tree was down and work on the other tree was just beginning. I agreed to stop and wait until the appeal was heard. On 5/20/02, I hired James Scott, a certi5ed arborist to look at the remaining Pine because it seemed to be tilting toward our home. Mr. Scott advised me that the tree should be removed a.s.a.p. as it now po ,ed a danger to my children living in the room 12 feet from the tihing pine. Furthermore, my insurance company had advised me that they would discontinue my home insurance if the tree were not removed by 6/11/02. Mr. Wreck has received copies of both arborist reports. He is aware of the serious danger the remaining pine now poses to my family and property. Yet, he has not removed his appeal and is delaying the inevitable removal of a known safety hazard. In conclusion, Mr. Wreck's 5/9/02 appeal is in my opinion a tactic e~loyed to delay and limit my home remodel I ask that you please decry Mr. Wreck's appeal and allow me to continue my work with no fur, char delay. ~~ Sincerely, Mitchell Cutler i 000017 Id WtiTS: TT z00z Z0 'unf bbt6L9880b 'Ohl Xt~~ ~nrtti-n~u~ ~ ~nL.,- _ - -- - - _ n ~, THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • a • 000018 . ITEM 2 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION • • Application No./Location: Applicant/Owner. Staff Planner: Date: APN: App # 02-034,14633 Quito Road Martin Oakley/Etic and Alicia Nequist John F. Livingstone, Associate Planner /~i,a` June 12, 2002 / 397-06-087 Department Hea . 000001 1~-rv» ~ulLO tcoaa s CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published. - Mailuigcompleted Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v2s/o2 04/17/02 05/29/02 05/29/02 05/23/02 The applicant has requested a Design Review approval to construct a new 5,847 square foot, single story residence with three-car garage. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing 3,821 square foot home. The maximum height of the residence would be 22 feet The site is 40,196 square feet and is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning dismct STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1 ,Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting the attached Resolunon ATTACHMENTS 1 Resolution with conditions 2 Cit}~ .4rbonst Report 3 Applicant's color board and plans, Exhibit 'A" • 000002 App# 02-034,14633 Quito Road STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40,000 (Single Family Residential) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD (Residential Very Low Density) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 43,996 sq. ft. gross, 40,196 sq. ft. net AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 8.48% GRADING REQUIRED: No significant grading will occur. -- Proposal Code Requirements Lot Coverage: L~ Floor Area: Setbacks: Height: ~~ Building Footprint Driveway/Parking Patios, Pool and Walkways TOTAL (Impervious Surface) First Floor Garage Second Floor (Basement) TOTAL Front Rear Left Side Right Side Residence Detached Garage C \MyDocumenrs\John L\Qwto Rd 14633 SRdoc -_ _ Maximum Allowable 28.4% 35% 5,847 sq. ft. 5,598 sq. ft. 11,445 sq ft 14,068 sq ft Ma~unum Allowable 4,995 sq ft 852 sq ft N/A N/A 5,847 sq ft 6,020 sq ft Muumum Requirement 41 ft. 30 ft 52 ft. 50 ft 20 ft. 20 ft. 35 ft. 20 ft. Maximum Allowable 22 ft 26 ft. N/A 12 ft _ 000003 App# 02-034,14633 Quito Road 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. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The proposed exterior finish will be light beige color stucco with a light brown trim. The roof will be a rustic clay mission style. Color and material samples will be available at the public hearing and are enclosed as part of the applicant's submittal package to the Commission. PROJECT DISCUSSION Design Review The applicant has requested Design Review approval to construct a new 5,847 square foot, single story residence. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing 3,821 square foot home. The maximum height of the residence would be 22 feet. The net site area is 40,196 square feet and islocatedwithin an R-1-40,000 zoning district. The neighborhood consists of both one and two-story residences with varying architectural styles The new single story home will replace the existing single story in approximately the same location as the existing house. Typically, a new single story house replacing an existing house would require only an Admuistrative Design Review approval. In this particular instance, the applicant is exceediig the 18-foot height limit allowed for an Administrative Design Resaew approval, therefore requu~ing Planning Commission review. The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Guidelines policies PohR~ 1,"Mtmmi.ze Perception of Bulh" The project meets this policy in that the proposed house will be only 22 feet in height, 4 feet below the maximum 26 feet allowed. The new home will be located in approximately the same location as the existing home. All of the existing mature trees that surround the site will be maintained as part of the project. The proposed house will also have varying rooflines including a small shed dormer that will break up the front elevation of the building and add character and interest to the structure. • Policy 2, "Integrate_Structures with the Environment" The proposed house meets this policy in that the house will be replacing an existing house in approximately the same location. The project site is surrounded by mature trees that will be maintained as part of the proposed plan. The applicant is proposing to use natural C \MyDocuments\John L\Qmto Rd 14633 SRdoc 000004 App# 02-034,14633 Quito Road earth tone colors for the facade that help the structure blend in with the surrounding environment. Policy 3, "Avoid Interference with Privacy" The project will protect the privacy of the adjacent properties by maintaining the existing mature trees that surround the site. The proposed home will be located in approximately the same location as the existing house. • Policy 4, "Preserve Views and Access to Views" The proposed house is not in a view comdor and will not have an adverse affect on neighbors views. Policy 5, "Design for Energy Efficiency" The project meets this policy in that the location of the proposed house has not altered the solar access of adjacent properties. The house will also meet tiie State Energy Guidelines through the use of wall insulation and high-energy efficiency heating and cooling appliances. The applicant is also proposing a concrete slab floor with in-floor hydronic water heating system and a solar assisted pool heating system. Parking The Saratoga Ciry Code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking spaces within a garage. The residence would have an attached three-car garage Trees The applicant is not proposing to remove any protected trees The Arborist has made specific recommendations including a tree bond for replacement of any trees that are damaged by construction activities. The City Arbonst report dated March 19, 2002 (attached) contains recommendations for the protection of existing trees on the site The arborist's recommendations shall be conditions of project appro~~al Fireplaces The plans Lndicate two gas-burning fireplaces and one wood-burning fireplace for the outside terrace. Correspondence No correspondence was received on this application at the date that the staff report was distributed to the Planning Commission. 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 C \MyDocumencs\John L\Qwto Rd 14633 SR doc 000005 App# 02-034,14633 Quito Road the natural landscape to the extent feasible, and will minimize the perception of bulk so that it is compatible with the neighborhood The proposal further satisfies all other zoning regulations in terms of allowable floor area, setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Commission approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. • • C 4\AyDocuments\John L\Qwto Rd 14633 SRdoc c O~ooOV Attachment 1 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Eric and Alicia Nequist;14633 Quito Road WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval for the construction of a new 5,847 square foot residence on a 43,496 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 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 iii an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and consists of constructing one single-family residence; and WHEREAS, the applicant 'gas met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined Policy 1,"Minimize Perception of Bulh" The project meets this policy in that the proposed house will be only 22 feet in height, 4 feet below the maximum 26 feet allowed The ne~v home will be located in approximately the same location as the existing home. All of the existing mature trees that surround the site will be maintained as part of the protect The proposed house will also have varying rooflines including a small shed dormer that will break up the front elevation of the building and add character and interest to the structure. Pvlic,~ ?, "integrate Structures with the Environment" The proposed house meets this policy in that the house will be replacing an existing house in approxunately the same location The protect site is surrounded by mature trees that will be maintained as part of the proposed plan. The applicant is proposing to use natural earth tone colors for the facade that help the structure blend in with the surrounding environment. Policy 3, "Avoid Interference with Privacy" The project will protect the pnvacy of the adjacent properties by maintaining the existing mature trees that surround the site. The proposed home will be located in approximately the same location as the existing house. • Policy 4, "Preserve Views and Access to Views" The proposed house is not in a view corridor and will not have an adverse affect on neighbors views. ooooo~ • Policy 5, "Design for Energy Efficiency" The project meets this policy in that the location of the proposed house has not altered the solar access of adjacent properties. The house _will also meet the State Energy Guidelines through the use of wall insulation and high- energy efficiency heating and cooling appliances. The applicant is also proposing a concrete slab floor with an in floor hydronic water heating system and a solar assisted pool heating system. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Enc and Ahcia Nequist 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 The following shall be included on the plans submitted to the Building Division for the building permit plan check review process: a Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions• i A maximum of one wood-burning fireplace is permitted and it shall be ec{uipped ~t~ith a gas starter. All other fireplaces shall be gas burning u The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. iii The site plan shall contain a note with the following language "Pnor 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 " 3. 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. 4. One set of 24X36 inch plans shall be submitted for the planning file to replace the existing larger plan set. • QQ~0~8 PUBLIC WORKS - S. The applicant or its designated representative shall apply for and secure a grading permit if deemed necessary. - ~ " - ~ " ~ - •~ " CITY ARBORIST 6. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Report dated March 19, 2002 shall be followed and incorporated into the plans.- This includes, but is not limited to: a. The Arborist Report shall be incorporated, as a separate plan page, to the construction plan set and the grading plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plans. b. Five (S) 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 constnacrion.° 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. 7 Pnor 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 recommended by the City Arborist to guarantee the maintenance acid preservation of trees on the subject site. 8 A grading and drainage, iirial landscape, imgation and utility plans shall be submitted for re~~iew and approval by the City Arborist prior to issuance of Building Permits 9 Pnor to Final Building Inspection 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. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 10 Required Fire Flow: The fire flow for this project is 2,000 gpm at 20-psi residual pressure. The required fire flow is available from area water mains and fire hydrant(s) which are spaced at the required spacing. 11 Emergency Gate/ Access Gate Requirements• Gate installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specification G-1 and, when open shall not obstruct any portion of the required width for emergency access roadways or driveways. Locks, if provided shall be fire department approved prior to installation. • 000009 12. Fire Apparatus (En ig_ne) Access Drivewa~quired: Provide an access driveway with a paved all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 14 feet with 2 feet wide shoulder, vertical cleazance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside, and a maximum slope of 15%. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standazd Details and Specifications sheet D-1. 13. Premises Identification: Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position-as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with the background. 14. Gara eg Fire Sprinkler System Required: An approved, automatic fire sprinkler system designed per National Fire Protection Association Standard #13D and local ordinances, shall be provided for the garage. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat horizontal ceiling. 15. Early Warning Fire System Required: Provide an approved Early Warning Fire Alarm System throughout all portions of the structure, installed per City of Saratoga standards. CITY ATTORNEY 16 Applicant agrees to hold City harmless fTOm all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of Ciry in connection with Ciry's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the Ciry's action with respect to the applicant's project. 17 Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the ~~iolatlon, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the ~~iolation. 1S Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire 19 All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met ~0 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. • 000010 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 12th day of June 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Acting Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: ry, g Secreta Plannin 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 Ov~~ner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended tune frames approved by the City Planning Comrrussion Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • 0200011 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 00002 • • 2 BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES HorCcu[ural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 408!353-1052 Attachment 2 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOIVIIv1ENDATIONS AT THE NEQUIST PROPERTY 14633 QUITO ROAD SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of Kristin Borel Community Planning Dept. City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist March 19, 2002 Job # 03-02-037 Plan Received: 3.6.02 Plan Due: 4.8.02 APR 1 1 2002 C[TY OF SARATOGA OOMMUNITY DEVELOPMEM' QOOOg3 TREE SURVEY AND PRESIItVATION RECOMH~NTDATJONS AT THE NEQUIST PROPERTY 14633 QUITO ROAD, SARATOGA Assignment _ At the request of Kristin Borel, Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of Saratoga, this report reviews the proposal to demolish an existing residence and to construct a new residence in the context of potential damage to or the removal of existing trees. This report rates the condition of the trees on site that are protected by City of Saratoga ordinance. Recommendations are included to mitigate damage to these trees during construction _ The plans reviewed for this report are the construction plans prepared by Oakley and Associates, Saratoga, Sheets 2 - 7 and the Grading and Ihainage Plan prepared by Dunbar and Craig, Land Surveyors, Sawa Cruz, Sheet 1, dated August 2001. Summary This proposal exposes 20 trees to some level of risk by construction No trees are to be removed by implememation of this design I suggest that the owner be given the option of replacing or providing protection for the trees in fair to op_or condition. - - 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 bond equal to 40% of the value of Tree #15 combined with a bond of 15/0 of the value of all of the other retained trees is suggested in accordance with the levels of the expected risks. - Observations The trees at this site generally border the perimeter of the property, and there is a large open area central to the property where the construction is proposed. All of the trees that surround the construction site would be exposed to risk of damage unless protected. The attached map shows the location of these trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. Each tree has been tagged with a metallic label indicating its assigned number. The 20 trees are classified as follows: Trees # 1, 9, 16, 20 - Canary Island pine (Pines canar~ensrs) Trees # 2, 3, 19 - Monterey Pine (Pines radiata) Trees # 4, 14, 15 - Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Trees # 5, 6, 7, 8 - Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Trees # 10, 1 1, 12 - Deodar Cedar (Cedrus deodara) Trees # 13, 18 - California black walnut (Juglarls hindsii) Tree # 17 - Silver wattle (Acacia decurrens) __ _ PREPARID BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST MARCH 19, 2002 0000.4 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECObIIvlaIDATIONS AT THE NEQUIST PROPERTY 14633 QUITO ROAD, SARATOOA 2 The particulars regarding these trees (species, trunk diameter, height, spread, health, and structure) are provided in the attachments that follow this text. The health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (Excellent - ExtremelyPoor) on the data sheets that follow this text. The combi~tion of health and structure ratings for the 20 trees are converted to individual descriptive ratings as follows: Exceptional Fine Fair Marginal Poor S imens S imens S imens S imeis S imens 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 16, 17, 2 10, 19 9, 11,12, 14, . 18, 20 15 Exceptional specimens must be retained at any cost and whatever procedures are needed to retain them in their current condition must be used. Fine specimens must be retained if possible but without major design revisions. Mitigation procedures recommended here are intended to limit damage within accepted horticultural 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 ±o 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. For reasons of their condition and their relationship to constructioq I recommend that the owners be given the option of replacing all of the Fair, Marginal, and Poor specimens or of providing protection to assure its survival during construction. However, bear in mind that if the decision is to provide protection, but it turns out that the protection is poorly or inadequately provided, some of these trees may have to be replaced anyway. Risks of Proposed Constriction Tree # 15 may suffer significant absorbing root loss should the existing driveway be removed by equipment that takes bites of soil as it removes the existing paving. It appears that Tree # 15 will have to be pruned to accommodate tbe new residence. This is feasible provided the total canopy loss does not exceed about 20%. This percentage is in addition to the removal of the leader, which equals approximately 10% of the canopy, in the center of the tree, and is recommended for removal. I discussed this with Mr. Nequist on site. Thus, the removal of the central leader, which had previously failed by PREFAB®BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST MARCH 19, 2002 oooo1s TREE PURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOI,+Qu)ENDATIONS AT THE NEQU[ST PROPERTY 3 14633 QUTfO ROAD, SARATOGA splitting apart, and the reshaping of the canopy to accommodate~onst<uction must not exceed 30% of the total canopy. This appears feasible if carefully planned by a knowledgeable arborist. All of the other trees are primarily at risk from soil compaction. It appears that all of these can be adequately preserved by protective fencing during the entire construction period It appears that no new trenches will be required across the root zones of trees to install underground utilities. There are additional trees on the slope on the west side of the pool. It appears that none of these trees would be affected by proposed construction, partially because the pool is expected to be retained Recommendations I . I recommend that the existing paving inside the dripline of Tree # 15 be removed by hand. 2. I recommend that no more than a total of 30% of the canopy of Tree # 15 be pruned and that the tree be given a two-year recovery period after being pruned before other pruning is done. Any pruning must be done by an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certified arborist and according to ISA, Western Chapter Standards, 1998. 3. I suggest that construction period fencing be provided and located as noted on the attached map. Fencing must be of chainlink, a minunum height of 5 feet mounted on steel posts driven 2 feet (minimum) into the ground The fence must be in place prior to the arrival of any other materials or equipment and muss 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 inside 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, the city arborist must be consulted 5. Trenches for any underground utilities (gas, electricity, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be located outside the driplines of retained trees. For any tree where this cannot be achieved, I suggest that the city arborist be consulted 6. Any old irrigation lines, sewer lines, drain lines, etc., under the canopies of the existing trees, if unused, must be cut off at grade and left in the ground. • PREPARED 8Y: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTIIJG ARBORIST MARCH 19, 2002 Q~~O~V TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION °ECONNIENDATIONS AT THE NEQUIST PROPERTY 14633 QUITO ROAD, SARATOGA 4 7. Supplemental irrigation must be provided to retained Trees #15, 5, 6, 7, and 8 during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1 inch of rainfall). Irrigate with 10 gallons for each inch of trunk diameter every 2 weeks throughout the construction period. This can be achieved by the use of a simple soaker hose, which must be located near the dripline for the entire canopy circumference. - - 8. A full 3-inch layer of coarse wood chips must be spread over the entire root zone of Tree # 15. Spreading of the chips moat be done by hand. 9. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped (even temporarily) under the canopies of trees. 10. Trenches for a drainage system must be located outside the protective fencing as noted on the attached map. For any tree where this cannot be achieved, the city arborist must be consulted prior to trenching. 11. Landscape pathways and other amenities cotlstructed under the canopies of trees must be done completely on grade without excavation. 12. Landscape irrigation trenches (or any other excavations), inside the driplines of trees, must be no closer than 15 times the trunk diameter, if the trenching direction is across the root zone. However, radial trenches (i.e., like the spokes of a wheel) may be done closer if the trenches reach no closer than 5 times the trunk diameter to the tree's trunk, and if the spokes aze at least 10 feet apart at the perimeter. 13. Sprinkler irrigation must be designed not to strike the trunks of trees. Further, spray irrigation must not be designed to strike inside the canopy driplines of oak trees. 14. Lawn or other plants that require frequent watering must be limited to a maximum of 20% of the entire root zone and a minimum distance of 7 times the trunk diameter away from the trunks of oak trees. l 5. Bender board or similar edging material must not be used inside the canopy dnplines of existing trees, because its installation requires trenching of 4-6 inches, which may result in significant root damage. 16. I suggest that the species of plants used in the root zones of oak trees be compatible with the environmental and cultural requirements of the oak species indigenous to this area. A publication about plants compatible with California native oaks can be obtained from the California Oak Foundation, 1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland 94612. 17. Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bazk, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be installed directly in contact with the bark of trees because of the risk of serious disease infection. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTW(} ARBORIST MARCH 19, 2002 Q00017 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE h'EQ1JI„"T PRQ~ERTY 14633 QUITO ROAD, SARATOGA 5 18. Drain dissipators or downspouts must be relocated, if trees are in the path of discharge. The discharge must be directed a minimum of 15 feet to the side of the trunk of any tree. 19. Materials or equipmerrt must not be stored, stockpiled., dumped inside the canopy driplines of trees, or buried on site. Any excess materials (including mortar, concrete, paint products, etc.) must be removed from site. - Value Assessment The values of the trees are addressed according to ISA standards, Seventh Edition. The total value of all of the trees is $47,085. I suggest a bond equal to 40% of the value of Tree # 15 ($4,769 = $18,834) combined with a bond equal to 15% ($42,31 S = $6,347) of the total value of all of the other trees that will be retained to assure their protection. No bond is recommended for tn~s that would be replaced. Acceptable native tree replac~nents are: Coast live oak - Quercus agrifolia Valley oak - Quercus lobato Big leaf maple - Acer macrophyllum California buckeye -Aesculus californica Coast Redwood -Sequoia sempervirens Respectfully submitted, Michael L. Bench, ssociate ~~ ~~ Bame D. Coate, Principal MLB/s Enclosures: - Glossary of Terms Tree Data Accumulation Charts Tree Protection Before, During and After Construction Protective Fencing Radial Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies Map • PREPARED BY MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTINO ARHORIST MARCH 19, 2002 OQ0018 Job "~: Neyuist oh Ad~trc~ss:~ J 33 Qu~nto ltd. Job #03-02-037 3.19.02 Measurements Condltlon Prunlna/Cebllna Needs PesUOlsease Problems Recommend. BARRIE D. COA1E x o ~ Vi i;; ~ ~ v and ASSOCIATES ~ ' I ~ ' ~ ' ~, ; ~ i ~ ' i '~ ~ w ! ~ ~ ~ <' - i ~ ~ i~ ~, ! IF- ~ i Iii ( W w ~ > (~) 3531052 8 I j ~ I LL ~ ~? Z I Z I a~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ cWi~ ! 1 vj o~ to '? ~ ~ m ~ I ; ~ _ I W I a ~ z j~~ o~~ i s~ W' 0 ; fi t '? ~ ~ O o ~ ro~ laGtlu,U 15030 M i n i ~ '~ i~~ Z I¢ ~ I Z! n I~~ °w ! a '2 I~ o ~ i~ ~ ~ o ai> iW io ~i~~o?~ ~ ~!~ ~'W Zi mx l ~ x a ~ i ~ < tr i Z ~ d ~ ~ : ap~C~ ~ ~ i m } ~ ~ w 0 z ~ -p- ~ ^ j Key p Plant Name p ( ~ I ~ ~ ~ O 2 ai 2 i t- O I ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ Q ~ 8 w wW ~j ' ~ cn U I x U U ~ _ H ~ ~ ~ ~ z wz K o~ 1 Cana Island Pine 18 0l 22 ~ 40 i 20 1 1 2 1 3 ' Pines canartertsre i in 254 X S27/sq in = S 6,867 X sp class 90% = 58.180 X cord 90% = S 5,562 X loc 70% - S 3 894 Trial Value 2 Mont Pine 15 0 x 15 0 30 45 ~ 40 1 4 5 l Pines radrota m 266 X S27/sq in = S 7,169 X ep class 30% = 52151 X cord 60% = S 1,290 X loc 60% = S 774 Trial Value 3 Mont Pine 22 0 23 45 25 1 2 3 i i In 380 X S27/sq in = S 10,258 X sp class 30% = 53.078 X coed 90% = S 2 770 X loc 80% - i 1882 Total Value 4 Coast Lhe Oak 10 0 11 15 25 1 1 2 Onerous nfoha l M 78 5 X E27/sq In = 5 2,120 X sp class 100% = S2 120 X coral 100% = 5 2 120 X bc. 85% a i 1 378 Total Value 5 Coast Redwood 23 0 25 50 15 1 2 3 uoie sem rents i ! i j i rn 415 X E27/sq in = S / 1 212 X sp class , 90% = S10 091 X pond 90% S 9 082 X Ioc 70% - 5 g 357 Taal Value 6 Coast Redwood 21 0 23 55 ! 15 1 2 = 3 in 346 X 527/sq in = ` $ g 347 X sp class 90% = 58 412 X cond 90% = i 7 571 X Ioc 70% = i S ~ Tafnl Value 7 Coast Redwood 24 01 26 J 55 ~ 15 1 ~ 2 3 i l I in 452 X S27/sq in = S 12 208 X sp class 90% _ $10 987 X cond 90% = S 9 68s X loc 70% _ S 8,922 A ^ sw./ REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-6a1 ~ S36 IS-6a1 ~ 5120 " " 24 box ~ 5420 36 box ~ 51,320 48"box ~ 55,000 52"box ~ 57,000 72"box ~ 515,000 Value 1 ~ BEST, 5 ~ WORST PaR~ 1 of 3 A N Job Title: Neyuist Joh Address: ]4633 Quinto Rd. Mee curemsnts Con dttlon Pr unlndCabll nq Ne eds Pest/Disea se Pro blems Recom mend . BARRIE~D COATS ~ ` I ~ ~ i i ~ ' i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " . o i I o f S ( i~ 1 W _ and ASSOCIATES m i i ~ ~ i~l rn ~ `O ~ ~~ ~ I~ ~~_ ~ ~~ W ~~ J , 7 I A d i ~ 1 ! tL i ^ i ~ i~ i ~ i ~ ~ ~~ jQ ~ ic? I~ ,,~j~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ O 'r? ^ ~ ~o U ~ O ,~ ~, w ~ - DS3S w •d o~d i~ ~ i I X71 I ~ ~,w ~ ~ Q I Z wi? O !v~ z N ~ O iWi~ ~~ o } ~ J o laGdgU 15m0 _ m ~ ~ ~ ~ z a ~ ~ x w < z W a ~ U K j ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ a ~ Zp~ ~ ~ O 10~C p~~ ~ 3S ~ rw~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ u`1 ~ ey p Plant Name ~ o I ~ ~ cn O 2 ~ v c5 ~ U ~ ? ~ ~ ~ Z Z aZ 8 12 0 13 30 20 2 1 3 ~ in 113 X E27/sq In = S 3,052 X sp doss 90% = 52,747 X coed 90% S ' 2.472 X lac 70% = S 1 731 ~ Total Value 9 Cane Island Plne 18 0 20 5C 30 1 2 3 in 254 ~c S27lsa In = S 8,887 X sp class 90% = 58,180 X cond. 90% S 5.582 X be 70% = S 3894 ~ Total Value 10 Deodar Cedar 12 0 13 35 15 5 2 7 Cedrus deodara x 3 In 113 X S27/sg in = S 3,052 X sp loss 70% = 52,138 X cord 30% = S 841 X lac 20% = S 128 Totes Value 11 Deodar Ceder 12 0 24 45 20 1 2 3 in 113 X S27/aq in = S 3,052 X sp class 70% = E2,138 X cord 90% = S 1.923 X lac 70% S 1,348 Totd Value 12 Deader Ceder 18 0 20 45 25 1 2 3 I ' rn 254 X 127/sq in = S 6,867 X sp class 70% = E4,807 X corM 90% = E 4.328 X kx; 70% = S 30211 Total Value 13 CalBomia 81ack Walnut 12 0 24 35 30 1 2 3 J Ions hinder) ~ i in 1 t3 X E27/sq rn = E 3,052 X sp class 10% = 5305 X cond 75% = 3 229 X lac 80% - S 137 Total Value 14 Coast Lire Oak 15 0 ~ 16 25 30 1 I 2 ~ 3 1 I In 177 X E27/sq in = S 4,769 X sp class 100% = E4,769 X coed 90% = E 4,292 X lac 75% - = 3 219 Trial Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-aal ~ S36 15-6a1 ~ 5120 24"box ~ 36"box ~ 51,320 48"box ~ 52"box ~ 57,000 72"box ~ , Job #03-02-037 1 ~ BEST, ~RST r~. Page 2 of 3.19.02 i Job ~: Nequist BARRIE D. COATS and ASSOCIATES tdael ~ 1052 DS3S Gaail lad la G+la, G ~SQIO Key # 15 18 17 18 19 20 Plant Name p C,~ O O REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES S-Sal ~ 536 15-6a1 ~ 5120 24"box ~ 5420 36"box ~ 51,320 48"box ~ 55,000 52"box ~ 57,000 72"box ~ 515,000 Job Address33 Quinto Rd. vJi ~ . i ~ f Job #03-02-037 3.19.02 _ ~ ~ l I i i ~ I ~ i I ~ +_ ~ O~ 1 ~ 1 WW W J ~ !! d ~ ~ I I ~ rn O E~ ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ w o ~ o ~ o ~ ua _ ~ i '{ ~ I ~ w ! ~ f= ~+a{ z_ ~ v_i s d W 8Q i- o: ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ = O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i w Z ~ ~ S WW~ ~ ~ ~ O vI , ~ ~ ~ O ul (7 y O 3 i z 20 0 21 30 45 1 3 4 In 314 X E27fsq fn = S 8,478 X sp loss 100% = E8,478 X coed 75% = E 6 359 X loc 75% _ S 4,769 Trial Value 14 0 18 25 15 1 3 4 In 154 : - S27/sq =n = S 4,154 X sp doss 90% t E3,739 X pond 75% S 2804 X loc 40% S 1,122 Total Value 14 0 15 25 10 1 4 5 in 154 X E27/sq in = E 4 154 X sP loss 10% E415 X pond ~ 80% = S 249 X loc. 20% E 50 15 0 18 30 35 1 4 5 In 177 X E27/eq In = E 4 769 X sp loss 10% = E477 X cond. 80% = S 286 X loc 40% ~ S 114 Trial Value 210 23 40 40 3 4 7 fn 346 X E27hq In = E 9347 X ep Gass 30% = i2 804 X cord 30% = E 841 X loc. 50% ~ E 421 13 0 14 30 20 1 4 5 n 133 X E27/sq in = S 3582 X sD dais 90% = E3 224 X cond 80% = E 1 934 X loc 50% = E 967 1 e BEST, 5 ~ WORST Page 3 of 3 =., ~ ail ~r J~~_ _-^~,• ~ _- . , . ~ \ \~ -- tOT 911 r - ~ , r.r .. \ ~ AVERNr w n • . ~ V ~~ 910-E (N 09 N'x0' W 11. 9~') \ ~ ALIOWi _ __~-T _ _ / i_ _ _ _ i ...= l 7-71r (1 z~ zz 1 r `~ ~- 0 (zno 1 ~ \ -RO-O: - -~, _ '~ ; ~ tour ~ i` ~. -/ - - ~ w\p ` S.r ~ ) r. , ~ ~,` ry.t ~ \ ~ ~ IMPERV s.ra ~ ~\. ,~~ ~' _,~:• ~. e9oN l ~ / ~ '~ '"~. 10~ \, -.OOO ~u'c ~.1 \ LAN05t ( ^ t •~ ~9i ~"~ r O ~ \ ~PC t Hmn.7,r OPEN E ~ ~ + ~ ~ ( . s.r .. i LI ,, -T~-; ^'-` ,e ~ \ ,~ NOTE r *e3~~, y~~+~ ~~ J ' ~ ~w `- : ;.r ee t~ ~ ~ t ! = 1 ~~ ~ ~ ~~3n n ~ DUII.DR N7a - rams .'ML ` ) - ~ w`I~a1~,,j` ; ~, '`C ~ ~ c \ ExLAV~ \ , r e r ~, ~ ' "` 4~ ~ 1' a (OOOO~ 1 ~ \ ' ~ NO GR. I ~ 't ~ ~ / PROTECTNE FENCE ~ ' ,~~ -/ e ~' ~ '` »=~ cai c ~ Yl~lel[OOM1110L PONI )~ \ « a-x3:er awao ~odo~'•, ~ I ~ TREE R ~ rruel•e•wa )~i~rm~i xaa 'o or aro ~ ~~` \\\\"` 'z~ for tl .~ e~7le7re , ' O ~ ' ~• - 1 fr; ~` 1 ( ~~ -Y \ ssw r t ~ \AVERA \ .__.~._ __ N)r3 f Ki• Pik, l ~_,\ \\ 'r ` f \ ~^~' a:). allcxx M •"q~ ~ \ 'r 1( ~ .).t» I \I frn°'" ~#-~i K,irr 444 ~ ~+a C ~ \ ~ yi r ~ n , .alt ). ~ ,,7gJ ~ (, ' ,/, '` \ '~1( `~ ` rA.o[Nr OG \ r~~:~ J \ h' • saw ~ Rd~Nt1a M .rl ~ ~ s.irs . x.:ee L~ ~ .e. f{~ \ / `yK •`~ \ t ) « `~ ~ O 1 ~!,.j ~ 7q.7e 1 ~ ~ f,'t .~ M' ~ \ N x.ysxi ~ ~ <. ~ mot- (4 ~, ~ rr i, I w r - e[seaKa •II ~ ~ ~ 7~i• •' _ ~ J` ?i} _ ~' xa u ~ ~ , .~ x.xw ~ , x3: YY 6 ,wn rum eao 1 )axw ~ .~ (r \ ~ ' •+a a •w .~wu eie .r. ! . u we f. ~ .aax xx Olwr•tr ~ I 1 a.ue --• -- ," ' ( (/` ,,~ ! ~ 1017 ~ ~ 1 rl t, )u es / ~,.\ 7 7. //t ~.\\ l ' J! \ 1 r ~ t ~ ~ . i ~ 1 \ x..xeo '`~ k !~ ~`F r~ ~ w a s i /; N7M •1 'I Nvw RPSiv~nc~ 1 ~ EXISTING EDGE ~'~' ~` i 5 ~ ' _ ~ D] `1\ w.)/ 1 ~ 'I II OF PAVING ~--- -i~ lr ~rru ' ~ 1 PROTECTNE FENCING IF '~ PROTECTIVE FENCING' ,,~ ~~ ~ rerr-•^~ TREES #16-20 ARE RETAINED EXACTLY AS SHOWN •3 )+'))r~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~' y . _ Y ! 1 N]e ~\ r\ ~ Rex S~pV - ~~~ L r>a .._ _ ~~ _( -._-~ ~ / k ro t ~ , - .ar.r.~---- _- ~ ^ -7 n r__" ~ !. \ , ~~ 'rte/'1\ ~~~:.\^~, vi r`•Y ~ p'rs9w ~~ tom; ~~ ~ r. na rotor prp ~°"a .• 1. ~"- Via! \_r .{j.,. `JJ i \-(O~~ wL S 1~ !~r)terr ~~ ~ ~,~~~r(~! ~ ,., rr ~.>t '~./P ' 1 ,.i 314 ~~!•y \•t•'"~ P•~/ \ ~ Ya ~ !O \~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~' ~ \I ~ ~ 1 / i~.r ' .0.. ' ~, 1~• ~~~ ~~ 1 ~--~--- ~ ~ `, ~ (~a, ~., 16 •16 ,-~=-== "`~ '~ ~ ~ • 141, - `''~~~.) x x ~` ~ .o o.. ~ .~r\ (N e9 z~ w' w 3 x~) -~ ~a __e"_'~*__ -'~r----~~-.~-ten=- - r - , it ~~- ._ (- mo.. z )o ~_ 1_ \.~ J. ~ `- / „ ,Tr ~.x~ - _ / ~ Y ?wow r.rrr w~• - ~ ter - _t ;l- vo.[o ra . \ ~ ._1 a ac ,~ -~ -'1 vAAC~i~',~- ~ _ ' Tree Survey and Reservanor Reoommerrdmors a,16e , • 1 rrrolrn r~nr ~ ` °o ~/ ,o nrEG~visr R~sioEivcE /¢G33 Q(/ITO RWID. SARATb6A f ROOF GOtOR i,~ ~o C5 n~ i~ mceo cocoa ~~ ~/~6ld2 ,. , . - .~ _.. " ff I -- ~~~ F~, \, >~. \ ` PROJECT DATA ,~ ~ B ! `~ ~ ~ rKS P~RCSa~ NUMBER: ~ Arco wnD ~ 1 ~~~ w rv' ~ ~ ~ :L ~ ~ ~ \ SAPAtOGA CA. 890'N 14633 QUITO ROAD SARATOGA CA. 95070 , I ~ ^~tt ~~ ~ e u~U NFAUISf xwuM Cana TOMS Mlp 510.1, rA. Sox 96696 . ! ! s sna ~1 MONTE SERENO, cA 86098 . ~ n.5wmy x za,n / ~ 1 PRaEti 5COPE ~ DEMOUSH Ex51xN7 SDIGLESTORY HOME (N aRS1'so' w IAS.ar) F NAMM ,lye / I \\ 1 . _ 1 ' `. 1»s~~ h CONBTRUCf A NEW SINGLE STORY _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ HOME WfEH AtTACNED GARAGE ~., ~ , `~ E)05TRW 20NING:y. - R-1.Wp00 i ~ \ W51MG USE: 3DEI SG.FT. 9N1GLE PAMILY RESNENLE ~ . j ~ ASNALI wncw~ ~\ ~ ~ 1 ~ PRDPOBED USE: ~ NEW 6NN9LE fA1MLY RP9IDEIICE '' ~' .. ~;,` (°~ LOf S12E: A0,198 50 Fr. (.82AC.) ._r "• ~ ' I ` .AVERAGE SLOPE: BABx ,, i . ' 1.: 5 s .., al'-y 9lOPE Ai STRUCTDRE: Ox LEVEL ~ . vasiXZ ~. '~'~ ALtOVUBIE F100R AREA 8,020 SOFT. i (N 8921,70 W 11191 -~ 1 1' »Dn - - - --F-- - - (2,_>0•) (- PwrosEO a.ooR Avg. aePT sn Fr. i (ua27! 1;' f o 1~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ` ~ N 3A + r 1 / v }.. 1 ~ "F,.,~7a 7B ~ - ,~ 1 mRA ~ BULLDINO FOOTPRMT. SBL7 9ELFT. W.6x pggp ,-„r< ®, ,,,~ u-' \~ ~,~ nAPERYla6 carERAGE base 94Fr. qsx l1 0 ~ » av roPB ~ \ ~ -- ~ \ LANDSCAPE wnd NANRAL + ._ "~ (7 i r»w ~ , , .ran r n _ i , 1 tySxBI ~~'~ , OPFN SPACE ae T67 GG Pr ~x ~ e ~ ~ ~ - ~M auw ur~A O ~ ( IRS/ 11t / i ~! xwA.w \ 40~19O 9Q.Ff. t00x 0. 1~ as r N t (~ ~ eau \ 1 I.a \+ ),`...1 I N .>I, - I ( J''~ ` .~:~ ~\ ~)~ \ NOIE IM/ERYIOUS COVERAGE CONS519 ~:ORNEWAY. ( \ nPa ~ .-..~ I i ~ ~ 1 »I,v1 , ..,` F..1 h ~ ~ ~~, i Tzorao®,,' \ ; k\: '~ t \ :1 PORLHEB~ PATIO'A WALKWAYS AND SN7MMRIG IDOL . , y` i ~ 1-.~~~ ~ r ~ ~ I, l ~ ~ 4 ~ W ~ 11 ~ r ~ \ ~ Nl.n \\ BUILDNG PAD FOR NaSE 88 GA--NO~~ Fxl AE9UIRED. ~ ~ R1 ~„,,,y,-~ 1 ty.,, NO GRADING 15 PROP05ED THAT WaLD ALTER iNE E%L4TIH6 NATURAL 9~01'•.~.. »~ I ~ YJL7~ 1'Mt ~ •. -J • », M pxNAPI ran b t ISDDD _ _ _ I,s x t , f ~ aua } `~~:!~ DRAINAGE FLOW OF iH19 PROPERtt. ALL ROOF WATER WRL DE ~- - 'r iwiie 1 ~ipsc '~ `' ~ A IA COLLECTED AND DISCHARGED Ai AN APPROVED LOCATION ON SITE. ( } ~_ 1 z wx.uve ~. ~• I »ie0( 1 1 ~ A A . cx~t.n"'" _ - 1 ~ 1 ,~ ~~) »veD »:.u ~"4~. .TREE RFABOVAL NONE PROPOSED ' AAwoN Cams Mwt R+p w ~ _~ ~ x'weND~~ t ~~BZ.n L ~ I 3 9WF »150 ~' '~~ . »2 .' ~ 1 \ i. ~~ n »2M . »v.lr x"RB _ ~ 1 f AVERAGE SLOPE CALOUTATIONS~ 6EE BHEEt 7 - { I E le,e e>n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ PNE A>a ~..~_~~'- ~ ~ a~k~ r . _ 'a '~ v t~ ~~ Aboir~pvAL RaY sgvrur, F+ACtbRS t ~~ ~ ~~ » '~ ~ ~ ~ A LcWCReIE 9lAB FcoDR CONST/lLCTfON. JY' - auu '. t: `, \ ~~ ~ ~ . IN-FLOOR NYDRON/C WATER~NFit7/N@wSY578P1. ~ _ _ k 5U5' a ~_ ~ ,l~ \ \ t'~ i »z a7 ' ,\ /°10"x ~,~~riNBi, • 30fAR A981STBD. KIOL HE4TlfJ8 Sy3J'6N. ~,,/ ~ 1, - .. ._ A A ,u4/ I B9 x z2~6 ~ '~°' '~ ~~II r~ 1 J ~ 1 ~ ~.~6Q Se;- ~ >~ ~ M r ! 1 V ~1''k~2~rA1ODl1 Q ~V vl ;.. ~~ ~ .a ~'~ 1 z•rrtn~uosq 11 1 ~ 1~;.. 0 ~ ~ 1 Nl.b - ^~ ~ I NSB,~i W~AImhIS \ A '~ ~aDTenxoso' sry. vsa ~ w.u ~ . ~ »dla ~ »:.a L~ L D ~ ~ 4 1 i~v 1 w l ~ ~ V ~~ . . r 1 ~ So, ,w Ta Ruuw »am ~ ~ 5un ~ I UI51 ,~; ~ 0 r,, u~ t r ~,..~ "~ ~ , »B U'~ WCwooo~ Dort ~~bS< - ~ APN -06- F'. ,~ ,liver(, !V >W'~ i -~' ~ fE ~\ r'~A ' ' OD M X e~ ~1 VICINITY MAP ~ 1 ~I ~i ~ a«r . N]AA~ ~ •_..~ ~ ~ ~`.. ~ ~';~~ ~-~~(>u.x ~~ ~ ~ au+s IH)l mm ApAD ,i 5au ~. ~ , .. ~, '~ `f P ` a ~~ swu,acA ,§ ~_ 'xIDwxo 515 1'. _ ~ ~9. ,~ / L ~. ~ l v 1` ~ s7 ~~ S .j 1115e ~$' 4 ~ ~' "1 I ati+' ~ , ~»a al. wie.' ~M° ~ ~i ~~ltd~~v.b '~ nnl A:1r~~' k wn v k~, I W«re ~` ~ »5sz ~ ~~ »aze ~ J »aw•t ~ \Y 'TEA t y~ gy I v C Y' `~ H I ~ @x ( 1 ]11.Y1i I »J. ~OUO~i - .. 1 1 ;.,\ LA ~ ~. \ 1 1 .i~, )` 14~ II `,f~~ _ `~ 1 l01t0}M~ { I / NMI -` Y}y y,~,.. .. »aW \ \ _ 1 1 ~ ~ t~ i ~ ~ 1 -'~ ~1 ~ ~ ~;~ 1 ~ v GHELA0.oI { 1 ~~ 1 da„ ~ ~ fan, l -- a .»aa \t`. ~ I ~ ~~J A w.as . tiPN ~~-DC-oBO~~ ¢ 1 i ~ ~~ ~ »5»~ ~ {~~ '~wa ~(~ .~~~ or t iv . '(~ Daaf 1986 v 1 ~1 ~ 1 ~ ~ ~~ ~""~ ,~sd ,.w.o ~~I ~~; I ,~ ~ I , D. ,~ ~~ 1 ~ z ) ~ 1 111 ~ ,' »aa ~ A ~: l>t6W RPSI~CB _ ~ 1 rax 7 Nat ~ ~w aelvnr ~ ~• ~~ \ D ~1 7y5 .u . \ ~ ~ i rovnn 1~ .n fl r^, - , ~.1 ~ 1 ~` 1. .~\' S~i$ ~~ \ f ~p t D~FJ l a \ (~ 161.81') _~.- 1 , ^Y' ) L \ 1 '~ ~.Iwee 11 sd ~' ''~10 ~~ I ~~ ~i ~5~~ ~ I f ~ ~ V - ~ 1 _ ~} ~ Y L ~l1' P_ d 1~,. ILA n ~ ') »w \ ~~, - ~ g 1~.haAn 1 uow ~ ~ le~ fi 1 '~ ~ I wn uale "'4, ~rJUCVp ~( ~~ J \.wa f7 ~ 1 1 1 1A ~ ~~~ a•ow ~ ~ ~~1. 1- t t ~. t 1 .4 k ~ ~ ~ 'y l ` , », ~_.., -.___ '~--- .t~'-{'-}. d _~- - Awon.~ ~- r~ r w~' ~ ~ .1. 1, . 1 Bpape !1644 1 t 4 ~ I ca rax, Fw t r '"~ ~' ^1 \ r \~ \/ ~~ _ P`".'a v pmla ~. I al~i B as Pox, Bat p ~ ` \ \ ~ ra ~ i . t`I ~_ .~ ~ ~ >n ~~ . Mwfl awxl ,! , s'A~xsc6 ~ ,~ -," r' 1 4~°s~_,1 ' ~ 'C-"-,,~ t ', ~ , {1 mx tzxa 1 wY ~ I -/ ~ °' nnxsar 1 * 4 ...i . »an °~ A. ' 1 7 ~;, I,: f .,a ~ 1 x '~ y SS cm,zen ~~ 1 »aD, P'i . ,In 1 r i~~ 1 1 \ l 1 ~ r '~ y Irauc a ~ 1 ~1 1~ V O .; _ : _ M~ ~ . > ^ ".1 SY~r arox[ ~ 1 r SAS ~ _~.-r~-1`s--.- \ nv y~~Qyt~ 1 ~ nna _ - ~ .~ ~ ~, ~ e ~ ,~ ,evrcB( B ~ ~ ~f ~~IP 1 ~ r r'~ P~ IVNA ~ .~ ~ Y. w,e~ .~....~ ~ ~~ ~ l (791 B1~ . ~ 1t.T " xnxa ~P Jb ttl-~I~ ?<-,rte-rn. 9+~%'~ o~:._ (x e941 a0' - 77UJ.7{~ I' ;1. , , l: ~^~'.~ O im rd¢ l . i plm~ ~ '~~ nz _, .. - 1'r t l r. ~r ~~` ; J~~~ J~ LI ~ " ~ a~ ~ ~ V 1 ~ - '. A,a ~RARCE~'I,C ) ~t.~.,1~~1" ~'~ ~.. - f ~ t tii ~,J ~~Jt.. a ..J` ~ ~~~ x ~ ... '~~ ~ ~ r ~ SACHEZCHI~ L r .~~' -~.~ ~ Abe, I ~ "~1 »au l . ~ "' APN 397-06-056 \ ~~- ~ ~ ~\ \ \ RASSanFVAnaxs ~~l.S~. ~ ~~~~~ll W~1111~ vV'_ ~~~lllJ ~~ 1HC AA515 OP EIEVARCMS POR IINS MAP IS SCVxD DV F185 NC.9 1979 DANA ~' 'w2-~-~2 ELEV•]57,15 - Bci.le: Ix ~101.Ox ~ Allp ITa E DUNBAR and CRAIC . ~ + 7 A aA uaNSpD LA9ID sx+\croRS BA95 a eEAmNCS Ea G c PJI. 387-11-H GRAPHIC 9CAlE ~ o° ~ +nl awA xnBBl, vwu au:, a B5a0 BEARINGS ARE RASCD UPON M1E Mf51FRLY BDJNDAAY P. Blot 0. fxrtA tluz, 1581 Rym A a PARaI ~E' AS SHOWN M NxUMC 785 a ~ .' ~ `~~ f P S/tl c f ~~ 1 PAAaI MAPS A7 PAa 28, SANfA CL1RA CWNIY .' r'~Y~ ~ '~~ WAfigA t R[I;ORDSAND ESlABLISNEO BEttwEN MI,WUNCNIS FWNO ! '~~~ uxD Mn P/DPAb DIxxYl bNl Aq Nalx M[Jb.b AS SHOWN. 1a 1@) 1A OP+e - . 1 W ~ ID K POF CAL7 - IONB : , BNI • 10 ORAxk A AND. nMl ' aR: W Wf~ 31n ~ (Mn~ w4 KQ SWtA ONt1 ~ . NORM 25'!8'10' [AST A100NOA: P. Im AW Pq a/tlwseB PI[ IY . • i :• I I ~; ~" ~~ . ''' ~ u ~ ~+ wrA 'Axfl [.bro ,. ~+ fIB" r A M1~~~ ,dA v o rp W ti uIy y .n = ,i o i °q ~'"r '~ M'A s ~ ~ ~ ~~ LIEIW E 5Q 4~" ~V 5~ . 't a ~' t A /~ ~+ Au P , tt I" ,~ u . [ar/rsr C W B x : 3 ~Ift_ • 4 'i >5 ' ~ 5 ~ 'Nx05 f -PB -'~ - ~ A. WM ~ "'p FY ~ jLr _ itr rs rni ° tt64[A~ ~ ~ 6 LT g N L I . I d 06L ~"4rlr ~ S'G_ E ITE ~. , YI + o-W ~0 ~ p SyI o ~-' 9 ~ ~ , u ~~ ' t B ~`~~ ~ ~ ~u F ~ ', a CIO ~ ~ ~ [ ~ n yy ~_, q ~ ~~ 'l '~' ~n 8 B ri ~ g yp _ fnM1Sl - `aJ ~ S_ - T' ~ ~ ~~ ~~,~ '~ ~. .. b A .I . IM ~ a rA4 ~~~ - Aqi _ `aa 1 u i5 q z M y .,; No'yr~'e VICINITY MAP (~ m.. BASE a ntvAnan TIE BA514 OF EIEVAlI0x4 Fdt MI5 YAP IS SCVMD BY FIBS NCYn lem OANN nEwus.ls BA94 OP B[ARNGS B[APRJOS ARE BASED IRON ME SESRFLI BWNDAR7 a PMtCLL 'B' AS 5110BN RI VOIUYE 4~ Of PAACn MIPS Ai PAGE m. SAN1A CWU LdN1tt RECORDS ANO ESiAElI5HE0 BETKCN Yp1D1ENi5 EOIIND As sNO4x. . NORM 4595'10' EA41 ~~ 14633 QUITO ROAD, SARATOGA, CA. 95070 ~[~~~a ..._:.,...., ... ~ n [m arm / ' ~ Qt 897t']0' p t5S.071 [ An1.WM .Nqa ~ C~o~i~~~f~~~~ a~~~~~~~® p0~~ YwLR~ jilol. CT ~\ GRAPHIC SCALE ' tvEml ' [li•NI A PROJECT DATA . , 1 A9BESOR^8 PARCEL NUMBER: 887-08.087. PROIPLT ADDRE89: V0878 OURO WOAD 9ARATOOA CA 860'70 . ~ PfOPFRTY OWMEW ~ ERIC 8 AUCN NE0M9T PA. DO% 86686, ' MONIE 9EREN0, CA 96090 . PROIEOI BLOPE DEANRJSN E1591Rp 9pN7LlBi0RY HOME 8 CpIgTR1X7 A IgY/ 98WiLL STORY 1 '. HOME V01H AITACN[D 61RAliE EKMiRNi lANNG,:~ R-HOA00 1 E7DBTING UBG ,l 6621 SdFT. 941GI.E FAMGY R88WEMOE PROPOSED USE NEW SMGLE FAMLY RE9RIENCE ~ . LOT 91>7 40,198 86 Ff. (82AL.) AVERAGE BIOPE. ~ 8.46>< ~. SLOPE AT STRUORIRE OB IEVEL~ . ALLOWABLE F100R AREA 8,~0 9O.Fi. ' FROP09FD F100R~AREk 6,647 gO.FT. LDT cavERAGE. 1 BUKDNIG FOOTPPJef: 9A47 90.fT. 14.61 1 1 DAPERYIOUq COVERAGE 6,68890.PE. 18b1 1 LANDSCAPE am4 NANRAL ~ . OPEN SPACE: ~N761 an P[ 71.BS 40,B)880.FT, 100f 1 NDTE: RAPERYIOUq COVERAGE CONSISTS OF:ORNEWAY, PORLIIEB, PAT109, WALKWAYS AND BM'MMBEG POOL (~ t.A6P~EG6YdI~tl ~ 1 ' .w n 11 BUBDDYt PAD FOR HOUSE A GARAGE--NO QlT OR FE1.Rl9UIRED. \` £~ NO GRADING 19 PRDPOFiED TINT WOULD ALTER iXE EIO6TIN0 NAfURAI ~' DRADNGE FLOW OF THIS PROPERLY. ALL ROOF WAtER WILL LNi '~~ LOLLECLED AND pgCHARGED AT AN APPROYED LOCATNIN ON 9ILE xsv ~ ~ TREE RELIOVAL NOIE PROPOSED 1ie'~~ ~ AVERAGE BLOPE CALCULAilON9: SEE SHEET 7 . 1`~ 11 ma a aoAx rAVOdr 1 1 ~t ~ \~' 1 ~ Nrae 1 Q ~ `"' 1 N ~ 1~~ N QE \~A~ , ~ + 1 ~~ I wx 3 'A~^ 1 . a ~ k Nxa 1 n ~ \ 1 W JAAOo ~ ~:so4 1 1 ~~nnt 1 1 ~ \' 1 1 1 ~ L / 1 ., ~ E t 1 Nlm ' ~ 1 11 ' ' 1 1 1 \ 4 •N~gYC ( ~~ ~ 1 M A91 Y ~ owI¢ _ pE ~ "~ , 1 a t LpA~ 04 • MID n f ~~ awis •? . 7 a cx115 \ \ "~ N5k 1 1 NAm I Let . . ~R and CRAIG. 1°0°'["1°'° i lA1D SURtERRS ~ ~, srNU auz G seas PARCA Y , Px me-r-m ~ "a' sroca N 14K fN1AnIG M[A~[ ~ 41d Mb tl~M fYYMOiYn ~a .u.A h ae A4 and AI ~K a@W[AQIM IO. C m AqC 4B wnd.q w 4a. . ° _ . A i 1 nr - ~ ~ a t '~ r 1 A t ~' ..Y ~~~ ~ ~ .. ~+'' 4a ^'~ • .r, ~'' ~~~~~' ~ r X,~.,, ~li ~° CxHT, W ~ FIN1~FI )ge.5o / 11 ,~ ~ 4'~ RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION • NORTH Cute: I~qL =Il~a° r r , ^^ • ,ti yi r~ • (~ ~ r L. ~ 4 "` `~ I tit r~ \ ~, i ~ + ~ h to z : ,•~~.~ ti z,~ , / ~+~~ V ~ vW .6'"L~ ~ ®Il~ 'ail I ;FRONT ELEVATIQN • EAST 9G/4E : I~q~ • I' • OI Z. VI eW -~" L--view r~ r BUILDING MATERIALS ~ TWD PIECE OIAY TILE ROOF ~ 5711000 E%TERIOR • wood FRAME wwoows ~ WOOD GARAGE DOORS • DEORDTNE WROUGNi IRON GUARDRAILMG ~ MEiAL GUffER9 6 DONY75POIffS • STAINED WOOD RAFTER TAMS h ~` r .~ v l I ~ 1 F „ e.f r^ ~ \ 1 l f ~!'~ r ti a ~' L ~i~~ {~ 1 s%z.t ! S ~ ~ , ^~ r ~ ^~ ~~~ ~, ~~ , 9 ~,,~ e~Iar. N~}un••~ I gnwelw'ce a+e.6e ~~f~~~Bo~ ~~~d~~8o~~ • L _.. o~.H Y+a~~2 V Ii.~I.OL HEQY IS 4 e. i ~:, ~' ` ~ ` ;,~, , , r~ - --~. I~ `' ~4;~ E ~,t --- - -. I_I. ~ ~1, ...- `_;_i ~r-1LL; LV . __ - - - .old ~ ~ ~~` ~ c q '~ i ~. ~~i-_ ! _ _ ~_.. _ :. ~ F<,5~ ~..~~~ ...____._ __-..__.___ _.-___ ___..__. _.. _._.. _.._ _._ _... _.____ _._ __._.__- _______-__._ __._ ....________ _ _._____-___..._ / b4A9o 4, s. a LEFT SIDE ELEVATION • SOUTH ~sie: 1,4 :I ~o 'L--VIEW-1 . ~ _ ~ w-~r-- - _. ~_ --..a LL] CTl I~ l _1L .l Q~ f~ a ~ c -- ~ -- - ~_ ~ ~ ~ ;. - - ~ ;: .._ .~ ~i ;, ., .~;' ~' -- - - - - --- - - t REAR ELEVATION • WEST 'L-view ~ _ 14 ._ _..___ _ _.__.. 4~1 I _ _ _ Z Co ~ ~ 3 ~_, .. ~ ~ q[xFronu6 aauaK -- - -- -- - ----- baaeo ep..ot C~~f~~~~o~ C~O~d~f~6o~ TRI H ..~~ NeGU ibT :.'"*nK~ - - - - - - - ' +Yr,.r4 S',tl MAIN LEVEL PLAN CROSS SECTION B «...~ ~ : ~~n , ,,. of >c~ I b IU.TUML H OA~c4 34D.Se E~OORAg~GALLUUfI0N5 L 0'-e' % S'-e' !0 2 20'~PN IB'-P . 320 3. 21'-P% tP-P . 210 8. 8'~P% 7-0' 12 7 !4'-Px3P~0' . 1820 B. B'~PN 9'-{' . TS 9. 1!'-P % 9'-4' . 121 b. 10'-0'x 6'~0" N4 I1. IP~0' X d-P • 50 YL 6'~{' x S'-P . 19 q. M'-P x 23'-P . !!2 N R~0' % I%-0' • 22B Ie. 15~P%1G'-P 210 -_.~'(5E 4995SO.FT I7. 2'-0'x 17-P 3B 18 !'-Px 1'-P . 12 20. 2S'-0' % 12~' 2]6 GARA•~E 852'MhT. 3&1] TOTAL l94700.R. AILOWADIE 602090.FT. liJy.L, G4A'6L ROOF PLAN 1 •x.~l.e ~ V6' . ,,. pl - ~ ~ 1 1 >aq N ~~ w6 \ ` l~ \ \~ PNOgI ggR11(qi PI/ /,wpA 1 \ J . ~~ a•amn `. x 70n.Zfp1 `. IN e9n1'w' w 165.m') ~ rn.ga .yp.r / 1~~ \ . waa ~ __ __ _ _ __ __ __ ~ \ ~ 1~ 1 ' ~ ~ A9NKl dIWY1t, ` ~ rottt ~ Y >.,~._ ~ Slpn _ _ . (N 89.2110' W 11192y \ ~T_~ \ 1 > i `.AU ~ J \ 2 ...^.~_, (~ aaueu{ eroNP ~Nw, 2s-{~-~$ ~ I \ q ~ i 1 `` 1` ~ ~ I.OM ~ d%id- ~Q. ® ~ lbN[r p~ INOD p~~~ F ` 1 1 N ro ~: Y!9 ~- yIOH ~ ~ r HIAkI~ \\ 1 I q ~4 ~ I~ -J ~t ly 1 1 I +~\~~ff 1AM VAM ~1 I 1 x Y. 2iaE0'A11Wa ~~ R Y 6°~ 7V F S ~,~ `,1 t ~ 1~ t Jlt al. ~}•MUIV![ I'ID[E ~ M~C41WQ P0.Vt~M ~ ` ti ~ v 9 4.N L0D 1 BNi{ ) ~ ~~` t !Ills r \ ]It.17 '95;~ ~Ulx '- ~1~ 1 I % `90- 1~~ Ax ^ ' N H~ i. ~11b ~ u~ 112.a ~ N202 ~ ~ Y PARCEL 'A" t,emer°e ~ ~ "` emm '~' , 5 xx ~ ~ GHELAR01 ~ - ~ ~ s ,, R.r'O` ~ ~ ~ ~ APN J97-O6-086 ~ /~ ', ~,ar>+°r '~'~ rt •>.xu ~ 1 maq A' `~~' .-~ ub orow ` ~V~PAWIOII - ~ ~ >.zu ~ ~~ ~ r ~ 1 •WA ~ a 1'.i ~ ~ b ; kox~l ~ ~, I` .Hen J) A Q `~ l L bR0 ~ 4IW .. J ]It11^ WNI~ \ `~ 1 1 „~ ~ wIi ~. wu •>ra~ PAACLI .H, ~~2M 1 Q n , as >uN~ ~ ~ . ~~ ,dn u3Ya: NEOUfST , ~ ~°~ } ~~a. ~ inm ~"0"`a0 ~ APN 397-06 097 ~ ,~~~~' ~ 5 ~~ 1 ~ '1 ' I~~~,a ~, 3 ~ NJ PE Mfg :1 1 ,.~„ .~ 1., ~b~~,a~w wx K:q ,t;~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,r~o >.1. ,*xx J fi ~ ~ ~./~ /°".a"' .i,y~. Aux ink' 1 ~ .v, . \~ .-// ~ ~ 1oa ylI 4 e22 11 ~ .iu2er Hiw tp~~ ~ ~I ' ~~ l• '°'~. i uan a.. huh vlw „w~ l .~L ~^>~ I 'I ~ 1 1 9 r { V '~1 ~ i ~ a~a I ~ I ~i Jul . >.ve ~ ww .5na `. 14q 1• ~ 1 ~ p »uo >.x~, '~' c~! L t ~ 1 41S ~ ~ ~ ~°p _'1 mro ~3avsrt ~~ Ma 1l2bY000 r" >.~2, ~ > z wq.: ~ ~_ ~ ~~~. ~ ~' - 9 2iro~p 1 ~ ~ „o _ 3+Sn .. ~ pj,IDfl~P 9'IULI aa1[ar 1 1 1PAdd' I 1 1 y4 } y 1 1 ;11 1~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~1 Ain. 1 ...: ~ ~ t NM2 .~ ,~ y ~ m ro to Ee I ,10.E 161 e1'1 t uar ~ 1 .yv +) tun ..t xI ~7 r)~ V IN 6729 _ - ~ , >.1 m i 11 ~ ~.sUti 'Y ~~ ) ~ i Y' Y ~~ ~ ~{q'al4!K _ ~ Nero / - NIU V ]MOWOW ~1 t ~l qs wN° t l ~YtM~[ I ~ - l1 ,Sa2~ c ~ • P° ewW blul ® ~ 1 T ^l ~~~ p1~ ~ '~ ro 1 Ws7+ ~ -W ~2 .'~u4 (~ ium rm I ~L/ r ~N" y ' 1 1 ~ .~~ ~' ' Kc y:1 I.1" 1 - l '' ~ ~ ~.. 1 ~~dPe.E ~~ RR r AEPeNVC~r 1 1 ~ l\ - •"S'aM 1 ~ I!oue roN1k01 Kwt M ~: R ~ ~~ ~ 1 /+a - , 05q gA~~Ctl11AU W Q ). - x ~. ~ ~ 1 1 ~.~u."una ,. ',y~~~i _ 1 °' amt li ~ ~ I 11'j .>un a~a ~ J.sx~. ~ i ~ .. µ~ ! ~V ,1 ~ u., ~•,~' f 1M_N ~ ' ~~ ~ +j h 14l _C 10d 7 Sµq (' - ~~ 1 3'M' _ k O 1 W'roa® ~ , { - ,~ Ip11M ~ N 1 ' ^ n 4 -'aax N,t•' ~~ 1e~~ f~ om l ~ :. ~ J lynx ~i~ y~l-: rw - ~ ~ ~v~~ ~~ e pqb k L ~ ,'_ v } ,` ~ ~ _ ~~ ~' f3B~&11--~ Irk-A-11 it ~I`t 'il I ~, yy _ ~ ~ q~ .. ~ ~ .. ~. m.lo• .ry 9ti ~.~s,~~ C IN 6944'SO w plw3T) ~ rtt~.~~./ ~ ys ~ saw ~ 1 +sn ~ ~, ^, ~ . ne ~ ' .~~ 'r r C.. h. 1 ?`~-..1 roan rzxtt ) .1 wd ,p6 ~ \ '•a _~.1 a 17 1~. ~ ~"~,1 J ~ 1 :7 ~ Y 1 1 rat •V 1 ,•~ ~ V A 11 qdp ~ APN 397. ~fi-Q58 ~ ~~ R 1 l ~~~~\.~~ ~~ ~ wa BA95 a EEEVAwONS - ~ \` 1 5TM0~84;67 NGV99~~lUY yAP 15 ~~~~~~~~. ~~~~ pU~~ ~ • AVfRAU ROPE APa~ J97-OA-067 EIEV•157.15 - --.9U.EP P 'I^ ..101•oe 5, I , E x 100. 11)d11D7)x 1ao . &M1t BASS a aEAwxrs a w19s 7 CRAPFIlC SCALE +5 fp5u19 RA, Duc[NSto Uq0 s i~aRS ~ PMm ~" 9EA1MNC5 AAE BASED UPON nlE wESRRIY 6WNDARY Colar Rang &9. Rmge End Aron Pganl ~ ~ 4w ~p i IOII ®M sMlr, qwa 0'ut, CA Y910 PL. 261-Y-16 WN4 F ~ PAACEI 'B' AS SNOMN IN WEVNE 285 OF 0.00 11.90 11872.71 19.5 R ¢ 5116 R A tqw 1L7fSA; P39q ' ~' PAItCtE WAPS AI PACF 26. SAN1A aARA CWN1Y ~' 15.00 29.90 5600.!0 IAO (q ~) IIgS ~ {•M~L ~~ RECg2D5 AND fS1ABl15MED BEfwFEN NONVMENiS PWND x ' X'.00 99.90 M27.29 6.5 , yep. 1p a /j ~~ +~ a ep wx A/.Wbx ~ a W Ose 3MM A5 SNONN. ~JFOP CAllipw w:Wt : I xww - M W1 Dort A b N9 q1w wrz: AUDAI, qql o[g9n we . ~ 91ER aw9A aNl.S m • NQ1IN 75'SB't0' EA51 PAOgl9p o. m ACtl Y0. q/NMw7 , aG x F{ .. „n, In m•ou~ rn~ru++ma~ . :. 1 { ~ .` J f ~ ft d -~~ i ITEM 3 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No.: Location: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Date: APN: App. # 02-055 _ Saratoga Creek Road STURLA Thomas Sullivan, AICP Community Development Director June 12, 2002 389-06-002 ~~ Department Head ~- ~~ ~~ aoo ~~ ;~ ,~^~ ~,. ,' ~~ aoa ~ ~- soo ~~ i ~ ~' 1;, ~- ~ ~ ~` ~ ,, ~ .~ ~ ~~` \``\ h\, ~~ 111111 ii-ii~~~~~~~~~, %~ ;' o~i • 000001 CASE HISTORY Application filed Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXECiJTIVE SUMMARY March 14, 2002 Apri118, 2002 May 29, 2002 May 29, 2002 May 30, 2002 The applicant is requesting a 36-month extension to the two lot parcel map approved on May 10, 2000. The two lot land division is located in aProfessional-Administrative Office zoning district. The request for time extension was filed in a timely fashion. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the application with conditions by adopting Resolution #02-XXX ATTacxME~~rs 1. Resolution SD-99-006 2. Correspondence from Applicant 3. Resolution # 02-XXX • • 000002 • ZONING: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: MEASURE G: PARCEL SIZE: AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: PROJECT DISCUSSION Background STAFF ANALYSIS Professional-Administrative Office Professional Administrative Not Applicable Parcel l: 27,443 sq. ft. (net) Paree12:1S,420 sq. ft. (net) Parcel 1: Less than 10 Parcel 2: Less than i0 The Public Works Department, City Arborist, Santa Clara County Fire District, West Valley Sanitation District, Santa Clara Valley Water District, California Department of Fish and Game, and the San Jose Water Company have reviewed the proposal. All recommendations were included as conditions of approval in SD-99-006 .Subdivision ' The applicant's request is allow a 36-month time extension for the previously approved division of an existing 1.3-acre parcel into two parcels. Parcel 1 is proposed to be 27,443 square feet net; Parcel 2 is proposed to be 15,420 square feet net. A portion of Saratoga Creek is on Parcel 1. The proposal is For a lot split only. Future development on the parcels would be subject to Design Re~•iew approval and current Zoning Code requirements. The applicant has stated that future de~•elopment is intended to be single story medical offices integrated with the existing adjacent medicaUprofessional offices. 1._J The Cit}•'s Subdivision and Zoning regulations are the implementation tools of Saratoga's General flan and the State Subdivision Map Act. The Zoning Ordinance establishes minimum standards for lot sizes, depths, widths and frontages. It also regulates building placement, modifications to natural topography and ordinance-protected tree removal. This Tentative Parcel Map complied with all minimum zoning standards for the Administrative Office district with regard to parcel size and configuration. 000003 Creek Protection As part of the initial application, a biotic assessment was performed per Section 14-2S.06S of the Saratoga Code in order to identify and assess the protected creek, its banks and the riparian habitat. The recommendations outlined in the.report for riparian corridor and creek protection were included as conditions of approval in SD-99-006. No significant impacts to the creek or the riparian habitat were expected as a result of the proposed subdivision and subsequent development. In addition, the Santa Clara VaIley Water .District reviewed the project and requested an expanded easement. This easement dedication has been included on the Tentative Parcel Map. Per Code requirements, the extent of the riparian corridor must be recorded with the final map. This has been included as a condition of approval. Trees The City Arborist reviewed the site at the time the Tentative Map was approved. No Ordinance- protected trees are to be removed as a result of the proposed subdivision. Tree #1, an Italian Stone Pine, has been identified as hazardous by the Arborist and its removal is recommended. The Arborist has requested replacement value trees be planted in its place. Staff has included this as a condition of approval. Con-espondence • The only correspondence received was the applicant's explanation of why he needs time extension. Grading 'done proposed. Geotechnical Review ~o geotechnical review was required due to the stability of the soil at the site. Conclusion Staff feels that the requested time extension for the proposed subdivision is appropriate given the market for office development. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the application with conditions by adopting Resolution 02-XXX • 000004 ~.~; .. ~°~'= File No. SD-99-006: ST..A; Sazatoga Creek Drive ~~ 3. Prior to Final Map approval, the Planning Division shall review the Map to assure conformance with all conditions. 4. Prior to Final Map approval, areas along the top of creek bank shall be planted with native species to aid in bank stabilization. Applicant shall contact Santa Clara Valley Water District and the California Depamnent of Fish and Game in order to determine which species would be most appropriate. ~. Prior to Final Map approval, the riparian/creek easement shall be identified on a separate Exhibit "B" and is subject to Planning Commission approval. Said exhibix shall include the distance between improvements andtheriparian/creek easement. . 6. Prior to issuance of any permits, applicant shall obtain sewer connection permits from West Valley Sanitation District. 7. Santa Clara Valley Water District shall review and approve all development on Parcel #1. 8. Future development on both lots shall adhere to the then current Zoning Requirements. Future development shall be sited and designed to minimise the amount of pad grading necessary and the removal of ordinance-protected trees. 9. All recommendations of the Ciry Arborist's Report dated December 27,1999 shall be met. This includes, but is not limited to: a. The Arborist Report shall be incorporated, as a separate plan page, to the improvement plan set and all applicable measures noted. 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." c. A note shall be included on the improvements plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. d. Prior to submittal of Final Map the applicant shall submit to the Ciry, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in an amount of- ~7,046 pursuant to the report and recommendation by the City Arborist and Planning staff to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. e. Prior to approval of subdivision improvements, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist, the bond shall be released f. Any future landscaping shall be designed and installed in accordance with the Arborist's recommendations. C:\WINDOWS\DESKTOAChrisana~PC Staff Reports\STURLASD.doc c QOD~OV (~~. ".. File No. SD-99-006: ST~A; Saratoga Creek Drive ~~ g. No Ordinance-size tree shall be removed (with the exception of tree #1) without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. h. A landscape plan including native replacement value trees in the amount of $5,729, shall be included in a future Design Review application. FIRE DISTRICT 10. Provide one public fire hydrant at a location to be determined by the Fire Department and San Jose Water Company. Hydrant spacing shall not exceed 500 feet, with a minimum single flow of 1,500 GPM at 20 psi, residual. Prior to applying for a building permit, provide civil drawings reflecting all fire hydrants proximal to the site. To prevent building permit delays, the developer shall pay all required fees to the water company as soon as possible. PUBLIC WORKS 11. Prior to submittal of the 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 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. 12. The owner (applicant) shall submit four (4) copies of a Final Map in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map/Vesting Tentative Map, along with the additional documents required by Section 14-40.020 of the Municipal Code, to the City Engineer for examination. The Final Map shall contain all of the information required in Section 14-40.030 of the Municipal Code and shall be accompanied by the following items: a. One copy of map checking calculations. b. Preliminary Title Report for the property dated within ninety (90) days of the date of submittal for the Final Map. c. One copy of each map referenced on the Final Map. d. One copy of each document/deed referenced on the Final Map. e. One copy of any other map, document, deed, easement or other resource that will facilitate the examnation process as requested by the City Engineer. 13. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Map Checking fee, as determined by the City Engineer, at the time of submittal of the Final Map for examination. C:\WINDOW5IDESKI'OAChrisdna\PC Staff Repons\STURIASD.doc 000007 File No. SD-c9-006: ST; Saratoga Creek Drive ~~ 14. Interior monuments shall be set at each lot corner either prior to recordation of the Final Map or some later date to be specified on the Final Map. If the owner (applicant) chooses to defer the setting of interior monuments to a specified later date, then sufficient security as determined by the City Engineer shall be furnished prior to Final Map approval, to guarantee the setting of interior monuments. 15.. The owner (applicant) shall provide Irrevocable Offers of Dedication for all required easements andlor rights-of-way on the Final Map, in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map/Vesting Tentative Map, prior to Final Map approval. 16. The owner (applicant) shall submit engineered improvement plans to the City Engineer in conformance with the approved Tentative Map/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 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. 17. Improvement requiremer..ts shall include, but not necessarily limited to: 18. Grinding and removing of existing pavement at portion of Saratoga Creek Drive South of Cox Avenue. Installation of the new overlay according to the City Standard Specifications. 19. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Subdivision Improvement P1anChecking fee, as determined by the Public Works Director, at the time Improvement Plans are submitted for re«ew. 20. The owner (applicant) shall enter into an Improvement Agreement with the Ciry in accordance with Section 14-60.010 of the Municipal Code prior to Final Map approval. 21. The owner (applicant) shall furnish Improvement Securities in accordance v~~ith Section 14-60.020 of the Municipal Code in the manner and amounts determined by the Public Works Director prior to Final Map approval. ??. The owner (applicant) shall furnish a written indemnity agreement and proof of insurance coverage, in accordance with Section 14-OS.OSO of the Municipal Code, prior to Final Map approval. 23. Prior to Final Map approval, the owner (applicant) shall furnish the City Engineer with satisfactory written commitments from all public and private utility providers serving the subdivision guaranteeing the completion of all required utility improvements to serve the subdivision. • • • C:\WINDOWSIDESKTOP~Chtistina~PC Staff Reports\STLJRIASD.doc UUUUUS ~::_;~:. File No. SD-y9-006: ST,; Saratoga Creek Drive ~~` ,. 24. The owner (applicant) shall secure all necessary permits from the City and any other public agencies, including public and private utility providers, prior to commencement of subdivision improvement construction. Copies of permits other than those issued by the City shall be provided to City Engineer. 25. The owner (applicant) shall pay the applicable Park and Recreation fee prior to Final Map approval. 26. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction-Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. CITY ATTORNEY 27. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the Ciry or held to be the liability of Ciry in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 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 exptre. .Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, Ciry and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. • C:IWINDOWSIDFSKTOAChristina~PC SraffRepores~.STURIASD.doc 0000op File No. SD-99-006: STA; Saratoga Creek Drive i PASSID AND ADOPTID by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 10`I' day of May 2000 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Barry, Bernaid, Jackman, Kurascli, Patrick, Roupe and Chairman Page NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: W~ . S cret , Pl Commission • C:IWINDOW5IDESKfOI~Christina~PC Staff Reports~STI1RLASD.doc O oOU 1Q Attachment 2 r~ L APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION No. ~:XX CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application fora 36- month time extension for SD 99-006; 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 reasons to justify the time extension are: • Lengthy litigations has just been resolved, and • Current office market is in a very poor position and immediate improvement is unlikely. NON', THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the request the Planning Commission grants the 36- monthtime extension. Section 2. The map must be recorded by May 10, 2005 or approval will ea-pire. ___ Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, Count}, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. • 000011 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, June 12, 2002 by the following roll caIl 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 Propert}- 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. Applicant Date !'ropert~~ Owner or .Authorized Agent Date • 000012 d Attachment 3 WARREN STURLA P. O. Box 1234 Saratoga, CA 95071 April 17, 2002 Planning Commission City of Saratoga Saratoga, California Please extend the tentative map approval SDR 99-006 for the-allowed period of thirty-six months. The current office market is in a very poor position and immediate improvement is highly unlikely. Some of the factors influencing design of this project have only been resolved very recently as part of a lengthy litigation and there are other constraints imposed by other agreements and documents which are a part of your file. This approval would allow me to continue to work and plan with known conditions toward my goal of an integrated project of building along with the off-site improvements. Respectfully, Warren Sturla ~~~~a~~~ APR 1 8 2002 CITY OF SARATOGA OOMMl1N17'Y DEVELOPMENT 000013 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 000014 • • v ~~ r~ 4 -- ITEM 4 ~ REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: - App # 02-023/ 18588 Woodbank Way Applicant/Owner. Ronald Lee Hills Staff Planner: John F. Livingstone, Associate Planner ~~~ Date: June 12, 2002 APN: 397-06-075 Department Head• - 000001 lts~tsts WUU1~liANK WAY r (t CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ovos/o2 04/18/02 05/29/02 05/29/02 05/23/02 The applicant has requested a Design Review approval to substantially remodel the existing single-story house. A portion of the existing house will be demolished and rebuilt in approximately the same location. The remodeled portion will include a new 1,438 square foot basement. The existing house is 4,907 square feet and the proposed house will be 5,336 square feet. Some of the existing floor area from the accessory buildings will be remo~~ed and transferred to the main structure. The total floor area for the site will not be increased. The maximum height of the residence would be 22 feet. The net site area is 49,122 square feet and is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve the Design Review application with conditions b~~ adopting the attached Resolution. ATT.-1C H M E NTS 1. Resolution with conditions Z. City ,Arborist Report 3. .Applicant's submittal package and Plans, Exhibit :1 I'+. • r~ 000002 File No. 02-023; IBS88 Woodbank Way STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40,000 (Single Family Residential) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD (Residential Very Low Density) MEASURE G: Not applicable _ PARCEL SIZE: 67,649 sq. ft. gross, 49,122 sq. ft. net AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 3% GRADING REQUIRED: No significant grading will occur. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposal 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. Proposal Code Requirements Lot Coverage: Maximum Allowable 34% 35% Building Footprint 7,874 sq. ft. Driveway, Patios, Pool and Walkways 9,000 sq. ft. TOTAL 16,874 sq. ft. 17,192 sq. ft. Floor Area: Maximum Allowable ~' Applicant First Floor and Accessory -7,874 sq. ft. currentl}~ Second Floor N/A euceds the (Basement) 1,438 total allowed floor area for TOTAL '7,874 sq. ft. 6,200 sq. ft. the site. Setbacks: Minimum Requirement Front 30 ft. 30 ft. Reaz Existing 18 ft. 20 ft. Left. Side ~ 66 ft. 25 ft. Right Side 45 ft. 25 ft. Height: Maximum Allowable Residence 22ft. 26 ft. Detached Garages Existing N/A 12 ft. C:\MyDocumentslJohn L\Woodbank Way 16586 SRdoc 000003 File No. 02-023;18588 Woodbank Way MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The proposed exterior finish will be light beige ..color stucco with dark brown trim and a blue highlight trim. The roof will be an adobe clay mission style. Color and material samples will be available at the public hearing and are enclosed as part of the applicant's submittal package. PROJECT DISCUSSION Design Review The applicant has requested a Design Review approval to substantially remodel the existing single-story house. A portion of the existing house will be demolished and rebuilt in approximately the same location. The remodeled.portion will include a new 1,438 square foot basement. The total proposed floor area for the site will not change. The maximum height of the residence would be 22 feet at the entry to the single story house. The net site area is 49,122 square feet and is locatedwithin an R-1-40,000 zoning district. Typically, a remodel and addition to an existing single story house would require only an Administrative Design Review approval. In this particular instance, the applicant is exceeding the 18-foot height limit allowed for an Administrative Design Review approval, therefore requiring Planning Commission review. The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Guidelines policies. Polity 1,"Minimize Perception of Bulh"The project meets this policy in that the proposed single-story house will be only 22 feet in height at its highest point, 4 feet below the maximum 26 feet allowed. The remodeled area «~ill be located in approximately the same location as the existing home. The majority of the existing landscaping will remain in place.lh~ proposed house will also have ~~arying roof elements that «Zll break up the elevation of the building. Articulation is also pro«ded by the use of arched ~t'indows and stone accents around the main entrance. Poli~~ ?, "integrate Structures with the Environment" The proposed project meets this policy in that the house is surrounded by mature trees which ~t~ill be maintained as part of the proposed landscape plan. The applicant is proposing to use natural earth tone colors for the exterior stucco that help the structure blend in «~ith the surrounding environment. _ • Polity 3, "Avoid Interference with Privary" The project will protect the prvaey of the adjacent properties by maintaining the existing mature trees that surround the site. The new portion of the home will be located in almost the exact same location as the existing house. • Policy 4, "Preserve Views and Access to Views" The proposed house is not in a view corridor and will not have an adverse affect on neighbors views. C.\hiyDocumenu\John L\Woodbank Way ]8588 SRdoc ~ Q OOO~ File No. 02-023;18588 Woodbank Way • Policy 5, "Design for Energy Efficiency" The project meets this policy in that the location ~~ of the proposed house has not altered the solar access of adjacent properties. The house will also meet the State Energy Guidelines through the use of wall insulation and high-energy efficiency heating and cooling appliances. Parking The Saratoga Ciry Code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking. spaces within a garage. The residence has an existing five-car garage. Trees The applicant is proposing to remove four trees. None of the proposed trees to be removed are indigenous to Saratoga or are in exceptional condition. The City Arborist has recommended replacement trees. The City Arborist report dated March 19, ?002 (attached) contains recommendations for the protection of existing trees on the site. The Arborist's recommendations shall be conditions of project approval. A certificate of deposit is also required as a condition of project approval for tree protection. Fireplaces The plans indicate two gas-burning fireplaces and one wood-burning/gas fireplace in the living room. Correspondence \~o negative correspondence •,vas received on this application at the date that the staff report was distributed to the Planning Commission. The applicant has shown the proposed plans to the neighbors as indicated in the attached submittal package pro~~ided b}~ the applicant. Conclusion Thy proposed project is designed to conform to the policies set forth in the Ciry's Residential Design Handbook and to satisfy all of the findings required ~~~ithin Section li- -}x.030 of the Ciry Code. The residence does not interfere with ~~iews 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 regulations in terms of allowable floor area, setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. C:\MyDocuments\John L\Woodbank Way 18588 SR.doc ^ ^0 005 • THIS PAGE HAS. BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • Q00006 Attachment 1 • APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Ronald Lee Hi]ls; 18588 Woodbank Way WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval to substantially remodel the existing single-story house on a 67,649 square foot parcel; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a roll opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and Whereas the proposed project consisting of a remodel and addition to asingle-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 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: Polity I,"Minimize Perception of Bu1h" The project meets this policy in that the proposed single-story house will b~ only 22 feet in height at its highest point, 4 feet below the maximum 26 feet allowed. The remodeled area will be located in approximately the same location as the existing home. The majority of the existing landscaping will remain in place. The proposed house will also have varying roof elements that will break up the ele~~ation of the building. Articulation is also pro~~ided by the use of arched windows and stone accents around the main entrance. I'~~Ii~7 ?, "1ntc~--ate Structures with the Environment" The proposed project meets this policy in that the house is surrounded by mature trees which will be maintained as part of the proposed landscape plan. The applicant is proposing to use natural earth tone colors for the exterior stucco that help the structure blend in with the surrounding environment. • Policy 3, "Avoid Interference with Privacy" The project will protect the privacy of the adjacent properties by maintaining the existing mature trees that surround the site. The new portion of the home will be located in almost the exact same location as the existing house. • Polity 4, "Preserve Views and Access to Views" The proposed house is not in a view corridor and will not have an adverse affect on neighbors views. Qoooo~ • Policy 5, "Design for Energy Ef icienry" The project meets this policy in that the location of the proposed house has not altered the solar access of adjacent properties. The house will also meet the State Energy Guidelines through the use of wall insulation and high- energy efficiency heating and cooling appliances. _ _ _ Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the Giry of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful considerarion of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Ronald Lee Hills 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. The following shall be included on the plans submitted to the Building Division for the building permit plan check review process: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: i. A maximum of one wood-burning fireplace is permitted and it shall be equipped with a gas starter. All other fireplaces shall be gas burning. ii. The site plan shall be stamped and signed b}' a Registered Ci~•il Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. iii, The site plan shall contain a note with the fullo~t•ing language "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the RCE or LLS ~~( record shall pro~•ide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 3. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water «•ill be retained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction - Best ~lanagemcnt 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. PUBLIC WORKS 4. The applicant or its designated representative shall apply for and secure a grading permit if deemed necessary. • Q~~0~8 CITY ARBORIST - 5. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Report dated March 19, 2002 shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. This includes, but is not limited to: a. The Arborist Report shall be incorporated, as a separate plan page, to the construction plan set and the grading plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plans. b. 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. 6. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit to the Ciry, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount reconnnended by the City Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. 7. Prior to Final Building Inspection, 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. CITY ATTORNEY 8. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and ea-penses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of Ciry in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any -State or Federal Court, challenging the Cin~'s action with respect to the applicant's project. 9. \oncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a «olation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the ~zolation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this Ciry per each day of the ~zolation. 10. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. 11. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. 12. 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. 000009 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 12th day of June 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Acting 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 Propert}' Owner or .-~uth~~ri~ed .gent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the appro~~ed terms and conditions and .Drees to fully conform to Ind comply with said terms and conditions ~~~ithin the rcc~~nuncnded time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent __ Date • • QQ~~~.~ / / BARRI E D. COwTE . ~ and ASSOCIATES Horticu[ural Cor~sultsn[s 23535 Summit Roed Los Getos, CA 95033 408!353.1052 r Attachment 2 ADDENDUM TO THE TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE HILLS PROPERTY 18588 WOODBANK WAY SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Kristin Borel Community Planning Dept. _ _ City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 • Prepared by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist March 19, 2002 Job #02-02-020 _ - D ~~~DI~[~ MAR 2 5 2002 CITY OF SARATOGA CiOMMUNITY DEVELOPMEM' • 000011 '~~ .. ~. ADDENDUM TO THE TREE SURVr. r Alm PRESERVATION RECO>vIIvlET1DATIONS AT THE HQ.LS PROPERTY', 18588 WOODBANK WAY SARATOGA Assignment At the request of the Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of Saratoga, this report reviews the proposal to remodel an existing home in the context of potential damage to or the removal of existing trees. This report also provides information about the condition of the trees on site that are protected by the City of Saratoga ordinance. Recommendations are included to mitigate damage to these trees during construction. . . Because of additional information received from the applicant this report revises the report prepared by this office dated February 27, 2002. The plans reviewed for this report are the construction plans prepared by the engineering firm of SMP, San Jose, California, Sheet T-1, dated September 25, 2000, and the construction plans prepared by a. designer identified as H on the plans provided, Sheets P 1, A 1-E2, dated 1-29-02. Summary This proposal exposes 12 trees to some level of risk by construction. Three trees are planned to be removed by implementation of this design and one tree is recommended for removal due to poor condition. Replacement trees, which equal the value of the trees removed are suggested. Procedures are suggested to mitigate the damage that would be expected to the retained trees. A bond equal to SO% the value of the retained trees is suggested in accordance with the levels of the expected risks: Observations There are 12 trees on this site that may be subjected to some level of risk of damage by proposed construction. The attached map shows the location of these trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. Tree # 4 was not included on the map provided and has been added. Its location is approximate. The 12 trees are classified as follows: Tree # 1 - Raywood ash (Fraxinus oxycarpa `Raywood') Tree # 2 -Hollywood juniper (Jrcniperus chinensis `Kaizuka') Tree # 3 -Dracaena (Cordyl ine austral is) Trees # 4, 7 -Canary Island pine (Pines canariensis) Trees # S, 6, 9 - Ironbark gum (Eucalyptus sideroxylon `Roses') Tree # 8 -Monterey pine (Pines radiata) PREPARID BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTWOARBORIST Mer~h 19, 2002 Q00012 ~~ ~ ADDENDUM TO THE TREE SURVEY AND pRgSERVATION RECOMME!`iDATIONS AT 2 THE HILLS PROPERTY, 18588 WOODBANK WAY SARATO(lA Note that none of these trees are indigenous to Saratoga Tree # 9 represents 4 trees in a cluster of the same species, ~n the same condition, and of approximately the same size. There are additional trees on this site but they either: 1. Are too small to be controlled by the city ordinance. 2. Are located far enough from construction that it does not appear that they would be damaged. 3. Are located in a raised planter bed or in a fully landscaped planter bed. It appears unlikely t11at the tree(s) within these areas would be subjected to risk • Tree # 8 is included because it is in poor health. It is infested with engraver beetles (likely Ips paraconfusus). This tree will soon be dead I recommend that tree #8 be removed regardless of proposed construction. The particulars regarding these trees (species, trunk diameter, height, spread, health, and structure) are provided in the attachments that follow this text. The health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1 to S (Excellent - Extremely Poor) on the data sheets that follow this text. The combination of health and structure ratings for the trees are converted to individual descriptive ratings as follows: ~ Exceptional Fine Fa6r Marginal Poor ~ S imens S imens S imens S imens S imens 1,2347 569 8 Fine specimens must be retained if possible but without major design revisions. Mitigation procedures recommended here are irnended to limit damage to prevent decline. Fair specimens are worth retaining but again without major design revisions. Mitigation must prevent further 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. Risks of Damage by Proposed Construction Tree # 8 is in very poor condition and should be removed regardless of construction. Trees # 1 and 2 are planned to be removed by proposed construction. The only risk to Ihacaena Tree # 3 may be a potential bark injury. This species can tolerate significant root injury and is not a concern. If the trunk were to be wrapped during construction, Tree # 3 should be adequately protected. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST Macoh 19, 2002 000013 ,~ ~- ADDENDUIv' TO THE TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOARvIENDATIONS AT THE HII.LS PROPERTY, 18588 WOODBANK VJAY SARATOGA Canary island pine Tree # 4 is included because it is in an area that would likely be used to store materials or equipment behind the existing protective wall. In this event, Tree # 4 may suffer significant absorbing root loss as a result of soil compaction. Tree # 5 is included for the same reason. Upon further review, it does not appear that Trees # 6 and 7 would be exposed to significant risk. These two trees are not included in the request for a bond. If any underground utilities tiYUSt be replaced or upgraded, it will be essential that the trenches must be planned prior to construction and that the trenches are located exactly as planned. This must not be left up to contractors or to the utility providers. Recommendations Based on the plans proposed and the observations made at this site, I suggest the following procedures. The objective is to reduce the extent of construction damage so that retained trees can reasonably be assured of survival without decline. I suggest that construction meriod fencing be provided and located as noted on the attached map. Fencing must be chainlink, a minimum height of 5 feet mounted on steel posts driven 2 feet (minimum) into the ground. The fence 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. 2. Because Tree # 3 has a relatively low value, I recommend that the owner be given the choice of either the following options with regard to Tree # 3: a. Wrap the trunk to a height of about 10 feet above grade with 6 wraps of burlap followed by 1 wrap of chainlink fencing. b. Provide no protection, but replace the value of this tree should it suffer bark injury. The value of Tree # 3 is equivalent to one - 24 inch boxed native specimen. 3. There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping beneath the canopy of retained trees (either before or after the construction period fencing is installed or removed). Where this may conflict with drainage or other requirements, the city arborist must be consulted. 4. Trenches for any utilities (gas, electricity, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be located outside the canopy driplines of retained trees. For any tree that this cannot be achieved, I suggest that the city arborist be consulted. r~ ~~ PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTWG ARBORIST March 19, 2002 QQ~Og~ /~~. ADDENDUM TO T1~:E TREE SURVEY AND T:~ESFRVATION RECOIvIIuIGIDATION3 AT 4 Tim Hn.LS PROPERTY, is588 woODBANK wAY SARATOGA 5. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped (even temporarily) under the canopies of trees. The soil excavated for the basement must be removed from the site as it is excavated. 6. Trenches for a drainage system must be located outside the protective fencing as noted on the attached map. For any tree that this cannot be achieved, the city arborist must be consulted prior to trenching. 7. Any pruning must be done by an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certified arborist and according to ISA, Western Chapter Standards, 1998. 8. Materials or equipment must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped inside the canopy driplines of trees, or buried on site. Any excess materials (including mortar, concrete, paint products, etc.) must be removed from site. Value Assessment The values of the trees are calculated according to ISA standards, Seventh Edition. Trees # 1 and 2 have a combined value of $6,514. This value is equivalent to five 36-inch boxed native specimens. An alternative equivalent is fifteen 24-inch boxed native specimens, but it does not appear that there is sufficient space on this property to plant fifteen replacement trees with reasonably adequate spacing between each tree. In my opinion, larger size replacements would be preferred at this site. To assure the protection of Trees # 3, 4, 5, and 9 (4 trees of equal value), I suggest a bond equal to 50% of their total value ($5,014). Thus, I recommend a bond of $2,507. 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 Barr' oate, nncipa MLB/s Enclosures: Glossary of Terms Tree Data Accumulation Charts PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST Maroh 19, 2002 ~~~0~5 ' ~:~ ~.. f ADDENDUM TO THE TREE SURVEY AND PRESER.YATION RECObIIvtENDATIONS AT 5 THE HILLS PROPERTY, ]8588 WOODBANK WAY SARATOGA Tree Protection Before, During and After Construction Protective Fencing Map • • PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSUL.TWG ARBORIST Mesh 19, 2002 000016 ~ ~ , . r ~~:il , r .111(1 ( t.1~ n~ i.l~i it 1:1. t l r", ! ~ ~, 1 ~ ', r! ~ 1 • ~ ,~ ~S~d) r ~t t ~~ ~~>~ ~ ~~ __ ~ ~_ r, ~~ \ r !1 .t ~7 1yE )~ ! ' t i' , ~ , t .. 1 I ) 9~ ~~ ;` ~w~e t ! --- (;k: .1 ';,, I I uY~l I ~' ,11 I f~ may. ... I ! ) •,;,;, ,.,~, I I ,tl l~ ,. ,..,,~, 1 ., ] ~ M 1 IL! ~~ ~~ 8 ~' ,,..I ,. '~'~~ <.;~ .. /~~ \ ,. ~yy,, / ..... "' ~ ~ ~ ,~ , 1, \~\\ . c~~6~j --- --- - ' ~~ l ~, E 7)l0')')•. )5~S ` ') n•^ y . 1 ~ ' \ ; ~c „~ Eaistin ,fO :~.~ \ \ .,~ ~ 'i.\; Expose ' ' rt \ All 1r+: (i ~u ~ ~l t ~! 1' ~ '~.bY. ) ) ~ . 1 1~ l . t !, ,. f\t - w ` ,1 - . ~'J tcN f104 1~ l l ) l .;, ,,. '~;. f ,, .. `~l . • I il, '' 11' ~ `• 1 iii ~ Protective Fencing '~ ' '\ b, ~ t. , ~ ~ t ~ .,1 11 1 `i. -\ tr i7~ c ~ E ~~~ ~ ~ ) I;~ ~~~1, ~~~r~ t, f.J"~ , I:R - 1617 ',9 r~~1 - ~ : III . ~ .t~ 11 i ~\. I~l V ~'. S ~ r 6 'Y OC I ~ ! \ ~ i ANC ~: ~. t !,'r'V _,\ 1 / ':j -f ~ R~ g fi ~, ,, ~... _ ,, '.~ ~' ~~, 4 \ J/``~, ~ ~> I. %IS11NG S bny l.n~: Ai:l .4 111 fir'! ~ ` 9~ ~ ) , ~~) !E }1/ 1 n s ~ r~'v. ~ "~' - I F3Z r ~ . ~1. ~yi ~,-,~ r 'tl AI:F LMI . /. ~ / I ~~ ~ '~Y,' t. Jlil. ll~ 1,., V ;. % E. Concrete ~ ~ ` ~g5 "' /i =+~'. Protectfire Feace or Install Lock on (3ate,b ~~ \~. ,.~~~ 'y -~' t • Soil Area Must Pot Be Used ~ 4 r I ~ to Store Materials or Equipment `~ Boil ... '~ ,, 'I t\~ II «' i VI it l: III.:. I ~l ;~.w ...« .., BARRIE D. COATS TAM OYfR~ Yd IA/b~~0~ R.~e..d.n....E w and ASSOCUEES xm. r.e,..q, lease ~o.n..~ ~., um al tRt _"-- " -~ tISD t~ ~d 1. W U 11m HORTCULTU RAL COMBULTMTS COIIaULTl11G MBGR197'8 t~p~+~d wr. CItT of Bu~Eetti -lual~ Dr~etNt Revised March 19, 2002 .. .. i.1 lr.v i TY.. n.~s... J~.,..~d .o ...ladb. ~e..e.. M dlaeubu mod free bc~tbu WOODBANK WAY (60.00 WIDE) ,I. . .,.. lY .•r~ , I • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Q()001.8 • • -- ~~ :~ :~~n~~ ~~ Information Folder Ron & Suzanna Hills 18588 Woodbank Way Saratoga, CA 95070 ~, , y~ . • Owner: Ron & Suzanna Hills 408-867-1177 (phone), 408-867-6037 (FAX) email: ronhills @ attbi.com Location: 18588 Woodbank Way, City of Saratoga Santa Clara County, CA 9 5 0 7 0 APN: 397-06-075 Purpose o remodel: ~ Update & rearrange rooms in front portion of house, increase ceiling height, add basement. Preparers: Designer/drawings: Structural Engineering: Jack Smittle, 801-791-1857 John Russ, 916-944-7685 Truss Engineering: Advantage Truss Systems, Rafel Garcia, 831-635-0377 Energy Calc's: Tim Maggenti, 530-304-1476 Civil Engineering (Topographic map): Saeid Razavi, SMP, 408-472-5062 Foundation & Soil Engineering: Mohsen Mahdavi, AES,408-970-8685 • • . ; ~~r~ ,N _~ C ~_~ ~ _ 1 ~Y.. _% --- ~ .-. 3 ~~ r_ List of Documents • Page #* Contents Plans: Large prints (24 x 36 H-1 Title Page T-1 Topographic Map (signed)- Site Survey P-1 Site Plan (w change area) A-1 Main Floor Plan A-2 Basement Floor Plan A-3 Elevations: Front & Right A-4 Elevations: Left & Rear A-5 Cross-Sections: Highest section, Living room, Basement/kitchen, Office bedroom C-1 General requirements Information Folder F-1 F-2 F-3 F-4 F-5 F-6 F-7 F-8 F-9 F-10 F-11 Index: City req's vs. where to find information Set Back Summary Neighbor Location Map (around Hills property) Neighbor review list & comments Photos Color and materials samples Floor Plan, Shed-A (to be demolished) Floor Plan, Shed=B Roof Outline Landscape Plan City Regulations & Compliance Other Title Report (including Boundary & Easements) * Located in lower right corner of page. Plan Dept. Intro 5/23/02 10:54 PM ~T: i I~ 5/23/02 10:29 PM City Requirements Where to find information d) Land Use: All property in area is zoned R-1-40,000 & used for Single Family homes. e) Fencing: T-1 (Topographic Map) & pg. P-1 (Plot Plan). A 6' Stucco wall along Rancho Las Cimas & corner of Woodbank. Honeysuckle fence (6') around backyard. A 2'-3' Stucco wall in front of house. Stucco wall (6') on right side of house. f) Trees: T-1 (Topographic Map) & pg. P-1 (Plot Plan). 25 trees over 12" diam. trunk. Remove 4 - 12" trees as marked on page P-1. No Oak trees removed. g) Structures: T-1 (Topographic Map) & pg. P-1 (Plot Plan). Present size Scl ft Width x -Length Use House 4,907 97' x 92' Living area Garage 1,989 80' x 22' Cars, shops, guest room Shed-A* 370 24' x 23' Trailer, garden equip. Shed-B* 536 16' x 36' Trailer, motorcycle, storage Pool Shed 72 12' x 6' Pool Equip. * Sheds-A, B have no water or sewer, only electricity (see F-7, 8). h) Building setback: See page P-1 (Plot Plan). I _ Site Plan a) Legal boundaries: F-2 (Parcel Map, County Assessors Record), T-1 (Topographic Site Survey). P-1 (Plot Plan). Note:. Lot is surrounded on 3 sides by streets. Rancho Las Cimas cuts across South portion of lot, leaving isolated unusable portion of the lot on South side of street. Front of house faces Woodbank curve. b) Topography: T-1 (Topographic Map) & pg. P-1 (Plot Plan). c) Streets & Lots: T-1 (Topographic Map) & pg. P-1 (Plot Plan). h) Neighboring properties: See F-2 (Parcel Map) & F-1 (Neighbor Location Map). Includes location of buildings, direction they face, relative elevation to Hills home. 1 F-1 ~~, r I l Site Plan (cont;) 5/23/02 10:29 PM j) Vicinity map: T-1 (Topographic Map) & pg. P-1 (Plot Plan). k) Average Slope: See pg. P-1 (Plot Plan). 1) Technical Information (upper right hand corner data): a) APN: 397-06-075 b) Address: 18588 Woodbank Way, Saratoga, CA c) Owners: Ron & Suzanna Hills, 408-867-1177 d) Present & planned use: Single Family home. e) Zoning: R-1-40,000 f) Area (per SC County Records, Bk 397, Pg 6, lot 75): 1.553A Gross (67,649 sq ft), 1.13A Net (49,122 sq ft) g) Allowable sq ft: 6,182 [6,000+(9.122 x 20)] h) Size of Structure: shown on page P-1, lower right. Background: Previous building constructed to older City regulations. House built 1964, modified early `70's & 1991. Garage built in 1975. Storage shed's built in mid 1980's. Rear section added in 1992-3 (met city footage req's) i) Square feet & impervious coverage: P-1, lower right:. j) Slope of building site: ~1' for house & garage 13% per formula k) Average site slope: See pg. P-1 (Plot Plan). j) Technical Information (lower right hand corner data): a) Direction arrows: shown on page P-1. b) Scale: shown on each page. c) Name, address & phone number of plan preparers Jack Smittle 6936 Bear Spring Circle, Morgan, UT 84050* Phone: 801 /791-1857 FAX: 801/876-3784 d) Date of drawing & subsequent revisions: shown on each page. * Jack Smittle originally worked in Sacramento, CA. His family recently moved to Utah but he still works projects in California. 2 F-1 J1 In 2) Building Elevations a) Elevations: Colors & roof material: Roof pitch & window treatment: b) Label elevations: c) Grades: d) Roof plan: e) Existing & proposed roof lines: 3) Roof 8~ Floor plans a) Roof plan: b) Floor Plan: c) Floor area: d) Label fireplaces: See page F-9. 5/23/02 10:29 PM See pages A-3, A-4 White stucco, brown trim, same as present garage & house. See page F-6 & F-5. All are 4/12 except rear patio roof which is 2/12 (see page A-5). Patio roof will include sealed roofing material under tile. See pages A-3, & A-4 See page T-1 & P-1. See page A-3, A-4, F-9. See pg's: F-9, P-1. See page A-1, A-2. No rooms over 15' high (A-5) See page 1 L-a above & page A-1. See page A-1 (1 wood, 1 gas) & A-2 (1 gas). 4) Grading & Drainage a) Public Utilities trenching: See page E-1. Will put utilities underground from Main Panel (w meter) mounted on back side of Living Room chimney to the power pole located in the upper right corner of the Plot Plan (page P-1), distance of --90' . b) Building pad elevations: See page P-1 & A-3, 4, 5 (pad is flat). c) Volume of cut: 552 Cubic Yards (for basement). Approximately 50% of dirt to be used on site for landscaping mounds in the front yard and inside of the wall along Rancho Las Cimas. d) Name of plan preparers See page 1L-c above & H-1. 3 F-1 _;_ U 5) Cross-sections: See page A-5. 6) Materials & Colors See page F-6. 7) Signage: Not required. I 8) Landscape Plan: a) See preliminary plan, page F-10. b) All Oaks identified in T-1 c) See 4 trees to be removed, see pg F-10 & P-1. d) See pg P-1 e) See pg P-1 9) Photos: See page F-5. 10) Design policies & techniques: See page C-1. 5/23/02 10:29 PM ll) Other: a) No shade from or to adjacent properties. b) Decrease structures from 5 (house, garage, 3 sheds) to 4 (eliminating shed-A and part of shed-B). c) Soil & Foundation Test Results (for basement): d) See report by "Alliance Environmental & Soil Engineering, AES". e) Title report with legal boundaries, including Easements (see Title Report). l2) Neighborhood Req's See page F-4. l3) Additional req's a) Hillside parcel- b) City codes- c) New garage- N/A Garage has 3 bays for off street parking. Sheds store trailers, motorcycles & yard equip. N/A 4 F-1 • House Set Back -Summary 2002 Present Proposed Req.'s House House House Set Back's -Woodbank Way: A- Front (Curve) B- L. Side C- R. Side 30' 27 30 25' 22 25 25' 50 45 Neighbor Rancho House ' C Las Cimas --- Garage --~ B ~ ~ ~A~ t 5/23/02 22:29 N Page 1 Woodbank Woodbank --- N Easement F-2 P ~g • H _3 2 STOR 1 Y (~ _ 8 .~ ~s14~ T u-t+ , B~qN I +B' °~. To (~I1tTo N~_ J( m a~ 0 a -~ _ \~6~ ~ \ W~DBANk ~/~ J ~`~' n BARN # 1 --r ~ S ---__ 1 a • ~~ ~~ ~ _ 330 ~ ~' ~_ ` -_ ' 2 STo~Y -- H_5 G +lr~' ~MBLESIU>= • i ~ /~ A 0 E +G~ ~ ~ a ~ ~~~ ~ x ~ z ~ ~ ~S ~ ~ ~-11z !f8 C.-J ~ ~ ~ ~ G 4 ~~~~ °~- ~_ _ J -~ yb G la•7 ~3 1 i ~~ ~~ Relative House Address Hei ht* H-1 18588 Woodbank 0' H-2 18501 Woodbank +4' H-3 14751 Quito +9' (2 story hoi se, 2 story barn) H-4 18583 Wo i dbank +8' H-5 18611 Am bleside +15' (2 story) H-6 i 18641 Wo~dbank +20' H-7 18641 Woodbank +14' H-8 18600 Wol dbank +9' H-9 18520 Woodbank 0' I H-]0 18524 Woodbank +8' (2 story) H-11 18528 Woodbank 0' H-12 18530 Rancho Las Cimas H-13 18541 Rancho Las Cimas View of Hills home** Hills home Can see H-1 at a -60 deg. Angle. Patial view from reaz 2nd story only, Faces Quito, rear blocked by their 3 Bams, trees, bushes. -350' from H-1. Yes-but is onground -8' higher than Hills home & partially blocked by their trees. None- Does not face Hills home, blocked by trees, is on ground 15' higher than Hills home. None- Blocked by trees. Nane- Blacked by trees, neighbors house. None- blocked by their trees & fence, None- Rental, faces Quito,*** None- blocked by trees & fence. None- Rental, blocked by his garage.*** +1' Roof only- blocked by trees & wall, +l' None- face's street, view blocked by wall & trees. H-14 18542 Rahcho Las Cimas +4' None= faces street, view blocked by trees & bushes. * Relative height above sea level of identified home to Hills home, A plus sign (+) means it is sits on higher ground by X-feet than the Hills home. The Hills home is located over the original pond & is the lowest lot for the area. ** Indicates whether portion of Hills home to be remodeled can be seen from the front or rear of the identified home. *** Owner is located at 18524 Woodbank (H-l0). Nomenclature: H =House N~~ G =Garage \ S =Storage shed B =Barns E- =Indicates direction that house faces. ~ ; ^~, =Major screening trees or bushes. '`-+.,,- I i ~• i F=3 • • • Drawing Ref. Address Two Stor view of Hills* Date Reviewed Person interviewed OK to remodel Comments H-1 18588 Woodbank ~ Hills Home H-2 18501 Woodbank Y 4/23/02 M/Ms Eddie Y They support the remodel. H-3 14751 Quito Y L - N Not interviewed. Should be no impact. H-4 18583 Woodbank Y 2/7/02 Mr Johnson Y They support the remodel. H-5 18611 Ambleside Y L 2/7/02 John Sancho Y He supports the remodel. H-6 18641 Woodbank N nnin~s Givens Not interviewed. Should be no impact. H-7 18632 Woodbank N 2/7/02 M/Ms Campbell Y They support the remodel. H-8 18600 Woodbank Y 2/6/02 M/Ms Peterson Y They support the remodel. H-9 18520 Woodbank L - N Renter- reviewed with owner at H-10 H-10 18524 Woodbank Y N 2/ 7/ 0 2 M Moisenco Y They support the remodel. H-11 18528 Woodbank N Renter- reviewed with owner at H-10 H-12 18530 Rancho Las Cimas Roof onl 2/7/02 M/Ms Dr. Yavrom Y They support the remodel. H-13 18541 Rancho Las Cimas N 2/7/02 Julia Matcher Y She supports the remodel. H-14 18542 Rancho Las Cimas N Not interviewed. Should be no impact. *View of Hills home from front or rear of their house. Y =Yes N = No L =Very little Note: All neighbors were shown the Front Elevation plan. F-4 `n 5/23/02 10:32 PM -f :`t • Et+• "" ` i, may' ~-±~ ~ ~:. '~ ' ~~:: r ~' .~~~ ";.~~ fide -~Y, ~:r~ (~ara6e ~~..,>X, -~:.; ~ ~,, ;~, ~. tenter (mouse} n. ;tea =~ ~i~ht v Side ~_*- -~ :~~ ~~~ ~ (Front ~a f ~+ ~.~ ~~ Ward} ~. ~ =. ~~ fi_, _ ~~~__ n ~~ n ~~ ~~~ .~ ~®~®S -T -..; =, Garage House (Right Side) Shed-B 9 Finished Exterior Materials & Colors Colors and exterior wall materials will match present existing colors & materials. Examples of colors are: ' Stucco Exterior Walls Main Trim I~igl~ight Trim w~-T~ B~ U~ Roofing will be changed from present Medium Shake to Light Weight Adobe Clay the (medium color mix) for the house & garage. An example is given below: .. _ - Viejo Blend F-6 M EsA- B~ouvdV • • --- Shed-B 11-0 10-11 Shed-2 (Garden Supplies} (~ 7' high ceiling) Corral Side Total Width . 23-0 1-11 12 -1 Shed-1 , 9-0 (L. Trailer) (~ 7' high ceiling} 11-0 4-6 4-0 Fire - WOOd 5 1 1 / 2 Storage 5-5 (5' high) 8_1 4-10 Shed-A ~J (Will remove) N 34 8 sq ft Sheds-1 & 2 _ 22_s~c ft wood storage 370 sq ft total • i ~ Corral side ' Garage 35-5 Shed-6 {Motorcycles} 15-1 Shed-7 {Garden Supplies} Shed-5 Shed-4 {Wood- {Plumbing-Elect rival) ape} 34-8 Sheds-A -~ Shed-3 { S. T'raile r) 15-2 {w 7' high ceiiings~ Total = 53 6.3 sq ft ?1 h , B (Will remove shed-3 } N S ed • • • co Roof Out line -Present House (• • • t~ Roof Out line - Remodeled House 'A~ c~ •\V?° ;' /~ lf~iEi~i~iiifi~i~iEi avw i GATE • 1 ; ~ 2 5 O : ~ ~N '' S ; ,1 ,1' 1 ~. ~' ~~ S , ~ b O '' S 0 'S J '` ° ~ '~ 0 'S , ' r • Q ~ ~ V V PUNTER ~.~. ~ `i.rc.~ ~~~~i ...~~} ~~_'~`_"_~` _' o ~............ ~'o f ~~ SHED-B ~~ 0~~~ 0 A 9,~ ~ P,~~o Remove Q tree Remove ..................... ~~~~ tree ! ~~ S~° COVERED PO ROB i~'p~ ~~ , 7~ EXISTWG GARAGE GROUND Remove tree ~ PLANTER INLET CONCDRNEWAY Q ~ `~`~~°'° EDGE ~ PAV WOODBANK WAY (60.00 WIDE) ~ EDGE OF PACING NORTH ~Q~D~~/n1~~u~1~ ~ ~ ~ !n1 i 4i V I V 11 ~ j I A ~0 '~ c ~F4 ~ ~ 9Q ~~ ~~ ~ i ~ WgLL 2~~~ ,.• ~ ~ ~5~~~~ ,~ y~ Q~ i 0~~5~ ~~~~~ , o\,~~o ~ Q~OQD f , ~ ~,,~'~ Rem e tree ~~ ~ ~ ~, (~P ~ ~~ ~ ;:;:' ~ :~ 1 ,~„.~:y. ~ ~ Existing trees that don't change Existing bushes that don't change Buildings to be removed ~ Trees to be removed ~~;,~ ~ ~^:, Mounds Witi~ plants, Trees to be added, €~jr to be added ~ ~.:~,. F-10 • • 5/23/02 ~ PM City Regulations and Compliance Sarato a Re ulation Re # Pa a Re uirement Com liance 15-11.100 & 291 & Front, side, rear yard set backs Design Meets Requirement- 15-12.080 294 Front = 30' Presently 27' for left corner of house, remodeled house meets 30' setback. Side = 25' Presently 22', remodeled house meets 25' setback. No change to garage. Rear = 20' No change to back portion of house. 15-11.090 & 291 & Height of structures Design Meets Requirement- 15-12.100 295 Roof = 26' max. 22' 7-1/2" max. (see A-5, Front hall roof top), 14' to 19' 4" rest of house. Other parts of house = 30' max 25' 3" max. (see A-3, 4 chimney top) Accessory structure = 12' 13' 6" max. (see A-3, garage roof top) 10' 4" max. (see P-1, shed-B roof top) Roof >18' requires Design review. Exceeds 18'. Only reason for Design Review. 15-12.080 294 Impervious coverage Design Meets Requirement- Max. coverage is 35% of lot. 34.0% present, 34.4% new house layout. Includes all covered (house, garage, sheds) or paved areas (driveway, pool, patio, roof, etc). Note: Ground has serious percolate problem (lot sits on fill dirt over the original pond, which has dense clay bottom). Since 1983, all roof & paved area waterhas been routed to storm drains to avoid a repeat of house flooding. 15-45.030 347 Floor area Design Meets Requirement- Lot = 6,000 sq. ft. plus 20 sq ft Lot is 1.553 acre gross, or 67,649 sq ft. for each additional 1,000 sq ft Lot is 1.13 acre net, or 49,122 sq ft. of net site area over 40,000 sq ft. 6,000 + (20 x 9.122) = 6,182 sq ft max. Ordnance has changed since last remodel. Based on today's regulations, the Present house (4,907) + Now count complete garage plus garage (1,989) + all sheds (978) = 7,874 sq ft. sheds. City doesn't require reducing Per Planning Dept.: if we eliminate a portion size when Ordnance changes. of the sheds, we can add the deleted footage to the house, providing the total footage is the same or reduced. New plan adds -429 sq ft to house, deletes same from sheds. -- F-11 .•~ F-11, City Reg's & Compliance 1 a • ~ 5/23/02 ~ PM City Regulations and Compliance ~, 1 Sarato a Re ulation Re # Pa a Re uirement Com liance 15-45.030 347 Floor area (cont.) Design Meets Requirement- Attic not counted if: No permanent stairs Attic contains no windows that open or transmit light into attic. included (fold down stairs are OK), Attic will contain air conditioning unit & ducts. no windows or light, no ventilation. Attic may contain attic vent fans. Can use attic for storage. Roof Truss prevent attic from being inhabitable. 15-45.030 e 347 Max floor area: 7,200 sq ft. 674 sq ft over limit when all sheds included. Remodeling plan does not increase total area. 347 Max. ceiling height: 15' Design Meets Requirement- <15' max. (see A-5, Entry hall ceiling only. All others are shorter) 15-45.030c 347 Slope Adjustment - If over 10% Less than 10%. Only a 11' change in 421' with most of elevation change is in NW corner of lot. House portion is flat within 1'. Using formula** gives -3%. No adjustments req'd. 15-80.xxx - Basement: (see below) Design meets requirements in new proposed Zoning Ordinance admendmenis (dated 4/24/02). (15-06.090) Height to adjacent grade: <_42" House is slab floor, lot is flat, basement is below grade (see A-5). Light*: 1/10 of floor area (>_~o sq ft) Bedroom req's 20 sq ft. 20' provided w 4' x 5' window. Ventilation*: 1/20 of floor area (>_5 sq ft) Bedroom req's 10 sq ft. 10' provided w opening in 4' x 5' window. (15.06.xxx) Light Well: outside wall <_4' from house. Bedroom Well area: 3' in depth, -4.5' in width. Exterior escape route*: s3' in all directions Ladder provided in well since well is >44" deep. Base of well 42" from interior floor. Set Back Req's: same as house. Basement & Light wells meet alt Set Back req's. Ceiling height: 9' max. Finished ceiling height is -8' 8"' (see A-5). Geologic & Geotechnical Report: approval Test performed, report indicates basement is OK for soil. Protective: Railing or grate Providing -3' high railing around well. * Light, Vent, Escape needed in inhabited areas (BR only, not Media, storage, Mech., laundry, bath). BR is -196 sq ft., including closet. ** Slope=.00229(Increment)(length of inc. line)/Net Acres or (.00229 x 1672)/1.13 = 3.388 = -3% F-11 F-11, City Reg's & Compliance 2 ., • • 5/23/02 1 PM City Regulations and Compliance ~~ Re ulation Re # Pa a Re uirement Com liance Arborist Arborist Arborist Recommendations*** Will comply with recommendations but plan to use Report company that has pruned owners trees for last 10 years. Oaks over 10" diam.'"* 1 Oak tree, not impacted by remodel. Other trees over 12" diam. Present = 25 total. Remove 4 (see P-1 ). For removed trees, owner will replace in equal value per Arborist recommendations. Fire Dept. Fire EWS (Early Warning System) Not required per Fire Dept. (Less than 50% change). req's Dept. Sprinklers Not required per Fire Dept. (Hydrant Fire flow sufficient). Code Access: <_150' to all points from edge of Good access available from all sides. street or driveway. Air duality - Wood burning fireplaces: 1 allowed Design Meets Requirement Mgt. New plan calls for a total of 4 fireplaces (3 new, 1 existing). Only the one in the Living Room will be wood burning, others gas. Only new chimney is for Living room. Two chimneys being removed. '"" As addmended on 3/19/02. ~'~ F-11, City Reg's & Compliance 3 F-11 ., ~r ;:, ,. ~ , a F p _ , ~ ~. '~ ~ ~ ' i ; I, ,. _ , ~. .. , ~. i i .. ' .. r ,. . , ;. t • ' Owner: ,°"' ,'. • ., Ron & Suianna Hills ~~ :~ ': ~ t -~-a~ 408-867=1177•-(phone) 408-867-6037 (FAX) ; I 4 ~ ~ !~ ~ ' ~' - _ ~~ ~ ~ ~ email: ronhills~attbi.com ~ f ~-r ~ 1~ _ _~, , . t ~. ~'-mow---- ~ -_I ' ( i 1 ~ Location: ; _ :~i>~~ ~ ~ 1~' ~ __ ~ \ p 18588 Woodbank Way, City of Saratoga ~,-, ~ ; ' '. '~ Cou CA 950 0 _ •, Santa Clara I `~ ;~ ~ ~c ~,~ ~~~ _ $N ~` .~~ , 8' ~y°os'rK,` -~` ~ /~~r ~ ;- APN: 397-06-075 = o ~ a ,. ~, d ,ar` - .,:~-,~-~~ ~- ~ 1/ 11 I\,\,,.~ • M .-.. ,,.a' 4 art q~f • Boa ~ .... ^' ~ ~ ~. '~` swi:. ~ ~ x., ~ ~: ~~ r _.. ___ _. ,. -__ Present FbUSe ~ O N - ; ~ , j SARAi~GA .. ~ A" t ~ ~~ S '+r $7d ~ .. ~ Q i .. ~"' '>• ~" t~ `~ se pjremodel: ' ~ °o ~" ' ~ + I `^ a ".~ I' ~ ~~' ~w r ~ r ~ i a Update & rearrange rooms in front poAion of house, ~ Q ;.~ Y. ~ 1' , +. ~ ~ -• ~~ ~ ~ • increase cei g gh ,add hasemenl. y a ~ ,~ 'lin hei t Opp Q ~ ~ a, ~• ~ a ~ ~ a Sin ~~ ~ ~'~. ~ - ,.. - -... ~i CTS: r ~ '~/ ~{t~,,,~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ AfChI18C-: ~ Ped KrBNt 918.985-8374 ~: 'I• ' ~ ~ rn~ ~-,! ~ ~`.. ~ , ,' ~ ~~~ a ,,'' i ~ Dell negr ng, Jatksmime soa79t•tes7 :~ ;~~. 1 g I ~ i , ~+~ - ~ ~~ ~ ~ Civil En ineeri Saeid ~K sdr 4pe•472-sos2 ~, ~', 1 ~' ~ .e ,.~' ) +a i ~ I I ~' ~ - r ~ 1 .,l, (Tapographm mep) ~~ Y ~ r , , "`~ S '1 TYij " vf~~ ~ 1 ~ a Y r~ . ~, ;rE°*Y ~-~ ifs ,,.' 'k r ,~„p- »,a„ i toss Eng'ing: Rerei Gene . ~ T ~ ~~~~) '. ~ ~ A',~I I~•~,. .`+~1 9 ~ *' ~F „~ ''h~ 1 i ~~ t1 '~ _„ a ~ Advamage Tmss Systems 83t-835-0377 5iJ 1 I , -~ J ,. ~; ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ r ~ ?~ ~ ! ~ ~,3 ~ _ .a,,. _ _ ~ 0 8 C S Tim ggen B ASSa 530 304 1478 ~ • ~.Y, ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~~ I '! '.:''z ~ ~ k x ~r ~ ,!' "~ ~ ~" ~ ~ ~ ~_ '' ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ i Foundation 8 Sail Eng'ing; naorsea Mandan AES aoe•97o•sse5 j ' ' ~~+ r ' Title RBpOrt: Oenise Repeno . ~1 ~~ -~- "~( '\~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ Commmweaah Title 408.394•t399 _ .~ I ~ •p ~~~ ~ ., , - ~. ~~ ~, ' j 15'r lu~eeel ~y/Y~ ~ i ~- I ~~ r ~ List of Enclosures tlrM d AE it je',( i tl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~~~ , ` i"'-1~ . ~A t~a ° I l ~ -_-~~- IPoinadaled Fbuse ~ I t t ~ c ey ~a ~ ~ , ~~ r ~ ~'~ 4 f 4 ~~ ( I '. r 1 ~ ' „ ~ ~ t "letl~ f~"°l a a °" 7 '-a... ,~ I ( i7eaC CmuEOt ~,, a g'~, r ~ .RM~1': A X11 ~ ~~ ~ ~ , ~ ... ~ , ~.~ i `~. ~ c 5 . ~ -*•: u ! ~ I?bas: min6(1Aa3p d .. r! j ~ , f ~ja 1 EG rA I 0 rf ••, ~ - H-18C{E. Title Pege - ~ ~ ~, 1.,.. } 1 t ~. ~1. ~ ... °Ar ~qi •.• ~ t 9, ~ ;- .... i T-1 ~ ~ TopopapM1M MapN~eAF Sine Baivry 1. ~ y :, . r i N ,.., ' ~ (. b., ~ '~ t.e; i _ . , ,,.... P•I suPi~,taa~ase~au ~,,' '," .. ,: f 4 ~ i - ~~ '' `~" i~ .: ~i '' f; ~ 4° e ~ 6 ~ ~~ p~ ~~ Aa ex~woro: unaxw ~ ,, r,. >r~ q . d i y Y~ . ~ {' - A tl ~ 1 /p ~ F i A-0 GarSutinne: Highm ettlon.llviiy room, . , ~ ' ~:' , I .,. i = P ~ a •~~~J . ~ ~ eueormnin~.oRKrrowo~ 1 `` ` a 9 - ~ .. ~ ~ i C 1 General mgoiiemeau ~ J, _, ~ ~ ; ; , I i `y ,~ -' i I' I `1, f ' a • ~ ~ ~ ~o ~~ ~ a.«+ ~ P-I rode.: eM my'r ~ mr~m m pad mrnmr~a , , . r f . ° ~ @~ ~ ~I N~ ~ j P-2 Sa BarkBumnmry _ : ~ ~' f k ~a. ~~ ~ . I. , ° j ~ j 'i . ~ ~ i ~ P 4 NeigAba lacpioo M~ (muN HIW gopary) , l ,I. ~~ 6. Wee ! • ~ 0• - °a , F-S Phow - .. t';.. a ., d. ~J! rr... \ i , ~•:,~ P~ tlom Rnn ShedA ~ ~ f~ r a ~ rr/M ~~1' •~ •~~ ~... /iA C ~ "L ~ b~'r n ~ c .~ • i P$ floor Plm. SINBIm bedmmlidtfi ~ ~' ~ ~~~. •,i,.. .. • f n.: r , . ,• ~ - _ ~ - - R9 Roof 1 I it ,. ` I I '` 0 ~ ~ i ~.~ @m _ u FII ~ QatiwalComplia,ge ~ i `~ ' ~ - p ~ ,1~' ~ O a ~ ~ ~ .: ~ ~• 1 -}- 41~ v ~ , ~ u< eooomy ~e a P.,<m~mt i ~~ '~~'4 t, i. " ~ ~ awl ~. ~~ ~ ~ ~ . Front Elevation ; •LrcelediakxvdgMmmvaf ! i , - I +~ • ~ r '~;, ~ opoWn•s~mua°uAarmwrpow;erprml•ar.wrr,~a: ~ ~ ..:, ~. .. - .. .,.. - .. ,, , .. . . ,~. ~. i ~. i ~,..._ ,. .._.... -, .,, ,.. ........... 1 .. - _ G , ' , , l ~ ~, i., ` ~~ -,,`r .~. SCALE. SEE IXiWG ,i . I' ;. .i . ., f - ~ ~ ~ I ~,I ~ JGB: HILLS ~.~ ' ~' . 'r', ,. u ,~„ ,..;,~~.+~ „., ., _'., ,.. ~.,.,, .:: ." 1... ~:'.. ~I.,~, i.~:.: ~: ~, +~ f r - SHEET' ~"F". .. ., :. t, ~ . - .,. ,Ir. ,;.. ~ ~ ,~ d s' . $' - .. } ~ .. .~ - ~, ~ ~l n' ? .-.. ..r r , ~ i r, d` A ~4'~ 1, ~. .. .lr ., n~,'.. •,A i w•~i.i ~ .. + ~.~'. ~,. e , e 1 .. '. ,'e '.. ~ ).. -.... ~ti ;. ~ x w r.Y• '~ .,'4 r .:r ~k f f. S ' ,~ r.... ~ r, , ,.. .. ,.. ,.. !,.. a -'3o- r I s, s' 3 r, ,Z r. ''i» r .,:. .wA ~'. ~ -«;. .4 '~ , .., "., , r~ .. ~.~ '.'.. ~ ~..~ ., ., }~,Yy F.~ .,r ,. ., . .. . ,: , ,, ,' .. ~. , I,. , ., ,' F: ~~ i I: ' r' ` ScMP ,. , ,, ~. I - NOTES ~ . = j ... I ... . ~ v~~' 1. caplRACroR swu vEReY THE Eoarlar ov uE ununES PRIOR To. i I C O M P A N Y ~, ~ ~x1, ~ CROSS AREA:.' 67,649 sq ft. ~ CIVIL ENGINEERS .. Z. BA515 OP ElF/ATION IS THE eA.ET IN iRalf Of PROPERi'f WAS TN(EN AS i ~ - ~, i ~ 1.553 a.crea ~ ~ i ~ I , ~ i ~~ 1 .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. 370.1& RER w00DBUaf Wp CE9eN vIANS ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~zli aAld A~uE• wN[ aoe r SAN A'IbE OA, 05118 I~ ~ ~ ~ I RL (106) 1)7-5061 I + l 1 3. BASIS Oi BFAtBNOS .THE BPAAINO ~1WEEN 40NUWANTS ON RANCNO IAS ( ) 1 1. ~ ` ifl IOB 311-1608 7.. 1 ~ , CIWS WAY WA$ iN(EN AS N 7Y00'OB4 PE11 TRACT ND. 5781. - rAw Poe) ze7-ewo s ` E-eAA: SMPENpNFEABC /. iN15 SURVEY WAS &Sm UPON ~ TIRE REPQRf BY LNMONWFALnI VND n1lE i rAN00.C011 ~'V~'', V N ~ IrsuRANCE co. oImER No. Ss1loe-q arm 6TeRUm z3, re7a NET AREA: I { THE LOanON ~ THE PROPERTY UNE SHOWN 6 AP%i0%eIATE, 49, f 22 8q. f t. ~ CmsATmc ~ `~r', ~ ~ 1,13 acres I' ,, 1 f I I ,, I 1 ~'` ~• ~ ~~ . a, ~,~ Ip 31+ ~ ~~ _ . ~ ..... _ ~ . _ N Oi43'00'E ~ _ ~~ 910.13 ~~fN.~,T~Ai'~7~s~~ r,~,, ~ ~~s,r.>;.r- -rrwr- L -*~- - - - ~', 1 v5 7,L~ ~ ,I4a' .,8 ryrt.._ .. .~.fi,,` yr"~s ~ v:' r• ~ ~L < ^q~' . t. :~ w~ -sin' .~ t~ '~,"v ~~ ..r. y.4~ _ K. aa,vu ~`~r n,b a-- ~ tr ~`` - _ .__ covrmoir©1a6a - . ,,; n is 1 ~ ~+ ~ ~ ~ ~r.-~>,r a~~ j r ,~ e 1 f -, r pp r '. „~ w ~xn,is ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Il ~;~ r r y , ~ ~., ' ~ u , 4 ~ M , t' b `t ~ " r I~ ~uv. ~ ~ ~ ~ i I ~;' ., , ` t,~7, i Gr i r r ' ~ ~~ ~s ~ e~ ~ , ~~ ;r ,., i y11 ~ ~ r i ~,v r~ Ak %' ~ ~~ '~ i . 1 ~ y 1, '~ e's ~y,. nl` f.,e'XiST'S i1 "~. r ~ ~\ r ~~_ 4 - ~ ,~ t~ C1~ 4 ~ ~) 1 ~c? -. ~ i+' ~" Nil ~ 1 py. ,, I:, ` l ~ t i ~ '11,~ ,n,0, :: I ~ ~. r y: q i i ~ ~177T1r i~ I ~ t ~~.' N ~ j , - ~' ~, Vy,a l~~}, ~% ~ ,' - 18, i ~' '~ 'y. V', V irk' I r~:»1,r~,~ ~ I ~ ,j . ~ s~: ~v .~ ;~ r~ .,~'~ ~, n- ~ I~ ~~ ~.gP` ~ ~ v w ~ V~ ~ i I rr'~~`: ~,a'~'N~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ /~ "i ~ ~~ ~'~ rT - ~ .. '~'s r ~f!' ~ ' L `~ ~T ~ ~• ~ '~ 4 I T ~ ~ t9" ~~ f ~~ 7C F' 0. ~I 1~, 1 ~ 1~ ~~ ~~~ ~°'~ ~ ~ ~~ I `~~_ ~ ''~ cr ~ >- ~ do !r~'~~I ~ i14~ s $ .~ ~ ~ Q! F IV' ~ ~(0 V~~~~~ ~~'+~ Y7~r! ~ ~ r'I~r ~ wwL -.,1 ~ A~ t ,~:'v f °~~ ~ I ~ ~ '. ~ a~~ ! ~ .W-~~ .~~ ~~ I ~I q r~ I~'4 ob 'C rs a ;r / 1 1 K„w i ~ rf , ~ IL } , I li ~ i~yyr iiki f`~ ~.g~C. ~' - ~, r kh(_ `' ,a r'`~I Ef A ~ ,Pr»?' ~i ' ~ ~ ~ 1 1, „ ,,~„ j,~5a ~ ~ , ~ j' -t,! , ~r> : r ~ ~ ~ ~ 7~`` s. }r r ,m , x ~ ~ r;,a~' ~ }: I '44 ~ tea- _f ~~ .e~' .~ ~I ~ yyy4.. ~ r ~ ` I ', ~~ i ^ I ` ~`1 - s v c ,^-~'°'-F~'~~ \ , i` rr fT' ~ !'~ _ .' y ~ - \ ~ rX ~ ~ /,( .1" q tl' ~ ~ . y. t V l c r:NJ err y3. ~ ~1;Y - _ bA ,t t7~ i y >~ t ~G ,I '~ V `v t1}rrzrz~zi, r,;c~•n,,ri>:,.,,,-7M~s,.~.c:r~r,~.F`~~ >,'~'u ~ .~ A ~..,t; ,.I', ~ i1 e ~ `~~ l ~ ~~r ~ ,r d ~ ~" ~~ ~ _ - ~ tr i I ` ~ l ,1 5 91Y :6RIL6 k Oi'iGE J ~ F ;y`' tp ! ~ I Q'~ y~ r.;~..' C ~~. 5 ~,r~ ~'i C~1~IA ~ vNlir~tt~~.l.u..~:r~aa.~!ir.:~Ei?Ti?~:rl«~?iL ~~~ IV -~~s` ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~` 1 ~r~ 1NV 1 y ~a v,v~. ~\ "~f~j ~r,,~ r,N a~i't10 11 '~• ~ ~ F J,~" ~ /~ j yac, I I`, ¢ { i 1 i ~ ~~. A ~~ ~'_'-`~ ~~' sL.~u,~ ~c-,m ~a :'~''t>r'° V j p„ ' I t ,;I ~ ~ r,~ v\~~m~' ~I {NOVb'4SE __.___ b4-0;, - ~'`,~?~ ~ ~~~~ a r~ ~ ~ d ~ ,fi iy . & ~ i- I I, _ , 1 w,` ,a O`er \ p4.47~~ - - ~.. -~-~' ~~ i 14 fav\ g~ ~~ .J4W2,~ r~~r s's^?' , .. ~. ,1 ~ ? ~ 5.00 I ~~ ~~ I ~ t' 1 ~ \ \~ '-t~r~+i~~¢. r,sa ~ ~ )•', 'r ~. ,`, -x„r I II \`, ~ v*EF i .~ r.i i 1 1 ~ ,.P P __.157'. .~..«-.~--r,-}~-. _. _ ~' / ~~ NI R ~IEI Ly)~ ~ ~ j1 ir4 ~ { S}N • r f o , iI I ~ PER BOOK 3474 PA ~~~' it _ ~--- ~u1' ~ V , k' s xu st*er ~ f ,. I I I Ji woms'1s'E lczre ~ ~ ,~ EWKlpuna/Fl, , F'~~. ~ i. ~. ~. _.l yypppBANK WAY (80.Cp~WIDE) ~~ 5 , vr~n .,%.. ~ . avI ,~ .. ' , } 1 VUs-'~---------__ .__._-_-__.__----- } I»k I j: ~ T I ~ ~ v';+ MARCH 28, 2002 ~ . *=' ~~ / Cann ~ t' a 18' ~ ~ , f. ° `' ~ IAmn Ar . I.S. ~~; ' I ~; i .~ .. I ~. T-1 ~~ ~~ ~ , ., , , , ., ,, 1 I -; ~,;; , ,, 1, .i .~ a es I a t , , ~ , , ,~ ,k4 , fir. k' ,. +fi':. '.. ~. I f Y ~ .C .t ~r i; f :, . , .~ .., a t~ 1 ,. ~ a. -!LL } .. r- 3.,- ... +, ~ .,e, ..,,' ,. .. ~. .. ,.. ..„.-., ~.,.,,. Est ,, ,.. 1~.,. r t' ~ , a `"p, ~, i. ~ , , ~. , , `- ~. .~ K a.ri ~,.x~ r. .~ 'aA s ~ t 'a6 •~ ,ai mf ~,s .:.r ,?. , h ~ .x N• ,.,,~ ..~ .~ {... i; r •~ > k' t a~ <k 7 >u G ~ r a t 'f ~ ~ x. z r~' ~1' '7. ~s~, i~ ~5. 4 'eW l N : I . fit' -'a`. `' ~r~ :N, I 'H~ ~ ~,.~ ~,#'' ,;' ~ ~' ~ .,. ,x=, `~. , .,, °`~ V,~ ,t,;. { r. ,.~ I~.;~ ~ r:~jcr~L .~.~ ~~;~,>Mrz;J:,,,f,,,~ ~,-.w,. ~f ., ,..,,'.r'qr. :y;=, .~„ ,. 5 ,'' ~. a .~ ,, _ _ _ _ .. _ - . _ _ 1i ... .. ~' ' - \ \ ~ _ . \ `. \ \ _ \ \~~\ \ ~, \ \\ , `. \~ \~\ I \ `~ ~\ ~\ ~\ ~ ~ \ \ .~~ ~. ~ ~ ~.~ ~' •\ \ \\\\\` \' ~\.\\\` it ` t ~ .~ \ \ .. \ .~ . ., ~~ ~. ~ ~.. ~ ~ \ ~~ \\ ~~A ~ ~~~ I Q 5~~ ~~ o~ ,~, .5.... •, ` O ~ i i Utz t ~ ~ ~ ~• i d~ 1Ri i ~ ~ Est ~o~~.~ ~~~~m~ 1 ~ { ~ j' ~ ~.~~.i z, - ~~~~ ~>:F~~ ~ - E a ~~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~ a~d~i8i ~ ~ ~ ~~ ° ~~:1d~ did"di~d~ ¢~6 ~i •- $rTl ~~ ~ ~~ ~ [I y O O O ~ 6 _O 1/ O E~~,~! e~9~6!s:, EA~ A; ` ~ •~ ~ ~ .. .. • _ _ ~d, it d ! i j ~ • aid < :oerb iR• .g'd ~ 1 . . _ ~ ~ ' ; ~ ~ C . - :..,~ ~, ~ r ------- ,~, ~ ..K ..K ~, ~ i .d .. ~d ^ ~ 6° . Ili ~ • ~ M K I-~ N •~ 9 a - - - - _ -. _. .. _. _ .. ~~~~ glen r ~ ~ d. ~ a ` • d \ ,~ H ~ ~ •~ ,, q ~ i }}qgg ~ • i' QQ I F \ i i - i ~ :' i r- O : , .. ..a r, u• r. r+ ~..yr i. ur .a ar r..r. .. yr - . -, _ .O ~ i '. ~ House 'locotion: '. _ _ ~. ' mm~~ Ron ~c .Suzanna Hal:Is s.~ ::- :"18588 WOODBAN K..WAY ~.= H o ~ - - L, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ' ~ .. ~~ CITY OF SARATOGA,. SANTA CLARA. COUNTY, CALIFORNIA - . ~ ~ .. }. .~ m m o .'.1_S5HH WOOdbQnk-. WDy _ ~~ ~ ~..~ ~ .LOT 75, BOOK 397, PAGE 6 FROM THE OFFICE OF COUNTY ASSESSOR ~ _ ' ~ ~ ~~ phorte:~ 408-867-1177 •~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~~ ~Sarafoga, ~ CA 9500 ~ ~ -APN: .397-06-095 ~ _ ~ Y. - • ~ ~ ~~ ~.. ~. ~ N .. Fo.: ~ 408-867-6037 ~ ~ - ~.. z'.. - -- -. ,:. , ~ ~ ~~ ~ E ~ B S ~ S » a S ~ ~~ ~ ' i ~ ~ ~~_ ~ i .. . g 333 ~ ~ _ _ . f t' ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ T o ~ 3 ~ e g _ '' .. _ ~. S -. ._ .' ... ._. _.. ......_ .e: .. z3: €~ .: I . \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /~ . f 1. i _.. _ _ y ~ f .u ~ ~ m N ~ .~ - ~ Ron ~ 8c ~- ' .. -. - ~ . .. ~ S u z a n n a H i I I s - ~ House. location: _ ~ ~ _ ; , m 8588 WOODBANK WAY 1 y~ " ~~ _ ° ~ 18588 Woodbank _ Wa ~ Y ~ clrr OF SARATOGA, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA R Y - . I ~ - . o . ~ ~ ~ ~ FROM THE OFFICE OF COUNT ASSESSO LOT 75, BOOM;.397,.. PAGE 6 . - - j~~ ~ l V~ I - ~ ~ ~~ t ~ ~~ - -SCl ~E1t OCl. C]__~ ~.A. 408-867-1177 g_~Q.70 ... ~ Phone: ~ ~ APN: 397-06-075' - .... l 1 I ~~'.'I . 1/ ;7 in ~ '.' l \ V l~ f.. ' VC. ~ ~.J U ~L l../ l~ I I l u ~ ' ~1 . h l.'I 6 J ~ - ~ o~oo v~r~ - . .,~ ;;y. - _ ~ '~ = m o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CITY OF SARATOGA, SANTA CLARA~ rCOUNTY, .CALIFO RNiA ~ (, ~ -./' m ~~ ~ ~ ^' I p 1 pp ~ I USHU - YYOOd.b.O ~I I~ WO~/ ~ ~ ~- _ . - COT ~ 75, BOOK ~ 397,- PAGE 6 FROM THE OFFICE OF~~-COki NTY ASSESSOR _ " - W S _ ( .' w' .. ~ ~ o Sora.torta::CA. 95070 P"°"° ~ ~ F 408 867 1177 408-867-6037 - APN: 397-06 075` "'. ~ °a: -:. 7 t :tea. _. , ~.. ,... ~ .. ... ' 2 _ - _ _ ~ \ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ... - .; ~ „ \ \\ \\~~ \ - ~ ` ~~ ~ ~ ~ V ~\. •~ ~\~; -, ~ ~- ~:. -, ~ _. I ~ I < ' r ~ ~ .. _~..~.. _ - i ~ z ~ . r!i ~ ~-- - !~ i \ ! \ ' - ~~, ~~ _ ~ „ - ~ - --.. , .,s rn ~ N - ~ -~ ~ O o ',, ice. ~~ - ~ ~ __ ~ }" - - - -- _ - --- - - r-' r' _.. ___ ~~ ~ r~ ~--- - --- .: . - . ,,, ~'; - - C C ;.. ~. :: ~: ;~ :. ~, -LEFT ELEVATION ~, _ ,. ~;;~ ~a «: t a. "~f ~ _ _ ~ Y ~ ~' y ~ Yt.- \\\ \ \ .Z7 ` '~~ ~rn - t D ~ O ~ ~~ ..~ - - .. ~~' ~~ - O Z Z ~ ~~ ~ , ~ ~ `' ~~: ~~ `~ ';~;~. \'' \ ; r' . , _ - 1 - - -~`. '~ RIGHT ELEVATION T. ~ ~'~, ~ $ ~`'~ ~:\~~~ ~,~.~~ :~ ~ ~ ~~ ~' -i _ _. D m m -*i O O r t~ y r t~ c y ~-, 0 O D C/7 ~~ ~ ~ m ~ m Ron . 8c Suzanna ~Ils - ,. ..-,.. ., 858 'YY444, ~ IZ W ~ . `- r ~ o ~ ~ - ~ - CIT' OF SARA A.`~~G~ TA\C ~C 1JNlY, CALIFORNIA -'-~ :~ ~ c m ~---1=8588 ~=-~Woodtsank Way - ~ -- _ ~ ~ - ~ _ ~-" LOT 75 BOOK 397 P ~ '' E ~"6 FRm~ \ E - \ ICE OF COUNTN ASSESSOR .~ ~ .~ ti ~~~ -541- dt0g4~ ~.A ~~ 95070 - F~na~- 408 867 6Q37 , , ~ , APt~(: .-59~-. , , \b~``.` .. .. . - - - - - ~.'~~ - ,a; ~ _ .. ,_ -.. .. - - _ 3r ' - .. ... _ _. _ - ~ _. .e ~' .. - __ -- ' . - Li, :. -{. }, ' ~ ~..I'. { ' ~. ~• . J %.l ,i; ,:; . f I ' I I'~'~ } ,. '~i <~ k +'~~ - 4~. S1(_y ~EJ?p? ~ , '~f I l i ~~. ~ s 1 ~. 7 i! ~- .. -. r - i ~ I 2X6 (EDGER 2X8 LEDGER ~' ° 0 ~U, ~ kl i~ ~ 2X12 DF f2 STUD WALE 2X12 DF ~2 STUD WALL ~ 2X12 DF ~2 STU WAtL kit OF d2 STUD WALL ~ w ' ` RIAY TRUS ES W/ 3-2X1D'S I W/ STUDS AT i6" O.C. W/ STUDS AT 16' O.C. ~ W/ STUDS AT 1 O.C. f / STU S RT_ 16' D.C j ~ ~ ~ ~ . . SEE 4D0/S3 fOR AT 48' O.C. F R ARCHIiEC1URAL iv , Q < ` , lYP SAVE OETNL ~ I ~ 1 I/2' GYPCA T OVER 3/4' TkC PLYW000 FOR IN R R HYD ONIC HEAT i ° ~ ,; ~ _ .. _ _ ~ ' I 14~ TJI S AT 16 O.C ' ~ I r 0 ~ < 1 o ; _ _ ~ '' E , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - , ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 'a Cn ' i -ENTRY ~ ~ ~ I ,Flt - " 0. ~~ W ~ . I,I IN ROOM 1 ~ I ~ ~I ~~: ~ ~; _~; I'I" : ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ U ~ ~ . I. I N 1 ~!- d o .~ ~ ~i'N 2X12 DF'2 STUD WALL 2X12 DF ~2 STUD WALL ~ I I L I ~ GAME ROOM ,; i~ I ~ Y.Q Ll ~ W/ S100S AT I6" D.C. W/ STUDS AT i6" O.C. ~ ! ~~ -~' ~ j= ! ; il' I ~ ~ ~ ~ I ' t ~ I I ~~,, m I. I_ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ o t SEE 09/51 FOR SEE 109/51 fOR ; i, I I ~ ~ F a ~ ~ - BASEME T WALL DEiA1L ~ &1SENENT WALL OETAII _I I lip :;° a. ~ Z ~ ~ u ~ 4" CONCRETE STAB FLOOR WI IN FICOR HYDRONIC HFAT 1 I ` I ~t II~C !. o ~m ~ . ' . ,Y ~, ' ' - 4' CONCRETE SLAB FLOOR WTTH IN FLOOR HYORONIC HEAT ' ~ i ~ ,' ~_; -~~, ~ } m I l . ~,. 4: il II ;. k. , ,..,_, '.. . .L.. :, ; .. ., .I. I .. _... ...._ _ ~ ...- li'. ~.. i .III _.. I ~.. .. II ..._II I I. _. -.. !I..._, III `.. I ! .... '.I .....i i III , it ,_.. ... -ICI. 1 i ... I I ! I....- ~, I ,. . I ~_...I I ~ .. II~ 1 II~; ~I I L I!; It' ill 'I ~I I. ..:I ~,. ~.... ~, ....~~ tl--I.; ...... i'-.... I .,, i..._,I'..... ...:. I',.. -v., i .I I .i l; I .:. ,.... ~, ,,. I ' ~ .,,... I;!:.:. I, .. ,.,~,_.. _._.; I 1..._ '. I _ :.'~' '.._ ,I: I.:.. ~'~' Q. ~ 0~ H,Q Q d': . .. , - , : _ I I ' I ; I ; 1 l i I : I I I ~ t I _ E i I . ~ ", - , f , - , , , i , .. : ~ ~ - - .m. ~ ~, ~ CROSS S ECTION CROSS SECTION CROSS S ECTIO N ~ ~ 4 A 6 I ~m, ,,,.I A5 ~ A5 A5 N n , SCALE 1/2" PER FOOT SCALE 1/2" PER FOOT SCALE 1/2" PER f00T ' , o J 12 "= q TYPICAL ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . n n 1. n n, ~$ ' ~ I I' ~ ENGINEERED TRUSSES AT 24 O.C. m ~ ~ ~ 12 ~ _ ~ m I ,~ 2 ~~ SEE TITLE 24 CALCS FOR CEILING ~ ~ ~ .. C,: SEE 401/S3 FOA AND WAIL INSULATION s i ,; ;' ~~ ' ~ TYP PATIO EAVE DETAL ~ j ' j y` - ~ ~ ~ f ~ SEE AOD/S3 FOR C LL G4 '.' i~~ ,. ` I ~ y ~ ~ ~ lYP EAVE OETAII I ,~, ~ ~! . ei, ~ ° ~, . `' ~ 4 a + r ~ ~ j i ~ I ~ ~ 2X6 DF TUD WAIL OFFICE o ' o BEDROOM y ~' ~ r ' i W% STUD T 16" D.G. o . V I p , > a ~ Q I, .i °~ 3~ `'. ~I f , ! , ' SEE 10B/Si FOR ` ~ ~ ' SEE 106/51 FOR ~ p ~ k TYPICQ POST PAD DETAIL 4 CONCRETE SLAB fL00R WI1H IN FLOOR HYDRONIC HFAT ttP!CAL SLAB EDGE DETAIL +' ~ 0 ` F , ,~ '; ~ VIII ~;-IL_I !I--III--- ~--III- ~ ~It.. I!.. .11 ,..I ,...._~..!__ U _I ~. :111. I ,_Ii~ ~ ; I ~ !- I .,j !,,. {~ -- I I. ~ _ I .-11' ~I~F I LL r E~ .' ,. , , : _I~f:"~~II_III_. _ I ~ IfI II- _I!;_.IIt==I~l== I~-I1~ .sll-I! -_ ~I! ! ~ I 1 i ~! I ._~I ::;*tI~ "!~I~~I~_ (I~~ .;II.- ~I! .1 _ .i~ ~I~__ ~I ~ II Ili I I i-_ Ili !~ I !_ I. , . . . . . _ , _ . __ -,, I^- I I 1.... -,I I-11.1 I i I,.., I tI ..j~ .,.I,._ i, ~ !'_- !I~ !.I-~-~,. I1......!I !I ~ ~ !~~--•llr -!~!--°I~!-1,1-~!hi I"_I11 ~I!_.! ~--~I~ 1~--iL 11!~-,1~ .!~~-~• ", !I -.~~- . _ . I'.I ;; J.tI :._ {r f°--I 1 '! -Il~'- ! -~{I~ ~ .j. ~. ~ ~ <~ 1~ , : a ,~ ,,,' ATE:. 0.:08-02 . t~ _~.,. ,n, - - ~ - GALE SEE.DRWG . SECTI 3 CROSS . ON ~~:HI , . , SHEET 1 ~ f~ ,_ ,: , A5 r .;~ ~: SCALE T PER ~f: i ; ~1 ; ~ . ,µ x ,, .p ,, , ., - - ~ . .~, , . , » .. i. ,_. o ..~. v ,: I':~ f~ - ' ..,~ ~ ~. . , .. . j .. .1 f. .,~ ,. a ,,, ,::,. ,, .: .. ,. ,, .. , ,. .,s ~,C P.; ..: .... ,. a',-~ .H.r~.. ,~:':. r,~ 'kaC r~.d" 'r i+s ~. ~, i. ~, ;/ ..;. .. .y ;-.... ^{ .:' 1. r. .i <.,~„ „ ,~' -. ~. F`a, yn 4r~~r~ .\v tr q I .. ,ip, sa . .rs ~i , .,.. ... ... , ,r ,~. ..~. ~.~. -~^ ~,». ,yak. ~ .,. f~ .. .1 r`(,, ~..L .i. .k fl-•, 4^+" H~ .. :~'~'., ;.h k7 }.~ l "<''°, 1 ~. T- ,)~ ~1:' , ~6 t vi wood FRAME `Fax; 408-867-6037 Ron tJl S u Zan n a H ~ I I S phone: ' 408-867-1177 A. ~IAIe R~w rrto~"~~AaOprt o~'TMW1N0i'aR cwIIFYAn NsPEbs m erR° - ~ .:. ' ~ F ''; ~ ~ p u . 18586 Woodbank Way • A. , 7. mIB YDRN MUST CONfaW m ME cmwE CONSfAIICRJN AEWREYENR «UBC ~ ~ ': ~[',', A MOOp SUPPORT EYBEODm NTO CAWIC WO BF PAESSIWE iRrA1F0. Saratoga, CA 95070 A UNDER FLOOR CLCNVNCE r0 8071«1 Lf JOOR, le', DINOER} IY. ' C, PIArzS. SILS MO SIEEPEAS; iDIaALIMI 00.10E PAESSNE 7gEAlm OR R[06000. ... D. CaWN3 AND Pp5T5; ELLYAR I' IN NR Aput, ~ ,: E. WRpfA4 ENR0110 YASONRI' OR COWR[R GALLS; I/Y NR SPKf TOP, SOO'MD ENDS. ~ ~ r, f WNNnON KNIMIp11; M ID. R. Pd 100 90. R. « iL00R A1RA ,j 0. X000 AW pA1N 5®MA1NN; e' YNIYUY pR PR[}SIIIS iAFAF° NpW. I House location: :" ,i ' " 'N, , ~ SUIWRNW W SIUNE PfRYUBLL ROOFS KD iL00R5: A[DMLNTD OR PACSSIINE 17AU7m ' •' - City of Saratoga Calffomia Santa Clara Count , iI I. YOISIURE DLMIENT N ipU7m HOOD; IIR YVIMIY PAINT ro B[WG CMRm. , y, ' "'N J. wDm RRNNIW wNAS; SHML BE PRESSUAE,aa>m MDDD. Lot 75, book 297, page 6, from office of County Assessor ~' K. A'FAMER dPoSURE ABM 0Om' [I£YARBY, dPOUO SiR11CNPAt MCNBER9 AVL. E PANND OA 56VED FOR OUTCOOA USG. APN: 397-06-075 " 1. WN1 NKANR 11000 sN05 suPPCRnW WAE IWN iM! FLOOA4 MD A ROOF, ENCw[ER TOR Saratoga Zoning: R-1-40 000 ' SMRNIV°[. , .,,"I ~ M, f100A FRANMO DESIGN PER UBC . N, NRE SFOPS; CONCf4m SPACS, 10' LENCN Oi wRL AI CWCWm KAnGLL I NORZOMK NiERSE C n p R SiNR} KN15, PIKS MD FIflEPUCEA .. S T p py UY 1Nq ° pwCLLIW UMf53 AlA1CLLICH1NrAXV1E5 MO iE WR IpCO°1NnYfl'AAfA} ~rrlC %~WILADSS (,~ D s~E R. OR m LN. R. WMWYI SHEET ~ C 1 J. ALL wWN b ro mnraAU ID us A BOOR JWSR ME 70 BE OESIDNm PER UBC • I, BUAIXO; I 1/7' MOOD, ]' MASONRY. `I~. ' 'A L JDb C io U~ Y~N +E m A E ma a° ~ r NGa°c ~ND ~ R I S I ,~ ' EX « O / O mll x loP pA w bf I I I ro oENo '~ "C 'Of i ~"w R U ~ ~ lix` s ro a vr o's m f/ ° ` N ° e°r hIJTE: : :. '~1 • r PhAr µ o D 10D P t, A abr raA N bR E ES O ro N O TMIr e n BE LAPPED + oR nfp IN /PPROACD YMNER ALL REFERENCES ON THIS SHEET TO THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE AND UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE ] ,MMWR MD MAaR JDRT ro ~ DDYBIED WHEN ePM °"'FAD`" EmEEDS °` HENERS THE UNIFORM ELECTRICAL CODE REFERS TO THE 1996 EDITION REFERS TO THE 1997 EDITION MORE iHW 0 SPM OR SUPF«RIW NOOR CMWi BE PRESSRE BLOCNm, , . /. BURNC WNIS PERPENOICUVA 70 ,pIBr3 NOT 10 BE OiT]U YORE iNM EPM OF JOIST, Jasis PMNLFL 70 edaW wN1 N BE DWBLO. } BLOCKING OF JDSR Pq UBC A SLSROOpM., JWNR ro OCWR QFEA SUPPORTS MD CONFOMI ro UBC nYwooo m caxioRM ro I,m TABLES ~ GENERAL FOUNDATION AND CONCRETE OR BLOCK WALLS c PMTKLe mrRO WapuwExr swu e< ME /-M. D. wut iiNMNG: UBC I. NL rRw OR AFWaIID SIRUCNPES AIVSY NWE AGGRESS NUYBCAS PIKm 50 M N BF ClfA9LY 1. PRWAOE 10 Y 71 IWX AEESS, UNOBSTRUCRD BY PIPES OR OUCIS. UNaA FLOOR WGHIN 2tl OF fKM NSRLE iaaM M AccESS sTREEr ofl flo/n nlwewG afNrar. xR uec. I, slWS ro mNrow/ ro u~ 7. W~1~A~c«nFlarz a paUPMOY R REamAm PAIDA to THE usE °R aNPIAVr «TpuR 7. rw0 11 coNnxuas REAYI amulpEO w EKN Fno1NCMN1- vEA uec. . , a, I ' 1. DOUBLE TOP %A1E~, VP.SPLKES YNII~W b', iNREC 5103 PEA CORNEA. MT SNDS h0T PCAMI11Ep. SiU03 SPAAaapp AI 11 i0 NNX/ wlMw S Of 1NUSSfS, OR J0151. ' } SLCPES dCfEDwO 1]S, OR CUTS. OR FILLS WY REOJNE 40U dpNEfR. ]. UCDICCD [NCNEfN R f0 P~AIa DESIGN DF Nl RRNNNC WNLS 02R 1e' TALL MFASmRE FWtl BOROY Of TOOTING i0 rDP °f SDIL ' '. OLLS NOi l6S INN 7 iNCYNfs} Wll COAFW N BE Nlm FOR SNO SPNYN0. J. NL ExRAKR W/119 SIFPONI WN15 SNLLI BC BA/CFD PER lbC +. ALL BNl01W PADS 'ARC BE OPKED 711 MAY FROM BNLONG. PEA UBC. } S[RCMIR PRONSKN9 10 BE INSTALLm PCA UBC REWIRINOA9 /, USE CONCRETE W (7000 PY S MIND PER UBC. ' 5. PRDOOE A YNNUIX COWRFIE SUB MOOR 7HCMNE55 Or ]-1/2 IWNCS. PER UBC, ` 1. [xRNO SLL Bafl i' MINWU4 w CONCflErz FOWNWNS. 0' OC. WURMUM SP,~CWG OR AS PER Y « 7 e r eaa0 AS WE M I W r wmlix 17 Of kKN EW 'E R ; 1, CAIPPI[ WNy} stops LESS fMM 1A' MOl NtOwm WHEN MALL NEI~Hf ExCaDS A', Im 4wNU $ E/a slu LL L . . C a MECHANICAL / PLUMBING / HVAC S NL ears ro WNE 7Yr xJ Te wASNEfl '' l ;: uu duos sbm Fan /DWIIaxIL slum, WILL IupWrs pKapwo a lD BE BAACm As fMi 57GRY WMIS roR iH[ BUIDIW. I. vAOYOC TIM-srom KNO / mYNSIION Aw. PER NAG L roUXN,IpNS SIIPPO0.RNC YWO SxNl ExRNO AI LuSi 0' ABM 1HE ADJKEM lNISN C0.1DE. A S, NUDERS m B[ SRO FOR ME L«OS AXO PAOAOm rIRN Wi If1R 7NM I-1/7' BfAOMC OR YOAC A9 CONS OKtaE PEa UBC. 7. AT7C NRNKE N AAG LASS 1HW Y rIGN r0 BE USRO NA ATTIC USE. YIWMUM JO'A70' AaRS ' DOOR MIINI 10' a UNIT. PROAa 71 wpE SOUO UTwNAI MO RECEPTACIE AND UCIIr AI OA 0. PROIEE Cx10110R POSE MO4 OEIIPIOWWN, PIKE BASE I' X02 FxPOSm C0.NCRER MD e' ,I P XFM uNR MIX A IICM SMIDI AT ICE95 ODOR. IEKL JO' MOC MTroRM IN rRaO OF ABM EMM. PEA UBC. A IPES IM NIAltS. pWN[ AND •Ob15 PAAKLa ro PWNW MNIA SPUE WT 0. MIFR WITX I/e', I-1 J]' IPDE MFIEL SIRW wnN 1-IBe W+7} flGl SATE iPEAOX. PE UW. 9. CONptER OA WsOHRr PRAS sw11 Ex1CND e' /BODE GROUxO Oa BE REON°°0 01 PRESSURE ' ' t , i L i, ENDS INWIO A N[WO 101f.1sT MICXIFBO Mrq [MLFmNC 50 Sw11 WN wNL CQCwW OR BOOCMG IO PAOAE U7[aK SUPPORT, OF UNR. UGM MD Rm[PtK1.E itR/.1m wp°0 POSTS. PER UBC. MIIAMUM ACCCS} M1MIN 70 } UNDER impR FLWINCE RCWURS SO Al UVn. UWR SIA1CXm Ai AIXNSS. vfA UW. 10, NON-40NaAXIGLIY POURm fOUNU RCOUIRE AODipNLL RCINfORCfYCM, BOM KAfxH , F ~ ~ e. mrrnm MD AA77dOW. N urE0Op AAD eEImND rues aA oR Wrcll ro aE IE54 1. NDFi11E SR Na « NFAnW SR1FM, MUST xAYE NU1NC fKIMES W/HL2 « WMNNNG MD NOARONfK OR ANPROYFD DE Oa RAED OfSON~ PER UBC. .,. A a001I IEYPERAlURE a mr Ar A P«I1 ] REr MANE ME iLDWI N ALE warAeLL nlVt 751 STUD WIOM. IINI-BCMNO STUDS Iwi. ROOMS, tT rOUNDAnOIR SUPPoRIm ON FlLL RCWIRE A 500. INKSnCATpH REPom MD A MPOM OF ' SATRfKiOm iwL AEPLAEMEM, PER UBC mS MINIYW CO4PIC110N. '~ ~ 9. BORED MWES, 10R WYNUY DNYRCR 10O1rFp NOf aOEER INW 0A' 70 [IIIAR EOOF DO NDi LO S CU1 OR NOi[ I 0011 K ONID N iwD N 3ND R 6 SECT ' N!K CONTROL WIRES Ei005ED IO WU7NER INSrNl M CONOUR A SECURC MBC i° SIRIICIVRE ~ ' ~ . G N NIF ON A ,{ L AIaESSNE OOUN[D SnpS PADAOm NOl GIBBER fWN e/e SO EpNCR [OOL . . N9AM0 ipt ENRPoOA USE. PEA LMG 17. wUW POSES OR POLE FWAEWCD IN fMM SNNL BF PRESSURE iquiEp WRN IPPAMD PRFBFINA- ; ', d .. ~ ma. PEA um. 0. PAOWE B' CLURWCE W CO48USnON AW SOE Of NItlYCC AOOY AND SO' WRpW SPKE w ~ql} '~ E Ap« 11p CEM1MO IMlllxa PEA uec fA0N1 E ALL Num+o WNnI0L5. PFA UMC. Jl ' (~'.~ 7, FlCOR Np WALL NRNKf9 WY W7 Bf CIOSFA iNM e' TAW M MSOE ROOM CORNER b ~r t 1. N[N 810PC {199 1XM AI YEYBU4 SlPpppMO RNi[R9 Mp CNNO.JWNS 0101 Ab AOOE} NA7 AW VALLEK 111 W DapNlD Ai KWS. PFR UW, ' L U IJ' '" " e. PAOKN YwNUM afM7tNlE SPfCA7m Br 7X[ YNUFK'NRLR BOMEEN cuss 'e'/NM^ NEIA AW MASONRY FIREPLACE N/A R 7 Na1A ME',10 CMOLT Wnli ME tANt3 w ux CDYBUSIIB{f W1FAV1 PER LNG. . i ' ' 7 i 7. /RY®A0. RyrEpS R) BE q~C7LY OPIOYR Af PoOOE. B~[ °fNM A Wi l6S 1XW I IWVA XOT LLSS MW CUr 0/ 0.ViER I01 VALLEIS XW} 10 B[ ! x W NW 1. MdNX MUS7 BE le w iRONf Of MD e BEYOND SOFS OF FlAFBOx WHEN OPdNO R LfSS . 9. PAaWF 70' CLENWICE rRJN RMOE LOP TO COWUA10.f WIEAWS. FOR dCEPBaS SEE UW a p. IL 70' Ix f%!M «MO 17. 9EYOND LES wXFAE aPdINC Is VROER M4Y a q. n UBC N SOME SIIINna9 CLFJRWas WY BE 1E55 N W , N ~N . NFN11N WY NEm M BE VRER fOA SOME 51025 PER WNUfAEURE SPECS. . t /. AMOI iE} iE KL 09P~9P17 [XIfAKR MALL9 K NNlNO JCIf19 CA I K {CADS, 7FB SPKm NN MORC IILW 1 ON CFN101. ~ 10. A AFANLY KCESSXRF APPAMD APPNNLE CONNECTOR MLLK SHALL N MAISE9 M MC N0. L PRa/a 1 KflACK IR' AEBVt. MO HOOP RS FJCN 13' MD nE aNMNE! 10 AUItpN° AI dLH PPNC /LARD Or M[ ulKN Cg1NEC11OV IM AOOflION Tp iNE BURNER YNK PROADFD QY THE EILINC MO FLOOR. R UBC. APPLLNKE PEA UYC. 1 ~) 7NN « 7 x b IB i`~ fS~ MGM /51N0r A 7 B' M' 7. SPNN MRESIFRS REOUXim ON WIIMNd. PFR CPC. 11. PROAC PA«RI WYBUSnON M KNR PER UW, SR « NOr II53 iNM 1 x I , g BClE7! 7 fAUR L OECIRLS FmM NOIeiORPlKi.10U1N.BAACEO LfH°M X01 n1 Exam B RET. 1. fINEPIKES MD BMBCCUEY SNLL COYPLr rAiH uW . ~ IL NSfN1 7UO C Ay~f ACTORI {NLpUCE Siaf Ilm CNIWkY 1° YWUpCNREPY SPFCFIG- ' W ~ } BLaYOW. AAIR9S ANO CDIJNO ~m BC el°CIM1O. RU}4$ U7EN1lY 0 AT B PoW R/ SOIAI 70 PRCKM A01A1pN MD ObNA'XYOR S DATA f£R UW. 10.MIA SUBLO 4E A4D WNUFKTURER YS N II APPAAIM SNYl CONPoAY 70 INE RmUTAD2Nf5 °f UBC ! WC p N Hf ,d ~ . &~ U 1} CN . I O A W f ' ~ T. ~Of sFEMHIW. mlNrs ro OCCLM tt SUWR19. FLYAD00 m c01d0aY m uec YMO! 1p BE BONGO BY NTERYEON u, iOMIDR « WOWOW NExlwc smRYS wNKN EKIExp MRacx aauwm SPACES sxuL eE VENEER CWICSm Pd UYC ' ~A ~_ ~~' P~" F%1dIO9 QU[. SNUMBR 0005FD M ~ UNO(RSa B01DED WIIN ExiFAOR aUL fNFAMAp b NOI P[RNRFO ABM 77m CLLW . I. KNE[R Y4LL BE INSIKLm WITH 0 WIRE SECURED ro BRICK nC5 7/' O.C. xWtli0NTN1T, VENEER t} Sap TUEL-BURNNC APPWNCES SW1L NOT BC CWNFCNO ro GAS «O0. KKR. PER UW. OYCA NUA RR M NfpllT WST ~E INSPECRD DURRC CONSRUCnON. ,. . 'f ,. ' to ,,~AB5,, ppAN,, CWBUS1pN NR KKR. Np CItlIrRYS Exn:NDwG w10 M AIDC SPKE SMNL BE n 7. KNRR OKP 70' MGN REWIRES mWEERNG. PEP UBC. PAOIKND N A SIEa'E SNCN IXONOS 12 INtO 71B Af11C OR e' IBM wSUUnON OR OMRMSE 1 ~, ~ BE PApRCRD FROM COM/C1 rIRM wSUUTpN. Pd UW, } KNRN usm 10 SUPPORT NFAYY lMDS OR UNR15 O(OL TOUR FEET LOW SXNL BE OFSF.VEO AS . COWMNS PLR UBC Y . . 17. NSTNL ALL fKom a9YMER N ALCNIWICE WIM W WFNONR[PS lbIING WG '~ STRUCTURAL ' ) ;~ YNIYUY AeDFf 0.0N Mn11N td OR IX ACCOADANE 1A ALL FK10m IYNF,f9 ro iFAYNATC 71 UYC WRN 4ANUF S LRINC MNKHEAER R CMARR i I p. 1. KL MN0.4ACNPFD 1AUffi4 W ~ D[SOllm %A AEORRFm CML OA SIRWII.XV1 FXCRAER . , , . A ~[ M RI[ STAR Of. CALFOiW 1~IARM NO SPEtlFIGTICM 9NYL BE NauDNM rouPUOfI 101Nf gygpNB MISgM "ETA NL °Ci01 LDLOS RPORT / C , APPURIEM7G} WISi~ BE aX n9'. HOOF fRYip NM. A GARAGE r9. Nlllpl Aa APPLL4lCES PEA Uec RE00REMEXR. I; I. A alE-STOm CNRORT EMIACIY OPd ON iW0 NDF] NFEO MOT INK A RRE SEPAAA7pN. UBC , I . 3 ~ , p I ~ 9. BRKF ROOF NIIgYS OU YINWACNAFAS BPECPIGIINB. ~ ATAUSS ro RAC 910WA1E Y[IXOO N NMWN4 W/ RWM '. } CUPS A7 P)wT[R 10. W YA1ER XG7EI1 OA NnNKE iWl OCPENDS WV THE WYOISRW « Na /OR XUi SXNL BC INSTALIEO N NNT ROOM USm 0A OFSYdI[0 TO 0E USm NA SIF[NW PURPO &11CpOM 7. CMKf MNLA MD aNW /DJ/CENT 70 OR WOER WRW W REpARE ixE INSfNUTYWI W7EAW.5 /PPoIaID TOR ENC-H011a i1RE-AESbINE mNSINlC1pN M iNE GWOE SWE MD A Y I~ ~ , ~q RM} a07NE9 CLOSET OA ORIEA CON1Nm SNCEO OPENNC MO X71 BI1XR°OY O(1 BEORWM. dFEPRON ~9 SFKm COMORTKN CWIBER rRE NURAS OR W7FR NuTLNS. PER UPC !UYC. OOMM. apU05CiS PD~IE1p,171M1°NC. MK 1°OLL"00°SIWL°°°&R 71'CA:aW"SNER YRKWP~ER UB G WMC A"lm I I ~ ~ A NNinpArz AO°F'POR PNpRO (DOR2ERIWj MM ADM GOES MN IAwt I//' Pd F001 (IL100.NI) 71. 0.6 /PPLY7Kf mYPWMEM DOOR R 71' MINMIY MOM. F(R UPC ! WK. S. NpYE /PPIINpf9 SWLL NAK GLOM 11' IBM FLOOR Alp BF PRJiECTEO SPARK d ptR10N ~; i • A ~~ IpT & USm ro PEpYV(MLY SUP1a11 MC WB 10W OF LLASpWI OR , . fAOw AUTO WPKI. UW _ 77. 0 5A ~ARa R[ac O[P/AINExT P7AAUr. LOUBION b SUBJCA m CxIU BNIONG 5 s F Y i ~ ' ,. , .. BE A. OVWE DOOR EPNIYS WSi BF NW WPR020. A B°A ~ NOi °~ " O Y *, ` . Yl90NR9 pi 'i,A ~R9BND1 BEOU{EO i0 WRBOMX FOAES mMIRIMm h 0M PUI UBC 1 A'm NE B IPPW'ICFS A aMRAI YIICWY MD RUYBING PIPE9 OKOIGN 1HE fNERV1 SNNl BC MRK. 7} ~ ~Ml OiLSM~ M~ rMW ~ Y F.M [OIIEG R E KA p/RC L 7 p B q~p9l~ RR/°I~CUgK {ON (!°I PCR LRRK w01 PoR aDOa9uFr, 7' O ~ Ar ~r9P m NEtm 51WL N°i R IMSFNim N M /B02-CNAOC-VNOR-RONI 9PAa OF ~tf WIESS A MIICIIEN NO°OS A[NN-NRES N(O OIxCR [MXAIRi fM1 pNLL WK NCI( dWT D'ABDb, . wa LpunM 6 PPMOCD MM M APNID•W MrAJb NR NFWYK ar INBIMI(0 GM. uW . , . " r ~ ~ W A .OLSBM AtCONF fdl 001 ~ PER SOIYM r001 Y101MI POI UBC. ' ' . M 1AOlEt1 PD[5 IRON FRlTZW7. PER lWG ~ ~ T. B10Y1 IM IMSUU110N IOONRLB ! ro IS PH01 YAXRINI, wmF A 70' AAnC Ar ROCC AW tl ' BYrus M FAK AoRB t01 r-N~1 r A. 019RY 81NR NO1B! IOA 1001 C«Rp1IMlm TOLD .PEN UBC , " . , '. 7} 101PObAf IRE OF °A4 NWL CgRpPoI TO ME PLOII,PELRYR OF IXI U0.' YO UYC Al6WOd0 A' ORUADOFI 9BirNL01 SXYL COMq~7(A CWfPIGR aRA711X0 eRiAlu110N. POST W A PEN UVC IOXY AEIq MIC 51iklY ~ , s " • ',. ' ~.. j •ni I,,.9 I ~ Y ~ . . , .. .10.1 BiW9 OdO4.D m RUAIOI NWA4 AB aas~wc'1RFam MIN M APPB1Fm PRESW/-' ~ ,.,~~ uec' t+. . ' , ~;~ " ~ ' ' ': ~ . . , , „ . %IpX ro flNi. r-74 , WI4R000IR RAC[ N MBINO ~'' iA BE rulRMm A Aa 70 A xoart Wr ~` b . '+ •: ~ ,~~ v"'~"uec r~aw~Ea nPe~ n' , t, o.':wAnin erAV ortFRDA i~ip wrcrbetas m pxeiuxc do mom ID ADple/MEU Maal " ~6401~"iva"~"o'M11OAma n~a Dw~ wn r - ` ~ ` ': , ~, •~ . 8.'S ,~ , • NB MO) DtfNlim OM II[ 100101E IqQ p'Am OW-VM MIN PR UBC, , v 11: SYYI.iWG CUR, •. : . AO[ a4W11-f01pAIwYC wICC.'r-7A. AIB NBW[D m Ou S „. I ' t, ~ N.. , i . ti .• . ' A m - P RRO OF NWOl011 E101100 ON ODpol NOSE BI&T ~ 97 ' /f - ~ ' F _ , ,.. ' ' y .. f ' u - .. ~ . ..~ ,. . .. , ,,Ai • ~ ' . .~ ,y . F A ;~ , FwiNWeYOM YUO a1MPLT•MIM SDY[ APPL7VIa OFIG0101 NNONBS: ECR ~ . X ~,FI0."NE ,1 +. v i; 1 4 I. , . .j, ., . "x ,., . xl ~, ,. E N lr -. , . , .IF, - d i!' I r.:~"' Y#nI p .z >oY1 .. .~~ d 4~f7 }.. ~. '. h ' -r .'!. I- EXITING I. Nl REQUIRED siANS SMNL' WK A YNIYU4 RUM Of 9' MO A W71YUM RISC Oi e' AYO Sw1L HANF A MwWW WIDiX a JO' EMEUSM « INYWWL. EKRY RNRWT b i0 WK , J YNYUY OF ONC NMO0.AN. UWINCS INK YIN ]0' E AIW. ' 7. A DO0! N A R-] OR Y aCUPANLY WY OPEN IN Al A LMWND li 1NE UNDNC IS W YOIH ~ ' iXM 1 I/7' BELOW ME iLOOR LEYEI. II } VNOINOR R DOWIS %E SECTION 1011.10 WLI IB9+ UBC. / T Y V ~ M °Y N A . ~ ~ N, P[P UBG S CNAWAr W} A SiPNGXT R MNEN ME Wi d EEO Ii SU~DiNS EN m I ' } EttFAlOA StNI1NAY5 SXNl BE CONSTPUtim PER IOOe.IJ NOL 1 IM1 UBC. 0 p 3 P A ` AP03 F e' RMN. 1J EN FOOT 1 PAppF. ECK FAMINO ro SIOR SNNL BE W1Ep SUlID UNOEANGRi '~r. MRE STORY OIYfLLMGS REOJIAF iMO EARS. lIIpY lRD NO01. PCR UBC. INSIE R-I AW 4 OCCUPANCIES MUST & Al lltST Je INCHES NOH W1H 0. CWAORNLS FUt R-] , INFFAWWIR RNUNGS SPKEO SUCH M1i A 1 NCN SPHERE GNWf PASS TXWU01 Ari PCMIM OG ME ANLIW. INSTIII A WUROAM DN KL VNWNGS M DECK AREAS WAE iNM JO INCHCS AEM ANOMINC LLIEI. PER UBC SEC110N S00 1991 0. STNMAI3 SHALL RE Je' IH wIDM (YwIMUM) TOR OCCUVNl1 lND9 L6S INN 50. iqt. 30 ql j MORE OCCUPMrs tNC MINIWY WI I$ 11. PER uBL 10001 1991 N"~OR DRF2NAY5 iM TOP OR BOf1pM, PoSFR WY ~ •i J 10. ~ A w M iE R N D P 1 r N R Sf ~ YA I GC R OF i N S 7 I ' I. ro "I'L °~ I aN iou N s' C"w s ° d E u ° nR i o R" 0 u O A rs S °'1 r aaE a U,v iN i N P RwA iE xA s NA sioE aB + Y Ai V E N AH DNNLS ax or+ E NEm WI HAK WWPNR. LME INNRYCONrz GUMOANLINGS NUSI BE swan SuCN 1X17 A 1 IWH SPPERE CMNOi PASS TrRWGH NM FNNipa! a NE PNUNG. ME XEICM OF ME xWNWL MUST BE BCiMEN N AND ]e IWNES ABM THE WSNG OF iNE IIwAB. MC ENO MUSE Bf RENANm. I ' SEF SEC11pN 1000,9 1991 UBC ~ OCCUPANCY 1. OIWNSON KL wNWwS, SHOW MU tWJ OPENS. EGRESS AEdIWY MNDOw NWWY 70' w10C, 7/' XKN MD NET MU N 0.7 SI R M' MAMYVM FROM ROOK. PER UAC JI0.1 1901 , ' L BMS DR GRILLES ON ESfA°E MNOQNS I1N'RMD aCLEASE MECNM154' W WAE TNM 11' /802 naox. vER uec. s. cu7lxc N wzwoous L«Anaxs SIKL mYPLr MM sfclpN 71ee Ie9+ uBC. A DOORS / S10RM DOORS; EXCEPT JKOUSRS B, SUOCRS C NB SHDA'EA D, GU7 C MMIM tY OF OOOA MO WITHIN e0''N BOOR OR wKA1NG SUPfACE . E, dCE55 OF 950. R. MO MMIN 10 « FLOW1. F. wMW+aeE pOpR} D NAapps N wzMDDUS LDwaxs. 1. PRpAroE vEHr to oursroE roR CLONES oRRa. UMC ' 7. BATHROOM MD MLLItt fM SHALL AE CMANE' « S NR CNANOa Pd XDIIR. PEA UMC. ~ e, A ROOM N MIKM A XARR GLOSfT Is LOG1fD SNW.~AF SEPEMIEO 7804 7000 PA[PAPAnGN OR SroPAGf RWNS BY A TIWIi iIIIIW D0p0. PEA UBC. - i, W OPEWNGS BETWEEN CAAKC MO ROOMS usm FOR SLEPNC. UBC e, PANRDE MINAAIM « 74' N FRONT OF TOLE7 BDM ANO !0' MDM: UBC. . BEFNEEN S~tNR 3iRWER"~S I1M1 °D ~ ~°P A«HD BDTM77SMI 6E1wEEN S~fUp`I A~ST~ UNE ~ SPN ~' . S1NR IS UIwINRNm. I 10. SNrIIGNT tOCAMxs Np NSTKUWN SwA1 COYRr NAX SECTON 7WB 1991 UBC', . , ~ n. BMDIW PIPd sNNL eE IPPUm To dIUKR wKLS u SPEOfIEU Nuec 17. PROAE PEflMWCNRT NRm SMOLE OERCId15. PEA COOP. ELECTRICAL 1. 1AISi PPa1E OADIND fAlpi CIRCUR PWRCIYN CFO f0A.N1 1M'VOII, ANCIf-NLASEte MO 10 I MPfRE REEPTAaES NSALLED IN flAMRO0M9 MD WIOODR4~MNERE THERE ODIAEE' CRAOE LSNEI ACa55 N ONEWNGS. LONSTMKVpN POKA POLES. NSO ' wnWN a DF AlraEx swX roa couNlfa ~cfvrKL®. ' 3.`W WRUOxiAI MALL SPICE TO BE WRE INN S PROP DUX. Am WNA SPo.a 7'~OR MDCR lp WK M W1AfT. N1 CLVNRRS tY OR Npm R[OUnE M N111Er. NCC , 7. A YRK UNWpAWND wATm RPE fNWJNONO [IECtR00E1 Ew11 BE eUPPLEWNR° 0/ ANOMEA ELECiWa OP A rYPE SPEdNEO N~ C ELECIRCK CRW MO C«D . . WA1EA MD QAS PBE BONG R REWIgf0. Nm /. ~ USE ONLY APPA020 PLABIK/YRK EIECIRMl1 mxCB MICN PEKRAMO fRMNlS.~UW '' e. NM CABLC (MYCIf; SWLL Bf Pa01EClm MD 9HNL BE SECURED Ai 4+I/1' NRMIAR Nm NWNNU! ES N NREWKL X01 ro dCfEO 1o AR.. N. ' e. SNOW MD KE W17NG XFAnW aEMENR GYIN01 dam b AIIUTA daPlxM: MXEN-DRduNp . fMLt INIEARURER B /R00DE0 E UNt g BO SOUS. Nm i r ' 1. A71FMt ONC AEaPnaE OUiIET IN AODixN m~MYPAQAaO FOA WHOM EOUPY[M Bn111~ BE w5IN1ED IN EAUI BASCM[M. FNMA004 Mp M UCH ARAaBO D1NGE, KSI, WI000R5. ~ - ' i e. AT ILSi ONC MPII AWIfGI-COIRRalEO LNRR 0/ OUREf SHALL B[ MSTKLm M. MA1' wBI~~~SROW; &MROOY} HALLWAYS, ONAWAYS, MD ARA:MFO' CARKES, MO AT OU1000N '.. L ,. P. aasR LKNRW SNKL BE 10' MNIYUY iPOY COYBUSIINES ~MCASIIAm ~NONIONfKIY iC.' . WPo70NTK R PEAMITIED {OR HUSH RMIUK4. NEC lo. NON-MRKUC fLEC1RKK BOME3 WRNOUf CIMIPS, 7-I//'M MAWRRAI BOM 4WNfFB N WKL9:R .~' ' PERYRm. NCC <dCFPTgN) 11. RmESSm FlKNPfS YUM CONPLT MIX Nm (1/1' CIFAAAWIE' m COYBI4IIAIE.'S m NSUUMN, MO W NOT iRM COWING AIR). • 17. MCESSm INLMOFSCEM iIx1URE$ BN41 NAYL Tx[AMK Pp07ECA0N`AND B(30 IOCNni(p, Nm ' '1} AOMd wOWN e' N AIOC ACCESS SHALL BE PApimlm. NCC ~ ~, ~ 1/. 100 YNM1M amRK SfNKF R RCgNm (Rx.OR YORE CIROlAS~ OR 10 KM OR N7AC- raRR. Nm (, ',~ . ', . m. Paorfcr AoYd raoY nYUCE Mxq mHIM r « NaaL rxc , ' ~ , ' ~ 10. PRapE AI LEAST 1X0 f0 AW CNCURBipR NUXICA TpP'AECfPfKL[$'N ME~NIr01EN. ONL I a THESE clRCUlrs wr eE CO4BNm WITH WAM9 a iNE Nrtcxa vknR1„AAGIIfA9t AOOY OR NN9p WOII. Nm ' 17. USE NKNRES MRa02D /OR GAB LOUf10X. -' ' Ie. PAapC AT LUST ONC ID AW'ORCUT IWI IN[ LWNOA. NEC I ROOF . I: SKLR'I W1fRYL tYP[ MO XfxaA OF ROOF t82ANO AW GIDI1 PITOI, VAC; ' 2 PAQR~E ARK KNTIAMN AT 1/100 « AIiK IMA UBC .' ' 1. 7D' HUOROOY Ai A~ /CCESS U8C RCWIAg 71 Y OA 70' i 7D' MRN ' 1 r' fWPMFNI. IOW[ N WLLANY BOA ~WIgN BlW0N0 R ~ OR WllgC OOIRM N gpH1, . ' - xm m e< LO«im ABaE awEr ar OA POIf, "e roa pxw<E AxD'aamlE YISTKUTON AOm ro".torii;ipDEr . ' . I; ,• 1 I , I E . 4 ~ - , ,• ' ,r r }, •......r ,+ I, ;7 '.. ;:,; ~µ. :' L - F F ~...>r NJH.+ 'i]~, xr #~.', ~r7~ n£II1 T'..:.r Ir A.:.i : ,.err,, 1.. .. ,.. b., .. ir,. .. .>w'„ ., ...., .... .. 14 T. A I L ..'~, 1 '' L`. a;f' ~' , {~. „r. d Ilnl 1 ,I,~l ( .;1 A 1. f ele ,. ITEM 5 ~W Con.rultant'.r Keport To: Planning Commission From: Robert C. Eck, Design Studios West, Inc. Date: June 12, 2002 RE: Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Design Guidelines Purpose of the Guidelines The Design Guidelines for the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Gateway have been prepared to guide new development or property re-development in the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Gateway district. The Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Gateway streetscape improvement master plan has been adopted to address improvements within the public street right-of--way to create a new northern gateway to the Cite. These guidelines build upon that plan to address private sector redevelopment that is anticipated to occur adjacent to the public street right-of--way on private, commercially zoned property. Additionally, the guidelines provide direction for the design of mixed-use projects that introduce a component of residential uses within the Gateway district, as provided for in the General Plan housing element. Citizen Task Force Process These design guidelines were developed in concert with the Saratoga-Sunn~-~-ale Road Gateway master plan through a series of citizen Task Force meetings. Goals for the Gatewat~ were identified at the initial Task Force meeting and further refined at successive meetings. An im~entory of existing conditions and visual images that occur along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road was prepared in the early stages of project development that served as the basis foi a Visual Preference Survey. "That survey allowed Task Force members to document their preferences as to what types and styles of design elements reflected an appropriate character for Saratoga and the Gateway district. Draft guidelines were presented and reviewed by the Task Force and debated over the .final two meetings at which point general consensus over dle guidelines content and tenor was felt to have been reached. Gateway District Boundaries Gateway- district boundaries encompass th4: C-V and C-N Commercial zone districts located between Prospect Road at the city's northern corporate limits and the Union Pacific Railroad tracks immediately south of Seagull Drive. The Gateway district boundaries correspond ~vith those zone district boundaries. Adjacent properties include residential uses at a range of densities and other commercial uses to the north, beyond the city limits. Goals- Overall goals for the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Gateway were crafted in early Task Force meetings to address both streetscape and guideline issues. In general the goals focus on improving the gateway's physical character, economic strength and safety considerations. • 0~0~~~ s, Development Standards for New Development ; Development Standards for new development were included to describe development parameters that would apply to new development in addition to current zoning and other city development regulations. ~_ Furthermore, they define the conditions that apply in the event a development proposal includes a mix of residential and commercial property as allowed in the General Plan. Incentives axe noted fox the provision of below market rate rental housing, while ground floor commercial along Saratoga-Sunnyvale road and location of office uses on the second floor are encouraged. Building height guidelines are described to allow second story development (up to 26' max.) as an incentive for mixed use development however, restrictions are noted adjacent to existing residential uses to reduce potential impacts to existing homes. New Development Scenario A New Development Scenario illustrating application of these guidelines to a "typical" site is provided to better understand how development might be anticipated to occur under the development standards and guidelines. The site illustrates an approximately three-acre site that would require a developer assemblage of several parcels. Three scenarios were prepared and presented to the Task Force to illustrate potential development approaches under the guidelines and illustrate issues that might arise as conflicts with existing uses. A fourth scenario was developed as a hybrid new development scenario that locates ground floor comrriercial along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road with surface parking lot adjacent to the street. Office is provided on the second floor above the retail uses and is served by lower level parking. Stand-alone retail that has parking in the rear is setback 20'minimum from the street right-of--way with landscaping between the walk and building. Rental residential is provided to the rear of the parcel in three, one-story, eight- unit buildings that are served by surface parking lots and include private outdoor useable space in the form of small patio/yards. Setbacks from adjacent residential uses include an exclusive 20' landscape buffer yard and an additional 10' (30' total) for private outdoor space. An outdoor amenin~ is provided in the form of a central pool and community building. Potential shared parking is provided for between residential and commercial uses. Landscaping and building arrangement as well as scale all reflect desigm guideline recommendations to encourage a residential scale and fit wide the Saratoga neighborhoods. Design Guideline Objectives and Guiding Principles In order to describe ideas leading toward the goals identified for the Gatcu•a~~ district, design guideline objectives and guiding principles were developed to refine the genera] nature of the goals. Objecti~-es include the orderh arrangement and comfortable scaling of die ph~•sical em-ironment, encouraging pedestrian acti~~in• and the provision of housing. Guiding principles pronu,te mired uses, a strong identitt• for the district, coordinated and properly scaled site development and nutigation of potential impacts to existing residential uses. Design Guidelines Proposed design guidelines were prepared to support the Objectives and Guiding principles with specific recommendations, organized in the categories of: ^ Architecture and Materials ^ Commercial Retail Signage ^ Landscaping and Buffering ^ Fencing and Screening Walls ^ Lighting and Furnishings • IJ~0002 • " ~ - ~=aFtNAIORAFI-JtlNEb,2U02 a TABLEOFCONTENTS A. Introduction ....................................Page 1 B. Gateway District Boundary .........................Page 2 C. Goals for Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road ..................Page 3 D. Development Standards ...........................Page 4 E. New Scenario ...................................Page 5 F. Design Guideline Objectives and Guiding Principles ......Page 6 Architecture and Materials .................... Page 1 Commercial Retail Signage .................... Page 9 landscape and Buffering ..................... Page 10 fencing and Screening Walls ................... Page 11 Lighting and Furnishings ..................... Page 11 • • • SARATOGA-Sl1NNYVALEROADGATEWAYDESIGNG~IDEIINES • • INTRODUCTION The Design Guidelines for the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Gateway have been prepared to guide new development or property re-development in the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Gateway district. The Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Gateway streetscape improvement master plan has been adopted to address improvements within the public street right-of-way to create a new northern gateway to the City. These guidelines build upon that plan to address private sector redevelopment that is anticipated to occur adjacent to the public street right-of-way on private, commercially zoned property. Additionally, the guidelines provide direction for the design of mixed-use projects that introduce a component of residential uses within the Gateway district, as provided for in the General Plan housing element. These design guidelines were developed in concert with the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Gateway master plan through a series of citizen Task Force meetings. Goals for the Gateway were identified at the initial Task Force meeting and further refined at successive meetings. An inventory of existing conditions and visual images that occur along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road was prepared in the early stages of project development that served as the basis for a Visual Preference Survey. That survey allowed Task Force members to document their preferences as to what types of design elements reflected an appropriate character for Saratoga and the Gateway district. Draft guidelines and successive revisions to those drafts have resulted in this document addressing: • Gateway District Boundaries encompassing the C-V and C-N Commercial Zone districts; • Goals for the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Gateway; • Development Standards for new development; • New Development Scenario illustrating application of these guidelines to a "typical" site; • Design Guideline Objectives and Guiding Principles, and Design Guidelines for: Architecture and Materials Commercial Retail Signage landscaping and Buffering fencing and Screening Walls Lighting and Furnishings ~. '" '~ t#'7Fb,_. _ ... _ ...._.. SARATOGA-SUNNYVAtEROADGATEWAYOESIGNGUiDEIINES GATEWAY DISTRICT BOUNDARY ~,~~ ~ , c x ~,c'~....,-fir .,'s < , ;.' r`~ r ,. ~ ,,,may wx- Ji 4~' ~ k/t, ~- 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ _ J 4' R ~- ~~ ZY3, Itl ~ `.I ~ C ^?< «..; y ~ t r~ ~ g~ ~~ ~~ '~',Y' y~Y ~W a ~ ~.~ i r~ r:. a ~.::, ~~'4~ ~` . t ~'~ Cud ~':ts z ~..d r ~ ;. ,~~i 77. tJ ~ r~~ ~' i~ r ~~ ~ Q t ~~ ~ ~~~ ~° r o .+ . ~ ,. ~ ~ y~ ~ r "~ ~ ~~ au, I ~~ ~~ru '~ ~ ... y~ ~`~{ ~ r i.~. # t_ ~,"rA~~t '~ ~ hay r G' ~`r ~` .=. + S~ t 1 ~ ~ A t3 +Jg4 E fir. ,r. t 4~~ tic (.5?~. ~~.. ~. 'y -~ I :, S}.~r. d 4 . f ~~ t y ~ r k ~''y f. y ~ j ~ ~~ ~. ,\~r ~. - i. 7~ i ~ ~°~ ~ ~- ~~ I .~; ~'` 7p t `` Y ~ ~f'~~L ~q~„~ ~.A ~ ..,.;~fi f ..a rf r~ la'G ~e ~. J ~ T '1 ~P~ ,~ ~ ''' :~ ~ ire h . , z ~ a ~ ~~'; ~ ! , ~ F . . ~.~ 'c.~~ i ~'~'~, -~.a. • •i •' SARATOGA-SUNNYVALERQADGATEWAYDESIGNGUIDELINES 2 i~ ~~ Ir~ GOALSf ORSARATOGA-SUNNYVALEROAD J _.~..: ..._ . _ q . ~~ -}~ -~a i t:1~ ;~~~^..,.~~~~j4wr'!'„'/~y+'.~r""i" ~' y,.~. 3 at l~'~ Goals established for Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road by the Saratoga Gateway Citizen Task Force are: 1. Create a memorable Gatewoy/Special Entry 2. Character and Image identifiable 3. Maintain business viability/commercial strength 4. User friendly 5. Improve Safety 6. Meet functional and other necessary requirements 1. Improve corridor consistency 8. Develop functional and character elemenls For the purpose of Design Guidelines, those goals tan be expanded upon to further define the scope of the proposed guidelines through the addition of objectives and guiding principles for planning and design that support each goal. The planning and design objective and guiding principles can be expressed in terms of the existing uses in the corridor and the potential future uses that might define a desirable future condition in the corridor. SARATOGA-SUNNYVALEROADGATEWAYDESIGNGUIDEIINES 3 DEVELOPMENTSTANDARDS ~ 1 A Use Permit is required for the establishment of a mixed-use residential and commercial development. 2 Design Review is required for all proposed mixed-use residential and commercial projects. 3 The design of mixed use projects will be required to conform with the policies and techniques of. the Residential Design Handbook including buffering set back requirements included in these design guidelines. 4 The maximum net density is twenty (20) dwelling units per acre. 5 The dwelling units shall be located on either a second floor or at the rear of the parcel. 6 The dwelling units shall not comprise over fifty (SO) percent of the total floor area of all buildings on the site. The maximum floor area allowed may be increased by ten (10) percent for projects providing below market rate rental housing. Set backs and building locations should consider building location of adjacent property. 7 Overall site coverage may be increased up to ten (10) percent for projects containing below market rate housing units. 8 Parking for both the commercial and dwelling units shall be as specified in the Zoning Ordinance, providing that the Planning Lommission may consider shared parking in some cases. 9 Each dwelling shall have a private, useable outdoor space, i.e. decks, balconies, yards or patios. 10 The maximum height of a mixed use structure shall be 26 feet. Any structure that is solely commercial on a site that has mixed use the maximum height is as in the underlying zone. These maximum heights are further governed by a bulk/plane transition of height from the property edge. 11 Building heights shall 6e established based on average existing grade of the proposed development site to prevent excessive filling and artificially elevated total building heights. 12 Building heights shall be restricted to one story (16' max. hT.) adjacent to existing residential uses and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road of the minimum setback of 20 feet. Then feet (10') additional building setback (30' total from property line) shall be required for buildings taller than 16' to provide a transition of building heights to the maximum allowable (26 foot max. ht.). 13 Building Heights to 26 feet maximum are allowed adjacent to existing 2-story residential buildings. 14 Perimeter 8 feet height solid fencing shall be required adjacent to residential uses. 15 Any redevelopment projects shall provide sound walls and landscape screening in order to protect the privacy and quality of life of abutting residential land uses as provided for in these design guidelines. 16 The commercial component of redevelopment projects in the Gateway district shall be limited in size to local-serving businesses. 17 In mixed use projects, office uses are permissive on the second floor adjacent to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and require use permit on ground floor. Sr;RATOGA-SUNNYVALEROADGATEWAYDESIGNGIJIDELINES i i• r~ ~~ NEWDEVELO~MENTSCENARI O ('GNT1K1;'U17S WALKS LUNKt~ TQ A91ACkti':T PARCEI. IiAC'OLsRAGE WNTIN2UCB SII)1~WACK ACY,`f:SS !"RUM SARAT{X1A•SLLN'3Yl'Al,E R(JAA Atiro AgIACEaLrruBL.LC sT~Frs A('I(U5S PARKING IOTS:7U BUI4111NC L:NTRlES. ENCUL:RAUE i)R717£WAY i:Otiu)l.IAATLUN TU nLE AECRIili PR551RL£7n MIN!'v}L7.E Ct}RB CUTS ANA E Y i'F:RNAi. SSRFf3Y CUS~GE571UN. Bl iII.AIXGS, S TRL[sTS ANA PARKiM6 4U [S Sii(HiL,b BF. S( ti. F A TO r l L)} STR[ANS Wini RLL ARU TCI }17,11 OF WAi.L.S. Uid.AU[i, A'ALEJ A\T) rAYIV(i }:Nax BRAG e cn~ 1 rn(rcw~. W[ll£. SAFTi WALKR'A\' Iti }RONT OF ANU B2TWEEN STURE hN'rRlrs 11 z' ynv . ^rr wnERE rCKS1BLF.1 I:~Cf)1iAAt.L: K'I~L.1 •AI:FINFA- 1'1:U1~.~ I'RIAN RLlt r'LL\, (:Rtt.\5tt'.t LK1 AtiU r,1RKINf1 TFIAT Iz tULLY 1t ('F.i111}l.f: i!) I115AIiI.I~A f'A'TRl1\5, Yli~il :1R}':.AS SI1!N.,.A fIF ~I.AIt1iI~.A t\~ rl i c rRlri\l i. 1'4t'f: \fi.N'i" (Yx OR f)R Tt~a"R%AP Tf) AF}'INE'f11F„M. I. A \ Uti['APl: 5E7 AA l'K .PAD 5'1'1'!3 ANI)gTISER BGIIJJINGS ARE ~ENKYWRAGFA TQ DE LUCATEq ATTIiF PEIIIA}ET}:R UY nIN S17Y; TCk CSEAT£ IN'1T•:ICL:iS7TX4 PI^:RLMf.'lT7i. 57R1-7iT Afi[) PRO11i4'E 3L.N'fHY UkfilNlTIUN. ' 4iNKAGE'ro AD1ACk`YT PARC'BI. gR1YElYA}. PROMCTTP. SNARED PARlU9+lG GPPUR'}LIYin}:S lY1LkiRE PUSSIB[.E~ /'~-'- I.ALiL15CAPE Bt;~F6kR 1 W%fC FLi Ft:vCE ~ -~~ tAPR I51.ANL13 RIN I0 SPAC.F3 ~ ~} RE+IA6NT5 i'lil(!NB{7Rk1t7O7} AMEtvL7'1" _... _ mss, „ Rk LI)Ia+ :p' ~CCLliS1Y1: E..Aa'l15(-APL" ElUrpER ' ... . -' i ry UR) W' S` FI7' }FNCI' :.~ _..... F~. - PARKL~til~ .": {tiR 4 ~C 1 )YE) ..... ; ~ . SERVICE RI:Si "V 1711 SUR}AC't[I Ll'IS ,' ,n;~ _~ KLK3" ._ . , i rn Lxr, _' A i ~ ~ . esn an~ . i __ 111 rt .r IE-A ~ 1; C . .: N . _ ..1{.. __1r1_,... ~.. 1 .1NIril Ar} It'.~I I~FN LINKAGE TL)AmACea.r FnC.LLS PF.UPLF.URIFLTFA Acrn7n~swFR~xto} U' r 1!7 / F\f l~clx•RAI,rrRtttl '1~ ~n:\'IxoL;}rrR PARC hI. I)RIYEWAY BL7LDI?i(i5 A?\'A iN PLALAS \EAR ti:Yii(ANCPti. SARATOGA-SUNNYVAIERDADGATEWAYDESIGNGU1DElINES 5 DESIGNGUIDELINEOBJECTIVEANDGUIDINGPRINCIPLES ~ 1.PLANNINGANpDESIGNOBJECTIVES 1 The primnry planning and design objective for the Saratoga Gateway District is to organize buildings, parking and internal site circulation to create convenient, comfortably-scaled commercial activity areas and incorporate residential uses to increase diversity in Saratoga's housing stock. 2 Preserve and protect Saratogo's pedestrian-friendly environment and enhance the quality of life by encouraging Commercial activity in the Gateway district. 3 Promote/encourage housing provision consistent with General Plon for resident employees of the City of Saratoga businesses and service providers such as teachers. ~.~I[~1NGPRINCiPLES Guiding principles in support of those objectives include the following: 1 Encourage a diverse mix of complementary commercial uses (retail, restaurant, service) with residential uses located on upper floors and to the rear of the property. 2 Create a strong identity that represents the entire Saratoga Gateway District. This may be accomplished through the use of finishes or site elements that tie the different uses together. 3 Provide a variety of building sizes and building facade articulntion to foster variety, mix and to mitigate large-scale building masses. 4 Coordinate site development proposals to maximize site to site connections, minimize Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road access conflicts and promote shared parking where possible. 5 Locate service and ancillary areas so that they can be visually screened from view and are away from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and pedestrian use areas. b Encourage site design where parking does not dominate site layout from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road or from buildings. 7 Provide direct, continuous pedestrian routes from the-street to building entries, across all large parking areas and between all activity areas of the Saratoga Gateway District. 8 Mitigate potential adverse impacts to existing neighboring uses in a manner consistent with the character of those uses. 9 Focus commercial development toward the front of the property along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. • S;;RATOGA-SUNNYVALEROADGATEWAYDESIGNGUIDELINES 6 • • C ARCH ITECTIIREANDMATERIALS t Encourage smaller-scale building floorplates with a residential scale and architectural style. 2 Buildings should relate specifically to Saratoga's residential areas and illustrate residential massing with low-pitched gable or hip roofs, dormer windows, etc. 3 In order to reduce the perceived scale of buildings, building masses shall be broken into smaller components. large "boxes" with no articulation will not be allowed. 4 No portion of a building wall should exceed 35 feet in horizontal length unless articulated with a change in surface material, color or surface plane. No parapet or roofline should exceed one half of the length of the building facade without a change in elevation. All primary building entrances must be identified with architectural details such as towers, projections, varied roofs, trellis work, pergolas or covered entryways. 5 Buildings with facades longer than 10 feet should be designed with vertical breaks to create differenti- ation along the front facade. This can be done with indented balconies or~and articulation of massing or/and changes in material, texture, and color. 6 Corners of buildings should 6e highlighted with special design features to increase visual interest where appropriate. Entrances or display windows to the retail shops are encouraged at building corners that face the street. 7 Rooflines should be varied in style and size to create interest. All buildings should include roof features such as pitched roofs, detailed parapets, or entry features. Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened on all sides. 8 -Rooftop mechanical units, vents, and flues shall be screened. Screening rooftop mechanical equipment by means of pitched roof forms or penthouses is encouraged. 9 .Service and loading areas should be located away from adjacent residential uses and visually screened from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Si~RATOGA-SUNNYVALERDADGATEWAYDESIGNGUIDEIINES / a ~ ~~ ~~ ~~^'."-~ _~~~I 1 ARCHITECTUREANDMATERIALS 10 A specific color palette, list of materials, and common architectural features will be required for all development in the Saratoga Gateway District. This is intended to establish a common theme or style of architectural design for all buildings within the District. All buildings shall incorporate 360 degree (i.e. all Building faces) use of materials and color. 11 Colors for all buildings should be earth tones, neutrals and soft muted colors.-The predominant color should be in the range of grays, beige through dark brown, terracotta and sandstone, dark greens, or muted red. Bright intense colors are not allowed. Stark white or black is discouraged for use other than as trim. Un-muted primary colors are not allowed. 12 Finish materials for walls should be predominantly natural materials such as brick, textured Block, stone, slate, stucco, wood, clap board siding or textured and colored concrete that closely resembles such materials. Accent materials may intlude canvas for awnings, metal trim, ceramic tiles, concrete castings, terra cotta, or stucco. Window and door trim should be bronzed or baked enamel colored finish that is complimentary to the color of the wall. Materials such as galvanized metal, glossy aluminum, smooth concrete, metal siding, vinyl, and reflective glass are not allowed. 13 Encourage canopies/awnings/arcades to define entrances and provide shelter along buildings. 14 Building entrances should be set back from drive curblines a minimum of 10 feet. 15 Building entrances should be visible from parking areas. 16 Building materials should include appropriate materials to convey a residential nature. Such materials • f~ - ~:~ ~~.~ e ~ •;,: t_, -~ ~!, should establish a single, recognizable thEmatic style for all adjacent commercial areas. ~ _ ~~J~~R t~ l1 A predominance of masonry, wood and brick shall be used on ground levels of all buildings. r ~~ .4 -, ~ `` 18 Reflective materials such as bright aluminum and lass are not allowed as the rimar b ildi -~. f, f y ~ , , ~ ~ ,~.i ~~~~' - ~~--~ ~ ~ g y p u ng ~+ . . ~ ~ ~ ~ material an exteriors. - `` "" ~ ~~-=%~~; ~~. 19 Pedestrian amenities, such as benches, trash receptacles, outdoor dining and vendor carts on private property, are encouraged to be consistent with the theme established by Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Gateway. • SARATOGA-SUNNYVALERQADGATEWAYDESIGNGUIDEL(NES m • r~ L.__~ CON~N4ERCiQLRETAlLSIGNAGE 1 Signage should be visible but fit appropriately with building architecture. 2 Sign materials should complementary and consistent with architectural materials. 3 Individual storefront/shop signage at entries should be encouraged at a pedestrian scale, such as hanging signs under eaves, awning signs and building mounted signs. 4 Commercial signs for the identification of multi-tenant projects or buildings should be ground-mount- ed, internally or ground-lighted with a masonry base that is integrated with site landscaping. 5 No polemounted signs identifying commercial businesses are allowed. 6 No permanent billboards are allowed anywhere in the Saratoga Gateway District. 7 Internally lit cabinet-type signs are discouraged. 8 Signage should be ground-lit or otherwise washed with light from a concealed light source. 9 Monument signs shall exhibit the following design character: • Horizontal orientation. • Externally illuminated only. • limited to one monument sign per parcel. • Sign size "matched" to frontage length of parcel. • Must use natural materials. • Encourage monument signs to be similar within the Gateway. • Must maintain adequate landscaping around the monument sign. 10 Storefront/Shop signage: • Prefer indirect illumination. • Internally illuminated signs only permitted along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. • Sign area and intensity as per Municipal code. • Illuminated signs must be off after hours of operation or 9pm. 11 Regulatory signs on private property: • limited to 18 inches by 24 inches only. • One is permitted at each entrance/exit. • Must be mounted at a finished height no higher than 5 feet. • Prefer the use of 4x4 lumber versus galvanized pipe. SARATOGA-SUNNYVALEROADGATEWAYDESIGNGUIDELINES 1, r ~ R {~ ~ y, :. . y~ ~,a`,.~: ._ }..,.. .;~, „"-- r ~--~--,----~ ,! r v f r r +~ °' ~'- r - ', ~~ 9 LANDSCAPINGANDBUFFERING 1 landscape islands should be provided in parking lots to interrupt consecutive runs of 10 or more spaces. Landscape islands shall incorporate a mix of shade tree and shrub plant material to visually buffer internal site views from both ground and to provide shade. Minimum width of landscaped islands shall be 8 feet (min.). 2 Parking areas should incorporate low landscaping buffers to screen parked cars from adjacent streets. All head in parking adjacent to public right of way or residential areas shall 6e screened by one of the following: • 30-inch minimum high masonry wall incorporated with landscape setback. • 30-inch minimum high earthen berm. • A dense shrub planting (shrubs planted a minimum of 4 feet on center). 3 Landscaped parking islands and medians should constitute a minimum of 15 percent of the overall parking area. 4 The use of landscaping should be encouraged to distinguish access points, break up parking and define pedestrian access and spaces. 5 landscaping layout and design should screen and orient the pedestrian environment. b Street tree plantings shall be required along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road at 40 foot (max.) spacing to promote a consistent tree canopy, reduce perceived building heights and provide shade. 1 Private drives serving the internal circulation needs of proposed development shall require street tree plantings at 50 foot spacing (max.). 8 Shrubs, groundcovers and perennial plantings are encouraged between detached pedestrian walks and buildings. 9 Trellises with flowering vines and hanging flower baskets are encouraged at building entries to make the entry more easily identifiable, provide pedestrian scale and add visual interest. 10 Buffering between commercial or mixed use projects and adjacent residential uses shall incorporate: • 8 foot high solid (decorative) masonry wall. • 20 foot depth exclusive landscape buffer yard reserved for buffering purposes - no private out door use or other programmed activities are allowed within the buffer yard. • landscaping shall consist of over-sized "mature" plant material. • No balconies or windows above ground floor level on the sides that face adjacent residential properties. • Rear or side parking lots adjacent to residential uses shall be designed to be equipped with locking gates to be secured on weekends. 11 Buffering between commercial or mixed use development and other similar uses shall consist of a minimum 4 foot (min.) depth landscape area planted with trees, shrubs and groundcovers. . tY! f~ -'' `~ ~. ~ ~` w1T ,~' ~, ~~ .. V JJ~ ~, t `jr € =~ .z; ;. _ - _~ .. __~.~; 'I~ _,.._ ~ E_~,..~ -~,~~ - - { ~4 "' It S 1 • 1~ {~'i~l ` ~ Jsl , )~ ± y* ,. , ,w- _' • • • SARATOGA-SUNNYVALEROADGATEWAYDESIGNGUIDELINES 10 e r~ u • FENClNGANDSCREENlNGWALLS 1 Fencing materials in the Saratoga Gateway District shall consist of wood, wood and masonry combinations or wood with masonry columns to reflect the general residential character of the Saratoga community. 2 Fencing installations shall incorporate continuous landscaping at the base and edges of the fence to integrate the fence with site and landscaping. 3 Fencing is discouraged between properties of similar use. 4 Trash service and loading areas should incorporate masonry wall buffers to screen service areas from adjacent streets. All trash, service and loading areas shall be screened by a 8 foot (min.) height masonry wall or enclosure designed to be an integral and complementary extension of the building architecture. 5 Trash, service and loading areas should not be located along street frontage or adjacent to existing residential uses and will be screened from view from public streets, open areas, and pedestrian corridors. 6 Trash and recycling enclosures shall be of masonry construction using broken face, slump block, raked joints or other textural variation to provide shadow effects and other subtle visual interest 1 Self closing gates shall b provided on all trash and recycling enclosures. 8 Concrete-filled bollards or other means of corner protection are encouraged to protect enclosures from vehicular traffic and loading damage. ~ I ~ ~, SARATOGA-SUNNYVALEROADGATEWAYDESIGNGI'IDELINES i LIGNTINGANQFURNISNINGS 1 Pedestrian lighting is encouraged throughout non-parking areas. A single "village" type thematic light fixture should be selected for the Saratoga Gateway District. 2 High-pressure sodium, wall pack and "barnyard" light types are discouraged. 3 light pales in parking areas shall be limited to a 18 foot height. 4 All parking lot lighting shall be down cast "cut-off" type which will not cast glare on adjoining properties. A photometric study shall be required to document lighting levels at property line. 5 All pole lights shall use the same color and style of pole and fixture. 6 Site furnishings including benches, trash receptacles and bike racks should be complementary to the family of site furnishing elements designated for Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road gateway streetscape. i 7 Bike racks shall be provided for new retail or mixed use development. 8 Site lighting shall be restricted to security lighting only after business hours. ,~ ~~ ~~ • • SARATGGA-SUNNYVALERGADGATEWAYDESIGNGUIDELINES i2 ~t1g ~~ • MIN[1TES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MARCH 20, 2002 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Open Session in the Administrative Conference Room at 5:00 p.m. to interview applicants for the Arts Commission and the Public Safety Commission. The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Closed Session, Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue at 5:40 p.m. Public Employee Discipline/DismissaURelease (Government Code section 54957.6 Conference With Legal Counsel -Existing Litigation (3 cases): (Government Code section 54956.9(a)) Name of case: Saratoga Fire Protection District v. City of Saratoga (Santa Clara County Superior Court No. CV-803540) Name of Case: City of Saratoga v. West Valley-Mission Community College District (California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District No. H022365) Name of case: Tsung-Chin Wu, Yuh-Ning Chen v. Parker Ranch Homeowners Association (Santa Clara County Superior Court No. CV-707015) MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 p.m. - - Mayor Streit reported there was Council discussion but no action was taken. Mayor Streit called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and requested Dave Anderson, City Manager, to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Stan Bogosian, John Mehaffey Ann Waltonsmith, Vice Mayor Evan Baker, Mayor Nick Streit ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Jesse Baloca, Administrative Services Director John Cherbone, Director of Public Works Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director John Livingstone, Assistant Planner G Lata Vasudevan, Associate Planner Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst Danielle Surdin, Economic Development Coordinator REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FORM MARCH 20, 2002 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of March 20, 2002 was properly posted on March 15, 2002. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No one requested to speak at tonight's meeting: COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF None ANNOUNCEMENTS None CEREMONIAL ITEMS lA. -RESOLUTION COMMENDING JOSEPH AND MICHELLE MASEK OWNERS OF LA MERE MICHELLE- 30TH ANNIVERSARY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Present commendation. Mayor Streit read the commendation and directed the City Clerk to forward the commendation to Mr. and Mrs. Masek. 1B. ADOPT RESOLUTION AND ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE OF PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEMBER BRIDGETT BALLINGALL STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution and administer Oath of Office. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 02-028 Minutes 2 March 20, 2002 J RESOLUTION FO THE CITY COUNCIL REAPPOINTING DORA GRENS TO THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION BOGOSAIN/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING DORA GRENS TO THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION.. MOTION PASSED 5-0. Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, administered the Oath of Office to Dora Grens. 1 C. ADOPT RESOLUTION AND ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE OF PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEMBER BRIDGETT BALLINGALL STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution and administer Oath of Office. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 02-029 RESOLUTION FO THE CITY COUNCIL REAPPOINTING BRIDGETT BALLINGALL TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION _ BOGOSIAN/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING BRIGITTE BALLINGALL TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION. MOTION PASSED 5-0. Mayor Streit noted that Commissioner Ballingall was unable to attend tonight's meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR 2A. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve check register. Councilmember Mehaffey requested that item 2A be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Mehaffey questioned a line item on page 3 in regards to hand written checks. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that there were a few charges for less than $6.00, but $25.00 of petty cash were issued. Councilmember Mehaffey , " requested an explanation. City Manager Anderson explained that whenever he has cash left over he turns it in. Councilmember Mehaffey asked how the money is reconciled at the end of the month. City Manager Anderson noted that he turns in a spreadsheet every month. Minutes 3 March 20, 2002 Councilmember Mehaffey noted that he wants to make sure the City has proper petty cash financial accounting. ' MEHAFFEY/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION- PASSED 5-0. 2B. FEBRUARY FINANCIAL REPORT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept reports. Councilmember Mehaffey requested that item 2B be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Mehaffey pointed out that within the General Fund there are a lot ofsub-funds, and requested that these funds be broken out more. Director Baloca responded that in the future he would show the funds in all the different reserves. BOGOSIAN/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO ACCEPT FINANCIAL REPORT. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2C. REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES - MARCH 13, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file.. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO NOTE AND FILE PLANNING ACTION MINUTES. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2D. FINAL MAP APPROVAL FOR SIX LOTS LOCATED AT 142.30 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution and authorize execution of contract. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: SD-98-009 RESOLUTION FO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE FINAL MAP OF SD-98-009 14230 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE FINAL MAP FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14230 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD. MOTION PASSED 5-0. ~~ ~.._J Minutes 4 March 20, 2002 2E. CITY OF SARATOGA COMMISSION MISSION STATEMENTS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. Councilmember Waltonsmith requested that Item 2E be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Waltonsmith stated that since the Arts Commission is fairly new, the Commission has not had adequate time for discussion and should be allowed to be allowed more time to come up with a more comprehensible Mission Statement. Also, Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she feels the Mission Statement for the Heritage Preservation Commission is too short and the Public Safety Commission should have mention the various schools districts they interact with. Consensus of the City Council to re-agendize this item in the future. 2F. CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK IMPROVEMENTS -DUGOUT CONTRACTOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve invoice. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE INVOICE FROM J.R. CONSTRUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $21,600 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SIX DUGOUT STRUCTURES AT CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2G. CONTRACT FOR SUPPLEMENTAL ACCOUNTING SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize execution of contract. Councilmember Mehaffey requested that item 2G be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Mehaffey questioned if the total amount spent to date is $10,000 so the sum total would be $25,000. City Manager Anderson responded yes. MEHAFFEY/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF CONTRACT FOR SUPPLEMENTAL ACCOUNTING SERVICES. MOTION PASSED 5-0. • Minutes $ - March 20, 2002 NEW BUSINESS 9. RESOLUTION ENDORSING AB 2515 INTRODUCED BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER FRED KEELEY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 02-017 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING AB2515 Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report. Assistant City Manager Tinfow noted that Assembly Member Keeley has introduced AB 2515, which would require community college districts to abide by use permit conditions that were originally proposed by those districts. Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that the legislation directly affects the City of Saratoga because it would require West Valley -Mission College District to comply with the provisions of the City's use permit in which the District agreed that no stadium would be permitted at the West Valley campus. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF AB 2515. MOTION PASSED 5-0. For the record, Councilmember Bogosian stated that the City of Saratoga appreciates the efforts of the introduction of AB 2515 by Assembly Member Keeley. Councilmember Bogosian stated that the City's elected official was unable to follow through on AB613 that she tried to introduce last year. 10. ASSOCIATION OF MONTEREY BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS AND SILICON VALLEY INTER-REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Consider the City of Saratoga's participation in the Association. Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report. Assistant City Manager Tinfow noted that the Mayor received a letter from Sane Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales inviting him to participate in the Association of Monterey By Area Governments and Silicon Valley (AMBAG/SV) Inter Regional Partnership. Questions about why Saratoga had not received such a letter before as well as the purpose of the groups were raised and staff was asked to investigate and report back to Council. Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that staff contacted a member of Mayor Ron Mayor Gonzales' staff and who revealed that they believed both an initial ~. invitation to participate and quarterly agendas have been sent to Saratoga since the groups' inception in November 2000. Minutes 6 March 20, 2002 Assistant City Manager Tinfow stated that the staff person further reported that most other Santa Clara County cities have been participating either by having an ~. elected official or a City Manager attend. Assistant City Manager Tinfow reported that she talked to Gillian Moran of Santa Clara County Cities Association who stated that she is very familiar with the group. Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that the AMBAG/SV partnership was formed in November 2000 and meets quarterly. They are in the process of establishing an advisory committee of community representatives for organizations such as Greenbelt Alliance, the Sierra Club, Joint Ventures Silicon Valley, and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority as well as planning directors from a number of cities. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he is in favor of participating and is willing to split the duty with another Councilmember. Councilmember Baker noted that when the City of San Jose can prove that the City of Saratoga was invited to participate from the beginning, he would support it. Mayor Streit noted that he support the City's participation. BOGOSIAN//MEHAFFEY MOVED TO APPROVE PARTICIPATION IN THE ASSOCIATION OF MONTEREY BY AREA GOVERNMENTS AND SILICON VALLEY (AMBAG/SV) INTERREGIONAL PARTNERSHIP APPOINTING BOGOSIAN AND STREIT AS THE CITY'S REPRESENTATIVES. MOTION PASSED 4-1 WITH BAKER OPPOSING. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. ALLOCATIONS FOR FY 2002/2003 COMMUNITY BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDS ___ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Open public hearing; close public hearing; adopt resolution. Lata Vasudevan, Assistant Planner, presented staff report. Planner Vasudevan explained that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) makes annual disbursements of Housing and Community Development Act (HCDA) funds for eligible projects and activities. Saratoga and several other "non-entitlement" cities (population under 50,000) within Santa Clara County receive federal HCDA funds for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. Non-entitlement cities receive funds through a cooperative agreement with the County of Santa Clara, the locally responsible grant recipient. Expenditure of these funds is restricted by federal and county regulations. Minutes '] March 20, 2002 Planner Vasudevan explained that the total allocation to Santa Clara County for FY 2002/2003 is $2,584,000. Approximately 40% of these amounts are allocated to the competitive pool where funds are prioritized for projects and activities to increase the supply of affordable housing in the county. The remainder is disbursed to the non-entitlement cities for eligible projects. Planner Vasudevan explained that the City of Saratoga would receive $160,046 for locally identified projects, plus an additional $15,000 to cover program administrative expenses: Saratoga may allocate a maximum of $35,793 of its allocation for human service projects and actives. Planner Vasudevan explained that the City receive one Humane Service application and two CDBG applications. Planner Vasudevan noted that staff is recommending the following allocations: • $15,000 -Program administration fees • $20,000 -Mandatory contribution to provide County Rehabilitation program assistance to Saratoga • $50,000- Ongoing ADA improvements at Hakone Park • $35,793 -Saratoga Adult Day Care Program • $28,200 -Project Match • $26,053 -Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road ADA Curb Ramp Upgrade Project Planner Vasudevan noted that there is $25,365.96 in the Low Income Housing Project and $43,000 in the Sanitary Sewer Connection Project. Planner Vasudevan noted that staff is recommending that the Low Income Housing Project money, that has not been spent since 1997, should be reallocated the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road ADA Curb Ramp Upgrade Project. In regards to the $43,000 in the Sanitary Sewer Connection Project fund, staff recommends that the amount remain in the Sewer Connection Project and be carried over to FY 2002/2003 and if no other grants are made after the first quarter of FY 2002/2003, staff recommends that the remaining balance be reallocated to another project or anot)±er jurisdiction that has a fast moving project in need of funding. Planner Vasudevan noted that staff has completed four septic tank abatement projects assisting low-income Saratoga residents. Councilmember Mehaffey asked if the City received any other applications. Planner Vasudevan responded no. Mayor Streit opened the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. Bob Campbell, Project Match, noted that the house on Blauer Drive has been successfully operating since 1991. Mr. Campbell stated that the residents' average income is approximately $1,300 a month and the average age is 70 years old. Councilmember Waltonsmith stated that she thinks Project Match is a great program. Minutes $ March 20, 2002 Vice Mayor Baker asked if there were any plans of opening up a second home in Saratoga. Mr. Campbell responded that he would like to open a second home, but cannot afford the high cost of housing in Saratoga. Mayor Streit closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m: Vice Mayor Baker stated that CDBG funds are hard to get and should be spent wisely. Vice Mayor Baker noted that he supports the following allocations: • SASCC • ADA upgrades at Hakone Gardens • ADA upgrades in the Gateway • Project Match Vice Mayor Baker noted he has concerns regarding two of the categories. Vice Mayor Baker stated that he does not agree with staff s recommendations on the reallocation of funds of the low-income housing and sanitary sewer connections funds. In regards to the low-income funds housing fund,~ice Mayor Baker requested that this categorybe deferred for further discussion to decide more appropriate ways to use of the money. In regards o the funds for sanitary sewer connections, Vice Mayor stated that the City still has an element of septic abatement that has not resolved. Vice Mayor Baker stated that there are approximately ten properties that are below road grade and abut creeks. Vice Mayor Baker noted that the City might have to contribute support to those homeowners to abate those types of tanks. The funds should not be released until this issue is resolved. In regards to the low-income housing funds, Councilmember Mehaffey commented that the City could loose these funds and loose, the chance to apply them to anything if the City delays allocating the funs to some other project.. Planner Vasudevan agreed with Councilmember Mehaffey and added that HUD has always had a policy of timeliness of expenditures. This year they are very particular that money is spend in a timely manner, that is why staff is recommending reallocating these funds to the Gateway project ar~d be spend within the next fiscal year. Mayor Streit noted he supports reallocating the iow income housing funds to the ADA Project in the Gateway, but does not support reallocating the sewer funds. Vice Mayor Baker noted if the City is going to loose the funds he is willing to reallocate the funds this year, but in the future he would like to see other ways to spend the funds for low-income housing for low income housing purposes. BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION TO SUBMIT FUNDING ALLOCATIONS TO SCC FOR CDBG PROPOSALS TOTALING $175,046. MOTION PASSED 5-0. Minutes 9 March 20, 2002 WALTONSMITH/STREIT MOVED TO REALLOCATE REMAINING BALANCE IN THE LOW INCOME HOUSING PROJECT TO THE' PROPOSED SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD ADA CURB RAMP UPGRADE PROJECT. MOTION PASSED 5-0. MEHAFFEY/BAKER MOVED TO CARRY OVER THE REMAINING BALANCE IN THE SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION PROJECT TO FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 4. APPROVAL OF FINAL BUILDING SITE APPROVAL (BSA) AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION FOR DR-O1-018 AND UP-O1-016 (HUERTA) AT 2251 MOUNT EDEN ROAD STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Open public hearing; close public hearing; adopt resolutions. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 02-018 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING THE BUILDING SITE APPROVAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 22551 MT. EDEN ROAD Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director, presented staff report. Director Sullivan explained that the project is the construction of one single-family residence on one lot consisting of 1.42 acre in area and 24,742 net square feet in area. The floor ratio of the proposed new two-story residence is 4,830 square feet and could include a 1,260 square foot basement. The 504 square foot garage is proposed to be detached. Approximately two-thirds of the site would remain undeveloped. The site is zoned Hillside Residential and the General Plan Designation is Hillside Residential Conservation (HRC). Director Sullivan noted that the Planning Commission continued the October 24, 2001, Public Hearing for this application to December 12, 20901 requesting that two questions be directed to the City's Geotechnical Consultant. First, "What would be involved to mitigate the southern most landslide?" and secondly "Could native Redwood or Oaks be planted on, at, or near the slide as it exist without jeopardizing the stability of the slide. Director Sullivan noted that in regards to the question about planting trees the answer was yes, trees could be planted without jeopardizing the stability of the slide. Director Sullivan noted that the application required a Building Site Approval because it was subdivided prior to 15 years ago and has been vacant since its subdivision. The site meets all finding pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 14-20.070. Director Sullivan noted that the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been completed and staff is requesting that Council approve them tonight and also grant the Final BSA Minutes 10 March 20, 2002 r~ L Mayor Streit opened the public hearing at 8:05 p.m. . Mayor Streit closed the public hearing at 8:06 p.m. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he would support this item if language is added to the resolution requiring the homeowner or any future owner be required to tell potential owners about the landside concerns. BOGOSIAN/BAKER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, GRANT THE FINAL BUILDING SITE APPROVAL AND ADOPT RESOLUTION AS AMENDED AND HAVE IT RECORDED WITH THE COUNTY. MOTION PASSED 5-0. OLD BUSINESS HIGHWAY 85- NOISE MITIGATION COMMUNITY MEETING FOLLOW-UP STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. John Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented staff report. Director Cherbone reminded Council that Mike Evanhoe met with the community on February 26, 2002. IVir. Evarihoe discussed the background regarding the Highway 85 Noise Mitigation issue as well as the past and present studies that have been developed. Mr. Evanhoe also discussed funding and various options for noise mitigation. The discussion centered on the micro-grinding option, which VTA believes is the only noise mitigation surface treatment to the highway Caltrans will support. Mr. Evanhoe suggested that amicro-grinding test take place on a one-mile section of Highway 85 as soon as possible. Director Cherbone noted that there were approximately 30 members of the public in attendance. Director Cherbone noted that attached to his report were all the questions and answers from that evening. Councilmember Waltonsmith stated that she received email correspondences from Jim Schindler and Bob Carlack and requested that Director Cherbone forward their concerns to Mike Evanhoe. Director Cherbone stated he would forward their concerns to Mr. Evanhoe. Vice Mayor Baker noted he attended this meeting and stated that Mr. Evanhoe answered some questions very evasively. Vice Mayor Baker suggested that staff contact VTA and secure a test time no later than July 2002 to do a test section and noted that City should be allowed to pick the section of highway to be tested. Vice Mayor Baker stated that the only solution Caltrans is willing to support is micro- grinding. Minutes 11 March 20, 2002 Councilmember Mehaffey noted that he concurred with Vice Mayor Baker. Councilmember Waltonsmith stated that Caltrans is another public entity that has removed themselves from local control. Councilmember Waltonsmith stated that she feels we should moved forward with the micro-grinding because Caltrans is not willing to do anything else. Councihnember Mehaffey.referred to the test results from the City of Woodside's one-mile test section and noted that before the City does the test section on Highway 85 he would like to see that report. If there was a big difference between asphalt overlay and micro-grinding he would request the City pursue the overlay. Mayor Streit thanked Director Cherbone for his report. Mayor Streit announced that Mr. and Mrs. Masek arrived and invited them on stage to present their commendation to them. Mayor Streit read the proclamation and presented it to Mr. and Mrs. Masek. 6. SARATOGA LIBRARY BUDGET UPDATE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept budget and amend contract. Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report. Assistant City Manager Tinfow noted that the staff is recommending that Council accept the library budget as presented and approve a resolution adjusting the library budget form $14.5 million to $15 million and increase the contract with Williams Scotsman by $249.90 to reflect an increase in sales tax effective January 2002. Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained the budget overview on the Library Bond required the City Council to establish a Citizens' Oversight Committee (COC) to oversee the expenditures of funds for the library project. The Committee meets monthly with staff and representatives from Gilbane. Over the past few months, staff, Gilbae and the COC~have worked together to come up with a budget summary that reflects all expected costs plus an adequate contingency. To date projected costs total $14,137,924, this number includes all contracts, known change orders, and all known or expected "soft costs". In addition to these known costs, Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that contingency funds both for construction and soft costs are budgeted. These funds are included to cover change orders for unexpected conditions or others changes as directed by the City. Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained the total change orders for Phase I and noted that they are expected to be $35,629 however staff has not received final paper work from Gilbane. The change order items include extra soil compaction; equipment/removal related to the asbestos; application of creteseal in Phase I instead of Phase II; parking lot curb revision and slope adjustment; redwood tree __ credit; additional, demolition for HVAC duct encased in concrete. Minutes 12 March 20, 2002 Assistant City Manager Tinfow also noted for Phase II Council approved two energy alternates for the total cost of $99,000, which is in the budget. Councihnember Bo os~an asked if she could briefl ex lain w g y p hat safeguards have been implemented in order to avoid surprise change orders. Assistant Cit Manager Tinfow explained that every Wednesday she meets with representatives from Gilbane and Thompson Pacific at the library site. Every other Wednesday members from the Library Expansion Committee.and Councilmember Bogosian meet on site for updates. The Library Expansion Committee and the Citizen Oversight Committee (established by the bond and charged with overseeing the expenditures of the funds) have been meeting monthly. Susan Calderon, Chair/Citizen Oversight Committee, noted that she feels the role of the COC is to comment and react to the budget prepared by staff and Gilbane. Chair Calderon noted that the movement of the contingency is of concern to the COC. In the beginning the contingency was at 3% now it is around 7%. As the City approaches the $15 million mark the COC has come discomfort and recommends that the Council look closely and cautiously at future expenditures. Don Johnson, 19997 Seagull Way, noted he has been a resident of Saratoga for 28 years and is a member of the COC. Mr. Johnson stated that he is impressed with the latest budget forecast. Mr. Johnson noted that he would like to comment on the construction Phase I and Phase II and the soft cost variances. Mr. Johnson noted that Phase I 14% was below the line and the rime reason was p the budgeted estimates was low and when the bid come it in they were much higher. The opposite happened for Ph_ ase II there was a surplus of about $300,000 or 3%. - In regards to the soft costs, Mr., Johnson noted those costs are not bound like the construction cost. The City is currently running 10% below the line. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that he is amazed how fast the City is going through the $500,000 contingency that Council set aside. Councilmember Mehaffey stated that he is very distressed by the fact that all the added costs should have been added to the beginning budget if everyone new the project was going to reach $15 million, perhaps the library should have been built smaller. A discussion took place in regards to the Council's concerns involving soft costs, contingency funds, and change orders. Mayor Streit suggested that staff return to Council on a monthly basis with budget updates. Councilmember Mehaffey stated that he is unwilling to support the recommend resolution adjusting the library budget from $14.5 million to $15 million. Vice Mayor suggested leaving the budget at $14.5 million and see what happens. Minutes 13 March 20, 2002 Councihnember Waltonsmith noted that when the contingencies hit $14.5 million staff must report to Council. Councihnember Mehaffe commended-the COC for doin a terrific 'ob. Y g J BAKER/ MEHAFFEY MOVED TO APPROVE THE INCREASE THE - CONTRACT WITH WILLIAMS SCOTSMAN BY $249.90 TO REFLECT AN INCREASE IN SALES TAX EFFECTIVE JANUARY 2002. MOTION PASSED 5-0. Consensus of the City.Council not to amend the library budget. Mayor Streit requested aten-minute break at 9:00 p.m. Mayor Streit reconvened the meeting at 9:10 p.m. NEW BUSINESS 7. SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD "GATEWAY IMPROVEMENTS" MASTER PLAN APPROVAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve master plan. John Cherbone, Director of Public Works, presented staff report. Director Cherbone explained that when Highway 85 was completed in 1994, Caltrans pursued relinquishment of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road from Highway 9 to Prospect Road, roughly 2.5 miles. After lengthy negotiations, the City agreed to accept responsibility for the road including $2 million dollars from the State to perform needed infrastructure improvements. The City also has been awarded an $880,000 grant through VTA from improvements to the roadway. Director Cherbone noted that in 1996 the Gateway Task Force was created to develop design guidelines for the area, which was used as a template for the nature and type of improvements for the current project. At that time the City was under budget constrains and there commendations of the Task Force were shelved until .recently when the City took ownership, along with funding, of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Director Cherbone explained that last April the Council awarded a contract to Greg Ing & Associates/Design Studio West for design services for the improvements of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Since that time the Task Force which represents a mix of residents and business owners, have met numerous times to develop a Master Plan for the road. Director Cherbone explained that the project process included 7 Gateway Task Force meetings, an all day Public Workshop, 10 individuaUgroup meetings, 6 modified Conceptual Master Plans, and 9 modified entry schemes. Director Cherbone noted that on March 1St, after much compromise, the Task Force unanimously approved the Master Plan. Minutes 14 March 20, 2002 Director Cherbone explained that the Master Plan concentrates most of the improvements between Prospect Road and the UPRR traets. Additional improvements include: improvements to the intersection at pierce and Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, pedestrian improvements to the intersection at Herriman and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, various pathway improvements along the entire roadway. These improvements are estimates to cost the full amount of the available funding of $2.8 million dollars. Director Cherbone noted that if the "Gateway" project was built per the Master Plan staff estimates the landscape maintenance costs to be approximately $42,000 a year. Director Cherbone noted that if Council approves the Master Plan the next step would be to start preparation of construction plans and documents. The schedule calls for award of a construction contract in August and completion of the project in the Spring of 2003. Director Cherbone noted that the Community Development Department would continue to work with the City's consultants and Task Force on development of the Design Guidelines for the Gateway and submit them to-~he Planning Commission for approval in the near future. Steve Kacuchi, Greg Ing & Associates, noted that he and Don Branidis from Design Studio West were here tonight to explain the process of how they approached this project and the final Master Plan. Mr. Kacuchi noted in the beginning they surveyed and took an inventory the entire roadway to determine the primary focuses and the challenges of the project. Next they decided on what kind of image would best represent the City of Saratoga and presented four visual designs to the Task Force. Out of that visual survey 80% wanted an oak concept colonnade design. Mr. Kacuchi explained the "Gateway" Master Plan in detail pointing out the Union 76 gas station should be the entrance to the City. Mr. Kacuchi stated that many individual meetings took place with business owners to work out ingress and egress problems. Mr. Kacuchi noted that the median in front of the funeral home has been eliminated and the left turning lane be left there. Mr. Kacuchi stated that if the property is every redesigned the median could be built, but currently the business owners there felt that their business would be hurt if clear access was not present. Don Brandis/Design Studio West, noted that they started with six concepts and slowly narrowed them down to two concepts for the "Gateway". In regards to the intersection of Prospect and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, being sensitive to the owner of the Union 76 gas station, the design that was approved by the Task Force is to plant a large Valley Oak tree, in addition to evergreen trees and a water feature. Minutes 15 March 20, 2002 Gateway improvements, Mr. Brandis pointed out from his experience, usually promotes an economic gain of an 8-12% increase in retail sales. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked if the speed limit would be decreased along Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road. Director Cherbone noted that after the improvements go in the City's Traffic Engineer would do a subsequent speed survey. Currently the speed limit varies along this road from 40- 45 miles per hour. Councilmember Bogosian asked who decided which tree species is planted in this Master Plan. Director Cherbone responded that the Task Force along with the City's park staff would investigate this issue and decide which species is the most appropriate. Director Cherbone noted that perhaps one of the Oak trees from the Heritage Orchard could be replanted in the Gateway. Director Cherbone noted that it would be discussed during a later item on the agenda. Jeff Walker, 20451 Seagull Way, noted that he has been a resident of Saratoga for seven years and a member of the Gateway Task Force. Mr. Walker noted that a lot of compromises have teen made during this whole process and noted that he supports this project. Mr. Walker noted his main concerns have been addressed the construction of sidewalks and landscape improvements. Mr. Walker noted he supports lowering the speed limits. Zoe Alameda, 12341 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, noted that she is a property and business owner and a member of the Gateway Task Force. Ms. Alameda noted that she has been involved with this project since 1996, which has been a long and frustrating process. Ms. Alameda stated that the Task Force unanimously approved the Master Plan. Ms. Alameda noted that this Plan creates a strong identity of the Gateway into Saratoga and is very sensitive to the existing business needs. __ Bill Guthrie, 20422 Seagull Way, noted that he participated in several Gateway Task Force meetings. Mr. Guthrie thanked Council and staff and noted that the process impressed him. Mr. Guthrie noted that he is pleased with the outcome and urged the Council to approve the Master Plan. Mr. Guthrie requested a light at Kirkmont, which is not included in the Plan. Carl Sessler, 112313 De Sanka Avenue, noted that he participated in the Task Force in 1996. Mr. Sessler noted that his biggest concern is the bare spot (no median) between Kirkmont and Seagull Way because the business owners claim they need it for trucks to turn. Mr. Sessler noted that he feels there also are too many entries along the corridor. Mr. Sessler noted that he supports the proposed Master Plan. • Minutes 16 March 20, 2002 Lee Murray, Chair/Arts Commission, 19466 Miller Court, noted that four members of the Arts Commission went to the March Task Force meeting and were pleased with the Master Plan concepts. Chair Murray noted that the Arts Commission would work with the Task Force to look at the aesthetics and artistic elements. John Mallory, 12258 Kirkdale Drive, noted that he has lived in Saratoga since 1967 and participated in the 1996 Task Force. Mr. Mallory noted that he endorses the overall plan and requested that the Council approve the Master Plan. Sue Mallory, 12258 Kirkdale Drive, requested that the Council approve the Master Plan. Carl Orr, 12361 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, requested that the Council approve the Master Plan. Mr. On commended staff and the consultants. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked if a signal at Kirkmont was feasible. Director Cherbone noted that what he would like to do is bid this signal as an add alternative item, currently it is in the CIP. Councilmember Bogosian thanked Director Cherbone for doing a fantastic job mediating and communicating with the public and the Council thru the whole process. Councilmember Bogosian stated some of his concerns and commented on the following items: • Water feature - be careful with the design • Tree selection -choose the proper species • Signal at Kirkmont -support looking into this project • City to work with the City of Cupertino and the City of San Jose to work on the. intersection of Prospect/Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road • Appropriate signage along corridor Director Cherbone noted that the design guidelines for the signage would go before the Planning Commission and the Arts Commission. Councilmember Mehaffey commended the Task Force for all of their work and noted that he supports the design. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that the City's Traffic Engineer should look at traffic mitigation alternatives to prevent cut thus on Seagull. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that he supports lowering the speed limit, although some people might not approved of it. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE THE "GATEWAY" MASTER PLAN. MOTION PASSED 5-0. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE $28,000 SUPPLEMENT TO DESIGN CONTRACT WITH GREG ING & ASSOCIATES IN CONNECTION TO EXTRA SERVICES PROVIDED FOR PUBLIC OUTREACH. MOTION PASSED 5-0. Minutes 1'] March 20, 2002 4~ 8. SPRING CLEANUP 2002 UPDATE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst, presented staff report. Analyst Bloomquist reported that the City has hosted Spring Cleanup events for Saratoga residents for the past two years. The events have been successful, with high levels of participation from local residents.. The City Collected 271 tons of refuse for the Spring 2000 event and 565 tons of refuse for the Spring 2001 event. The increase in tonnage is mainly due to the inclusion of a bulky item pickup for the 2001 cleanup event. Analyst Bloomquist reported that staff recently met with Green Valley Disposal Company to discuss options for the 2002 Spring Cleanup event. Factors such as costs, anticipated participation levels, items to be included in cleanup event, and time frames. Analyst Bloomquist reported that Green Valley estimated that this year the City should have 450 tons without bulky item pickup for estimated costs of $51,000.00 and 625 tons with bulky item pickup for an estimated cost of $118,000.00. Analyst Bloomquist explained that the City of Saratoga is the only jurisdiction in the area, with the exception of the City of Santa Clara, that utilizes a bulky item pickup with their cleanup event. The City of Santa Clara, not the contracted waste hauler, hosts the event and picks up the refuse using utilizing City vehicles. The cost to the City is approximately $1 million dollars. Analyst Bloomquist explained that the Green Valley is recommending the following: ' • Due to the high level of anticipated tonnage the City will be divided up into three cleanup areas • The cleanup event should be held over a 3-week period from Apri129-May 17, 2002 • Each of the three designated cleanup areas will receive separate notification, via a direct mailer from Green Valley, three weeks prior to the event • Due to the significant costs and logisticaUequipment/employee safety considerations, Green Valley Disposal does not recommend the inclusion of the bulky item pickup Analyst Bloomquist explained that if the City decides to include bulky item pickup in this year's clean up event, staff would like the Council to consider the following options: The City can pay for the pickup of the bulky item o At a cost of $15 for one item and $25 for two items o Bulky items containing CFCs, or bulky items such s televisions or monitors will cost an additional $30.00 Minutes 18 March 20, 2002 ~~' ~ The individual residents can pay the cost of bulky item pickup at the same rate as stated above by calling Green Valley Disposal and scheduling a pickup during their designated pick up week Analyst Bloomquist stated that inclusion of a bulky item pickup would present several logistic problems regazdless of what option is chosen. The general consensus among our neighboring cities is not to include a bulky item pickup with our clean up event due to the increased costs associated with the increased tonnage. . Analyst Bloomquist noted that staff is recommending the City host a Spring 2002 cleanup event without the inclusion of a bulky item pickup. If Council chooses to include this pickup for future cleanup events, staff recommends offering this services every other year in an effort to keep costs to the City down. Councilmember Bogosian asked for the definition of a "bulky item". Phil Couchee, General Manager/Green Valley, responded that a "bulky item" would be an item that would require two people to lift or weighing more than 70 pounds. Councilmember Bogosian asked if the residents paid their own bulky item pick up, how do we control that illegal drop-off in from of someone's house. Mr. Couchee responded that it does happened and Green Valley has no control over that. Mr. Couchee noted that is why they limit the advanced notice to three weeks. Councilmember Waltonsmith stated that the she supports pickups paid for by the -- residents and the City help promote it. Councilmember Bogosian asked why electronic equipment is considered a bulky item. Analyst Bloomquist explained that electronic equipment is considered hazardous materials and the extra $30.00 covers the disposal costs. Vice Mayor Baker noted that the City should cut the bulky item pickup during the Spring Clean Up Event. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that he supports an annual bulky item pick up paid for by the residents. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that he agrees that residents need to be informed about items such as electronic equipment and refrigerators. • Minutes 19 March 20, 2002 Consensus of the City Council proceed with the Annual Clean Up Event without the bulky item pick up, but continue to educate residents on the ground rules on disposing electric equipment and remind residents that they can call Green Valley any time of the year for a bulky item pick up for an additional charge. _-. Mayor. Streit thanked Analyst Bloomquist for his report. 11. COAST LIVE OAKS IN HERITAGE ORCHARD STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff in regards to the disposition of the existing, mature Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) trees in the Heritage Orchard and subsequent replanting with . new European Prune Plums to restore the orchard to its commercial production appearance. John Livingstone, Assistant Planner, presented staff report. Planner Livingstone explained that staff investigated options to have the trees moved or sold. A tree mover met with staff and feels most of the trees are too big to move and have some structural problems. One tree close to Fruitvale Avenue could be moved at a cost of approximately $20,000. Staff is recommending that this tree be transplanted to the entrance of the City as part of the Gateway Project. Planner Livingstone explained that the Heritage Preservation Commission has recommended to the City Council that the remaining trees be moved. The Orchard Master Plan recommends saving Oak trees. The plan would have to be amended prior to the trees removal. Planner Livingstone explained that staff received two estimates for the tree removal including one estimate from the person who currently maintains the orchard. It is estimated to cost approximately $2,400 per tree. Councilmember Bogosian asked if the $2,400 includes grinding the stumps down and does the contractor keep the wood. Planner Livingstone noted that the bid included grinding the stumps and the contractor would keep the wood. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he feels that $2,400 is high considering the contractor gets to keep the wood. Referring to a map of the Heritage Orchard trees, Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that the Oak tree that can be seen from Fruitvale could be replanted to the Gateway. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted the staging area used by Mr. Novakovich needs to be cleaned up. In regards to the six small Oak trees along Saratoga Avenue, Councilmember Waltonsmith suggested that these trees should be replanted on the median on Fruitvale Avenue. Councilmember Bogosian stated he would like to keep the Oak tree closest to the library.. Minutes 20 March 20, 2002 ~~ Mayor Streit noted that trees 3-9 should be moved and save trees 1 & 2. Mayor Streit stated that the Heritage Preservation Commission should be gin the process to develop an educational program to teach children about the orchard. - Vice Mayor Baker asked how big were the five Oak trees along Saratoga Avenue. Councilmember Waltonsmith responded they were about 6-8 feet, but eventually they will kill all the fruit trees around. ~~ Councilmember Mehaffey noted that staff needs to investigate the economics of transplanting Oak tree #3 to the Gateway, is it worth the move or should the City buy a mature Oak that would come with a guarantee. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he does not want to give the wood and suggested. staff get more bids. Consensus of the City Council to replant the five oak trees along Saratoga Avenue, remove the fir trees, save the large Oak tree #3 to replant in the Gateway, and clean up the staging area. AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that in regards to VTA, she was informed that the funding for the Cox Avenue Pedestrian Project is available and requested a status report. Director Cherbone responded that this project is in the CIP and he has applied for additional funding. COMMISSION ASSIGNMENT REPORTS None CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember Bogosian noted that he recently brought out of town guests to Congress Springs Park, and notice that a very small plaque was set into a rock. Councilmember Bogosian suggested a bigger sign. Director Cherbone responded that the sign Councilmember Bogosian saw was temporary for the grand opening ceremony and stated that a larger sign has been ordered. Councilmember Bogosian directed the City Manager to investigate the contracts with the theater groups and find out if we can meet in the theater without competing with a stage set. City Manager Anderson noted that he would investigate and report back to Council. Minutes 21 March 20, 2002 t Councilmember Mehaffey suggested that the City Manager's newsletter be distributed to Commission Chairs. It-could be used as a tool to keep the Chairpersons up to date on City business. - Councilmember Bogosian noted that he would support agendizing this item. OTHER. None CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None ADJOURNMENT There be no further business Mayor Streit adjourned the meeting at 11:05 p.m. and noted that Council would reconvene to Closed Session in the Administrative Conference Room Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk •i •' Minutes 22 March 20, 2002 G "'~ R_ MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED MEETING JOINT SESSION PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION\ SHER.IFF'S DEPARTMENT SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT APRIL 23, 2002 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in a scheduled Adjourned City Council Meeting on April 23, 2002 at the Adult Care Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue. Mayor Streit called the Adjourned City Council meeting to order at 7:1 0 p.m. and lead the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Ann Waltonsmith, Vice Mayor Evan Baker, Mayor Nick Streit ABSENT: Councilmembers Stan Bogosian, John Mehaffey ALSO Dave Anderson, City Manager PRESENT: Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Tom Sullivan, Director of Community Development John Cherbone, Public Works Director Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR APRIL 23, 2002 Cathleen Boyer, City. Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2; the agenda for the meeting of Apri123, 2002 was properly posted on April 19, 2002. COMMUNICATIONS FROM PUBLIC No one requested to speak at tonight's meeting. COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF None • q.%. JOINT MEETING WITH PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION Ma or Streit welcomed the Pu y blic Safety Commission. INTRODUCTION Bridgett Ballingall, Chair/Public Safety Commission, introduced the following Public Safety Commissioners: Isabelle Tannenbaum, Jim Schindler, Mitch Kane, Ronny Santana. Chair Ballingall noted that. Commissioner Fran Andresen was unable to attend tonight's meeting. - Chair Ballingall thanked Hugh Hexamer and Ken Biester for their eight years of service on the Public Safety Commission. Chair Ballingall thanked the City Council for their support throughout the year. Chair Ballingall thanked the City for the following: • Supporting the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP), which was completed this year. • Hiring Lori Tinfow and a City Traffic Engineer. • Approving two traffic officers, which the Public Safety Commission really appreciated. Chair Ballingall noted in regards to traffic issues the Commission will continue to: S • Saratoga Transportation Task Force • Developing an implementation plan for schools • Continue to utilize a-citywide school bussing program Implement the School Traffic Calming Program • Continue to monitor the reconfiguration along Fruitvale Avenue • Redwood school pick-up and drop-off areas Chair Ballingall noted that the Commission is focusing on the primary concerns of NTMP, school related traffic, and traffic issues in general during 2002. However, the Commission intends to broaden their scope to incorporate other matters of general public safety to maintain the integrity of the City's neighborhoods. Mayor Streit thanked the Public Safety Commission for coming to tonight's meeting. Mayor Streit declared a recess at 8:15 p.m. Mayor Streit reconvened the meeting at 8:20 p.m. • JOINT MEETING WITH SHERIFF DEPARTMENT 2. Captain Dennis Bacon, Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department, thanked the City Council for the opportunity to meet with them this evening. Captain Bacon announced Lieutenant Smedlund was recently promoted to Captain.. - Captain Bacon explained how the Sheriff s Department has been actively involved in the City and listed their accomplishments: • Traffic Safety o NTMP o Radar loan program o Directive enforcement o Intervention Process o Established school safety officer o Safe operation passage o Crossing guard training program o Teen driver awareness program o Child safety seat program o Avoid 13 • Community o Azule park Project o Great Race o Celebrate Saratoga o Neighborhood Watch Program o Email alert system Mayor Streit thanked the Sheriff s Department for coming to tonight's meeting. JOINT MEETING WITH SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT 3. Ernie Kraule, Chief/Saratoga Fire District, thanked the City Council for the opportunity to meet with them this evening. Chief Kraule explained changes in the District such as: • Retirement of Fire Commissioner Henry Clark • Appointment of Hugh. Hexamer to-Fire Commission • Moved communications to County Communications, • Transferred alarm systems to outside company Chief Kraule noted several accomplishments of the District: • First "Annual report" • Boundary Drop Agreement • Commissioner Geddes reelected • Joe Long elected as new Fire Commissioner • Hired Assistant Chief Gordon Duncan • Developed two engine companies • "Cross training program implemented • Purchased new trucks Chief Kraule noted a few projects the District has been involved in: • Saratoga Library Project • Saratoga Retirement Center • Fire Access at the Mountain Winery • Our Lady of Fatima Renovation • Sacred Heart Renovation Gordon Duncan, Assistant Fire Chief/SFD, noted that he has been with the District for almost eight months. Assistant Chief Gordon reported that the 53% of all fire calls s are responded to within 4 minutes. 47 % for those same calls are responded to over 4 minutes. In regards to EMS calls 91% are responded to within 8 minutes-and 9% are responded to over 8 minutes. Assistant Chief Gordon noted that all staff has been train as an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) and soon the District will have nine paramedics. Mayor Streit thanked the Saratoga Fire District for coming to tonight's meeting. JOINT MEETING WITH SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT 1. Ben Lobs, Acting Chief/Santa Clara County Fire District, thanked the City Council for the opportunity to meet with them this evening. Chief Lobs explained that the SCC Fire District staffs three battalions (#3, 7, and 12) in the south county area which includes 3 battalion chiefs, 19 captains, and 43 fire fighters on a daily basis for a total on duty personnel of 62. Staffing 14 . engines, 3 trucks, hazardous material unit, and a rescue unit. Chief Lobs explained that available resources in the department is 275: • 15 chief officer • 66 captain captains ' • 148 firefighters Chief Lobs noted a few changes at the West Valley Station: • Station remodel • Fence Replacement • Upgraded fuel dispending • Engine 9 replacement Chief Lobs explained the fire prevention activities in City of Saratoga: _ • Fire Inspection - 306 • Construction Inspections -124 • Site Inspections (Hydrants/Roads) - 59 • Plan Reviews - 254 • Public Education Events -16 Chief Lobs explained emergency response time is 91 % at 6 minutes or less. In regards to customer satisfaction, Chief Lobs explained that since 1998 the District has sent out over 16,000 surveys and have received back about 34%. In Saratoga 300 random samples have been sent with a 40% return the majority of returns have been satisfied with the District. Chief Lobs sited a few of the elements that are measured on the survey and stated that such as promptness, courtesy, helpfulness. The overall customer satisfaction exceeds over 90% in this community. In regards to the Boundary Drop Agreement, Chief Lobs noted that the District has been very happy with its progress and stated both departments have gained a lot of benefits. Chief Lobs noted that since September 11, 2001, the District has issued to all uniformed personnel chemical biological respirators, tyvex style suits, and all the engines now carry antidote kits. Mayor Streit thanked the Santa Clara County Fire District for coming to tonight's meeting. OLD BUSINESS (continued from 04/17/2002) REPORT ON STRATEGIES TO REDUCE CREEK CONTAMINATION INCLUDING DRAFT ORDINANCE REMOVING BELOW GRADE EXEMPTION FOR SEPTIC SYSTEMS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff to schedule introduction and first reading of septic abatement ordinance amendment following a public hearing; provide direction to staff regarding establishing of sewer lateral inspection requirements. John Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented staff report. Director Cherbone reminded Council that at its meeting of June 6, 2001 staff presented a detailed report concerning water quality in the Saratoga Creek and other creeks in the City. Tliat report explained several creeks exceed EPA standards for fecal coliform. At that time Council directed staff to investigate methods of further reducing the number of homes relying on septic systems and methods of identifying, privately owned sewer lines that could be leaking untreated sewage into local groundwater. Director Cherbone stated that the ordinance states that below grade homes served by septic systems are exempt because it was believed that the cost of installing the storage tank, pump system, and piping necessary to convert from septic to sewer would be expensive. The estimated costs associated with installing below grade connection range from $8,700 - $17,000 depending on the size of the holding tank installed and the distance to the sewer main. The City's records indicate that there are 19 homes maintaining a septic system with a "below-grade" exemption. In regards to a sewer lateral inspection program, Director Cherbone explained that staff believes more information is needed before a recommendation can be brought forward to Council. Mayor Streit asked how many of the 19 homes border creeks. Director Cherbone respond 10 homes border creeks. Vice Mayor Baker asked if the 19 property owners have been notified. Director Cherbone noted no one has been notified yet, but he will notify every property owner prior to the first reading of the ordinance. Ma or y Streit stated that he fully supports this ordinance and will work with community members who cannot afford the hook-up. John Tripp, 1650 San Antonio Road, noted that he represented the Silicon Valle Realtors Association. Mr. Tripp stated that he is glad to hear that the City has provided funding resources for sewer hook ups. Consensus of the City Council to direct staff to schedule the introduction and first reading of septic abatement ordinance amendment. 6. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD TRAIL UPDATE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst, presented staff report. Analyst Bloomquist noted that the Union Pacific Railroad has an easement running through the cities of Cupertino, Saratoga, Los Gatos and Campbell. The desire to develop this easement began when groups of West Valley pedestrians, equestrians, and bicyclists realized the potential value of this corridor for amulti-use trail. Analyst Bloomquist reported that the proposed trail segment length is 8.7 miles; with Saratoga's portion being 3.7 miles. Development of the trail would offer recreational and commuting opportunities for Saratoga residents, and will serve as an important link to significant trail venues in the area, such as the Stevens Creek Trail and Rancho San Antonio County Park Trail to the North, the Los Gatos Creek Trail and Vasona Lake County Park trails to the South. The proposed trail is included as a Regional Trail Route in the Santa Clara County Trails Master Plan, it is a proposed bicycle corridor in the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program and could be included as part of the Juan Bautista De Anza National Historic Trail. Analyst Bloomquist noted that a feasibly study was completed by Alta Transportation Consulting in October, 2001, and the recommend action of the Task Force was to defer the construction of the proposed trail until Union Pacific Rail Road Company ceases operations along the line. The primary reason for this recommendation was Union Pacific Rail Road Company's unwillingness to discuss land acquisition along their line due to potential liability. Analyst Bloomquist noted that the Task Force also recommended the following: • Task Force to conduct an annual review to discuss options and provide updates in the status of the trail • Efforts should be made by each jurisdiction to seek ways to procure land along the trail alignment that do not involve the railroad company • Each jurisdiction designate their portion of the railroad comdor land as "open space" to prevent commercial or residential development of the land when the line is abandoned Analyst Bloomquist noted the City of Cupertino and the Town of Los Gatos are considering updated their General Plan to designate the raikoad corridor as "open space". The next scheduled meeting of the U.P.R.R Task Force is April 2003. During the next several months, the "Friends of the Union Pacific Rail Road Trail" will be formed and begin holding meetings and organizing events. A final report from the U.P.R.R. Task Force should be presented to he City of Cupertino Council in the summer of 2002. Analyst Bloomquist noted that staff from VTA indicated tier 1 funding earmarked for the U.P.R.R. trail probably be reallocated to other projects, which are more likely to be completed within the next 8 years. Analyst Bloomquist noted that VTA staff did indicated that if Saratoga could negotiate an agreement with PG & E for possible usage of their easement, VTA stated they might be able to set aside some of the tier l funding to offset incurred costs of this agreement. Councihnember Waltonsmith asked about the Parks and Recreation Trails Subcommittee. • Analyst Bloomquist responded that the Trails Subcommittee is interested iri pursing the Figueroa Trail. In the near future the Subcommittee will be holding public informational meetings to inform the public of the different issues with the railroad trail and address concerns of residents near the railroad tracks. Mayor Streit asked what PG & E easement in the City would tier 1 funding pay for. Councilmember Waltonsmith responded that it is the portion along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road to Saratoga Avenue. Mayor Streit noted he would support negotiations with PG & E as long as the neighborhoods are protected. Vice Mayor Baker noted he would support a General Plan amendment designating the raikoad corridor as "open space". Vice Mayor Baker stated that he opposes the City funding any further effort for this trail until we know if the corridor will ever be available. Vice Mayor Baker also stated that he does not support spending any City money. on PG &E right-of way for such a small piece of this trail. Mayor Streit thanked Analyst Bloomquist for his report. 7. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AGREEMENT OPTIONS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Dave Anderson, City Manager, presented staff report. • City Manager Anderson reported that on February 12, 2002 the City Council discussed whether to continue the current subsidy to the Chamber of Commerce. At the conclusion of the meeting, direction was given to staff to continue the existing relationship with the Chamber for the time being and to agendize a-joint meeting with the Chamber to develop a --- new operating agreement. City Manager Anderson reported that at the April 3, 2002 Council meeting, Council directed that a discussion of various options be included in a draft Chamber agreement be agendized for April 17, 2002 meeting. Council asked Mayor Streit and Councilmember Bogosian to investigate the various options that the Council may want to discuss. City Manager Anderson stated that the discussion of concern that was brought up at the subcommittee meeting was the following: • Length of term, whether a fixed term agreement would be appropriate or a multi-year phase-out of support • A requirement that while receiving public funds, the Chamber's meetings be made open to the public • As a condition of public funding require City Council representatives on the Chamber board and Executive Committee • Reporting requirements to account for public funds spent for Chamber activities Mayor Streit noted that that he supports fee for service because the Chamber does provide valuable service's to the city such as a visitor's bureau and Celebrate Saratoga. Councihnember Waltonsmith noted that she supports adding a performance criterion to the agreement and eventually phase out the City completely. Vice Mayor Baker stated that he does not agree with the Chamber's closed meetings and noted that he supports the phasing out of all financially ties between the City and the Chamber within 3-5 years. ___. Jean Funari, Chamber of Commerce/Board member,' noted that she was here tonight as a representative of the Chamber Board of Directors to let the Council know that they look forward to working in establishing a mutually benefited agreement based on fee for services rendered. Ms. Funari noted that they are a nonprofit SO1C6 organization, which means they are governed by by-laws, and they need to adhere to them. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked why their meetings are not open to the public, even their membership, after public comments. Ms. Funari stated that their meetings are closed to the public after 6:45 p.m. only the Board of Directors meet to conduct Chamber business. In regards to Celebrate Saratoga, Vice Mayor Baker asked if the Board or the Executive Committee have any data of who attends the event. Ms. Funari stated that most Saratoga residents come to the event. Vice Mayor Baker pointed out that in 1998 when he was campaigning at Celebrate Saratoga, most of the people he approached were not registered voters in Saratoga. --- Mayor Streit stated that he feels Celebrate Saratoga is very beneficial to the City of Saratoga and the City should continue to fund the event: Mayor Streit stated that he supports a phase out agreement; eventually cutting all financial ties with the Chamber and using the City's building for another purpose. Consensus of the City Council to direct staff to contact the Chamber to set up a meeting to discuss issues. • NEW BUSINESS (continued from 04/17/2002) -" 8. __ AWARD OF CONTRACT TO ABATE A_ PUBLIC NUISANCE AT 12623 QUITO ROAD STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution; award bid; and authorize execution of contract. Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director, presented staff report. Director Sullivan reported that a hearing before a Superior Court Judge will be scheduled to consider the City's request for a warrant to enter the premises and abate the nuisance at the property located at 12623 Quito Road. The Court will not determine the propriety of the warrant until after the Council chooses a contractor to perform the abatement. The City Council's actions, however will allow us to proceed immediately, once the Court grants the City permissions to proceed. Director Sullivan explained that the City Manager is to keep an accurate accounting of the abatement costs, which include investigative, admirustrafive, direct abatement costs and other reasonably related costs. Following completion of the abatement, the City Manager must prepare a final itemized written report and present it to the Council at a regular scheduled meeting. Director Sullivan explained that the at least 10 days prior to the date of the City Council meeting, a copy of the report and written notice must be mailed to Mr. _ Michael Costa. The owner of the property. The notice must inform Mr. Costa that the City intends to impose a lien against the parcel. Director Sullivan reported that Stevens Creek Quarry Construction is the apparent low bidder with a bid price of $73,900. Stevens Creek Quarry will perform the following: • Demolition of the stilt supported building • Demolition of approximately 901inear feet of exposed reinforced 12" CMU basement walls approximately 9 feet tall • Demolition of approximately 601inear feet of steel I-beam and wood lagging retaining wall • Removal of all construction and demolition debris from the site • Import compactable dirt to fill the excavated area and compact dirt to a minimum of 90% • Install chain link fence BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION AMENDING 2001-02 BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $73 900 FROM UNALLOCATED RESERVES. MOTION PASSED 3-0-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. a BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO AWARD BID TO STEVENS CREEK QUARRY AND AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACT. MOTION PASSED 3-0-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Referring to a letter from Local Government Commission, Councilmember Waltonsmith pointed out that the Commission is offering aone-time opportunity of state rebates and low-interest financing to reduce energy costs by installing photovoltaic panels and cool roofs. Vice Mayor Baker noted that he received a notice that Marty Hicks from the County Fire Marshall's Office resigned. Vice Mayor Baker noted that Mr. Hicks was a pleasure to work with. Vice Mayor Baker noted that the County should increase the fee they charge to the people who do not abate brush and weeds on their own property. OTHER None CITY MANAGER'S REPORT City Manager Anderson informed the Council that the KSAR Board recently allocated funds to improve the sound system in the Adult Day Care Center. City Manager Anderson noted that the council recently received an email regarding VTA cuts and Council voiced concern on whether or not there was still funding for the Highway 85 Noise Mitigation Project. City Manager Anderson noted that tomorrow at the West Valley Mayors and Mangers meeting Mike Evanhoe/VTA is the featured speaker. City Manager Anderson stated that he would ask Mr. Evanhoe if the funding is still there. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk • MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MAY 15, 2002 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Open Session in the Administrative Conference Room at 5:00 p.m. to interview applicants for the Arts Commission and the Public Safety Commission. The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Closed Session, Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue at 5:40 p.m. Conference With Legal Counsel -Existing Litigation (2 cases): (Government Code section 54956.9(a)) Name of case: Saratoga Fire Protection District v. City of Saratoga (Santa Clara County Superior Court No. CV-803540) Name of case: City of Saratoga v. Michael S. Costa (Santa Clara County Superior Court No. CV-806843) • Conference With Real Property Negotiators (Section 5496.8): Property: 19848 Prospect Road ____ _ Agency negotiator: Dave Anderson, City Manager Negotiating parties: Grace Methodist Church Under negotiation: Instructions to negotiate regarding price and terms for purchase of real property. Conference With Legal Counsel -Existing Litigation: (Government Code section 54956.9(a)) City of Saratoga v. West Valley-Mission Community College District (California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District No. H022365) Conference With Legal Counsel -Existing Litigation: (Government Code section 54956.9(a)) Wu v. City of Saratoga (Santa Clara County Superior Court No. CV-807506) MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 p.m. Mayor Streit reported there was Council discussion but no action was taken. Mayor Streit called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and requested Dave Anderson, City Manager, to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Stan Bogosian, John Mehaffey Vice Mayor Evan Baker, Mayor Nick Streit ABSENT: Councilmember Ann Waltonsmith ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager "' Richard Taylor, City Attorney Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Jesse Baloca, Administrative Services Director John Cherbone, Director of Public Works Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director Joan Pisani, Recreation Director REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FORM MAY 15, 2002 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of May 15, 2002 was properly posted on May 10, 2002. Mayor Streit requested that the Council add an emergency item to tonight's agenda in regards to the purchase of property located on 19484 Prospect Road. BOGOSIAN/BAKER MOVED TO ADD AN EMERGENCY ITEM TO THE AGENDA. MOTION PASSED 4-0-0-1 WITH WALTONSMITH ABSENT. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The following person requested to speak at tonight's meeting: Bill Breck, 20375 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, note he would like to address two issues, 1) tree destruction occurring in his neighborhood 2) nonconforming barn structure located at 14480 Oak Place. Mr. Breck explained that the homeowner of this property is doing extensive remodeling. The property is a flag lot with nine neighbors. Also, a masonry perimeter wall is being constructed around the property, which is damaging many trees, and he took three trees out illegally. Mr. Breck noted that this property owner also made threats to many neighbors because they do not support his project. Mr. Breck noted that the property owner has put threatening mail in his mailbox and has filed at least 20 code violations on his property and won't stop unless he agrees with his project. Councilmember Bogosian asked if they have filed a report with the Sheriff's Department. Mr. Breck responded that they are currently in the process of filing a report Vice Mayor Baker asked if using mailboxes for non-mail was illegal. Councilmember Mehaffey stated that he has looked into this and as long as the envelope has a stamp on it can be put in a mailbox. Vice Mayor Baker stated that Mr. Breck showed the Council the envelope and there was no stamp on it. City Attorney Taylor stated that the US Postal Service could provide them with the answer. City Council Minutes 2 May 15, 2002 COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF Councilmember Mehaffey noted that he visited the site on Sunday and spoke to a few of the neighbors who showed him some of the threats. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that he is very concerned about this situation. On Monday, Councilmember Mehaffey noted that his wife observed the gentleman in question stopping in front of his house and just sat there. Director Sullivan notes that at least six staff members have been involved n this issues and now all complaints have been narrowed down to himself and Brad Lind. City Manager Anderson stated that in his opinion this is a bitter neighborhood dispute, probably not solved through code enforcement. Consensus of the City Council to direct staff to keep them informed about the situation. ANNOUNCEMENTS None CEREMONIAL ITEMS 1 A. PROCLAMATION DECLARING THE MONTH OF JUNE 2002 "BIG BASIN REDWOODS STATE PARK CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION" STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Present proclamation. Mayor Streit read the proclamation and presented it to California State Park• Ranger Scott Elliott. 1B. PROCLAMATION DECLARING THE WEEK OF MAY 19-25, 2002 "PUBLIC WORKS WEEK" STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Present proclamation. Mayor Streit read the proclamation and presented it to John Cherbone, Public Works Director. • City Council Minutes ~ 3 May 15, 2002 1 C. PROCLAMATION DECLARING JUNE 1, 2002 "NATIONAL TRAILS DAY" STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Read proclamation. Mayor Streit read the proclamation and presented it to Bill Brooks. CONSENT CALENDAR 2A. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES-REGULAR MEETING APRIL 17, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2002. MOTION PASSED 4-0-0-1 WITH WALTONSMITH ABSENT. 2B. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -ADJOURNED MEETING MAY 7, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. Vice Mayor Baker requested that item 2B of the Consent Calendar be pulled. Vice Mayor noted that he was absent on May 7, 2002 so he would be abstaining from the vote. BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF MAY 7, 2002. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1-1 WITH BAKER ABSTAINING AND WALTONSMITH ABSENT 2C. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve check register. BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO APPROVE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 4-0-0-1 WITH WALTONSMITH ABSENT. 2D. FINANCIAL REPORTS FOR THE MONTH ENDING APRIL 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept financial reports. BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO APPROVE FINANCIAL RPEORTS. MOTION PASSED 4-0-0-1 WITH WALTONSMITH ABSENT. City Council Minutes 4 May 15, 2002 C 2E. REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES -MAY 8, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO APPROVE PLANNING ACTION MINUTES. MOTION PASSED 4-0-0-1 WITH WALTONSMITH ABSENT. 2F. REAPPOINTMENT OF JIM STALLMAN TO THE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (BPAC) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: -- Approve reappointment. BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO REAPPOINT JIM STALLMAN TO THE BPAC. MOTION PASSED 4-0-0-1 WITH WALTONSMITH ABSENT. 2G. CLAIM OF ZOHREY! TABATABAIE; CLAIM NO. GL-05347 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize ABAG to reject claim. Councilmember Mehaffey requested that item 2G from the Consent Calendar. In light of the recent memo Council received regarding this claim, Councilmember Mehaffey requested a staff report. - Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, responded that after further investigation by staff, Quito Road is identified as a "minor arterial" in the City's Circulation Element. Therefore, staff is recommending payment of claim in the amount of $1,$00.00. MEHAFFEY/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO AUTHORIZE ABAG TO SETTLE CLAIM NO. GL-05347. MOTION PASSED 4-0-0-1 WITH WALTONSMITH ABSENT. 2H. CLAIM OF NATHAN HENSON; CLAIM NO. GL-053437 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize ABAG to reject claim. BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO AUTHORIZE ABAG TO REJECT CLAIM NO. GL-053437. MOTION PASSED 4-0-0-1 WITH WALTONSMITH ABSENT. • City Council Minutes $ May 15, 2002 2I. AYSO USER AGREEMENT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize execution of agreement. BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF AYSO AGREEMENT. MOTION PASSED 4-0-0-1 WITH WALTONSMITH ABSENT. 2J. TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT (TDA) ARTICLE 3 APPLICATION FOR THE SARATOGA AVENUE WALKWAY PROJECT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. • BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION FOR TDA APPLICATION FOR SARATOGA AVENUE WALKWAY PROJECT. MOTION PASSED 4-0-0-1 WITH WALTONSMITH ABSENT. 2K. TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT (TDA) ARTICLE 3 TIER 1 BICYCLE EXPENDITURE PROGRAM APPLICATION FOR THE COX AVENUE RAILROAD CROSSING PROJECT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION FOR TDA APPLICATION FOR COX AVENUE RAILROAD CROSSING PROJECT. MOTION PASSED 4-0-0-1 WITH WALTONSMITH ABSENT. URGENCY ITEM 6. PROPERTY LOCATED AT 19484 PROSPECT ROAD City Manager Anderson reported that on Monday the Church requested that the _ Council make two adjustments on the purchase contract offer. City Manager Anderson stated the first clarification is that the stimulation of the sixty day contingency on the General Plan Amendment and the EIR be deleted and secondly wording added to the contract stating that "the close of escrow will be on or before August 2002 or the contract is void" needs to added to the contract. MEHAFFEY/ BOGOSIAN MOVED TO RATIFY THE DECISION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ELIMINATE THE CONTINGENCIES OF THE CITY'S OFFER. MOTION PASSED 4-0-0-1 WITH WALTONSMITH ABSENT. City Council Minutes ( May 15, 2002 MEHAFFEY/ BOGOSIAN MOVE TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE COUNTER OFFER FROM THE CHURCH EXTENDING THE DEADLINE TO AUGUST 17, 2002 FOR THE CLOSE OF ESCROW. - MOTION PASSED 4-0-0-1. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. ORDINANCE ADOPTING RULES FOR SKATE PARKS STAFF RECOMMENDATION:. Open public hearing; accept testimony; close public hearing; introduce the ordinance; waive the first reading. Richard Taylor, City Attorney, presented staff report. City Attorney Taylor explained that at the City Council meeting of March 12, 2002 the City Council directed staff to pursue establishment of a mobile skate park for the City. Staff has ordered the necessary equipment and is preparing a pilot program for this summer. City Attorney Taylor stated that in order to ensure the safety of skate park users and those in the vicinity of the skate park, staff has prepared the ordinance in order to reduce to some degree the risks inherent in skating. City Attorney Taylor explained that the ordinance: • Allow skateboarding in skate parks (this would be an exception to the general rule prohibiting skateboarding in City parks). • Require skate park users to wear a helmet, elbow pads, and knee pads. In- line skaters would be required to wear wrist guards as well. • Require all skate parks to be posted with signs describing the required safety equipment and consequences ofnon-compliance. City Attorney Taylor stated that the ordinance has been drafted to comply with the requirements of California Heath & Safety Code section 115800. The ordinance amends the Parks and Recreation Article of the City Code. City Attorney Taylor stated that the Section 2.2 of the ordinance adds a new section to the City Code. The new section requires all skate park users to wear helmets, elbow pads and kneepads. The ordinance would also require in-line skate to wear wrist guards. This requirement is based on the approach used by other jurisdictions in the area. Section 2.2. would also require that signs be posted in skate parks to ensure that park users are aware: 1. Of the required safety equipment 2. That they can be cited for failure to wear the required safety equipment 3. That the skate park is not supervised; and 4. That skating is an inherently dangerous activity. City Council Minutes '7 May 15, 2002 City Attorney Taylor stated that the noted that while Recreation Department staff maybe on-site at the skate park they would not be present in a formal capacity as supervisors. Accordingly the signs will note that the park is unsupervised. Councihnember Bogosian asked if the staff person at the site had the authority to remove skate park users. City Attorney Taylor responded that the staff person would have the authority to eject users out of the park or call the Sheriff to cite the violator. City Attorney noted that his staff person is not acting in a supervisory position. Councilmember Mehaffey asked if this ordinance applied to all parks in the City of Saratoga. City Attorney Taylor responded that this ordinance would only apply to the skate park. Councilmember Mehaffey asked if the rules applied to adults. City Attorney Taylor responded that the rules apply to anyone who uses the park. Mayor Streit opened the Public hearing at 7:33 p.m. Mayor Streit closed the Public Hearing at 7:34 p.m. Councilmember Bogosain asked when the equipment is not in use v~~ould it be locked down in such a way where people could not use it. Director Pisani responded that it would be locked up in the Corporation Yard. Councilmember Mehaffey asked City Attorney Taylor if he was familiar with a legislation that was passed a few~years ago indemnifying cities for skateboard parks. City Attorney Taylor explained that there is legislation that declares that cities would not be liable to user 14 years of age or older if the City has an ordinance like the one that is proposed to the Council this evening. Unfortunately this legislation expires next year, but he has heard talk of the legislation being extended. Because skateboarding is an inherently dangerous activity under the City, with this ordinance, is well protected. Director Pisani explained minors must have a parent sign release form, which will be in a binder at the site. The staff person at the site would check the user in and place a wristband on them. • City Council Minutes g May 15, 2002 BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO INTRODUCE THE AND WAIVE THE FIRST READING OF THE ORDINANCE AND PLACE THE ORDINANCE ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR JUNE 5, 2002 FOR ADOPTION. MOTION PASSED 4-0-0-1 WITH WALTONSMITH ABSENT. OLD BUSINESS 4. REVIEW OF FISCAL YEARS 2002/03 PRELIMINARY BUDGET AND REVIEW PROPOSED FEE STRUCTURE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Review process for 2002/03 operating budget and accept changes made to the draft annual fee schedule. Jesse Baloca, Administrative Services Director, presented staff report. Director Baloca reported that on May 5, 2002 staff introduced 2002-03 Preliminary Operating Budget. At that time staff gave an overview of what happened in FY 2001-02 covering revenue stability and recovery from recessionary conditions and dedication that occurred during the fiscal year of large reserves and projected end fund balance of $6.6 million FY 2001-02. Director Baloca reported that in FY 2002-03 staff anticipates no reduction to the General Fund reserve. Director Baloca that the FY 2002-03 total would be $15,248,764. Director Baloca noted significant program changes as follows: General Government o City Council -reduced by one-time prior year study's/contributions o Contingency -replenish amount to $200k per Council policy o City Commission -added Arts Commission and increased training o City Manager -increased part-time fro clericaUvacation support and for conferences & City Manager meetings o City Clerk - FY 2002-03election costs o Equipment Operations - 70% reduction in capital equipment o Financial Management - GASB34 continuation and moved part- time budget analyst from City manager's budget o Human Resources -contract service reduction or developing personnel polices and procedures increase city-wide training o Facilities -fire alarm system o MIS -capital reduction and in-house web server host Public Safety • Code Enforcement capital reduction funded by CLEEP grant ~ Police Services - 2002-03 contract approximately 5.5% increase • Crossing guards -request fog an additional guard at Oak and Highway 9 • Animal Control -includes wildlife center and less contingency City Council Minutes 9 May 15, 2002 Public Works • Established 5 -Year CIP and remove all CIP from operating budget • Street Maintenance -last year of TEA 21 and Measure B funds to boost PMP • Landscape and Lighting -increase in electrical for street lights and irrigation controllers Development Services • Update of Land Use Elements to the general plan and plan checks conducted in-house Environmental Services • Waste management -reduces spring day cleanup participation • Storm Water Mgmt -increased program dues, consulting service budget reduced for Saratoga Creek settlement agreement Recreation • Recreation -Staff allocation changes, increased in program activity and activity guide production costs • Teen Services -Skate park temporary staffing and elimination of weekend ski trip Community Services • Civic Theater -capital for new sound system • Community Access TV -reflects increase in cable franchise fee revenues Deht service Parking District & Leonard Road according to debt service schedule Library Bond -new debt service schedule In regards to personnel services Director Baloca explained: • No new full time employees (FTE's) • Two reclassifications • Assumes complete year of staffing • 8% maximum anniversary adjustment • Increase in recreation part-time to reflect skate park • 4% Memorandum of Understanding - cost of living adjustment • 25% increase in PERS medical by contract Vice Mayor Baker stated that he is not comfortable with the 8% maximum anniversary adjustment -it's sends the wrong message out to the community. Vice Mayor Baker stated that a 12% salary increase across the board in one year creates the wrong perception to the public. Director Baloca noted that the average anniversary increase is 6%. Director Baloca noted the budget is very conservative. City Council Minutes 10 May 15, 2002 Councihmember Bogosian noted that he shares Vice Mayor Baker's concerns; this 5 increase creates the wrong perception and suggested readjusting the percentage downward so it's reflected accurately... Councilmember Mehaffey question the 25% increase to PERS. Councilmember Mehaffey asked if.#his_was a contract between the City and the employees or PERS. Director Baloca stated the contract is between the City and PERS. City Manger Anderson explained that this was something the Council agreed to in the last negations with SEA and if it is changed negotiations would have to reopen up with the employees. In regards to the anniversary increase, Mayor Streit noted he would support changing the percentage from 8% to 4% . Councilmember Bogosian suggested that the merit system be reevaluated. City Manager Anderson stated the staff is in the process of rewriting the City's evaluation forms. Director Sullivan and Director Pisani both stated that most of their staff is at the top step and would only receive the 4% cost of living adjustment. Councilmember Mehaffey stated that he does not want to let any staff go. Vice Mayor Baker noted that Directors should exercise judgment and recommend merit increase to commensurate to each individual employee. -- City Manager Anderson noted that the Human Resource Department is working on developing a methodology that allows significantly less discretion to Directors and supervisor using a checklist of behaviors and performances to measure merit increase. Director Pisani noted that she gives an average merit increase of 5% but most of her employees are at the top step. Vice Mayor Baker suggested that the City conduct bi-annual salary survey. Councilmember Mehaffey stated that the City's budget should reflect the realities of what is happening today. Councilmember Mehaffey stated that the economy has been readjusted, housing has come down regional, rent has lowered, people in Saratoga are getting laid off, so the City's budget should reflect these changes. Consensus of the City Council to change the 8% to 4% for anniversary increase and reevaluate the City's merit system to be more conservative. Director Baloca explained the proposed changes to the fee schedule for FY 2002-03 as follows: City Council Minutes 11 May 15, 2002 Animal Control Fees - • Minor license fee increase • Impound boarding fees • Reduced delinquent and replacement tag fees • New return check charge • Trap deposit and rentals Public Works • Work by utility agencies Recreation • Arts and crafts room • Civic theater surcharge Community Iyevelopment • Charge a flat fee's to initial deposit plus cost recovery • New fees o EIR -Department of Fish & Game requirement o Subdivision Final Map o Tree removal application Regarding the tree removal fee of $25.00, Vice Mayor Baker asked if a person had to pay the fee to remove a dead tree. Director Sullivan responded that proposed fee would apply to any tree that is desired to take down. Historically the City has never charged a fee; recently the - City changed how the inspection is done from using a contract employee m Public Works to having the building inspectors or code enforcement inspect the tree and write the report using the city code criteria. Director Sullivan explained that the new process eliminates paying a contract employee extra money and the $25.00 helps cover the cost; although it is not full cost recovery, but would help. Vice Mayor Baker noted that if a dead tree is posing a safety factor he does not support charging a fee to take it down. Director Sullivan noted that he could amend the ordinance to exclude dead trees. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that the City should look at how we allow tree removal services to operate in the City'of Saratoga. Councilmember Mehaffey - noted that too many trees are cut down without a permit because the contractor claims they did not know they needed a permit. Councilmember Mehaffey asked if the City could require those companies to have proof of a tree removal permit to cut down anordinance-protected tree. - Director Sullivan responded that currently the ordinance is focused on the property owner and suggested that the first step could be using the City's business license information and send to all tree companies an informational letter reminding them of the City's tree ordinance. City Council Minutes 12 May 15, 2002 ., ,~ City Attorney Taylor added that the City code prohibits removal or causing to be removed, so the property owner or the company could be held liable. City Attorney Taylor stated that the hard part is enforcement. Councilmember Mehaffey suggested the City run an awareness campaign. Director Sullivan stated that the tree removal process was published in the last Saratogan. On a final noted Director Baloca noted that the FY 2002-03 Operating Budget will be back as a public hearing on June 5, 2002. Mayor Streit thanked Director Baloca for his report. NEW BUSINESS PRESENTATION -DAWN JACKSON, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS /PG&E STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Informational only. Mayor Streit announced that Dawn Jackson was unable to attend tonight's meeting and would be rescheduled for June 5, 2002. COMMISSION ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Mayor Streit reported that the Public Safety Commission has had ongoing meetings with Blue Hills Elementary School to try and work. out traffic issues. Mayor Streit commended the Chair of the Public Safety Commission, Bridgett Ballingall. Vice Mayor Baker reported that the Parks and Recreation Commission has been trying to come up with a recommendation to bring to Council on how Azule Park will be entered from Knollwood Drive. Councilmember Bogosian reported that the Library Expansion Committee recently selected all of the interior the and furniture for the new library. Also, Councilmember Bogosian reminded everyone about the Friends of the Library fundraising efforts to buy more furniture. Councilmember Mehaffey had no reportable information. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Mayor Streit reminded everyone that Hakone Gardens would be celebrating "Japan Day" on May 19, 2002 from 12:00 p.m.-500 p.m. • City Council Minutes 13 May 15, 2002 1.y Mayor Streit announced that the Saratoga Youth Commission would be hosting "Family Night" at Armadillo Willy's, 20% of your purchase would be donated to help support the Youth Commission. Councilmember Mehaffey pointed out that he has noticed several real estate signs along Cox Avenue and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Councilmember Mehaffey stated that this was unacceptable. City Manager Anderson noted that he would investigate this issue and report back to Council. OTHER None CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None ADJOURNMENT • There be no further business Mayor Streit adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. and noted that Council would reconvene to Open Session to discuss the Youth Commission appointments in the Administrative Conference Room Respectfiilly submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk • • City Council Minutes 14 May 15, 2002