Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-26-2002 Planning Commission PacketCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, June 26, 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 Zutshi and Chair Jackman Staff: Planners Oosterhous &t Welsh, Director Sullivan, and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of June 12, 2002 (APPROVED 4-0-1, ROUPE ABSTAIN) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address thePlanning 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, the Planning Commission may instruct staf f accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staf f. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 16, 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. DR-00-051 &r BSA-00-003 (503-30-002) -WALKER, 13800 Pierce Road; - Request for Design Review and Building Site Approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence on a 19,210 square foot vacant lot. The floor area of the proposed residence and attached two-car garage is 3,609 square feet. The maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The site is zoned Hillside Residential. (OOSTERHOUS) (APPROVED TO CONTINUE TO JULY 10, 2002, 5-0) 2. APPLICATION #02-020 (410-40-018) - HUYNH,15120 Quito Road; -Request for Design Review Approval to demolish an existing 2,214 square foot single-family residence on a 43,342 square foot lot. The floor area of the new residence including the basement and attached garage will be 6,937 square feet. The maximum height of the residence will be 25 feet. The site is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (WELSH) (APPROVED 5-0) APPLICATION #02-056 (397-06-080) - CHANDRA, 18595 Woodbank Way; - Request for Design Review Approval for an addition to a 4,765 square foot single- family residence on a 44,451 square foot lot. The addition will add approximately 422 square feet to the main floor, 472 to the lower level, and 441 square feet to the new garage. The maximum height of the residence will be 26 feet. The site is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (WELSH) (APPROVED 5-0) 4. APPLICATION #02-082 (Citywide) -CITY OF SARATOGA; -The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment would establish Development Standards for Mixed Use Developments. These standards address density, unit size, ratio of commercial square footage to residential square footage and compatibility to existing residential and/or commercial development. (SULLIVAN) (APPROVED TO CONTINUE TO OCTOBER 23, 2002, 5-0) DIRECTOR'S ITEMS - None COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner's sub-committee reports Appoint Planning Commissioner to Gateway Task Force sub-committee (ROUPE APPOINTED) COMMUNICATIONS - None ADJOURNMENT AT 10:05 PM TO THE NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, July 10, 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 e-mail, please send your e-mail address to planning@sarato a.ca.us CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION LAND USE AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 - 3:00 p.m. PLACE: City Hall Parking Lot, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Land Use Committee SITE VISITS WILL BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 2002 ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. DR-00-051 &t BSA-00-003 - WALKER Item 1 13800 Pierce Road 2. Application #02-056 - CHANDRA Item 3 18595 Woodbank Way 3. Application #02-020 - HUYNH Item 2 15120 Quito Road LAND USE COMMITTEE The Land Use Committee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The committee conducts site visits to properties which are new items on the Planning Commission agenda. The site visits are held Tuesday preceding the Wednesday hearing between 3:00 and 5:00 p.m. It is not necessary for the applicant to be present, but you are invited to join the Committee at the site visit to answer any questions which may arise. Site visits are generally short (5 to 10 minutes) because of time constraints. Any presentations and testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the public hearing. Please contact staff Tuesday morning for an estimated time of the site visit. • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, June 26, 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 June 12, 2002 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of thePublic will be allowed to address thePlanning 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 Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staf f. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 16, 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. DR-00-051 &~ BSA-00-003 (503-30-002) -WALKER, 13800 Pierce Road; - Request for Design Review and Building Site Approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence on a 19,210 square foot vacant lot. The floor area of the proposed residence and attached two-car garage is 3,609 square feet. The maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The site is zoned Hillside Residential. (OOSTERHOUS) 2. APPLICATION #02-020 410-40-OI8 - HUYNH 15120 uito Road• - Re uest for ( ) ~ Q ~ q Design Review Approval to demolish an existing 2,214 square foot single-family residence on a 43,342 square foot lot. The floor area of the new residence including the basement and attached garage will be 6,937 square feet. The maximum height of the residence will be 25 feet. The site is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (WELSH) 3. APPLICATION #02-056 (397-06-080) - CHANDRA, 18595 Woodbank Way; - Request for Design Review Approval for an addition to a 4,765 square foot single- family residence on a 44,451 square foot lot. The addition will add approximately 422 square feet to the main floor, 472 to the lower level, and 441 square feet to the new garage. The maximum height of the residence will be 26 feet. The site is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (WELSH) 4. APPLICATION #02-082 (Citywide) -CITY OF SARATOGA; -The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment would establish Development Standards for Mixed Use Developments. These standards address density, unit size, ratio of commercial square footage to residential square footage and compatibility to existing residential andlor commercial development. (SULLIVAN) DIRECTOR'S ITEMS - None COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner's sub-committee reports Appoint Planning Commissioner to Gateway Task Force sub-committee COMMUNICATIONS - None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, July 10, 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 e-mail, please send your a-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us fN Y_ 1V~ D i `/ / `// V ~ ~/~ L MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Acting Chair Kurasch called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Zutshi Absent: Commissioner Jackman and Roupe Staff: Director Tom Sullivan and Associate Planner John Livingstone PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of May 22, 2002. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the regular Planning Commission minutes of May 22, 2002, were approved as submitted with one correction to page 11. AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Jackman and Roupe ABSTAIN: Barry 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 June 6, 2002. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Director Tom Sullivan 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). ti~ Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 12, 2002 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 1 APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION 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. Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that a Tree Removal Permit was issued for 14480 Oak Street. • Identified the property owner as Mr. Mitch Cutler and the appellant as Mr. Bill Breck. • Explained that the reasons for the tree removal are beetle infestation and old age. • Added that on April 22, 2002, the City's Arborist prepared a report on two pines on the subject property and the conclusion of that report was that the trees should be removed. Additionally, another Arborist, Mr. James Scott, who was hired by Mr. Cutler, also recommended removal of the trees. • Said that Mr. Cutler will be required to plant two 24-inch box trees in replacement of the removed trees. Mr. Cutler is proposing oak rather than pine trees. • Stated that staff moved this appeal hearing up two weeks to expedite consideration since there are insurance coverage issues. Mr. Cutler's insurance carrier is now refusing coverage for any potential damage caused by these trees. Commissioner Hunter asked if the installation of the wall damaged the roots. Added that it is important to consider whether any trees might be impacted when a request to install a wall is received. Director Tom Sullivan advised that the plans indicated installation of a fence and not a wall. A fence in this case would be exempt. However, what was installed was a wall. New plans will be submitted to reflect this change from fencing to a wall. Commissioner Barry asked for the reason for Barrie Coates' April review. Director Tom Sullivan replied that Barrie Coates went to the site with a City Code Enforcement Officer after complaints regarding tree damage were received. Commissioner Zutshi asked for further information about the role of the wall. Director Tom Sullivan replied that consideration of the wall is not a part of this evening's hearing. Staff is working with the property owner on that issue separately. Commissioner Garakani asked whether neighbors are contacted prior to approving a Tree Removal Permit. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 12, 2002 Page. 3 Director Tom Sullivan advised that the Code does not provide for such notification. That is one issue to be worked out with the Code Update. Commissioner Barry reiterated that walls require building plans but what had originally been planned for the site was a fence. Acting Chair Kurasch reminded that the wall would be handled under a separate venue. Acting Chair Kurasch opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:20 p.m. Mr. Bill Breck, Appellant, 20375 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga: • Described his home as being the larger white home with columns located on Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. • Stated that the Cutler property is located behind his on a flag lot. • Advised that he speaks on behalf of 14 neighbors, including one who is currently recovering from a heart attack. • Suggested a continuance due to the schedule change, which brought this item before the Commission earlier than originally scheduled. • Stated that Arborist Barrie Coates' report was misrepresented by staff in that it actually says that the property owner "wishes" to remove these trees rather than "should" remove these trees. • Added that his main issue is why a tree described by Bame Coates as being in a 90 percent condition of health being removed. ~ Said that it is unfair to replace a 70-foot tree with a 24-inch box tree that costs only about $350. The 70-foot tree provides visual privacy for five neighbors. • Said that the penalty outlined in the Code for unlawful removal of a tree requires that the replacement value at least match the monetary value of the tree being removed. A $350 tree does not come close. • Pointed out that the tree was damaged due to construction activity. • Reminded that one of the two proposed trees for removal has already been removed. This removal occurred before the Appeal with the City could be filed. • Added that there is no mention of beetle infestation in Barrie Coates' report although it does state so in another Arborist's report. • Declared that beetle infestation is not terminal for a tree and rarely kills the tree. • Said that many trees throughout the City have beetles and do not die. • Said that this Tree Removal Permit merits further investigation and findings as to whether the tree is dead. • Reiterated his main points as being the fact that Barrie Coates had ranked the tree as being in 90 percent condition, that he is skeptical of the work done by the second Arborist, that many neighbors are concerned and that other trees were removed from the site without permits. In fact, nearly 2"0 trees have received damage. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Breck where his residence is located in respect to the tree. Mr. Bill Breck replied about 40 to 60 feet away. Commissioner Garakani asked how this tree helps provide privacy from that distance. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 12, 2002 Page 4 Mr. Bill Breck replied that his house is a three-level home with the bedrooms on the upper level. Commissioner Garakani said that on his recent site visit he noticed two oaks on the other side of the proposed removed tree as well as plenty of other trees and does not see a privacy issue. He added that Mr. Breck's three-story home is more of a privacy issue for the neighbor than this neighbor would be for the Breck property. Mr. Bill Breck reminded that he is speaking on behalf of 14 neighbors. Commissioner Garakani replied that there is nothing in the packet to substantiate that Mr. Breck is indeed representing 14 neighbors. There is just Mr. Breck's own correspondence. He added that the tree proposed for removal is hindering the growth of a more precious oak tree. Mr. Bill Breck said that he does not believe there is an oak within 25 feet of this pine tree. Commissioner Barry inquired of Mr. Breck, assuming the tree lives a while, what would he like to have happen. Mr. Bill Breck replied that he is comfortable with the provisions of the Ordinance. Commissioner Barry asked what Mr. Breck feels would be fair. Mr. Bill Breck replied something of equivalent monetary value or at least four planter box trees. Commissioner Barry reminded that the applicant is proposing oak trees and asked Mr. Breck if he has any opinion of other tree species. Mr. Bill Breck said that planting more of them is the healthiest thing to do as far as oak trees are concerned. Acting Chair Kurasch asked staff for clarification as to whether this tree is considered as being unlawfully removed. Director Tom Sullivan replied no. He added that three other trees were unlawfully removed on site but this one was not. Acting Chair Kurasch said that the definition of unlawfully removed tree is clear. Mr. Bill Breck said that it is not in the spirit of the Ordinance to replace a 70-foot tree with a $350 tree. Commissioner Hunter said that Mr. Breck's fight for trees is wonderful and stated that the tree looks perfectly healthy. Asked Mr. Breck's reaction to concerns about proximity to the home. Mr. Bill Breck said he would defer to Barrie Coates' opinion as to whether the tree is dangerous. Pointed out that there have been no tree protection fences at all and that he would like to see more conditions to protect trees on site. Mr. Mitch Cutler, 14480 Oak Place, Saratoga: z Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 12, 2002 ~ Page 5 • Said that the facts speak for themselves and that Barrie Coates' has told them that the trees should be removed. • Claimed that this whole issue is a fabrication by Mr. Breck, who is unhappy about two easements that run across the Breck property. • Stated that this tree has gone through many legal challenges and that no citation has been issued. • Added that when asked to stop work on the removal of the second pine by Director Sullivan he complied. • Accused Mr. Breck of trying to control his property. • Informed that he has a contract for 10 to 15 trees to be installed. • Clarified that Mr. Breck's home is 150 feet from the tree and is also separated by a guesthouse. • Said that fencing and landscaping mitigation can be addressed and that he has lawfully cooperated through the appeal process. Commissioner Barry pointed out that staff received a complaint that the wall was in the process of being built that was causing some damage to roots of the trees in question. Mr. Mitch Cutler replied that there is no wall near the pines and only one-and-a-half foot tall footings to support asix-foot wood fence. Said that they have changed their plan to a concrete wall all the way around in order to keep Mr. Breck from his property. Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Cutler if it was brought to his attention that the footings were causing root damage. Mr. Mitch Cutler advised that the footings were hand dug in order to be very careful of the roots. Commissioner Zutshi asked Mr. Cutler what species of trees he was proposing to plant. Mr. Mitch Cutler replied canary palm, cypress and oaks, depending on the Arborist's recommendation. Acting Chair Kurasch asked Mr. Cutler if he was aware of Mr. Breck's appeal when he was removing the first of the two pine trees. Mr. Mitch Cutler replied no. He added that the appeal was filed on Monday at 1:30 p.m. while his tree removal contractor was on site at 7:30 a.m. on that day. He added that City staff came on site at about 1:30 p.m. when they were mostly through cutting down the first tree. However, he had the crew stop when asked to do so by City staff. Acting Chair Kurasch pointed out that every reference made by Barrie Coates indicates that the beetle infestation was caused by the construction of the wall, which caused root damage. In other words, most of the damage was due to the construction of the wall. Asked what was the intention. Mr. Mitch Cutler stated that these are 60 to 80 foot high trees on the southeast side of his property, which served to cool his house. He pointed out that the home is now significantly warmer as a result of the shade lost. Mr. Bill Breck reiterated that Barrie Coates' report does not show beetle infestation and rather stated that the tree is very healthy with a ranking of 90 percent condition of health. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 12, 2002 ° Page 6 Commissioner Garakani reminded that the Commission is considering whether this tree should be removed at this point. Mr. Bill Breck said that whatever decision is made should be based upon Barrie Coates' recommendations. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that Barrie Coates has stated in his report that this tree would- die within two years. That evaluation is a main reason for Administrative Approval for removal. Acting Director Kurasch reiterated that the paragraph above this statement states that the condition of the tree was compromised as a result of construction activity. Acting Chair Kurasch closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:53 p.m. Commissioner Barry asked Director Sullivan to comment on the dollar amount for the replacement tree. Director Tom Sullivari said that the Section of the Municipal Code quoted by Mr. Breck pertains to unlawfully removed trees. In this case, however, the required replacement is on a one to one ratio. The Planning Commission can change that requirement. Acting Chair Kurasch asked if this is a gray area in that the tree, which should have been protected, was damaged by unpermitted activity and whether this is taken into consideration. Director Tom Sullivan said that the property owner filed a Tree Removal Permit application almost immediately upon receipt of the Arborist's report and this is not considered an unlawful act. Commissioner Barry said that the conclusion seems to be that the property owner managed to save himself by getting his request in for a permit. Commissioner Garakani: • Suggested that it may not make sense to replant in exactly the same location. • Said that it might be better to scatter the new trees around and that this might deal with Mr. Breck's privacy concerns. • Added that the tree should definitely come out at this time, as it is not safe. Commissioner Hunter: • Said that unfortunately she agreed and that the tree is too close to the owner's homes and threatens the children's bedroom. • Said that she would like to see a good size replacement and not a canary palm. • Added that she is sorry this has happened. • Expressed that she is glad to learn that neighbors will be notified in the future of Tree Removal Permits. Commissioner Zutshi said that she is bothered by how the tree got in the condition it is now in but agreed that safety is a good issue. Acting Chair Kurasch said that it seems clear that the consensus is that the tree should come out. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 12, 2002 Page 7 Commissioner Barry: • Said that while she agrees the tree must come out there are a number of issues that need to be considered in the future including what kind of scrutiny the City should require. • Said that even if dug carefully, unfortunately, damage to tree roots is still possible. However, there is no requirement for careful scrutiny for fence footings. Director Tom Sullivan said that the Commission's Subcommittee on Trees will work to ensure that the Tree Handout says the same thing as the Ordinance: Commissioner Barry: • Said that she would like to see the size of replacement tree increase and perhaps the number of replacement trees. Additionally, the replacement trees should be indigenous trees that are calculated to provide screening. • Agreed with Commissioner Hunter's concern about the proposed use of canary palms. However, if 15 new trees are introduced, some could be canary palms. • Stated that these are neighborhood trees that provide an environment. Acting Chair Kurasch: • Expressed agreement with all that has been said here. • Added that she feels badly about the removal of these trees but sees no alternative, as they must heed the evaluation that these trees will die. One tree is already gone and the other needs to come out. • Said that she is concerned about valuation but wants to be careful. • Said that it is reasonable to increase the replacement tree value to more closely match the value of the removed tree. • Said that these trees were killed by activity on site. • Declared that these two neighbors need to be more proactive and less defensive. • Added that this appeal was pretty understandable. • Asked how this will be coordinated with the action underway on the other trees. Director Tom Sullivan said that Mr. Cutler will present a landscape plan for staff review and asked for guidance from the Commission on the size and number of replacement trees. Commissioner Garakani suggested that the replacement trees not be put in the same area in order to prevent overcrowding. Suggested atwo-year bond with atwo-year inspection to ensure the health of the replacement trees. Director Tom Sullivan said that a bond amount is typically based on the Arborist's report Acting Chair Kurasch suggested about 20 percent of the tree value. Director Tom Sullivan said that the bond is released in two years if the trees remain healthy. Commissioner Barry said that she could accept two trees in replacement but larger ones. Director Tom Sullivan gave the next two tree sizes as 36 and 48-inch box. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 12, 2002 Commissioner Barry recommended 48-inch box. Page 8 Acting Chair Kurasch: • Suggested referring this matter back to Barrie Coates, as the Commission does not have the expertise. • Said that there is no real difference in canopy growth and that larger trees are slower to establish. • Said that she would rather see more trees instead of larger trees and suggested four 36-inch box trees in replacement. Motion: .Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission denied the appeal to reverse an Administrative Decision to allow the removal of two Monterey pines located at 14480 Oak Place and added the following conditions: 1. A bond for two years; 2. The replacement of the removed trees with four 36-inch box trees to be determined with the recommendation of the Arborist and preferably to include indigenous trees that provide screening. AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Jackman and Roupe ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 *** Application #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) Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to construct a new 5,847 square foot, single-story residence with a maximum height of 22 feet and demolish an existing 3,821 square foot house. • Reminded that typically a new single-story replacing an existing single story home is handled through an Administrative Design Review but since the structure exceeds the 18-foot height limit, the project requires Planning Commission review. • Stated that the home's design will minimize the perception of bulk. The new home will be located in approximately the same location as the existing. There will be varying rooflines and a small shed dormer. The home will be integrated with the environment, as there are very mature trees that will be maintained. No protected trees are to be removed. The home will consist of natural earthtone colors. It would be difficult to see the house from the public right-of--way. • Concluded that overall this proposed home is in character with the neighborhood. • Recommended approval. • Commissioner Barry inquired whether the topic of impervious surfaces has been discussed and whether anything would preclude the use of an impervious material for the driveway. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 12, 2002 Page 9 Commissioner Garakani asked if the existing driveway would be retained. Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that he believes a new driveway is proposed. Acting Chair Kurasch opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:17 p.m. Mr. Marty Oakley, Project Designer: • Made himself available for questions. • Asked for one change in the Conditions so that the final landscaping plan would not be required to be submitted and approved until final inspection rather than at time of issuance of building permits. • Reminded that there is no site grading proposed and that it is impractical to ask for the final landscape plan at the time of building permit issuance. • Added that he does not usually contract with a landscape contractor until the home is 75 percent completed to allow the landscape to fit into the site with the new home. Commissioner Barry advised Mr. Oakley that it is the Commission itself that asked for earlier submittal of final landscape plans. Commissioner Garakani asked if there is a basement. Mr. Marty Oakley replied no. Acting Chair Kurasch pointed out that the Arborist's report indicates that there should be no lawn planted beneath the retained oak tree. Mr. Marty Oakley said that one does not typically put lawns beneath oak trees because it is not good for the tree and because lawns do not grow well there. Said that the final landscape plan would clearly show that no lawn will be placed below the oak and will depict the site imgation. Acting Chair Kurasch advised that this is the reason why the Commission wants to have a final landscape plan submitted early. Mr. Eric Nequist, Applicant and Property Owner, 14633 Quito Road, Saratoga: • Said that they have been removing any ivy that might adversely impact protected trees. • Added that they are also removing a lot of backyard patio. • Assured that there would be no lawn planted beneath the oak tree and said that they are also removing all driveway area beneath the tree. Acting Chair Kurasch asked about the proposed pruning of the oak tree. Mr. Eric Nequist advised that this would be done at the request of the Arborist. Acting Chair Kurasch recommended that Mr. Nequist have a certified Arborist do this pruning and that not more than 30 percent should be pruned. Mr. Eric Nequist said that they would be careful, as they want to preserve this tree as it offers privacy. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 12, 2002 Page 10 Acting Chair Kurasch agreed that there is a good chance of retaining this tree if they follow the Arborist's recommendations. Acting Chair Kurasch closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:27 p.m. Commissioner Hunter stated that the owner is well informed and the proposed plan is fine. Said that is sad to see a nice house go but the new home will be good. Commissioner Garakani explained to Mr. Nequist that the reason for early submittal of a final landscape plan is to consider any large construction such as waterfalls and rivers on site. Agreed that it is important for a landscape designer to see the character of the house in order to plan the landscape. Commissioner Barry agreed and said that drainage is a serious concern and landscaping ties into that. It is difficult to get a handle on drainage issues without a landscape plan. Supported use of indigenous trees and asked Director Sullivan if the Commission has any latitude on that matter. Director Tom Sullivan: • Advised that the Arborist's report includes a recommendation list. The Planning Commission usually adopts a Condition to comply with the recommendations contained within the Arborist's report. • Added that if the final landscape plan submitted for staff review is an upgrade to what is required, staff handles the review. If the final landscape plan is less than required, it would be brought back before the Planning Commission. • Said that another reason for early submittal of a final landscape plan is that this is where it is depicted as to where the utilities and irrigation will go in. Acting Chair Kurasch said that she is in favor of the requirement for early submittal of a landscape plan and does not find that to be an unreasonable requirement. Acting Chair Kurasch Reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:32 p.m. Mr. Marty Oakley: • Said that he understands the reasons given for the early submittal of a final landscaping plan. • Pointed out that the utility trench is shown on the final building plans. • Extended his request for a later submittal of the final landscaping plan as he has already prepared the submittal for building permits and has it ready to submit following the 15 day appeal period in order to avoid delay of that submittal. • Asked for at least 90 days for the submittal of this final landscaping plan. • Said that the only proposed new irrigation would be for new plants and lawn. Acting Chair Kurasch Reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:35 p.m. Commissioner Barry said that she hopes word gets out that the Planning Commission is serious about its requirement for final landscaping plans. However, this is an unusual situation here since so much of the landscaping is already in place. Commissioner Hunter agreed that the plants are already there. This is not a bare piece of ground. The • Commission can be flexible in different situations. In this case, most stuff will stay where it is. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 12, 2002 Commissioner Zutshi asked about the driveway material. Page 11 Commissioner Barry suggested a Condition of Approval to require the use of pervious pavers for the driveway. Acting Chair Kurasch: • Suggested having the Arborist look at the plan for the driveway. • Proposed added text to Condition 8 to read "before the beginning of construction." • Stated that this proposed house is very appropriate and has her approval. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval to allow the construction of anew single-story, 5,847 square foot home on property located at 14633 Quito Road with the added Conditions: 1. Removal of ivy; 2. Change Condition 8 to add "before the beginning of construction." 3. Use of pervious pavers for the driveway, if possible. AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Jackman and Roupe ABSTAIN: None Acting Chair Kurasch reminded that there is a 15-day appeal period. *~~ PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 Application #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) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Stated that the applicant is seeking a 36-month extension of a two-lot parcel map, which was approved on May 10, 2000. • Advised that this request was filed in a timely manner. • Stated that all agencies have reviewed. • Said that because the project and property have undergone extensive litigation and due to current market conditions, the applicant is seeking another three years to allow conditions to change for the better. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Zutshi asked what the maximum amount of time would be allowed for an extension. Director Tom Sullivan re lied three ears. Added that a recent Chan e in State law allows one three- P Y g year extension. Extensions used to be for one year at a time. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 12, 2002 Page 12 Acting Chair Kurasch asked what the options would be if the map expired. Director Tom Sullivan responded that the parcel would remain a single parcel or the applicant would have to start the process all over again. Acting Chair Kurasch opened and closed the Public Hearing on Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:45 p.m. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission granted a 36-month time extension to the approval of SDR 99-006 for atwo-lot subdivision for property located on Saratoga Creek Drive (APN 389-06-002). AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Jackman and Roupe ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.4 Application #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) Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Said that the applicants are seeking a Design Review approval to substantially remodel asingle- story residence. • Added that the floor area ratio would not change. • Said that while this structure is currently legal non-conforming, this proposal would not increase that status. • Said that the proposed home will minimize the perception of bulk and at 22 feet in maximum height this home would be four feet less than the maximum height of 26 feet. • Said that the home will be situated on the same location as the existing home and that the existing landscaping would be retained. • Added that the home will include a varied roof elevation and articulation in the front elevation and will include stone accents. The home will be integrated with the environment due to mature trees and landscaping. The home will incorporate natural earthtone colors and a stucco finish. • Stated that this home will protect the privacy and views of adjacent properties. • Said that a detailed map was provided to surrounding neighbors and no neighbors are directly negatively affected. • Advised that this home meets energy guidelines. Solar heating is currently heating the pool. • Informed that four trees will be removed although none are in exceptional condition. The Arborist has recommended replacement. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 12, 2002 Page 13 • Advised that there is no correspondence and that the applicant has talked with all of his neighbors and each neighbor was shown the plans. • Stated that this home is in character with the neighborhood. _ • Recommended approval. Commissioner Zutshi asked if it is allowed to have the owners remove a shed in order to extend the square footage of the house. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied yes. This shed is counted as square footage as it is on a slab foundation. It is more than a typical shed. As long as it does not increase square footage overall, it is okay. Commissioner Barry pointed out that there will be 34 percent coverage and proposed the use of pervious pavers to reduce that percentage. Associate Planner John Livingstone deferred this matter to the applicants. Commissioner Hunter asked if pervious pavers are more expensive than concrete. Director Tom Sullivan replied that there is a range of prices available. Commissioner Garakani asked for clarification that this matter is before the Commission only because of its height. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. This project is too high to be approved with an Administrative Design Review. Acting Chair Kurasch asked whether this structure could be reconstructed if burned down. Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that the site would lose its legal non-conforming status. If more than 50 percent is demolished, it would be looked at as a new project. This proposal is at 40 percent and meets the intent. Acting Chair Kurasch opened the Public Hearing on Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:55 p.m. Mr. Ron Hills, Applicant and Owner, 18566 Woodbank Way, Saratoga: • Thanked the Commission for the opportunity to be here. • Said that he and his wife have worked for five years and with four major redesigns to come up with an authentic hacienda design. This has been a lot of effort. , ' • Said that they have tried to make this home design good for the City and the neighborhood. • Advised that they have met all requirements including basements. • Stated that the tree in front appears to have tapped into their water line and is causing lots of problems including damage to the slab floor. Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Hills if he is willing to improve their 34 percent use of impervious coverage by using pervious pavers on their new driveway. Mr. Ron Hills: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 12, 2002 Page 14 • Pointed out that his home is situated on what used to be an orchard pond area. Their home is on clay. The previous owner had to install a culvert across the street to help manage water. They deal with flooding in rainstorms, as the water does not sink. Additionally, the hillside behind them drains down onto their site. Together with their neighbor, they have installed a French drain system. • Declared that they have a real water problem. • Pointed out that he is a former Planning Commissioner and member of the Parks and Recreation Commission so he well understands the review process. • Added that the adjacent neighbor supports his project. Mr. Carl Peterson, 18600 Woodbank Way, Saratoga: • Stated that he has lived here since 1965 and is excited about this new addition to his neighbors' home. • Said that he liked the proposed design and is looking forward to it. • Stated that his home is set back far off the road and that he will not see this home nor be impacted during construction since big oak trees shield sounds and sight impacts. • Said that he enjoys construction as he is a retired engineer and supports his neighbors. Mr. Ron Hills added that his home would look modest from the front. They are eliminating one building from the property and have met all requirements. Acting Chair Kurasch asked about the use of pervious pavers and whether the driveway is being replaced. Mr. Ron Hills said that the had not Tanned to chan e the drivewa at this time as it re r y p g y p esents a lot of area. Acting Chair Kurasch asked Mr. Hills if he is certain that the drainage problems cannot be corrected with proper engineering. Mr. Ron Hills replied that they have black adobe clay within a couple of feet. Acting Chair Kurasch closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:09 p.m. Commissioner Barry: • Said that Mr. Hills supporting report is a thing of beauty and contains a tremendous amount of information. It should be used as a model for other applicants. • Advised that she had a major issue as to whether or not to treat this application as a new project or remodel. However, staff has said that the necessary findings can be made. • Stated that this is a nice project and she is prepared to support it. Commissioner Hunter: • Asked to see the color board. • Said that the project sounds great and is fine by her. • Thanked the Hills for the beautiful report. • Added that she is looking forward to seeing this new house in about a year and a half. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 12, 2002 Page 15 Commissioner Zutshi said that her issues about square footage have been clarified and that this is a nice house for the neighborhood. Commissioner Garakani said that he is in favor of this application. Acting Chair Kurasch said that she too had problems with this change to an existing non-conforming, as she does not feel that this represents incidental alterations. Commissioner Barry clarified that per Code, this requests meets the definition of incidental as it is less than 50 percent. Motion:. Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Planning Commission granted a Design Review approval to allow a substantial remodel to an existing single-story residence on property located at 18588 Woodbank Way. AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Jackman and Roupe ABSTAIN: None ~** NON-PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. S 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 with 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 introduce a component of residential uses within the Gateway district, as provided for in the General Plan housing element. Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this is anon-public hearing at which the Commission is to receive a report, ask questions and take testimony. Following that, the Commission should direct staff to agendize this matter for Public Hearing to allow formal notice to property owners. • Added that there has been one piece of written communication received tonight. Mr. Bob Eck, Consultant to the City, Design Studios West, Denver, CO: • Said that he has been working together with Greg Ing Associates out of San Jose. • Said that they have worked to develop draft guidelines for use in conjunction with the Master Plan that includes improvements within the street right-of--way to the cost of $3 million dollars. • Added that the Design Guidelines for the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Gateway are to address development adjacent to the right-of--way, on private property. The direction is for the design of mixed-use development to allow the introduction of residential. • Stated that the Task Force has meet since September and a series of goals were established. The goals address new development and not existing development. • Added that 17 different development standards were drafted. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 12, 2002 Page 16 • Said that both Use Permits and Design Review Approval would be required for Mixed-Use Projects. They would also have to conform with the Residential Design Handbook. Residences would be located on the second floor or at the rear of a parcel. The total FAR could not exceed SO percent (with an additional 10 percent allowed with the inclusion of BMR units). • Said that setbacks should consider adjacent building locations and the parking requirement should be the same as under the Zoning Ordinance. Private usable space should be provided and a maximum height limit would be 26 feet with the building height based upon the average existing grade. There would be a restriction to a single-story for those sites adjacent to existing single- family residences. • Said that a 30-foot setback along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road would be required to allow a 26-foot height. Additionally, a 26-foot height would be allowed adjacent to existing two-story residences. • Said that solid eight-foot high perimeter fencing would be required and a soundwall and landscape screening to protect single family residences. • Stated that the allowed uses would be local serving businesses and not big-box retailers. • Described Mixed-Use with office use on the second floor adjacent to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Office use on the first floor would require a Use Permit to encourage the dynamic of retail on first floors and office on second floors. No residential development will be included on the Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road side. Rather residential uses will be located adjacent to existing residential uses. • Encouraged linkages to adjacent properties on either side to allow circulation. • Stated that the goals for the overall Gateway are intended to encourage mixed-uses and create a strong identity for the entire Gateway with a variety of building sizes and facades, to provide pedestrian friendly access and to promote housing consistent with the City's General Plan and to allow shared parking where possible. • Said that they are looking to promote retail while encouraging residential uses. Plans include smaller scale and style, residential massing, building articulation to mitigate mass, location of service and trash areas out of sight to the rear, common colors and materials (including masonry, brick and wood), consistent character and monument signage, landscaping and buffering, breaking up massive seas of parking, buffering, fencing screen walls, mitigating impact of lighting to off-site areas and creating consistency throughout the Gateway. Mr. John Keenan, 22215 Mt. Eden Road, Saratoga: • Said that he was initially concerned that these Guidelines were to be adopted tonight. • Said that he has a number of reservations. • Stated that he is one of 18 owners of a condominium office building that is fully developed. • Stated that they have concerns over site to site access as their neighbor is a trucking company who used to use their property for truck turnaround and employee parking. They have since chained off the access. • Questioned how these Design Guidelines would be applied to existing structures. , Ms. Zoe Alameda-Farotte, 12341 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga: • Thanked the Commission for their time. • Asked what the impact of these guidelines would be if a catastrophic event should occur to their building such as if it were to burn down. Would they be prevented from rebuilding. • Stated that the Task Force was started in 1995 and focused on road improvements rather than being a broad-based Task Force. • Said that this speaks loudly of zoning changes because it changes from allowed to not-allowed uses. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 12, 2002 Page 17 _ • Stated that the City needs to notify commercial owners and that she hopes further input is provided by more commercial owners. • Said that this proposal restricts some commercial viability and would restrict redevelopment of current property. • Stated that the scenario provided by the Consultant is based upon three parcels with a total of three to five acres. • Said that these Guidelines would have an adverse effect and asked that they be reconsidered and reworked. Mr. Jeff Walker, 20451 Seagull Way, Saratoga: • Said that the public right-of--way improvements are great. They were sorely needed and are greatly appreciated. • Said that he would hate to see money spent on the roadway without also having future improvements to the private properties along that roadway. • Said that these Guidelines would help achieve consistency as there are not currently enough requirements for commercial uses. They will be something that all can tolerate and will provide needed consistency. • Said that a public forum would be a better format to receive public testimony rather than to have more Task Force activity. Mr. John Mallory, 12258 Kirkdale Drive, Saratoga: • Said that he has resided in the area since 1965 and was a member of Council in the past. • Said that he participated on the Task Force since 1995 and found there to be a lot of participation on the Task Force, including some business people. • Stated that this is a unique area with lots of housing density. • Declared that this is an opportunity to tie things together and unify and make the area more attractive with some sort of vision. • Stated that there has been excellent help from the consultant and the values of these commercial properties will increase as a result of the roadway improvements. • Said that before there are public hearings, more study and understanding is needed to not just create housing but to create an area. • Stated that the Task Force is passing the baton to the Planning Commission for more work. Mr. Lee Murray, 19466 Miller Court, Saratoga: • Said that he has resided in the area since 1964 and Chairs the Saratoga Arts Commission, of which there were three members on the Task Force. • Said that he got his first look at the Guidelines in May. • Said he is keenly interested in a program to develop community identity, including public art. • Stated that he believes that public art in this area can provide a cornerstone for public art in the City. • Suggested that funding for public art could come from a variety of sources. • Proposed a percentage of fees (from half to two percent) be allocated to the purchase of public art. This is done in other communities including Walnut Creek, Brentwood and others. Acting Chair Kurasch said that this is a good suggestion and encouraged Mr. Murray to bring his proposal in written form. Director Tom Sullivan suggested that Mr. Murray work with the staff liaison. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 12, 2002 Page 18 Commissioner Hunter suggested that Mr. Murray provide a sample Ordinance from one of the other communities with this program in place. Mr. Lee Murray said he would be happy to do so. Ms. Sue Mallory, 12258 Kirkdale Drive, Saratoga: • Identified herself as a 30 year resident who has been on the Task Force since 1995. • Provided a copy of the Saratoga News with an letter to the editor on this subject. • Agreed that there is a need to beautify the area and move forward with these Guidelines. Acting Chair Kurasch asked Ms. Mallory what the main problems with the compromises made. Ms. Sue Mallory replied that the median strips were removed from the proposal in some areas. Commissioner Barry asked what way Ms. Mallory would make it better. Ms. Sue Mallory replied go back to business owners to see if open spaces are necessary or could they use intersections. Director Tom Sullivan explained that this compromise has been accepted by Council. If a full median was installed, only right hand exits would be allowed and people would have to go to an intersection to make a U-turn to go back in the other direction. He added that a real effort was made to come up with something that would work for most people. Ms. Zoe Alameda-Farotte: • Stated that the City was wonderful in addressing the business owners concerns about the medians and the compromise was approved by Council. • Said that there was not a large group of commercial property owners present at the Task Force meeting where the Gateway Design Guidelines were reviewed in May. • Requested that the Task Force be reconvened and include more commercial property owners. Mr. John Mallory said that there are different objectives between commercial property owners and residential property owners. Said that staff has done a good job trying to get people to these Task Force meetings. Mr. Bob Eck, Consultant, said that a number of issues have been raised and that the Task Force has tried to address these issues. Commissioner Barry said that speakers tonight have raised questions regarding how to apply these Gateway Design Guidelines to existing properties and buildings. Director Tom Sullivan said that the next step following Public Hearings on the Guidelines would be to turn them into Ordinance language. Added that the principal purpose of the Guidelines is to address redevelopment. Commissioner Hunter sought clarification that no one is proposing to tear this area out. N Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 12, 2002 Page 19 Director Tom Sullivan stated that the street improvements are underway and construction drawings are being finalized. Commissioner Zutshi asked if commercial property owners were notified. Director Tom Sullivan replied that all property owners within 500 feet will be notified of all public hearings. The work to this point was undertaken by a Task Force. Commissioner Hunter suggested an area visit. Director Tom Sullivan agreed that a site visit could be arranged closer to the Public Hearing date. Acting Chair Kurasch suggested that written comments be solicited and that a Study Session might be warranted. Director Tom Sullivan stated that Study Sessions are typically used to introduce projects to the Commission. That is what has occurred this evening as aNon-Public Hearing Item on tonight's agenda. This discussion was intended to serve the function of a Study Session. Commissioner Zutshi asked Mr. Eck whether there are any lots large enough to accommodate his presented scenario. Mr. Bob Eck replied no. Most are an acre or smaller, which are not viable for the scenario. It would require a combination of parcels. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the scenario is not based upon an actual property but is simply an example used to demonstrate different elements of the design guidelines. Commissioner Barry stated that the scenario really did accomplish that goal. Asked Mr. Eck if he has experience with a community that does not have Redevelopment funds. Mr. Bob Eck replied that most of his experience is through private sector redevelopment. Director Tom Sullivan said that the direction from Council was to bring both portions of the Gateway plan forward together. However, the Commission needs to take that amount of time it feels is necessary to reach a fair agreement for everybody. Ms. Danielle Surden, 14234 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga: • Identified herself as being the City of Saratoga's Economic Development Coordinator. • Assured that notification efforts of commercial property and business owners were extensive and that she walked the Gateway Corridor three times to personally hand out meeting notices. • Said that she maintains the list and continues to notify of all activity. Acting Chair asked Director Sullivan what happens next. Director Tom Sullivan said that the Commission must give staff direction. If the Task Force continues work, he encouraged the Commission to appoint two Commissioners to participate. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 12, 2002 Page 20 Commissioner Garakani said that the Task Force has been meeting for a long time. Said that it would be nice to distribute the Draft Guidelines so that everyone has the chance to review them and bring up any issues at the Public Hearings. Did not recommend a continuation of the Task Force. Commissioner Hunter disagreed and said there she sees no harm in reconvening another meeting of the Task Force. Acting Chair Kurasch asked if there is funding for another meeting. Director Tom Sullivan said that would not be a problem. Commissioner Barry said that if the Commission's Public Hearing will occur in September, the Task Force can reconvene before that time. Director Tom Sullivan said that he can make sure that all who attended at least one meeting of the Task Force will receive a copy of the draft guidelines. Commissioner Barry supported one more Task Force meeting with broad notification and handout materials distributed. Acting Chair Kurasch suggested selecting the Public Hearing date. Director Sullivan suggested the second meeting in September. *** DIRECTOR'S ITEMS There were no Director's Items. COMMISSION ITEMS Tree Subcommittee Acting Chair Kurasch advised that the Subcommittee would like to meet with Director Sullivan. Commissioner Garakani proposed including Barrie Coates. Director Sullivan suggested a meeting with him first before including Mr. Coates as a consultant. Commissioner Barry suggested a Study Session with Barrie Coates or having a presentation from him as part of the Retreat. Design Review Subcommittee • Commissioner Hunter said that she has a conflict with the scheduled Design Review Subcommittee meeting. Library Update ,~ Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 12, 2002 Page 21 Commissioner Zutshi said that she attended the Library fieldtrip. The project is coming along and in a couple of months the walls will be in place. Commissioner Hunter asked if the completion date is still September 2003. MicrPllanPnnc Commissioner Garakani advised that he would be absent for one month and would miss the July 24`" and August 1 S` meetings. Commissioner Hunter advised that she would miss the first meeting in July. Acting Chair Kurasch commended Director Tom Sullivan for the acceptance of the Housing Element. COMMUNICATIONS Written -Minutes from Regular City Council Meetings of March 20, April 17 and May 7, 2002. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Acting Chair Kurasch adjourned the meeting at 10:53 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, June 26, 2002, to begin at 7 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • • i• i ITEM 1 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: BSA-00-003; DR-00-051 / 13800 Pierce Road Applicant/Owner: Thomas Walker Staff Planner: Christy Oosterhous, Associate Planner ~' Date: June 26, 2002 APN: 503-30-002 Department Head: 13800 Pierce Road 000001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 10/11/00 Geotechnical Clearance Issued: 2/11/02 Application complete: 4/12/02 Notice published: 6/12/02 Mailing completed: 6/12/02 Posting completed: 6/07/02 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant requests design review and tentative building site approval for construction of a two-story single-family residence to be built on a 19,210 square foot triangular shaped-lot. The lot is currently vacant. The floor area of the proposed residence and attached two-car garage is 3,609 square feet. The maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The site is zoned Hillside Residential. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission conditionally approve the design review and tentative building site approval applications by adopting the attached Resolution subject to adoption of the proposed basement ordinance amendments by City Council. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution for DR-00-O51/BSA-00-003 3. Arborist Report, dated November 2, 2002 4. Santa Clara County Fire Department Conditions 5. Resolution No. 02-024; Basement Ordinance Amendments 6. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A", date stamped and received by the Community Development Department 6/26/02 r~ • ooo®oz File No. DR-OD-OSI/BSA-00-003;138J0 Pierce Road STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: Hillside Residential (HR) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Hillside Conservation: RHC MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: 19,210 square feet SLOPE: 20% Average Site Slope GRADING REQUIRED: The proposed project requires grading a total of 560 cubic yards of cut and 272 cubic yards of fill. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project which includes construction of a new single-family residence is categorically exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15302 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 3 exemption applies to the construction and location of limited numbers of new small facilities or structures. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The proposed materials and colors include a taupe stucco exterior finish, stone veneer, and carriage style garage doors. Roof materials and colors include high definition composition asphalt shingle in a weathered wood color. • ~~0©03 File No. DR-00-OSI/BSA-00-003;13800 Pierce Road Proposed Code Requirements Maximum Allowable Lot Coverage: 23% 25% Building Footpnnt 2,431 sq. ft. Driveway & Walkways 2,000 sq. ft. TOTAL (Impervious Surface) 4,431 sq. ft. Floor Area: Maximum Allowable First Floor 1,260 sq. ft. _ Second Floor 1,877 sq. ft. Garage 472 sq. ft. (Basement) (699 sq. ft.) TOTAL 3,609 sq. ft.l 3,880 sq. ft.2 Setbacks: Minimum Requirement Front 30 ft. 30 ft. Rear Not Applicable Not Applicable3 Exterior side (Southwest) 30 ft. 25 ft. Interior side (Northwest) 20 ft. 20 ft. Height: Maximum Allowable Residence 26 ft. 26 ft. IFloor area figures reflect the proposed basement ordinance amendments as discussed in the staff report (Resolution 02-024). z Maximum allowable floor area reflects a reduction for slope (Municipal Code Section 15- 45.030(c)(d)). 3 Rear lot line...A lot line bounded by only three lot lines will not have a rear lot line (MCS 15-06.430(b)). • • • 000004 File No. DR-OCR=OSI/BSA-00-O03;138O0Pierce Road . PROJECT DISCUSSION . Project Description The applicant requests design review and tentative building site approval for construction of a two-story single-family residence to be built on a 19,210 square foot triangular shaped-lot. The lot is currently vacant. The floor area of the proposed residence and attached two-car garage is 3,609 square feet. The maximum height of the residence is 26 feet. The site is zoned Hillside Residential (HR). Pierce and Pike Roads abut the site. Access to the proposed residence will be provided from Pierce Road. Geotechnical Clearance was issued on February 11, 2002. One 16-inch diameter Coast Live Oak (tree #5) will be removed as a result of the proposed project. Native replacement trees equal to the value of the Coast Live Oak ($2,861), bond monies equal to $11,621, and tree fencing are required pursuant to the Arborist Report dated November 2, 2000. As recommended by the Arborist, the building footprint was relocated (as reflected in Exhibit A) and the grading plan shall be revised in order to preserve tree #4. Previous Permit History Documents on file with the Community Development Department indicate permits to build a residence and for related grading activity were issued in 1970. The subject permits expired before work commenced. The Uniform Building Code in effect at that time required commencement of work within 60 days. A stop work was issued in 1980 subsequent to the expiration of the above-mentioned permits. Application of Proposed Basement Ordinance Amendments Due to a 20% slope on the site, portions of the lower level day-light while other portions are subterranean (see sheet A4). On sheet A6, the day-lit areas are labeled garage/living space and the subterranean areas are labeled basement/storage. By way of background, the Planning Commission referred the proposed basement ordinance amendments to City Council for adoption on a unanimous vote at the May 8, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. The ordinance is scheduled for a first reading at the June 19, 2002 City Council meeting. The second reading is scheduled for July 17, 2002. It is expected the ordinance will become valid after a 30-day period following the second reading. Under the proposed basement ordinance the subterranean portions of the proposed project maybe excluded from the allowable floor area for the site. Subterranean areas for the , subject project account for 699 square feet of floor area. On sheet A6, these areas are labeled ,;'~ basement/storage. Staff recommends the Planning Commission condition approval subject to adoption of the proposed basement ordinance by City Council. • 0~~~~5 File No. DR-00-OS1/BSA-00-003;13800 PlerceRoad - Design Review A contemporary-style residence is proposed. Architectural elements include gable roof lines, a large front porch, stepped back second-story, and stone veneer. The proposed materials and colors include a taupe stucco exterior finish, stone veneer, and carriage style garage doors. Roof materials and colors include high definition composition asphalt shingle in a weathered wood color. The surrounding area is characterized by a mixture of one and two-story residences, older and newly constructed homes, and a variety of architectural styles. The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Policies: Policy #1: Minimize perception of bulk: The proposed two-story residence utilizes materials and architectural features which reduce bulk and break up massing, including stone veneer, columns, front porch and railing, barn style garage doors, and windows. The second story level is stepped back. Elevations are softened by different materials including stucco and stone. Natural colors and materials are used for the lower level of the proposed residence. Policy #2: Integrate Structures with the Environment: One tree is proposed for removal and replacement trees are required. The proposed stone veneer, earth tone colors, and roof materials blend with the natural environment. Policy #3: Avoid Interference with Privacy: The site is bounded on two of its three lot lines by roadways, thus greatly reducing interference with the privacy of existing residences. However, an adjacent one-story residence will face unreasonable interference with privacy without incorporating the following recommended conditions of approval: ^ Eliminate the portion of the front porch which wraps around to the northwest elevation. ^ Additional fast-growing landscape screening shall be installed along the entire right side property line to the satisfaction of staff. Landscape screening shall reduce privacy impacts resulting from the proposed window in the dining room. ^ Eliminate proposed French doors in the living room. French doors maybe replaced with 2'x 2' windows at header height. Policy #4: Preserve Views and Access to Views: While the project site is located in the hillside residential zone district viewsheds are not adversely affected due to the lack of sight lines resulting from the location of the site in a narrow canyon area with dense surrounding mature vegetation. ,, Policy #5 Design for Energy Efficiency: The residence has been designed for energy efficiency. A front porch provides shade for the front rooms during the hottest summer days. Most of the main living areas have windows facing south to maximize use of sunlight. The house will be very well insulated with high efficiency equipment. The house is equipped with double paned windows and patio doors offering the most efficient glazing available. A split zoned furnace system located both in the lower floor and in the attic offers a convenient and efficient way to heat and cool each floor separately. ~~~~~6 File No. DR-00-OSl/BSA-00-003;13800 Pierce Road = Building Site Approval The project requires building site approval to construct on a vacant lot subdivided more than 15 years ago. Building site approval is a two-fold process which requires tentative approval by Planning Commission and final approval by City Council. The proposed project supports the following building site approval findings: (a) The proposed single family dwelling is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and Hillside Specific Plan. The site is zoned and planned for single-family development. (b) The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development proposed. The proposed project has received Geotechnical Clearance. The conditions of the Geotechnical Clearance ensure physical suitability of the site for the proposed development. (c) The design of the building site or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no rare, threatened or endangered species on any state or federal list located on this site. (d) The design of the building site or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health or safety problems. The City Geologist, Engineer, Arborist, and Fire District have all reviewed the proposed plans. Their comments and conditions are incorporated as conditions of approval to ensure physical suitability of the site for the proposed development. (e) The design of the building site or improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision or building site. The site does not have any public easements recorded against it nor does the project interfere with easements in the vicinity of the site. (~ That a proposed subdivision of land which is subject to a contract executed pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (The "Williamson Act ") would not result in the creation of parcels of insuff cient size to sustain their agricultural use, except as otherwise provided in Government Code Section 66474.4. The site is not under a Williamson Act contract nor does it involve the subdivision of property. Therefore, this finding does not apply to the proposed project. (g) The discharge of waste from the proposed building site into an existing community sewer system would not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by a State regional ; '' water quality control board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the State Water Code. Sanitary sewer is available to the site. The proposed single-family dwelling will not result in overburdening the system capacity. • 0®®©~`7 File No. DR-00-OSI/BSA-OD-003;13b00 Pierce Road Conclusion The proposed residence conforms to the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook. As conditioned, the residence does not interfere with viewsheds or privacy, it preserves the natural landscape to the extent feasible, and minimizes the perception of bulk so that is compatible with the neighborhood. The proposed project satisfies all of the findings required for design review and building site approval as detailed in the staff report. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission conditionally approve the design review and tentative building site approval applications by adopting the attached Resolution for DR-00- OS 1BSA-00-003 subject to adoption of the proposed basement ordinance amendments by City Council. • • ~~®©~$ • APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. XX-XXX CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Attachment 1 Thomas Walker; 13800 Pierce Road WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for design review and building site approval for the construction of a new 3,609 square foot residence on a 19,210 square foot parcel; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time • all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15302 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 3 exemption applies to the construction and location of limited numbers of new small facilities or structures. 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: Policy #1: Minimize perception of bulk: The proposed two-story residence utilizes materials and architectural features which reduce bulk and break up massing, including stone veneer, columns, front porch and railing, barn style garage doors, and windows. The second story level is stepped back. Elevations are softened by different materials including stucco and stone. Natural colors and materials are used for the lower level of the proposed residence. Policy #2: Integrate Structures with the Environment: One tree is proposed for removal and replacement trees are required. The proposed stone veneer, earth tone colors, and roof materials blend with the natural environment. Policy #3: Avoid Interference with Privacy: The site is bounded on two of its three lot lines by roadways, thus greatly reducing interference with the privacy of existing residences. However, an adjacent one-story residence will face unreasonable interference with privacy without incorporating the following recommended conditions of approval: ^ Eliminate the portion of the front porch which wraps around to the northwest elevation. ^ Additional fast-growing landscape screening shall be installed along the entire right side property line to the satisfaction of staff. Landscape screening shall reduce privacy impacts resulting from the proposed window in the dining room. ^ Eliminate proposed French doors in the living room. French doors maybe replaced with 2' x 2' windows at header height. • 000009 File No. DR-00-OSI/BSA-00-003,' 13800 Pierce Road Policy #4: Preserve Views and Access to Views: While the project site is located in the hillside residential zone district viewsheds are not adversely affected due to the lack of sight lines resulting from the location of the site in a narrow canyon area with dense surrounding mature vegetation. Policy #5 Design for Energy Efficiency: The residence has been designed for energy efficiency. A front porch provides shade for the front rooms during the hottest summer days. Most of the main living areas have windows facing south to maximize use of sunlight. The house will be very well insulated with high efficiency equipment. The house is equipped with double paned windows and patio doors offering the most efficient glazing available. A split zoned furnace system located both in the lower floor and in the attic offers a convenient and efficient way to heat and cool each floor separately. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for building site approval, and the following findings have been determined: (a) The proposed single family dwelling is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and Hillside Specific Plan. The site is zoned and planned for single-family development. (b) The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development proposed. The proposed project has received Geotechnical Clearance. The conditions of the Geotechnical Clearance ensure physical suitability of the site for the proposed development. (c) The design of the building site or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no rare, threatened or endangered species on any state or federal list located on this site. (d) The design of the building site or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health or safety problems. The City Geologist, Engineer, Arborist, and Fire District have all reviewed the proposed plans. Their comments and conditions are incorporated as conditions of approval to ensure physical suitability of the site for the proposed development. (e) The design of the building site or improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision or building site. The site does not have any public easements recorded against it nor does the project interfere with easements in the vicinity of the site. (~ That a proposed subdivision of land which is subject to a contract executed pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (The "Williamson Act ") would not result in the creation of parcels of insufficient size to sustain their agricultural use, except as otherwise provided in Government Code Section 66474.4. The site is not under a Williamson Act contract nor does it involve the subdivision of property. Therefore, this finding does not apply to the proposed project. • OQOC~10 File No. DR-00-OSI/BSA-00-003; 13800 Pierce Road (g) The discharge of waste from the proposed building site into an existing community sewer system would not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by a State regional water quality control board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the State Water Code. Sanitary sewer is available to the site. The proposed single-family dwelling will not result in overburdening the system capacity. 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 Thomas Walker for design review and building site approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" incorporated by reference. 2. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the City Arborist Report as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division prior to submittal for building permits. 3. The site survey shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. 4. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 5. Submit grading and drainage plans to the public works department for review. 6. Encroachment permit shall be issued by the public works department for the swale repair and for the installation of new driveway approach. 7. Storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices. If all storm water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan. 8. Certificate of compliance or recorded parcel map on file with the Public works department prior to final building site approval from City Council. 9. Eliminate the portion of the front porch which wraps around to the northwest elevation. 10. Additional fast-growing landscape screening shall be installed along the entire right side property line to the satisfaction of staff. Landscape screening shall reduce privacy impacts resulting from the proposed window in the dining room. OOOa11 File No. DR-00-OSI/BSA-00-003; 13800 Pierce Road 11. Eliminate proposed French doors in the living room. French doors maybe replaced with • 2'x 2' windows at header height. CITY ARBORIST 12. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Report date stamped and received by the Community Development Department on November 2, 2000 shall be followed and incorporated into the plans (see attachment 3). 13. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit to the planning department, security in the amount of $11,621 pursuant to the report and recommendation by the City Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 14. All development review comments in the Santa Clara County Fire Department plan review number 00-2699 shall be followed and incorporated into the plans (see attachment 4). PUBLIC WORKS 15. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final. development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, drainage improvements, and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. We recommend that the Project Geotechnical Engineer consider the benefits of extending piers a minimum of 10 feet below the identified basal rupture surface. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall ensure that adequate pier embedment depths are depicted on the final foundation plans. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall evaluate the stability of proposed temporary (construction) slopes, and provide recommended measures to maintain or improve temporary slope stability during construction (e.g., slot-cutting, shoring, etc.). The Project Geotechnical Consultant also shall ensure that an appropriate capillary break has been provided for slabs'(e.g., including a minimum 4 to 6 inches of crushed rock or drainrock). • The results of the plan reviews shall be summarized by the Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. OQ©O12 File No. DR-00-OSI/BSA-00-003; 13860 Pierce Road c 16. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspection shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for engineered fill, foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of fill, steel and concrete. The Project Engineering Geologist shall specifically observe and log pier holes, to verify that adequate bedrock embedment depths for piers are achieved prior to placement of steel and concrete. Logs of these borings, as well as modified geologic cross sections shall be prepared as part of the as-built documentation. The results of these inspections, logs of pier excavations, geologic cross sections, and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the geologic and geotechnical consultants in a letter(s), and on appropriate drawings, and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to finalization of the grading permit. 17. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the prior to project Zone Clearance. 18. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 19. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorne 's Y fees, incurred by the City of held to be liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 20. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen days from the date of adoption PASSES AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission. State of California, the 26th day of June 2002 by the following roll call vote: • OQ~®©13 File No. DR-00-OSI/BSA-00-003; 13800 Pierce Road APES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • • OQ~~©14 • BARRIE D. COATS AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 ~f Attachment 2 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE WALKER PROPERTY 13800 PIERCE ROAD SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Community Planning Department Mark Connolly City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist November 2, 2000 Job # 10-00-265 Plan Received: 10-13-00 Plan Due: 11-13-00 • OQ~O©15 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE WALKER PROPERTY, 13800 PIERCE ROAD, SARATOGA Assignment At the request of the Community Planning Department, City of Saratoga, this report reviews the proposal to construct a new residence on a vacant lot in the context of potential damage to or the removal of existing trees. This report further provides information about the health and structure of the trees on site, and makes recommendations by which damage to the retained trees can be reduced to prevent decline. Comments and suggestions contained in this report presume that the locations of trees in relation to proposed construction are accurately represented on the plans provided. Summary This proposal exposes sixteen trees to some level of risk by construction. Tree #5 is to be removed by this design. Replacement trees equal to its value are suggested. Procedures are suggested to mitigate the damage that would be expected to retained trees. A combination bond equal to the value of the retained trees is suggested in accordance with the levels of the expected risks. Observations There are approximately thirty trees (several small specimens are not noted on the maps provided) on this site but only sixteen of these trees meet the size requirement of the city ordinance and are at risk of damage by proposed construction. The attached map shows the location of these trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. Each tree has been tagged with a metallic label with an assigned number. The seven trees are classified as follows: Trees #1, 4-7, 9, 11, 12, 14 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Tree #2 Valley oak (Quercus lobata) Trees #3, 16 California black walnut (Juglans hindsii) Trees #8, 10 English walnut (Juglans regia) Tree #13 Hybrid oak (Quercus species) Tree # 1 S California black oak (Quercus lrelloggii) The health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (Excellent -Poor) on data sheets that follow this text. This information is converted to a single descriptive rating indicating overall condition. This is intended to aid with planning. Exceptional Fme Specimens Fair Specimens Marginal Poor Specimens S imens S imens 4, 1 I 1, 3, S, 6, 7, 8, 9, 2, l5 14 16 10 12, 13 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 PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST NOVEMBER 2, 2000 • • QQQ~~V TREE SURVEY AND PRES'~.RVATION RECOMMEImATIONS ~ AT THE WALKER PROPERTY, 13800 PIERCE ROAD, SARATOGA ` standards in order to prevent decline. Fair specimens are worth retaining but again without major design revisions. Mitigation must prevent further decline. Marginal specimens are typically worth retaining but could be removed if necessary to facilitate construction. Mitigations recommended here are intended to prevent significant decline. Poor specimens cannot significantly improve regardless of care. For any which are considered hazardous, removal is recommended. For those retained, mitigation may not be typically requested. Trees #9, 11, and 12 have their root collars covered by soil. This exposes these trees to root collar diseases that have the potential to kill them. The soil within about 18-24 inches of the root collars must be excavated to expose the tops of the buttress roots, but this must be done without injuring the bark on the trunk or the roots: Impact of Construction Trees #3, 4 and 5 are in conflict with the proposed residence. Tree #4 a 20-inch diameter coast live oak, is in Exceptional condition. Tree #3 is a fine 23-inch California black walnut, English walnut combination in fine condition. Tree #5 is a 15-inch diameter coast live oak in fine condition. In order for tree #4 to survive, this tree must have a minimum clearance of 15 feet from the trunk in which the soil must be retained in it present condition and completely undisturbed. Trees #1 and 16 are located in an accessible area adjacent to Pierce Road. These trees are at risk of root damage by trenching, or by soil compaction. Tree # 16 is in poor condition and is riot worth retaining, but tree # 1 is well worth preserving. If underground utilities to this residence will be required, the locations of the trenches must not be left up to contractors or to the service providers but must be planned prior to construction. No underground utilities are noted on the maps provided. A significant amount of soil is to be excavated to construct a basement and a garage. The soil from the excavation must not be spread under the canopies of the existing trees because of unavoidable root losses, should this occur. In addition to the specific risks noted, the retained trees may be subjected to one or more of the following damaging events that are common to construction sites: 1. The stockpiling of materials or the storage of equipment under the canopies. 2. The dumping of construction materials, especially waste materials, such as painting products, mortar, concrete, etc.) under the canopies. 3. The construction traffic, including foot traffic across the root systems, and the parking of vehicles or construction equipment under the canopies under the canopies. 4. The excavations for foundation or for other construction adjacent to trees. 5. The trenching across root zones for new utilities or for landscape irrigation. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST NOVEMBER 2, 2000 00001'7 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOM1YtENDATIONS AT THE WALKER PROPERTY, 13800 PIERCE ROAD, SARATOGA 6. The grading of the surface soil resulting in the removal of quantities of absorbing root tips. 7. Broken branches or bark injuries as a result of construction equipment passing too close. 8. Landscaping, including incompatible plant species, trenching across tree root zones for irrigation, excessive soil disturbance of tree root zones, grading to create contours, etc. Virtually any landscape feature inside a tree's root zone results in a percentage of root damage. If the percentage is significant the affected trees will decline or die. Recommendations The following mitigation suggestions aze intended to reduce the extent of construction damage to acceptable levels, so that retained trees can reasonably be assured of survival without decline. If any changes to these plans occur during construction, the following may require alteration. l . I suggest that the footprint of the proposed residence be relocated so that a minimum clearance of 15 feet from the trunk of tree #4 will be left completely undisturbed. This implies that the structure must be relocated a distance from the proposed footprint in order to allow for grading, for trenching, for drainage if required, or for any other feature. It appears that this can be done while maintaining the setback parameters. In this event tree #8, an English walnut, would be sacrificed to achieve this objective. This loss is preferable, because this species (Juglans regia) does not typically perform well in developed landscapes. 2. I suggest that the grading plan be revised to conform with Recommendation # 1. 3. I suggest that construction period fencing be provided and located as noted on the attached map. Fencing must be of chainlink a minirnum height of S feet, mounted on steel posts driven 18-inches into the ground. Fencing must be in place prior to the arrival of any other materials or equipment and must remain in place until all construction is completed and given final approval. The protective fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. 4. There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping beneath the dripline of retained trees, (either before or after the construction period fencing is installed or removed) unless specifically indicated on the enclosed plan. Where this may conflict with drainage or other requirements, the city arborist must be consulted. 5. Trenches for any utilities (gas, water, telephone, TV cable, etc.) must be located outside the dripline of retained trees unless specifically indicated on the enclosed plan. For arty tree where this cannot be achieved, I suggest a project azborist be retained to determine acceptable locations. A 2-foot section of each trench adjacent to any tree must be left exposed for inspections by our office. 6. Excavated soil may not be piled or dumped (even temporarily) under the canopies of trees. Loose soil must not be allowed to slide down slope to cover the root collars of retained trees. If this occurs, the soil must be excavated by hand to the original grade and may require a retaining wall (dried laid stones, such as cobbles or rip rap set without a footing) to prevent further soil encroachment. 7. Trenches for a drainage system must be outside the protective fencing as noted on the PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTIIVG ARBORIST NOVEMBER 2, 2000 000018 ' TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS 4 AT THE WALKER PROPERTY,13800 PIERCE ROAD. SARATOGA attached map. For any tree where this cannot be achieved our office must be consulted. 8. An runin must be.done by an ISA certified azborist and according to ISA Western Chapter YP g Standards. 9. Landscape pathways and other amenities that are constructed under the canopies of trees must be constructed completely on-grade without excavation. 10. Landscape imgarion trenches, which cross a root zone, and/or excavations for any other landscape features must be no closer to a trunk than 15 times the trunk diameter from tree trunks. However, radial trenches may be made if the trenches reach no closer than 5 times the trunk diameter to any tree's trunk, if the spokes of such a design are no closer than 10 feet apart at the perimeter of the canopy, 11. Sprinkler irrigation must be designed so that it does not strike the trunks of trees. Only drip or soaker hose irrigation is allowed beneath the canopies of oak trees. I2. Lawn or other plants that require frequent irrigation must be limited to a maximum of 20% of the entire root zone and a minimum distance of seven times the trunk diameter from the trunk of oak trees. 13. Bender boazd or similaz edging material must not be used inside the canopies of existing trees, because its installation requires trenching of 4-6 inches, which may result in significant root damage. 14. If the root zone of an oak tree is to be planted, it should be planted only with compatible plants. A publication about compatible plants can be obtained from the California Oak Foundatioq 1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland 94612. 15. Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bazk, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be directly in contact with the bark of a tree due to the risk of disease. 16. Drain dissipators or downspouts must be relocated, if trees aze in the path of discharge. The dischazge must be directed a minimum of 15 feet to the side of the trunk of any tree. l 7. I suggest that the root collars of trees #9, 11 and 12 be excavated to expose the tops of the buttress roots without injuring the root bazk. This must be done by an ISA certified arborist or by a landscape contractor experienced with the procedure. 18. Materials or equipment must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped, or buried on site. Any excess materials (including mortar, concrete, paint products, etc.) must be removed from site. Value Assessment The value of the trees aze addressed according to ISA Standazds, Seventh Edition. Z~~C ~ (5 ~'e. c 4-~a r-1~ Tree #5 has a value of~, which is equivalent to two 24-inch boxed specimens. However, 36-inch boxed specimens and sometimes 24-inch boxed specimens may not be available at the end of the project unless the trees are secured with a grower at the onset of construction. I recommend that it be required that evidence of purchase of replacement trees be PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST NOVEMBER 2, 2000 0000,9 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOM"~NDATIONS AT THE WALI~R PROPERTY,13800 PIERCE ROAD, SARATOGA secured within 60 days of the issuance of permits. Acceptable narive tree replacements are: Coast live oak - Quercus agrifolia Valley oak - Quercus lobata Big leafmaple -Ater macrophyllum California buckeye -Aesculus californica Coast Redwood - Sequoia sempervirens The combined value of all the trees is $61,706. I suggest a bond equal to 50% ($3,391) of the total value of tree #4 and a bond equal to 15% ($8,230) of the value of all of the other trees that will be retained to assure protection. R~ itt Michael L. Bench, Associate B o e, lpal MLB/sl Enclosures: Tree Data Accumulation Charts Map Tree Protection Before, During and After Construction Protective Fencing Radial Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTWG ARBORIST NOVEMBER 2, 2000 5 • • O(DQ®~O Job ~ WaIker Job Address: 1~ Pierce Road ob # 10~-265 J 7~ 'f nn 11-L-U U Measurements Condition Pruning/Cabling Needs PesUDisease Problems Recommend . BARRIE D. COATS and ASSOCIATES w ~ ~ ;o ~ N Z I ~ ~ " ~ ~ W o w ~ w (408 3531052 LL ~ ' ~ ' z Of ~ O a v w ~ ~ ~ ~ I ' w p i ~ i Q "' o: v ) ~ ,o , ~ Z Z ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ 23535SumniRoad V ~~ ~ w ~ i i 1 N ~ ~ .J ' F.. i Z i I ; z Q F, ~ ? ~ . W K ; ° ; p p = " ~ > U ~ i° ~ o: N , W ~ ; _, ~ tss Ga1or, Gt 951110 ® ~ eU ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ? m m Z I w 1 0: ~ Z ~ ° a g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ w ' } ' W ~- i ~ I O ~ U ' F- D: 0: ' W ~ Z ' U, _ ~' ; O ~ 00 ' w -~ i ~ Q , W ; ~ ~ 0 icmi ~ ~Y ~ ~~ ~'~' x ~_ W ~ ~ ~ l~ l° ~ ~ ~ ~ °~ ~ n 3 3 ~ 1 ~~~ z ~ ' w I o ~ z F- ~ o o io 0 # Plant Name Ke ° ° ~ 1 ~ o ~ o ~ _ t~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ z o o o ~ o ~ o x ~' m'~ ~ W o w o g o o ~ y ~ ~ v x U c i c .> c .> ~ c i ~ a ? 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z z ~. ~ ~ 7 oast Live Oak 12.0 ; 14 30 20 1 2 3 I I 1 ~ 1 I ' ' , ' I ' 1 ~ I ~ I 1 1 ' ; I . in 113 X $271sq. in. _ $ 3 052 X sp . Gass 100% _ $3,052 X cond. 90% _ $ 2,747 X loc . 75% $ 2,060 Total Value 8 En lish Walnut 11.0. x ~ 8.0 ~ 7.0 ~ 18 25 ~ 45 1 2 ~ 3 ~ j ~ 1 i ~ I ; 1 I ~ I ~ I 1 1 I 1 ~ ' 1 ' ' . in 139 X S27/sq. in. _ $ 3 753 X sp . Gass 30% _ $1,126 X cond. 90% _ $ 1,013 X loc. 80°~ _ $ 811 Total Value g Coast live Oak 11.0 x 3.0 ~ 1214= 40 ~ 20 1 ~ 3 4 ~ t i { ~ i ~ ~ ~ ; ' I ~ ~ = ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I 1 ~ ` ~ i ~ I ~. t ; ! s ? I i ~ ; ; I . in 95 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2 565 X sp . Gass 1009'0 = $2,565 X cond. 75% _ $ 1,923 X loc. 70% _ $ 1,346 Total Value 10 En lish Walnut 10.0 I x ' 8.0 = 6.0 ; 18 30 40 1 2 I 3 ~ = ~ ' ~ ' ~ 1 ~ , ~ 1 { ' I I 1 1 , ~ 1 i 1 1 ~ t I 1 ~ I 1 I 1 i 1 1 1 ' , I I 1 I m 118 X S27lsq. in. _ $ 3 186 X sp . Gass 309'0 = $956 X Cond. 90% _ $ 860 X IOC. 70% _ $ ' 602 Total Value 11 Coast Live Oak 19.0 ~ 22.55 40 1~ 1 2 I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 1 I i , , ' 3 , 1 . in 283 X $27lsq. in. _ $ 7 651 X sp. class 1009'° _ $7,651 X cond. 100% _ $ 7,651 X lac. 75% _ $ 5,739 Total Value 12 Coast Live Oak 11.0 ~ ~ 13 ~ 25 20 2 1 ~ 3 , ' ' 1 , , , ~ , 1 1 ' . in 95 X $27lsq. in. _ $ 2 565 X sp. Gass 100% _ $2,565 X cond. 90°h = $ 2,308 X loc. 60% _ $ 1,385 Total Value © REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES N 5-gal = $36 15-gal = $120 ~"~ 24"box = $420 36"box = $1,320 48"box ~ $5,000 52"box = $7,000 72"box = $15,000 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST' PaRe2of.3 Job Title: Walker Job Address: 13800 Pierce Road Job # 10-00-265 ~ i _~_nn Measurements Condition Pruning/Cabling Needs PesUDisease Problems Recommend .v BARRIE D. COATS ~ ~ ~ "' and ASSOCIATES W ~ ~ o ~ W ~ 1408) 3531052 `r' ~ ~ w ; ~ ~ ? ~ c7 ~ ~ ~ w ~ I m ; u? p ~ <n ; w ~ ~ ; ; LL ; , , z ~ .- _ I3535 Sunni Road ~ ® w ~ y~ ~ `" ~~ { w "' ~ ~ ; ~ ~ z ~ ~ a-i o o z~ w I ~ a ,n ~ z 3 o ¢ o x g ~ i g w F- ; o ~; z a Les Cabs, U 95Q30 w ; r i ~ ; w ~ a: `" ; ~ z ° ~ ~ v x w o! ; -- Q m w ~ z ~ ; ~ ~ 7 ~ o f 3 w F... ~ v~ ~ ~ ; ~ -- °oQ x ~ ~ C ~ ° z ~ ; z ~ z ~ z ~ ; ~n ~ z vs ~ ¢ 0 c~ ~ o c~ ~ ~ Se ~ W ; F ; ; ' W x ; tll J; O ~ 0 i ~ 3 ;~'~ '~ ; O ; J; Z U ; W i o i Z ' F i~ O i o i O O J O x ; o m _ '~~' m C7 0_ w a Q; d' LLl ; Z o O m ' O O ; ; O ~; m ; ; ~ w N ; W i ; ~ 7 O ~ ; O W W; U ~ Z Ke # Y Plant Name o; ; ~~ o ~ o ; o x~ ~n ; ~ x cn ; v x m ~ o: ; ; m w ~ Q ; ; o: ? ~ ~ ~ u ~ ; ; m o ~ o w w ~ w w ~ ~ v v ~ v ~ v x v ~ a -- o ~ ; m I a: z z; rc rc 1 Coast Live Oak 12.0 ~ ~ 13 25 ~ 25 2 1 3 ; ~ ; ~ ; ' ; Quercus a ri(olia ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; . in 113 X $27/s q. in. _ $ 3,052 X sp . Gass 100% _ $3,052 X cond. 90% _ $ 2,747 X loc. BO% _ $ 2,197 Total Value 2 Valle Oak 9.0 ; x B.0 ; 5.0 ~ 126 ; 40 ~ 30 1 4 5 ~ ; ; ; ; ~ ~ ~ ; ; Quen:us lobate ~ . in 99 X $2715 q. in. _ $ 2,673 X sp . Gass 100% _ $2,673 X cond. 75% _ $ 2,005 X loc. 70% _ $ 1,403 Total Value 3 California BfaGc Walnut 23.0 ; ; ; ; 24 50 50 ! 1 ~ 3 4 ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ; - j ' ; Ju lens hindsii ~ ; ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j ; ~ ~ ~ ~ t ; ~ ; ~ I ; I ; ; .in 415 X$27ls q.in.= $ 11,212 Xsp .dass 10% _ $1,121 Xcond. 75% _ $ 841 Xloc. 80% _ $ 673 Total value 4 Coast Live Oak 20.0 ~ ~ ~ 21 35 ~ 45 1 ~ 1 ~ 2 ~ ~ ; i ; ; . in 314 X $27ls q. in. _ $ 8,478 X sp . Gass 100% _ $8,478 X cond. 100% _ $ 8,478 X loc. 80% _ $ 6,782 Total Value 5 Coast Live Oak 15.0 ~ ; ~ ~ 16 30 25 1 ~ 3 ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ; _ ; ; . in 177 X $271s q. in. _ $ 4,769 X sp . Gass 100% _ $4,769 X cond. 75% _ $ 3,577 X loc. 80% _ $ 2,861 Total Value 6 Coast Live Oak 9.0 ; x 8.0 ; ; 1019 ; 25 25 1 ~ 2 ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ; ~ ; ~ ~ ; ; ; ; ; ' ' , . in 89 X $27Is q. in. _ $ 2,403 X sp. class 100% _ $2,403 X cond. 90% _ $ 2,163 X loc. 75% _ $ 1,622 Total Value ~ REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES ' 5-gal = $36 15-gal = $120 N 24"box = 0 36"box = $1,320 7 =BEST, 5 = RS"f 48"box 52"box = $7,000 72"box = ,~ Page 1 of 3 <~~ '~ a. Job 'l~lTe: Walker ob Address: l~0 Pierce Road ob # 1 - 0-265 r J J 11-2-00 Mea surements Con dition Pruning/ Cabling Needs PesU Disease Problems Recommend . BARRIE D COATS # } ! } I ! } } ~ I } I } ~ I } } ~ ~ ! } I I ~ I } . and ASSOCIATES W w ! i I ' } i v I } i ' Z ! o i ' ~- i ' } i '~ ' ~ I } w ~ } W' ! ~ } w ~' I I i¢ I > '~ w ~ ~ : F' I } (7 z ~, 1 v I F- ~ ~ _ , } } C7 I # w I I ~ } u~ ~ I I ~ I ~ ~ I ~ ,n ii m I ~ W} (40B) 3531052 } , } I i LL : ~ ~ : O z z z I I O } O ~ o ~ I w m o ,n ~ ~ ~: } } o 1 w '~' I or 23535 Snmm~ Road Les Pala G 95030 ~} w ®I E- cn I I I I } ~`' ~ I 'n ~ w m ~ z l? i F' ~ ~ -r Z i~ I I m x w } y t o }° I z I W w q ~ : m a ~ ,~, .- z ~ "' I Q I m o O i ~ O I m : g w~ F- ¢ '=' t o I ~' z m ~ d ~ I~ } ~ ~ w I ~ -- C I O v ~~} m a }~ z O ! E O t ~ O I w J w w J F i~ W' I - W F- ! Q OQ = x V t O Z ~ Z I Z 3 Z, y Z f~,. i U ~ l y U U N U~~ ~.. } J x ~ x l ~ ; W ~? ' 0: J ~ O ~ C Z O i~ O O ~} O J O ~ m } Z ~ U w W W O Z F- ~ O I F- O O W O, O W I U O Key # Plant Name O o ~ m m l w} o. u ~ O o: ~ m ~ w ¢ I o: y a: ~ ~ O O w w w o o o x ~n x m O x U v v a: U v a ? ~ o -- z m z z o: 13 H brad Oak 43.0 x 26.0 } } 57 60 = 85 1 3 4 I } Quercus s ecles ~ } I ~ ~ } . in 1717 X $27/sq. in. = $ 46,359 X sp. class 100% _ $46,359 X cond. 75°~ _ $ 34,769 X loc. 80% _ $ 27,815 Total Value 14 Coast Live Oak 21.0 I = ` 22 = 50 = 35 3 2 } 5 ~ ` ~ _ } 1 I ~ ~ I ~ . in 348 X $27lsq. in. = $ 9,347 X sp. Gass 100% _ $9,347 X cond. 60°k = $ 5,608 X loc. 60% _ $ 3,365 Total Value 15 California Black Oak 18.0 } ~ 21 50 40 1 4 5 Que-cus kello ii ~ I } . in 254 X $27/sq. in. = $ 6,867 X sp. Gass 100% _ $6,867 X cond. 60% _ $ 4,120 X loc. 70% _ $ 2 884 Total Value 18 California Black Walnut 19.0 , } 120 } 20 } 15 2 5 = 7 . In 283 X $271sq. in. _ $ 7,651 X sp. Gass 109'0 = $765 X cond. 30°k $ 230 X loc. 70°k = $ 161 Total Value Q REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES Q N 5-gal = $36 15-gal = $120 _ W 24"box = $420 36"box = $1,320 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST 48"box a $5,000 52"box = $7,000 72"box ~ $15,000 Page 3 of 3 • • • 1 12 _~ 14 ~ :d w{~OCO~t-~ / / ~`~ e,..K`D', cwir 'rla sar.Yr and3tecv,4m R<ranmmm~~s I __ ___ ~ ~ftOkf*fpt j\ 4d,.olV,ez, ni36<w,u>3tw~lr.utroriaaR~a -- L+oe) 3s3-3os2 - ~1~---- ~ ~f- ---- - i _ ---'~ ~~ ~ 235353um ------ it Rwd __ ...- ..~ ~ mod' •a`! /,J// Los Gams. U 95033 3s~N fu: __- - ~~ ~ _ ~ /~ ~~ ~ ~ - _-~ ~-' ._' \ HORTICUITWNl CON41LTANr Cry a/Bw^V ri.imna O'N!. w ~ ~ -- DATE: wrtmber 22. 2000 -- ao'~a m~anq _ I __~+ ~~ ~ \ COKyrLTI"G ARBORLST SGLE: m, rtduced b I100P165 ~B Lbl, I Y ~<<Y nYmBCn CORn'pOOd 10 <Ydlwlion Cllalb ~ ' OW ~ \\ All dimensions and trcr bcalions ~ _ _ 1 _ are appozirtWC. s PIERCE ROAD 1 ~ _~, ` imomw.r.nno.c,wa,~. ",rm ao.E --- a,s n' ~ i '~ "~=E ~~ 04 __~~. _ ~ PROTECTIVEFENCIN ' ---- ~ sib , / ~ \ ~ __._ LYU Of Urd ~~~ ,~,Y, ~ / / _ ~ § ~ , I _ ulrmidrruczz. m~v rwr ~ ~ / \ ~~~ my p,n a mdo! - ~ 11 -~ 10 - 1 9 ~% RU"1'EC'FIVE FENCING ~ ... - ~: :: ~ `•° i ~ t ~ _ ~ _ o <Y tran rh,tl,0on _~ ~ ~ ` . I .. ~ I / ~ ~ d.~o i ~aoe ~~ - ~ ,nr. PROTECTIVE FENCING / ~~ r ~`'`% i S[TE PLAN ` " ~~ r . " ~c~'GL~OOo ~ FIRE DEPARTMENT ~~ FIRE ~~`~ SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd.. Los Gatos. CA 95032-1818 COUHTESY85ERVICE (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.org Attachment 3 CONTROL NUMBER BLDG PERMR NUMBER PLAN REVIEW NUMBER 00 .2699 FlLENUMBER DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS 1 ~J CODE/SEC. i SHEET NO. REQUIREMENT Review of a proposed new 4,307 square foot single family residence. This project is located within the hazardous fire area. 1 Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access and water supply as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable construction permits. 2 Required Fire Flow: The fire flow for this project is 1,750 gpm at 20 psi residual A pendix ~~A ~ pressure. The required fire flow is not available from area water mains and fire hydrant(s) which are spaced at the required spacing. 9os 2 s Required Fire Flow Option (Single Family Dwellings): Provide the required fire flow from fire hydrants spaced at a maximum of 500 feet OR, provide an approved fire sprinkler system throughout all portions of the building, designed per National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard #13D and local ordinances. The fire sprinkler system supply valuing shall be installed per Fire Department Standard Detail & Specifications W-1 /SP-4. 9os 2 4 Required Access to Water Supplv~, (Hydrants)• Portions of the structure(s) are greater than 150 feet of travel distance from the centerline of the roadway containing public fire hydrants. Provide an on-site fire hydrant OR, provide an approved fire sprinkler system throughout all portions of the building. City PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST. TYPE ApplleantName DATE PAGE STG ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ BRITT ROWE 10/26/2000 1 2 of SECJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION gy Residential Development Hokanson, Wayne SFR-WALKER 113800 Pierce Rd Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District ~-'-. Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino. Los Altos, Los Altos Hifls, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga 000~~5 r ~" ' ~ ,~~.~~''' °o~ FIRE DEPARTMENT ~~ FIRE ~~"` SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd.. Los Gatos. CA 95032-1818 COURTESYSSEPVICE (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.org CONTROL NUMBER BLDG PERMR NUMBER PLAN REVIEW NUMBER oo- 2699 FILE NUMBER DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS CODE/SEC. SHEET NO. REQUIREMENT vFC ~ 5 Fire Apparatus (Engine)Access Driveway Required: Provide an access driveway 9o2.z.2 ~ with a paved all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 14 feet, vertical clearance 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 i conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet D-1. 902 2.2.4 6 Fire Department (Engine) Driveway Turn-around Required• Provide an approved fire department engine driveway turnaround with a minimum radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside. Installations shall conform with Fire Department j Standard Details and Specifications D-1. 9 C ~ Premises Identification: Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all 01 4.4 new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background. 16-15.110 s Garage 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. i4M-25.110 9 Early Warning Fire Alarm Svste~ m Required: Provide an approved Early Warning Fire Alarm System throughout all portions of the structure, installed per City of Saratoga Standards. Clty PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST.TYPE AppllcantName DATE PAGE STG ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ BRITT ROWE 10/26/2000 2 2 OF SECJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION BY ueuc nc oon Ecrr Residential Development _ _ _ _ _ _ Hokanson, Wayne - _ SFR-WALKER 13800 Pierce Rd r~ L Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District =...-- Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, ~+ Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and SDratoga 00®~26 ~. ~ ~~1-2699 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA Incorporated October 22, 1956 TRANSMITTAL -CITY OF SARATOGA TO: A~0 • 1200 ~~ g~ c~ ~s: w , r ~ Baker __ `°a ~ Stan 8ogosian.;:?,- ~ ~ John Mehaffe,~ j~ ~~~>> NiC~c~~rN~i( PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT CITY GEOLOGIST / S.C. COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT CITY ARBORIST SAN JOSE WATER CO. S.C. VALLEY WATER DISTRICT OTHER FROM: Community Development Department, Planning Division DATE: October 13, 2000 APPLICATION #: DR-00-051 and BSA-00-003 (Mark Connolly) LOCATION: 13800 Pierce Road OWNER'S NAME: Walker Your agency has been requested/invited to review and comment on this proposal. Please submit your comments by October 27, 2000 to the Community Development Department. This will ensure that we can incorporate your concerns into the review process. Thank you. REPLY: ~~~ ~~~ • ;; ~~ ~ 0001~C27 Printed on recycled paper. .e . c STANDARD DETAILS & SPECIFICATIONS Spec No S,..l~ Rev. Date 06/03/99 SUBJECT: Specifications for Fire Sprinkler Systems in single Eff. Date 08/ /97 family dwellings in excess of 3,600 squaze feet Approved By Page ,~_ of _~ SCOPE This standard applies to single family dwellings, as classified by the Building Code, in excess of 3,600 square feet where fire sprinkler systems are installed as an approved Alternate Method of Compliance to the provisions of the Fire Code, or when such systems are required under a specific local ordinance. DEFIlVITIONS Alternate Method of Compliance: An approved method of compliance that, in the opinion of the Fire Department, meets the intent of the provisions outlined in the Fire Code. NFPA 13D: National Fire Protection Association Standard 13D, Fire Sprinkler Systems in One- and Two Family Dwellings and Mobile Homes. - REQUIREMENTS The sprinkler system installation shall comply with provisions of the most recent edition of NFPA Standard 13D with the following exceptions: System Design • The number of design sprinklers shall include all sprinklers in the most remote room . or area up to a maximum of four (4) sprinklers. If the most remote room or azea contains .less than four (4) sprinklers, hydraulic calculations shall be provided in accordance with NFPA Standard 13D (2 head calculation). Additionally, calculations shall be provided for the largest room that is the most remotely located from the supply riser to verify operation for all fire sprinklers within that space up to a maximum of four (4) fire sprinklers. Location of Sprinklers The exceptions listed for the locations of sprinklers as per NFPA Standard 13D shall be applicable except as follows: Fire sprinklers shall be provided in any attached garage, carport, basement or foyer(s). cu-x.+ ~ ~'~ °~,~ FIRE DEPARTMENT • SANTA CLARA COUNTY m FIRE '` 14700 Winchester Blvd • Los Gatos • CA 95030-1818 • (408) 378-4010 0~0~28 ~, , SD & S SP-4 Page 2 of ~ • A thcs, crawl spaces, or concealed spaces, with a greater than 22 inch by 30 inch standard utility access opening and/or, if provided with access stairs and/or, if intended to be used for living or storage purposes, shall be provided with fire sprinkler protection. • Attic spaces that contain mechanical equipment such as furnaces and water heaters shall be provided with sprinklers limited to the protection of the equipment itself. • Small closet spaces that contain furnaces, water heaters or other mechanical equipment shall be provided with sprinkler protection regardless of the size of the space. Alarms • Exterior audible water flow alarms shall be provided. Additionally, water flow shall activate either a separate interior audible device that can be heard in all sleeping areas or, through interconnection with the smoke detectors, which will sound an alarm in the sleeping areas. . Control Valves Section 3-1.1 of NFPA Standard f3D requires, "each system to have a single control valve .arranged to shut off both the domestic and sprinkler systems, and a separate shut off valve for the domestic system only." To provide visual depiction of the valve arrangement, Appendix Section A-2-2, and Figures A-2-2(a) through (c) reflect possible arrangements for the underground supply piping and valve(s). What has not been shown on these figures is the location of the valve with respect to the structure. To establish consistency and meet operational needs of responding emergency equipment, the following specification shall be incorporated into the design and installation of residential fire sprinkler systems and associated underground supply piping. • Valves controlling the water supply to residential fire sprinkler systems installed in accordance with NFPA Standard #13D shall be distinguishable, accessible, and located adjacent to the structure, proximal to the domestic shut off valve. The main system control valve shall be distinguishable from the domestic valve by means of a permanently attached tag and be of contrasting color (i.e.: red handle for main system, versus black handle for the domestic supply). • 000029 v SD & S SP - 4 Page 3 of 3 t Residential Fire Sprinkler System Control Valve Diagram • Street ~~~~~~ Attachment ~ • RESOLUTION N0.02-024 Application #02-0~8 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA REGARDING BASEMENT STANDARDS FOR ALL ZONING DISTRICTS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City. of Saratoga is responsible for making recommendations to the City Council of the Ciry of Saratoga with respect to the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing to consider amendments to the Zoning Ordinance with respect to requirements for proposed basements; WHEREAS, this matter was considered at a duly noticed public hearing on May 8, 2002, at which time all members of the public were afforded an opportunity to comment on the proposed changes. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby recommends the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Saratoga be amended to read: • 15-06.090 Basement. •`R~rarm•ant=ma:inc_t_}~.nr_nnrric ^~ , , , l,. .r...,,a„ .- F ri, r ~ ' b a~~, rl..,, .r,..,.]„ r,. «l.o ~ a ____ ~____ __ __._.. .Basement means a space in a structure that is partly or wholly below grade and where the vertical distance from grade to a finished floor directly above such space is less than or equal to 42 inches. If the finished floor directly above the space is more than 42 inches above grade at any point along the perimeter, such space shall be considered a story, and the entire space shall be included in the calculation of gross floor area. (See Figure 1 below.) This requirement applies to all lots, with the exception of hillside lots. floor of the level above basement to adjacent grade. finished floor 42" ~~ ~ basement i i i Building Figure 1: Maximiim vertical height from finished _ On hillside lots, as defined in Section 15-06.420(e), only the portion of space where the0®U031 finished floor directly above the space is more than 42 inches above grade at any point along the perimeter shall be counted as floor area and considered a story. The number of stories measured vertically at any given point shall not exceed the maximum number of stories allowed in each zoning district. (See Figure 2 below.) - 2 stories 2 stories r Floor Basement Area ~~ Areea I (not a story) Portion where Building Section vertical height from floor above to grade exceeds 42" Basement Floor Area (no floor area) Floor Plan of Basement area on hillside lots. As used herein, the term "grade" shall mean either the natural grade or finished grade adjacent to the extenor walls of the structure, whichever is lower. The Community Development Director shall make the determination for sites where it is unclear as to which is the natural and which is the finished grade. All basements are subject to the requirements of Section 15-SO.xxx 15.06.xxx Lightwell. "Lightwell" means an excavated area adjacent to a building that extends no more than four feet (4') measured horizontally from the building perimeter to the interior wall of the lightwell, that is enclosed on four sides, that is open at the top, and allows light into a below grade level of a building. Lightwells shall have guardrails and gates in compliance with the Uniform Building Code. ; ; 15-45.065 Administrative design review. (a) In each of the following cases, no building permit shall be issued for the construction or expansion of asingle-family structure or structure in any A, R-1, HR, or R-OS district until such structure has received administrative design review approval by the Community Development Director, pursuant to this Article: (1) New single-story residences; (2) Major additions in size, defined as either the addition of fifty percent or more of _ existing main or accessory structure or as a one hundred squaze feet or greater addition - to the second story of a main or accessory structure. ~®0®32 ;j (3) Addition of a basement to an existing structure and enlargement of existing basements. 15-80.xxx Requirements for Basements and Lightwells. (a) A basement shall be located entirely beneath the building footprint of the main structure, including attached garage, and may not be located within any required setbacks. This shall be deemed the allowable area of the basement. In no case shall a basement be located closer than 10 feet from any property line. (b) Lightwells may not be located within any required setbacks, and in no case shall lightwells be located closer than 10 feet from any property line. (c) A basement shall be a one level structure; multi-level basements are prohibited. (d) A basement shall not be located beneath any accessory structure. (e) The allowable area for a basement shall be reduced by 5% for each foot in excess of a floor to ceiling height of 9 feet. Floor, in this case, means finished floor, and ceiling means the bottom level of the ceiling framing members. The maximum floor to ceiling height of a basement shall be 12 feet. (f) All proposed basements and additions to basements-shall obtain geotechnical cleazance. The Applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a Geologic and Geotechnical Report prepazed by a certified engineering geologist and registered geotechnical engineer. The Geologic Report shall include an analysis of groundwater conditions prepared by a certified hydrogeologist. (g) Applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a Grading and Drainage Plan stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer. Water collected from a basement shall either be transported to a nearby City storm drain inlet or to another drainage facility. The method of drainage shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director and the Public Works Department. The size of a proposed basement maybe limited based on drainage issues or issues raised in the geologic and geotechnical reports. • 000©33 ~r~ PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the Ciry of Saratoga, State of California, this 8`h day of May 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Garakani, Jackman, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: ABSENT: Chair Barry ABSTAIN: a> Chair, P g Commission ATTEST: Secretary to the Planning Commission • 000©34 I~ GENERAL NOTES: ~ +- 1. BrlttlRowe is rat responsible for the design, cooMination, or implementation o1 any work pedarmed by cdnsulWnts, including but not limned to, ffimdural engineering, loll engineering, civil engineering, landscape archnedwe endMr Title 24 energy compFenca. 2. All work done pursuant to these drawings and spedficalions shall comply with all ordinances end regulations which appy a the work end shall In any case conform W the Ielesl edition of the'Unnorm BuIt0ing Code' (UBC) cunently enforced end all currem dry, county, era state codas as applicable, 3. layout /or new work Is largely based upon reletlonships to existing conditions. Arty questions regarding the inlenl related to the layout o1 the new work shell be brought to the enentbn of &itUROwe Odor to the Commencement of any work. The contr h acor s all Immedielely notify &itUROwe of all discrepancies prior to the commencement of any work. 4. Thecomrector antllor sub-contractors are to verity ALL existing conditions Oefore commencing with work in order tc ensur0 conldrmarx;e with the construction documents, All requests for change ohers shall be submtlted in, writing to &itlfROwe for approval. - 5. Preference shall be given a figuretlMrlnen dimensions on the drawingsover scaled measurements. The'Plans','Generel NMes.aM"Specifications" are inlendetl to agree and supplement one another. Anything indicated Titian one and not in the others, shall be executed as it in all. In cases m direct wngicL the most restridive shall govern. ' 6. Regardless of dimensions shown, all new work shall align exadly with exisang work with respect Ic floor elevalion5, column centerlines, wall laces, etc. (UNO) 7. The intern of the "Construction Documents" is b include all labor, mmerials, equipment, and transpoAation necessary for the complete and proper execution Of the work. I B. All work shall be plumb, square, ant true and shall De of good workman-11ke quality as acceptable to the eppropnate trade's slendaro pradices arM those of the trade's council's antllor organizations. 9. Any work antllor item rat specllically celled for in the drawings, but required for a complete and fully tunctbning installation consistent wllh the imam of the "Canstrucion Documents" shall be supplied by the contractor antllor sub- contradors as required. t0. BrilHROwe is not responsible for the erectan, lebrication, endPor relative bIY safety. The contrador shall comply with all required safety orders per CALC6FIA requirements ono regulations, ~~ ,f SHEET INDEX: SHEE T INDEX: AO TITLE SHEET • GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION At SITE PLAN `: ,'~ A2 GARAGE LEVEL FLOOR PLAN A3 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN' .A4. 'I~ EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS AS f EXTERIOR ELEVATIONISECTION ;,:; A6 - ~ FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS WEi " GRADING3DRAINAGE PLAN L1 CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN BUILDING HEIGHT SCOPE OF WORK FAR CALLS Total Uving Space 3137.3 SF Total Garage SDace 471.77 SF 8mlding ®Ground, 2431.27 (12%) Impervious Coverage 4431 SF (23%) (n) 26'-0' To Highest RiOBe New nvo slaty, single family residence on a sloping lot. House is set into hillside with basement area ®rear of structure. Nel SBe area =441 =18209.96 SF iB20996 x 30%= (5782 98 SF reduction) 19209.96.5762 98 = 13446,98 SF 3200 SF ~ (4)170 SF = 3880 SF allowable. ~~- 13 800 PIERCE ROAD ~_ SARATOGA, CA 95U70 4 4J I , ~j ARCHITECTURAL DRAWING SYMBOLS: MATCHILEVEL LINE O WINDOWlDOOR SYMBOL BUILDING SECTION WALL SECTIONrELEVA710N DRAWING,REFERENCE ~ DRAWING REFERENCE COLUMN REFERENCE DETAIL REFERENCE _ -O ' GRIDINOICATOR e DRAWINGAEFERENCE DIRECTIONAL NORTH Q REVISION SYMBOL ~/ /// ARROW (APPRX,) See addllionel legends located on the specific drawings ®flfl for architedurel symbols end representallons (tYD~) OJECT CONSULTANTS: a ~: BUILDING DESK3NER BRITT • ROWS I David Brin 106 N. Santa Cmz Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95030' 406.354.6224 'I T24 ENERGY CONSULTANT FRANN IANNUCCI &iPSSOCIATES Mr. Frank lannuccl - .r. Jim Sgler 21 Harrison Avenue Campbell, CA 95008. 406.666.1620 LANDSCAPEARCHIIECT WILLIAM DUNE LANDSCAPE ARCH. Mr. William Duke I 1040 Arlington Lane . San Jose, CA 95129,` 409.252,6495 'i ~ VICINITY MAP: ~ LOCATION ME1P: ~ o~ ark' ;. I I411U n ~pAkT j' ~~ ,Nr ~, i, 1 ~ A iJl `a R ~., ~~ < J,~ ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ rs ~ . ~ ' '~ ~~ GL ~ qfs ~ , : \ ,~ 71 ~ ;~ ss . ,. . ~: At ~ f 6 IDAT ~~ , ,k. ' lr~ ~~ AL~ ~ 0~ D ~~~~~~ JUN ~ 6 2002 CITY OF SAIUTOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 11. The projed'Specilication Booty' shell take precedence over noted specifications when applicable. 12, BritURowe is not responsible for the design, rwordinelion or implementation of any end all design-build work including, but not limlletl to. the following (UNO): a) FJectricel: per NEC (National Eledrk Code),..curtent edition. , b) MechanMal: per UMC (Uniform Mechanical Code)_,current edition. c) Plumbing: per UPC. (Uniform Plumbing Code).,.curcent edition. d) Fire Spdnklere: per UFC (Unnorm Fire Code).. 8 NFPA standards. Verity and address additional acal ordinances and codes which may apply to ' me sDecaic desgmbulld eppllcetion as required. 13. For 5peciflc, detailed consiructon procedures, requirements and materials, see sheal5 SP-16 SP-2 (Specifications). - 14. Civil Boil, ant SlructuTal Engineer's specillcalions shall lake precedence over the following architedurel specilcations. 15. BrILURowe retains ell rights and ownership of the "Construction Documems" and'Specifica5ons". These documents may rroi be used in wMle or in pad on any othef project wltfaut expressed wdnen consent horn BrItt/ROwe. t6. Governing Code (s): All work shall conform to the 1994 Uniform Building Code (UBC), 1994 Uniform Mechanical Code (UMC), 1994 Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC), editions as applicable, The Nellonal deciric Code (NEC) 1983 edition 6 all acal ordinanceskrodes as applicable. 17. In addition to inspedan5 as required by UBC sectbn 108, the owner, cdnlractor andlm stuctural engineer of record, acting as the owner's agent shall ampay one or more special inspectors who shall provide inspeclions during construdion on the following types of work per URC sedllon 1701.5 including, but not limited lo: e) Concrete: Where the structural design exceeds a (F'c) m 2500 PSI. bJ All on site sirucNrel welding, including welding m reinforcing steel. c) Drilled piers, caissons and structural masonry. 18. the own~ldevebperlctlenl reserves the right to make alterations to the design(s) during the course of construction es applicable, All changes shall be approved by the bcal building official es applicable. In any case, all changes shall conform to the UBC, UPC, UMC, NEC &UFC as required. All changes shall be documented by a wrnlen "Change Order' and shall be approved by the I „ ownerMevelopw/client S contractor(s). GENERAL OWNER PROJECTSLTE APN TRACT 20NINC LAND USE lOT SQE LOT SLOPE CONSTRUCTION TYPE UBC OCCUPANCY GROUP INFORMATION: Mc Tam Walker 1734 Littleoak Circle San Jose, CA 95129 408.996.8966 1360D Pierce Road Saratoga, CA 95070 50330.002 HR (Hillside Residential) Single Family Residential 19209.98 SF (.441 acres) 0594 acres gross) 20°A (Average( Type V-N R3 Provided Required (n)30'-0" 3d-0' (nJ 20'-0" 20'-D" (n) NIA WA (n) Living ®1st 1260.23 SF (n) Uving ~ 2nd 1877.07 SF (n) Garage 477.71 SF (n) Basement 699.33 SF SETBACKS Front Rear RgmSide { Len Side BUILDING SF ~,v(slons s `A~ ~ TLc o~ 9 E c d ~'^~e L~'-~u F "c _ yS=}~-~ ~ a~sc~ 3rd<=i c~ z~gWY~ 0 F I'=is5 z~5'ys ~, c:~ 0 LL z w 4 R '~ ~ a ~~a~ `~ c c AO • I 1 3 I• ~/ `` ,,~~~ d ,- fi Tree protedfon ferldng. (Chain Llnk) See Arhorid'a report ~ 1a.srHybrupak---~, ts.2 •cAelack • 12.13" COa81 uve Oak _ i 14.zrco,eiure ~~~ ~f I1 ~too~. I I ~,A~~ ,~~ ~y --- 7.13' Coal flue Oak /r----~ spe0ce~ ~ng~) ~~ up RIB I 1 ~ 6g^'~ ~'E,EO,Bg' I i, ' ~ i ~~ u I '" "Uncovered' open arbor deaipn ~ hoot al ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /ck Walnut ~ structure over 1 ri laud plan: See Boor ~ 2 ~ ei _...~ .. 18.20'Bt ~I pidn.8 axteda elevatbns. ~~ _ ~- __..i ~ ~ .. ~~ ~ I~' - 5. 18' Coed Live Oak --- ~~ _... . _ ~`~..\ 1 ,~.:= ~~ -! _-._~~ ~ fYr I _ i ~``~ I, r~,,\ /, !rte 530' 1 PIERCER~~ /r e'oak H 42 ~, ~. E 245.77' .~' _ _,__ Line d CNy d Seralagesetback / requirement. i / I ,Y 11. Coed Uve OeX ~ ~ ~~ :%" / f0. 13'E fish Walnut • ~ • ( 1r Coeet ve Oa S. 18' Engtth Wehntt , e e ~ /y'~~ ~ -." ~ .L.1 / ~~h ~.. !; I ' k \ / g^Oa 7. id'CaeAt Uve Oak • e 9' Oak ~3. EI Uc Wdnul e e ' ~ ~ ~ / 8.10•Co~~ I 4.21'Coeal~ ro0ek 1 ~`/ ~~~ , / _ ~ e \ ~,~ ~ Id ~~ SOek \ oAy 8' Oek e SITE PLAN 1. Base topography shown only. See CiNI Englneer's'Gredirg 8 Drefriage Plan" Por more eocuret, speGlb topogrephy. 2. All downspout shill discharge tto engineered drainage systems (t}'P~I 3. Slope dl finish grades away Irom structure 2Ye min. @ tounde0on base. 4. Fellow au Arbalst's tree prolec5on measures u applicable: Tree sizes shown are neasures 24" shove grade: See Arbarial'6 report. 5. Tree e5 eheQ be removed. Tree I8 t okay b be removed, Iwwever, IMemlorre are to try end save it based on house bcadarl. House shill be located outekb dre ddp line of tr9ea e3 8 A4. Sae Arbodd's report. $~J~MAR i• ~ ° °n m W°C~~ ~ gam mU~ rn ~a m°J W $ og ~~~ 4 Michael A. Rowe 1AIGA EnAlr~wodAro. los Garos, CA A5092 eoe.asssazo (onlcel /AB.A5A.a701 Qea) ae~artmRA~aW.wm 1 ~ 8~~~ ~P~F ash ~ ~ ~~~~ t ~~ ~ poa_BP GARAGE LH:VELI LOWER l'LU11R PLAN LhAnA Speoe: l2AA.29 SF Ovega:171J1 SF 9aaamarNStaepe: X9.39 SF a , z , e 10 iK•e1'V i_r= Fhished Fbor SAa.S z a ~ ~ 4 0 > ° ~ LL ~ a ~ Z m 2 H < 3 0 O ~ O • I I III Az ~~ REVISIONS BY r-~ ~ f, _ ~. -- - - _ _ _ - ~ ~ - / / ~~ ~ _ -- _ I ~._ ~.~_. ..._-.._- / e _- ~ - fiyy ---- fi "~ ~~ -- - -- / ~ _ _- ~'/ L_ •~ -. - ~/ \ -~~ ro t~porch, SeeeMreil elevations. ~ _ .. _ ~r . 1.....~~ ~... \ ~... . ,I _~. Dewretlve columns ® entry ~h _ . PraviCe A39 water table drip screed ®beee of etrdcture lbP) -~ ~ ~ ~ NN T - _- r -_.-._.y-' -T ~~~~ ~~_~ ~ I 1 ~ ~ ~ ~( ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~.._ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_~ ~ IL7 ~~ , a~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ i I~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ ~~ I ~~ ~ _~ ~ ~ ; - ',i ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _l ~ ~ ~ ~ - __ _- ~ ~ I ; ~ ~ i r __ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~, ~T~ ~ 1T~ I ~ T~Tt ~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~ ~ l~ '~ ~ b f 1111 I i' I ~ I ~ i i I i i ~, ~ I i ~ i ~ i ~ i I ~ I' ' ~ .)- I ~ , ,l ~ I !, I I it ~ ~ I ~ i ~ i , ~ ~, . _ _- _- . $. Grade Beyond _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ - C~ !r~-,-~ - f I 1 ~ ~ _ r ~t- f .......~.. -~ ~,(; . r~ ~ ~ ~ >. \ T r~r ~ i 11~ ~Ir~ ,1~]-I il~~l~~ il~~ ~~ I I~ ~~ ~ ~ I ~I ~ ILt..1' i Iii , ~ , ~ - ~ ~ ~_~ i ~ I ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ I]~ ~ ~ -- 'i ~ ~ ~~ I I i ~J ~~ ~ ~ l T I I i ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~~~ b 'I ' I I ~ _ _ ~°='~' ~Ec .:...._.__._ _ t 1_I L - ~ ~ . ~ ~ I - i ,_. ,. ~ 1 - i I i - i { I I 1 I L i ~ ~ I _ -. n i ;i ~_ .,< _._ ~ y : ~ i 3 -; ~_~ i - -- -'~- Cut alone (Stucco Stone) `___ Wrought iron entry stair ' @ Iront walls of let bvel8 --~ I ~ reiling. I t ~ ~<~a;= ~ ~ ='3 3e '# z F ~ _ "; sc~W92• landscape entry stair. ~ ~~ _~- Roll~up tloors to aimu161e NOQ'PHEAS'1' ELEPArI'ION (EIItIN'P) bam style doore®Gerege ~,. ~~~ - 26 q Maz R~gei l -~ / ~ ~- ,...,~ ---- -- _ Rcol Pitih ~ yt12 (NF'1 ~ Raofover living beyond is - below max ddge height on , \ olheroida of atruclure. 7 ~~~~ '/ ~..~ / i I ~ ~ ~~~ i ~ ~ I ~ t U c Q Wn MM ~ m W~V ~~ - ...\ '- -- Decorebve trellis ®Ironl _ . _ ~ poroh. See elevatona. I _ i I - _ - - ~.~~ ~. ~, m a a m g ~ ~.\ ... _-- / _ _ _ - ~ i ~ I ,~ I k ~ ~ I I~ ~ ~ I~ I I ~~ ~~-~~ ~ ~ ~ !1 ~ ~ I ~ ~ll I li' ~ ~ -- I ~ ~ ~ --- I ~ ' FF d' 9td+Maln Level ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I (~ I ( ~ ~ I t i, __ F ®2 dMlaln L l ~ ls) 6r~ -- _ ___-- - - _'~_-______-- eve n ----- '-- - 7 /~-- --- ~ .. ~i N ' I i 1 I I ~ Inl Giade ~LarMacape retaingg well ~_ Line of Iat Nwl wells 0 ~ ' _ ewproPos~d°9redan°'o , ~ __~ ~ 4 U L c _ _. _ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - L ____ ' FF~1atLevelSlab Ito provide rear y°rd °pece. 5•°'m°i~.height. 1 _!ArchNeclurel stucco foam ~ nd detail ®floor Me. below grede (ryp,) J „ ~ . z W w S `~ a O ~ I Cut itone,5tmxo Slone) _-, i S(IIJTHEAST ELEYATIpN (LRMT SIUE) ®°~°w'"°,'°~"°°"~` NOR'1'HWES'1' ELEVATION (RIGHT SIDE)' f I ~~~~ _.__.___.____I -- Pool Pitch '~ 7:12 (typ.) ~~ t '4 I I ' I N _.____....__-_ c: ICBO approved aperh aneator@ cNmney reimbelbne (typ.) Cut arena (Stunco Stone) w . asNe„e,a,.... Vaulted calling @ Llving Room. See plan. ROOFING Class A, concrete rooting tiles over 1x PTDF tuning battens, over (1) layer o130A bulldog paper, over 112"CDX plywood root sheathing. Nail w110d @ 6'OC edges 8 12"OC field (UNO), over Irembg. See Gaming plans. Verily nailing with UBC table 23d~0 8 stmcturel engbeer's minimum nailing requiremens. Color. Charcoal or neutral gray. Cator selected and approved by owner pdor to inetalletfon. SIDING: Stucco: 13) coal, 7/6' min. Mkkness, send linish stucco siding over sell fumng G.I. (1 T GA)1412" mesh stuao wire or G.I. expanded metal lath, over (2) layers of grede 'D' bWldirg paper, over 1fY CDX plywood wall sheathing. Neil wl10d @ 6'OC @ edges 812"OC @ Neld min. (UNO), over framing. Verity nailing with UBC table 23d~0 8 aWctural engineers minimum nailing requirements. (Sheer Schedule). Cctor coated stucco upon request of owner. Use elastomerk primer pdor to painting as applicable. TRIM: Windows: ' Stuao mold end sills as integrel pans of window canstructlon. Pretest concrete or Architectural stuxo mold sills. Wells: Front: (Stucco Stone) Cut stone, random pattern @ front lower level wells 8 tlreplaa theses (ryp.) I • ----- E I Decorative trelih @ front -~~~ - j '-----~---i_ --~- porch. See elevetlona. f mI 38' high min. guardrail @ i ' front porch. See -~ '-'~~-~-'--- elevatlone. I , 'R-._._.------- -rk----------' Coricrele slab @ 1 sl Idvel Iloor (typ.) ~ I o! Sae Greding 8 Drainage plan for new topography 8 cold tai cake.. Class A, canasta reo6rp Nlee (ryp.) Cobr selected by owner. Sheds of NeWnl pray. 718' send Onlah stucco cidng @ ap we6e (ryp J REV[SlONS B ~c"c ~m a 3 i i f tl '~{y5.. d zE ~ 'yc ~"1L~a x• 7i-.:1: II4 !, / t /~ __ troxaE tray ceNinp @ , Dining room. See plan. j "~ ATTIC j i i / I L ~ ~ - - --- . ---- -- I 1 ~~I , ,1 i ~. LIWNG ROOM DINING ROOM ~ ~ I XRCHEN ~i i T`P; iTr1~ ~ ~ - -- II - / ~/ 1 GARAGE lei pre` SASEMfiNT `~~ i /~ ~ o Q ~r o~ VjlLm ~ ~U drab ~~@ ~~N a Q 3 y i ? Retaining well B rear of ~ u atrecture, whkh la sal hrto w the hilNMe. gee plan. ~ •• 47 :~ ~ a s X ~ o Sesemem arse is aUblefreMBn Blld iB IM)1 ~, r croumetl towards allowable Noor area ratio. ~ ~ ~--- landings @ ell exterior I molding @ window sills -----~ doors lhP.) (~> SOU'CIIWEST BL1sVAT111N (IIEAN) U BR • '~~ , s a yc N ~ Note: ' Drawing scale has been reduced to , ~~ ~~ ~` 3116" =1'-0" to fit on this sheet. ~~ z ~~' n, `~~ i~ ti~ r sc cd ~wi fN "' `~~ rY~A ~~ ~f~ ~; ' ~ ~ ' lnvla8A11CE: I 12lAYd SF' ~, , _ fl1116F ,.~. 4 'I GARAGE LEVEL AREA CALCULATIONS: Dauld M. Brit) Tony Rowe 105 N. Sstea ~ Ave. Los Gems, CA 850x0 408.354.8711 toeke) 103.ffi4.8511 IIsrA ~~ ~~ ~_~ ~ggg9~~~~~ ''p4~p'§p66 c E a 8$m ~ke96 ~dP~« W U /W/~ o ° h~l p N II~~II 0! ~ WU f-'=JI W a ~/ a 0 °~a ~N m 0 d N A ~az°O~ m z Z a w ~ 3 0 o uv, o A6 IVIAIN LEVEL AREA CALCULATIONS: I IM'• I'? c. • I ~ ___ ~` / _ ~- i. I _ i I~~~ ~ 1 _ ..~/ ' -~- .513.13 i ~,,. -''f_ / ---`.~ 5 - -~ _.. J" I ~___._. __.._ ~ I I e 3 i_ _ _ _ _ ~-.___'_.___---_ _~-_~---_._-______- 11 .- I ~/I/ 610 "'~T_ J-~' / ~ ' 0 B6 ~~'~ tip---~ I ~16.82~ ~-_ P L' E R C E ~ ~ ' ~ _ = ~_ -:.-..:.~:.. 1 C 1 yMIB I ~t,2~61_ ~ ... Ro ~' 0 r e h r 6XOeL fx S r ,~~.• s~ ,''I 0.75 r N r T"- ---- - - a , . ___ ~ to drain J----"- ~ r -, ~ - ------- r __ 17.62 Qty 15.03 1~_. ~ ~ ~D~ ~ 517..04 ,512.82 -, - -r rII/ +a~_. 1_97 ____.__.-_____. ~ ~/ _~ Og05p9.14 H i ~5rt12 ___-.~ ro ~5p -84 I',~' , 1 i C f 5~..-__"."~r~.-_.. _- ,512.53 -~~~~~~ \C -._.5t6-~'~__...~ "- _ -/ Z4T3.//~// f0 .512.13 I .~ 1 `'• 00~ . _ .~-• N '5,4.21 ,, ~f ' \\ E ...i , 512.72 ~ \ , ~~} \ 50 69. ~~ \ ~ , se _ _ , ,,'e I ;~~~ \ ' I ~ ~ J/6 .515.14 ~~ 7 G \ \ .________.____ _ _____ ~ i j ~ ~ ~ - 514 - `~ .514.91 -~ ~ 19.81 1 / I `~`I{I \3 ~o I ~ ~ / 515.15 't~ ~0 0'~5 \ I I~ / ' / 1 ____ 1 \ .511.10 _ _ _ _ •' Q b" VAI.NIIi }~'" ~ 1 , O ___ 516 _______._________ _ 1 /, ~~ N 519.18 \ 1 '~ .St r/ .26 J 1 ~ \ ) 1 Y ~ 521 39 ~ v t L .SIfi.04 ~-' 3 I 5 . W s _,- -'-- ----- -' / / t .SI B.6t 2 _ ~. _~B ~ o O ~! 71 / . \ ~P~ -___________r ,-.' '~ 1 \ ~~ J.: : - .51 -~ I ~ ' ~~ 1 1i j' 1 /,, 1 ~ - '~ .51 .1 ~~ \ \ ___ ~ -. 510.90 _~________ 020 -~'~" '' ,.c. 20.01 ~~ 'B/ \ l .5_."' _____ ___ _~_____________ ~ .520.50 \ ,f~, I _ _ / __ ., _ I ~ ~ v.~ -' _ ,' o O \ 1 522.78 ~!'r- _ _ _ _ _ ' ________ ____.__ 522 ____ _.- ~: ,//\ O .~ ' . ' - .522.59 - _ ~ ~ \ ~ ~- 15. ~IA_---L .-------hkr'o~" 322 ''" --- ~- HN/" p I ~~~ s~, d \ __________ l~ -- 2/x~~~00r ~~.Q'- ~ 523.61 1 -,-- ------ i ------- - _ , -- y -, ___ __ .__ _ ______ __ 524 ~ ~ - / 29.9 ~~ /i (;0 -- - _______ - ~~ ~~ i hp I ''=-~ `~~ , ~a~c.s2 _ _ sz ----------- I ,\~,` /,hot\' A~ , ,'_--- ------- Y ~~ , _ ___ _____ 5 / -L' v / T 2 / \ ~' b , __a__ 3 ~ _ ~P~ n I t ~ .. '7 0529.95 _ _ _ ~ ~ VO ~ '4•+ ~T.,~ I J _ h"lr~ L ~_____ '' ~'~/ ~\ / /. 550 ~47~ ~ ~~~~ ~. __ ___ - ~~ 600 ^~' ______ 511.62 '~ / _ ,530.62. _ ~5/V ~~~~~ ~1p;-~ .75 1 Q ~ / IoI ~TfJlr, 1G 18• ~"0t -- ~ ~.~~~ ° ------- ------ ------r / l('9'8` / ~~ o` --.`I GS ~ .07 \ ~ ~ 5~A' / ,,0-~~5~r- '7t \ y7 din ''1 i ~ / 11 A, ~~ ~ 0~ / 1, /E1 /, /` ~r I 'l~ ///~' f ~ D4? - X ~ /Y/ 1,.V''-~ C'f3 ,J. ,.~£.~'... 6.68 - ~ - / I /' 1 ~r O 0,05. B5 t b ~, ~a 505.97 ~il~~` i~..i 1 " 5 m 06 7 y~/' ro a bo1 , - ''(05.91 ~ 4-_-~~ -'~le R - ~I '~ 1 ~~ I / ~= 0) ~O ;~ ' / / / i °/X~/ ; ~ I / sl .r ~ I 155 1 '0 I /~, .~ ' J~ /,~ 5t 4.80 31 ~ ' ~~' _ -~ ~ _ - ~___' ///9.2b I 11 j / ~ ~ ~__~ N ~ ~ ~~~~ _ / ~ f-- ~~ I- 0540.06 ~ / \\\ ,~ ~. / `/ ~ ~ a i / LEGEND ~~ ~ ____ -' .., , ' , ~ \ \ I 537 j ~ EXISTING O N PROPOSED / ~ ,.\ B U DARY : Z I I~ % - •~~''~i300~/--~ / 4,,18 , ,( / ,~ ~ i~ CURB AND GUTTER _________ ~ ~ - ~ ~ " ~~-~ ~ ~ ~ ,' - '/ ~/ / 6'~4 ~ '' / \\ ~ / ~ EDGE Di PAVElfENl -._ RETAINING VALL { a ` \ / ~ ~ A ' BUILDING -~ /3 ~ .~ ' , / STORM GRAIN INLET ^ S70RH GRAIN ~~-_ .. _- ~ ~ ~ \ ~ 10 ~, , 0~ I ~,~~_ \ / a . ~- ~ 5H,B6' ~ 0 ~ / EARTHWORK QUANTff1ES TDP DP CURB ELEVAT/DN Ex. T.C. I. c. _ _ _ - \ y ~ 9.75 / ~ /' / YOLUME OF CUT 560 C.Y. lOP OF PAVfnENT Ex. r. P. roP aP RErA/NrNC unu Ex r r. P. AAA 'S~ \\ i/ ~6 .- ~ VOLUME OF FILL 272 C.Y, EXCESS MATERIAL 2b8~C Y . . u. GROlMO EL EVAT(ON D, r. u. _ .~~_ ~ \ i ~'0 ~ ~ . . .,~ ~ ~~~ ~~ I N0. BY DAZE - R ON , BY DA E DATE:. OGA ZA7U 1 - JDB N0. ° 50ALE' ~ER '~~"'°' WESTFALL ENGINEERS I NC GRADING AND DItAtNAGE PLAN, 99D91 -- --- ---- - r. . . SH f A DESI CNED: JC BT :I(AREI CY MBAL RCE 3453 TO ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ EET _______ DRAYN: DAT E: 14587 BIC BASIN VAY, SARA GA, CA 95070 !4001867-0244 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ OE I - _ I , PftOJ. ENGR: JC 1 : SCALE 1"=10' VICINITY MAP ~. (° _.. _ • RESIDENCE ~ ~ -~ __ _ ____ F F ._____ FI 521 ____ F.F, _ EL.522 __ _ _ . .. . - __- ~ _ _ __ ._ ___ _- . ~ --_ - --- -____ ____ _ ___ ftESIDEN I ~ 12.0 7 r5 c'`~ I I I . • • NOTES 1. SLOPES OF 29f OR OAEATFR AWAY FROM THB FOUNDATION SNALI. BE MAINTAIN ALONG THE ENTIRE PERIMETER FOR A DISTANCE OF 7 FP.Ef MINIMUM. 2. ALL ROOF DRAINS TO BE DISCHAR(iFD ONTO ADEQUTE SPIASR BLOCRS OR CONVEYED 7'O THE STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM. ).INSTALL SUB-DRAIN AROUND TI3E PERIMETER FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALL IN ACCORDANCE WIfH SOUS INOINFF.RB RECOMMENDATION AND UNDER HIS DIRP,CffON. tt~ A. FINAL SURAACE DRAINAGE GRADIENT SHALL BE PLANNED ANU BUILT SO AS TO DIRECT WATER AWAY FROM THE BURDINOS~AND POUNDATONS. 7, SLABS CAST ADIACENT TO FOUNDATIONS SHALL SLOPE AWAY PROM THE FOUNDATIONS. 6. SUIIPACE DRAlNAOE FROM THE ARPAS OUTSIDE OP BURDU4O OR PRONT FORTION OF THE LOT SHALL CONI7NUE TO DRAB4 M NORTHEASTERLY DIRECI70N ALONG THE NATURAL SLOPE. REV Job Name; GRADING SECTIONS VERTICAL SCALE; 1 inch = 10 feet HORIZONTAL SCALE: I inoh = 10 feet Doshed LSne = Nat urol Ground Solid Llne Proposed Ground STANDARD GRADING PLAN NOTES NOTE: THIS DRAWMG IS APPROVED SUBIECT TO I. All grading is aubjat m obaerva0on by Ne City. Permistx or repsexnbtlve shill notify tlrt Ciry of Stump u (408) Bfd•I261 v keu IS boon hekrt uau of any godinp 2. Approval of this plan applia only m the aavasion, plamnat, a ampecda of naknl anh maledils. This approvil pas na ankr any sighb of copy so dsha publk PAY a the privak property of other. Approvil of bb pkn oleo dos na anadtuu eppsovd of any improvemau. Propaed improvemal art subject k rtview and approval by tlm rrapabibk authori6a end all olha required pamib shall 6e obkumd. 3. It ahaR be the responsibility of the Pamida or agent k idadfy, laarc and protest all underground feciGUa, 1. The pamida a agent shill mamtiln the slab, ridev+elks and ill other public righlwf~way in a clad, sak and usable andidon. All spills of soil, rak a conssroctia debris slWt be mmoved frma the pubEcly owns property during aaswcda and upon sanpledon of the projeM. All adjxat property, privak or puNk shill be nuinsilned in a clean, safe and umhk oondidan. 3. All gnd'mg shill b<perfamed in ouch a manna as to amply with the awdarda akblished by the Ab Quality Maktrarma DisWd fa ilrbaa purdakms. 6. All hmwn well laatiau a ke site have been includd and each wills shall be mainnirod a abandoned seeding a eurront rcgukdona edminiuertd by dse Senn Ckn Velky Waur District. G.. (108) 263-26110 a arrange kr district abservada o(ill well abadamenb. 7. This pW dos ram approve du removal of tree. Approlrciate ba rtrtawil pemdb and medsoda of tra preaervatia shoold be obnined from Us Cily Community Deaksprllbll Depasdnas. B. The Civil Engiaer, WesUall Engineer, hsc., I47S3 Big Basin Wey, Saratoga, G. 93070. Has dWgned tkia Projat to amply with me gMing rtammetMadas in dse D~ geNahnial report, if rtquind, prgnred by end dosed 9. All grading shall anfmm W approved spaifmadaa preanted hereon a asbclmd heed. AB grading work shall 6e obsavcd and approsxd by tlK soil engines, the sob aging[ _, shall 6e nofified at Tau /8 ban before begkning any grading u telephone smmba . Uno6saved aid unapproved grading wok dull be rtmoved and repluad urdv abrtvatlon of the project soil aginar, 10. Giading permib wi0 tat be issued betwea October ISSN aid Apsil 130 otiny yar withal epprovet by she Dvector of PubOe World. ~, zo~° "°R '~"°~ WESTFALL ENG I NEERS a I NC . VERT. 1'•10' VEDA JC BY,KAREL CYNB0.L. RCE 34534 Ig5B3 BIG BASIN ~VAY. SARATOGA. CA 950:0 14087867-0241 CAD DATE: 1I1 7 I I ' JOB N GRADING AND jDRA I NAGE PLAN 99091 WALKER j RES I DENCE EMEET OF Z (h (G I• • f~ f I I Plant Materials Guide ~' Street Trees -'is gal. ,. ~~ Transition to natural - ~ gal ~j1TE SYM~ ~ -ChinesePistache(Pistacla) -Californlasage(Artemesla),(armel«eeper y (Ceanothus), California poppy (Eschscholzla), ~ Heterameles, (royon) p I '- vergreen Trees - 24"box / f s gal i ~~ ~t' ~ U>1Ut~r #'alc~ I -Oaks (Quercus), Eucalyptus, Magnolia ~ ~ t hrubs-59a1/tgal -Pittosporum, Lantana, Starjasmine (a1~( Wl~ ~~.~ ~ (Trachelospermum), Raphiolepis, V i1~ I ~ ~OnferS - 2¢" bOX / 15 gal Llly-of-the-nile (Agapanthus), Plumbago, Drlde of ~! ~ f~ -~, Redwoods (Sequoia) c Madeira (Echium), Hydrangea ~, V`~ I ~ "s, ~ _'t ~•.. , Deciduous Accent Trees - III'~~1~~,~~~~~~ ~roundcover /Vines - f gal /flats , ~~~ - . ~ ~ / '~U~~y~ylu~-6ouganvlllea,HOneysuckle(Lonlcera), ~ i'~ ""` 2¢" box / tS9al "" Periwinkle (vlnca) -silk trees (Albiila), Flowering Plums (Prunus) ~; j _ 1 S / ~ N~~ , Ai~,~x~IG rto ~~~ 5u~u.r~ ~ lu ~~ Y~~1Ni ~'~Nl~l.l-e~ I'~ut1 ~ 7o It~.,;a?~voaUJ ~abj v~IrJC~ waak~ I opt` r, 1 r' I ~Lp Yh - ~~, -~', v I I _' , ~il~ c A„I, ~~pt CONCEPTUAL LAND ~.. SCAPE PLAN REVIBIONB BY v" z z a z y J c 111 C ^ y ~ ~ O t= i ~Q< a wa a~ ~ Qvj ,j ~ m ~ Q~ ~ s C tD a ~a a ro V V~ C C VJ v V .~ v ~~~ 0 L r ~ vv i v ,~ ~ao+ ~~~ ~ ~ to Delp s~,~, ~IG~d-o° Job '!(.~]~b~ sb.,~ ~~ Di BM~O i ~sylAUd~l` j yk~' _~ I 1 ~, ~ C ~y i- I ~" ~ ~~ "~ ~- ~' %'' , - ~ I i~ ,- - r <, `~ ,.~, ~ °~ -%' ~ ..lam 'I II ~I ~ C 0 ~^~ P ~ ~ i ~ V ~I` 4 • I~ r~ ~ i i k`,i s ', , ~ I - t °r, ~ } ~ --~ ~~ ~ _ ~ ~ . raY) '~~--- 4 ~ R ~ 11hfl ,k illhl iii l~l~s~~ odP~i:r _~~~ -~ /7, % ~ x I ~~p ~~d ~~j~jo~J l . ~j~ ~ ~ u' o . _ ..,;t v l~^, ~_ o ITEM 2 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: #02-020 DR, 15120 Quito Road Applicant/Owner: Paul Huynh &r Hong Ngo Staff Planner: Ann Welsh, AICP -Assistant Planner Date: June 26, 2002 APN: 410-40-018 Department Head: 15120 Quito Road 000001 • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 2/04/02 Application complete: 4/29/02 Notice published: 6/12/02 Mailing completed: 6/16/02 Posting completed: 6/12 /02 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes to demolish an existing 2, 214 squaze foot single story residence and construct a new two story, 25 foot high, 4,908 square foot residence. The style of home is identified as Italian Villa with concrete file roof and stucco facade with cast stone trim. The plans depict azched windows on the north and west elevations which face the driveway entrance and rectangulaz windows to the east and south. The front entrance is a single story arched entry porch with double doors and the rear facade has a first floor covered porch, above which is a second story covered terrace. The interior of the house contains a vestibule at the entry with an 18-foot high ceiling. The property contains a Santa Clara Water District easement and a portion of the San Tomas Aquino Creek channel. The applicant proposes to construct the house approximately 50 feet west of the top of the creek bank. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Arborist Report dated 5/15/02 3. Plans, Exhibit "A" dated 4/17/02 with revisions 4/30/02 • • 0~~~0~ STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD -Very Low Density Residential MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE::995 acres gross and .596 acres net AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Average Slope of the lot is 9.15 GRADING REQUIRED: Minimal regrading is proposed ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of demolishing a single story home and building a two story 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 building ahingle-family residence. M MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The exterior of the house is to be com osed of P beige stucco walls, concete ballusters surrounding the deck with a grey shingle roof. • R-1- 40,000 Lot Covera e: Proposal Code Requirements 7,679 sf. - 29% 9,087 sf. - 35% Floor Area: First Floor: 2,327 sf. Second Floor: 1,648 sf. Gara e: 704 sf. >15 ft Ceilin 217 sf Total: 4,896 sf. 4,908 sf Setbacks: Front: 48 ft 30 ft Side: 24 ft &z 20 ft. 20 ft. Rear: NA - Trian lar Hei ht: 2 sto / 25 ft. Max. Allowable 26 ft. 00®®03 PROJECT DISCUSSION Desi Review This application is for Design Review to permit demolition of a single story house and construction of a new two-story house in the Italian Villa style. The house has alow- pitched cross-gabled concrete file roof (29% slope) with stucco facade. The windows on the more visible north and west elevations are arched. The single story entry porch is arched with double doors and a decorative file inset on the north-facing wall. The vestibule contains an 18-foot high ceiling. The rear of the house contains a two level covered porch each level with five support columns, which form a colonnade effect across the rear of the house. A horizontal stucco band trims the north and west elevation and the two chimneys. The lot size is 43,342 square feet (gross) and a 40-foot wide Santa Clara Valley Water District easement stretches across one length of the property, which results in a 25,962 square foot (net) lot area. The house is to consist of 4,896 square feet, 2,327 square feet on the first floor and 1,648 square feet on the second floor with a 704 square foot, three-car garage. Necessazy Findings The Zoning Ordinance, Section 15-45.080 identifies the following findings as necessary for granting Design Review approval. (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed main or accessory structure, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. (b) Preserve natural landscape. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas. (c) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The proposed main or accessory structure, in relation to structures on adjacent lots and to the surrounding region, will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the environment. (d) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (iii) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties and their ability to utilize solar energy. (e) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. (f) Design policies and techniques. The proposed main or accessory structure will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook. ooo©o~ Actual Findings Design Review The following findings have been made regarding the proposed new construction. (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed main or accessory structure, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views andprivacy. The property is heavily wooded and triangular in shape. The property abuts Quito Road to the west and San Tomas Aquino Creek to the east. The proposed house will not impact the privacy of neighbors to the east or west since homes in both of these directions are set back from the road and the creek. The neighbor south of the subject property is most impacted by the development. This neighboring home is a two-story dwelling that faces Quito Road and shares a side yard with the Huynh residence. The orientation of the house allows athirty-foot setback from the upper floors of the house to the southern property line. Given the wooded nature of the lot and the generous side yard setback, the privacy of this neighbor does not appear to be impacted unreasonably. Also the plans depict a minimal number of windows facing the south portion of the lot. This also ensures privacy to the neighbors to the south. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in heeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas. The proposal is to demolish the existing house and rebuild a new home on basically the same footprint. The major change to the landscape is created by relocation of the driveway. Previously the driveway encroached on the Santa Clara Valley Water District easement to the north of the property. The new plans depict the driveway traversing the front of the property parallel with Quito Road to access the garage, which is at the southern end of the property. The driveway relocation involves removal of five trees and replacement trees are required. The property has a number of trees remaining in the area of the driveway so that the relocation of the driveway will not have a significant impact on the landscape. - Relocating the driveway further south on the property to reduce the length may create sight distance problems. The visability at the southern end of the property is limited due to the curve in Quito Road. This may justify the length of the driveway. Thus there is a safety issue with relocating the curb cut to reduce,the length of the driveway. (c) Minimize perception of excessive bulb. The proposed main or accessory structure in relation to structures on adjacent lots and to the surrounding region will minimize the perception of excessive bulb 000005 and will be integrated into the environment. The two-story home has a varied roofline with cross-gabled roof and entry porch and two-story rear porch. These elements to the facade and roofline all serve to minimise the perception of bulk. Also, the wooded nature of the lot helps minim~es the visual impact of the structure and helps to integrate the home into the environment. (d) Compatible bulk and height The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulb and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (iii) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. The proposed design calls for atwenty-five foot high structure, which is compatible in bulk and height to the neighboring homes. The only neighboring home within view of the Huynh property is the house, which abuts the property to the south. This is a two- story home of the same scale as the proposed home: Other homes in the vicinity of the subject property aze not impacted visually since they aze setback from Quito Road in Saratoga or located across San Tomas Aquino Creek in Monte Sereno. (e) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates currentgrading and erosion control standards used by the City. Since the proposed home is to be located on approximately the same footprint as the home to be demolished, there is little anticipated change to grading and drainage. As a condition of approval, the applicant will be required to submit a grading and drainage plan which reflects the City's policy of retaining as much storm water runoff on site as possible. (~ Design policies and techniques. The proposed addition conforms to the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook. The proposed project complies with Residential Design Handbook Policy #1 to minim~e the perception of bulk through use of natural materials &t colors as well as having a varied roofline and facade. The plan conforms with Policy #2, integrate structures with the environment through use of natural earth tones with stucco facade, concrete file roof and stone trim with wood windows. Also the existing wooded landscape serves to integrate the structure into the environment. The proposal complies in part with Policy #3, avoid interference with privacy by limiting the number of , windows on the south facing portion of the house and maintaining a thirty-foot setback from the property line of the south facing neighbor. Policy #4, preserve views and access to views is addressed since the home is naturally secluded and does not impact the view of abutting properties. Policy #5, design for energy efficiency, Technique #2, landscape to control exposure to sun and wind is addressed via retaining the wooded character of the property thus controlling winter and summer exposure to the sun. Technique #3, allow light, air and solar access to adjacent homes, is addressed since the proposed home does not encroach on the solar access of neighbors. ooooos Thus, the above analysis concludes that all the necessary findings required for granting design review approval can be met. The City Arborist and the Saratoga Fire District have reviewed this application. Their comments are included as conditions of approval. Community Development 1. A permit from the Santa Clara Valley Water District shall be required because the applicant proposed development activity within the water district easement. Although the structure is setback 50 feet from the top bank of the creek, the demolition and construction activity will be less than 50 feet from the creek bank and therefore a permit is required. 2-. Fireplaces: Only one wood- burning fireplace is permitted per dwelling, the applicant should indicate compliance on the plans. 3. Grading and Drainage Plan - A grading and drainage plan shall be submitted prior to zoning clearance. 4. Soil and Erosion Control Plans -The applicant should submit a soil and erosion control plan which identifies the techniques for retaining stormwater on-site. If stormwater cannot be retained on-site a note explaining why this cannot be achieved should be incorporated on the plans. 5. A landscape plan shall be provided which depicts replacement trees and additional plantings along the southern property line to ensure privacy between these two dwellings. Fire Protection District The Santa Clara County Fire District reviewed this application on January 25, 2002 and their comments are as follows: 1. Required Fire Flow: The fire flow for this project is 2,250 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure. The required fire flow is available from area water mains and fire hydrants, which are spaced at the required spacing. 2. Garage 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. 3. Early Warning Fire Alarm System Required: Provide an approved Early Warning Fire Alarm System throughout all portions of the structure, install per City of Saratoga Standards. ooooo~ CityArborist Report The City Arborist inspected this property on May 14, 2002 and issued a report addressing tree protection measures. The recommendations identified in the report are made conditions of approval and the highlights of the recommendations are identified below. 1. The report identifies 30 trees, which are at some level of risk by construction. Six trees located in the proposed driveway are to be removed. Tree protection fencing is recommended as noted on the map, which is included with the report. The arborist recommends that fencing be installed in two phases, the demolition phase and the construction phase. 2. A value assessment of $39,821 is placed on the trees, which are designated fine specimens, and a bond equal to 15% ($5,973) of the total value of these trees must be retained prior to final zoning clearance. 3. Replacement trees are suggested for the trees to be removed due to the driveway construction. There are a number of trees which are lesser value trees and they have a value of $2,324 and replacement trees are recommended for these removals also. 4. Tree #19 which is located adjacent the southeast corner of the structure will have a large percentage of the canopy removed to construct the building. Tree #19 would not be expected to survive over the long-term and even if it did survive its structure would be so poor as a result of the severe pruning that it would be considered a total loss. 5. Regarding Tree #14, the existing paving under this tree must be removed by hand. A full 3-inch layer of coarse wood chips must be spread over the entire root zone of Tree #14 immediately following the removal of the paving. Spreading of the chips must be done by hand. Conclusion Staff recommends that these plans be approved with the condition that the issues identified in the arborist report and the fire department report are addressed in the final plans. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Revise the Design Review application with conditions by adopting the following resolution. • d®o~0$ Attachment 1 • RESOLUTION N0.02 - APPLICATION N0.02-020 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Huynh-Ngo/15120 Quito Road WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review to demolish the existing single story structure and construct a 4,896 two story dwelling; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and Whereas the project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and involves construction of a single family structure; 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: Policy 1, Minimize the perception of bulk The two-story home has a varied roofline with cross-gabled roof and entry porch and two-story rear porch. These elements to the facade and roofline all serve to minimize the perception of bulk. Policy 2, Integrate structures with the environment The proposed design calls for atwenty-five foot high structure, which is compatible in bulk and height to the neighboring homes. The only neighboring home within view of ,;' the Huynh property is the house which abuts the property to the south This is a two story home which appears to be of the same scale as the proposed home. Other homes in the vicinity of the subject property are not within view since they are setback from Quito Road in Saratoga or located off the road in Monte Sereno which boarders the San Tomas Aquino Creek. Also, the wooded nature of the lot helps to integrate the proposed structure into the environment. • 000009 The design is consistent with the policy to integrate structures into the environment • through use of natural earth tones stucco facade and concrete roof tiles and by combining the garage and house in a single structure. Policy 3, Avoid interference with privacy The property is heavily wooded and triangular in shape and abuts Quito Road to the west and San Tomas Aquino Creek to the east. The proposed house will not impact the privacy of neighbors to the east or west since homes in both of these directions are set back from the road and the creek. The neighbor south of the subject property is most impacted by the development. This neighboring home is a two-story dwelling that faces Quito Road and shares a side yard with the Huynh residence. The orientation of the house allows athirty-foot setback from the upper floors of the house to the southern property line. Given the wooded nature of the lot and the generous side yard setback, the privacy of this neighbor does not appear to be impacted unreasonably. Also the plans depict a minimal number of windows facing the south portion of the lot. This also ensures privacy to the neighbors to the south. Policy 4, Preserve views and access to views The subject property is heavily wooded and relatively secluded therefore the proposed home does not impact the surrounding views or access to views. Policy 5, Design for maximum benefit of sun and wind The proposed addition will not impair the solar access of adjacent properties since the property is relatively removed from the surrounding neighbors. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the Ciry of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application by Paul Huynh and Hong Ngo for Design Review is granted subject to a number of conditions. Community Development 1. Exhibit "A" dated April 17, 2002 with revisions to April 30, 2002 shall be revised to reflect the conditions outlined in this report. 2. A permit from the Santa Clara Valley Water District shall be required because the applicant proposed development activity within the water district easement. Although the structure is setback 50 feet from the top bank of the creek, the demolition and construction activity will be less than 50 feet from the creek bank and therefore a permit is required. ado®1.0 3. Fireplaces: Only one wood- burning fireplace is permitted per dwelling, the applicant should indicate compliance on the plans. 4. Grading and Drainage Plan - A grading and drainage plan shall be submitted prior to zoning clearance. 5. A storm water retention plan shall be provided 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. 6. A landscape plan shall be provided which depicts replacement trees and additional plantings along the southern property line to ensure privacy between these two dwellings. 7. Prior to submittal for Building Permits, the following shall be submitted to the Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: a. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. b. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 8. The plan shall be revised to show the location of the top of the creek bank and the distance of the structure from this point. CITY ARBORIST The City Arborist inspected this property on -May 14, 2002 and issued a report addressing tree .protection measures. The recommendations identified in the report are made conditions of approval and the highlights of the recommendations are identified below. 1. The report identifies 30 trees, which are at some level of risk by construction. Six trees located in the proposed driveway are to be removed. Tree protection fencing is recommended as noted on the map, which is included with the report. The arborist recommends that fencing be installed in two phases, the demolition phase and the construction phase. 2. A value assessment of $39,821 is placed on the trees, which are designated fine specimens, and a bond equal to 15% ($5,973) of the total value of these trees must be retained prior to final zoning clearance. 000011 3. Replacement trees are suggested for the trees to be removed due to the driveway construction. There are a number of trees which are lesser value trees and they have a value of $2,324 and replacement trees are recommended for these removals also. 4. Tree #19 which is located adjacent the southeast corner of the structure will have a large percentage of the canopy removed to construct the building. Tree #19 would not be expected to survive over the long-term and even if it did survive its structure would be so poor as a result of the severe pruning that it would be considered a total loss. 5. Regarding Tree #14, the existing paving under this tree must be removed by hand. A full 3-inch layer of coarse wood chips must be spread over the entire root zone of Tree #14 immediately following the removal of the paving. Spreading of the chips must be done by hand. These items as well as the other items identified in the arborist report must be addressed during the construction process. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The Santa Clara County Fire District reviewed this application on January 25, 2002 and their comments are as follows: 1. Required Fire Flow: The fire flow for this project is 2,250 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure. The required fire flow is available from area water mains and fire hydrants, which are spaced at the required spacing. 2. Garage 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. 3. Early Warning Fire Alarm System Required: Provide an approved Early Warning Fire Alarm System throughout all portions of the structure, install per City of Saratoga Standards. CITY ATTORNEY 1. Applicant agrees to hold Ciry harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with Ciry'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. 2. 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. d®O©~2 Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 26 day of June, 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission • This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date OOQ~©13 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • ~~0~~.4 BARRI ~ D. COATE and ASSOCIATES Horticutural Consultants 23535 Surnrnit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 408!3531052 Attachment TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE I~[UYNH PROPERTY 15120 QUITO ROAD SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of Ann Welch Community Planning Dept. City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 • Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist May 14, 2002 Job # OS-1402 Plan Received: 4.29.02 Plan Due: 5.15.02 • a~Q-E~~S TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECONIlv1ENDATIONS AT THE HUYNH PROPERTY, 15120 QUITO ROAD SARATOGA Assignment At the request of Ann Welsh, Planner, Community Developmem Deparement, 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 aze included to mitigate damage to these trees during construction. The plan reviewed for this report is the Site Plan prepared by Allen Nikitin, Architect, Los Gatos, dated 417-02. The trees at this site were evaluated in a previous report by this office dated Mazch 17, 1998. A site visit was made in order to update the condition of the trees for this report. Summary This proposal may expose 30 trees to some level of risk by construction. At least six trees would be removed by implementation of this design. 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 15% the value of the retained trees is suggested in accordance with the level of the expected risks. Observations There are 30 trees near the driveway or neaz the location of the footprint of the new residence. Their proximity to proposed construction put these trees at risk of damage. The attached map shows the location of these trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. The 30 trees are classified as follows: Trees #1, 3, 7, 8, 9,13,14,19, 20, 23, 24 -coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Trees #2, 6,11, 12, 15-18, 21, 22, 25, 29, 30 -California black walnut (Juglans hindsii) Trees #4, 26-28 -Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) Tree #5 -English walnut (Juglanr regia) Tree # 10 -California sycamore (Platanus rocemosa) 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 - Extremely Poor) on the data sheets that follow this text. The combination of health and structure ratings for the 30 trees aze converted to descriptive ratings as follows: PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSiJLTING ARBORIST MAY 14, 2002 ~~~©~V TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECONIIvIE2iDATIONS AT THE HCTYNIi PROPERTY, ] 5120 QUITO ROAD 2 SARATOGA ' Exceptional Fine Fair Marginal Poor Dead ~cimens Specimens Specimens Specimens Specimens Specimens 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 3, 5, 11, 18, 12 2, 4, 15, 28 26, 27 10, 13, 14, 16, 19, 21, 25, 17, 20, 23, 24 29, 30 Fine specimens must be retained if possible but without major design revisions. Mitigation procedures recommended here are intended to limit damage within accepted horticultural standards in order to prevent decline. Fair specimens are worth retaining but again without major design revisions. Mitigation must prevent further decline. Marginal specimens are typically worth retaining but could be removed if necessary to facilitate construction. Mitigations recommended here are intended to prevent significant decline. Poor specimens cannot significantly improve regardless of care. For any which are considered hazardous, removal is recommended. For those retained, mitigation may not be typically requested. The only reason that Tree #3, a very large multi-stem coast live oak is rated as only fair is because it has poor structure, which I discussed with Mr. Huynh, who arrived at the S property during the site visit. I believed that the structural weakness of Tree #3 can be addressed by endweight pruning of selected branches and by installing cables between specific limbs. This work must be done by an arborist that is certified by the ISA (International Society of Arboriculture). If this work were to be done properly, the condition rating of Tree #3 would be upgraded to the "Fine" category. The Monterey pine trees #26 and 27 have died since the evaluation of March 17, 1998. Trees #4 and 28, also Monterey pines, are also in very poor health and are not expected to recover. I recommend that all four of these trees be removed before they become hazardous. Risks to Trees by Proposed Construction Trees #5, 6, 21, 22, and 29 are in conflict with the driveway and would be removed by implemerrtation of this design. It appears that the majority of the canopy of Tree #19 is in conflict with the new residence. A large percerrtage of the canopy would have to be removed to construct the building. Tree #19 would not be expected to survive over the long-term. Even if this tree were to survive, its structure would be so poor as a result of the severe pruning that it would be considered a total loss. Trees #1, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20, 23, and 24 are the better specimens on this property and are well worth retaining. In my opinion, these trees must be mined and PREPARID BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORLST MAY 14, 2002 ~~Q©~( TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMtuIENDATIONS AT THE HUYNH PROPERTY, 15120 QUTfO ROAD 3 SARATOGA maintained in good condition throughout construction. Most of these trees would require only minimum protection (construction period protective fencing). The other trees are only in fair condition or worse. Many of these have relatively low values. I recommend that the owner be given the option of retaining or replacing these lower quality specimens (#2, 4, 11, 12, 15, 18, 19, 25, 29, and 30). If the owner elects to retain am+ of these, they must be protected by construction period protective fencing installed at the dripline of the canopies. Should the owner elect to preserve any of these trees but the protection is inabequate, I recommend that they must be replaced. The owner should be warned that the tree protection bond is specifically related to installation of and maintenance of the tree protection fences. Recommendations 1. I suggest that construction period fencing be provided and located as noted on the attached map. Fencing must be of chainlink, a minimum height of 5 feet, mourned 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. If the owner elects to retain any of the lesser quality trees, they must be protected by this same fencing installed at the dripline. This project requires that the protective fencing be installed in two phases: (1) the demolition phase, and (2) the construction phase. The fence must be installed adjacent to the existing driveway for the protection of those retained in the group of Trees # 1- 13 (see attached map). This fencing would have to be relocated for the construction phase (see attached map). The fencing that would protect Trees # 16, 17, 20, 23, and 24 would be located at the same location during both phases. 2. There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping inside the canopy driplines of retained trees (either before or after the construction period fencing is installed or removed). Where this may conflict with drainage or other requiremerrts, the city arborist must be consulted. 3. Trenches for any utilities (gas, electricity, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be located outside the canopy driplines of retained trees. For any tree where this cannot be achieved, I suggest that the city arborist be consulted. 4. 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. 5. The existing paving under the canopy of Tree # 14 must be removed by hand 6. A full 3-inch layer of coarse of wood chips must be spread over the entire root zone of Tree # 14 immediately following the removal of the paving. Spreading of the chips PREPARID BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST MAY 14, 2002 /finn p ~~1~~~ 0 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMIviIaIpAT10NS AT THE HUYNH PROPERTY, 15120 QUTfO ROAD 4 SARATOGA must be done by hand. 7. Excavated soil must not be filed or dum (even tem rarily) under the canopies of P p~ po trees. Loose soil must not be allowed to slide down slope to cover the root collars of retained trees. 8. 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. 9. Any pruning must be done by an ISA certified arborist and according to ISA, Western Chapter Standards, 1998. 10. Landscape pathways and other amenities constructed under the canopies of trees must be done completely on grade without excavation. 11. Landscape irrigation trenches (or any other excavations), inside the canopy 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 are at least 10 feet apart at the perimeter. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. Bender board or similar edging material must not be used inside the canopy driplines of existing trees, because its installation requires trenching of 4-6 inches, which may result in sigtificant root damage. 15. I suggest that the species of plants used in the root zones of oak trees be compatible with the enviromnental and cultural requirements of the oak species indigenous to this area. A publication about plarrts compatible with California native oaks can be obtained from the California Oak Foundation, 1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland 94612. 16. Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bark, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be installed directly in contact with the bark of tares because of the risk of serious disease infection. 17. Materials or equipmem 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. PREPARED BY: M[CHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORLST MAY 14, 2002 ..O~O©~. J TREE SURVEY ldVD pRESIItVATION RECObIlvlE1JDATIONS AT THE HUYNH PROPERTY, 15120 QUrfO ROAD 5 SARATOGA Value Assessment The values of the trees are addressed according to ISA standards, Seventh Edition. I recommend that trees removed for this construction must be replaced with trees that equal the value of trees removed. Trees #5, 6, 19, 21, 22, and 29 would be removed by implementation of this design. However, in addition to these, the owner may elect to remove some of the lesser value trees. These trees have a total value of $2,324, which is approximately equivalent to six 24-inch boxed native trees. An alternative replacement value is two 36-inch boxed native specimens. Replacements are suggested The combined value of all of the trees rated as "Fine" (# 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20, 23, 24), plus Tree #3 is $ 39,821. I suggest a bond equal to 15% (=$5,973) of the total value of these trees be retained to assure their protection. Acceptable native tree replacements are: Coast live oak - Quercus agrifolia Valley oak - Quercus lobata Big leaf maple - Acer macropJryllum Califortia buckeye - Aesculus californica Coast Redwood -Sequoia sempervirens Respectfully subm' d, ....~--~+.. ~A.~. Michael L. Bench, Associate B e 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, CONSULTINC3 ARBORIST MAY 14, 2002 O~~(~~O BARRIE D. COATS AND 455OCIATES - Horticultural Consultartts (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. L.os Gatos, CA 95033 GL06SARY Co-dominant (stems, branches) equal in size and relative importance, usually associated with either the trunks or stems, or scaffold limbs (branches) in the crown. Crown -The portion of a tree above the trunk including the branches and foliage. Cultrvar - A named plant selection from which iderrtical or nearly idec~tical plants can be produced, usually by vegetative propagation or cloning. Recurrent - A term used to describe a mature tree crown composed of branches lacking a central leader resulting in around-headed tree. Eacarrent - A term used to describe a tree crown in which a strong central leader is present to the top of a tree with lateral branches that progressively decrease in length upward from the base. Girdling root - A root that partially or entirely encvcles the trunk and/or large buttress roots, which could restrict growth and downward movement of photosynthates. Indaded bark -Bark which is entrapped in narrow-angled attachme~s of two or more stems, branches, or a stem and branch(es). Such attachmelrts are weakly attached and subject to splitting out. Kinked root - A taproot or a major root(s) which is sharply bent and can cause plant instability and reduction of movement of water, nutrients, and photosynthates. . Root co~ar -The flared, lower portion of the base of a tree where the roots and stem merge. Also referred to as the "root crown". Leader -The main stem or trunk that forms the apex of the tree. Stem - The axis (trunk of a central leader tree) of a plant on which branches are attached. Temporary branches - A small branch on the trunk or between scaffold branches retained to shade, nourish, and protect the trunk of small young trees. These branches are kept small and gradually removed as the trunk develops. Definition of Woody Parts Trunk -The main stem of a tree between the ground and the lowest scaffold branch. Scaffold branches - In decurrerrt trees, the branches that form the main structure of the crown. Limb - A major structural part. Branch - A smaller part, attached to a limb or scaffold branch. Branchlet - A small part, attached to a branch. Twig -Avery small part attached to a branchlet. Leaf- The main photosyrrthetic organ of most plants. 000~~1 BARRIE D. COATS AND ASSOCIATES TREE PROTECTION BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION These are general recommendations And may be superseded by site-specific instructions Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 ... Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 BEFORE Plan location of trenching to avoid all possible cuts beneath tree canopies. This includes trenches for utilities, irrigation lines, cable TV and roof drains. Plan construction period fence locations which will prevent equipment travel or material storage beneath tree canopies. Install fences before any construction related equipment is allowed on site. This includes pickup trucks. Inform subcontractors in writing that they must read this document. Require return of signed copies to demonstrate that they have read the document. Prune any tree parts, which conflict with construction between August and January. Except for pines which may be pruned between October-January. Only an ISA certified arborist, using ISA pruning instructions maybe used for his work. If limbs- are in conflict with the construction equipment before the certified arborist is on-site, carpenters may cut off offending parts of 6" diameter or less, leaving an 18" long stub, which should be re-cut later by the arborist. Under no circumstances may any party remove more than 30% of a trees foliage, or prune so that an unbalanced canopy is created. DURING Avoid use of any wheeled equipment beneath tree canopies. Maintain fences at original location in vertical, undamaged condition until all contractors and subcontractors, including painters are gone. Clear root collars of retained trees enough to leave 5-6 buttress roots bases visible at 12" from the trunk. Irrigate trees adjacent to construction activity during hot months (June-October). Apply 10 gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter (measured at 4 '/Z') once per 2 week period by soaker hose. Apply water at the dripline, or adjacent to construction nat around the trunk. Apply mulch to make a 3" deep layer in all areas beneath tree canopies and inside fences. Any organic material which ~is non toxic maybe used. AFTER Irrigate monthly with 10 gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter with a soaker hose, placed just inside the dripline. Cominue until 8" of rain has fallen. Avoid cutting irrigation trenches beneath tree canopies. Avoid rototilling beneath tree canopies since that will destroy the small surface roots which absorb water. Avoid installation of turf or other frequently irrigated plarrts beneath tree canopies. • • .i • 000022 I3AIZRIE U COA7~1? `free Preservation . ANI) ASSOCIATES Protective Fencing 23535 Summit Rd Los Gatos, Ca 95030 (408)353-1052- Horticultural Consultants Consulting Arborists .F r_~, _.s•,_ ~~~~. ~y~ ..~ s~~ i' i` ~` .~ ~ `* , :r .,. h, Top of fence hung with fluorescent flapfZine tape 1 every 10 feet. I i'~- 6' chain link or welded wire ~~ _ V-' mesh 8' fence post of 2" diameter GI pipe or T-ankle post ~~'~--- Fence pt.aced at drip line I ~ / ~„/~~~ or SO% greater than the tree ~ canopy radius were possib.l_e ~ ~ ___. Roadway When construction is to take place beneath a tree canopy on one side, the fence should be sited 2-3 feet beyond that construction but between constriction and the tree trunk. ,r • ~.~ Fence/ `; ~ _ siting. ~ ~-~ ~i Construction period protection for trees should be provided before grading or other equipment is allowed on the property. H construction or paving is to take place throughout the area beneatfi the canopy and dripline fencing is not practical, snow fencing should be used to protect trunks from damage V Three layers of wire and lath snow fencing _ to t3' above ground on ~~~ ~- trees where construction ~' i~ will take place beneath ~ '_= the canopy ~" '~~ ~~• ~~ C'~ 8' I,,I ~s~+ 0 Job ~: Huynh Job Address: ~0 Quito Rd. Mea surem ents Con dition Pr unlnd Cablin Ne eds PeatlDiseas e Pro blems Recom mend . BARRIE D COATS ~ o W ~ . and ASSOCIATES ~ O1 o v Z F ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ t? 408 3531052 g w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (7 yn ~ v' ~? ~ S ~ ~ ~ ( ) ~ ~ T i ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ a ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ 23435SwilAoad L Cd 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ Z~Z F ~ ~ z_ ~ N d ~ a rrj ~ ~ ~ ~ F G or a,G 9500 ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ W Z ( ~ " ~ p p ~ ~ n, J W QQ W ~ ~ b ~ ~ ~ ~ ZZ ~ U U ~ ~ > ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a 7 ~ W ~ ~ ~ ? o 8 O g W ` V Key iR Plant Name _ ~ x u, ~ v or c l a _ ~ o: or z ~ ~ 1 Coast Live Oak 13.0 14 30 27 1 3 4 Quercus a ritotle . In 133 X S27/sq, in. = i 3,582 X sp. class 100% = 53,582 X cond. 75% = s 2,886 X loc. 80% = S 1,612 Total Value 2 Black Walnut 11.0 13 30 25 4 3 7 Ju lens hindsll . In 95 X S27Jsq. in. _ = 2,565 X sp. class 10% = 1258 X cond. 30% _ : 77 X loc. 40% = s 31 Total Value 3 Coast Lhre Oak 41.0 47 40 55 1 4 5 3 4 . in 1320 X s27Jsq. In. _ :35,829 X sp. class 100% = 135,829 X cond. BO% = i 21,377 X loc. 85% _ S 18171 Total Value 4 MoMere Pine 18.0 20 45 40 4 4 8 Plnus redlata . In 254 X S27Jsq. In. = S 8,887 X sp. class 30% 12,080 X cond. 15% S 309 X loc. 50% = Z 155 • Total Value 5 E Ilah Walnut 7.0 x 7.0 15 25 33 3 2 5 Ju tans la . in 38.5 X 127/sq. in. m : 1,039 X sp. Class 30% 6312 X cond. 60% _ : 187 X loc. 45% 3 84 Total Value 8 Black Walnut 28.0 31 30 25 1 3 4 . in 615 X i27lsq. in. = S 18,817 X sp. class 10% = 11,682 X cond. 75% = S 1,246 X loc. 40% = s 499 Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALLTE$ 5-gal ~ 536 15-gal ~ 5120 24"box ~ 5420 36"box ! $1,320 48"box ~ 55,E 52"box ~ 57,000 1 ~ BEST, 5 ~ WORST 72"box ~ 515,000 Page 1 of 5 .l . ,~J Job # 02-91-02 5.14.02 Job Tide: Huynh Job Address: 15120 Quito Rd. Job # 02-98-031-02 Mea surem ent Con d(tfon Pr uninN Cabli na Ne eds Pest/Disea se Pro blems Recom mend . BARRIE D COATS I . and ASSOCIATES ~ ~ s ~ Z F ~ ~? rw ~ tWA ~ ~? c4ae~3s31osz W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ g 10 W F ~, ~ ~ ~ W o o ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ 23535Su.ailtoal ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ v ~ ~ $~ Lo~Cloe,fA 95000 ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~j ~ w~ ~ u~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ uZj a. ~ ~ F Gi rs ~ ~ ~ F ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ U 3 ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W w ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ Key ~ PIaM Name ~ 2 U ~ v U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~! . o! z a 7 Coast Live Oak 12.0 12 25 25 1 2 3 . In 113 X 127/sq. in. = S 3,052 X sp. class 100% _ 53,052 X cond. 90% = i 2,747 X loc. 60% = s 1648 Totai Value 8 Coast Live Oek 7.0 x 7.0 8.8 .25 20 1 3 4 . to 89 X S27Jsq. in. _ : 2,403 X sp. class 100% = 32,403 X cond. 75% S 1,802 X loc. 50% _ - 3 801 Total Value 9 Coast Live Oak 17.0 x 13.0 22 30 30 1 2 3 . In 284 X S27/sq. In. = a 7,938 X sp. class 100% = 57,938 X cond. 90% _ : 7,144 X IOC. 70% _ : 5001 Totl Value 10 California S more 25.0 x 21.0 9.0 multl 60 80 1 3 4 x 1 Platanus recemosa . In 481 X 127/sq. fn. _ :13,247 X sp. class 70% = 19,273 X cond. 75% s 8,955 X loc. 80% - _ S 5584 Total Value 11 Black Walnut 12.0 13 30 25 2 3 5 . In 113 X S27Jsq. in. = S 3,052 X sp. class 10% = 1305 X cond. 80% _ = 183 X loc. 70% _ S 128 Total Valus 12 Black Walnut 13.0 x 8.0 14 35 27 3 3 6 . in 133 X 127/sq. in. = S 3,582 X sp. class 10% = 5358 X cond. 45% = 3 181 X loc. 60% _ s 97 Total Value ~ REPLACEMENTTREE VALUES © 5-gal -536 15-gal -$120 ~ . 24"box ~ 5420 36"box ~ $1,320 1 ~ BEST, 5 ORST 48"box 52"box ~ 57,000 72"box ,000 e2of5''' 5.14.02 0 r~ Job '1~: Huynh I' Job Address:~20 Quito Rd. ~ Mea aurem ents Con ditlon Pr unin Cablin s~ Ne eds Pesf/ Dlseas e Pro blems R ecom mend. BARRIE D. COATS and ASSOCIATES (~ 3531052 L Gds G~l5D30 a' Key * PIeM Neme ~ $ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ F ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~~u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j ~ ~ '~ _ ~ ~ ~ 7F ~ v~i s ~ F ~ ~ b ~ ~ ~ F ~ ~ ~ ~, Z u~ U ~ v ~ Z ~ F o v~i ~ ~_ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z W ~ ~ ° ~ Z N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ? `'~' V ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a W Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ 2 W 6. ~ o ~a 13 12.0 14 35 20 1 3 4 . in 113 X S27/sq, in. _ : 3,052 X sp. class 100% m :3,052 X cond. 75% e 5 2,289 X loc. 80% ~ 5 1 373 Total Value 14 Coast Live Oak 11.0 12 25 25 1 3 4 . In 95 X E27/sq. in. a = 2,585 X sp. class 100% a 52,565 X cond. 75% - 5 1,923 X loc. 75% ~ 5 1443 Total Value 15 Black Walnut 18.0 18 35 30 4 4 8 . In 201 X S27/sq. In. ~ 5 5,428 X sp. class 10% - 5543 X cond. 15% ~ 5 81 X loc. 85% ~ 5 53 Total Value 18 Black Walnut 30.0 32 65 50 1 3 4 . In 707 X 527/sq. in. = i 19,078 X sp. class 10% 51.908 X cond. 75% ~ 5 1.431 X loc. 85% 5 930 Total Value 17 Black Walnut 23.0 24 45 33 1 3 4 . in 415 X i27/sq. in. - 5 11,212 X sp. class 10% ~ 51,121 X cond. 75% ~ 5 841 X loc. ~% ~ 5 505 18 Black Walnut 13.0 x 12.0 18 45 30 2 3 5 . in 133 X 527/sq. in. = 5 3,582 X sp. Class 10% _ =358 X cond. 60% a = 215 X loc. 50% - 5 107 Total Value REPLACEMENTTREE VALUES 5-gal •536 15-gal °5120 ~ , 24"box ~ 5420 36"box ~ 51,320 48"box ~ 55,000 52"box - 57,000 72"box ~ 515,000 .~, ~., Job # 02-1-OZ 1 ~ BEST, 5 a WORST 5.14.02 Page 3 of 5 Job Title: Huynh job Address: 15120 Quito Rd. Job # 02-98-031-02 5. 14.U: Mea sure ments Con dition Pr unlntU Cabli np Ne eds PesUDisea se Pro blem s Recom mend . BARRIE D COATS I ~ ~ , and ASSOCIATES ~ ~ c ~ ~ F ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J c4ae~ 3s~losz g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ N ~ ~ i ~ ~ b ~ ^~~ ~ ~ 235355srsilAoad ~ ~ ~ F z j d ~ ~ Q m ~ g LaCloe,G 95030 ~ } K ~ ~ ~ g u~ r v_~ ~ ~ ' ~ F p C ~ W W ~ R Cj ~ ~ ~ W z yy" p ~ ~ ~ p Q 3 r ~ W ~ F W ~ W ~ J U O $ 0: ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ Z F ~ Z f. U i ~ KeY ~ Pl t N j ~ ~ ~ = ~ _ ~ ~ & ~ K ~ ~ W W W ~ ~ . ~ 1- 8 O W O W O () an ame ~ p b U V v ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ z z ~ 19 Coast Live Oak 11.0 12 25 20 1 4 5 Quartos a ritoila . In 95 X s27/sg, in. = 5 2,565 X sp. class 100% = 12,585 X cond. 60% _ - 3 1,539 X loc. 40% = 3 618 TMaI Value 20 Coast Live Oak 11.0 12 30 25 1 3 4 ~ . in 95 X E27/sq. in. = 3 2,585. X sp. class 100% = 32,585 X cond. 75% _ 3 1.923 X loc. 40% 3 789 Total Value 21 Black Walnut 25.0 27 45 45 1 4 5 s . in 491 X 327/sq. in. = t 13,247 X sp. class 10% = 51,325 X cond. 80% E 795 X loc. 65% _ = 517 Total Value 22 Black Walnut 18.0 19 45 30 1 4 5 . In 201 X i27lsq. in. = S 5,428 X sp. class 10% _ ;543 X cond. 80% = 3 326 X loc. 60% _ = 195 Total Value 23 Coast Live Oak 14.0 15 30 24 1 1 2 3 . in 154 X S27/sq. in. = S 4,154 X sp. class 100% = 54,154 X cond. 100% S 4,154 X loc. 70% i 2908 Total Value 24 Coast Live Oak 10.0 x 4.0 1144 20 25 1 3 4 3 ~ . in 140 X 327/sq. in. _ = 3,787 X sp. class 100% 33,787 X cond. 75% S 2,825 X loc. 70% _ = 1 977 _ __._. TMs) Vs6,a ~ae~ A O PJ Q~ REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal °536 15-gal °5120 24"box °5420 36"box = 51,320 1 ° BEST 5 ORST 48"box ~ 52"box -57,000 ~ ' 72"box ,~ e4of5" ~.., Job ~: Huynh Job Address:~0 Quito Rd. Job # 02-1-02 5.14,02 Mea surem ents Con dition Pru nin Cablin g Nee ds Pest/ Aiseas e Pro blems R ecom mend . BARRIE D COATS ~ ~ , and ASSOCIATES ~ W ~ ZO F ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ W ~ p W W ~ ~ ~ caap3531asz g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o a ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ `~ ~ g ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ t35355isaAAaul ~ ~ ~ W R ~ ~ 2 y to d ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ F ~ LaeCfae,G 95030 ~ } ~ _ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ W z " ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ J J ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ t5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ W Key / PIaM Name ~ ~ _ ~ U ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ z z 25 Black Walnut 14.0 x 12.0 11.0 23 45 30 1 3 4 . in 154 X 527/sq. in. _ ; 4,154 X sp. class 10% _ ;415 X cond. 75% _ ; 312 X loc. 80% _ ; 187 Total Value 28 Morrie Pine 18.0 d e a d . in 254 X;27/sq. in. _ ; 8,887 X sp. lass 30% _ ;2,080 X cond. 80% _ ; 1,238 X loc. 65% = S 803 Total Value 27 Morrie Pine 22.0 d e a d . In 380 X S27/sq. in. _ ; 10,258 X sp. class = ;0 X cond. _ ; X loc. _ ; Total Value 28 Montere Pine 23.0 24 80 35 5 3 8 . in 415 X S27/sq. in. _ ; 11,212 X sp. class 30% _ ;3,384 X cond. 15% _ ; 505 X loc. 65% _ ; 328 ' Total Value 29 Black Walnut 20.0 21 40 40 1 3 4 . In 314 X S27/sq. In. _ ; 8,478 X sp. class 10% _ ;848 X cond. 75% _ ; 838 X loc. 8S% _ ; 413 Total Value 30 Black Walnut 12.0 14 30 30 1 3 4 . In 113 X;27/sq. In. _ ; 3,052 X sP• class 10% a ;305 X cond. 75% _ ; 229 X loc. 65% _ ; 149 Totai Value REPLACEMENTTREE VALUES 5-gal ~ 536 15-gal '5120 24"box ~ 5420 36"box ~ 51,320 48"box ~ 55,E 52"box ~ 57,000 72"box ~ 515.000 1 e BEST, 5 =WORST Page 5 of 5 ~! ~ _ ~~; ~ ~.: N ~. _ G ~ o fY O Q a 4° G a ~ N ~ r, w o q v~ a, x ~~ ~, 4 U a VJ ti t V O ~ f.. ;~ A a ~~ W ~ ~ fn ^W7 ~ ~ Ovg~~ ~O o ~ ~ m ~3 U~ LL ~ S t7 Q 9 ' ~ ~ .~ m A ~ ~ F 7 ~-7 -~FP z "O ~~~~~ ~ U x 1'rulective Fencing Uuriug _ - "`1 -' Demolition Phase - i - - 3- 1 •~ ~ , I , 7, .. •`.~ _ ~" / ... ~ ; Protective Fencing ~'~' ~:~' ' -' - ~~ i .-' ~ ~:F,. ~-4 .~ 0 ~ ~ ~~ ~ `\ \~. .. -, _. -T_ •. ... ... -- ~• -c G -.. -- , ~ Map ,.A,. ,,,. „ ~-__~-J- Remove This Section of Existing Driveway by Hand ~ / ` •9 ;1 ,_ 8 ... 15 ''`• 'Protective Fencing ~~~ ,.~- '-~ ~.•.• ~ ~w. ~ 2~~-" - - - _ _~ .ti - _J'~ r ~ ~n:1oII • ,~ ~_ _~. ~ __ % Protective Fencing-- ~ ~ITE•PLAN_ -._-_ ., a c~ 0 O ~l Ar r.: m a ~. A~,~?'~~~ ~-~ ',I.~l._~~~ ~~ ~C r • • _ __ .- - ~'-~ _ ~ ~~ 53°57fW 37,49 ~~~ i'3,~g~~ .09~ /~ ~ ~ rr P~ ~~ ~~S SA~~p~/,h ~ / /O1~r- -___-= _ --- - '-..r! - ~ /} ~ a! //!^t~r~' UvKS wk~' o ~"~P/ ~' ~ ~~~'~ f GRO'J E',uo r ~ \ i j Oak /2 % % ~ j' / i %-- _, "~-~'~--t~c~~~-r"' i.v'~ ''"7 $ ~3"Ew ~ vJ 't-^ C'` ~ I ~.' s1A~- d„' „!„ f 5 j ~ ~ ~ '' ~ /^r~ p~s~fl Pip¢P ~ 3z~9w `~\ , S~ ~ ~ ~+,~~. ~~,"'°- ,~Q----r__ ._ _-. ~APPROK nx%ST 5AN $Fvr ( y I ,~% _ 3,7,0 _.~~Tk},~~M=tilB.?>.fASEMEn,r ~~ - E,~ W!:'~ f ~%`~ ~~I rON~ Ni~ ~ NG is \ s~~ - \\ ~JBty ~ ~ ~ 7r"pQ I ExIS ~ ~ I tND } ~.. G~ k T GqR / ~r2"kerr ~ ~ @~ 7 \ ' ~ / ~, _. / AGE 1 y yak / GF U F g~~ ,~ ~ ~~ ~12~ U7 ~„ ~ ~~ / / 3 ~ pe } I i ~ ~~ .~ 6 \~I ti b .~ /~' I ~ ( I I ~ ~ 34o nd ~. ~ ~ ~N !23"0.mtP . I ~ ~ 1 U / ~ To pi r ~~~•~ f ' ~~ x.-24"pry j , Ex~g~T-F,~~or.r ~ 1 b1 2g ~~ ~ ~ ~ \ s ~ ti N-3~ ~ i ~ y p ,,~ ,~, ~~ ~~ / ~3~ `~J T ~ ap{ESS ~~ C L- "V ~~" a ~.Ctp18 s i * ew r»-LV en.!/. ~-~ l ~°j p TREE LEGEND ;o ~ / ~ ~ d-,~. \ ~ ~ ~ Mmter / ~~ Ow B~gek Walnut „e ~\ `yP;~e~ P nine ~4~ ~ Ir BW ~ ~4s,~W ~28.8W ,/ i ~ ~ ARE G~6~~' ~ \ ,y roc/ re /,' / . I ~'~~P Ty \ SARgra ~ i ~ q ~ O6" " ~~ "~x.~ ~ Efijsj J Olg„~ ~ 21 p ~ ~ FPrf~ \ ~, ~',~ ~Ak\cq 7 ~ a2r w ~ ~ 11 ,,~, ~';°ok rI,'/54~F ~ / i -- - 3795 / Q ~ / \ I - 5 W .._ _ \ 8° ° ~ 3815 ~ _ ; ~ 3~ ~ ,~ ~ \ e2 ~ ~~ ~ 3 AdERABE LOT S[dRE= 9.15% (Based en ATCFs OBJ~AcJ 42 i6 dam- ~ \ I heathy Sfa~e ,Nat •l+lirs map wps repond fiom ~ \` ~t~ 0. 9ro nd Sur/ey , n Oct /997 and .Tb~n . /999, \ yy ~e undersfyned ;n p~a~• ,Dafe: Jan S, 1998 Edwarol S Nadam%on RCE /33/8 E~p~ 3~s/~2oo/ Haim SyC S~,fCgrn oYB ,. v 7 r~nknoWn fle„e~;gg~~s are Rased m R. c..zG Nolte Survey of I9J8 an {r~ a f. Sarafo9a- FLbGc v/crks ptpk (RM2G: E/e/.3~U~34- LkiSelPd p qf: g,~cHu!rBi bosefNE Cor. qu;fu~g;iknellJ GRass A,BEA To ~ ROAD . O.99J=Ac* LE55 EGAD To Exrs7u~'RW = ESS ScV O lZIV1l 0, /l9. g W • L p.2 p ME' O,5'9TStAC ~PerRecordo~SurvP~ 1O9M~R3E"- ~ BD4MD J, HA8INFM ~ /orseRedwo ~t Gr cup'no 9sav uoe~ zs7-ez9epi /«x l5, 120 Q u r TO `,PD. PLOT Pl~4 /V ,~u~?~E y b To ORAP /C .uu:/~rc/O' r..~eyrc~n, r: ~ ammo FOR.• r4UL yU N f/ APN: 4/0-40-OiB- S±I,~ATOGq ,<•: ~o -9 Q / / A?iic ~ .... { r1Ufl i ~~ i I I i Sr i ~A? ~ ,i~~ br. ~iyp. i • r~ ~I' o I , .. ._. ....__.. _ . . -~\ ~~..~ .` ~att~L ..~~~\ ,, . ~~. ~~ ., ':I ~~ ~I Lo~eFEv ~,iv, ~ i~~ ernrr PbYor+; ~~j VA+K~ ~!I ~ Sd2.o~ ~ 38i.u~ __~_ -- l.. _ti ~ i ~ r ~~', °'~ -- _ _... SECTIONt ,_--~ w j,~ ~, ,__.. I ~..., A*ric .. ,n. _, . _~ .- .~ , ,, _ _ ____ ,_. ._-. -- -. ~- _ I' non'- ~i9~Mk( G7~µN/ e ~ I ~~: ~ y7--..~ _ - ----'---- ~ ------ -'--_----- ---------~ j I ~17~C~r~ rATia ~yt~~~ ~ ' 9 . i ~, i 361.0 ~ ~; ; I +- i ~ Q i ~ '~ ;~ ~ i • ~ ._ ~(~(~.. ~y"Tja~;q~o _.. I ~l ~~ EAST ELEVAl10N PAiNtE~ ~ cOtk•114~ F_~ CA3t S~oNt ` ~ H~9M,' B~?I~S + .i~}t{y \ VIr14~ WI~iNS ~M /- /~ ~ ~nl9ruuo .. ~ ~~ ~ • -- - -- - - - _ - _ _= - ---_ 4 \; _ _ __ iii?.: I ~ i ~--, --, ~ - ,, - ~ , . • • `~ _ _._._. ~_~__. ~ i f~N 1/~'~" \ j ~,LUfm ?RIH ~ W00p ~'~ ,, • ~ ~ V41EST ELEVA110N • r .- - --- ~ ---- ~~ ~ ~~ t__: _ - ---- ~` . ~i i I ~, I ~~ • -C ~ - , .. __..._._---. DwwvEvwwr errs • fib d~ i,F• PAt1GM • 1lUIq eco nuE_ n~ i i NORTH ELEVA110N .<~ , • ELEVATIONS • ,, ,.. ~._ .• • ~ _ .~ _... ,_. , ~ . , ,,,..•• .................•.. _._.. ..,......... _ _...__..... ..._ _ __ ... _.,. ..._.. _....._.. _. .•. ~.•..,.._~_y ~,_,~4~~....4..._~..y,.._• .\ rt • • • f I f n II j=T I I~ ~ JL~__. .._ 0.1p% s~p~o ~ ~. r.... ___.. ._. -- -' 56' ~ ° ~. - ,~. I~ a ~: i SECOND FLOOR PLAN k`,'' u ~, ~i ~' a~ ~~ -` i kT a ~~I rF ~~ ~ -~ ~I .^ i i _9 N U! -- 4 I h1 :~ 1 4 ITEM 3 ~ REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: • • I Date: APN: #02-056 DR, 18595 Woodbank Way Ashok and Mala Chandra Ann Welsh, AICP -Assistant Planner June 26, 2002 397-06-080 Head: 18595 Woodbank Way 000001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 2/4/02 Application complete: 4/4/02 Notice published: 6/12/02 Mailing completed: 6/16/02 Posting completed: 6/12/02 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes to add 894 square feet to the rear and side of an existing two story house and convert the attached garage into living area In addition, a 441 square foot detached garage and carport is proposed on an existing concrete pad. The combined area of the house and garage is 6,100 square feet. A deck with concrete balusters is proposed to surround the addition on the second floor. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation is to approve the Design Review application by adopting the following Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Plans, Exhibit "A" dated 5/10/02 with revisions to 6/19/02. ~...~ • 000002 STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD -Very Low Density Residential MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: .54,823 sf. gross/ 44,451 sf. net AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Average Slope of the lot is 10.55% GRADING REQUIRED: No significant grading is proposed ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of a two story addition to the house and a detached garage 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 adding to a single family house and building a detached garage MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The exterior of the house is to be composed of beige stucco M walls and gray shingle roof. The garage is to match the existing house in style and color. R-1- 40,000 Existin Pro osed Code Re uirements Lot Covera e: 16, 707 sf. - 33.8% 17,286 sf. - 35% Floor Area: Main Floor: 3,880 sf. 4,302 sf. Lower Floor: 885 sf. 1,357 sf. Gara e: 441 sf. Total: 4,765 sf. 6,100 sf. 6,100 sf. Setbacks: Front: 24 ft. 24 ft. 30 ft. Side: 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. Rear: 50 ft. 60 ft. 60 ft. Hei ht: 2 sto / 26 ft. Max. Allowable 26 ft. • 000003 PROJECT DISCUSSION Desi Review This application for design review involves a two story addition to the rear and side of a two story dwelling and a wrap around deck with concrete balusters. Two concrete baluster balconies are proposed on the front facade. A detached garage and carport is also proposed. Necessary Findlrrgs The Zoning Ordinance, Section 15-45.080 identifies the following findings as necessary for granting Design Review approval. (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed main or accessory structure, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. _ (b) Preserve natural landscape. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil• removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas. (c) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The proposed main or accessory structure, in relation to structures on adjacent lots and to the surrounding region, will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the environment. (d) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (iii) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties and their ability to utilize solar energy. (e) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. (f) Design policies and techniques. The proposed main or accessory structure will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook. Actual Findings Design Review The following findings have been made regarding the proposed new construction. (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privary. The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed main or accessory structure, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds will avoid unreasonable interferencewithviews andprivacy. 004004 The property is located on a flag lot setback from surrounding homes. The proposed addition and garage do not impact views or privacy since their are no homes visible from the boundary of the property. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas. The natural landscape is preserved since the addition does not impact surrounding trees or landscape. The small addition to the structure is proposed in an area with no significant tree cover. The proposed garage is to be built on an existing concrete pad and thus does not impact surrounding landscape. (c) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The proposed main or accessory structure in relation to structures on adjacent lots and to the surrounding region will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the environment. The proposed addition to the primary structure does not create the perception of excessive bulk. The home is relatively isolated on a flag lot and the addition does not impact the view shed of any abutting properties. d Com atible bulk and hei ht. The ro osed main or accesso structure will be com atible in terms o bulb and () p g P p ry p f height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (iii) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. The proposed addition is compatible in terms of bulk and height with residences on adjacent lots. The proposed addition does not exceed 26 feet in height and the detached garage is 12 feet in height. Given the isolation that the lot enjoys, there is no impact on adjacent residences or the light and air of adjacent properties. (e) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates currentgrading and erosion control standards used by the City. The proposed development does not involve significant regrading of the site. The applicant will be required to submit a grading and drainage plan which reflects the City's policy of retaining as much storm water runoff on-site as possible. (fl Design policies and techniques. The proposed addition conforms to the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook.. The proposed addition complies with residential design policies The proposed project complies with Residential Design Handbook Policies to minimize the ~a~©~S perception of bullz through use of natural materials ~ colors as well as having a varied roofline and facade. The proposal complies with Policy #3, since the flag lot is relatively isolated from the view of abutting properties. Policy #4, preserve views and access to views is addressed since the home is naturally secluded and does not impact the view of abutting properties. Policy #5, Technique #3, allow light, air and solar access to adjacent homes, is addressed since the proposed home and garage do not encroach on the solar access of neighbors. Thus the above analysis concludes that all the necessary findings required for granting design review approval can be met. The Saratoga Fire District has reviewed this application. Their comments are included as conditions of approval Community Development 1. Fireplaces -Only one wood- burning fireplace is permitted per dwelling. The applicant should indicate compliance with this on the plans. 2. Grading and Drainage Plan - A grading and drainage plan shall be furnished prior to final zoning clearance. . 3. A storm water retention plan shall be provided 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. Fire Protection District The Santa Clara County Fire District reviewed this application on April 8, 2002 and their comments are as follows: 1. 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 hydrants which are spaced at the required spacing. 2. Garage 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. '~ Conclusion Staff recommends that these plans be approved with the condition that the issues identified in all departmental reports are addressed in the final plans. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Revise the Design Review application with conditions by adopting the following resolution. ~0~®Q6 Attachment 1 • RESOLUTION NO.02 - APPLICATION N0.02-056 CITY OF SAR.ATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA CHANDRA/ 18595 WOODBANK WAY WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review to add 894 square feet to a two story home and a build a 441 square foot detached garage; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and Whereas the project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and involves an addition to a single family structure; 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: Policy 1, Minim~e the perception of bulk The proposed addition does not create the perception of excessive bulk. The isolated nature of the flag lot and the low lying front facade minimize the perception of excessive bulk. Policy 2, Integrate structures with the environment The design is consistent with the policy to integrate structures into the environment through use of natural earth tones stucco facade and elevations which follow the contours of the ground. Policy 3, Avoid interference with privacy The proposed addition and detached garage does not interfere with privacy because the flag lot is isolated and no homes are visible from the property. Policy 4, Preserve views and access to views The subject property is relatively secluded therefore the proposed addition does not impact the surrounding views or access to views. ~OQO~~ Policy 5, Design for maximum benefit of sun and wind The proposed addition will not impair the solar access of adjacent properties since the property is relatively removed from it's surrounding neighbors. 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 by Ashok and Mala Chandra for Design Review is granted subject to a number of conditions. Community Development 1. Exhibit "A" dated May 10, 2002 with revisions to May 19, 2002 shall be revised to reflect the conditions outlined in this report. 2. Prior to submittal for Building Permits, the following shall be submitted to the Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: a. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. b. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 3. Fireplaces: Only one wood- burning fireplace is permitted per dwelling. The applicant should indicate compliance with this on the plans. 4. Grading and Drainage Plan - A grading and drainage plan shall be furnished prior to final zoning clearance. 5. A storm water retention plan shall be provided 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. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The Santa Clara County Fire District reviewed this application on April 8, 2002 and their comments are as follows: 1. Required Fire Flow: The fire flow for this project is 2,000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure. The X04®d8 required fire flow is available from area water mains and fire hydrants which are spaced at the required spacing. 2. Garage 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. CITY ATTORNEY 1. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 2. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, Ciry_ and other i Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. • 000009 r: ~~ PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, , this 26 day of June, 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit .is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • ~0~~~~ ~~ J s,~`~, b 51P1W ~S - _ L°T _ o~) + I I o .~ I / - ~ - ~". _ " ~ _ ~ ~. ~ Z ~ ~ Way ~-'~i ~ U W v _ ~ ~ ~. ~. ~1 ~ (E) TENNIS COURT I ~„~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,I a ~ / rr~ o I ' ~~I i) y w `o ~~ ~ ~ ~ I° ti ~ 3 I w$~' w ~_~;l 4 ~ BQ~~ ~, P z°~= a 1 SITE DATA; ~~ / NEW CARPORT - m B ° Q ; o,. .. s~e~ APN: 397-06-080 \ ~ ~ ~ J 18595 WOODBANK WAY ~ n ' ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 e~ , A5110K 4 MNA CIIANDRA RESIDENTIAL USE i , II i !~ ZONING: R-I-40,000 I ~ 1 ~ NEW GA E ~ LOT SIZE: 54,823 5.F. (GROSS) ~ ~ P I-, , LOT SIZE: 54,823 S.F. (GROSS) - 5433 S.F. (FLAG) = 49,390 S.F. (GROSS) Q LOT SIZE: 49,390 S.F. (GROSS) - 10%= 44,451 S.F, (NEf) W D O ~ EXISTING RESIDENCE: 3880 S F (MNN FLR) r' tt ~ ' f EW D TION ~~ ,- 1j I i 885 S.F. (LOWER fLRJ U 1 ~ ~ I / - ~ ^~~` TOTAL 47655. F. • \~ ~ ,/ ADDITION: 422 S.F. (MNN FLR.) PnvlNC ~oveo ~ ~\~ ~ I 472 5.F. (LOWER FLR) W I1 441 S~F.(NEWGARAGE) - I ~/ • 1` ~ ~ TOTAL 1375 S.F. NEW 0 , ~ r I SUBTOTAL 6100S.F. A / i TOTAL ALLOWABLES.F 6JOO~S.F. f~ I - ~~ - ,d. ` J IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 16,7075.E 33:B~O N a LL I IMPERVIOUS AREA INCLUDES: ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ Ft0U5E FOOTPRIM, DRIVEWAYj(1E55 FLAG), D (E) RESIDENCE I WALKS, DECK, ~ u TENNIS COURT, POOL, SPA < POOL EQUIP. 2 , .. f -, ~ _ a ~ v _ SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: FLAT TO SLIGIiT SLOPE ~ ~~ n O ~) ~ ~ AVERAGE 51TE SLOPE: 10.55 ~ I I ~ z 7~ . _, ~ 1 _ S = .00229 X 5 X 1160 ,10.55% QJQ ` ~ _ / 1 1,25856 4 C ~ Y Z Z I. _ (E) POOL ~ _ ~ ~ i ~ 9 z ~ p _ 195.43' % W 3~a. SITE PLAN ~ ~k C~L~ ~A' I `., 'r 40'-9" 21'-b" DINING FAMILY ROOM KITCHEN LIVING ROOM HALL n~ s- jlr ~-^ ENTRY I II\~, I LJ I BATH I I I CLOS _ BEDROOM O II I I I I I I it n ~ LAUNDRY ~ D BATH ~\ r~\ ~\ O ~ \ ~ 1 1 ~===rt ^a~ --- 49'-10" DECK ~ ~~ - I I ------ II O II: II u I WAR1lROBE I II I I I II I =_JL~ L___== A A v BATH T Ij Iq LI I I 11 --------- I II I I II j II II ~ I M. BEDROOM ~I 16 I I I~ ii i I II BEDROOM I~-- I I II ir- I ~ II CLOSET ~ it I BEDROOM I I I) I I Ij I I II --------------- --_ - - ------------J~ O --- i 3 43'_9'• ~'_b" 38'_I° IS'-0' 24.3'• 106_'! i LEGEND: ~ i xxxx NEW WALL AND DOOR ~~~ ~ -~ E%ISTIN6 WALL AND DOOR 70 REMAIN %~~%• - GEILINS I~I6NT A.FF. . ~ ~ 9(3) INTERIOR ELEVATION SYh@U ~ - ELF. ~,// FLOOR PLAN Main Level . SHEET a - V4'4-0' DT7 DECK IV N 17 4 ~5 ~ ~2 ~~~ ~ boo K o" a a 0 ~~ b W s 1 ~3`~~) « 5 z~ZmN ~UW~~ I' (~,~ Q N F~ F i ax ~ U z J. ,I ~ Q QI Z ~ U w DN ~ ~ r ~, W oU E- U W ~ wQ Q ~N m"o °ryo ` a ,,g .g ~~ ~ ~ m ~ n ~ a. U W o U Z W i~ vJ W } Z 3 Y. Q -. Z T m .4 D O A U 0 a J p LL ~ Sheet No, ~.. ~~r ct « ~~ 'n J a °o ~. v p o ~ N. o ~f ~ ~~ H3j~* 51c ~~~ zF;~~ °,'m 1' W Q N A ~" ~ .,, ..~ x ~ U z ~a Q~z 0 r~ U W ~ ~> ~, ~ U o~ _F U ui S WO U az Q "u~ LEGEND: %%%% N w iA L A x E r L ND coa E%ISTIN6 WALL A!D D R TO REMAIN OO . ~ X'-%' GEILIN5 HE16HT AF.F. ' - ELEV.p'1 /~ - - ' 3(8) 5F@ET a ' IN(ERIOR ELEVATION SYN~OL ' FLOOR PLAN (LOWER LEVEL) I!4" = I'-0" mo°o` o <' u d . ~. W U ~ Z W ~ .. W Q` 0 } Z ~ Y Z ~ Z . 0 ,a U 3 o J m LL Sheet No. ASPtIALT 5111NGLE5 (MATCH EXISTING) I (BLACK COLOR), TYP. i STUCCO (MATCht EXISTING) i - ,~ _, , ,_ - - (CREME COLOPJ, T1P. , . ~ - - I i .SOUTH ELEVATION I U4ti1-0 ~ 0 1 7 4' 8' 17 1 ,,.._ . ( ,. SOUTH ELEVATION ,_ 14 i I 7~ 4' ~. 8 a~ mR 0 0 ~ ~. o ds13~* b ~p~~, -. H ` z N U W~~ W Q N H FBI x ~ z U J Q ~ Z 0 ~ v w ~ ~> ti ~3 DU F Uy U Wo Z a a ~ N Q PRE-CAST BALUSTERS (MATCH IXISTING) n mo Qp ~ a n o .g ~ ~ c ; ~~ ~ o w~ Q Q u W a ,o ° U ~ Z W 0 W p z o ~ } ; Q ~ Y 2 W U o 3 w Sheet No. ~'. !'.' , i 7, ~' EAST ELEVATION vatic-o' 0 1 7 4' 8' 17 t6~t i - 4 o~~m R~yo a$ "m' < ~,~~~ ~ J`,~ S,pt Jn 1~~~ W N H (~ ,W i W Q W O N Q ~ t0 g a x ~ ~ .U ~ a A d z 0 U W ~- ~ ti ~; oa W ~~ I_ U y 8 WO ~ ~' 2 a ~~ a maZO; o oo~g~~~, m` ~ n 0 m Q ' u W U Z W 0 N NORTH ELEVATION va~K~ orz a' e ~ NORTH ELEVATION (EXISTING) 1 U--LJ z a' e' rr i ~ ~ ~ ~~N* gP ag ~s PO ~~. o W~ b ~c, y~'~ar* 5~" ZNz c~ r+UW.m f~ Q N H ' .a x ~ U z ~a~ A~ o. V1 U W ~ ~r ~, U a 8U F- U w Iwo , 8 ~ ~i Q ~~ q m"o z__"o~ `o o° 'g~°~' N ~ M m. Q ' U Q W F U ~ Z W W N 0 z ~ 3 0 Q Y. w T. a rc I a o U 3 ~ ~. W s~~ ~o: _ ~r ~C~ m ~ b/ado a ~ p0 0~ o ~~ ~ ~ •~' '~ 5R - ~~ t ~~ zHm~ ~W c?W~ ~ WoN A ~' ~ '~ x ~ Uz J. A ~ Z. 0 ~ U W ~ ~} '~ ' 3 Q How x Wo 8 ~ ~z Q nN QO o° ZO 8 ; ~~ o "s m ~n m u W d U ~ ' Z W 0 ~. W 0~ ~ z 0 ~ , 3 Q ~ y 2 . . I o o ~ ~ W . w m Sheet No, I I i i a-0~ 0 v GARAGE FLOOR PLAN GARAGE ELEVATION vabt-o' o r z a' e ' rr 'I ASPHAIT SHINGLES fMATC.H RFSIDENCEI GREME COLOR ~V V v ~ IJ"L~-'L orz a' a~~ ~I RADE pct % ~ u5~'Na~ ~O ~~ m~ °~ a v p o ~ ~. o ~~H3J]. ~ p 5P n„ z ~ z ~ mr ~ ~ W ~ 11 ~ (~ ~ ~ N r ;. `Q ~ H _ a x ~ z U °' x ~ ~ z 0 v~ U W ~ ~~ ti ~; U ° o 0 p p F_ U N I Wo 8 2 44 Q ~W m O Z 0 ; m O ~ 0 ~ $ m ~ m i N ' h 0 Q U 0 W °. U ~ Z W 0 N W o Q O J W ~ ". 7 > Q Q Q ', z a ~ m U o m .m Sheet No. O ITEM 4 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No.: App. #02-082 Location: City Wide Applicant/Owner: N/A Staff Planner: Thomas Sullivan, AICP Community Development Director Date: June 26, 2002 APN: N/A Department Head: • • 000001 DISCUSSION The City's Housing Element contains several housing programs; one of the programs is Program 1.2: Amend Zoning Code to Implement aMixed-Use Overlay Zone. The action that is proposed would start the formal preparation of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to implement the Program 1.2. The areas that are suggested to be studied relate to the development standards. The City Council directed the Planning Commission to study and report on amendments to the City of Saratoga Zoning Code which will establish a conditionally permitted use in all of the Commercial and Administrative and Professional Office zoned areas. The mired use (CommerciaVOffice and Residential) needs development standards to be applied to ensure that the City's sales tax base is protected, that existing residential development is protected and to provide for the orderly (re)development of the City's Commercial and Office areas. The Planning Commission was directed by the City Council to study and report on Mixed-Use standards that include, but are not limited to, the following: • The maximum density is twenty (20) dwellings per net acre. • The dwelling unit(s) shall be located either on the second floor or at the rear of the parcel. • The dwelling unit(s) shall not comprise more than fifty (50%) percent of the total floor area of all buildings on the site. The maximum floor area allowed may be increased by l0% for projects providing below market rate rental housing • Parking for both the commercial and the dwelling unit(s) shall be as specified in the Zoning Ordinance, provided that the Planning Commission may consider shared parking in some cases. • Perimeter fencing shall be required to the maximum height allowed in the Zoning Ordinance. • Each dwelling shall have private, usable outdoor space, i.e. decks, balconies, yards or patios. • 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 is in the underlying zoning. • The design of mixed use projects will be required to conform to the policies and techniques of the Residential Design Handbook. • Overall site coverage may be increased up to 10% for projects containing below market rate housing units. • Mixed use projects shall have sound walls and landscape screening in order to protect the privacy and quality of life of abutting single family residential land uses. • The residential component of a mixed use project shall be rental. The individual dwelling units shall range in size from 850 sq. ft. for 1-bedrooms units to 1,250 sq. ft. for 3-bedroom units sequent mixed use development. • That the "Multi-Family" use be deleted from the various Commercial Zoned Districts when "Mixed-Use" is amended into the same Zoned Districts. • That multiple stories, setback requirements, window placement and privacy issues be included in the Mixed-Use standards. 000002 • Commercial properties created or developed through a previous mixed use or multi- family development are disallowed from further or subsequent mixed use projects • Develop an in lieu fee for park construction for smaller mixed use projects • Require common, useable open space in larger mixed use projects In order to accomplish the foregoing, several individual Zone Code amendments must be made. The attached Resolution lists all of the required Zoning Code amendments. In the text of the Commercial and Office Zoning Districts `multi-family units" are allowed as a conditional use. This is proposed to be deleted and replaced with `Ynixed use" projects which are allowed subject to obtaining a Conditional Use Permit. In the CH-1 and CH-2 Zoning Districts (the Village) housing is allowed as a permitted use if on the second floor or not fronting a street. The proposal before you would delete that from the code. The same Zoning Districts allow housing to front the street on the ground floor with a Conditional Use Permit. It is proposed to replace that language with language that makes reference to Mixed Use Developments conforming to the Design Standards found in Article 15-21 and subject to obtaining a Conditional Use Permit. The Zoning Code Amendments would also delete the existing Article 15-21 MU-PD: MULTIPLE USE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT and replace it with the new Mixed Use Development Standards. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the application with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. 02-XXX 2. Letters from Ann Fitsimmons (June 17, 2002) and Frank Troutman (June 14, 2002) 3. Memo and Letter from Zoe Alameda (June 12, 2002) • 000003 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK d®O®04 C7 Attachment 1 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION No. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received direction from the Saratoga City Council to study and report back on Development Standards for Mixed Use Projects; 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 Mixed Use Development Standards will implement Program 1.2: Amend ~'oning Code to Implement aMixed-Use Overlay 'one of the Housing Element of the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: "Article 15-18.030 (h) Multi-family dwellings amend to read, "Article 15-18.030 (h) Mixed Use Developments conforming to the Design Standards found in Article 15-21" "Article 15-19.030 (b)(1) Multi-family dwellings, including such dwellings combined with commercial uses on the same site" amend to read, "Article I5-19.030 (b)(1) Mixed Use Development conforming to the Design Standards found in Article 15-21" "Article 15-19.040 (b)(2) Multi-family dwellings, including such dwellings combined with commercial uses on the same site" needs to be amended to read, "Article I5-19.040 (b)(2) Mixed Use Developments conforming to the Design Standards found in Article IS-21" "Article 15-19.050 (a)(2) Single family dwellings or multi-family residential units, when located either above the street level or at the street level if separated from the street frontage be a retail or service establishment" needs to be deleted. "Article I5-19.050 (b)(4) Single family dwellings and multi-family residential units, when located at street level and having street frontage" needs to be amended to read, "Article 15-19.050 (b)94) Mixed Use Developments conforming to the Design Standards found in Article 15-21" "Article L5-21 MU-PD: MULTIPLE USE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT" needs to be replaced in its entirety to read: Article 15-21 MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Sections: 15-21.010 15-21.020 15-21.030 15-21.040 15-21.050 15-21.060 Purpose of Article Minimum site area Site density Site coverage Setbacks Height of structures 0®~~05 15-21.070 Fences, walls and hedges 15-21-080 Off-street pazking 15-21.090 Size of individual dwellings units 15-21.100 Location of dwelling units 15-21.110 Floor azea restrictions 15-21.120. Open space requirements, private and public 15-21.130 Applicability of the Saratoga Residential Design Handbook 15-21.140 Protection of privacy of abutting properties 15-21.150 Previous mixed use projects 15-21.010 Purpose of Article In addition to the provisions set forth in Section 1S-05.020 of this Chapter, the Mixed. tise Development Standards are included in the Zoning Ordinance for the primary purpose of establishing development standards for mixture of rental residential units with both commercial and office developments. 15-21.020 Minimum site azea The m;n;mum allowable site area for a mixed use development.is 20,000 square feet. 15-21.030 Site density The maximum net density for the residential component of a mixed use project is 20-units per acre. The area of a project devoted to commercial and/or office use is to be netted out of the gross area. Pursuant to state law (Section 65915 of the California Government Code), a density bonus of 2S% for any residential project in which at least 10 percent of the units are affordable to very low-income households or 20% of the units are affordable to low-income households or SO% of the units are designed for seniors. 15-21.040 Site coverage Total site coverage is the same as is allowed in the underlying zone district. However, for projects containing below market rate housing units up to 10% additional coverage may be allowed by the Planning Commission. 15-21.050 Setbacks For mixed use projects the following setbacks are required: (a) Front yazd. The minimulil front yard setback for the first floor shall be 20 feet. The m;n;mum setback for a second story shall be 25 feet. (b) Side yazds. The m;n;mum setback for an interior side yard shall be 10 feet or 10% which ever is greater, but in no case shall an interior side yard setback be required to be greater than 25 feet. 15-21.060 Height of structures The maximum height of mixed use structures shall be limited to 26 feet. Structures in a Mixed Use project that are totally Commercial or Office use will be limited to the height allowed in the underlying Zoned District. In projects where Mixed Use structures are adjacent to existing single story residential structure shall be limited to single story construction and no more than 18 feet in height. • ~®0~~6 15-21.070 Fences, walls and hedges Where adjacent to existing residential uses, a perimeter, eight foot tall sound walls shall be required. Where in a Mixed Use project has commercial uses adjacent to commercial uses, no fences, walls or hedges shall be allowed. 15-21-080 Off-street parking Parking for both the commercial and the dwelling units shall be as specified in Article 15-35 of the Coning Ordinance, provided that the Planning Commission will consider shared parking for Mixed Use projects providing below market rate housing. 15-21.090 Size of individual dwellings units The dwelling unit sizes shall be between 850 square feet for one bedroom units and 1,250 square feet for three bedroom units. 15-21.100 Location of dwelling units The residential component of any Mixed Use project shall be either on a second floor of a street side structure or to the rear of the project site. 15-21.110 Floor area restrictions The residential component shall comprise no more than 50% 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 that provide below market rate rental housing. 15-21.120 Open space requirements, private and public Each dwelling in a Mixed Use project shall be provided with private, usable space, i.e. decks, balconies, yards or patios. Mixed Use projects shall be required to conform with park dedications requirements (lands dedication or cash payment in-lieu of dedication) based on the residential component of the project. 15-21.130 Applicability of the Saratoga Residential Design Handbook The design of Mixed Use projects will be required to conform to the policies and techniques of the Residential Design Handbook. 15-21.140 Protection of privacy of abutting properties In order to protect the privacy of existing residential developments, a 20-foot wide landscape buffer shall be provided in addition to the 8 foot high sound wall. The 20-foot landscape buffer cannot be in-lieu of the required private, useable open space. Where a structure in a Mixed Use project abuts an existing single story residential development, the building shall be limited to - single story construction. 15-21.150 Previous mixed use project Any commercial or office use created as part of a previous mixed use project is not eligible to be considered for a new Mixed Use project. • ~®~®~"~ PASSED A1~TD ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, June 26, 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary to the Planning Commission • • 0~~~~8 Attachment 2 • June 17, 2002 t5 N9 LS ~ ~ I~ • • Tom Sullivan ~ ~ JUN 1 7 2002 Community Development Department Planning Division CITY OF SARAT~O~GA ^nMMIrNiTV ~FV~'~ •mPnA~''~ This letter is written in response to notices of a heating to beheld June 26, 2002, re Application #02-082 (citywide) -City of Saratoga. The notices received aze for the following pazceis: 517-09-043 (14416 Big Basin Way) Corinthian Corners 517-09-044 (20506 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road) Corinthian Corners 517-09-018 (14410 Big Basin Way) Corinthian Flowers 503-67-003 (14611 Big Basin Way, #B) Townhouse 503-25-016 (14669 Big Basin Way) 503-25-029 (14675 Big Basin Way) By way of background, my husband and I have lived in Saratoga for 45 years. Our family owns five historical buildings in Saratoga. This letter will focus on two of the pazcels listed above, namely, 14669 and 148~S Big Basin Way, since they aze not developed and the others aze. These two properties are side-by-side and together tota12.03 acres. We have owned them 33 years. With respect to the few remaining undeveloped parcels in the Village, leave well-enough alone. The city already has the power to determine if these properties wiltbe strictly commercial, mixed use, or residential. The only reason I can see for locking in certain requirements by ordinance is to side-step any debate re uses. Enclosed is a copy of a plot-plan showing all of the properties on Big Basin Way beginning with 14585 and endmg with 14675 Big Basin Way (in the Village). #76 Has one office in front - 14585 Big Basin Way and ei~tht townhouses behind - 1458?, 14589, 14597, 14593, 14595, 14597, 14599, and 14601. #67 Has five townhouses, one historical house (William King) and one historical red barn (Petit's Livery stable). #12 Lawyer's office (Tom Davies) # 13 Sudholt's property #14 Two new homes recently built. No offices, no retail. # 1 S New owner Jeff Gasik plans to build have been recently submitted to the Planning Dept. Plan is to build two retail units, four offices, and five residential units. #16 Undeveloped property 2.03 acres owned by Joseph and Ann Fitzsimmons and #29 All of the properties are similar, except as to size. All are flat at the top, then drop off and flat in the rear to the creek. The property designated #76 was developed in 1988-1989. Eight townhouses and one office were built on this O©O©09 property. The only way nine structwes could have been put on this property was to excavate on the westerly side in order to make a long driveway front to back. We own the proerty next door and, unfortunately for us, the excavation came within a few feet of the trunk of a 100 year-old oak tree on ow property, thereby cutting 45-50% of the roots. This led to the eventual death of this tree. It is my understanding that Virginia Fanelli, a former council member and mayor of the City of Saratoga, was a consultant for this property and Barry Coates was the arborist. In summary, there are no commercial buildings beginning with #76 and ending with #29. Since ow properties are the last in the village and far away from any commercial enterprises, it is foolhearty to think anyone will build commercial on ow properties. I wish they would, but I doubt this will happen. To lock-in commercial only on ow property almost guarantees it will not be salable. We have at times entertained the possibility of selling ow property. Since we have owned the property for 33 years, and we are under Prop 13 for taxes, the smart thing to do may be to keep the property and eventually pass it on to ow five children. The City has no consistent policy in the village as evidenced by #14 that is 100% residential. Our properties are further away from the Village business district. Why shouldn't a developer be allowed to develop ow property 100% residential? What is wrong with leaving things just the way they are? This allows for flexibility and the best use of the properties. Remember, if nothing changes, the city still has the power to determine the use of the properties. We do not want ow ability to use ow properties to their best and highest value limited by the Cit}rs after-the-fact attempt to impose consistent development guidelines on Big Basin Way. We object to this ordinance on the basis that the City of Saratoga will be lessening the value of ow property, now and in the futwe. Also, given that the ordinance is being proposed now, after most other parcels on Big Basin Way have been developed, it unfairly targets us as individuals by imposing limitations on us that were not imposed on others. And, of Dowse, if the Planning Commision is proposing this action in an attempt to homogenize how property is being developed, it is years too late. . Respectfully submitted, Ann V. Fitzsimmons r if /~ • VL70Q-~~ 1.1 _~ ~LLr ~ ~ P. M. 558 - M - 4~ ., S~g;~:. !~ .,~~,.ti.- °' . ~ ~ ~•~` ~ I `+• ~~ ~. • f~ -r •~ ~-- s ~• ~/ ~ 0.85 . ~ • • ;~ ,,a - . T r !5 ~ ~ ~ ` ~ 16 l4 ~ 13 ~ _ , 25 ~~ P ••• fl 6 °' ~ ~ ~= ~~ '~ tS'J) (49) !' Sp 49 goo ~ 30 ~ 4750 t2.to SQ Z3.S 1~ «~ .~s~s ROS.26(}M•49 r+rs .+.ss ..~:~ e ~*~~ ` ~--- 81Ca gAStN ~~ os 342/!'8 RQ.S. !39/45 `~ (FMLY. LUM6ER ST.1 - N 00 • ~ BK. ~ 5th ® ' N N Page 1 of 2 Tom Sullivan From: "Gil Troutman" <fgtroutman@attbi.com> To: <tsullivan@saratoga.ca.us> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 12:08 PM Subject: Comments on Application # 02-082 Good afternoon Tom: I was down at the planning commission today to get a better understanding of the changes proposed to the Planning Commission for standards for 1Vlixed Use Developments. Normally I would attend the meeting on the 26th of June, but we will be out of town. I would like to make a couple of comments on the proposal. Any changes for standards for Mixed Use Developments need to keep in mind the "look and feel" of Saratoga, which I believe include: - Single story developments only - Sufficient parking during peak usage - Architectural design in keeping with our community. I believe the Argonaut Shopping Center meets those requirements. When I think of negative examples of mixed use development, the first thing that comes to mind is the development on Winchester Blvd., in San Jose, across from the Century theaters. The look and feel is just awful!! It's multi story with small side walks. When I think of poor parking, just try and park at Westgate on Saratoga Avenue when you want to have dinner at Willow Street Pizza on a Friday evening around 7:OOPM. Tom, thanks for listening. Good luck, Gil Frank G. Troutman Jr. APN 393-OS-031 13070 Regan Lane Saratoga, CA 95070 f routmannn,attbi.com 408 867-9543 The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient of this message please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication and notify the sender immediately. It should be noted that any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking action or reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. 6/17/2002 • • • 000012 Attachment 3 City of Saratoga Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Thomas Sullivan, AICP Community Development Director DATE: June 26, 2002 RE: Attached Written Communications The attached written communications was attached to this agenda item at the request of Zoe Alameda. While there is overlap and a great deal of similarity between the Gateway Design Standards and the Mixed Use Development Standards they are not the same thing. The Gateway Development Standards only deal with a particular commercial area. The mixed use standards deal with all commercial and office .areas, but only with the mixed use developments. Ms. Alameda has indicated that she will be attending your June 26, 2002 meeting and will speak. • 000013 -z ~ ~- ~;.,~, .. ~. ~ s~t~.-ems ~ 12341 S. Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road • Saratoga, California 95070 • (408) 257-6262 • FAX (408) 257-0104 • www.saratogafuneral.com June 12, 2002 Planning Commission, City of Saratoga c/o Tom Sullivan, Planning Director Re: Proposed Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Gateway Design Guidelines Dear Commissioners, I am addressing my concerns so that I better understand the implications of these proposed changes to my property and to similar properties in the Gateway district. The Design Guidelines stated objectives, guiding principles and part of the goals are to "maintain business viability/commercial strength" "by encouraging commercial activity in the Gateway district". I am concerned that these aspects of the goals are compromised because of the following: . 1. Task Force is not broad based and is not fairly balanced; does not include commercial property owners but is comprised of residents who do not have a vested interest in the properties. a. Pictures in the report are misleading; represents meetings that were held to discuss the road improvements not design guidelines. b. Commercial property owners were NOT notified of the two meetings that focused on the design guidelines (5/10/02 & 5/24/02); changes that affect the development and zoning of • their property. 2. Speaks loudly of potential Zoning Changes. Is this a change from the current Zoning? Will this limit use from the current Zoning? Page 4-#3 Buffering set back requirements. #8 Parking-will this have an affect on the amount of parking available for commercial use, thereby limiting the square footage of commercial development? #10 Maximum height. #11 Building heights shall be established... #12 Building heights shall be restricted... # 16 Limited in size to "local-serving businesses". #17 Office use permissive on the second floor, require use permit on ground floor. Page 7-#3 Large "boxes"... will not be allowed. #4 Details to wall length, roofline, entrances. Page 10#1 Landscape islands and interrupted parking spaces. #3 Landscaped islands... I S% of parking area. #10 Buffering...20 ft depth...residential. #11 Buffering...min 4 ft...between commercial or mixed use. Page 11 #3 Fencing is discouraged. 3. Restricts commercial viability by restricting business use. Page 4 #3 Design of mixed use project will be required. # 16 Limited in size to local-serving businesses. #17 Office uses permissive on second floor, require use permit on ground floor. Page 6 #4 Maximize site to site connections, minimize Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. access. If I lost my building in a catastrophic event, could I rebuild with the same footprint(same sq.ft, same use) based on these new design guidelines and standards? 4. Requirements that severely restrict the redevelopment of the current properties. Page 4 #3 Buffering set back requirements will decrease usable space on lot for building. #8 Parking...will limit the square footage of commercial development on lot. O©0014 ,~ #12 Building height-may be too restrictive in light of lot sizes in the area. Page 6#3 Provide a variety of building sizes...how is this accomplished on the small scale lots in the area? #7 Provide direct, continuous pedestrian routes...how does this apply on a small lot? Page 7#1 Encourage smaller scale building floorplates...how does this apply on my property or other properties in the Gateway district? Page 10#1 Landscape islands...interrupt consecutive runs of 10 or more spaces-this would restrict the potential size of the building and would~not allow the same sq.footage replacement of a previous building. #3 Landscaped...15%-would restrict building size. # 10 Buffering...-would restrict potential size of building and would not allow re-building of a previous building with same square footage. #11 Buffering...-same as above. 5. The "New Scenario" esample page 5 in the 5na1 draft 6/6/2002 is misleading. a. What is the square footage of this lot? b. What are the individual square footages of the six buildings on this lot? c. Which lot in the Gateway area does this "typical site" apply? d. Apply this "typical new scenario" to lots in the Gateway district that have the potential to redevelop based on the lot's square footage and these design guidelines in this draft. 6. What if a property redevelops before my property? Will I have an input as to the use? 7. Is it mandatory that I provide residential units on my property if I redevelop? 8. Is anything in these Design Guidelines going to regnire the elimination of curb cuts/driveways or require site to site connects that impact current use'! Site to site connections will deeply impact my business. 9. When doing a remodel of a building, when do the Design Guidelines kick in? A facade change? Adding a bathroom? Reconfiguring the interior of a building or doing tenant improvements? These proposed design guidelines will have a dramatic and detrimental affect on numerous existing businesses. Businesses in the district range from heavy industrial, commercial, restaurants, office, service to residential. My hope is that the Planning Commission will reconsider the Design Guidelines and the make-up of the Task Force and encourage participation by the commercial property owners in the process of making these guidelines closer to the goals of "maintaining business viability/commercial strength" and "encouraging commercial activity in the Gateway district". I feel the success of the Gateway Design Guidelines rests with the broad and balanced participation of all parties involved. This was accomplished with the Gateway Road Improvement Task Force when the Business Owners were invited to participate and their valuable input helped to assure that the project was accepted by the Saratoga City Council. Thank you for your time in reviewing my concerns. Sincerely, ~~ Z e Alameda-Farotte Commercial property owner cc: Owner-12300-12304 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. John Keenan-12280 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. Mr. & Mrs. Van Dyke-12275-12277 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. John Oliver-12238-12250 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. Owners-12230 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. Diana Shannon-12029 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. Fred Koslowski-12299 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. Bill Reid-12333 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. • 000015 i,~ ~ ~ .; / moo' ~. «< ~ ~ ~ ; i ~ ~ ~- 1 ~ ~~ ~ ~ L~1~~ ~ i 1 ~ ~ /~~ II a~~ ~ r I ~ ~ \ ~ :'.. .. i ~/ e~ ~_ ~. ~ . ~ .__. ~ ~. ~~ °• i T J __ ._.. _ .. _ ..__ ___ __.. 40. ~ : ;y ..T_.. ~_ '~ ~ ~ ~ ..\ - ~/ .~ ~~ _~ `I i ~:. 0 .~-~ :~ ~RUI~lIAIIY ASSESS~EIR OUOgIUA __lYILO --_ '