Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-28-2002 Planning Commission Packetti CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, August 28, 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: None Staff: Planners Oosterhous Est Welsh, Director Sullivan and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of July 24, 2002, and draft minutes from the Study Session meeting of July 24, 2002. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral 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 August 23, 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 I~EARINGS 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. APPLICATION #02-175, APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CONCRETE WALL WITHIN 10 FEET OF AN OAK TREE AT 14480 OAK PLACE, (397-22-051) - APPEALANT, WILLIAM F. BRECK, 20375 SARATOGA -LOS GATOS ROAD; -The appeal is to have the Planning Commission reverse an Administrative Decision to allow the construction of a concrete wall within 10 feet of an oak tree pursuant to Municipal Code section 15-50.110. (SULLIVAN) (APPROVED 7-0) 2. DR-00-051 &t 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 5-2, HUNTER &t KURASH OPPOSED) 3. APPLICATION #02-013 (503-69-02) - AMINI-MOAZENI,13815 Pierce Road; -Request for Design Review to demolish an existing single story house and construct a new two story house with 6,099 square feet on the main and upper levels and 2,569 square feet in the basement. The property is a 1.72 acre lot in the Hillside Residential District. The height of the structure will be 26 feet. (WELSH) (CONTINUED TO 9/11/02) 4. APPLICATION #UP-99-021 (517-10-015 ~ 009) -OUR LADY OF FATIMA ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY, 20400 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road; -Resolution UP-99-021 requires the applicant to return to the Planning Commission prior to issuance of grading and building permits in order to address: 1. Affordable living units and preference to Saratoga residents, 2. Sound levels at laundry facility, 3. Construction period traffic and parking, 4. Evening shift parking, S. Twenty- four hour contact for complaints. The public hearing is being scheduled to address these issues. (WELSH) (APPROVED 7-0) COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner's sub-committee reports COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN City Council Minutes from Regular Meetings on June 19, 2002 ADJOURNMENT AT 11:45 TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, September 11, 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 Tanning@sarato a CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION LAND USE AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 - 2:30~~.m, (Please note the new time) 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, AUGUST 28, 2002 ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. DR-00-051 Fst BSA-00-003 - WALKER Item 2 13800 Pierce Road 2. .Application #02-072 - AMINI-MOAZENI Item 3 13815 Pierce Road 3. Application #02-175 - BRECK/CUTLER Item 1 14480 Oak Place 4. UP-99-021 - OUR LADY OF FATIMA Item 4 20400 Saratoga-Los Gatos 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 2:30 and 4:30 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, August 28, 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 July 24, 2002, and draft minutes from the Study Session meeting of July 24, 2002. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on August 23, 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 heazd at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public 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. APPLICATION #02-175, APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CONCRETE WALL WITHIN 10 FEET OF AN OAK TREE AT 14480 OAK PLACE, (397-22-051) - APPEALANT, WILLIAM F. BRECK, 20375 SARATOGA -LOS GATOS ROAD; -The appeal is to have the Planning Commission reverse an Administrative Decision to allow the construction of a concrete wall within 10 feet of an oak tree pursuant to Municipal Code section 15-50.110. (SULLIVAN) 2. 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) _ 3. APPLICATION #02-013 (503-69-02) - AMINI-MOAZENI,13815 Pierce Road; -Request for Design Review to demolish an existing single story house and construct a new two story house with 6,099 square feet on the main and upper levels and 2,569 square feet in the basement. The property is a 1.72 acre lot in the Hillside Residential District. The height of the structure will be 26 feet. (WELSH) 4. APPLICATION #UP-99-021 (517-10-015 ~ 009) -OUR LADY OF FATIMA ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY, 20400 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road; -Resolution UP-99-021 requires the applicant to return to the Planning Commission prior to issuance of grading and building permits in order to address: 1. Affordable living units and preference to Saratoga residents, 2. Sound levels at laundry facility, 3. Construction period traffic and parking, 4. Evening shift parking, 5. Twenry- four hour contact for complaints. The public hearing is being scheduled to address these issues. (WELSH) COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner's sub-committee reports COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN City Council Minutes from Regular Meetings on June 19, 2002 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, September 11, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA • If you would like to receive this Agenda via a-mail, please send your e-mail address to plannin saratoga.ca.us . ~, r _- ~'v o ~~ (1" MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION • DATE: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Jackman called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. --- ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe Absent: Commissioners Garakani and Zutshi Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner John Livingstone, Planner Lata Vasudevan and Planner Ann Welsh PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of July 10, 2002. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the regular Planning Commission minutes of July 10, 2002, were approved as submitted with a minor corrections on pages 7 and 11. AYES: Barry, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe - - NOES: None ABSENT: Garakani and Zutshi ABSTAIN: Hunter REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on July 18, 2002. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Jackman announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b). ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications z_ Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 24, 2002 page 2 r t CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. ~** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #02-072 (397-24-073) - RUEHLE, 20075 Spaich Court• Request for Design Review and Use Permit approvals to construct a 925 square foot detached pool cabana with an 861 square foot basement. The height of the structure will be 12 feet and will be located on a 49,800 (gross) square foot lot in the R-1-20,000 zoning district. There is a 4,773 square foot single-story residence on the site. A Use Permit is required because the proposed accessory structure will be located within the rear yard setback. (VASUDEVAN ) Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant seeks Design Review and Use Permit approvals to allow a 925 square foot cabana with basement within the 60 foot required rear setback. The cabana would be a maximum of 12 feet high and is proposed at 11 feet, 6 inches from the rear property line. • Described the property as being within the Hayfield Estate development. • Informed that the owners of 18907 Hayfield have raised several issues about potential impacts to their property. As a result of those concerns, staff is proposing that a landscape plan be submitted for this neighbor's approval. • Stated that to alleviate any concern that this unit could be used as a secondary living unit, a Condition has been added that prohibits any kitchen facilities in this cabana. • Added that staff finds that the cabana compliments the existing home, that it conforms to the Design Guidelines and that necessary findings to support the application can be met. • Recommended approval with the added Condition for neighbor approval of the screening landscaping. Commissioner Kurasch asked what was the nature of the neighbor's concerns. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied one neighbor, located to the northeast of the project site, has concerns about the height of the proposed cabana. Commissioner Barry asked to what side this neighbor is located. Planner Lata Vasudevan answered the right side neighbor. , " Commissioner Kurasch asked if the side yard setback has been met. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that the side yard setback is 15 feet. Commissioner Roupe asked if the pending Basement Ordinance changes were considered in the review of this proposal and whether any aspect of this proposal is contrary to this pending Ordinance. • F~ Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 24, 2002 Page 3 Planner Lata Vasudevan advised that Council has decided to allow basements under accessory structures but not within setbacks. Commissioner Roupe asked if that is the only issue and that everything else about -this proposal was compliant. Commissioner Barry added that existing State Codes governs such things. Director Tom Sullivan clarified that the Uniform Building Code standards are what are applied. The single issue that differs from the draft Ordinance is allowing this cabana within the setback. Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:17 p.m. Mr. Steve Benzing, Project Architect: • Advised that this is the third attempt to get a pool house on this lot. • Said that when this house was originally approved a pool house was also approved. However, a lot line adjustment occurred and the pool house was switched over to the other side of the lot and that proposal was also approved. Later the location was flipped back to the current proposed location due to Eucalyptus trees that would be impacted if left as it was proposed. • Stated that the applicant contacted the neighbors about three weeks ago and no objections were raised. The house, which will match the existing style of the home, will provide his clients with an area for gatherings along with a guestroom. The basement will house a model toy train collection that cannot be accommodated in the house. The cabana will include a sink, dishwasher and wine area but there is no intention to include a kitchen. • Stated that the original Landscape Architect has been dismissed and that he would assume the duties to complete the landscape plan. Commissioner Kurasch cautioned that the neighbors are looking for screening material such as shrubs. Mr. Scott Petters, 18107 Hayfield Court, Saratoga: • Said that he spoke with the applicants and had a nice conversation. They were very cooperative. • Stated that he is in the process of landscaping his own yard. • Expressed concern for the unknown and there are grade variations that might make this appear to be a very large structure when viewed from his property. He added that there is already a cabana on the property to the right of his. • Pointed out that his is a $5 million dollar house and this concern is a big deal to he and his wife, who is pregnant. • Said that while they are not interested in stopping their neighbors from building their dream he is~ asking that the Commission hold off on a decision and have a skyline installed to determine the visual impacts of this cabana from his property and allow them seven days to look at this skyline. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Petters if he ever requested this of the owners. Mr. Scott Petters replied that the owners do not reside in this house but their children do. He added that the owners are out of town. Commissioner Barry pointed out that in the past a Condition of A royal has been im osed that PP P requires an applicant to work out a landscape plan to the mutual satisfaction of both the applicant and Saratoga Planning Commission minutes of July 24, 2002 Page 4 adjacent neighbors. -Staff is allowed to negotiate the landscape plan and only refers it back to the Planning Commission if necessary. Asked if Mr. Petters finds this to be an adequate solution to his request for a continuance. Mr. Scott Petters asked if a reduction in height by two feet or a lowering of grade by two feet might be imposed. He added that they themselves reduced the grade on their property in such a manner. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Petters if they also installed a retaining wall. Mr. Scott Petters replied yes and that it ranges from 12 to 30 inches high. Commissioner Roupe asked staff if the cabana proposed would be lower than the house itself. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that the backyard is pretty level. Mr. Scott Petters asked what the difference is in elevation grade between the house itself and the shared back fence. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the cabana as proposed is but six inches above finish grade and - that the basement and cabana both have only eight-foot ceilings so lowering the building is not possible. Commissioner Kurasch suggested that perhaps the roof could be flattened to lower the structure: Director Tom Sullivan replied that the roof is already pretty flat. Mr. Scott Petters said that he expected the cabana to be six feet higher than the fence and 35 feet long. Chair Jackman said that perhaps this matter would need to be continued. Director Tom Sullivan advised that the Commission would need to discuss the issues of the project before continuing it. Mr. Steve Benzing, Project Architect: • Stated that while the cabana is 30 feet wide, the ridgeline is only six feet long. Avery small portion of the cabana will actually be 12 feet high. • Added that the public was noticed and that neighbors were notified. This neighbor only raised this issue in the last couple of days. • Said that if they had been asked to do so earlier in the process, they would have installed story poles but that at this late date it is unfair to request a continuance. , • Pointed out that this neighbor (Mr. Petters) has something built in his own backyard already. • Stated that they have met all requirements. • Distributed a site line drawing that he stated was rough and based on some guesswork. Commissioner Roupe asked if the cabana roofline is below and covered by the home's roofline. Mr. Steve Benzing: • Replied that the neighbor would be able to see the roofline of the cabana. • Asked that the project not be continued. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 24, 2002 Page 5 • Added that if the Commission finds it necessary, they have no objection to installing story poles. Commissioner Barry thanked Mr. Benzing for his site line drawing. Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:38 p.m. Commissioner Roupe said he would support this project with the condition that the applicant works to develop a landscape plan that is mutually acceptable to the applicant and neighbor. Commissioner Kurasch asked if such a condition is possible. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes, the Commission has done so with past applications. Commissioner Kurasch stated that she finds the cabana to be a bit large but that every effort has been made to integrate it onto the site. Asked that adequate screening be provided. Commissioner Barry said she has the same concern but that the lot coverage will end up at 31 percent- when the maximum allowable is 45 percent. Therefore, this request is reasonable. Chair Jackman reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:40 p.m. Mr. Steve Benzing said that as an alternative, his clients would be willing to move the cabana to the other side near the Eucalyptus trees but beyond their dripline. Chair Jackman reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:41 p.m. Commissioner Barry asked if there is any merit to the proposal to relocate the cabana. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the site plan is done as best as it can be done as proposed. Commissioner Hunter stated that if the cabana is built near the Eucalyptus trees, the pool will be impacted and the owners will be back to request cutting them down. With adequate landscape screening this proposal should work out okay. Commissioner Kurasch stated her support for the condition proposed by Commissioner Roupe regarding the landscaping. Chair Jackman said that the project has come this far and the applicant has rights too. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the Planning Commission granted Design Review approval (Application #02-072) to allow a 925 square foot detached pool cabana with an 861 square foot basement on property located at 20075 Spaich Court as proposed with the added condition that a landscape plan be developed between the applicant and neighbors and mediated by staff. The-landscape plan would come back to the Commission if a satisfactory solution cannot be worked out. AYES: Barry, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe NOES: None Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 24, 2002 Page 6 ABSENT: Garakani and Zutshi ABSTAIN: None ~~* _. PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 APPLICATION #02-047 (517-19-040) - SIADAT, 14771 Montalvo Road: Request for Modification of Approved Project to remove two provisions in the resolution for DR-99-006. The applicant requests that the requirement to dedicate and build. a 10-foot wide pedestrian trail on their property be omitted from the resolution of approval. The applicant requests permission to allow afive-foot high fence beyond the front yard of the property within the City right-of-way. This is a change of the requirements that athree-foot fence be permitted in the front yard of the property as permitted by Resolution DR-99- 006. (WELSH) -Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Modification of a Design Review that was granted November.. 10, 1999. The home is now constructed. The applicants want to have Condition No 5 and Condition No. 11 removed from the Resolution. Condition No. 5 requires a 10 feet dedication fora pedestrian easement to allow access from Montalvo to Vickery. Condition No. 11 limits the fence to be located in the front, within the public right-of-way, to three feet in height. • Stated that staff is recommending that the requirement for the pedestrian access be upheld. - • Informed that staff has reviewed fencing along Montalvo Road. Twelve properties have five to six- foot fences. Thirteen properties have no fence or hedge at all. Five properties have three-foot high fences. Therefore, there is no clear precedent set. • Reminded that the Montalvo Road fence would be located entirely within the City's right-of-way. The encroachment permit for athree-foot fence should be upheld. The Vickery Road fence is within the front yard and a Variance could be granted. Commissioner Barry: • Asked staff to clarify the legal liability issue raised. • Stated that there is no change in liability as compared to having a sidewalk. • Inquired if there is an exaction or taking here. Planner Ann Welsh stated that the application required a Building Site Approval and a tradeoff was made whereas the applicant was given greater floor area in trade for accommodating the pedestrian access trail on the property. Commissioner Barry stated that the legal liability and taking issues have been dealt with. Chair Jackman pointed out that the Commission has received a letter from the applicant's attorney. Commissioner Kurasch sought clarification about the encroachment permit and fencing in the right-of- way. Planner Ann Welsh advised that the Zoning Ordinance does not apply to property within the City's right-of--way. The Public Works Department has jurisdiction over those areas within the public right- of-way and issues encroachment permits for any construction activity on that occurs there. f Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 24, 2002 Page 7 Commissioner Kurasch asked if this property was previously fenced. Planner Ann Welsh replied not according to records. Commissioner Kurasch asked if there are reports of accidents or injuries as a result of this area being unfenced. Planner Ann Welsh said that staff does not have enough history to know that. Added that Caltrans has stated that there is no history in this area and that the pedestrian access path is not recommended. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the flooding issues on the property have been corrected sufficiently. Planner Ann Welsh said that the piping of the culvert addresses that issue. Commissioner Hunter asked if such encroachments for fencing within the public right-of-way are commonly granted. --- Planner Ann Welsh replied that allowing this is unusual per the Public Works Director. The beneficial result in this case is a lessening of the area that the City will have to maintain. Commissioner Kurasch asked about maintenance issues in the right-of--way, stating her understanding that every property owner is expected to maintain the right-of-way in front of their property. Director Tom Sullivan advised that this varies. Added that most cities expect to maintain the right-of- way. Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8 p.m. Ms. Lorraine Siadat; Applicant and Property Owner, 14771 Montalvo Road, Saratoga: • Stated that she has resided in Saratoga for 23 years and is active in the community. • Said that she seeks to replace asix-foot wood fence with a 5-foot wrought iron fence, which is needed for security and privacy. • Pointed out that hundreds of people visit Montalvo for concerns, driving up their street to access the venues. • Added that the drainage system accumulates about four feet of water in winter months, which is why they are seeking afive-foot fence. • Stated that in her 17 years on this property, she has called the sheriff about 17 times to report accidents. The last time was in April when ahead-on accident occurred at the proposed location of the pedestrian access path. • Said that the proposed path would require construction of a bridge to go over the swale that is four feet deep by eight feet wide. The proposed path would send pedestrians blindly onto Vickery and Montalvo Roads. • Pointed out that there are no lights in this area and that there are other safer options for pedestrians. • Added that Caltrans sees no reason for this path and that neighbors oppose the path and support their fence height variance. • Asked the Commission to remove the Condition of the pedestrian access trail and to approve the fence height variance. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 24, 2002 Page 8 Commissioner Roupe stated that there is indeed a point in having the pedestrian trail access easement. With it pedestrians can walk all the way to Downtown' Saratoga without having to go onto Highway 9. That's the point. Commissioner Barry said that there was objection to the original proposed location of the cut through and the Commission, neighbors and applicant reached a compromise agreement and moved the placement of the trail access. Commissioner Hunter said that she uses the path all the time. Commissioner Barry pointed out to Ms. Siadat that she did not object once the placement of the proposed trail access was moved. Ms. Lorraine Siadat replied that the typography of her property has since changed to accommodate the drainage system and questioned who would build the bridge necessary to cross the swale. Commissioner Roupe reminded Ms. Siadat that she knew the culvert would be necessary to deal with drainage issues. Commissioner Kurasch asked for clarification that the newly constructed wood fence would be continued on with the wrought iron fence. Planner Ann Welsh advised that the three-foot fence would meet up with the six-foot fence. Commissioner Kurasch proposed that the Siadats move the fence to the property line to have asix-foot high fence and leave the fence at three feet on Montalvo and Vickery. Ms. Lorraine Siadat said that all the nearby neighbors have five-foot fences. Chair Jackman pointed out that the fact that this proposed fence would be on the public right-of-way is the issue. Mr. Bob Zager, 20292 Calle Montalvo, Saratoga: • Said that he lives uphill from the applicant and is in support of the staff recommendation. • Stated that the pedestrian path is a great idea and will be a benefit to people. • Asked what type of improvements would be permitted within the encroachment area. Planner Ann Welsh answered that the encroachment simply addresses the installation of the fence. If necessary, the City could remove anything at will improperly placed within the public right-of--way. If anything else is desired in the public right-of--way a specific encroachment permit would have to be obtained. Mr. Chris Allen, 20415 Montalvo Oaks, Saratoga: Expressed his backing for the City plan. • Said that the three-foot fence is a good compromise. • Said that the original plan should be supported. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 24, 2002 " _Page 9 - -_- Mr. James Hawley, Applicant's Attorney, Hoge, Fenton, Jones & Appel: • Disagreed with the City and Commission's assessment of liability. • Stated that the proposed pedestrian access trail would be more dangerous than current conditions. Commissioner Barry: • Asked Mr. Hawley if he personally looked at the area in question and found it to be dangerous. • Stated that his clients received the benefits of the agreement and asked how to undo those benefits. Mr. James Hawley replied that he had not personally looked at the area and offered no suggestions about dealing with the benefits received with the original approval. Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Hawley what new information he can provide to warrant excusing these conditions. Mr. James Hawley replied the requirement to construct a bridge and potential liability his client faces. Commissioner Roupe stated that the Siadat's knew the swale was necessary and that this does not represent new information. Chair.Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:28 p.m. Commissioner Roupe: • Stated that the issue of the public easement was perfectly clear in 1999 and discussions were held regarding tradeoffs. • Said that the understanding was clear that the easement equaled convenience to the public. • Concurred with staff's view and added that there is no need to relax the position taken at that time. Commissioner Barry agreed. Commissioner Hunter agreed that nothing has changed to remove the requirement of the easement. Commissioner Kurasch: • Said that the applicant has received an encroachment permit and entitlements. • Supported staff on both issues (pedestrian access and fence height). • Pointed out that a beautiful home has gone up and the applicant must keep their bargain. Commissioner Barry read out the condition from page 28 of the report that stated at that the property owners shall dedicate a 10-foot wide easement that shall be improved to minimum City standards prior. to final occupancy. Commissioner Roupe reiterated that the owners knew the swale was necessary. Pointed out that the requirement had been that the trail access be installed prior to occupancy. The owners were granted leniency on that requirement and obtained a final subject to a bond. This work should have already been done as part of the overall construction of the project. • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 24, 2002 Page 10 Commissioner Kurasch said that she has no support for the -five foot fence but rather supports conformance with the Public Works requirements. Wondered how many other fences are located within the public right-of-way. Since it is public property, the City has to be careful how it is used. Commissioner Hunter concurred. Commissioner Barry also concurred. She added that the three-foot fence would be fine and look nice. Commissioner Roupe said that he supports the concept of the three-foot high fence. He added that no new information has been presented to change the original decision and that he will stand by the original decision. Chair Jackman concurred. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Planning Commission upheld the original Conditions and denied a request for a Modification of Approved Project for 14771 Montalvo Road. AYES: Barry, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe NOES: None - ABSENT: Garakani and Zutshi ABSTAIN: None Chair Jackman allowed Mr. Medhi Siadat to address the Commission. Mr. Medhi Siadat, Applicant and Property Owner, 14771 Montalvo Road, Saratoga: • Declared that his property was a piece of trash before he owned it. • Said that he is being penalized with the limit to a three-foot high fence. ~~~ PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 Application #02-127 -CITY OF SARATOGA, Austin Way: Request to designate all of Austin Way a Heritage Lane to preserve the existing brick roadway that was built in 1904. (LIVINGSTONE) Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Stated that the Heritage Preservation Commission is recommending that Austin Way be designated a Heritage Lane, creating a Heritage Lane Zoning Overlay. • Advised that 15 communications were received. Three were included in the packet and the remainder distributed this evening. Three were not in support. Two were in support of the preservation of the brick roadway but were not supportive of the 10-foot review area. Ten were in support. • Added that the intent is to protect and preserve the brick roadway. The Heritage Lane designation would allow the City to obtain grants for the preservation and maintenance of the brick road. The proposal is that all of Austin Way be designated as a Heritage Lane. Although the old brick road is not visible along the entire street, efforts will be taken to see if there is any old brick roadway covered up further up the road. s Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 24, 2002 Page 11 • Pointed out that Austin Way is also located across Highway 9 but that portion of the street is located in Monte Sereno and would not be included in this Heritage Lane Overlay. • Informed that Austin Way is named in honor of Daniel B. Austin, who bought the property in 1882 and co-founded a winery. A local school is named in his honor. • Said that the Saratoga segment is one of the few brick paved highways left. • Stated that the project meets necessary criteria and is consistent with the City's General Plan. • Recommended that the Commission forward a recommendation of approval to Council. Commissioner Hunter advised that there is already one Heritage Lane, .Saratoga Avenue. The Heritage Preservation Commission reviews changes to the homes on that street. Asked if that would also be true in this case. Associate Planner John Li-vingstone advised that the Section in the Ordinance allows flexibility. On Saratoga Lane the homes are reviewed because these are historic homes. There are no designated historic homes along Austin Way. The only section of these properties that would be subject to review for any major changes is the 10 feet closest to the public right-of-way. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that some letters indicate a concern over the impacts of this Heritage Lane Overlay on their homes. Associate Planner John Livingstone advised ,that any significant changes within 10 feet of the road would require review. - Commissioner Roupe reminded that there are no historic homes. Added that any fences already in place would be grandfathered and could be maintained and/or repaired. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that Commissioner Roupe is correct. Commissioner Kurasch asked if there are any additional restrictions on use of property as a result of Heritage Lane Overlay and if the residents would be looking at any additional costs, fees or surcharges. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that there would be no direct costs imposed on the residents. Staff did budget some funds to place new signs commemorating the Heritage Lane designation. Additionally, any future patches would be more expensive for the City to install because the patches would have to be done in brick rather than asphalt. Commissioner Kurasch asked for the right-of-way distance. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that the right-of-way is 40 feet. The brick road itself is 18 to 20 feet wide but the City owns 40 feet. There could be up to 10 feet of City-owned shoulder on each side of the brick roadway. The proposed Heritage Lane designation would add another 10 feet on the private property for review when any major construction is proposed such as walls and fences. Commissioner Hunter suggested limiting truck traffic on this brick road and asked if these large trucks cause damage to the bricks Associate Planner John Livingstone said that he did not know the answer to that question but that the Safety Commission could look into that matter and consider establishing limits. Saratoga Planning .Commission Minutes of July 24, 2002 Page 12 Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the street is used for construction access as well as weekly garbage collection and that these vehicles would have to continue to have access to provide these uses. Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that the Chair of the Heritage Preservation Commission is present as well as another member of the Commission. Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:56 p.m. Ms. Neema Malhotra, 19088 Austin Way, Saratoga: • Asked whether it is known if this designation would affect property values in either a negative or positive way. Commissioner Hunter replied that the designation adds character and is a wonderful distinction. Informed that this is an original road between Los Gatos and Saratoga. Chair Jackman said that she believes the Heritage Lane designation would probably raise property values. The other street so designated is Saratoga Avenue. Ms. Neema Malhotra asked about additional restrictions. Chair Jackman restated that the only area requiring review is the 10 feet of private property. adjacent to the public right-of-way. Commissioner Barry added that the Heritage Preservation Commission would review only major changes. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that driving on brick roads slows traffic down. Mr. Vino Malhotra, 19088 Austin Way, Saratoga: • Stated that he is against the proposed Heritage Lane designation because there is no historic significance. There are no structures, homes and/or landmarks on this street. • Added that it is unclear what the City will do to the public right-of--way. • Said that he finds this would create an unnecessary burden of additional review processes. • Suggested limiting the designation simply to the 40 feet of public right-of--way. Mr. Tom Keeble, 19041 Austin Way, Saratoga: • Said that he has lived on Austin Way for 18 years and started a petition to preserve the brick road several years ago when he began noticing that repairs to the brick road were being performed with asphalt. • Advised that he is interested in preventing repairs of the brick road with asphalt in the future. • Responded to concerns raised about the noise of driving on this road by stating that as long as posted speeds are met, there is no noise impact. Speed driving on the road does increase its noise levels. • Added that the concerns mentioned about wear and tear on vehicles from the brick road do not have merit. The road is but 700 feet long and will not increase wear and tear of vehicles in any significant way. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 24, 2002 Page 13 _ • Pointed out that this is a 98-year-old brick road and that the only thing that has been done over the last 18 years is the painting of double yellow lines twice. • Encouraged the Commission to pass the proposal on to Council with a recommendation of approval. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Keeble if he feels this road is significant. Mr. Tom Keeble replied yes. Commissioner Hunter told Mr. Keeble that she was serving on the Heritage Preservation Commission when he first brought forward his idea to preserve this brick road and thanked him for his efforts. Mr. Willys Peck, 14275 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga: ___ • Said that he resides on the only existing Heritage Lane. • Stated that this designation involves a trade off. • Said that he does not argue with opponents concerns about the wear on cars but said that if something is worth preserving, doing so can involve a trade off. • Informed that the Heritage Lane designation for Saratoga Avenue came about because of rumors of plans to widen it. Mr. Larry Fine circulated a petition. • Proposed that the Commission preserve this scenic resource which he refers to as the "mellow brick road." • Added that the inconvenience can be offset by historic value of this roadway. It is worth preserving some pieces of our historical past. • Stated that he was disappointed when Monte Sereno paved over the only existing portion of the trolley tracks there. • Advised that he has lived here all of his life and had ridden the streetcars when they were there. Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Peck if he felt that his property value decreased or increased with the Heritage Lane designation for Saratoga Avenue. Mr. Willys Peck replied that he cannot offer an opinion but pointed out that he paid $12,000 for his home in 1951 arrd it was not so long ago appraised for $1.2 million. Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Peck, along-time member of.the Heritage Preservation Commission, whether he has any concerns that the Heritage Preservation Commission and/or City will be difficult with property owners over the 10 feet adjacent to the public right-of-way and what kinds of things they might recommend against. Mr. Willys Peck replied that the HPB would probably not look at much more than fences. , Commissioner Kurasch asked about the long-term effect if the brick road is not designated a Heritage Lane. Mr. Willys Peck answered that it would likely be repaved with asphalt and at some point redone. altogether. Added that other brick sections along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road have already been taken out. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 24, 2002 Page 14 Commissioner Hunter pointed out that people who deal with the Heritage Preservation Commission get the opportunity to speak with Mr. Peck, the Town's historian. Mr. Deon Glajchen, 19100 Austin Way, Saratoga: • Thanked the Commission for their time. • Said that he submitted an email and is supportive of the concept to preserve the historic road but has concerns about the 10-foot restriction. • Added that he understands the spirit but is not sure why any restrictions are required for the 10 feet of private property. • Asked what is meant by major construction and whether it would impact plans to enlarge a fence. • Suggested that any proposed restrictions be clearly stated now. • Pointed out that the section of Austin Way across from the Fire Station serves as a parking area for construction vehicles and that is something that should be looked into. • Agreed that sticking to posted speeds would prevent noise issues from driving on this brick road. Commissioner Roupe said that the road itself is 20 feet wide. There is a 10-foot City right-of-way on both sides of the street and the 10 feet directly adjacent on the private property to the public right-of- way would require review for major construction. Agreed that the parking near the Fire Station is unsightly but pointed out that it is not within Saratoga jurisdiction. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that it is in the Caltrans right-of-way. Commissioner Roupe suggested asking Caltrans to post this area as no parking if possible. Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Glajchen to be more specific about his plans to enlarge his fence. Added that there may be existing Codes that apply already to his plans. Mr. Deon Glajchen agreed that existing Codes may exist but restated that it may not be necessary to impose additional restrictions on the 10 feet of private property adjacent to the roadway. Commissioner Barry said that having review of the first lO feet is simply an insurance: Mr. Deon Glajchen said that it would represent a burden on the property owners and that he fails to see the value in such added restrictions. Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Glajchen what he sees as being onerous with this requirement. Mr. Deon Glajchen replied that it simply represents additional restrictions that don't exist elsewhere in Saratoga. ' Associate Planner John Livingstone clarified that significant changes includes only landscaping, paving or construction. This. would not include the planting of annuals but rather structures such as walls. Added that there is already a limit to the amount that can be done anyway as it is within this setback area. Commissioner Hunter reminded that the Heritage Lane designation will allow the City to apply for grants to return Austin Way's brick road to its original state. b Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 24, 2002 - ~ Page 15 Associate Planner John Livingstone assured that the 10-foot review area does not represent an easement and really only affects the installation of fences, colored paving or-driveways. It is very limited in scope but is intended to prevent extreme things from happening. Mr. Deon Glajchen asked if the Commission has that jurisdiction now. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied no. As long as a wall is three feet high or less only a Building Permit is required. Mr. Deon Glajchen stressed his belief that this requirement is too open ended and he still has concerns. Commissioner Kurasch said that there are very limited things that can be done now within that 10 feet other than a wall or fence. Commissioner Roupe reiterated that existing walls or fences would be grandfathered. Mr. Azmat Siddiqi, 19102 Austin Way, Saratoga: • Said that it is a privilege to be a landowner and to have Austin Way declared a Heritage Lane. • Added that placing a commemorative plaque is a good idea. - • Agreed that brick roads do reduce speeds. . • Stated that the 10-foot regulations are of concern. • Pointed out that he has a stone retaining wall within this 10-foot area that he wants to replace. • Added that he currently has egress on two streets. His main driveway is on Highway 9. He would rather have the main driveway off Austin Way and seal off the driveway to Highway 9. Director Tom Sullivan suggested that Mr. Siddiqi discuss his plans with Public Works and Planning staff. Chair Jackman advised that this Heritage Lane designation will not change rules for a driveway. Commissioner Barry agreed that this is not a Heritage Lane issue but rather is governed by existing regulations. Ms. Joty Lulla, 19099 Austin Way, Saratoga: • Said that she supports the Heritage Lane designation but has concerns about the 10-foot extension to the shoulder, which may encroach on existing landscaping. • Said that she has lived here for 20 years. • Declared that the 10-foot public right-of-way has not been maintained to this point and questioned who would pay for improvements. Associate Planner John Livingstone answered that it depends on resources. The City maintains the entire right-of-way. As for existing landscaping, the City would work with property owners. There are a lot of variables. Ms. Joty Lulla: • Stated that the additional 10-foot is bothersome and that she would like to see some specifications about proposed restrictions m use of that 10-foot area. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 24, 2002 Page 16 • Pointed out that the road is in dire need of repair as every day another brick comes out. Chair Jackman pointed out that Heritage Lanes have access to grants to finance im rovements. P Commissioner Kurasch said that she is in favor of the Heritage Lane designation but questioned the need to be restrictive for the 10 feet of private property. Associate Planner John Livingstone stated that the dimensions given are approximate. Ms. Dawn Glajchen, 19100 Austin Way, Saratoga; • Said that she supports Heritage Lane designation but has concerns about further restrictions being imposed in the future. Director Tom Sullivan advised that to impose additional changes would require a series of public hearings before the Heritage Preservation Commission, Planning Commission and City Council before they could be adopted. These would be noticed meetings that have the same bureaucratic process. that has occurred with this proposal. Ms. Dawn Glajchen stated that it creates a more difficult process and that she would hate to see more restrictions at a later date. Commissioner Kurasch asked Ms. Glajchen to define restrictions. Ms. Dawn Glajchen said building restrictions including style of architecture. Commissioner Kurasch restated that the proposed Ordinance deals with the road and 10 feet of private property from the front property line. All that it results in is a review of proposed work. Questioned what it is about that review process that results in a restriction. Ms. Dawn Glajchen said that she has athree-foot fence now and she wants a larger fence in the future. Said that this is too open ended and vague and more definition would be in order. Cautioned that it would be easier to place more restrictions later down the line. Mr. Norm Koepernik, Chair, Heritage Preservation Commission: • Said that the intent is not to place restrictions on property but rather to preserve the only brick road remaining in Santa Clara County. • Added that another benefit is the ability to seek State grants. • Assured that there are no major restrictions intended with this Ordinance. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that many in the audience seem to support the concept of preserving the road. Asked Mr. Norm Koepernik if the 10-foot review area on the private property enhances the ability to obtain grants. Mr. Norm Koepernik replied yes. It would give the City more clout with the State. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Norm Koepernik if he sees any need to intensify restrictions on Austin Way in the future and asked him to describe for those in attendance the process they might have to go through with the Heritage Preservation Commission. v Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 24, 2002 Page 17 ,~ Mr. Norm Koepernik said that there would be no intensification in the future and that the Heritage Lane Overlay would not affect the review of people's homes. The present Ordinance on fencing is already in effect. There would be no restrictions on planting. Added that the Heritage Preservation Commission is more user friendly than the Commission. Commissioner Kurasch stated that the HPC would not prohibit but rather simply review proposals. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Norm Koepernik if the HPC is prepared to write up the commemorative signs. Mr. Norm Koepernik replied yes. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Norm Koepernik if there are any estimates on the costs to restore Austin Way's brick road. Mr. Norm Koepernik replied no. He said that all repairs would have to be put back to brick standards and no more asphalt patches would be permitted. Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 9:56 p.m. Commissioner Barry said that Heritage Lane designation has significant benefits and not a lot of_down sides. Proposed add the following text to the draft Ordinance, "and subject only to the following..." and "...construction (for example fences, walls or drainage) Commissioner Roupe stated that he has no problem with the added language. Commissioner Hunter said she has no problem and supports the proposal. Stated that the brick road is wonderful and is a piece of history. Commissioner Kurasch said the term "significant" is a problem for her and needs to be more specific. Director Tom Sullivan suggested "any drainage, fences, walls and paving." Commissioner Barry suggested using "hardscape" and added that nothing is said about plants. Chair Jackman proposed "significant construction such as drainage, fences, walls and paving." Commissioner Roupe reminded that existing structures are grandfathered and repairs can be accommodated. Director Tom Sullivan advised that this is in the Zoning Ordinance already. Commissioner Kurasch: • Asked if the requirement for review of activity within the 10-feet of private property would remain or not. She added that she was not sure this additional 10-foot area for review was necessary. • Said that she wants the public to be aware of pending Council hearings on this matter. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 24, 2002 Page 18 .;. Commissioner Barry said that if staff feels it is necessary to have review authority over the 10-foot private property area adjacent to the public right-of-way; she is willing to support them. Said that this will help with the securing of grants. This Ordinance is as good as the Commission can get it before passing it on to Council. - Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation to Council to designate all of Austin Way as a Heritage Lane to preserve the existing brick roadway, that was built in 1904 with the added text as follows, "and subject only to the following..." and "...that an_y significant landscape, paving or construction such as fences, walls or drains within 10 feet..." AYES: Barry, Hunter, Jackman; Kurasch and Roupe NOES: _ None ABSENT: Garakani and Zutshi ABSTAIN: None DIRECTOR'S ITEMS *** Director Tom Sullivan suggested that the Subcommittee on Streamlining take up the issue of timeliness in receiving written communications. Chair Jackman said that the Commission can't read so much material at the last minute. COMMISSION ITEMS Site Visits Commissioner Barry brought up the timing of site visits and asked how 11:30 to 1:30 worked. Commissioner Kurasch said that it was better for her. Commissioner Barry asked if the Commission was willing to try this time one more time. Commissioner Hunter said the timing is inconvenient as it breaks up the day. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the notice for the next site visit has been prepared yet. Director Tom Sullivan replied not yet. Commissioner Barry asked how 2:30 to 4:30 p.m. would work. Director Tom Sullivan said that the Commission could try 2:30 to 4:30 p.m. for the August 13`h site visits. • Commissioners' Retreat r Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 24, 2002 ~` Page 19 ,~ Commissioner Kurasch inquired about the dates for the Retreat and asked if it is still planned for a Saturday. Director Tom Sullivan said that the Retreat is typically held on a Saturday. An agenda is prepared and speakers lined up. Asked the Commissioners to call or email Kristin with bad dates to narrow the potential dates down. Tree Committee Commissioner Kurasch advised that the Tree Committee has meet and gone over issues. COMMUNICATIONS There were no communication items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chair Jackman adjourned the meeting at 10:17 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, August 14, 2002, to begin at 7 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • ~~~ MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 PLACE: 13601 Saratoga Avenue TYPE: Study Session -Saint Andrew's Facilities Master Plan ~~s Present: Chair Jackman, Vice Chair Kurasch, Cynthia Barry, Jill Hunter, and George Roupe. Absent: Commissioners Zutchi and Garakani. Staff: Christine Oosterhous, Associate Planner Chair Jackman called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. Scott Sheldon, applicant, presented the project. Commissioner Roupe inquired about enrollment increases as a result of the proposed project. He expressed interest in establishing a limit on the number of students and parishioners and/or conditioning the project to require Planning Commission review if increases in enrollment are desired at a later date. Commissioner Hunter expressed concern with establishing limitations on enrollment size. The Commissioners requested the acoustic and traffic study. The Commissioners inquired if the parking standards are based on square feet or land use. They requested more information about whether the project is meeting the parking standards required by the zoning ordinance. Commissioner Hunter noted the proposed landscaping throughout the parking lot and noted it would be an improvement. Commissioner Kurasch suggested tying in the proposed landscaping with the Heritage Lane streetscape by utilizing native trees such as Oaks. Commissioner Barry inquired about the flow of traffic. Chair Jackman asked how many cars can be accommodated during queuing. Commissioner Kurasch inquired about changes made to the bell tower from the original proposal. Chair Jackman asked about the bell ringing schedule. • ~I Commissioner Barry had concern about whether the existing neighbors would welcome the addition of a peal of bells to their neighborhood. She expressed interest in canvassing the neighborhood for feedback on the issue. _ Chair Jackman expressed an interest in getting a recording of the sound of the proposed bells. She also noted that if the bell tower were moved from its proposed location along Saratoga Avenue toward the center of the parcel it would be located closer to residences located behind the site. Commissioner Barry requested more information about an expansion the Planning Commission approved at Sacred Heart. Chair Jackman inquired if the auditorium would be available for use by persons and activities not affiliated with St. Andrew's school and parish. Commissioner Kurasch expressed concern with the height and mass of the proposed buildings and the amount of proposed floor area. Chair Jackman inquired about the distance between the buildings at St. Andrew's and the residences behind the site. Commissioner Barry commented that existing schools in the City are well screened by -- landscaping and expressed an interest in the same result with the proposed project. Commissioner Kurasch was concerned with the height and mass of the administration building and its impact on surrounding residences. Commissioner Barry inquired about the possibility of integrating the bell tower with the clergy building. Chair Jackman and Commissioner Roupe expressed contentment with the proposed location of the bell tower. Commissioner Kurasch found the height and size of the bell tower to be imposing. Commissioner Roupe inquired about an architectural detail on the proposed buildings. Several Commissioners expressed interest in matching the proposed roof color to the existing roof color of the sanctuary. The Commissioners liked the appearance of the materials depicted on the model verse the materials proposed in their packets. They prefer to see softer colors proposed to help blend the project into the natural environment. Commissioner Barry inquired about the proposed lighting for the parking lot. Commissioner Roupe inquired about the timeline of the proposed project. r ~~,~ i The Commissioners requested staff to research and compile the following information: ^ Existing use permits on file ^ Traffic study ^ Acoustic study ^ Site coverage data (existing and proposed) ^ Parking requirements ^ Data on Sacred Heart approval ^ Bell ringing schedule The Commissioners will notify staff upon review of the above materials as to whether or not they feel another study session is necessary. Meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m. • • • _ _ ITEM 1 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No.: 02-175 Location: 14480 Park Place Appellant: William F. Breck Applicant/Owner: Mitch Cutler/Owner Staff Planner: Thomas Sullivan, AICP Community Development Director Date: August 28, 2002 APN: - 397-22-051 Department 000001 APPEAL DESCRIPTION In Mr. Breck's Appeal Letter addressed to the Planning Commission, he states in the opening paragraph, "This letter is an appeal of the approval by the Community Development Director of footings within ten feet of an oak tree, approval of 5-foot wide concrete paving above the footings, and conditions placed on that approval." Staff has attached Mr. Breck's Appeal Letter for the Planning Commission's review. He states that his appeal is based on Zoning Ordinance section 15-50.110. The text of that section follows: 15-50.110 Setback of new construction from existing trees. No structure or pavement shall be constructed or installed within ten feet from any oak tree or within eight feet from any other tree, unless otherwise permitted by the approving authority. For the Planning Commission's benefit Staff has also provided the Zoning Ordinance Section 15- 06.67, which defines structure. The text of that section follows: 15-06.670 Structure. "Structure" means that which is built or constructed which requires a _. location on the ground, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of -- work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner. "Structure" includes retaining walls, decks, patios, swimming pools, and recreational courts but does not include a fence or a - wall used as a fence not exceeding six feet in height. (a) Main structure means a structure housing the principal use of a site or functioning as the principal use. (b) Accessory structure means a detached structure, the use of which is subordinate and incidental to, and customarily associated with, the main structure or the principal use of the site, and which is located on the same site as the main structure or principal use. The term includes, but is not limited to, detached garages or carports, cabanas, gazebos, arbors, sheds, and buildings connected to a main structure by a breezeway. The Saratoga Municipal Code does not define Pavement. However, it is defined in The New Illustrated Book ofDevelopmentDeflnitionsas: "Pavement (1) A created surface, such as brick, stone, concrete, or asphalt, placed on the land to facilitate passage; (2) that part of a street having an improved surface." The Zoning Ordinance states that fences or walls used as fences are not structures if they are less than 6-feet in height. The Planning Commission will have to determine that the second footing or the horizontal portion of the wall is considered paving for the restriction found in section 15- 50.110 to apply. It is Staff's understanding that this second footing will be covered with soil 000002 similar to the portion of the wall on the opposite side of Mr. Cutler's dwelling. If the Planning Commission determines that the second footing or the horizontal portion of the wall is not paving in that it will be covered with soil instead of remaining a surface, which facilitates passage then there is no appealable action. The Building Department has had along-standing golit`x of requiring a building permit for concrete or masonry walls over 4-feet tall. The act of requiring a permit for a concrete or masonry wall taller than 4-feet but less that 6-feet does not make it a structure. The Uniform Building Code exempts fences and walls under 6-feet tall from needing a building permit. Additionally, Staff is providing the Commission sections of the Municipal Code, which addresses appeals. 15-02.030 Appeals (b) No appeal from ministerial acts. No right of appeal to the City Council shall exist when the decision or action is ministerial and does not involve the exercise of administrative discretion or personal judgment pursuant to any of the provisions of this Code. 15-90.010 Appeals from administrative decisions. An appeal may be taken to the Planning Commission by the applicant or __ any interested person from the whole or any portion of an administrative determination or decision made by an official of the City pursuant to any of the provisions of this Chapter. 15-90.050 Time limit on notice of appeal. The notice of an appeal to the Planning Commission shall be filed, together with payment of the filing fee, within ten days after the date on which the administrative determination or decision is rendered. The issuance of a building permit is a ministerial act, as it does not involve the exercise of administrative discretion. Section 15-SO-110 allows structures and pavement to be placed within 10-feet of an ordinance protected tree if permitted by the approving authority. The appeal before the Commission is my administrative action to allow "pavement" closer than 10-feet of an ordinance protected oak tree. This assumes that the Planning Commission determines that the horizontal portion of the wall is indeed pavement. The sections of the wall in question are along the southwesterly (side) and southeasterly (rear) property line of the Cutler property. A permit to construct this wall was issued on June 26, 2002. Work on the forms for this wall has progressed. This wall will have been poured prior to the Commission's meeting date. Originally, this section of the property line was to ,have a 6-foot wood fence with a concrete footing. The 6-foot wood fence that had been originally proposed did not require a building permit. The footing for this fence was poured prior to Mr. Cutler deciding to continue the concrete wall. This original footing is not part of this appeal for two reasons; 1, there was no 000003 administrative decision regarding its ..placement and 2, even if there had been, the timeliness of -- the appeal would negate such an action. The footing or horizontal portion of the concrete wall is being placed on top of the original fence footing. Staff has attached a copy of the structural - section of the wall. Any damage to the tree roots will have akeady occurred. There is an existing 32-inch Coast Live Oak that is located on the southwesterly side property line in the front yard setback area. No wall construction or forming for the vertical portion of the wall has occurred in this area. Mr. Cutler's contractor poured the second footing or the horizontal portion of the adjacent to this tree after the STOP WORK NOTICE had been issued. There is a 24-inch Coast Live Oak on the southwesterly side property line, 30-feet from the rear property line. The second footing or the horizontal portion of the wall close to this tree had been poured prior to the appeal. The forms for the wall have also been constructed in this area and the wall poured. There also is a 20-inch Coast Live Oak located approximately 5-feet away from the rear yard property line and about 70-feet northerly of the intersection of the side and rear two property lines: Construction of this section of wall has been completed.. The damage to structural roots mentioned in the appeal letter was the damage that had occurred to the Monterey Pine tree that had been subject to a previous appeal made by Mr. Breck wherein the Commission denied the appeal and upheld the previously issued Tree Removal Permit. In Mr. Breck's appeal letter he states that the "bridging" was unsubstantiated. I would ask the Commission to direct their attention to page 2 of the Apri122, 2002 Arborist Report prepared by Barre Coate. The fifth paragraph states, "It should be noted that during the installation of the wall footing that the buttress roots were left intact by "bridging" them. This will certainly be significant in reducing the degree of effect the process has subjected the trees to, but will not change the loss of absorbing roots or damage done by equipment to remaining absorbing roots." It is apparent that the City Arborist recognized that the bridging had occurred. While it is only a fine point, Staff would point out that Barre Coate makes `recommendations" not "requirements." Please see page 4 of the referenced Arborist Report. These recommendations became requirements when the Planning Commission denied the appeal of the issuance of the Tree Removal Permit. Some of the Arborist recommendations have occurred, clearly some have not due to where the wall construction activity must occur. Mr. Cutler maybe able to better elucidate exactly what has occurred. Alternatives If the Planning Commission determines that the second footing or the horizontal portion of the / wall is "pavement" then the Commission has two choices. 1. The Commission may allow it to stay in place, as the Commission becomes the "approving authority° under the provisions of 15-50.110. 2. The Commission may require the removal of second footing or horizontal portion of the wall for a distance of 10-feet from the tree. 000004 ,b If the Planning Commission determines that the second footing is not `pavement" then the appeal should be dismissed as the neither a structure nor pavement has been placed within 10- feet of a oak tree. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Staff recommends the Planning Commission first determine if the horizontal portion of the wall is pavement. If it is not considered pavement,-there is no basis for the appeal. 2. If the second footing or the horizontal portion of the wall is determined to be pavement Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Administrative Decision to allow "pavement closer than 10- feet to an oak tree because the removal would likely cause more damage than leaving it in place. ATTACHMENTS 1. Mr. Breck's Appeal Letter ____ 2. April 22, 2002 Arborist Report 3. Structural Section of the Wall 4. Resolution Denying the Appeal S. Site Plan D~~o~s • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . •~ 000006 '~:.. -- - - JUL 0 3 2002 July 3, 2002 - To: Saratoga City Planning Commission - - Attachment 1 This letter is an appeal of the approval by the Community Development Director of footings within ten feet of an oak tree, approval of 5-foot wide concrete paving above the footings, and conditions placed on that approval. The property in question is located at 14480 Oak Place., Saratoga CA, owned by Mitchell and Tracy Cutler, living at that address. This construction are in question involves both past and filed future construction of the right (southern) side of the property, all along a five foot section abutting the entire right side property border, and the rear property border. The grounds for the appeal are failure to apply the following City Code item: 15-50.110 Setback of new construction from existing trees. There are several protected trees that have two rows of ten-foot deep excavations, rebar piers, five foot wide horizontal rebar mesh, and 2-3 foot deep, five foot wide concrete pavement installed right next to and abutting their trunks. Approval of both the footings and the paving are being appealed as a violation of 15-50.110. Unsubstantiated claims about "bridging" the buttress roots are being made by the property owner and several City Officials, yet a letter dated March 28, 2002 from the property owner's own arborists documents that several "anchorage coots" of 8-12 inches in diameter were removed during construction. It should be noted that even if bridging had been done, which is doubtful, it is still in violation 15- 50.110, which makes no mention of "bridging." Additionally, City Arborist Barrie Coates required several tree protection and remediation measures to be installed and maintained, in a report dated April 22, 2002 for 14480 Oak Place. The Community Development Director has not required on that permit that these measure be installed prior to any construction, even though Barrie Coates stated that the measure must be put in place immediatply_ We are appealing the installation timing of these measures, relative to any construction activities. The permit did not specify that the measure must be in place (and inspected) before any construction begins. - ~- OOOt~07 Background It should be noted that construction and associated tree damage occurred in this area months before any permits were approved. Further, many requests from several neighbors starting since January 2002 to require tree protection fencing for all protected trees at the site have not been installed. Further, no City review of the-protected trees on the site was performed prior to any construction on the site. Further, the property owner has been cited for cutting down three protected trees on the site without a permit. Further, the City Arborist has documented in two reports extensive tree damage or destruction that has occurred to several additional protected trees, including many trees owned or cxa-owned by most of the nine neighbors. Further, the property owner has threatened the Community Development Director that he will damage all the surrounding neighbors' protected trees if the City requires tree protection fencing. • Further, there are related appeals to the City Building Appeals Board involving several Building Code violations and improper permit procedural processes - associated with this appealed permit, including: The issued permit is in violation of City Code 16-05.030 (g) (g) The building official shall not issue any permit to any person who has failed to correct any previous violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter, or arty code adopted by this Chapter, or arty other provision of this Code relating to the project, after notification of the same, until such time as all such previous violations Gave been satisfactorily corrected; provided, however, the building official may issue such permit if the violation is being corrected and will be completed by a time designated by the Building Official. (Ord. 71-193 § l (part), 1999) There are many recent and verified Code violations at 14480 Oak Place, none of which have been satisfactorily corrected. Signed, William F. Breck 2037 Saratoga Los Gatos Road Saratoga, CA 408.857.8000 _ bill@deriveit.com • oooao8 •~ BARRIE C. C ATE and ASSOCIATES HortiCUtur'ai Consultgrtts 23535 Summit Roed Los Getos. CA 95033 408135 1052 Attachment 2 A CONIlI~NTARY ON THE EFFECTS OF PERIlVIETER WALL CONSTRUCTION ON TREES AT 14480 OAK PLACE SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Steve Prosser Public Safety Officer. City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 • Site visit by: Barrie D. Coate Consuhing Arborist Apri122, 2002 Job #04-02-070 • ~~~~9~~ MAY 0 2 2002 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNrfY DEVFIAPNQ~M OOOt~O9' A COMMENTARY ON THE ,CTS OF PERIMETER i1VALL CONSTRUCTION ON ~ 7~T 14480 OAI: PLACE -. SARATOL'rA Assignment I was asked by Mr. Prosser to accompany him. to 14480 Oak Place in Saratoga on Monday morning, Apri122, 2002 to inspect trees that would be directly affected by the recent installation of the footing for a perimeter wall. We were accompanied by the owner, and his engineer. Summary There are six trees which I was asked to inspect for this report. Two of them are Monterey pine trees (Pimrs rudiata), three are coast live oaks (Qriercus agrifolia), and one is a black oak (Quercus helloggii). Three of these trees are on this property, and three are immediately adjacent to the wall location on adjacent property. I do not have a plot plan of the property so tree locations shown on the enclosed sketch are at best approximate. The information gathered from this visit included trunk diameter, approximate tree height, approximate branch spread, approximate distance from the adjoining wall or wall footing. A surveyor's plan will be necessary to display accurate location of the trees in question. All six of the trees reviewed are in good to excellent condition at this point, the two Monterey pines having abnormally short shoot growth but having a sufficiently full canopy of foliage and sufficiently normal foliage color to be described as quite normal in appearance. Monterey pine #4 has six turpentine beetle infestation sites at the base of the trunk, the exit tubes being typical of current seasons beetle activity. Tree #3 a fine coast live oak, although having an unbalanced canopy is nonetheless a healthy tree whose minor structural problems can be solved by pruning. This is a co-owned tree with approximately 30% of its trunk on the neighbor's property to the east. Coast live oak tree #5 and black oak tree #6 are both on the neighbor's property to the north. The construction of the approximately 3 foot wide footing which I was told is 12- to 14 inches of depth and whose upper surface is between 12- and 16-inches below surrounding natural grade will have caused loss of up to 30'/0 of the absorbing root mass' and as a . resuh will have been responsible for damage done by the construction equipment which ' Richard W. Harris, Root Physiology PREPARED BY: BARRIE D. COATS, OONSIII.TIIdO ARBORLST APRII.22,2002 • • • ~OUV~.V _ A CpM~NTARY ON THI EC1'S OF PERIMETER W.AI.,L CONSTRUCTION O? ,ES AT 14480 OAIC PLACE 2 . SARATOGA Y excavated the trench and formed the footing walls and poured the concrete for the footings as well as the loss of absorbing roots displaced by the trench. Summary In using the 7's edition formula as produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) as amended for use in the Western Chapter ISA, these six trees are valued at $49,531. - I would estimate loss of a minimum of 10% of the root mass of these trees, independent of the damage done to remaining roots by construction equipment and personnel and would warn that Monterey pines #2 and 4 could decline and die over the next two years from bark beetle (Ips paroconfusus), as a direct result of this root loss and construction activity if immediate, consistent irrigation procedures and other root protection efforts are not employed. If the applicant wishes to remove pine trees #2 and 4 and replace them with an equivalent value ($6,770) in native trees, I suggest he be allowed to do so. It should be noted that during the installation of the wall footing that the buttress roots were left intact by "bridging" them. This will certainly be significant in reducing the degree of effect the process I-,~as subjected the trees to, but will not change the loss of absorbing roots. or damage done by equipment to remaining absorbing roots. Discussion On Monday morning Apri122, 2002, I reviewed the effects on trees at the 14480 Oak Place, with Steve Prosser, Public Safety Officer. We found that the six trees along the perimeter, which I was asked to review for this report, had_all been severely affected by the construction of the footing for the cement wall, a portion of which wall has already been constructed. It should be understood that trees #5 and 6 are on the neighboring property, but half of their canopies extend over this property, and thus those trees are also impacted as much by this construction activity as are the trees whose trunks are entirely on this property. In addition, tree #3 is a co-0wned tree, having one-third of its trunk on the adjacent property to the east. Specific information about each of these trees is included in the enclosed data accumulation chart as a result of my measurements of these trees on site on Monday the 22°d. Construction Damage In order to understand the degree of damage done to these trees one has to understand the physiological structure of tree roots, including those of Monterey pine and native oaks. PREPARED BY: BARRIE D. COATS, CONSULTING ARBORIST App, ~ 2002 0000.1 A r.AMMEN'rARY ON THL ECTS OF PERIMETER WALL, CONSTRUCTION OT .E.S AT 14480 OAI: PLACE SARATOGA The enclosed schematic will show a typical root system of most trees, including these two species and will quickly demonstrate why the installation of a 12- to 14inch deep footing of 2'/~ to 3 feet in width whose top is below the existing surrounding grade will have caused such a deleterious affect on the ability of these trees to absorb water and- minerals. It must be clearly understood that a broad platform of roots is produced by most tree species with the absorbing root tips emerging upward from 1- to 3-inch diameter roots into the upper 6- to 12-inches of soil surface, these roots being the only portion of the trees root system capable of absorbing water and minerals. In other words, the excavation of approximately 2 foot deep trenches for the installation of these 12- to 14-inch thick wall footings will certainly have removed all of the absorbing root tips in the areas of those installations as well as the 1- to 2-inch diameter roots from which those absorbing roots arise. In the case of the coast live oak, the trees may recuperate from this activity and resume normal growth and flo~.uish. There can certainly be no guarantee of that, nor should it be assumed that will happen, since this sort of damage often leads to gradual decline and eventual death of the trees over a period of 5-10 years. This condition relates to the trees health, not structure. I was asked if these trees would die and fall over? These are two entirely separate questions which_require two entirely separate answers. A trees ability to maintain health is based entirely on its ability to absorb water and minerals by absorbing root tips and to carry those materials through healthy vascular tissue to the foliage canopy of the tree. When either these root tips or the vascular tissue are disturbed the trees ability to absorb water and minerals are disturbed in direct proportion to the amount of root mass removed. In the case of Monterey pine there is an additional hazard since absorbing root removal results in the attraction to the weakened Monterey pine by, first, turpentine beetle (Dendroctonus valens), and secondly pine bark beetle (Ips paraconfusus). These two beetles, when combined are the most common cause of death of Monterey pines in most inland areas and specifically in Saratoga. The first instance of turpentine beetle has already begun to appear this spring in the base of Monterey #4 and since we have seen evidence of unusually early pine bark beetle in other parts of Saratoga, I would assume that this early turpentine beetle activity is a direct result of the root damage done by excavation and installation of the wall footings. PREPARED BY: BARRIE D. COATI; CONSULTING ARHORIST qp~ ~ 2002 000~~~ A COMMENTARY ON'rHE ~CT3 OF PERIMETER WALL CONSTRUCTION OT ES AT 14480 OAIti PLACE ~ _ SARATOGA Note that the six turpentine beetle infestation sites at the base on the north side of tree #4 (coincidentally on the same side in which roots were damaged by wall footing installation) are all fresh and typical of current. not previous years, activity. The white coffee ground like fi'a.ss which is kicked out of the tunnels by the adult beetle are obvious evidence around each of these turpentine beetle exit tubes. As a result of this activity, I would expect the Monterey pines to gradually weaken over this summer and possibly next summer, but to die as a result of these beetle infestation which themselves are a direct result of root damage. Recommendations for trees which are to be retained: 1. I suggest that all fill soil be removed to 3 feet away from around the base of any tree in which soil has been filled above original grade like Monterey pine tree #2. 2. That a platform buffer, composed of a 4-inch layer of tree chips or other coarse organic material be laid over all areas beneath the canopies of these trees, those chips to be covered with full sheets of 1'/.-inch plywood, tied together to prevent slippage to prevent fiuther soil compression. 3. Soaker hoses be installed halfway between the trunk of each tree and its canopy dripline, beneath the platform buffer. 4. And that these soaker hoses be run for one day every other week, starting as soon as possible, to rewet the soil in areas where compaction will have pre~•ented easy access by oxygen and water into the soil. After two months reduce the frequency to once per month for the remainder of 2002. 5. In addition, Isuggest-injection of a combination of Mycorrhizal beneficial bacteria into the root zones of the trees by drilling holes on 3 foot centers to inject MycorTreeTM Root SaverTM MycorrlZiza! fungi3 into the root zones of the trees by a certified pest control applicator. 6. The Monterey pines should have a sprinkler set at the base of the tree to irrigate away from the trunk into all areas beneath the canopies in addition to the soaker hoses previously discussed if they are to be preserved. The soil should be moist to at least 12-inches of depth but not saturated. 7. Since oak bark beetle (Pseudopithiphorus agrifoliae) are attracted to oaks whose roots have been damaged, I suggest spraying all of the effected oak trees this month, with a systemic insecticide such as Cleary's 3336wpTM or by injecting a systemic insecticide into the root zone such as Merit® as soon as possible. . z Platform Buffer s MyicorTree~ Root ScverT~ Myicorrhizal fungi PREPARED BY: BARRIE D. COATS, CONSULTIIVO ARHORLST APRII. 22.2002 OOO~i3 A COMMENTARY ON THI F.CI'S OF PERIMETER Vr ALL CONSTRUCTION OP ;ES AT 14480 OAK PLACE SARATOGA It has not been demonstrated that Merit® systemic insecticide injections are effective at controlling pine bark beetle in pines, and so injection-into the pines root systems cannot be recommended. Conclusion I would expect the two Monterey pines to gradually decline over the next two summers and die within that time period. This does not necessarily mean that they will be candidates for falling over during that time because they seldom fall due to bark beetle infestations until they have been dead for at least one full season. For this reason, I would recommend claiming the entire value of those two Monterey pines as losses. I suggest claiming 20% of the value of each of the oaks as loss due to the removal of 10% of the absorbing roots and compression and oxygen starvation of at least 10% more. The oaks are valued at $42,761.20% of that is $10,690. I remind staff that these trees could decline over the next several years and that a more objective way to value the proportion of loss is an evaluation of their condition two years from now, the proportion of loss to be calculated at that time. To accomplish this, I would have to take pictures of the canopies at this time to provide a comparison for later use. Enclosures: -Tree Data Accumulation Chart Guide Lines for Tree Protection Richard W. Harris, Root Physiology MycorTree'''"s Root SaverTM Mycorrhizal fungi Platform Buffer Photo Sketch BDC/sl PREPARED BY: BARRIE D. COATS, CONSULTING ARBORIST Respectfully submitted, ~.~ B D. Coate APRII. 22, 2002 • • • +JJOOai4 Jobe: Oak Place Sarato a !;. 1 Job Address: 14 0 Oak Place, Saratoga y'• . Job #04-02-00 A Ill LL LW l Mea surem ents Con dltlon Pr unin Cablin Nee ds PestlD iseas e Pro blems R ecom mend . BARRIE D, COATS and ASSOCIATES Noel3s}la5s 3>s3s:,.~al~We W GM^, G !9030 sY 8 ; tslaM Nama ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ y >- ~ ~ ~ ~ 8y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ vii s ~ R~ ~ F ~ ~ ~ V ~ z ~ c~3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z N ~ ~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ... _ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N a ~ ~ ~ ~ a F ~ z ~ 7 • 1 Cast LJw Oak 32.4 35 55 1 1 2 Qusrcus ~ . In 824 X i27/sq. In. ^ ; 22,250 X sp. cb3ss 100% 122,250 X cond. 100% ^ i 22.250 X loc. 7091 i 1S 575 Toth Vdus 2 Pisa 35.1 80 35 2 1 3 Plnua ndab . M 884 X i271sq. In. ^ i 28,581 X ap. class 2091 f5,312 X cond. 8096 ^ i 4,781 X loc. 70% i 3,347 ToW Vaiw 3 Cant lJve Oak 24.0 30 44 1 2 3 . M 452 X i27/sq. In. ^ i 12,208 X aP. elan 100% 112,208 X cond. 90% i 10,987 X loc. 70% ^ i 7891 Tohl Vadia 4 I'kw 35.8 BD 33 2 1 3 2 . In 1008 X 127/sq. In. ^ i 27,184 X sP. class 20% ^ iS,433 X cond. 90% ^ i 4.890 X loc. 7096 3 423 ToW Valve 8 Coast tJw Oak 28.0 55 45 1 2 3 . In 531 X i27Jsg. In. ^ i 14,328 X sp. class 10096 ^ 114,328 X cond. 90% ^ i 12.895 X loc. 70% i 9027 Total Valve 8 sack Oak 28.0 40 40 1 2 3 Qusreua II . In 815 X 127/sq. in. ~ i 18,817 X sp. class 10096 ~ 118,817 X cond. 9096 ^ i 14.955 X loc. 70% ^ i 10,489 Tohl V^lu^ REpLAC6MENT TREE VALUES. ~j S-gal ~ S36 15-gal ~ s1Z0 ~~~ 24"box ~ X420 36"box ~ 61,320 X11 48"box ~ u' .~ SZ'box ~ 57,000 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST K~ • ~~ 6~ ;, A Commentary on the Effects of Perimeter BARRIE D. COATS and ASSOCIATES wall Constzuctron on Trees at 14480 Oak Place ao913531062 ~~R~ Prepared for. City of Saratoga ~,sc~e.,u ~aoo Stevc Prosscr, Public Safety Ol~cer HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANT Date: 22, 2002 CONSULTIlJG ARBORIST Job # 04-02-070 Tree numbers correspond to evalnation charts. All dimensions and tree locations oOO~„ are approximate. 16 Prepared ey Checked By: ~ISP.4 ~I. 5.,~". CONSULTING L~NGIN~FRJNG, INC. C tJT~_. ~2~,c~ r Uc• C - Date . l~ l .~-- ~_ ~ L /~#~cf boa' . !~!2 ~ S &G • fti ~ ~ B.Q ~ CEO of w ~ _ , ~~a~,EO . ~~~~ •r N lNTav iCL/2 3~~ •- o ~ ~ ,. 4_#S~ERT 1t1~ ~~ ~/Fr.S 1 tv~o • G 3'-4 a lap ~• t ~- .3 ° rSol"bM ~°~ 255 North Market Street, •Ec'3vsL //i ~ 7~ ~~EEp e rD _ppp.G • Attachment 3 z-~s~.e..,r_ ~T'~% f.~ #~.5C~~7: l~ol~ C / Z"o~. `...•- ~-a'~X C ~A G1-~ p~,~ c~-s SSE SEG• A -,~ ~~ r~x fs j,~/~ ';I$ ~~'' cGS' ' 2„ D~ ~~r ~oh'ELS ~^ ff °x~ ED ~" iNT ~ ~- C 3~ c ~o c,. j o~e~G~N ~[. ~~ Qg0"rLSS/pN~ ~~Q' ~ Aa I~ASS~•~F2 ~ ~' ~' " :~ c ~oac ~'• ~xr. c~na ,~= ,~* -vi~ • ~ ~, Ot CA1.~F ~/ ~~ ., 7?0 San Jess; CA 95110 Tele: (408) 999-6636 Fax (40S) X95-8638 N 1 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . • 000018 i Attachment 4 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. Denying the Appeal of an Administrative Decision Filed by Mr. Breck in relation to Allowing Pavement within 10-feet of an Oak at 14480 Oak Place CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an appeal of an Administrative Decision relating to allowing Pavement closer than 10-feet from an Ordinance Protected Oak pursuant to Zoning Code Section 15-50.110; 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 Planning Commission has determined that the burden of proof required to support said Administrative Decision had been made; and WHEREAS, the following findings have been made: ^ Any damage to the root zone had previously occurred when the fence footing was constructed. • ^ That additional damage would occur if the previously installed footing material were to be removed. ^ That the second footing or horizontal pomon of the wall is not pavement and as such the provisions of Zoning Ordinance section 15-50.110 do not apply. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the facts submitted in connection with this matter, the appeal of the Administrative Decision is hereby denied. Section 2. 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. 000019 i PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, S August 28, 2002 by the following roll call vote: - AYES: NOES: ' _ ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ArrEST: Secretary to the Planning Commission •i • ~0~~2~ • '^'i~ .,,,~N s • r -~~ NEW WALL Site Plan 0 ~~ Q U w W Vp AC 4-r TW ,1J V 1r .~ N N''~ ~/ w ILL. A, W ``'' i V c~ O O x d' Rockwood Design 14554 Big Basin Way Saratoga Ca 95070 ' 408/741.0169 Fz~ 408/741-5085 ~ uate:Aug. j 5, ?002 Orawn By: C. Clayton SCALE 1 " = 20' I 1 ~~ ~~ ~~'F ITEM 2 " C B~~ OO Q ° ~ oOCrL~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA; CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868-1200 Incorporated October 22, 1956 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Christine Oosterhous AICP, Associate Planner DATE: August 28, 2002 SUBJECT: DR-00-OS1BSA-00-003: 13800 Pierce Road; Walker COUNCIL MEMBERS: Evan Baker Stan Bogosian John Mehalley Nick Streit Ann Waltonsmith At the July 10, 2002 Planning Commission meeting, application number DR-00- OS 1BSA-00-003, to construct asingle-family residence on a vacant lot, was continued to the August 14, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. The project was rescheduled to the August 28, 2002 meeting because the August 14, 2002 meeting was cancelled. The project was continued on July 10, 2002 to allow the applicant to install accurate story poles and for the applicant to consider design alternatives which would reduce the size of the proposed second-story. The Planning Commisslon also requested additional information pertaining to site slope under the building footprint. No design alternatives have been resubmitted by the applicant. Staff has received a written statement from the applicant for the Planning Commission to consider. The original staff report, meeting minutes, applicant statement, slope graph, and letters of opposition are attached for your information. ATTACHMENTS: A. Staff report dated July 10, 2002. B. Minutes dated July 10, 2002. C. Statement from the applicant dated July 16, 2002. D. Slope graph provided by the applicant. E. Three letters in opposition to the project. • ~~'~~~ c • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . • 00000 • _ Attachment A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: BSA-00-003; DR-00-051 / 13800 Pierce Road ApplicandOwner: Thomas Walker Staff Planner: Christy Oosterhous, Associate Planner ~~-' Date: July 10, 2002 APN: 503-30-002 Department Head: i• i~ 13~3UU fierce Koad oc~ooo3 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 • C7 • ~~JOOQ04 File No. DR-00-OSI/i I-00-003;13800 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 RE(2UIRED: 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. ~UOrD45 File No. DR-00-OSI/~ 1-OD-003;13500 Pierce Road P d ropose Code Requirements Maximum Allowable Lot Coverage: 23% 25% Building Footprint 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.' 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. 1Floor 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 slo pe (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)). 00000 Rile No:'DR-00-051/BSA-00-003;13800 Pierce 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 (HIt). 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 1979. 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~ File No. DR-00-OSI/~ i-00-003; 13800PlerceRnad 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 carnage 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. v~~Q~ File No. DR-00-OSICi 1-00-003;138['0 Piei ce Road Building Site Approval The project requires building site approval to construct on a vacant lot subdivided more than 15 yeazs 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 Cleaaance. 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 s~stantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There aze 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 conjlict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of propert,~ 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 insuj~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. • ©~~~09 File No. DR-00-OSlI~ .1-00-003;13800Pierce 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. • • ~d~~~~ Attachrr~ent 1 ' APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. XX-x:~X CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA 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. • ~~~~i~ File IVo. DR -00-OSI/~ ~ -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 Llillside 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. • ~~~~~~. File No. DR-OD-O.~~i/~ ~-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. 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. ®00013 File No. DR-00-OSI/1 1-00-003; 13800 PlErce 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. • _E~Oaa~~4 File No. DR-DO-OSI/~ ~-00-003; 13800Plerce-Road ' _ 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 ofrthe 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 attorney's fees, incurred by the City of held to be liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 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 10`h day of July 2002 by the following roll call vote: • ©~Q~d~s File No. DR-00-OSl/1 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ~-00-003; 13f~Q0 Pierce Road 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 • ,floQ~~~s - BARRIE D. C~ .TE AND ASSOCIATES - Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 Attachment 2 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE WALKER PROPERTY 13800 PIERCE ROAD SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Community Planning Department Mark Comiolly 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 TREE SURVEY AND PRESEF ~ 'iON RECON[MENDATIONS AT THE WALKER PROPER'I _ , _3800 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 structwe 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; l 1, 12, 14 Tree #2 Trees #3, l6 - Trees #8, 10 Tree # 13 Tree # 15 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Valley oak (Quercus lobata) California black walnut (Juglans hindsii) English walnut (Juglans regia) Hybrid oak (Quercus species) California black oak (Quercus kelloggii) The health and structwe 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 Fine Specimens Fair Specimens Marginal Poor Specimens S ecimens S imens 4, 11 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 2, 15 l4 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 procedwes recommended here are intended to limit damage within accepted horticultwal PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST NOVEMBER 2, 2000 • • • TREE SURVEY AND PRESER 7ON RECOMMENDATIONS ~ AT THE WALKER PROPERT, .-800 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~otential 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 #S 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 not 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, 2090 ~~1~~9 TREE SURVEY AND PRESE PION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE WALKER PROPERI ..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 are intended to reduce the extent of construction damage to acceptable levels, so that retained trees can reasonably be assured of survival without decline. If any changes to these plans occur during construction, the following may require alteration. 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 minimum height of 5 feet, mounted on steel posts driven 18-inches into the ground. Fencing must be in place prior to the arrival of any other materials or equipment and must remain in place.until all construction is completed and given final approval. The protective fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. 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 any tree where this cannot be achieved, I suggest a project arborist be retained to determine acceptable locations. A 2-foot section of each trench adjacent to any tree must be left exposed for inspections by our office. _ _ 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 ~D~ilr+i~ TREE SURVEY AND PRESE rION 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. Any pruning must be.done by an ISA certified arborist and according to ISA Western Chapter Standards. 9. Landscape pathways and other amenities that aze constructed under the canopies of trees must be constructed completely on-grade without excavation. 10. Landscape irrigation trenches, which cross a root zone, and/or excavations for alry 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 S 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. 12. Lawn or other plants that require frequent irrigation must be limited to a maximum of 20% of the entire root zone and a minimum distance of seven times the trunk diameter from the trunk of oak trees. 13. Bender board or similar edging material must not be used 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 bark, 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 are in the path of dischazge. The discharge must be directed a minimum of IS feet to the side of the trunk of any tree. 17. 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 bark. This must be done by an ISA certified azborist 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 Standards, Seventh Edition. ~ Z~4 i (S~e. chum{~ 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 4 BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST NOVEMBER 2, 2000 ~Q~~21 ' T.iEE SURVEY AND PRESS rION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE WALKER PROPERT , .13800 PIERCE ROAD, SARATOGA `- secured within 60 days of the issuance of permits. Acceptable native tree replacements are: Coast live oak - Quercus agrrfolia Valley oak - Ouercus lobata Big leafmaple -Acer macrophyllum California buckeye -Aesculus califorrrica 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. MLB/sl Enclosures: • R~ ems. 'tt ~~ Michael L. Bench, Associate Barr oa e, opal 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 ~OaJ~2 ~„ Job Tit e: Walker Job Address: 13800 Pierce Road Job # 10-00-265 i ~ ~ nn 1 1-L-VV Measurements Condition Pruning/Cabl ing Needs PesUDisease Problems Recommend. BARRIE D. COATS ` and ASSOCIATES W ~ ~ ' ~ v w ~ W ~ N O~ Q = ~ ~ 1 (408) 3531051 ~ ~ w '~ ~ ? v z ! i ~ W ~ #o ~ ~ ~ ~; "' o ~ u' ~ w W 13535 Sannni Road ~ ~ w u_ I ~- = ~ C7 ? ~ ~ z ~ t ~ I ? ~ ~ ~ o I O Z ~ = ~ r U ; o: ^ I o: ~ N ~ ~ O ~ Las ('aloa CA 95Q30 ai ~ ~ ~ !' ~ ~ ; ¢ = w { Q z t w ~ r' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 ~ ~ I g ~ ~ 1 i a , ~ W 1 } ~ (C i ~ z i~ ~ O ; ~ ~ O ~ F, ~ , a. ~ a W ~ Z ..~ i O i C W ' J J 3 ; LL i~ i J ~ i x ~ x ~ W ~ i xU' ; W i D: QQJ ; ~ i ^ ; K ' Z ' ~ ~ ~ O ; ~ ' 1 0 ; ~ ~ ~ O ' O ;.J ; Z U ; W 1 ^ ' 2 ' !- 1 ~ ^ ; ^ ; O O Key # Rlant Name ; o ~ ~ m ; ' m ; ^ ; W ~ a W ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a, , W , Q , d' ~ to ; R { ~ ; ~ ; O 1 0 W ~ W ~ W W ^ ^ x v i x i x c .a c i v ; v ; o: v a ? ; ~ ~ ^ ; t- ; 0: I o: z ; z ; ~ rc 7 oast Live Oak 12.0 ; ~ 14. 30 20 1 2 3 I ; ; ' ~ ' , ~ ' ; ~ ~ , , ~ ~ ' ' ~ ; ; , . in 113 X $27lsq. in. _ $ 3 052 X sp. Gass 1009'° _ $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 = ; ; ' I I ~ ; ~ ; ~ ~ ' ~ ; ; ~ ' ; ; ' . in 139 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 3,753 X sp. Gass 309'0 = $1,126 X cond. 90% _ $ 1,013 X loc. 80% _ $ 811 Total Value 9 Coast Live Oak 11.0 ~ x 3.0 ~ ~ 1214 ~ 40 ~ 20 1 ~ 3 4 ~ ; 2 ' ' ~ ~ ~ ; ; i ; ; ~ ; _ j ~ i j ~ ~ ' I . in 95 X_$27/sq. in. _ $ 2 565 X sp. Gass 100% _ $2,565 X cond. 75% _ $ 1,923 X loc. 70% _ $ 1,346 Total Value 10 En lish Walnut 10.01 x 8.0 6.0 ? 18 ~ 30 ~ 40 1 2 3 ~ i ; ; ' ~ , ' ~ ' ; ; ~ i ~ ' t , . in 118 X $27Isq. in. _ $ 3,186 X sp. Gass 309'0 = $956 X cond. 90% _ $ 860 X loc. 70% _ $ 602 Total Value 11 Coast Live Oak 19.0 ~ 22 ~ 55 40 1 ~ 1 ~ 2 ; ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ' ' ; ; ~ ~ ~ 1 ; 3 ' , ; ; ; . in 283 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 7 651 X sp. Gass 100% _ $7,651 X cond. 100% _ $ 7,651 X loc. 75% _ $ 5,739 Total Value 12 Coast Live Oak 11.0 ? 13 25 20 2 1 3 ; t ' ; , ' ' ; , 4 , ' ~ , . in 95 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2 565 X sp. Gass 100% _ $2,565 X cond. 90% _ $ 2,308 X loc. 60% _ $ 1,385 Total Value . Q r~ P.1 REPLACEMENT' TREE VALUES ., 5-gal = $~ 15-gal = $120 24"box = $420 36"box = $1,320 48"box = $5.~ 52"box = $7,000 .,.,,,~ _ air nn~ 1 =BEST, 5 =WOKS"T ..~ _ n . ,... ~ ._~ ~ Job Title: Walker Job Address: 13800 Pierce Road Job # 10-00-265 > > -2-nn Measurements Condition Pruning/Cabling Needs PesUDisease Problems Recommend . BARRIE D. COATS ui o v and ASSOCIATES ~ W w ~ o ~ ~ ; ~ Z ~ ~ ' ~ v ~ W = NN - ~ W ' ~ w ` ~ J ~ Q ~ > 408 353 1 ? ~ W Q `~ q ~ ( 1052 ) ~ ~ LL ~ ~ c~ z ~ ? O ~ c~ ; O ~ w ~ ~ O ~ ~ ; ~ o ~ N ; w 23535 Summi Road v ~ ~ w ~ ; P1 ~ ~ ~- w ~ ~ Z ~ z ¢ W Z ~ z ~ ~ Z ~ ~ O O ~ g ,~, , 7 z .- Q ; ~ ~ ~ ~ J ~ ~ ; 2 O . les Cale, U 95030 ; ni ; ~ ~ ~ rr z . i Q ~ + ; x w ; Q ' z ~ w a W .- ; 3 U ~ p t v W ~ t g J Q ~ ~ ~ ; W a W ~ ~ ~ W r- x ; ~ O ~ O U Z ; F- ; ~ ; Z ; Z ' W ; 2 ; Z (.7 ; ~ ; fn ; ; p U ; O ; W F W ; ; ; ~' , W ~' x a ~ j ; t ~ ( ~ O ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ 3 i ? ~ U F- U , U , ~ Y ; U ; U fn (A ' f > g 3 ~ ~ ~ m ~ m ~ ~ w LLl ; a ¢Q W ~ ~ ~ O ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ; J ; Z ~ w ~ Q ; ~ N W ; ~ aOQ ; W Z ~ -- ~ O ; ~ O O w O ; O w w ~ Key # Plant Name O ~ ~ ~ o ; O ~ O x ~ cn x cn ; ~ x v ; v ~ v ~ U ; o! ; U ~ a ? ; ~ ; O ~ ; o: ~ ~ x z ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ 1 Coast Live Oak 12.0 ~ ~ 13 ~ 25 ~ 25 2 1 ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ , ; Querous a rifolia ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ; ; ; ; ; ; . in 113 X $271sq. in. _ $ 3,052 X sp. Gass 100% _ $3,052 X cond. 90°~ _ $ 2,747 X loc. 80% _ $ 2,197 Total Value 2 Valle Oak 9.0 ; x = 8.0 ; 5.0 ; 12\6 ; 40 30 1 ~ 4 5 ~ ; ; ~ ; ~ ; , Quercus lobate , . in 99 X $27/sq lin. _ $ 2,673 X sp. Gass 100% _ $2,673 X cond. 75% _ $ 2,005 X loc. 70% _ $ 1,403 Total Value 3 California BIaGc Walnut 23.0 ; ~ ; 24 ; 50 ; 50 1 3 ; 4 ; ; ; ; ; S ; Ju lens hindsii ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ; . in 415 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 11,212 X sp. dass 109'° = 51,121 X cond. 75% _ $ 841 X loc. 80% _ $ 673 Total Value 4 Coast Live Oak 20.0 ~ , ~ ~ ~ 21 35 ~ ! 45 1 ~ 1 ~ 2 ; ; ~ ~ , ; ; in 314 X $27/sq. 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 t 5.0 ; 16 30 25 1 ~ 3 ~ 4 ~ ~ , _ ~ ~ ~ 3 ; ; ; ; ; in 177 X $271sq. in. _ $ 4,769 X sp. class 100% _ $4,769 X cond. 75°~ _ $ 3,577 X loc. BO% _ $ 2,861 Total Value 6 Coast Live Oak ; 9.0 ; x ~ 8.0 ; 1019 ; 25 ~ 25 1 2 ~ 3 ; ~ ; ' ; , sq. in 89 X $27lsq. in. _ $ 2,403 X sp. class 100% _ $2,403 X cond. 90% _ $ 2,163 X lac. 75% _ $ 1,622 Total Value ® REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES . A 5-gal = $36 15-gal = $120 24"box 0 36"box = $1,320 1 =BEST, 5 RS'T ~J 48"box 52"box = $7,000 , ~Ll 77"ti~~ = 41 S f1(1(1 Pa PP 1 rif '1 ob ~e: Walker ob Addr ~ ob # 1~0-265 J ess:1~S00 Pierce Road J J 11-2-00 Measurements Con dition Pruninpl Cablinq Needs Pestl Disease Pro blems Recommend . ARRIE D. COATS I I ~ , = I I I ~ ~ I I I I I I I I I I I : I i I I I I i ! : I I = I ~ ~ I I I I I ~" o ~ { I , ~ i E nd ASSOCIATES , ~ , I , , LL '; i , _ , ,o, ~ ~ , ; i ~ I I Z ~ ° I I -- I ' 'n W I ~ W ' W ~ ! ~ ' , , ' Q ~ o ~ ~? = (408)3531052 ~ ~ i 7 I W ' ~ I LL - 1 i ~~ ~ ~z I ~ F I O O ~O la ? I? i~ ; ~ ; Iw I't ~ O i i O ~ ~ I ~ ~ 7!y "' l O '!~ ( 1 O ~, ~ w ~~ m ~ 235355nmo~Road ~~ w I N I q 1? I z I z t o ? 1 3 W K t o 0 ~ ~ .. I} . 1 ~ x ~ ~ .~ I z Las G~to~ G 95Q10 ®I~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ Q -_ z ~ ~;?~ -+ x w ~Z W w ~ IC i a ~ f 3 a °i~ O gig ~ ~''i ~ ~ o. ' W I} i ~ ~ W i m I ! o I = I~ x~ O! o U~ F I D: I ~; w z E ~ O N i b ~ o i o ~ O O 3 ~ ~! LL ~ p F I I I W ~ Q Q x' J I O~ z z z ~~~~ 3 z u~ ~~ O z i Z O ` ~ ~ m m W ~~ 7 Q ~ Z ~ O O~ O J O ~~ m ~ W W W O Z q~~ H H O O O W O i 0 W C1 O Ke # Pl N ~ ~ I W o 1 ~ p v ~ ~ v v{~ v a ? ~ s ~ ~ ant ame y o ~ o o I o x I f 2 t c i x c i - - D ~ i z ~ 13 ti 43.0 x 26.0 57 60 = 85 1 . 3 4 1 Quen;us ecles ~ ~ 1 ~ 111 i I i 1 = II! ~ ~ ~ ~ I , . in 1717. X $271sq. 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 1 ~ ~ 22 ~ 50 ~ 35 3 € 2 ~ 5 ~ _ ~ ~ I I 1 I I . in 346 X $27lsq. in. _ $ 9,347 X sp. Gass 100% _ $9,347 X cond. 60% _ $ 5,608 X loc. 60% ' _ $ 3 365 Total Value 15 California Black Oak 18.0 ~ j 21 50 3 40 1 ~ 4 5 ! j Quercus kello ii ~ , I I ~ + t ~~ , . in 254 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 6,867 X sp. class 100% _ $6,867 X cond. 60% _ $ 4,120 X loc. 70% _ $ 2 884 Total Value 16 California Black Walnut 19.0 ~ I ~ ~ 20 ~ 20 15 2 5 7 ~ I ' l I i ~ I t I ~ ~ I ~ I ~ , . In 283 X $27lsq. in. _ $ 7,651 X sp. class 10% _ $765 X cond. 30% _ $ 230 X loc. 70%' - $ 161 Total Value ®. I Q REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = $36 15-gal = $120 ~' rJ 24"box = $420 36"box = $1,320 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST ~ f'~ 48"boz s $5,000 52"box = $7,000 72"box = $15,000 Pa Re 3 of 3 ..8. . M - -~ i ~~ r_~ \ i ~ "~'pe ap. Oat ~ SO Bp 516' / ' -' 16 , ~~ ~ • I -`- --- N07"EC"I'IVE FENCING ~ fir: _ ~ )-- vROPD",. ~'vcE 1 a„„a D. co,sa I 4 Assocu[as (bB)353~I052 _-r.: scam aaa Raerrnius Rawmmmbri,r- Ai 3ha wa6r H wnY•~3Ba0 P~aa RaW z3s3s sammit Ro,a los Gabs, G 95033 -- MTad ~' _____-__ -. _._.___ __.___ NORTIIUITWtAI CDMSULTAM CONSULTING ARBORIST Ci1Y afSrrppa Nanaiy per, DAiE: Pa>.<mBer I, 2000---~~-- SULE: m n ~~ b IIO-00~163 Trsx numhcrs corruposd w evaluation chaos All ditrensin¢ and vee bcatiorts etc apptDaitttatc. t ~fOO~ffillt I / i~ i . ~ - -- -~-i__ ~ ~ . w ~C TSB LLN -_ ~~ _ 3 ,,,,~ ~ • ~' I / y(F~~ -6- _. _~ / an x• PROTECTIVE FENCING ,(~ / / ~~~ ~/~ / Nom: ~¢QP9 ~,~~ j Pt SITE PLAN u apwnappuu rua damrps Yap anpaarrap arrayaarwn Sw Grti apMiwrap aa~Ypa. ' ~~ ~ _ 12 '1 \ 14' ~~ PIE[ZCF ROAD ~ 4 ~ Inl DII a ' 2,5 YT H ~2• W OV E ~ * ~ ' ~ / ~ , F\Y a ml aacY W Wa[a _ PROTEC"FIVE FENCING / / ~!~/ ~~ ` di ~. ~ \ _ _~~~d v~~N. \` u~mamr n.•ow sraYr ~~ama a4n s cn.o, ~ ~ ~ ..__. U a' a~ 3 t.t a~ ~ II ~I ~ I • i~ • ,~Pe~A °oG Fl._i DEPARTMENT ~~ SANTA CLARA COUNTY ~ FIRE "` 14700 Winchester Blvd.. Los Gatos. CA -95032-1818 COURTESY •SERVICE (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 CODE/SEC. i SHEET I 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. ~~ Appendix ~, 2 Required Fire Flow: The fire flow for this project is 1,750 gpm at 20 psi residual ~I -A ~ pressure. The required fire flow is not available from area water mains and fire I I hydrant(s) which are spaced at the required spacing. I uFC I 9os.z - 3 Required Fire Flow Option (SinQlee Family Dwelling 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. 90 2 4 Required Access to Water Supply (Hvdrants)• 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 of 2 SECJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION By ueiuc nc oon icrT I Residential Development Hokanson, Wayne LUGATION SFR-WALKER 13800 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 Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga ©~~~w -- , ~ ~~P oi.axa e°o ~a ~ FIRE '~ COURTESY 6 SERVILE FI~_,G DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos. CA 95032-1818 (40$) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.org CONTROL NUMBER v BLDG PERMR NUMBER n c PLAN REVIEW NUMBER 00- L69~ FlLENUMBER DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS CODE/SEC. i SHEET NO. REQUIREMENT i 9o2C2.2 5 Fire Apparatus (En~ine)Access Driveway Required: Provide an access driveway 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 conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet D-l. uFC 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 i Standard Details and Specifications D-1. - 901 4.4 Premises Identification: Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all I 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. i6 ls.llo ~ 8 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. 14 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 i Saratoga Standards. City PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST. TYPE AppllcantName DATE PAGE STG ^ ^ ^ ^ ^_ BRITT ROWE 10/26/2000 2 2 SECJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION of BY NAMF AF PRRIFf'T Residential Development Hokanson, Wayne SFR-WALKER 13800 n 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 Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga aoa~~s • ~~~~~ o~~ ;~~ ~3QA2699 - ~n. 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 9~~~`0 • 1200 . M w~ ~A1 Incorporated October 22, 1956 ~ ~: ~' ° Baker ~ ~~: ~ Stan Bogosran. ~' ~~ John Mehaffay , TRANSMITTAL -CITY OF SARATOGA ~_ . N;c~.sy,~~ ~_ ~ ; : - - TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY GEOLOGIST CITY ARBORIST S.C. VALLEY WATER DISTRICT SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT / S.C. COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT SAN JOSE WATER CO. 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: ~ ~ n~1 ®(3(3Q~9 Printed on recycled paper. • - ... STANDARD DETAILS & SPECIFICATIONS SUBJECT: Specifications for Fire Sprinkler Systems in single family dwellings in excess of 3,600 square feet SCOPE Spec No ~ '~-4 Rev. Date 06/03/99 Eff. Date 08/ /97 Approved By Page 1 of ~_ 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. DEFINITIONS 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 Onc-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 area 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). cv`~.+ ~ ~~ °~,~ FIRE DEPARTMENT • SANTA CLARA COUNTY m FIRE '` 14700 Winchester Blvd • Los Gatos • CA 95030-1818 • (408) 378-4010 ~,.....~ ODa~ #~ SD & S SP-4 Pa~e~,, 2 of 3 Attics, crawl spaces, or concealed spaces, with a greater than 22 inch by 30 inch~tandard 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 13D 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). ooaa~s SD & S SP - 4 - Page 3 of 3 Residential Fire S rinkler S stem Control Valve Dia p y gram Street • ooao~~ Attachment ~ • RESOLUTION N0.02-0.24 Application #02-058 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 Ciry 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 Ciry 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. *~~ T-a~~-t~~l,a-Friiline of rl,r~l~~ ~ t "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. • Figure 1: Maximum vertical height from finished floor of the level above basement to adjacent grade. _ - On hillside lots, as defined in Section 15-06.420(e), only the portion of space where the- ©04~u3 finished floor directly above the space is more than 42 inches above grade at any point along finished floor 42" ~~ ~ basement i Building 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 ~ ~~ i Floor Basement ~ Area ~~ Area (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 azea on hillside lots. As used herein, the term "grade" shall mean either the natural grade or finished grade adjacent to the exterior 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 aze subject to the requirements of Section 15-80.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 square feet or greater addition -- to the second story of a main or accessory structure. QQQQ t~ (3) Addition of a basement to an existing structure and enlazgement 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 clearance. The Applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a Geologic and Geotechnical Report prepared 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. D~a~~~ PASSED AND ADOPTED by the. Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga, State of California, this 8`h da~~ of Ma}~ 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Garakani, Jackman, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: ABSENT: Chair Barry ABSTAIN: Chair, P g Commission ATTEST: Secretary to the Planning Commission Q~~".7~~ Saratoga Planning Commission. .nutes of July 10, 2002 Attachment B Chair Jackman reminded that there is a 15-day appeal period. __. . *** _. PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 DR-00-051 & BSA-00-003 (503-30-0021 -WALKER, 13800 Pierce Road: Request for Design " Review and Building Site Approval to construct a two 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) Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Stated that two letters in opposition were received today and distributed to the Commission this evening. • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review and Building Site Approval to allow a two- : story single-family resident on a 20,000 square foot vacant lot. The floor area would include 3,609 square feet and an attached two-car garage. The maximum height is 26 feet and the zoning is Hillside Residential. • Said that the project meets all necessary findings except for privacy impacts. Staff is recommending some modifications to mitigate privacy impacts on the adjacent neighbor to include the replacement of French doors with 2 foot by 2 foot windows; the elimination of the wraparound front porch on the right side and the inclusion of fast growing landscaping. • Added that there is no fencing proposed at this time but that the applicant has been made aware of the requirements for both corner lot and Hillside District fencing standards. • Recommended approval with the requirement that Council must adopt the recently modified Basement Standards. Commissioner Barry asked Planner Oosterhous to review the two letters received. Planner Christy Oosterhous stated that one email from a Ms. Dora Grans, 12451 Old Oak Way, is asking the City to adhere to the Specific Plan mandates. Commissioner Roupe asked how this application holds up to Measure A and the Specific Plan and whether is conforms to requirements. Commissioner Barry stated that this parcel may be a legal non-conforming lot. Measure A calls for one building unit per two acres on a flat lot. "' Commissioner Roupe pointed out that similar projects have been approved. Director Tom Sullivan advised that the Hillside Residential zoning district was created as a result of Measure A. Stated that as long as a project is consistent with the Hillside Residential zoning requirements, it will also~e"consistent with Measure A requirements. Added that this parcel has been a lot for some time and that it was previously approved for a house. ©oa~~~~ Saratoga Planning Commission. .nutes of July 10; 2002 Page 8 Commissioner Kurasch stated that the Specific Plan states a parcel is exempt if it was created prior to Apri125, 1978. She asked when this parcel was created. Mr. Tom Walker, Applicant, 13800 Pierce Road, Saratoga, replied that the parcel was recorded in 1956. Commissioner Roupe asked staff if this parcel is then exempt from Measure A. Director Tom Sullivan responded that the parcel is exempt from the minimum parcel size since it was recorded prior to adoption of Measure A. Chair Jackman pointed out that a letter signed by five neighbors on Pierce Road is asking that the rural character of their area be preserved. Director Tom Sullivan stated that this parcel pre-existed 1978 and is exempt. Even if a lot line adjustment is processed, it will not lose its exemption. Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:12 p.m. Mr. Michael Rowe, Britt-Rowe, Project Architect: • Stated that this is a unique lot. • Pointed out that this proposed home is 800 square feet smaller than the 4,400 square foot home previously applied for in 1979 and incorporates a walkout basement style. • Said he was available for questions. Commissioner Roupe said that this is a difficult lot with its topography and expressed concern about the privacy for immediate neighbors. Asked if Mr. Rowe would consider the use of translucent glass for the dining room windows, which overlook the neighboring property. Mr. Michael Rowe replied yes. Commissioner Roupe pointed to page A-4 of the plans and asked for clarification that the retaining wall would--be-five feet high. Additionally, he asked if the retaining wall would encroach in the sideyard setbacks and sought assurances that Mr. Rowe would agree_to meet retaining wall requirements. Mr. Michael Rowe replied yes. He added that on the title there was a public easement on the private street, which is not permitted. The Title Company removed that easement and this gave them more room to meet setbacks. Commissioner Barry asked how far the house would be-moved. Mr. Michael Rowe replied about 10 feet. Chair Jackman asked if the retaining wall was near Pike Road. Mr. Michael Rowe replied yes. Commissioner Kurasch asked what the maximum slope was in the buildable area of the lot. ~04'~~~ Saratoga Planning Commissioc. _ .nutes of July 1Q, 2002 Page 9 Chair Jackman asked the significance of the two story poles, specifically the taller one. Mr. Michael Rowe replied that the taller pole represents the back ridge. However, the story pole is actually five to six feet taller than the house will actually be. - Commissioner Roupe said that a reduction in height would take away some of the imposing character. Commissioner Garakani questioned the stick placement on one side. He said that he measured it out and the placement does not match the plans. Commissioner Barry said that she had concern about the height and that a possible reduction by five feet from the height depicted on the existing story poles, may work. Said that it was hard to determine. Mr. Michael Rowe said that the size on the construction plans is accurate and assured that the pad would have to be certified as being at the proper elevation prior to construction. Commissioner Garakani stated again his problem with the placement of the sticks on the property. Chair Jackman agreed that the Commission cannot envision something that's not correctly portrayed. - Commissioner Roupe said that the purpose of story poles is to help determine the impact on the Hillside. Agreed that Commissioner Garakani has raised a legitimate point. Chair Jackman agreed that she could not support if the markers are not correct. Planner Christy Oosterhous said that the staking should be done by a licensed surveyor. Commissioner Roupe said that the Commission cannot envision this project based upon the story poles provided. Director Tom Sullivan advised the Commission that it would need to develop specific standards for minimum story pole requirements. Commissioner Roupe stated that for a difficult site such as this .one, the story poles need to be more precise. Commissioner Barry said she shares these concerns. Added that there was no applicant or representative on site for either Commission site visit, which is unusual. Mr. Dave Dennis, 18735 Cabernet Drive, Saratoga: • Said that he hired the contractor to put the story poles up and was not given a lot of criteria for the installation. They had two story poles and an outline of the borders and reminded of the difficulties in this installation due to the heavy brush in the area. Ms. Jean Lundeen, 13810 Pierce Road, Saratoga: • Thanked the Commission for their concern over her privacy. • Asked that the Commission work to conserve the rural atmosphere of her neighborhood. • Expressed thanks for the efforts of the Commission. ®OaJ?9 Saratoga Planning Cumm~ssior. .nutes of July 10> 2002 Page 10 Commissioner Roupe asked Ms. Lundeen if the removal of the wraparound porch, the modification of the French doors to be replaced with two foot by two foot windows at header height and an agreement. by the applicant to use translucent windows in the dining room, thus equaling no view onto her property, would satisfy Ms. Lundeen's privacy concerns. Ms. Jean Lundeen replied yes. Commissioner Kurasch asked Ms. Lundeen if she agrees that this proposed home is large and imposing and out of character for this area. _ Ms. Jean Lundeen replied yes. Mr. Tom Walker, Project Applicant: • Stated that he obtained a Building permit in 1980 but was issued a red tag. • Said that he came to Council meetings for over a year. • Added that he was never notified that his permit expired and he understands that a permit expiration cannot occur while a red tag is in effect. • Stated that he has acted in good faith. _ • Said that he should not have to pay fees again. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Walker for the average slope under the structure and questioned if there is any way to shift the house away from the hill and neighboring property. Mr. Tom Walker replied that perhaps the home could be moved forward to Pierce and down to Pike but that this change may impact trees. Commissioner Roupe cautioned that there may be setback problems. Commissioner Kurasch expressed concern about the slope on which they would be building upon. Director Tom Sullivan advised that the slope beneath the home would be 24 percent. Commissioner Kurasch said-she questions the actual slope of the building pad. Commissioner Garakani reminded of the three setbacks on this property, two at 30 feet and one at 20 feet. Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:52 p.m. Commissioner Barry: • Advised that she has no questions at this time but is not ready to support this project tonight. • Suggested a Continuance to allow better story poles to be installed. • Stated that she is concerned that this home may be too massive for this site. Commissioner Roupe: • Said that he shares those concerns and has trouble envisioning this house on this property. O04J!~~ Saratoga Planning Commissioi. .nutes of 3aly 10, 2002 Page 11 • Added that the story poles need to be close enough to give an accurate vision of what is proposed. • Encouraged the idea of a Continuance. • Suggested that the applicant attend the next site visit. Chair Jackman expressed concern over the size of this proposed home, as it does not seem compatible with the Hillside area. -~ Commissioner Garakani stressed the importance in having the story poles more exact. Commissioner- Kurasch: • Agreed with the need for better story poles. • Said that this proposed home does not fulfill the intent of the Hillside area in size and compatibility and six neighbors have sign a letter in agreement to that concern. • Suggested both a Continuance and redesign of this proposal to deal with issues of size and scale. • Asked that the applicant and City confirm the slope under the footprint and that she would appreciate this being done to set her mind at ease. Commissioner Barry said that it appears all Commissioners want a Continuance and some want some redesign. Suggested that the Commission gives more specific direction and guidance as to what changes it would like to see. Commissioner Roupe agreed that specific direction on square footage and height should be provided. Chair Jackman pointed out that the maximum square footage allowed is 3,880 and the proposal is for 3,609 square feet. Commissioner Barry agreed that the applicant has met the Code requirements. Said that as a Design Review issue, it appears this house is too much for this lot. Said that it would help if the second floor were not as long as the first floor, which gives it a massive box-like appearance. Commissioner Kurasch agreed and suggested a reduction in the second floor element and in the actual size of the house overall. Chair Jackman asked if an approximate 15 percent reduction might suffice. Commissioner Kurasch suggested approximately 500 square feet. Chair Jackman said that this would allow approximately 3,100 square feet. Concurred that this house is too large for this lot. Commissioner Garakani expressed support for the 500 square foot reduction. Commissioner Roupe did not. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the Planning Commission continued consideration of a new home on property located at 13800 Pierce Road (DR-00-051 and BSA-00-003) to the Planning Commission meeting of August 14, 2002, to allow the applicant to install better story poles and ~~~~~1 Saratoga Planning Commission .nutes of July 10, 2002 ~ Page 1'' to consider design changes to reduce the size and bulk of the home, including reducing the second story, as well as to confirm the slope beneath the footprint of --~ the home. . _ AYES: Barry, Garakani, Jackman and Kurasch NOES: Roupe ABSENT: Hunter and Zutshi ABSTAIN: None *~* Chair Jackman called a break at 9:10.p.m. Chair Jackman reconvened the meeting at 9:18 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.4 APPLICATION #02-035 (503-72-014) - LIU, 14805 Masson Court: Request for an extension of approved plans to construct a 6,500 square foot two-story residence on a vacant lot. The maximum height of the residence will be 26 feet. The site is 87,712 square feet and is located within the Hillside Residential zoning district. The Planning Commission approved the previous Design Review application. The approval was appealed to the City Council by neighboring property owners. Council denied the appeal on May 17, 2000. (OOSTERHOUS) Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Stated that the applicant is seeking a 12-month extension of a Design Review approval to allow the construction of a new home. • Described the project as having a maximum height of 26 feet on an 88,000 square foot lot and would incorporate a modern style design. • Advised that the original approval was granted on December 8, 1999. That approval was appealed to Council. Council denied the appeal on May 17, 2000. • Added that the project received geotechnical clearance in 1999. • Advised that staff met with the three original appellants and have developed a compromise requiring the structure to be moved 18 feet to minimize visual impacts of this home on the neighboring properties. • Reminded that to date there have been seven public hearings on this project. • Recommended approval of this extension with two added Conditions. One that the building footprint be moved 18 feet laterally to the north with the requirement that further geotechnical review be provided. If following such geotechnical review this move is not possible; the structure would remain in its original proposed location. The second additional requirement is that the roof material be changed to asphalt shingle. Commissioner Kurasch asked if this is an Extension since the approval has actually already expired. Director Tom Sullivan clarified that the applicant filed in a timely manner but the approval has since expired. Commissioner Kurasch sou ht clarification that if g the geotechnical report shows that the move of the building pad by 18 feed is not feasible, it would remain in the original location. ®DO~~ ~ Jul-16-02 03e30P BajaMAR ATTN: City of Saratoga: Ms. Christy 4sterttous Planning Director, Mr. Tam Sullivan Members of the Planning Commission DATE: July.1 &2002 TIME: 3:55 PM FROM: Michael Rowe PHONE: 408.358.3820 PAX: x08.358.8701 RE: WALICF.R REStDEAICE: 13800 i"lERCE RQAt) 4083! Attachment C Dear ladies If< gentlemen, This letter is to respond. ~Stity 8 ipustrate how our proposed project is wail within the plaming guidednes and FAA altowar~es. There were some questions relating to FAR aatculations that were overlooked since no onQ, inetuding myself, thought that the size of the home was an issue, being that n was 280 SF under albwable, until the Planning Commission expressed their concern. So 1 would like to resolve the correct albwabte site of the strucxure based on this tot size. 1. The Planning Comrr>ission, the staff sport as well as my title sheet referred to the lot si=e as (.441 acres net). TMs calculatbn was based on the `Public Road ImprovemenC' easernern tar Pike Road which was determined tb be invalid by the Title Company since Pike Road is a "Private" road. The easement was removed from the site but not from the cabulations. This now makes the site (.594 acres gross) This site is doser to 2/3 an acre rather than ~ 12 an _. acre as stated by the Planning Commission. t did not Mother revising the site area calculations for the reasons stated in the opening paragraph. However, disagnerttent about the allowable size of the proposed home has developed and I would like to enter the oon+eet calculations as a matter of record to justify the size of the proposed structure. Site Area = .594 acres: (.694) 43560 SF - 25874.f4 SF Slope Reduction (306): 25874.64 SF (30%) ~ (7762,39 SF) SRe Area for FAR: 25874.64 - 7762.39. 18112.25 3F Area ~ 10000 SF: 18112.25 -10000.8112.25 or factor (8) Allowable FAR: 3200 SF • (8) 170 SF :Allowable FAR Maximum FAR: 3200 SF + 1360 SF = 4580 SF 2. FAR Calculations: Please see the enclosed diagrams, Qtigi»aNy, the former director of the Ptla~g Oepartrnant trt~rueted us to discou»t the area labeled as `Basement/5torage" from our calailations. This is noted by the "Yellow • T'd E6S8-LSZ 804 p1'1 RdoO Rea-K zeaS d40=40 ZO Ginif~~nC -OOaV~;~ 3u7-1fi-02 03:30P BajaMAR 4083668701 P.02 Highlighted° area on the diagram. Since the proposed protect t~Mom~s to the newly adopted basement ordinances (15-06.090), the entire width of the strucxure, which has a sub grade or tmdertioor arse less-than 5'-O' high shall be discounted: Therefore, our new diagram as submitted clearly illustrates that additional floor area in the lower level should be d'iseaunted in ca~ulating the edbwable FAR based on the new basement ordinance. Lawer t evel: Main Level: Toted FAR: -TOTAL FAR: Living Space: Garage: Basement' Living Space: 974.86 SF 471.71 SF (959.QH SF) 1877.07 SF f.iving Space: 2851.f33 SF Garage: 47t .7i SF Basement: {959.08 SF) not counted {i5-os.090) Proposed: 3323.64 SF Allowable: 4560.00 SF (see cede above) As you can see #rom ifiese -revised numbers, our proposed residence is actuatly 1205.66 SF under the siNowable, according to vodiFisd (HR) zoning ordinance -set forth by the ~dopbon of Measure ~A. 3. E-mail received from'l3ora Grans": tt was noted at the Planning Commission hearing that Ms_ Grans was personally invohred icr the adoption of Measure A. She above all people should know that the HA (Hillside) zoning ordinance was a direct result of that measure. The HR zoning ordinance restricts a maximum FAR based on the codified formula contained within the ordinance. Our prpposat is 10096 compliant to that ordinance. Due to the fact that she was invohred In the adoption of this measure, 1 am surprised that sh® would not _ icr~ow what size home could potentially be oonstrtx~ed on this site. The slope reductbn requirement contained with the (HR) zone is intended to counter balance the formula far calcutating allowable area as compared to chat of "ON FLAT LAND" as Ms. Grans poirns out. For example, a two acre parcel with 30% slope reduction simil8r to our proposal reduces the tot area for FAR formulation by 26136 SF_ Thy'reduction" is larger then our entire tot in gross areal Therefare, the formula is designed to be fair to all bts, fiat or sbping, under (HR) zoning and specificaly "Measure A" with respect to FAR calculations. The time #o voice a ooncem regarding aNowable floor areas was upon the adoption of Measure A. specifically the proposed FAR formula contained within, not the day of a public hearing, twenty years Eater. -- a. Letter from neighbors: 1 st of all there are not five neighs noted, but only four. AS you can see, two Of the spnatures reside at the carne address. As far as their Gaims of rur~ character ~ setbacks, 1 will address each bek~ar: • • Z'd E6SB-GSZ 60b P~1 s;do0 Rea-X ~e~S db0=i.0 ZO G inC ~~d~~~ Jul-~6-02 03:31P BajaMAR 4083b68771 a) Rural neighborhood: Endosed is a list of the houses in the immediate neighborhood, noting the sizes and addresses.-You can see that our proposal clearly tits within this "Rural" area not only bN direct comparison but also by t:ompllance with oodHied ordinances noted previously. In fact, there was a project approved in October of the year 2000 whiCtt is within 500 feet of our property. Th1s residence Is 5974 SF and was approved usir~ the SAME FAR forma calculation contained in the (HR) zoning ordinance that ws used, Project Fite: (DR-89-063) b) Setbatt:ks: Our proj9Ct complies wNh ail setbacks required for this zone, in fact, the interior akin yard setback is more than twice what is required. TI19 house rs "Slapped" In S@V@rsl tOkatrons, ~edfrcally the main level horn the lower level to txeate the porch which is Nlustrated on the plans. Remember, elevations are two dlrnensional representations artd can appear m be "t3lodk° NkA when viewed In a drawing, But when compared to the comeiating ik~or fan may appear very different in three dimensions and rectify. • This proposed residence ~ completely within the set forth planning ordinance of the (HR) htltside residential tone and as pointed out, aciuatiy 120!3 3F (t) smager than allowed. ~'#ie setbacks are compliant and with the owner's agreement to remove the side of the front porch, revise the French doors to 2020 windows, and to frost, stain or opaque the dining room wirulow, all privacy concerns Of the immediate and only adjacent neighbor have been. rr-itigated. Again, the FAR formula which governs and limits the size of structures has been adhered to with ample room to spare. The planning commission's concern of size poses a serious question. if any one of the neighbors in the (HR) zone desired a larger living space, the owners would use the same FAR formula we need to determine how much space hehshe could add to their existing dwelling. d the project fs mangle story, it might not even reach-the planning k:omrnission for review at all. Tt~ question Is this: "How can you legally prohibit the size ~ this residence, based on nothing but subjective opinion without codfied support, and potentially deny the applicant equal land use rights andbr privileges protected by the State of California, when such rights 8 privileges may be already enjoyed by other hillside r~esidOnts and/or exercised in the future?" E',d ££-S9-G-SZ 80i. ~~~ Rdo~ _Re~F-X ~e1S P.03 -d {.0-~b0 20 Li i~ ~O~~n!~ • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . • 0000 ~i Q - 4~ RS 1-, O Q f ro 'n b m a 0 M N N O r ~., t., RESI~EMCE F.F EL.521-- -'-" F.F EL.b2Z.p ~ ~ - C~~ itES I QEN . _ ~_ ''s. .. F/r" s~2:,0 - - ~ . ' T. S. 5 ~a _~' _,~ Job' Name : GRADIfVG SECTIONS VERTICAL SCALE: 1 inch = iO feet HER I ZaNTAL ~- CALE : 1 i n o h = 1 Cl f A A t. S, t THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . 0000~',~8 Attachment E City of Saratoga Planning Commission June19, 2002 Sazatoga, California - - Dear Planning Commission I received a Notice of Hearing from the Planning Commission this last week for plans to build on the empty lot next door to my home: DR-00-051 & BSA-00-003 (503-3--002) -Walker, 13800 Pierce Road __ I promptly visited the Planning Department to review the plans and have two main concerns: The windows facing my property look directly into my pool and only outdoor leisure space as well as into my master bedroom, which has-a large sliding glass door out to the pool. Although appropriate landscaping my in 5-10 years provide a screen, in the meantime my privacy will be severely impacted. I feel these windows are very much in conflict Saratoga's Design Handbook Policy 3. - My second concern is the housing density in this particular area. There currently are a relatively lazge number of buildings all clustered near this corner because of houses on small lots and 2 or more buildings on lazger lots. There are currently houses which are close to my property and look down on my house from every other view of my house. This new home would eliminate my only azea of privacy on my property as well as encircle my house with large buildings which is as I understand it contrary to Saratoga's Hillside Guidelines goal 9: "9. The rural character of the area shall be protected through substantially lower density and a compatible relationship between development and the land." May I please ask the Planning Commission to visit the location and review it with respect to my ability to enjoy my home and my privacy as well as the building density in this azea and how it fits in with the Hillside Specific Plan. Thank you for your ti e, Je Lundeen ' p C~C~C~O~~ JUN 2 4 2002 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY. DEVELOPMENT d~UO~~~ City of Saratoga Planning Commission July 1, 2002 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California Dear Planning Commission This letter is in regard to the Notice of Hearing from the Planning Commission for plans to build the following house: DR-00-051 & BSA-00-003 (503-30-002) -Walker, 13800 Pierce Road We understand the city of Saratoga and the Platuiing Commission are committed to preserving the rural chazacter of the hillside areas. As residents of Pierce Road , we specifically bought homes in this area because of the rural character with houses set back from the street and landscaping lazgely blocking the view of buildings.. We are concerned that this house may be lazge and.imposing as it is currently proposed much like the mega-homes on postage stamp lots in the valley. We ask that the planning commission preserve the rural character of our ,..:neighborhood and require a more subtle design and on a smaller scale . • We're not sure if the owner of this property may want to maximize his profits by building as large a house as possible but it doesn't seem necessary for the city of Saratoga to guarantee maximum returns on investments. It's hazd to believe the owner bought this small lot originally with the idea of putting a large home on it but rather is now trying to take advantage of the rising real estate mazket at the expense of the character of the neighborhood. We trust that you will review this design carefully in view of our concerns. Thank you, .,PC~cr~ o'er---• I3~0~'~efce ~~ cSc~31u~~ CCy.`iS~~ ~ ~~ i3~s~ ~~~~ ~. ~~~~~ r 3Z~ P~ ~ ~iZ'T174'k , C~!s, g s b -7v LJ ~ / uu JUL 1 0 2002 ~~ CITY OF SARATQGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMF.N~ ooa~~o Page 1 of 2 '.t From: "dora grens" <dgrensmarcom~webtv.net> To: <tsullivan~saratoga.ca.us>; <cooverhouscLDsaratoga.ca.us>; <GrammyEma~aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 3:40 PM Subject: Project corner of Pierce and Pike Rds. Re: DR-00-O51 & BSA-00-003 (503-30-002) Please accept my apologies for submitting my comments at the last minute. We've had a very ill dog (in our family, that's analogous to having a very ill child!) and time simply got away from me. When the permit for this project was issued in the late 1970s, there were much more lax parameters for building in the hillsides. With the passage of Measure A in 1980, restrictions were placed on the total acreage required for building a project in the mapped area shown on the petition circulated to place Measure A on the ballot. As you know, the Measure called out the preparation of a Specific Pan for the mapped area. This has been in place for 20 years. Unfortunately, depending upon the Planning (Community Development) Director, the Planning Commission, the City Council and the City Attorney in place at a given time, adherence to the ordinances derived from Measure A and the Specific Plan have been -shall we say -severely bent. I feel we are indeed fortunate to have honest and conscientious people currently occupying the above positions. And I would hope with the above described project that whatever adherence possible (given the size and topography of this lot) to the Specific Plan mandates will be required. For instance, the zoning (per the Specific Plan) calls for one building unit per two acres - ON FLAT LAND. This lot (and I realize it's a lot of record [am I correct in assuming it is a legal non-conforming lot?]) is 1/4 that size and is on an average slope of 20%. I have been under the impression that anything over 10% average is frowned upon. In addition, the amount of grading would appear (to me, at least -and I have known the area well for 40 years) to threaten the stability of Pike Road. And I feel that any sensible family living there would have no children in the family; I believe many of the kids growing up in this azea called the curve in front of the subject lot "Dead Man's Curve". And a final note - I have a VERY difficult time visualizing atwo-story structure of that size on a small lot of that topography. It's about ,~ 700 sq ft. larger than our home on an acre. Of course, we designed our home to fit the lot and the set-back requirements rather than rearranging the lot to suit a specific house! 7/10/2002 00001 Page 2 of 2 I do hope the Planning Commission will deliberate quite carefully about this project, given its location within the Specific Plan area and its topographic limitations. Best regards, Dora Crrens 13451 Old Oak Way 867-4239 • • • 004~~~ V' K" .r. _ `~ u • .__ -~~Ia o 01~ ~~~~•,: GENERAL NOTES: 1 BrItUAowe Is not responsible for the design coordination or impemanlatlan of 11. The projebl'Spaciflcation Booty' shell lake precedence aver noted , , any work performed by conSUIWnW, includirp Mil not limited to, structural specillcelions when applicable. engineering, 5011 engineering clv4 engineering, lenduepe archaecture endMr Title 24 energy compliance, 12. '~ &idlROwe is wt responsible for the design, coordination, or implementation o1 any end ell derlgn-build worN Including, bN rat limltetl W, Ina lollowing (UNO): 2 All work tlone pursuant to these Drawings and spetkicalion5 shell comply with all ordinances and regulations which apply to the work end shall In any a) Electrical: per NEC. (National Electric Code).. currem edition, case anlorm to the latest edition of the'Uniform Building Code' (UBC) currently enlorced antl all t i b) Mechanical. per UMC. (Unilorm Mechanical Code)...current edition. cl Plumbing: per UPC. IUndorm Plumblrrg Coder-current edition. curren c ty, munly, and state codes es applicable. d) Fke Sprinklers. per UFC. (Un4arm Fire Cade)... 8 NFPA slaMards. 3. Layout for new work is largely basatl upon relationsNps to exletirlg coMllions Any questions regarding the intent related to the layout of the new work shalt be Verity end address etldnional local ordinances and codas which may apply 10 brought to the attention of &ilthiowe prior to the wmmencement of any work. The cont the specific design-build applicetron as required. ractor shell immetllalely nolily &iltyROwe of ell disaepencles prior to the commencement of any work. 13. For specdic, detailed ronslruction procedures, requirements and materials, see sheets BP•I S SP-2lSpecilicatlonsl~ 4. Thecontreetor andor subcontractors are to veriy ALL existing crondilions before commencing with work in order to ensure wnlormarrce with Ina construction documents All requests for chan e orders shall be submitted in ~ 14. Civil, Soil, and Sauctwal Engineer s specilications shall take precedence over the following architectural specificatbns. WALKER RE S IDEI~~ g writing to BritllRowe for approval. 15. BrIIURdwe retains all rights and ownersMp of the'Conslructicn Documents' 5 Praferenca shag be given to IpuredlwrlUen dimensions on the drawings over and'Specilications", Those documents may not be used m whole or in part on sealed measurements The "Plans'.'General Notes'. and "Specllicelbns any other pmlect without expressed written consent from BrItlRiowe ere intended to agree and supplement one another. Anything indicated Inlon one and oat in the others shall be executetl as if in ell In cases at Olrecl 16. Governing Code (s)'. All work shall conlorm to the 1994 Unilorm Building Code , . ~ conllict the moll restrictive shall govern (UBC), 1994 Unilorm Mechanical Code (UMCJ. 1994 Uniform Plumbing Code . 6. Regardless of tlimensions shown all clew work shall algn xactl with exi tinj (UPC), editions as aDPlicable, Tha National FJectric Cade [NEC) 1993 edition & all local ordinenceskodes as applicable ~ 13 8 00 P IERCE ROAD , y l e s work with respect to floor elevations, column cemedines, well faces, etc., (UNO) t7. In addition 1o inspections as required by UBC seaion 108, the owner contractor ., 7. The intent of the "Conslruclion Documents' is l0 include all labor, matrsrials. e ui t d andlor structural engineer of record, ailing as the owner's egem, shell employ one or more special inspectors who shell provide inspections during S ARATO GA CA 9 5 (l7 0 q pmen . an aanspodatidn necessary for the complete end proper execution f construction on the following types of work per UBC section 1701 5 including, o the waN I but not limited to: , 8. All work shall be plumb, square, and true and shall be of good worNman~like quality as acceptable to the appropriate trade's Standard practices and (hose of a) Concrete: Where the structural design exceeds a (Fc) of 2500 PSI. the trade's council's andor organizations' h) All on silo structural welding, Includkg welding of reinlorcin9 steel. c) Drilled piers, caissons and structural masonry. _ 9 Any work andlor earn not specifically celled for in the drawings, but required for a complete end lolly functioning installatbn consistent with the intent of the 1B The awnerMeveloperkhenl reserves the right to make alterations to the 'Construction Documents shell be supplied by the contractor aridbr sub- design(s) during the course of conslrumion as applcable. All changes shall be approved by the local building ollicial as applicable. In any case, all changes ~ - cunaactors as required. shall conlorm to the UBC. UPC, UMC, NEC 8 UFC es required Atl changes 10. &elaiowe is not raspon5idle for the erection, fabrication, and/or relallve job' shall be documemed oy a wrilten'Change Order' and shall be approved by the ownerydevebperklient B Contractor(s). I safely- The contractor shall comply wiU all required safely orders Der CAL-06HA requirements and regulations. ,, i - -SHEET INDEX: GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION: ARCHITECTURAL DRAWING SYMBOLS: PROJECT CONSULTANTS: MATCHILEVEL LINE O WINDOWIDOOR SYMBOL BRITT • ROWE SHEE __- T INDEX: AO ' TITLE SHEET • GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION AI SITE PLAN A2 GARAGE LEVELFLOOR PLAN A3 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN A4 E%TERIOA ELEVATIONS A5 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSECTION AB FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS WEt GRADING 8 DRAINAGE PLAN Li ~ BUILDING DESKiNER CONCEPTUAL UNDSCAPE PLAN i OWNER Mr. Tom Walker David &iK 1134 Littleaak Circle San Jose, CA 95129 ~ BUILDING SECTION WALL SECTIONIELEVATION 108 N. Santa Cruz Avenue Los Gatos, CA 9503C 406.996.8966 ORAWING.REFERENCE ~ DRAWING REFERENCE 406.354.6224 PROJECT SRE 13600 Pierce Road A 70 T24 ENERGY CONS!iLTANT Sereloga. C 950 _ ~-~ COLUMN REFERENCE GRIDINDICATOR DETAILREFERENCE DRAWING REFERENCE FRANK IANNUCCI B ASSOCIATES APN 503 30 002 1 Mr. Frank lannucrJ-,Mr. Jim Sigler - - 21 Harrison Avenue TMCT ZONINO HR (Hillside Reddenliaq ~ /"""~~~ DIRECTIONAL NORTH ~ REVISION SYMBOL Campbell, CA 95008 LAND USE Single family Repdential ARROW(APPRX.) 406.666.1620 , LOTSD:E ~ 19209.96 SF (.441 saes) (.594 acresgross) ; LANDSCAPE ARCHR'ECT LOT SLOPE 20Y. (Average) WILLIAM DUKE LANi1SCAPE ARCH CONSTRUCTION TYPE Type V-N _ See additional legends located on the apecilic drawings . Mc William Ouke UBC OCCUPANCY GROUP R3 Wr erchftecturel symbols and representadons gyp.) , 1040 Arlington Lane Ban Jpse, CA 95129 SEIBACK9 Promded Requued 0062526495 I, front ln)3(y~0" 30'0" ( Rear (n) 25'-0' 25'0" ` I Rlghl Skle jnj 20'0" 20'-0' Left Side (nj WA wA VICINITY MAP: LOCATION MAP: BUA.DING SF (n) Living Q 1st 126023 SF (n) Uvinp ~ 2nd 1877.07 SF (n) Garage 47171 SF ~ , y ~ 3 I (n)Basemenl - 699-33- SF I I ',- I\ n, - 7* 'b emu, I a`~; wr. I Total Living Space 313T.d SF I. I ~-"~4 0ea~ Total Geroge Space 411.71 SF f;~~ BuiWin ~ Ground. 2431.27 (124( I . v.r ~"• 11..! ~ -a ' ~ "y i `i ~,t~ , ImperNOUS Coverage: 44319E (23%j I ~ , ~ fit/ ~) ~ pp ~ ~ ~ as _1 -s ~ ~ BUILDING HEIGHT (n)26'-0'To Highest Ritlge ~ ' ~~~ .,~~ ~ ~~xu N /q, SCOPE OF WOAK New Iwo story single lemily resi0ence one ~ ~ Sys ~ P ~ N7! rota ~ ~' " ~ ~o o~ sloping lot. House is set inW Nllsida with ~ 'w a basement area ®rear of structure. r /`Pi, ~ ~ 'v 1=' ~l]y r ,' >r ~~ ~ ~t `~ ° CITY OF SARATOGA FAR CALCS Net Ske area = .441 =19209.96 SF - L.' t~~~ - :-- _ _- .. 19209.9fix304=(5762.98 SFreductionj \ro-4R b 14arR ~ ~~ ~. a COMMUNITYDEVELGPMENT 19209.96 - 5762.96 =13446.98 SF _ 3200 SFv(41170 SF=8lBO SF allowable. ~<.~ ~ . (~ W a - ~ ~ ~ _ ~Aai ~ . ., ~. 1.~ v1 I • • ,~ _--- ___. --- - __. t • ____,__ ----_ _ ~- 111 UfIL ~ n ® ® BA7N:3 ^. ~t BABEMENTATOMBE I of E m' ~ _-' ~ __~I! 1 111 1 I II 11 • ~. BEDROOM:/ BEDIIOOM: 9 I GARAGE LI:VEI,I LUWER I~LUUR PLAN (( peS 17~1.712~23 SF BeeemardlSlaeOe: BBB.33 SF ,ur. lJ (~ m ABE ~BATH:Y BEDROOM:B F_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~ ,: I~ ~I ~ ~I \~ i ~ I ~ I ~ ~~ I I ~~~ I ~i I 1 ~~ I ~~ I I ~ I I // ~ \~ I ~ I ~~ ~ I i ~ i I I I I ~~„ I ICI I ' ~ I 1 I I -- ~ I I ~ i I h I I _-5~'10~___.._....-----fg_'----- ------~~~--------------- I 0 1 2 1 8 10 IA'.1'-0' flMGnd Floor: 580,5' BA~AMAR Michael A. Rowe 1&00 EnaleeooQ Aro. Loe Geta, CA 85032 IOB.35a3820Io8ke1 /OB.358.A701 Qal BelenrR88)eol.can ~~~~~(~~ ~ ,~~~8 SBF~b ~yy ~~~ aB `o~~B Gzi V W ~ ~~ O N Q~ r~ gam w mV~ an~m ~ ~~s 2 a ; , ~' 4 ~~e~ } Z Z 3 ~ a ; 0 0 ~ o 1~ • ---------~g$' ------- --. I__. ._____. B_9'_._. _____ 178'__,__....___._ 10e.959.9B20loreul 109.95&8701 peq BeJme~BeQed.can ~~~E~~~e ~B~~~a ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~a~e~3~s i --_a`4'-- - ---- 1@.~" ---- --- - ~"'-- _ ~ .. .__-tee---- . ts`i~--------- i~ -r~~ -- -t - --------- - - - - f- i ~ MAIN LEYFU IIPPEQ TLOUQ PLAN '~~ a 1 2 e ,e UIS1'Q LIv9q Spece:1e77.07 SF FinlshM ROa:571~5' BA~AMAR Michael A Rowe te100 EnObxvOd Aw. La Gero1, CA 86092 yyV I~r w ^"i ~ °n W W °C~~ VQ60 mU~p a'a ~rn ~~~g y~ N i Z g a 4 2 < 'a a N ~ ~ ~ m Z Z Q IW Q Q O O N p •~t~ ~~ (~ \..... r~ RE1'ISIONS D1' '`. ~ - i r, / ._ ....- --- - --- - - ._ - ,jj _ . ._ . _... y j ~ - - _ / ~ - . --- _. _ i •.. _ . - _._ _. /- ~''Q .. .. _. _~~. /i _ .. .. -. ~d.' --- -... 36'~igh min. ueraail0 -..._.hpnl porch. Sea - --- -- _ _.. ----- --_ _ / -~-\~' - - _ ---- - / J - - ~ ~ ,.)r i ~ ~~ 4 I it ~ - - I _ - OewreAve wlumns 0 am roh. - ----- ry~ Provide a34 water table drip eased 0 bus al ---~--- --.- ~ ~ ~ i ~ ...._-. _...--r- r r l ~f ~ ~ ~ ~~[ ~~ ~I ~; i I~~ ~ ~ 'I~~, ~ t _ i : ~_ -~ _ L III I~ l _ ~ G I I ! fl--ll ..: ~~i ' I~f 1 - j i 1~ I ~ ~~ ~L, 1 ~ ~ ~. ~ ' -- .. ~ ,1 II .. f - - ~ ~ l~ r I~ _ II ~' ; ~ II ~ I I I ~ _ '(_ . .. i ~ -~ ~ I I ~m I stmauro IMvd ~~ b ! ~',1~ ~ I T ~ ~!~1T ~ ~T ~ ! ~~ IT I ~I ~~ ~)_ ~_~1 _I I i n! ~ "'i ~ ~ j T~~' ` 1Tr ~ i~~j ~'I !: il, i i, ~ ,, I ~ i rjl ~, I f TI i ( if~~ ~. i ~~~ ~ ~~~.L~.l i,,~ 1111:~~ "l u 1,1 iL 1.1L'~ =1 _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _ ._ ---- -- ~r ~ II I - -- _ - ---- ~ J _ -~ - 5_ _. - - - Grade Beyond _ - _ - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~-~ _ 1, , .. ,... I Tl ~ .. -- r , -1 ,' _ ~I ~~~ ~ ~~ ~- ~ ~ ~ I~~ i t ~ ~ ~ If LL`_ii ~ I (I T f' I r~ , T 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ) ! ~~ ~ ~ ~~ , 'IQ j is-> __ l _~-- ~ il L__~I' ~i--~ I~~ I I i I 1 ~ l i I ~ _ :e=- - ~ - - ~i i ~ I i II III ~ ~ ~ i ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ u:_ ? ` _ z : - t! ,: t' ,, I , ~ i ~<<- n Ye:~i~: Cut atone (Stucco Stare) O from walb of 1c1 level d -- I ~----- I ll_.-_ Wrought iron entry stair I railing. I ~ F ~ ` ~~ ? 7 z d ~ 0 ' ~ `: landscape entry stair. I I '~ F- ,~' ~ ~ N(IR'I'flEAS'1' ELEYA9'IIIN (F1101YT) RDp•up doors l0 6lmulete __ J bem atyb doors 0 Garage 26g Msx-Rid9a ~'-.- " - ~-. ~- -.~..-......- '_~-. ~~ r.-~ _-- _.. .._ -`7 7:12 (rypd i Rool over LNing beyond rs ---------- below mss ridge helghl an other side of structure. T.~ --- DectlretHe Irelda 0 front - ---- - - ,: -` / ,, ~.•~ ' ,rte -''_ -"~ ~"._~ ~ ~... ° ._. a.~k,,, "lam ~ V W o ¢ ~ ~V a m ~ - porch. See eleveliona. i ~ ' -.~ ___ ~ \• ~ ~ N .. . ~ ~I ~ -- - / 3 ~ - _ - - _ _ -, - - ~ - --- - -- ---- - - -l ~~I I -- ~ ~~-~ Ir~ ~ ~1 l I ~~ ~! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I~ ~ l ~ ~, --, - I i~ ~ I ----.._ L _, ~_ ~ L._J ~-_ I 1 ~ ---__._ ~ Ff 0 2ndRrfeln Level I ~ - ~: ~ ' I ~~ ~ --- i~ ~_~>_ I i ~ I i i L----~ ~~ i ~~ ,} ~ I ~ ` - FF 0 2ndRdein Level I. rsde l°)/ - - ._. _._-.- - - -- ------~ --- _ - '~- -_ --_.--- - a I I -- ~. f n ~ I I /I III ~I (n) Grade andwepe retelning well -_. Line of let oval weYa Z Z O w = Provide dec ar boding to --..-. d ods e ro oe L ~uJ o I ._•._:-. - .,,. -_ - -- = 4 ! _ L.~ ~ - _ I \ _: 1 .., 5'~ me~Bi. halghL rd apace. - below grede (Iyp.) ', .. ,~ L , n w p p g I ~~ FF 0 tat level Slab ArcMlettuml stuao foam benddelail011oorline. ~ '~ F ~ f 5`. p ~ SIIIJ'PNEAST ELEVATION ~LEI.1' S111R) ~ f _CW alone (Stucco Slane) ..._ OefdeweA°"~,°atreet. NOR'1'NWEST ELEYA'l'ION (RIGHT SIDE) I~L~ ` • • NEVISIONti BY ICBO approved aperk - - --- ertettor 0 chimney IemYnelbne (ryp.) Dleae A, CenCrele foMSlp Gehle end veMe Ic provide _._ Cm atone (Stucco Slone) -"-- 0 etl Areplece cheaea __ bbe Iryp.l Cobr aelecled ---by owrbc Shade of nttb renlBallon per UBC. ' _ fNP) Neuhel grey. ----- ---- --------- 28'-S' Mau. Ridge HI. 2x peblled In¢le wbh 1x9 G.1. paroled guoere end - ~~~ ~ ~--~ /~ / IMIL ~ dowrepoNt (ryp.) _ ~ --TlB'aend Mlth elueGo iri 0 ll N -_-~s ~ , r _-.~ I ng t e wa s IIYDd ~ .__. .. _.._.__ __ ... - -._. -- .,. I -~ ~ 4~ 1 RootPltdl ~ i - .... _. ... .. - ~ ._-_ ,. . ~! . 4~ ~ .~ ~. i ~ ~ i .\ .., , t ~ ~ _ .._. _ .._ -_ ~_ _ . __ _ .. _. - ~ ...~ -_..__ .__... - __.. .. -. _ - ___ .. .. _ ~- ~ - . r--l ~ ~-- ,~ I r ~ I i ~. I ~~ ~~ ~~I ~ ~ ~ ~~ ,. ~ i ~i '~ ~ r I~ I ~ ~ ~~ ~ - i I ~ ~~~ I I i ~ ~ J ~~ ~~ 'I l. 1 L i r. . J i ~ L L ii m t .'Ir_:- i II l 1 I r _ _ _ - J I ~ ~.. _-...__ _. ~- ~ ~ - _ ~I `. _ .. i .... FF 0 2nNMain level Soor i ~ `} y . ~ l '. . .. - ~ _. - ~ .. i ~ x N .. .... .. ..... ( ~ F 4 i f F ~.;_e... _ ;~_~ j` ^ _ ~ • ~ Provide min 36'D min. I Archgectural stucco loam _ ' i e -• ' ------- landings 0 ell exterior moldng 0 window ails ~- ~- -------- ° ' "' ' ~ ` docra (ryp.) IryP~I SIIII'1'IIWI'sS'1' 1sL15VA'1'lI1N (RI?AR) ~ ex Ridge W' 26 pi ~ / ~" Vaulted cel4ng 0 Llving / ~ A ~ ~ ~i Room. See plan. ----' ----, / 1 ___ ___ boxed tray ceiling 0 ^e o ~ m • t i ,,/ Dfning room. See plan. ~ ~ a U R FIN ~ / - _._. _._._.. _.. _. __.._ _---- _ _.._ faro G: OO `._ W of m ~ Class A, concrete rooting riles over 1x PTOF furring battens, over (t) layer of 30a " I- ---~~ ATfIC a ' N OC edges 8 hullding paper, over 112" CD%plywood root sheathing, Nail wl1Dd 0 6 " \ - --- - Q OC Held (UN01. over Ireming. See baming plane. Verlry nailing with UBC table 12 2340 8 structural engineer's minimum nailing requiremems. Color. Charcroal or __ _ .___... _ ~\ neulrel grey. Ccla selected end approved by owner prim to Instelleliort i -- i~i~ ~-' SIDINO', l o I 17 GA I-112' mesh slucco wire or G.I ~ ex ended metal lath, over (2 la ers of recta wmtlsh od " 9PP PYw 9 ~ C 9 n M I a l 18 8 r l0 e/ m- ~~~---~~---_-._-..___.._ -___y j~ i a 6 2 .40 Vertt na with U BC 12 00 0 1eld m UNO ave ed es g I ) 9 Y 9 8 structural engineer's minimum naibng requlremenls. (Sheer Schedub). Color evet ona. PorcR See ~ LIVING ROOM DINING ROOM KITCHEN coated stucco upon request of owner. Use elastamerb prbner prior to painting es a ' I~ epplicahle, ~ ~ ''~~? ~i' ~ 36 high Mn. puardrnil 0 ?? ~ il TRIM: ~ Ironl porch. See - ~ ~----------- ~ ~ ; ' I, ' Windows: Btuao mold end sills as Integral pads of window - ~ ~-~-~- ------- __ corotructbn. Precast concrete or Amhilecturel stucco mold sills. Wells: Front: (slucco Slone) Cul alone, random patlem O lrant bwer Concrete pleb 0 1st level ___ ~ ----- -~~~-~~ ~.' '~ level walla 6 Oreplece cheaea (ryp.) ~ I fbor (yp.) ~ -- I I ~, ~ § i ol, ~\~ ~ GARAGE~rede~ BASEMENT Retalninq wallOreer of - structure, whbh Is eel Into ~ ~ i a Me hillalda. gee prin. ~ .. I ~ / . F- ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ µµ ,, t+ 7 4 E~ I - ~_-_~~-~~ - -~--- ~--_~~~~ ~ ~~"'~ Bnaemenl area It eublerreneen end is nor ~ allowaMs e ? ~ 0 D .., Noor s en edo See Gredlnp 6 Oreinepa ` ~ y plan for new topogmphy 8 ~ ~~ ~ cut6QN"~ --' BUILIlIRC SECTIIIN #1 1 tY 1' I BR UeNd M. Bdtl Tony Rowe sae r~ seMe au: Avg. Los Oetos, CA 86030 106.s51.67211~1 ws.35rasu pal $$~~ ~~~ ~e~~~~~ ~~~~ ~ e~~$~ ~~ • • MAIN LEVEL AREA CALCULATIONS: GARAGE LEVEL AREA CALCULATIONS: ,,, . W U z o°n 0~ m WU WWW W~ a0 ma~ " N z 0 _ ~ 8 N V ~ Q ~az00~ z m 3 Z a a 0 o N o A6 ,. a~ «. ~f• 0 o~o5.e5 I 4 __.- ~ I 505.97 _~ - ~ '~ .513.1] 1-.. ...--' _'-_~..--~~ .. I ~I 27 --' iii ,ry'"-._ o y0, e6 _- 1 V ___ - 9, .._.-... JC' -- -'~05 97 te' K - ---- __ _ ~ _ = _ ~- s ,l' 1 __ , _ - ~`_ ,~~r --- _ i 1 ~ _ - -- - ------ 6 I ~ p PD - ~- ~ A _--~ -- ~~-~-- F L' E R C E ~;I I - ,.___ --_. __.-~- ~:eb.:--- °,r ; ~~.ej /o ; -, --_ z0.76 7 ~ ' ~ . TT Grode ,E.~. suale r I _51~ ~ = . ~ - ..~"" ro / i e _ 6 ` \' ~ - J •Y.•o'~ ~c .' i -- ~ ~ ~~ i -- __-- v 6z \' 1 h drain _ -- - a --r ,52o.e1 i o asA9.l/ ~ 9 -" •• - ~ 512.0/ ------ ' 's i ~~ 4 i e ~' ..772)2 i ..~0 Ou>...(~t_97_ _______. 512.82 .5 ~l ~/ j ~ I ~~~/// LL J~ . F, a.....-~-- 9 i ~ ~ .5~.._---'~-~-'~.-_.---__-_ .512.57 ./ ,517. - - .!~• <C .512.17 A , ~ aq,o~e.rs ,~y~~' p'~ •y,•..!•' . 09 00" E ~so+ / l6.ee ; ~ ,512.72 ~'S11.21 1 ~• q ~ I I ~r 1 ~ ~~ COY 1 50 6g, c 1 ~ ~~` G 1 ~~ 1~ 1 JB \ ~ ` ~ 1. \ I \.~ Jy~• 515.11 G ~ -~~ n I /~ I ----- ' '~9J I ~ - 515 ___.____.-/ ',511.91 ~- ~ 19.91 I /~ 11 / \~ \ ~I - - \ / / ~ Gl~y G~ II 11 111\ _ ~ / ~'' '' .a ;~ I - ,515 5 ~'' i ~/ 2" ' \ 1 1 ---_-~t5.50 ~ \ ,511.10 _ ,515.7E .' ,J'~ ' 516 _____.. ..____.._--- - ~ 519.18 1 ,fZD _.- O u 1 .5t 6 I ~~ 5219 ` ~, 1 1 ~~ ~ ~ -- , ~ .26 O 1~ ~ I ~. E • ~ .~ ~ A - , ,516.01 YYY I .516.6\20 . _ _ _____________ I I \ ~ r,~6 -__ __._.-__'-- o'"OA~.'~ 27.69 ~ , 7 ~~ _ ~ ; .71______ 510 "'J ~h~ /i l~ / 1 -$ ~ 5 ' I __ __ . L - __ ~__ ___ , ___ _____ !f 1 ,, , .. _ ,/ ~ ~_ _ .I 'J/~i , 11~ II ~ ~ ~ '~/'' ~ ~ JT/.9 .519.96. y-' ..,_.~- _ -------------- ezo --- ,, %' = -__~, 520.°1 - -~-------- -------- ,- E 1 = - --- - - ~, 1 '" SCAL e. ~ Oe °'"~ 1 _____~___ J • 1 ,, ~ `_____ - --__51_---_ ,520.50 ~ 1 ~ __ ,. 1 _ _ - ~ O Il I 1~ VICINITY MAP i Iszx.7e __ _ ~ , ~2f.0 ~ .5~2. ~''~ OP /,~~ •~ ~/' __-_1.-______ '7 - -- ' 7. B ---as.---- na f~ ~ - ~ ~ --~------- _-~ --hf~__ _ _ _-. _- ~~ 1 ~. • I __ -- ' -' r1~I00f'~E.Q _ .__ - __-___ -' •52] 61_____-- - \ r ~~ 1 I ~"o~ a</ 05„52 ~ ~ .~ ~~,J ,hOll i ,~ I II --`- } I ._ ___---- a ] 6 / - __ _ ___ _' '-''' --_ "ail \` /p . ~w~ .- ~ 0529.95 i~ ' - u ---- n ~2a. o -, ~ ; , ~/ I r - ~~~- Drr _ , --. .~~ _-Atr- -_ 0e0'~ . ~ -7 5 _81 -- .570.62 ~~ k'~ _ '~°; ++IIGJfas1 ~.ff7Dp{e NJ7 -- _ ~?~5~ ------- ------- -----~r /~ 11 i198i\ /•11 j,' /,; ~f71}, }\6'-----~ _ ------- RAJ ~ / ..~ -~ .'~'. ~ _~~.5 - ~----' 1 ~ ~r,_"- - 'I, - -- ew ;"^y-- / `~ P. I'' ~~ LEGEND EXf57lNC PRDPDSfO ZI -_~ '' E.118 1 Q 7 CDN70UR ___-__ _ .~ '~~S4C •'- 11 ~~~ ~ /Y CURB AND CU77ER -________ ----_..__ I ~ / 6.\E / 1, /~ %/ EDGE OF PAVEMENT ,__ k ~• ~~' •~~~ % 11 ~• ~~ j- ~ afrAJNwc veu '~ i= ~j j ~11 ,• BUJlOlNC ~-J ~I ~ 2~ ~~ / / sroen DRAIN rrnEr ^ ~ 7 •'•V~ 0~++~ ~ I SrORIf DRAIN _. A- ~ 1 A ~ 1~ -------- .511 eb' ~ `I ~ 0. • % EARTHR'ORK QUANTITIES '-----...~ IDP OF CURB flEVA710N FX. I, C. T, C. _ _ -f/ y 75 y • VOLUME OF CUT 5b0 C.Y, 7oP av PAVenfNr _-- ~'i ~ VOLUME OF FILL 272 C.Y. roP of RfrAJNJNC unu Ex. r, u, r, u. "~ - 7 ~~ 11 -_,I -''~ ~ `~` •;g 6 / EXCESS MATEWAL ?B&C.Y. DxouNO Etfvenav D _-~ - ~/ PF nu _ _ .._ _ a ___ ~ 6CA~E MON. `I~•~D• WESTFALL ENGINEERS , I NC . JD6 "°. ` -~----- - VERT. GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN 99D9, -- -- ----- ` eY:NhREL CYMBAL. RCE 3167 .____-_ r ___ DRAWN: DATE: IeSeJ BIC Ba51N 4AY, SAAATOGA. CA 95070 !1001867-0211 __ __ _ DESIGNED: JC WALKER RESIDENCE ~EE` I PROJ.ENGR; JC : • nF I J -~ , („ n~ ~ t, (~ - " _ -- __ ____ - _ __ RESIDENCE -- F.F. EE.522.0 ---- ~ FF EI..521. _____ __.___ _, r _ ___ .____. __... -- - _-- --_ ~ _ RE5I DEN _ ._. I 1 l21.0 ~ r5 5 /J . I I , : Job Name: GRADING SECTIONS , VERTICAL SCALE: I inch = 10 feet ~ ~ HORIZONTAL SCALE: I inoh = 10 feet Ooahed l.lne Natural Ground Solid Llne Propond Ground l k NOTES: l~ 1. SLOPES OP 31k OR GREATER AWAY FROM THE FOUNDATION SNALL BE STANDARD CRADBiG PLAN NOTES 4• MAINTAIN ALONG THE ENTIRE PERIMBIFA FOR A DISTANCE OF S FEEf MIMMUM. NOTE: THIS URAWIN015 APPROVED SUB1ECf T0: 2. ALL ROOF DRAINS TO BE DISCHARGED ONTO ADEQUfE SPLASH BLOCKS OR I. ~ All grading if rubjat n obsemddn by ilk City. Permitter or reprtknu0ve shill CONVEYED TO THE STORM DAAfNAOE SYSTEM. udifY the City of Saruop at (IOq 8681361 a Ian /8 hour before okra of any grading. 2. Approvil of tkif P~ applia only ro Ne aavation, plaamat, a canpacrion of 3. INSTALL SU&DRAIN AROUND THE PERIMETEq FOUNDATION AM) RETAIMNG naNd anh makrialf. Thk epprovil don rani anfer any righn of entry b either publk WALL IN ACCORDANCE WRH SOUS ENOINP.ER'S RECOMMENDATION AND propmy or Mu pdvak property of o0kn. Approvil of Nif pkn alto don not canatlmk UNDER HIS DIRECTION. approval of any Improveman. Propored improvement are rubjea n miew and approvil by the raporuible nOmilief and all olha rtquikd permiu (hill be obtained. , /. FINAL SURFACE DRAINAGE GRADIEM SHALL BE PLANNED AND BUILT SO AS 3. fl rM0 6e the ttsponfib0ity of the Permitlee or agal b idatlfy, lank and 1 ' TO DIRECT WATER AWAY FROM THE BUILDINGS AND FOUNDATIONS. prokd all underground fatik0u. ' 1. The permitter err agent (hall mainldn the ftreeU, tidewalkf and ill other publk ' S. SLABS CAST ADIACENT TO FOUNDATIONS SHALL SIAPE AWAY PROM THE rightuof-way in a clean, vk and u>abk coldidon. All gd0a of soil, rak a COA WIICIid1 ~ FOUNDATIONS. ~ debris (hall be rcmovtd from IAe publicly owns property during anstruc6m and upon oumpletlon of ilk projat. All adjacat propmy, privak dr public shill k mainlilned in a 6. SURFACE DRAINAGE FROM THE AREAS OUTSIDE OP BUILDING OR FRONT clan, safe and uabk oordidon. PORTION OF 7'HE LOT SHALL CONTINUE TO DRAIN IN NORTHEASTERLY S. All padiy (hill be performed k loch a manner ere n comply whh the fundarda OIRECIION ALONG THE NATURAL SIAPE. enabliskd by Drt Asr Quilily Makteruna Disukl for ilrbome parNalaks. ~ 6. All mown well lewionr an the rite hm flea ialuded and uah wellf (hall be milmilned or abaldolsed acomding u current rcgulmiau dministered by the Senn Clue talky Water Dinrkt. G.. (108) 363-3600 n arrmge fa dfatrin obttmtion of ill we0 abudonmau. 1 ' ~ 1. 7hia pkn don not approve the ttmovil of trera Appnpriile uer rtmovil i pemdU sad medsodr of tree preservatim rhauW be oMilned from Nk City Cmmmunhy Devekpmat DepaMtat. ,I 8. The Civil Enginar, Wenfill Enginem, Inc., 11383 Big Basin Way, Sanroga, G. 970'10. Hu dalgned Mil project b comply with Ort gMing ttrommerdadone In dp ' projat geolaAnial report, if rtquirtd, PttPered by I _, and doled 9. AB grading shall conform n approved rpadfia6am pfekrskd hereon m ettadkd ,I Oado. All grading wok shill be obrervtd and approved by Ue nil engineer. Ole soil enginar i _, rhea be nadful0 n leau 18 hours befort beginning nay grading u klephone number ' . Uno6krved and unapproved grading wok (hill be removed iM repkced undn ~ abarrntlon o(dk )mojeer.nll englear, ' ' 10. Oiading petmik wi0 na he iuued bawern Ocrober I71h and April ISth of my ~ ynr wdDlout approval by the Dittctol N PubOc Warka. II n .108 N0. "° BT DATE REVISI°" BY °ATE DATE: ~' ~°`° GRADING AND DRAINAGE P L A N SCALE: HOR. I"•10' 99091 -- - ~-- - ----~----- - VERT. I~•tD' WESTFAL~_ ENG I NEERS a I NC . DE51°AE°, JL RYd(AREE LTnSAE, RLE J,53' WALKER RESIDENCE GNEEf -_ ~- ---~-~-~- -' -~_ '_'---- IA5e3 BIG BASIN VAC. SARATOGA~ LA 95070 1/097867-02A/ DRASIN; CAD DAVE: OF z PROJ. ENCR: JC 2 I G7 sl ~~ ~.~ -Plant Materials Guide Street Trees --t5 gal. ransition to natural - s gal ~~tfE cYM~ - Chinese Plstache (Pistacla) ~ -California sage (Artemesla), Carmel creeper ~ (Ceanothus),Callforniapoppy(Eschscholtla), ~ ;~~~ _ +~L ~ ' yr' Heterameles, (Toyon) ^ ~Li'.(i'. fboX ~ Q I i I - vergreen Trees - 24"box / t5 gal Ip ~ U~1UTY ~o~~ = -'" I -Oaks (quercus), Eucalyptus, Magnolia t hrubs - 5 gal / ~ gal ; _ ~" -Pittosporum, Lantana, Starjasmine ~~ W~F~ ~F~ (Trachelospermum), Raphlolepis, ~ r ,- Confers - 24" b0%/ 15 gal Llly-of-the-nlle (Agapanthus), Plumbaga, Pride of -~ ' ' "~. 2edwoods (Sequoia) Madeira (FChium), Hydrangea , I 2 -% ~ '~ ~i7 - ~~ ~~ i 'I'• t; i• Deciduous Accent Trees - " Groundcover /Vines - ~ gal /flats II'''I, -Bouganvillea,HOneysuckle(Lonicera), " 24"box/t59a1 "~ Deriwinkle(vinca) -Silk trees (Albiila), Flowering Dlums (Prunus) Nom, ". ~~,~x~~ rto~~u ~~u,~~u~ur~~ rau~fiw ~= a r~l~.~ f~u~l~ rtol,v~au,t~ab/r~IIJr~ wow / j i ~ ~,, .~ nJ7tiwk -` 0 odP<i~. SCAPE PLAN REVISIONS BY z z 3 z ~ W N ~ >~ ;~ Q F V ~N~ wa a ~_ ¢, J ~ g~ s a ~v ~a a'0 v~ v 'p C UJ v v c v 7 v ~vE '0 0 L r m vV m ,~ warn 00 Om roq ~~ a+te ar.~. ~ ~~d-ail o,r.,~~e ,ob 2r1a1- g~r.~a~1 Oi 9Mnr ;~ ;- ._- i ~, I -' i ~~ - I -;' ~ I ..~-„~c~._'- ,a ~~I 4, ~I ~~ . CONCEPTUAL LAND ITEM 3 ~ REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION C~ Application No./Location: 02-013-DR, 13815 Pierce Road Applicant/Owner: Mike Amini Staff Planner: Ann Welsh, AICP -Assistant Planner Date: August 28, 2002 APN: 503-69-02 Department Head: SAY Lr7 ~.a '~ //~-- SMAN7LL5 / q1 ~ry ~ ~ G Qti~¢ r Ty ~cr y,, N 40 80 et „LLL W E PD. 9 ,~ - . 13185 PIERCE ROAD • 400001 • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 4/16/02 Application complete: 8/13/02 Notice published: 8/14/02 Mailing completed: 8/14/02 Posting completed: 8/7/02 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes to construct a new 5,993 square foot two story residence with a 2,379 square foot basement and three car attached garage on a 1.759-acre lot, which presently contains a single story residence. The style of home is Mediterranean with terracotta concrete the roof and beige stucco walls. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution for application # 02-013. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Draft Resolution for application 02-013 3. Arborist Report dated May 14, 2002 4. Revised Arborist Report dated July 18, 2002 5. Saratoga Fire District report dated Apri126, 2002 6. City Geotechnical Review dated April 30, 2002 7. Geotechnical memo from GeoQuest, Inc. dated July 29, 2002 8. Plans, Exhibit °A" date stamped August 13, 2002 • • X00002 Attachment 1 STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: Hillside Residential District GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RHC -Residential Hillside Conservation MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE:1.759 acres gross AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Average Slope of the lot is 25.6% GRADING REQUIRED: The proposed project requires 640 cubic yards of cut and 430 cubic yards of fill. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of an addition to a single-family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The project site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and consists an addition to asingle-family residence. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The house is to be composed of beige stucco walls and terra cotta concrete roof tiles. ;;~ • 000003 • - PROEOSID CODE REQUIREMENTS LOT COVERAGE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE 14,999 sQ. Fr. 25% oR 15,000 SQ. ~. WHICHEVER IS LESS Building Footprint 4,032 SQ. i; r. Walkways, patios 6,550 SQ. Fr. Driveway 4,417 SQ. Fr. TOTAL - 14,999 sQ. Fr. FLOOR AREA MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE Main Floor 3,379 SQ. FT. Upper Floor 1,961 sQ. Fr. Garage 653 sQ. Fr. (Basement) (2,379 sQ. Fr.) TOTAb 5,993 sQ. FI'. 6,000 SQ. FT.~ SETBACKS MINIMUM REQUIREMENT Front 38+ Fr. 30 Fr. Rear 220 Fr. 60 i-r. Side 60+ Fr. 20 Fr. Height Residence 26 FT. 26 FT. 1 Maximum allowable floor area reflects a reduction for slope (Municipal Code Section 15-45.030(c)(d)). • • ,000004 PROJECT DISCUSSION DESIGN REVIEW The applicant proposes to demolish an existing single story residence and construct a new two-story residence on the 1.75 acre heavily wooded, steeply sloped property located at 13815 Pierce Road The proposed home is a 5,993 square foot two story residence with a 2,379 squaze foot basement and three car attached garage. The parcel is located on Pierce Road neaz the intersection of Via Regina. The style of home is Mediterranean with a concrete file roof and stucco facade. The plans depict arched windows at each elevation. The front elevation contains a projecting entry portico with--twin columns supporting each corner of the gable roof. A balustraded patio connects to the portico and extends west along the front of the house to the three- caz garage. Four balastraded balconies project from the second floor at each window of the front second story facade. The reaz of the house contains a balustraded balcony at the second floor and two balustraded light wells one of which has an entry staircase to the basement and a patio. The east elevation contains a 1,425 square foot ballustraded patio, which provides access via walkway to the pool. The rear~200-foot portion of the lot is unusable since the property drops off steeply at the end of the existing reaz patio. The steep topography dictates the location and orientation of the house and pool. The applicants propose to create a 190-foot long circular driveway that runs in front of the house parallel with Pierce Road taking access from Pierce Road at the existing driveway and exiting west near Via Regina. The driveway location conflicts with the root system of the surrounding trees. The azborist has recommended that the driveway be eliminated in the vicinity of the trees. This would eliminate the possibility of a circular driveway in front of the house. An alternative is to allow two curb cuts for access but eliminate the connection in the vicinity of the trees, which provide canopy and privacy to the front of the house. Also, the azborist has recommended that the house be moved back ten feet in order to minimise the damage of the basement on the root system of the trees. The applicant has provided a Geotechnical report which indicates that moving the house back 10 feet would put the structure in an area of unstable soils. Also moving the house back ten feet would eliminate much of the rear yard of the house. The applicant has not indicated a willingness to compromise on either of these points and staff recommendation is to eliminate the driveway in the vicinity of the front yard trees and move the house as far back as possible while avoiding the unstable soils. NECESSARY 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 ~~0©~J~. 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 m;n;m~ing tree and soil removal; grade. changes will _be m;n;m~ed and will-be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas. (c) Min;m;ze perception of excessive bulk. The proposed main or accessory structure, in relation to structures on adjacent lots and to the surrounding region, will m;n;m~e 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 interference with views andprivacy. The lot at issue is heavily wooded and the existing trees contribute to the canopy along Pierce Road as well as to the privacy between neighboring residences. Although the footprint of the proposed house does not extend far beyond the boundaries of the existing house the impact on surrounding properties could be significant due to the amount of disturbance that is proposed. The excavation fora 2,379 square foot basement and the creation of a 190-foot long driveway running under the canopy of four mature coast live oak trees would have a substantial impact on the root system of the existing tree canopy. Thus the long-term impact of the proposed construction may be to destroy the tree canopy along Pierce Road. For this reason in order to maintain the privacy and wooded continuity that the current landscape provides to the surrounding neighbors, the driveway should be bisected to avoid damaging the root system of the fi•Ont yard trees. The two-story house that is proposed would not interfere with the privacy of neighbors to the north, east or west since there is considerable distance between the structures on ~~~0~6 these properties. However, the privacy of compromised if the existing tree canopy is story house is closest to the proposed house. the neighbor across Pierce Road may be not retained since this neighboring single (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 site is heavily wooded and although the applicant has stated that their intention is to retain the existing trees, the development plan will compromise the long-term viability of the existing trees. In order to reduce the impact of development on the surrounding landscape, the plans should be revised to eliminate the driveway in the vicinity of the coast live oak trees that are in front of the house. The plans should also either eliminate the front porch or construct it in such a manner that does not compact the roots of the trees adjacent the front~orch. The azborist has recommended that the house be moved back 10 feet in order to reduce the impact of the basement on the roots of the oak trees in front of the house. Given the topography of the house, moving it back ten feet would be difficult since the property is very steeply sloped to the rear and this additional setback would eliminate much of the usable rear yard. Since the plans depict a basement with 2,379 square feet and a 30-foot long light well along the front of the house it appears that size of the basement could be reduced to eliminate disturbing the area immediately in front of the trees. If the light well is eliminated in this area and the house is moved back as much as possible then the disturbance to the trees in front of the house will be minim~ed and the house will not encroach on the sloped azea to the rear. Given the topographic constraints of the property this design change appears to be a reasonable compromise. (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 bulb and will be integrated into the environment. The two-story home has a number of architectural features, which mi_nim~e the perception of excessive bulk. The front facade has a varied roofline with a projecting entry portico, hipped and compass roof elements. The upper floor balconies, balustraded porch and projecting bay window all serve to punctuate the horizontal expanse of the front facade. The reaz elevation with second floor terrace and large expanse of balustraded porch has both hipped and gabled rooflines. The left elevation, which contains the garage, has a single entry door and a gabled roofline. The right elevation contains a varied roofline, bay windows, French doors and a large balustraded patio with stairs and a pathway leading to the pool area. This design breaks up massing and with the use of natural materials and colors soften the impact of the building. (d) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms o f bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate ~~~0®~. 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 house is located in an-azea that has a mixture of single story and two story homes. A drop in elevation vertically sepazates the adjacent homes to the west; these consist of a single story and atwo-story home, which are not visible to the subject house. The home located east of the site is a single story structure that is approximately 180 feet from the subject property. Given the distance between structures, the visual impact of the proposed two-story structure will not be significant if the existing tree canopies are retained. The homes south of the property across Pierce. Road are a mixture of single story and two stories. The home closest to the proposed house is located directly across Pierce Road, approximately 100 feet to the south. The visual impact of the two-story structure on this property is greatly mitigated by the tree canopy and vegetation that exists in front of the subject property. Thus in order to maintain privacy and reduce the visual impact of the proposed construction on this neighboring property it is important to retain as much of the existing vegetation as possible. The area north of the site is undeveloped and since the rear yazd is steeply sloped, abuts the Santa Clara Valley Water District lands and is heavily wooded, the proposed house is naturally screened from surrounding properties. (e) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed site development plan incorporates currentgrading and erosion control standards used by the City. The site lan indicates that the storm water will be retained on site throu h a well P g ~Y system, which will drain all of the runoff to the rear of the property. The applicant has requested that a grading and drainage plan be submitted after approval of the plans. The arborist will review the grading and drainage plan to ensure compatibility with surrounding trees. Since the stormwater is to be retained on site the site development plan does comply with the_ City stormwater runoff policies. (~ 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 Handboolc Policy #1 to iTLnim~e the perception of bulk through use of natural materials and colors as well as having a varied roofline and facade and architectural features which breakup massing. The plan if revised to reduce the length of driveway and m;nim~e disturbance to the front yard trees; may conform to Policy #2; integrate structures with the environment. Also the use of natural earth tones with stucco fa~.ade and concrete file roof helps blend the structure into the environment. With attached garage, all structures are integrated into one building on the site, which m;nimi7es the visual impact on the environment. The proposal if revised to reduce the area. of the driveway and move the house to the rear complies with Policy #3; avoid interference witl'~ privacy by retaining the existing tree ©0~©~8 canopy, which provides privacy between surrounding neighbors. Polic #4, maximize views but avoid conflicts with rivac is addressed b retainin Y P Y Y g existing landscaping and maintaining sufficient setback to avoid encroaching on the view shed of surrounding homes. __ Policy #5, design for energy efficiency, is addressed by locating the main living areas of the house along the southeast exposure. Also the west facing window openings are minimized. Retaining existing tree canopy will control winter and summer exposure to the sun. Thus the above analysis concludes that if revisions to the site plan are made as-- recommended above the necessary findings required for granting design review approval can be met. The City Arborist and the Sazatoga Fire District and City Geotechnical consultant have reviewed this application. Their comments aze included as conditions of approval. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. Exhibit "A" date stamped August 15, 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 and the Revised Arborist report and mapof July 18, 2002 as a seFazate 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. The site plan shall be revised to eliminate the circular driveway in the vicinity of the protected trees located within the front yazd as identified in the azborist report. 4. The location of the house shall be moved back as far as geotechnically possible or 10 feet whichever is less. If necessary the light well in the front of the house should be ~ " eliminated in order to achieve sufficient setback from trees #28, 27 and 29. S. Fireplaces: Only one wood-burning fireplace is permitted per dwelling unit. 6. 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. The plan shall indicate the size and location of the proposed dry 000009 wells. 7. A grading and drainage plan shall be submitted with the final construction documents and this plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist - . 8. Soil and Erosion Control Plans -The applicant should submit a soil and erosion control plan which identifies the techniques for minirni7ing the impact of disturbance on adjacent properties. 9. The applicant shall submit a fence plan, which depicts the area of proposed enclosure. COMMUNITY INPUT The applicant has provided signatures from 10 surrounding property owners. All have indicated their approval of the design. No written or oral communication has been received from neighbors other than_these signatures. Fire Protection District The Saratoga Fire District reviewed this application on April 26, 2002 and their comments are as follows: 1. The fire flow required exceeds hydrant capaciry.l3R sprinkler system required. 2. The property is in a designated hazardous fire area. 3. Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class A prepared or built up roofing. 4. Early Warning fire alarm system shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions; Ciry of Saratoga Code Article 16-60. (Alternative requirements, sprinkler -systems,16-60-E) 5. Early warning fire alarm system shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. 6. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in newly constructed attached/detached garages (2 heads per stall), workshops, or storage areas, which are not constructed as habitable space. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, Ilat horizontal ceiling. The designer/architect is to contact San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. 7. Automatic sprinklers are required for the new 8,669 square foot residential dwelling. A 4 head calculated 13R sprinkler system is required Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. The sprinkler system must be installed by a licensed contractor. Note: NFPA 13R with no 000010 . _ exceptions, no FDC. _. 8. Drivewa s: All drivewa s shall have a minimum width of 14 feet lus one-foot Y Y P _. shoulders. Secondary access is not required. • Slopes from 0% to 11% shall use a double seal coat of O &'t S or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. • Slopes from 11% to 15% shall be surfaced using 2.5" of A.C. or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed building. • Slopes from 15% to 17% shall be surfaced using 4" PCC concrete rough surfaced on a 4" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. • Driveway shall have a minimum inside radius of 21 feet. 9. Parking: provide a parking area for two emergency vehicles at the proposed dwelling site or as required by the fire district. Details shall be shown on the building plans. CITY ARBORIST REPORT The City Arborist inspected this property twice at the request of the applicant. The first report is dated May 14, 2002 and the second revised report is dated July 18, 2002. The report addressed tree protection measures on this wooded property. The arborist notes that there are thirty-three trees on the site exposed to some level of risk by construction. Twenty of these trees are identified as fine specimens and nine as fair specimens. Tree #8 is in conflict with the proposed root structure and is considered a loss. Trees # 10,11,13,16,17 and 28 are located within a few feet of the proposed footprint of the new residence. The excavations of the footings for the residence and for the basement would result in severe root loss to these trees. As an example, tree #28 is a 23-inch diameter coast live oak. The basement light well is proposed within 6 feet of the trunk of tree #28. However, the actual cut would be at least 2-4 feet beyond the edge of the proposed light well retaining wall to provide workspace for construction. Thus, the actual cut would be within 2-3 feet of the trunk of tree#28. At this distance, this tree would lose approximately 50% of its root system and it would be rendered unstable because the cut would no doubt remove buttress roots, which are essential for the stability of the tree. Preservation of tree # 28 would require a minimum distance of 18 feet between the trunk and the edge of the actual soil cut. This means that the footprint ,,~ of the house would have to be relocated approximately 10 feet further west. Since tree #28 is only in fair health, it is less tolerant of root loss. The proposed excavation for the light well would pose a serious risk to trees #27 and 30 as well at the location proposed. Tree #27 is a coast live oak with a trunk diameter of 30 inches. In order for tree #27 to survive, there must be no cuts or excavations within 18 feet of the trunk. If tie location of the residence were moved 10 feet toward the west, this distance should be sufficient to expect the survival of these trees in their present condition. 0000~.1~ If a soil cut of even 4 inches depth would be made to construct this driveway, trees #1, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29 and 30 would likely suffer significant root loss. In my opinion, trees #27, 28, 29, and 30 would not survive construction of the driveway for that portion that is proposed across the root zones of these trees on the east side of their trunks. The arborist makes a number of recommendations-among them are the following. 1. Redesign the driveway as presented in the attached plan. 2. Relocate the footprint of the residence 10 feet to the west in order to maintain the survival of trees #27, 28, and 29. 3. Construction period fencing must be provided and located as noted on the map, which accompanies the report. Fencing must be of chain link, a m;nimum height of 5 feet mounted on steel posts driven 2 feet 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 protection fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. 4. A root buffer should be required on the entire south side of the residence between the foundation and the protective fencing. 5. The grading and drainage plan must be reviewed by the city arborist. 6. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped under the canopies of trees. 7. Any pruning must be done be an International Society of Arboriculture certified arborist and according to ISA Western Chapter Standards. 8. Sprinkler irrigation must be designed not to strike the trunks of trees. Further, spray imgation must not be designed to strike inside the canopy drip lines of oak trees. 9 Replacement trees are recommended for trees that are to be removed. The following trees are expected to be removed Trees #8, 10, 11, 13, 16, and 17. They have a value of $18,199 this is equivalent to three 48 inch boxed and two 36 inch boxed or one 72 inch boxed and one 48 inch boxed native trees. ;, 10. The combined value of all the other trees is $189,753. A bond equal to 15% (=$28,463) of their total value should be provided prior to issuance of building permit, to assure their protection. Geotechnical Revisions Geotechnical Clearance with conditions was granted on April 30, 2002 for the project at 13851 Pierce Road. Revised conditions of approval, based on the review memo from the 0~~0~.~ City Geotechnical Consultant dated April 29, 2002 are: 1. The Project En 'eerie Geolo 'st and Project Geotechnical En ' eer shall review and J ~ g ~ - J ~ approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, landslide mitigation, and design parameters for foundations, pavement and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan reviews shall be summarized by the 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 the Grading Permit. 2. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspection shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. 3. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described 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 finalization of the Grading Permit. 4. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to project Zone Clearance. 5. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Sazatoga 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. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that these plans be approved on the condition that revisions eliminating the driveway and the location of the house be addressed in the final plans. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application with revisions and subject to conditions by adopting the following resolution. oooo~.~ C~ THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . • a04®14 Attachment 2 RESOLUTION N0.02 - APPLICATION NO.02-013 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION -~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA AMINI -13815 PIERCE ROAD WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review to construct a 5,993 square foot two story dwelling with 2,379 square- foot basement; 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 meets the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: Policy 1, ~Ivlini_m~e the perception of bulk The proposed project minimizes the perception of bulk through use of natural materials and colors as well as having a varied roofline and facade with architectural features, which break up massing. Policy 2, Integrate structures with the environment The plan conforms with the policy to integrate structures with the environment through use of natural earth tones with stucco facade and concrete file roof. With attached , ; garage, all structures are integrated into one building. Policy 3, Avoid interference with privacy If revised to eliminate portions of the driveway and maintain the necessary setback from the protected trees in the front yard, the plan will retain the tree canopy and therefore avoid interference with privacy. 00o©~Jr Policy 4, Preserve views and access to views The house is designed such that living azeas are oriented towazd the hi h uali view to g 9 tY the rear of the property. If the tree canopy is retained neighbor's privacy will be protected. Policy 5, Design for maximum benefit of sun and wind The policy to design for energy efficiency is addressed by the south-eastern orientation of the main living areas of the home. Also the minimal west window openings limit exposure to the elements. Retaining trees helps control winter and summer exposure to the sun. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, azchitectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application by Mike Amini for Design Review approval is granted subject to a number of conditions. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. Exhibit "A" date stamped August 15, 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 and the Revised Arborist report and map of July 18, 2002 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. The site plan shall be revised to eliminate the circular driveway in the vicinity of the protected trees located within the front yard as identified in the azborist report. 4. The location of the house shall be moved back as far as geotechnically possible or 10 feet whichever is less. If necessary the light well in the front of the house should be eliminated in order to achieve sufficient setback from trees #28, 27 and 29. 5. Fireplaces: Only one wood-burning fireplace is permitted per dwelling unit. 6. A storm water retention plan shall be provided indicating how all storm water will be 00046 retained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices. The plan shall indicate the size and location of the proposed dry wells. 7. A grading and drainage plan shall be submitted with the final construction documents and this plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist. 8. Soil and Erosion Control Plans -The applicant should submit a soil and erosion control plan which identifies the techniques for minimizing the impact of disturbance on adjacent properties. 9. The applicant shall submit a fence plan, which depicts the area of proposed enclosure. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The Saratoga Fire District reviewed this application on April 26, 2002 and their comments are as follows: 1. The fire flow required exceeds hydrant capacity.l3Rsprinkler system required. 2. The property is in a designated hazardous fire area. 3. Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class A prepared or built up roofing. 4. Early Warning fire alarm system shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions, City of Saratoga Code Article 16-60. (Alternative requirements, sprinkler systems,16-60-E) 5. Early warning fire alarm system shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. 6. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in newly constructed attached/detached garages (2 heads per stall), workshops, or storage areas, which are not constructed as habitable space. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat horizontal ceiling. The designer/architect is to contact San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. ;, 7. Automatic sprinklers are required for the new 8,669 square foot residential dwelling. A 4 head calculated 13R sprinkler system is required. Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. The sprinkler system must be installed by a licensed contractor. Note: NFPA 13R with no exceptions, no FDC. 8. Driveways: All driveways shall have a m;nimum width of 14 feet plus one-foot shoulders. Secondary access is not required. ~0~~~~ • Slopes from 0% to 11% shall use a double. seal coat of O ~ S or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. • Slopes from 11% to 15% shall be surfaced using 2.5" of A.C. or better on a 6" - aggregate base from a public street to the proposed building: • Slopes from 15% to 17% shall be surfaced using 4' PCC concrete rough surfaced on a 4" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. • Driveway shall have a m;n;mum inside radius of 21 feet. 9. Parking: provide a parking area for two emergency vehicles at the proposed dwelling site or as required by the fire district. Details shall be shown on the building plans. CITY ARBORIST REPORT The City Arborist inspected this property twice at the request of the applicant. The first report is dated May 14, 2002 and the second revised report is dated July 18, 2002. The report addressed tree protection measures on this wooded property. The arborist notes that there are thirty-three trees on the site exposed to some level of risk by construction. Twenty of these trees are identified as fine specimens and nine as fair specimens. Tree #8 is in conflict with the proposed root structure and is considered a loss. Trees # 10,11,13,16,17 and 28 are located within a few feet of the proposed footprint of , the new residence. The excavations of the footings for the residence and for the basement would result in severe root loss to these trees. As an example, tree #28 is a 23-inch diameter coast live oak. The basement light well is proposed within 6 feet of the trunk of tree #28. However, the actual cut would be at least 2-4 feet beyond the edge of the proposed light well retaining wall to provide workspace for construction. Thus, the actual cut would be within 2-3 feet of the trunk of tree#28. At this distance, this tree would lose approximately 50% of its root system and it would be rendered unstable because the cut would no doubt remove buttress roots, which are essential for the stability of the tree. Preservation of tree # 28 would require a minimum distance of 18 feet between the trunk and the edge of the actual soil cut. This means that the footprint of the house would have to be relocated approximately 10 feet further west. Since tree #28 is only in fair health, it is less tolerant of root loss. The proposed excavation for the light well would pose a serious risk to trees #27 and 30 as well at the location proposed. Tree #27 is a coast live oak with a trunk diameter of 30 inches. In order for tree #27 to survive, there must be no cuts or excavations within 18 feet of the trunk. If the location of the residence were moved 10 feet toward the west, this distance should be sufficient to expect the survival of these trees in their present condition. If a soil cut of even 4 inches depth would be made to construct this driveway, trees #1, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29 and 30 would likely suffer significant root loss. In my opinion, trees #27, 28, 29, and 30 would not. survive construction of the driveway for that portion that is ~~~~~.8 proposed across the root zones of these trees on the east side of their trunks. The arborist makes a number of recommendations anion them are the followin . g g 1. Redesign the driveway as presented in the attached plan. 2. Relocate the footprint of the residence 10 feet to the west in order to maintain the survival of trees #27, 28, and 29. 3. Construction period fencing must be provided and located as noted on the map, which accompanies the report. Fencing must be of chain link, a min;mum height of 5 feet mounted on steel posts driven 2 feet 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 protection fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. 4. A root buffer should be required on the entire south side of the residence between the foundation and the protective fencing. 5. The grading and drainage plan must be reviewed by the city arborist. 6. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped under the canopies of trees. 7. Any pruning must be done be an International Society of Arboriculture certified arborist and according to ISA Western Chapter Standards. 8. Sprinkler imgation must be designed not to strike the trunks of trees. Further, spray irrigation must not be designed to strike inside the canopy drip lines of oak trees. 9 Replacement trees are recommended for trees that are to be removed. The follov~ing trees are expected to be removed Trees #8, 10, 11, 13, 16, and 17. They have a value of $18,199 this is equivalent to three 48 inch boxed and two 36 inch boxed or one 72 inch boxed and one 48 inch boxed native trees. 10. The combined value of all the other trees is $189,753. A bond equal to 15% (=$28,463) of their total value should be provided prior to issuance of building permit, to assure their protection: Geotechnical Revisions Geotechnical Clearance with conditions was granted on Apri130, 2002 for the project at 13851 Pierce Road. Revised conditions of approval, based on the review memo from the City Geotechnical Consultant dated Apri129, 2002 are: w 1. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and 0000,9 approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, landslide mitigation, and design parameters for foundations, pavement and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan reviews shall be summarized by the 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 the Grading Permit. ~ . 2. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspection shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. 3. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described 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 finalization of the Grading Permit. 4. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to project Zone Clearance. 5. 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 1. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the Ciry or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 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 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. OOOJ~0 _ PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 28`h day of August 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 variting, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • 000©~1 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • 00002 BARRI E D. COATS _ and ASSOCIATES Horticutural Consultants 23535 Surnrnit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 408135 3-1 05 2 Attachment 3 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECONIIVIENDATIONS AT THE AMIlVI PROPERTY 13815 PIERCE ROAD _. SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of Kristin Borel Community Planning Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist May 14, 2002 Job # 04-02-071 Plan Received: 4.22.02 Plan Due: 5.23.02 • ~ ~~~o~~ ~ JUN 0 3 2002 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OOO~F 3 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE AMINI PROPERTY 13815 PIERCE ROAD SARATOGA - Assignment At the request of Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of Saratoga, this report reviews the proposal to demolish the existing residence and to construct a new residence with a basement in the context of potential damage to or the removal of existing trees: This report rates the condition of the trees on site that are protected by City of Saratoga ordinance. Recommendations are included to mitigate damage to these trees during construction. The plans reviewed for this report are the construction plans prepared by the Craftsman's Guild, Inc., Cupertino, Sheets 2-8, undated. No Grading and Drainage Plan is provided with this set of plans. • Summary This proposal exposes 33 trees to some level of risk by construction. One tree is directly in conflict with proposed construction. However, at least 6 additional trees would be so severely damaged that they would not be expected to survive. 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 levels of the expected risks. Observations There.are at least 33 trees on this site, which are large enough to be controlled by city ordinance that may be exposed to some level of 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 33 trees are classified as follows: Trees # 1, 2, 7, 33 Valley oak (Quercus.lobata) Tree # 3 California bay laurel (Umbellularia californica) Tree # 4 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Trees # 5, 18, 32 California black oak-(Quercus kelloggii) Trees # 6, 9, 10, 12-16, 19-24, 26-31 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Trees # 8, 11 Monterey pine (Pirtus radiata) Tree # 17 Deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara) Tree # 25 Pacific madrone (Arbutus merrziesii) The particulars regarding these trees (species, trunk diameter, height, spread, health, and structure) are provided in the attachments that follow this text. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST MAY 14, 2002 OOOi~24 TREE~URVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE AM"~1I PROPERTY 13815 PIERCE ROAD 2 SARATOGA 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 33 trees are converted to descriptive ratings as follows: Exceptional S ecimens Fine S cimens Fair S ecimens Marginal S ecimens Poor S ecimens 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 1, 3, 4, 14, 16, 8, 15 19 11, 12, 13, 20, 17, 18, 28, 30 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32, 33 Fine specimens must be retained if possible but without major design revisions. Mitigation procedures recommended here are intended to limit damage in order to prevent decline. Fair specimens aze 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 regazdless of care. For any which aze considered hazardous, removal is recommended. For those retained, mitigation may not be typically requested. Existing Condition The- root collar of Tree #6 is covered by fill soil. This condition exposes the tree to several serious diseases, which attack the root collaz when conditions are favorable. Risks to Trees by Proposed Construction Demolition of the existing residence, the existing gazage, and the existing out building may be highly damaging to the adjacent trees. Mitigation procedures would be required to prevent significant root loss, broken branches, or bark injuries. Tree #8 is in conflict with the proposed terrace structure. I recommend that this tree be replaced. , ; Trees #10, 11, i3, 16, 17, and 28 are located within a few feet of the proposed footprint of the new residence. Trenching for the footing and the construction of the basement would severe the roots of all of these trees. After this, the construction activity on top of the remaining root zones of these trees would result in root loss. The total root damage to these trees would be severe. In addition, all of these trees would lose a significant quantity of their canopy in order to construct the new residence. The root losses and the PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTING} ARBORIST MAY 14, 2002 ~~~ ,~S TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOIvIIv1ENDATIONS AT THE AMIIVI PROPERTY 13815 PIERCE R04D SARATOGA canopy losses combined would be quite severe. Root loss and canopy loss aze not sepazate and unrelated. These trees should all be considered a loss. Trees #1, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, and 30 would all suffer severe root losses by construction of the driveway as proposed. If any underground utilities must be replaced or upgraded, it will be essential that the trenches must be planned prior to construction and that the trenches aze located outside of driplines. These locations must not be left up to contractors or to the utility providers. Comments Because of the location of the clusters of trees at this site, it will be difficult to design a new residence of significant size between the clusters of trees without some losses. Because of the density of the trees behind the house, in my opinion, it is preferable to sacrifice some of those trees (Trees #10, 11, 13, 16, and 17), than to risk those trees in front of the house. If Trees #10, 11, 13, 16, and 17 aze removed, I also recommend the removal of Trees #15 and 19, which aze poor specimens, primarily due to crowding. However, I believe that Trees #27, 29, and 30 must be preserved, partially because of their lazge size. - The light well is only 6 feet from the trunk of Tree #28. This means that the cut to construct the light well would only be about 3 feet from the trunk. Tree #28 would require a minimum of 15 feet between the trunk and a construction cut to expect it to survive. This same distance is required for Trees #27, 29, and 30. It will not be feasible to construct a circulaz driveway adjacent to Trees #27, 29, and 30. Construction of the residence on the west side of these trees would cause sigtificant root damage by itself. A soil cut of 10-15 inches is normally required in order to construct "Turf Block" paving. In this event, it would not be feasible to construct the driveway between Trees #23 and 24 with the turf block. Tree #23 requires a minimum of 18 feet between the trunk and a soil cut, and Tree #24 requires a minimum of 15 feet between the trunk and a soil cut. Either the driveway must be constructed on top of the existing soil grade or one of these trees must be sacrificed for the other. in the event of the latter, I recommend that Tree #23 be retained because of its lazger size and better condition. Beaz in mind that interlocking pavers usually require a cut of 12 to 14 inches in order to provide a stable roadbed. The plan appeazs to show that the driveway is to be constructed approximately 2 feet closer to Tree #1 than the existing driveway. In this event, Tree #1 would not be expected to survive. ,."" Recommendations 1. I recommend that the plans be dated. Undated plans often present significant problems during construction, where plans aze changed after permits aze issued. 2. I recommend that the driveway be redesigned. I have presented an alternative on the attached plan. Beaz in mind that the other trees, such as Trees #3, 6, 31, and 33 have PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST MAY 14, 2002 ~OQV~V TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE AMIIQI PROPERTY 13815 PIERCE ROAD 4 SARATOGA minimum distances that must be maintained between their trunks and soil cuts. The minimum distance that these trees require -is as follows: Tree #3 10 feet Tree #6 18 feet - Tree #31 20 feet Tree #33 18 feet 3. I suggest that construction period fencing be provided and located as noted on the attached map. Fencing must be of chainlink, a minimum height of 5 feet mounted on steel posts driven 2 feet (minimum) into the ground. The fence must be in place prior to the arrival of any other materials or equipmelrt 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. I recommend that a root buffer lbe required on the entire south side of the residence between the foundation and the protective fencing, adjacent to Trees #14, 18, 20, and 21. A root buffer consists of 6 full inches of coarse bark. chips (shredded redwood is not acceptable for this purpose due its compressibility) over the existing grade, which must immediately be covered by 1 inch plywood (full sheets), tied together, and secured to prevent slippage. 5. It will not be feasible to trench for a drain between the trunks of Trees #20 and 21 and the foundation of the residence. If this is planned, it must be redesigned. 6. I recommend that Grading and Drainage Plan be provided and reviewed by the city arborist. 7. -- 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 requirements, the city arborist must be consulted. 8. 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. 9. I suggest that the root collar of Tree #6 must be excavated to expose the tops of the buttress roots without injuring the root bark. This must be done by an air spade or pressure washer to remove the excess soil. A minimum space of approximately 12 inches around the trunk must be exposed. Air spade operators include: Aire Excavating Company 650/298-8937 and Urban Tree Management 650/321-0202. 10. 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. 'root buffer PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST MAY 14, 2002 ;; ~~~~~ TREE SUR /EY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE AMIIQI PROPERTY 13815 PIERCE ROAD 5 SARATOGA 11. Supplemental irrigation must be provided to retained Trees #1,6, 14, 18, 20, 21, 27, . 29, and 31 during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1 inch of rainfall). Irrigate with 10 gallons for each inch of trunk diameter every 2 weeks throughout the construction period. This can be achieved by the use of a simple soaker hose, which must be located near the dripline for the entire canopy circumference. 12. Excavated soil must 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. 13. Any pruning must be done by an International Society of Arboricultural (ISA) certified arborist and according to ISA, Western Chapter Standards, 1998. 14. Landscape pathways and other amenities constructed under the canopies of trees must be built completely on grade without excavation. 15. 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 trenches2 (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. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. 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 significant root damage. 19. I suggest that the species of plants used in the root zones of oak trees be compatible with the environmental and cultural requirements of the oak species indigenous to this area. A publication about plants compatible with California native oaks can be obtained from the California Oak Foundation, 1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland 94612. ,.~ 20. Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bark, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be installed directly in contact with the bark of trees because of the risk of serious disease infection. 2 radial trenches PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST MAY 14, 2002 ., .. U~~V~~ TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION REC'~MMENDATIONS AT THE AMINI PROPERTY 13815 PIERCE ROAD 6 SARATOGA 21. If trees are in the path of discharge of drain dissipators or downspouts, those devices must be relocated. The discharge must be directed a minimum of 15 feet to the side of the trunk of any tree. 22. Materials or equipment must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped inside the canopy driplines of trees, or buried on site. Any excess materials (including mortar, concrete, paint products, etc.) must be removed from site. Value Assessment The values of the trees are addressed according to ISA standards, Seventh Edition. The following try Tree # 8 Tree # 10 Tree #11 Tree # 13 Tree # 16 Tree #17 Tree #28 res are expected to be removed. $2,088 $4,026 $3,608 $4,831 $2,442 $1,204 706 They have values as follows: Total $22,881 This is equivalent to four 48-inch boxed specimens. Replacements are suggested. However, it will not be feasible to replace this value with small specimens. There may be room for three 60 inch boxed trees which have approximately that value. The combined value of all of the other trees is $185,047. I suggest a bond equal to 15% (=$27,252) of their total value to assure their protection. Acceptable native tree replacemems are: Coast live oak - Quercus agrifolia Valley oak - Quercus lobata Big leaf maple -Acer macrophyllum California buckeye - Aesculus californica Coast Redwood -Sequoia sempervirerrs . MLB/s PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST Respectfully sub ed, • rM r. , Michael L. Bench, Associate ~~ (,O'~~ Barrie D. Coate, Principal MAY 14, 2002 QOO~f.~J TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE AML*'I PROPERTY 13815 PIERCE ROAD 7 SARATOGA Enclosures: Glossary of Terms - Tree Data Accumulation Charts Tree Protection Before, During and After Construction Protective Fencing Radial Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies _ Platform Root Buffer MaP • • • PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST MAY 14, 20Q2 ~V~~~Q ob ~ • ' J e. Arnim Job Address: 15 Pierce Road Mea surem ents Con dition Pr uninq/ Cabli n Ne eds PesHOiseas e Pro blems Recom mend . BARRIE D COATS 1 j ~ ~ ~ , and ASSOCIATES ~ ~ F ~ ~ W W ~ c~e~ 3531054 ~ W ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g~ - ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~a 43535 Suaa~ Road s ~ ~ ~ ~ 6Y _ w ~ F ~ Z v~i ~ H d ~ w ~ ~ ~ v ~ F ~ LafGiae,U !5000 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ w N t] ~ ~ ~ ~ J ~ O b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° m ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W W ` V Key # . Plant Name ~ p ~ v~ x m U ~ v t 5 ~ c~ ~ ~ ~ z z 1 Val Oak 28.0 28 45 80 3 2 5 Quercus btaefa . in 531 X;27/sg. in. ^ ; 14,328 X sp. c18ss 100% ^ ;14,328 X cond. 60% ; 8,597 X loc. 85% ^ ; 5588 Total Value 2 Valle Oak 28.0 x 12.0 3011 45 55 2 1 3 . in 718 X;27/sq. in. ^ ; 18,386 X sp. class 100% _ ;19,388 X cond. 90% ^ ; 17,447 X Ix. 85% ^ ; 11 341. Total Value 3 California Ba 11.0 x 10.0 7V 1118 40 30 1 3 4 Umbellularia califomica 13 1118 . in 213 X;27/sq. in. ^ ; 5,751 X sp. class 50% ;2,878 X cond. 7S% ^ ; 2,157 X loc. 50% ^ 1,078 Total Value 4 Coast Redwood 28.0 28 50 30 3 2 5 S uola earn revs . in 531 X;27/sq. in. _ ; 14,328 X sp. class 80% ^ ;12,885 X cond. 80% ; 7,737 X loc. 50% ; 3889 Total Value 5 California Bladc Oak 11.0 13 15 25 1 2 3 Qusrcus kel ii . in 95 X;27/sq. in. ^ ; 2,565 X sp. Class 100% ^ ;2,585 X cond. 90% ; 2,308 X loc. 80% ; 1385 Total Value 8 Coast Live Oak 28.0 38 35 35 1 3 4 3 Quercus a rHolia . In 815 X;27/sq. in. _ ; 18,817 X sp. class 100% ^ 118,817 X cond. 75% ^ ; 12,483 X loc. 85% ^ 8101 Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES , 5-gal ~ 536 15-gal '5120 24"box ~ 5420 36"box ~ 51,320 48"box ~ 55A~ 52"box ~ 57,000 72"box ~ 515.000 .. Job # 02-071 Ma 14 2002 1 Q BEST, 5 a WORST Page 1 of 6 0 N- Job Tile: Amini Job Address: 13815 Pierce Road Mea surem ents Con dition Pr unin Cabli ng Ne eds Pest/Diseas e Pro blems Recom mend . BARRIE D COATS ~ o . and ASSOCIATES ~ s ~ J ~ ~ ~ _ ~ W ~ W ~ > ~ (~ 3531052 $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ o ~ ~ b ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ v v ~ ~ 235355snitAoad cr ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ F ~ ~ Z N Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F O im oa,u ~sa o ~ a ~ ~ ~a w y ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ F w ~ o ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ S Key / PIaM Name ~ ~ y = y V U o= ~ _ ~ ~ 0: ~ z 7 Val Oak 25.0 28 50 35 1 2 3 . in 491 X;27/sq. In. • ; 13,247 X sp. class 100% • ;13,247 X cond. 90% • ; 11,922 X loc. 65% ; 7 749 ~ Total Value 8 Montsre Pine 25.0 28 80 25 3 1 4 Pinus redkda . In 491 X i27/sq. in. • ; 13,247 X sp. class 30% ;3,974 X cond. 75% • ; 2.881 X loc. 70% • ; 2,088 Total Value 9 Coast Live Oak 30.0 x multl multl multl 40 40 1 3 4 . In 1824 X i27/sq. in. • ;43,848 X ap. class 100% ;43,848 X cond. 75% • ; 32,888 ~ X loe. 75% ; 24 885 Total Value 10 Coast Live Oek 19.0 21 40 30 1 3 4 . in 283 X S27/sq. in. • ; 7,851 X sP. class 100% • ;7,851 X cond. 75% • ; 5,739 X loc. 70% • 4 017 ' Total Value 11 Plne 30.0 33 80 30 1 2 3 . In 707 X S27/sq. in. • ; 19,078 X sp. class 30% ;5,723 X cond. 90% • ; 5,150 X loc. 70% • 3,805 Total Value 12 Coast Liw Oak 36.0 x 25.0 23\1 multl 45 75 1 3 4 . In 1134 X;27/sq. In. • ;30,808 X sp. Class 100% _ ;30,606 X cond. 75% • ; 22,954 X loc. 80% • ; 18383 Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE V ALUES 5-gal •536 15-gal ~ 5120 24"box 36"box ~ 51,320 1 ~ BEST, ORST 48"bo 52"box -57,000 72"box 5,000 ge 2 of Job # 04-02-0?1 Ma 14 2002 Job '~; Amini ob Address:l~5 Pierce Road ob # 2-071 J J Ma 14 2002 Mea surem ent Con dition Pr unin ablin q Ne eds Pest/ Diseas e Pro blems Recom mend . BARRIE D. COATS and ASSOCIATES t4ae~353~1052 ?%35Su.ailReed Lo~CSa4G !5030 Key / Plant Name ~ ~ ~ S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `? J ~ ~ ~ I W ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ = Q W uai ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ Z~ F b ~ ~ F 0 ~ ~ ~ ~qy U ~ v ~ z_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ N ~ ~ ~ Z W ~ W ~ N c3 c '' o Z ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ W a ~ ~ ~ ~ .. S ~ ~ ~= ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ a ~ O f" ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~z ~ ' ~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~a ,~ ~ 13 Coast Oak 18.0 21 40 50 1 2 3 . In 283 X S27/aq. in. = S 7,851 X sp. class 100% 57,851 X cond. 90% = f 6.886 X loc. 70% = S 4820 Tots! Value 14 Coast Live Oak 18.0 22 40 35 2 2 4 . In 283 X S27/sq. in. = S 7,851 X ap. loss 100% = 17,851 X cond. 7S% i 5,739 X loc. 70% i 4 017 Total Value 15 Coast Live Oak 12.0 14 15 20 2 4 8 . fn 113 X 127/sq. in. _ : 3,052 X sP. loss 100% 13,052 X cond. 4S% • : 1,373 X loe. 50% : '687 Total Value 18 Coast Live Oak 18.0 18 40 30 2 2 4 . in 201 X 127/aq. In. • S 5,428 X sp. doss 100% • 15,428 X cond. 75% • S 4,089 X loc. 80% • i 2442 Total Value 17 Deodar Ceder 15.0 18 BD. 30 3 2 5 , Cedrus deodaro . in 177 X 127/sq. in. • i 4,789 X ap. doss 70% 13.338 X cond. 80% • i 2,003 X loc. 80% • i 1 OZ 18 Celitomia Black Oak 18.0 18 40 50 3 2 5 . In 201 X S27/sq. in. • S 5,428 X sp. doss 100% S5,428 X cond. 80% = S 3,258 X loc. 80% s 1953 Total Value 0 W REPLACEMEr1T TREE VALUES 5-gal • $3fi 15-gal -5120 24"box r 5420 36"box -51,320 48"box ~ 55,000 S2"box -$7,000 72•box -515,000 1 ~ BEST, 5 -WORST Page 3 of 6 0 0 0 f~ job Title: Amini Job Address: 13815 Pierce Road AAea surem ents Con dition Pr unin abli n Ne eda Pestlt)isea se Pro blems Recom mend . BARRIE D. COATS and ASSOCIATES c~~s~la52 23535 SunA Aoad taGlae,G !5000 Key / Plant Name ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ t? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ JQ ~ W ~ u1 s ~ ~ Z~ F ~ ~~ F O ~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Zz v ~~ a-i ~ ~ d W ~ N ~ ~ aa O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v O 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ D: ~ 3 ~Q ~ ~ ~ ffp~~ z ~ O ~ gQ (j J ~ 19 Coast Live Oak 14.0 15 30 15 4 4 8 154 X;27/sq. in. s ; 4,154 X sp. lass 100% _ ;4,154 X cond. 15% ~ ; 823 X loc. 40% ~ ; 249 Total Value 20 Coast Live Oak 20.0 21 40 35 1 2 3 314 X;27/sq. in. _ ; 8,478 X sP. class 100% ~ ;8,478 X cond. 90% e ; 7,830 X loc. 80% ~ ; 4,578 ..Total Value 21 Coast Live Oak 34.0 36 50 30 1 2 3 907 X;27/sq. in. ~ ; 24,501 X sp. class 100% ~ ;24,501 X cond. 90% ~ ;22.051 X loc. 80% 13 231 Total Value 22 Coast Llve Oak 23.0 24 40 30 1 2 3 415 X;27lsg. in. ~ ; 11,212 X sp. Gass 100% ;11,212 X cond. 90% ~ ; 10,081 X loc. 75% s "'; 7588 ":Total Value 23 Coast Live Oak 28.0 30 45 35 1 2 3 815 X;27lsq. In. a ; 16,817 X sp. class 100% ;18,817 X Cond. 90% ~ ; 14,955 X loC: 75% 11 18 Total Value 24 Coast live Oak 23.0 25 40 30 2 2 4 415 X S27lsq. in. _ ; 11,212 X sP• class 100% ~ ;11,212 X cond. 75% s ; 8,408 X loc. 75% ~ ; 8307 _ _ Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE V ALLIES 5-gal ~ 536 15-gal ~ 5120 •~ 24"box ~ 36"box ~ 51,320 1 ~ BEST, S~ORST 48"box 52"box - $7,000 72"box ~ .~ Page 4 of 6 Job #04-02-071 Ma 14 2002 ob 'IZlfe: Amini J .~ ob Address:1~S15 Pierce Road J ob # ~2-071 J MaV 14, 2002 Mea surem ent Con dition Pr unin ablin Ne eds Pestl Disess e Pro blems R ecom mend . BARRIE D. COATS and ASSOCIATES c4aA~~5~lo~z 235355unitAoad LaCtIa,G 950(10 Key f Plant Name ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ } J ~ = °~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ vii ~ ~ ~ S ~ ~ ~ F 0 ~ ~ ~ U ~ v ~ ? ~ F ~ ~ ~ V ~ N ~ ~ U ~, ~ Z W ~ ~ ~ ~w Z m ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ " W ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ r r` ~ 3 W z ~ ~ ~ tLl Z Z ~ ~ o~ }C K gg 8 25 AAadrone 8.0 x 8.0 13 20 20 1 2 3 Arbutus mer¢Iesli 84 X 127/sq. In. ^ : 1,728 X sp. class 50% _ :864 X cond. 90% : 778 X loc. 70% s 544 Totl Value 28 Coast Live Oak 9.0 10 20 15 1 2 3 83.8 X S27/sq. In. ^ : 1,717 X sP• class 100% =1,717 X cond. 90% : 1,545 X loc. 70% = 1082 27 Coast Live Oak 30.0 30 35 40 1 2 3 707 X =27/sq. in. ^ S 19,078 X sp. class 100% ^ 119,076 X cond. 90% ^ i 17.188 X loc. 75% ^ : 12 878 Toll Value 28 Caast Live Oak 23,0 24 40 55 1 4 5 4 415 X 127/sq. in. ^ S 11,212 X sp. class 100% Q 111,212 X cond. 80% ^ i 8.727 X loc. 70% ^ S 4 709 Tote) Valus 29 Coast Live Oak 21.0 22 40 35 1 3 4 4 348 X 127/sq. in. ^ 5 9,347 X sp. class 100% 19,347 X cond. 75% = 7,010 X loc. 70% ~ f 4,807 Totl Value 30 Coast Live Oak 21.0 23 40 30 3 2 5 348 X S27/sq. in. ^ i 8,347 X sp. less 100% ^ 19,347 X cond. 60% = 5,808 X loc. 70% i 3928 Toil Value Q REPLACEMENT TREE V ALLIES 5-gal -536 15-gal °5120 24"box -5420 36"box -51,320 1-BEST, 5 -WORST 48"box -55,000 52"box -57,000 72"box -515,000 Page 5 of 6 Job Tide: Amini ~ Job Address: 13815 Pierce Road Job #04-02-071 __ Mav 14, 2002 BARRIE D, COATS and ASSOCIATES (COln 3531052 235355iaaQAoed LaOioe,G 95030 ;ey 1s Plant Name 31 Coast Live Oak 32 33 Black Oak I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $ ~, .. ~ ~ I ~ ~ t ~ ul W N ~ ~ ~ d o } o: o: ~ vii ~ ~ ~ ~ F ~ Z w N Z w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z 38.0 40 40 40 1 3 4 1134 X 127/sg. in. _ =30,808 X sp. class 100% 530,808 X cond. 75% = S 22,854 X loc. 75% S 17,218 Total Value 10.0 12 25 20 1 2 3 78.5 X =27/sq. In. _ = 2,120 X sp. class 100% = 52.120 X cond. 90% _ = 1.908 X loc. 70% i 1,335 Total Value 28.0 30 45 40 1 2 3 615 X 127/sg. in. = i 18,817 X sp. class 100% = 116,817 X cond. 90% s 14,955 X loc. 75% = S 11,218 Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE V ALLIES ~ 5-gal ~ 536 15-gal ~ 5120 24"box 36"box !51,320 48"bo 52"box ~ 57,000 ~ 1=BEST, ORST 72"box 5,000 "' age6of6 - BARRIE D. COATS AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants - (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los 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. Caltivar - A named plant selection from which identical or nearly identical plants can be produced, usually by vegetative propagation or cloning. Decurrent - A term used to describe a mature tree crown composed of branches lacking a central leader resulting in around-headed tree. Eacnrrent - A term used to describe a tree crown in which a strong central leader is present to the top of a tree with lateral branches that progressively decrease in length upward from the base. Girdling root - A root that partially or entirely encircles the trunk and/or large buttress roots, which could restrict growth and downward movement of photosynthates. Indnded bark -Bark which is entrapped innarrow-angled attachments of two or more stems, branches, or a stem and branch(es). Such attachmenrts are weakly attached and subject to splitting out. - Kinked root - A taproot or a major root(s) which is sharply bent and can cause plant instability and reduction of movement of water, nutrients, and photosynthates. Root collar -The flared, lower portion of the base of a tree where the roots and stem merge. Also referred to as the "root crown". Leader -The main stem or trunk that forms the apex of the tree. Stem -The axis (trunk of a central leader tree) of a plant on which branches are attached. Temporary branches - A small branch on the tnnnk 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. DeSnition of Woody Parts Trunk -The main stem of a tree between the ground and the lowest scaffold branch. Scaffold branches - In decurrent trees, the branches that form the main structure of the crown. Limb - A major structural part. Branch - A smaller part, attached to a limb or scaffold branch. Branchlet - A small part, attached to a branch. Twig -Avery small part attached to a branchlet. Leaf- The main photosynthetic organ of most plants. OOO~J~'7 BARRIE .D. COATS AND ASSOCIATES .. ,..- Horticultural Consultants - - (408) 353-1052 - Fax. (408) 353-1,238 23535 Summit Rd. L.os Gatos, CA 95033_: - = -- -_ - _ - TREE PROTECTION BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION These are general recommendations And may be superseded by site-specific instructions BEFORE ~. ~ = ; _ _ Plan location of trenching to avoid all possible cuts beneath tree canopies. This includes trenches for utilities, irrigation lines, cable TV and roof drains.... Plan construction period fence locations which will preverrt 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 docuriient. Require return of signed copies to demonstrate that theyhave -read the documeirt. - 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 recut later by the arborist. Under no circumstances may any party remove more than 30% of a trees foliage, or prune so that an unbalanced canopy is created. DURING Avoid use of any wheeled equipme~ beneath tree canopies. Maintain fences at original location in vertical, undamaged condition until all contractors and subcontractors, including painters are gone. Clear root collars of retained trees enough to leave S-6 buttress roots bases visible at 12" from the trunk. Irrigate trees adjacent to construction activity during hot months (June-October). Apply 10 gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter (measured at 4 %:') once per 2 week period by soaker hose. Apply water at the dripline, or adjacent to construction not around the trunk. Apply mulch to make a 3" deep layer in all areas beneath tree canopies and inside fences. Any organic material which is nontoxic may be used. AFTER r ~i • Irrigate monthly with 10 gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter with a soaker hose, placed just inside the dripline. Continue until 8" of rain has fallen. Avoid cutting irrigation trenches beneath tree canopies. - - Avoid rototilling beneath tree canopies since that will destroy the small surface roots which absorb water. - - ., _ i Avoid installation of turf or other frequerrtly irrigated plants beneath tree canopies. . -. - 000®3$ 31 1sAIZRIE D. COA"I'E AND ASSOCIATES 23535 Summit Rd Los Gatos, Ca 95030 (408)353-1052 Horticultural Consultants Consulting Arborists _. r F ~ ('r r `~ Z - \~~ ~` t ~~ ti ~~ ~ y. •~ ~~'' w ~ ~ ~ • % ~ ~ ~i I t -- i i ~ ____ Tree Preservation Protective Fencing Construction period protection for trees should be provided before grading or other equipment is allowed on the property. Top of fence hung with fluorescent fla8gine tape every 10 feet. 6' chain link or welded wire =~-~--- mesh 8' fence post of 2" diameter GI pipe or T-ankle post ' f ~ Fence p!.a~ed at drip line ~I ~( ,,,/~~_ or 50% greater than the tree canopy radius c, }-ere possible Roadway ~ . - - - -- -~~_ ' Fence/ , i siting t n construction is to take place beneath a t(~ canopy on one side; the fence should be sQ~d 2-3 feet beyond That construction but ~ • ff construction or paving is to take place throughout the area beneath the canopy and dripline fencing is not practical, snow fencing should be used to protect trunks from damage V Three layers of wire and lath snow fencing to 8' above 8round on i~~ _ ~ ~• trees where construction ~' -i~~ , will take place beneath ~ _ 8 the canopy ~r~ ~~~ r~ ~, I. ~ ~--- ~~ between construction and the tree trunk. ~ _~: i' ~- -- -- - s .4, ,t $t ' Barrie D. Coate ~ ~ '++~ ~.~~~~PP`IIIIp4 ~,.t _.. 'F,~ Associates ` Radial Trenching ' " ~-" ~~~~~~- ~~ \ ~ ~~ (`W8) 353-1052 . ~:~- - ~:~-F-:,-- . Dry - ~ ~ ;~~~ '. 23535 Summit Road i . _,--- - y' P.Cine .~ ~< :..The Do s and Don is of Imgation / _ _. j . ~ ,~~ ;; Los Gatos, CA 95033 ~ ~~~;r.- - - _-w~--- _ ~ a ~. t ~ ~ Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies __ ='_ :r-~~_----,~ ~- ~~~=~--~~ ~ - '~ 7ICULTLRAL CONSULTANTS m~ ...-- ~, ~~ _ ~''`'' m ,. - - ti Certified, Consulfing Artiorist - ~ r'" ~' =~~~ ' " ~ ~ " - -`: ,"~.` ~"` .~' ,` ~ ~?_{{ ~` t w t , ~ t .- .~ o ~ abso ng ` ~'.~ .. ~ 4~ } 4 ,_;;Root Protection Zone, .==~. r'~. ~` t ~,. ,, r :~}; ~~ ~ ~ ~ t. A t ' ~ ~ 1~ t 1 ~ t ., ~~ ~~ d ~~ d- ~f z ~ ~+ ~, t, anon la ~mi ~ osec p~ . il~nes I ~ `. .' e ~e . rod area ~:,.• t ~,~ t ~~ ~;+ 1:%tunesthe:Dnplme :,,,"~ _ .,._.~,~- ~`~, ate', _ ~ ~~. ~r „ -, ~.i h '-~ .:~~` ~ ~'a. f~' - f. t;i ~~ 1 `.E ~*~w~~ ~.:h G. .{_. N~*4t _,,~' `'1'.r :. •:"W -~.y~ ~`, .til ~.+ t ~ P ~~ ~~ A~' 6 ::~f P~., ,mow. ,,`4r ~''. r s r' < t ~. ~ f1' D"a y.. _ r~..awt ~ it [ ~,{'~ + ~ ;~.. ti ~„".Fd ~ ~.,- t ~ , ~ s z f ~ ~ ~' "~: .*, ,1 ~' ~~ ~'r S ~! ~ ~ iii ~'e . ,.y,l,~, . .~. W ) "N i :~~ ` ~ . ~ ti , ~y' F t .x .5•. ~imes ~rurk tliameter~; ~`~~ -;~ ` «w ~'~1' '1" ." '.r, i~a •C .t~.. ~~i "~, ~ ~~~ 6 d.y~ :jP '' ~'MC9L`t -t X tf ~.;1 !ff ii=Gy' t2t'~ e, n•:n ~tY ~ . ~~ QS :.I'~ • ;~ ."`, .70' ~ iF:'4:1 ~: i '.9v,~ ry :s ~'F +r ~;,"" ~ ia,- r/'p.' S :7 3 s y,,. r f' 'yi ~~ ` r. ~r ~;~,yC' .. ;. r .,. /~~ . - W ra , ,t:,. ~ ~"rVEie 'd v~YY : ~' u,~ ~. z .r ~~..+til r A .e.. ': / ~ ...: ~ _'s .~~ ~.~ I'!. +1 ~~, .. ~• bstA ,:ten} ~~ v- ~h,i "~ ,:, *~, i"~r'~ t~: ~3E ~ . 1 ~, Y , 5 : w .a t ,. y ,~ , f .,.ice ~ ~ ~ w ,*. ~ , ~ - L . C!',~,' h v `::~. .. ~ • _ ,~'! k y;~ ~ ~ ~.~ .~" ri/ f r'"il. '.4'f~~y. ~t~ , yF~jt teal Unes may lie installed :° _ ,.:;..,. ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~~, ' .;,~ .- t ", ,:.;_~ ~ -, ~:~ ~ ::. -~ ~:Y r:~. tera Alin ~ ~~ ;e '~.~mti~ hind-du trenches in' areas , ~ , x ~,, ,, r~;~",~'''/ , x r . 1 s , eP ~x -<~ ~'.SC ".'..TM - ~ ~~r ~ ~;~ ~'",~' 1:.:-.f '~~' "j7r~ `~a •~`.• Y f v Fig tallow aasorbiri "roots if . ~ F _ 4 t f;~ 7y-~,y~ '~"~'~k y ti :~~~i' ~r k s ~~°~: ~,~ r g, w Ito. r r r' ~'~'v, 1 ~~a ,-+ t~ri,; ~ ,y~.: are at right angles to the trunk f ~ ~ ~x~r x~ ~= } ~ ;gutting acrossahe .root .mass area: ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~~ f° F; _~,< ~~inches-deep) must.be~installed outside ~ ~ '~~ ~ ~ v-~~~ ~ ~,, rrotecbon zone.:In nc~-case may sprinklers wet << !~~ c '~ ~.. , '~ h times the tr',eunlt'diameter of.the trunk I i ~~,~`~ ~ ,. 5 d~..~, ^~ss r `E.. ~5yr i y .> _ _ ~s 4 ~~ s~F ..ti t P vy(t(~pryp` ~y ~ 1# ~. ~T ~'3i r 7~ ~~ ' . ~,~', 7 ~ ,?'~ ~~~ ~ r ~ -was ! , .%:i _ _ ',r''A.'y~J >r ,f.. , A 1-inch Plywood and Wood Chips Platform buffer for Areas Beneath A Tree Canopy which Must Be Used for_ Foot Traffic • Prepared by: Barrie D. Coate ~ Associates -Horticultural Consultants - ~t~r-;_ (x+08) 353-1052 <~ =-= 23535 Summit Road ~~~~= -~~``'"_ ~ ~~ Los Gatos, CA 95033 Q~0~~1. l I.VI`rJUl.lli`~U cu~t+ytu:a. ~ - - _ _ .__. s Tree munbers correspond to evaluation charts. \ _ O _ _ All dimensions and tree locations ~ '~'~ are approximate. ,_ - ~ _ ' ~ - - / ~ ? ~. s. z ,,~. ~~ ~ d s ~:~ ~: z. ~ ~ dw3 ~,Ov _,; - ~ ~7 O~~d ` R: FOCI ~~ ~, 7 K p 5~0 •. •_ ,~ ~ ~ ~-^ - ,-'-w =~' ~ .~. Oct . ~.`~jJ~`~ . ~ ::; ~ ~ ` ~d ~ 1.~ ~. ~ .. ~ ~ ~ 105 .n . n °~~ a ti wO ` ~ ~~. ~ ~ 1\ \~ ~' o ~;~` .~ ~ ^.C o 'gyp` Y \ ~ , _ _ -'C .~~ t' _ r _ h•~ / / ~ \ \~\ 1\~` \ \\\\\~ ~`~ \~ !'~ 'fiT~ ~",~ ~w.~,, ~ N~ ~`9`~O 1. E - +O ~ .'. '~ ~I w, . ~\ ~ ~ Y •~ - ~ 3C i ., ~:~ ~, ~ ~- BARRIE D. -COATS and ASSOCIATES Horticutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 ~408I353-1052 REVISED Attachment 4 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMIIJDATIONS AT THE AMIlJI PROPERTY 13815 PIERCE ROAD SARATOGA Pmpared at the Request of: Kristin Borel Community Planning Dept. City of Saratoga 13777 Frtutvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arbonst July 18, 2002 - Job # 04-02-071 A JUL 2 5 2002 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OOOOa 3 REVISED TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECONIINIIVDATJONS AT THE AMWI PROPERTY 13815 PIERCE ROAD SARATOGA Assignment At the request of the Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of Saratoga, this report reviews the proposal to demolish the existing residence and to construct. a new residence with a basement in the~context of potential damage to or the removal of existing trees: This report rates the condition of the trees on site that are protected by City of Saratoga ordinance. Recommendations are included to mitigate damage to these trees during construction. ' The plans reviewed for this report are the construction plans prepared by the Craftsman's Guild, Inc., Cupertino, Sheets 2-8, but are undated. No Grading and Drainage Plan is provided with this set of plans. We prepared a previous report regarding this property on May 14, 2002. Summary This proposal exposes 33 trees to some level of risk by construction. One tree is dimctly in conflict with proposed construction. ~Iowever, at least 5 additional trees may be sufficiently damaged that they would not survive. 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 levels of the expected risks. Observations There are at least 33 trees on this site that may be exposed to some level of 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 33 trees are classified as follows: Trees #1, 2, 7, 33 _ Valley oak (Quercus lobata) Tree #3 California bay laurel (Umbellularia californica) Tree #4 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) „ Trees #5, l 8, 32 California black oak (Quercus kelloggii) Trees #6, 9, 10, 12-16, 19-24, 26-31 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Trees #8, 11 Monterey pine (Pinus radiates) Tree # 17 Deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara) Tree #25 Pacific Madrone (Arbutus men_iesii) The particulars regarding these trees {species, trunk diameter, height, spread, health, and structure) 'are provided in the attachments that follow this text. PREPARED BY_ MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTIlVG ARBORIST JULY 18, 2002 OOOOa4 RF,VISED TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT TEIE AMINII PROPERTY 2 13815 PIERCE ROAD SARATOGA 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 33 trees aze converted to descriptive ratings as follows: Exceptional S imens Fine S imens Fair S imens Marginal S imens Poor S imens 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 1, 3, 4,14, 16, 8, 15 19 11, 12, 13, 20, 17, 18, 28, 30 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31 32 33 Fine specimens must be retained if possible but without major design revisions. Mitigation procedures recommended here are intended to limit damage 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 root collar of tree #6 is covered by fill soil. This condition exposes the tree to several serious diseases, which attack the root collar when conditions are favorable for the disease.- Risks to Trees by Proposed Construction Demolition of the existing residence, the existing garage, and the existing out building has the potential of causing damage to the adjacent trees. Mitigation procedures would be required to prevent significant root loss, broken branches, or bark injuries. Tree #8 is in conflict with the proposed terrace structure. I recommend that this tree be ;; considered lost. Trees # 10, 11, 13, 16, 17 and 28 are located within a few feet of the proposed footprint of the new residence. The excavations for the footing of the residence and for the basement would result in severe mot loss to these trees. As an example, tree #28 is a 23-inch diameter coast live oak. The basement light well is proposed within about 6 feet of the trunk of tree #28. However, the actual cut would be at least of 2-4 feet beyond of the edge of the proposed light well retaining wall to provide a workspace for construction. Thus, PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTIIJG ARBORiST JULY 1 R, 2002 ~~~~~~ REVISED TREE S(IRVEY AND PRF.SERVATTON RECOMt~~NDATIONS AT TIC AMWI PRnPERTY 3 13815 PIERCE ROAD SARATOGA the actual cut would be within 2-3 -feet of the trunk of tree #28. At this distance, this tree would lose approximately 50% of its root system, and it would be rendered unstable, because the cut would no doubt remove buttress roots, which are essential for stability. Preservation of tree #28 would require a minimum distance of 18 feet between the trunk and the edge of the actual soil cut. This means that the footprint of the house would have to be relocated approximately 10 feet further west. Also, bear in mind that tree #28 is only in fair health. A tree that is in lass than ideal health is less tolerant of root loss. This has a bearing on the proportion of root loss which it will tolerate. The proposed excavation for the light well would pose a serious risk to trees #27 and 30 as well at the location proposed. Tree #27 is a coast live oak with a trunk diameter of 30 inches. In order for tree #27 to survive, there must be no cuts or excavation within 20 feet of the trunk. Tree #30 is also a coast live oak that has a trunk diameter of 21 inches. In order for tree #30 to survive, there must be no cuts or excavations within 18 feet of the trunk. If the location of the residence were located 10 feet toward the west, this distance should be sufficient to expect the survival of these trees in their presern condition as well if protection of the root zone between the house and tree trunks is effective. However, this relocation of the residence would put tree #9 at risk unless the terrace is redesigned. This is partially based on the assumption that the proposed terrace is a masonry structure that would require a footing. If a soil cut of even 4 inches in depth would be made to construct this driveway, trees #1, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29 and 30 would likely suffer significant root losses. In my opinion, trees #27, 28, 29, and 30 would not survive construction of the driveway for that portion that is proposed across the root zones of these trees on the east side of their trunks. If any underground utilities must be replaced or upgraded, it will be essential that the trench locations be planned prior to construction and that the trenches are located exactly as planned. This must not be left up to contractors or to the utility providers. Comments Because of the location of the clusters of trees at this site, it will be difficult to design a new residence of significant size between the clusters of trees without some losses. Because of the density of the trees behind the house, in my opinion, it is preferable to sacrifice some of those trees behind the house, oak trees # l 0, 13, 16, Monterey pine # l 1, Deodar cedar # I7, than to risk those trees in front of the house. If trees # 10, 1 l , 13, 16, and l 7 are removed, I also recommend the removal of trees # 15 and l 9, which are poor specimens primarily due to crowding. However, I believe that trees #27, 28, and 29 must be preserved, partially because of their large size and excellent health. Tree #30 is also large but of poorer health, a condition which may be correctable. A soil cut of 10-15 inches is required in order to construct "Turf Block" paving. In this event, it would not be feasible to construct a turf block driveway between trees #23 and 24. Tree #23 requires a minimum of 18 feet between the trunk and a soil cut, and tree #24 requires a minimum of 15 feet between the trunk and a soil cut. Either the driveway must be constructed on top of the existing soil grade or one of these trees must be sacrificed in PRFPARF.D BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST J[J1.Y 18, 2002 ~~~~? 6 • • • REVISID TRF.F, SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE AMAn PROPERTY i 3815 PIERCE ROAD SARATOGA order for the driveway to be moved. In the event of the latter, -I recommend that tree #23 be retained because of its larger size and better condition. The plan appears to show that the driveway is to be constructed approximately 2 feet closer to tree # 1 than the existing driveway. In this event, tree # 1 would not be expected to survive. Recommendations 1. I recommend that the plans be dated. Undated plans often present significant problems during construction, where plans are changed after permits are issued. 2. I recommend that the driveway be redesigned. I have presented an alternative on the attached plan. Sear in mind that the other trees, such as trees #3, 6, 31, and 33 have minimum distances that must be maintained between their trunks and soil cuts. The minimum distance that these trees require is as follows: Tree #3 -10 feet Tree #6 -18 feet Tree #31 - 20 feet Tree #33 -18-feet 3. I recommend that the footprint of the residence be relocated 10 feet toward the west in order to expect the survival of trees #27, 28, and 29. This relocation would require a redesign of the terrace. There must be no soil cuts within 20 feet of the trunk of tree #9. 4. I suggest that construction period fencing be provided and located as noted on the attached map. Fencing must be of chainlink, a minimum height of 5 feet, mounted on steel posts driven 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. 5. 1 recommend that a root buffer be required on the entire south side of the residence between the foundation and the protective fencing, adjacent to Trees # 14, 18, 20,~ and 21. A root buffer consists of 6 full inches of coarse bark chips (shredded redwood is not acceptable for this purpose due its compressibility) be spread over the existing grade, which must immediately be covered by 1 inch plywood (full sheets), tied together, and secured to prevent slippage. 6. It will not be feasible to trench for a drain between the trunks of trees #24 and 21 and the foundation of the residence. If this is planned, the drain location must be redesigned. 4 7. I recommend that a Grading and Drainage Plan be provided and reviewed by the city arborist. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST 1lJLY 18, 2002 ~~~~~~ REVISED TkEE SURVEY 4ND PRESERVATION RECOMItRh~JDATIONS AT TIE: AMRQI PROPERTY S 13815 PIERCE ROAD SARATOGA 8. There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping inside the driplines of retained trees (either before or after the construction period fencing is installed or removed). Where this may conflict with drainage or other requirements, the city arborist must be consulted. - 9. Trenches for any utilities (gas, electricity, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be located outside the driplines of retained trees. For any tree which this cannot be achieved, I suggest that the city arborist be consulted. 10. I suggest that the root collar of tree #6 must be excavated to expose the tops of the bumess roots without injuring the root bark. This must be done by an air spade or pressure washer to remove the excess soil. A minimum space of approximately 12 inches around the trunk must be exposed. Air spade operators include: Aire Excavating Company 650/298-8937 and Urban Tree Management 650/321-0202. 11. 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. 12. Supplemental irrigation must be provided to retained trees #1, 6, 14, 18, 20, 21, 27, 29, and 31 during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1 inch of rainfall). Imgate with 10 gallons for each inch of trunk diameter every 2 weeks throughout the construction period. This can be achieved by the use of a simple soaker hose, which must be located near the dripline for the entire canopy circumference. 13. Excavated soil must 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. 14. Any pruning must be done by an ISA certified arborist and according to ISA, Western Chapter Standards, 1998. 15. Landscape pathways and other amenities constructed under the canopies of trees must be done completely on grade without excavation. 16. Landscape irrigation trenches (or any other excavations), inside the driplines of trees, must be no closer than 15 times the trunk diameter, if the trenching direction is across the root zone. However, radial trenches (i.e., like the spokes of a wheel) may be done ; .. closer if the trenches reach no closer than 5 times the trunk diameter to the tree's trunk, and if the spokes are at least 10 feet apart at the perimeter. 17. Sprinkler irrigation must be designed not to strike the trunks of trees. Further, spray irrigation must not be designed to strike inside the driplines of oak trees. PRF.PARID BY: WDC}IAEI. L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST JULY 18, 2002 ~~~~~ 8 REVISED TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVAT:DN RECOTvQvtEtdDATIONS AT THE AMIAII PROPERTY 5 13815 PIERCE ROAD SARATO('iA 18. 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. 19. Bender board or similar edging material must not be used inside the driplines of existing trees, because its installation requires trenching of 4-6 inches, which may result in significant root damage. 20. I suggest that the species of plants used in the root canes of oak trees be compatible with the environmental and cultural requirements of the oak species indigenous to this area. A publication about plants compatible with California native oaks can be obtained from the California Oak Foundation, 1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland 94612. 2l . Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bark, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be installed directly in contact with the bark of trees because of the risk of serious disease infection. 22. If trees are in the path of discharge of drain dissipators or downspouts, those devices must be relocated. The discharge must be directed a minimum of 1 S feet to the side of the trunk of any tree. 23. Materials or equipment must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped inside the canopy driplines of trees, or buried on site. Any excess materials (including mortar, concrete, paint products, etc.) must be removed from site. Value Assessment The values of the trees are addressed according to ISA standazds, Seventh Edition. . • The following trees are expected to be removed. Tree # 8 $2,088 Tree # 10 $4,026 Tree # 11 $3,608 Tree #13 $4,831 Tree # 16 $2,442 Tree # 17 1 204 Total $18,199 They have values as follows: This is equivalent to three 48 inch boxed and two 36 inch boxed or one 72 inch boxed and one 48 inch boxed native trees. Replacements are suggested. The combined value of all of the other trees is $l 89,753. I suggest a bond equal to 15% (=$28,463) of their total value to assure their protection. Acceptable native tree replacements are: PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULT~IJCr ARBORIST nn.Y 18.2002 OOOOa9 REVISED TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION REC(RuIl+~iDAT1ONS AT THE AMIIdI PROPERTY 13815 P!I•RCE RUAD SARATOGA f Coast live oak - Quercus agrifolia Valley oak - Quercus lobata Big leaf maple - Acer macrophyllum California buckeye -~lesculus californica Coast Redwood -Sequoia sempervirens Respectfully submitt , Michael L. Bench, Associat~~e~~ ~~ ~~'a"o- Barrie D. Coate, Principal MLB/sl. Enclosures: Refer to Report May 14, 2002 7 N • • PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING AR,BORiST JULY I8, 2002 00050 SARATOGA FIRE 40B B67 2780 04/29/ e 1 ? Attachment 5 BUILDING SITE APPROVAL CHECK LIST _ N/A means NOT APPLICABLE ,FILE #: 02-013 DATE: Apri126, 2002 ~ # OF LOTS: ONE APPLI ANT: ~M ~ ~ ~ -- LOCATION: 13815 PIERCE ROAD ~Dl~. Z.Gf? (. -- 1: Water supply and access for fire protection are acceptable. NOTE: FIRE FLOW REQUIRED N EXCEEDS HYDRANT CAPACITY.I3R SPRINKLER SYSTEM REQUIRED. Y + 2: Property is located in a designated hazardous fire area. 3: Plans checked for weed brush abatement accessibility. _ y ~ 4: Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class A prepared or built-up roofing. Re-roofing less than 10% shall be exempt. (Ref. Uniform Fire Code Appendix 3, City of Saratoga Code 16-20:210.) ~ -- 5: Early Warning Fire Alarm System Shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions, city of Saratoga Code Article 16-60. {Alternative requirements, sprinkler systems, 16-60-E.) 6: Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. Y J 7: Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in newly constructed attached/detached garages (2 heads per stall), workshops, or storage areas which are not constructed as habitable space. To ensure proper -sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. The designer/azchitect is to contact San Jose Water company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. (City of Sazatoga Code 16-15.090 [I]) N/A 8: All fire hydrants shall be located within 500' from the residence and deliver no less than 1000 gallons/minute of water for a sustained period of 2 hours. (City of Saratoga Code 14-30:040 [C]) y 1 9: Automatic sprinklers are required for the new 8669 sq. ft. residential dwelling. A 4-head calculated 13R sprinkler system is required. Documentation of the proposed installation and all , calculations shall be submitted to the •fire district for approval. The sprinkler system must be installed by a licensed contractor. NOTE: NFPA 13R WITH NO EXCEPTIONS, NO FDC. • IonBanecker-02-013-13815 pierce rd.wpd 000051 SARATOGA FIRE 408 867 2780 04/29/02 09:46am P. 012 r 2 -Building Site Approval Check List #: 02-013 N/A 10: Fire hydrants: developer shall install fire hydrant(s) that meet the fire district's specifications. Hydrant(s) shall be installed and accepted prior to construction of any building. 11: Driveways: All driveways shall have a 14' minimum with plus 1' shoulders. Secondarv Access not required A: Slopes from 0% to I 1 % shall use a double seal coat of O & S or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. a B: Slopes from 11% to 15% shall be surfaced using 2.5" of A.C. or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. C: Slopes from 15% to 17% shall be surfaced using a 4" PCC concrete rough surfaced on a 4" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling D: Curves: Driveway shall have a minimum inside radius of 21'. N/A E: Turnouts: Construct a passing turnout 10' wide and 40' long as required by the fire district. Details shall be shown on building plans. N/A 12: Turn-azounds: construct aturn-azound at the proposed dwelling site having a 33' outside radius. Other approved types must meet the requirements of the fire district. Details shall be shown on the building plans and approved by the fire district. Y ~ 13: pazking: Provide a parking azea for two emergency vehicles at the proposed dwelling site or as required by the fire district. Details shall be shown on building plans. N/A 14: Security Gate: Gate width shall not be less than 14'. Gate access shall be through a Medeeo lock box purchased from the fire department. Details shall be shown on building plans. N/A 15: Bridges: All bridges and roadways shall be designed to sustain 35,000 pounds dynamic loading.,, ...~ ~~,. APPROVED: ~' ~.~.~ 2.~~~,[L~~ longeaecker-02-013-13815 pierce rd.wpd ~00^~~ .o o ~.a ~~ °~ @~~ oo ~' l~^,:.= Attachment 6 ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~0~~ -13777 FRUITVALE AVENiJE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868-1200 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Incorporated October 22,1956 Evan Baker n Apri130, 2002 on atfey Jonn Nick Slieit Mr Mlke Amini Ann Wal,onsrnilh 10566 S. De Anza Boulvard Cupertino, CA 95014 RE: 13851 Pierce Road Geotechnical Clearance Dear Mr. Amini, We have issued revised Geotechnical Clearance for the above referenced project. It is based on the Supplemental Geotechnical Review Memorandum prepared by the City Geotechnical Consultant, dated Apri129, 2002. If you have any questions regarding this, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, I~ ' Iveta Harvancik Associate Engineer (408) 868-1274 Attachments: 1. Geotechnical Clearance Conditions memorandum prepared by Iveta Harvancik, dated Apri130, 2002 l/' 2. Supplemental Geotechnical Review Memorandum prepared by the City Geotechnical Consultant, dated April 29, 2002. Cc: Community Development Department, City of Saratoga • 00003 Printed on recycled oaoer ^-~ i- - MEMORANDUM TO: Community Development Department CC: Applicant FROM: Iveta Harvancik, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: Revised Geotechnical Clearance Conditions for Amini,13851 Pierce Road DATE: Apri130, 2002 Geotechnical Clearance is approved for the above referenced project. Revised conditions of approval, based on the review memo from the City Geotechnical Consultant dated April 29, 2002.are: - 1. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, landslide mitigation, and design parameters for foundations, pavement and retaining walls) to ensure th their recommendations have been properly incorporated. 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 the Grading Permit. 2. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspection shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface ,; drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior fo the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to th~ City Engineer for review and approval prior to finalization, of the Grading Permit. -1- 000054 ~ ~. - 4. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to project Zone Cleazance. 5. 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. • • -2- OOOJ~S t ~ _ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867-3438 MEMORANDUM TO: John Cherbone, Public Works Director DATE: Apri129, 2002 FROM: City Geotechnical Consultant SUBJECT: Supplemental Geotechnical Review (S0061B) RE: Amini 13815 Pierce Road At your request, we have completed a supplemental geotechnical review of the subject application using: Supplemental Letter - Geotechnical Geological Investigation (letter), prepazed by GeoQuest, Inc., dated April 12, 2002. In addition, we have reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office files. DISCUSSION • The applicant is proposing demolition of an existing one-story residence, and construction of a new, two- story residence with basement and. attached garage in the general location of the existing residence. No grading plan indicating the extent and amount of earthwork quantities has been provided for our review. In our first review memorandum (dated February 5, 2002), we noted that the proposed development is potentially constrained by slope instability associated with reactivation of an underlying large landslide (Ols), shallow landsliding on the existing cut and fill slopes in the northern and_ central portions of the property, potentially expansive soil and rock materials, downslope czeep and shallow landsliding of colluvial and non- engineered fill materials, and strong seismic shaking. Consequently, we recommended that an engineering geologic and geotechnical engineering investigation be performed to address the potential constraints involved with proposed development of the property. In our second review memorandum (dated April 12, 2002), we noted that the Project Engineering Geologist had conducted an Engineering Geologic Study and concluded that the underlying large landsli (Ols) is relatively stable and that the ro osed develo ment is feasible. from a eolo 'c stand oint. P P P g gl P Project Engineering Geologist also concluded that active shallow landsliding occurring in the northwestern OOOJ~6 Johr. Cherbone ~ Apri129, 2002 t ,Page 2 50061B portion of the property does not threaten the proposed improvements. However, if additions are proposed for this area in the future, we recommended that additional geotechrucal investigations be performed ~to .determine geotechnical feasibility. We also noted that the Project Geotechnical Engineer had investigatesi_the site conditions and provided geotechnical design criteria. However, the two independent consultants' understanding of the extent and thickness of existing fill material was inconsistent. Specifically, on Page 6 of the previous GeoQuest report (dated March 29, 2002), the Project Geotechnical Engineer stated that "Coyle (the Project Engineering Geologist) estimates the house area fills to be as thick as 10 feet." However, no design recommendations were presented for the basement structure to address this fill material. Consequently, we recommended that supplemental geotechnical evaluations be performed to clarify the nature of the existing artificial fill and whether the proposed basement will extend through the fill materials. We also recommended that the Project Geotechnical Engineer re-evaluate recommended design criteria for the emplacement of piers through the existing fill materials (if necessary), especially considering the close proximity of the proposed development to creep prone slopes. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION "" Our review of the above referenced document indicates that the Project Geote 1 chrucal Engmeer has considered our comments and addressed our previous concerns. The Project Geotechnical Engineer states that no fill is anticipated in the area of the basement. In addition, the Project Geotechnical Engineer has reiterated the design criteria for the basement (noting that the basement should be supported on a rigid structural mat) and the design criteria for the house foundation (noting that the non-basement portions of the house should be supported on deep drilled friction piers). The Project Geotechnical Engineer also states that any piers located within 20 feet of the adjacent north-facing slope should be designed to resist creep forces to a depth of 8 feet below ground surface. Consequently, we recommend that the following conditions be satisfactorily completed prior to issuance of permits: :,' 1. Geologic and Geotechnical Plan Reviews -The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site prepazation and grading, landslide mitigation, and design parameters for foundations, pavement and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. OOOJ~'7 % t John Cherbone --- _ ~' Apri129, 2002, Page 3 S0061B, The results of the plan reviews shall be sumnnarized by the Project Engineering Geologist Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 2. Geologic and Geotechnical Field Inspection -The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechrical 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 foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnucal Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior.to final project approval. This review has been performed to provide technical advice to assist the City in its discretionary permit decisions. Our services have been limited to review of the documents previously identified, and a vis~ review of the property. Our opinions and conclusions are made in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices of the geotechnical profession. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied. • oo~V'4 V ~.. ,,3u 1 29 02 07 : 57a ,r , GeoQuest, Inc. 408-8 Attachment 7 ::.: ~~ f ;,;: ~:'F ,,, i ' $y~,• _:.:4~: GeoQaest, Inc. 29 July 2002 Project No. 02-105 Mr. Mike Amini, Craftsmen's Guild 10566 S. De Anza Blvd. Cupertino, Califomia 95014 Subject: RESPONSE TO CITY REVIEW - GEOTECHNICAL/GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION Proposed Moazeni/Amini Residence 13815 Pierce Road Saratoga, California • Dear Mr. Amini: In accordance with your request, GeoQuest, Inc. is pleased to provide this response to the City of Saratoga review of your project for the proposed residence at 13815 Pierce Road in Saratoga, Califomia. GeoQuest, Inc. previously submitted a 29 March 2002 Geotechnical Investigation report for the project (hereinafter "Report"). Mr. John Coyle of John Coyle & Associates, Inc., Engineering Geologists ("Coyle"; Los Altos, Califomia) also performed a geologic evaluation of the property and presented the results in a March 28, 2002 report. In addition, a 12 Apri12002 Supplemental Letter was submitted by GeoQuest, [nc., responding to City of Saratoga (hereinafter "City") concerns presented in an April 12, 2002 review Memorandum from the City. It is understood that the City now is considering requiring chat the planned house be moved 10 feet further back (north) on the site. Moving the house back would extend both the basement and the non-basement portions of the house significantly closer to the unstable intermediate slope north from the house area. This cut-fill slope is as steep as 1.25 horizontal to l vertical, likely contains up to 10 feet of f 11 material, and has failed in two places. The City's earlier Memorandum expressed concems about the proximity of the house to the slope, which were addressed in GeoQuest's supplemental letter. The previous Report, Mr. Coyle's work, the City's Memorandum, and the supplemental letter were based on the placement of the new house at the approximate • - 207.20 Fourlh Street, # 17 Snroto~a, CA 9SU70 phone 40R.8G8.O1G8 Cap ~OR.8G8.94G8 fjmaurer~'spacbell. net ~Q~~~~ ~~1 29 02 07:57a GeoQuest, Inc. ~- 408-868-9068 p.2 a~_.. -, Proposed Moazeni/Amini Residence 13815 Pierce Road _ Saratoga, California Project No. 02-105 29 July 2002 Page 2 location of the existing house. This provides sufficient clearance from the steep intermediate slope to the house such that the basement will be supported on non-fill insitu soils, and the remainder of the house and improvements, provided they are drilled pier-supported, will be provided sufficient buffer from the unstable slope. It also is understood that moving the house may entail the removal of several trees on or near the steep slope behind the house, resulting in further de-stabilization of the slope. The undersigned has discussed moving the house closer to the slope with Mr. Coyle, and both the undersigned and Mr. Coyle recommend against such a move. This letter consists of professional opinions and conclusions by a consulting geotechnical engineer. The only warranty or guarantee made by the consultant in connection with services performed for this project is that such services are performed with the care and skill _ordinarily exercised by members of this profession practicing under similar conditions at the same time, and in the same or a similar locality. We trust that this letter sufficiently addresses the City's concerns. If you have questions, please call the undersigned. Sincerely, /'~`' ^; , ~,_.` :~ ', ~ ~..~/ ..l • Frederick Maurer, Jr. Geotechnical Engineer GeoQuest, Inc. OOOJf O ~~~~~@~ ~ «.. ~~ ,;~~ ~. ~; :,gin ,~ 1 ((~~ M i AUG 13 2002 r CITY OF SARATOGA ~ „~„n,nT„ nrr^~ n,~xa~~- ~- ~ . .. ,~ ~~ ~, ~ { ~~ • f I I ~ ¢~ e\~ \\ relPm 6 -. - 3 reloarfmr. ro x REno.4o. \ . io9EREnD.ED. .{} ~ r '! IE/GORADf \ .~ fi... 10 9E FE110rED. ~ C 022' ~ ` I!n": A' rEI mTORAOE. DECX ~ \ \ 109E FEI'R]oED. IE1 PA90 020 ` ill9E RR19vED. / ~ J' r~ Rouce ~ rD ce Reroveo. ~ / ~~ ~~ "~ ~ ~\ ~ ,; ~\ i ro eE meEw.EO. ~/ ~ \ PP ~~ m22' 0 m• L ~ ~ ` ~ I Roos xoug m2e c a .y // / RU Pat ~ \ 4X0 (2 /-\''V LE) 51 TE PLAN r ~ b m , ~~ b ,,~~AA NO7 70 SCALE ~ • ' % ` __ < e \\\ \~C~ . ~ / I \\ `C~ :~ I \ I `~~~ ~ ~ I ~)~ ~ a ~ \~ I ~ _.I,...~. PROF'05EDBA5EMENi oz4• `~~ '~' \ ~` SHOUN SHADED AREA. e e7ser a eomr ~~ „ ~ ` -PROPOSED MAIN FLOOR ~ / ~ e, \ SHOWN SINGLE HATCHED LINE. ~' ` /@ V ~\ ~ I ~ u °v ~ ~ \ 4 6 _ \ ,r\ ° ~ ° I ~ c v I 11 \ vo ~ m X a '; ~j~ H PROPOSED UPPER FLOOR \ y vv SHOitN DOUBLE HATCHED LME. i I \~' Oa ° \1PP I 02 ~ I ° ~ T mez• ~~ I ~ o w ` \\ O i \\ \ ` \~ . 0 q~ ~ \~ I ~ I ~~ ~ j c vv ~ I ma II I f ° J A) \ mI ~ I \ I la+:;. -~ I a ,, ~wT4,,,a f~ I 12 m~. 02t' C 0 \ Q „~ I mz ° \ ___ 16 m _ __ _______ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ ___ P MTS \ ~ 1___ _ ~ ~` NOTE : \ THE 51pR9 DRAINAGE UIiLL BE RETAIN W1HIN THE b 0'la '\\~\ ~ \ h PROPERttTHROUGH DRT DELL STSTEM N bb'AO'!0' ! ID I SITE PL,4N ~~ SCALE: I".70'-0" ~' ~ • ~ I ~~ REV510N5 EY i;!~ m~ 3 1i 7 ~~~~~;~I~~;~~ 4 mi 7!'i ~ ~' ~~~~$~II~~~~~~ O ~ Q r O Z ~m Q U Q ma ~ U W u~j a ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ roa N I~ y x ~8 ~ a $_~ ~ ~~ U ~~~ xn F oc~ e ~~ o:me A1.0 I I I GOVERA6E # P.A.R. 517E AREA : 16b515p. FT. (I.T591 ACERS ) ~u ALLOWABLE F,mR 69x15 5Q Fi. naXEpERV1ou5 covERAGE: Bp¢ID 5a. Fr. TABULATION GARAGE 653ID0 SOFT. MAM BOOR AREA : 33T9ID0 SG1F7. UPP"cR~FL00R AREA : 196175 5Q Fi. TOiAI~ 599375 SLIFi. BASEMENT AREA : 7319 54 Fi, NOiEI, 5EE AifACNED CALCULATION OF AVERAGE SLOPE AND RCbR AREA BT: LEE ENGINEERS. 1711 PARC AVENUE ,SAN JOSE , CA, 96176 TEL: fldp8)793.3839 SHEET IWDEX AIID ~ SITE PLAN /PENNING DATA AU AREA CALQ&,ATIQI DIAGRAM6. A7ID ~ BASEMENT BOOR PLAN d1.1 MAIN FLOOR R4N A77 UPPER FLOC PEAK 43.1 ROOF FLAN. A41 ', EXTERIOR ELEVATION (FROND A47 ~ EXTERIOR ELEV4710N (REAR1 A43 EXTERIOR ELEVATION (LEFT /RIGHT ) I A6.1 g BUILDING BECTION5. A57 , BJILDING SECTIONS. A53 ~ BUILDING SECTICPIS. CL, ~' CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE iI TOPOGRAPHIC MAP. • ~~, MAC I N FLOOR fl I ~6R,4M UPPER FLOOR D I A~6R~M 151,5 SQ.PT, GARAGE AREA : 653 SOFT. MAIN FLCOR AREA : 3319 50FT. TOTAL 4037 SOFT. UPPER FLOOR AREA : 196115 SOFT. GARAGE AREA : 653 SOFT. MAIN FLOOR AREA : 3319 SOFT. UPPER FLOOR AREA : 196115 SOFT. TOTAL 599325 SOFT. B~S~MENT flI~GR~rM BASEMENT AREA : 7319 SOFT. REVISIONS Bf ~~~~I~~~~ii I ~i ~~ ~~ilPi~~ ~;~~~~1~~~~~[ o~ <n =°m R U Q q~ ~ U w I~~y a ~ ~ ~~ 0 ~ ~a ~N EbI~.yy ~ •ryl ~~ ~• ~~ ~~~ U ~~~ w. m wo aam m ~~ mmm ao ~~ A1.1 PATIO I 936 SOFT. PATIO 2 7008 5gFi, PATIO 3 1475 SG1FT. WALKWAY 785 SO. FT, WALKWAY ~ AROUND FOOL 108150. Fi, g SWIMMING PCOL 809 S0. FT. I MAIN NOJSE 4037 50FT. TOTAL 14999 5L7FT. ~~ AENSIONS B~ ~~~~i~~i~ii ,i~i~11 i~}~ai~~~~ii~ ~i~~~i~~~~l~l~ o~ an 0 =°m Q U Q ~ ~ U W ~u~j a ~ ~ o ~~ ~ %a ~N b~ lr~h v ~ q ~8z ~~ ~ ~~ ~ 4M 8~ ~ ~~~ U ~~~ ~' ~~ ~~ ~m ~~ A2.0 • • p~510N5 BY ~~~~F~~i~ii ti~+i:fl~ ~i~~~gi~~~~ii ~~[~~~~~I~i~ o~ Qn. o~ z~N ~~ a vQ ~ ~ U W u~j a ~ ~ ,~ o 0 ~ ~a ~~ b= ..r ~~~a .. V ~ A ~~~ y ~~ .w~.w W Y VI ~~ 4r 8~~ ~ ~~~ V ~~~ .~. ~R. ~~ --~ ~~ A2.1 r~ RE'~IONS B1' • t0'.I' 1'.7' ' S'-h t'-6• O O v 0 0 i i i`~ ,'i I I ~~ i i I i is _.y i i nuam e~TM i i i i i i ~Q~. I I l~.ItLGBEQ i i i ~y, i i I I -. _._ _._._ I II e F-- ~ 7 I I ~ i ~ ~ ~~ } ' _ _ _ _._._._ _._._ _ _.-{ ;~%~y ~~. ~~ 123.45 i i ~ % .~ y~{,IYlbY FF. i _. _._._._._._. _. uvm ouR ~\___.~ i ~. .% i i " i ~. i . i ~'_._ _~~ eexeoM+~ i i i i i i L_._. _. _. _. _._. _._.J 70'•0' ~'•6' ~,,e. 5EGOND FLOOR PLAN 7G IIP.I'•0' ~~~~ti ~~~ii ie ~~~mi~~~i{, i ,~ a•i ~' ~i~~~~~~;~~l~ 00 Qn O~ Z ~, N m Q V Q ~ ~ U w_ d ~ ~ O g ~ Q .. N Vb N (r~i ~/ ~~~ ly ~ ~~ ~~ w a~~ ~ ~~'~ V ~~~ A2.2 • • - - - - - - - - - - "1 ~iN I I 5a2 :12 _ ______ __ ~' I ------- ---- -- ---- ------------ SLP. SLR - --- ------- -------- Nv~ _ I I I T i I I -~ ^' S LJ 5:12 . SL ? I SLP, rN- ~' I i I ~ . I I ~~ i I I VI I 5:12 i I I ~ S~P ~ i I I 5:12 i I I Q SLP. ~ i I 5:12 5:12 _ ! ~, I S LP. SLP. I ~ i ; ~~ N I I I ~ ~ ~, -~ N I ~~~ I U ~, FLAT AREA 5:12 _ ~_ I I I I I ~ SLP. I sL,l' I ------ ' ? !Kr LHIIi 5 I I ~I - - - - - ---- - - - ~ 5:12 BLLKNT BdLGCNT I SLR I I ~ SLP. ?I ',I I qCT L~Gif r N ~~ I ~N roN I I. 5:12 5:12 LS P. SLP. I I I Bum. BdLUNT L ----------- J L I ----- I __--~~_-_~.--- bN I ROOF PLAN ITN' N 'V N ~5-12 ~~ SLP. i. ~4'~ ~'i ~ / --- REN40N5 6t ~ii ~1~~i~l~~i; ~,~a}~~11~~~~f 0 0 a~ 00 i ~~ ~ ~ a vQ ~ ~ U w u~j a ~ c F ~ O i ~ Q N ~~ .,, ~~a a ~ ~~z ~ ~~ ,w~,w Ae 4Q• ~J `~ w 8~~ ~ ~~~ U ~~~ ~. m~ ~~ A3.1 13~ uwtLnnr • 811 DE'1, TCP FLd7E i 1731. UF4ER FLOOR LEVEL b 113,7 nAN BOOR LEVEL FGVISN a~ FRONT ELEVATION Ec~ ui~~r.o~ axe e.erAnoR 0 ~a~ D a~~ tl.6JM10N [tNAtiON Flt01R [LNA710N rILE ROLF NATURAL GRADE LME. t N STUCCO FMISVI 174 vEL, Tai Rare 5 nAW ROCK LEV13 FPUEN DECK LEVEL aLVismrrs er ~~~~i~``~I~ii ti~ti:]~i ~~~}~~}~~~~~i ~,~tt•t~~ O ~ Qr o° Z ~ ~ f ~ Q U Q ry ~ U w u~j a ~ ~~~ ~ ~ •- VI b~ •~y 4 A 4 GJ~,X~ M ~~~ y ~~ 8~~ ~ ~~i U ~~~ .'C~' xn m MOm f 64@ ~m dF Nbilp ~~ A4.1 __ _ _ _ _ __ • RENSIONS Bf ~~~~9~:t~~~ii ~iaai~~lt ~~~~gi~~~~iilE ~i~g~~~~~~~1~ o~ a~ o~ Z ~~ f Q U Q ~ ~ U W u~j a ~ '~ o ~~ ~ ~ a ~N '~_ .'~ ~ ~ U k 2 A~ ~8 • a y ~~ a~~ ~ ~~ v ~~ tluN R p[CgE R --18Y@ Di gpR{1 W9F, h.'(® A4.2 s • RlAR B2JATOtl iat aoe' 6NATION maNr errAnai 6 a~ ICM! 6NAfld1 ~aLY top Ra1E b lar aoe D ' NaR aoe 6NATIOq 6NATON 1131 naa acoa LEVEL nw~r aerAna+ "°n~L~E"~ RISHT 51DE ELEVATION ]. NGW1, LMtt 13~ tOp PLATE a ~~__33~~55~~ ~~o Ids .OOR LEVEL 6 >i II~ .oOR LEVEL 1Y4~ oa_ TOP PLatE Ly naa ~ LEVEL II. REY190N$ BY ~~~I9~~l~li ~1~ah11~ ~;~~~~~I~~~ O ~ Q r O Z ~ Obi Q U Q ~ ~ U w ~u~j a ~ ,~ o 0 ~ ~a N ro~ ~~~y I•~ ,°: -n ~g Zy p ~ ~' ~ ~a "+~.I B ~ ~~ 8~ U ~~~ A4.3 ~~ s • • ~6 f I f I, 138.00' J~ ' ~eslr. um~ I 1 N ` ~ 'G I jr roP s PLAre 13115' ' D&.. i I I, 11 ~ I ~~ 5 1 1 a e ~ i l 1l~LI YlSY ° LI~SY tl~W'!hY tl~Sa6~Y i I a ' ,~ 12415' ~ ~ ~ ~ oaL. ~ aie IIPFER FLOOR LEVEL Y I a 6 'I. I -.. - 9 b _ ~~ ~ ~AMLY IIOOM 112.00' ~ ~ J ~Y ¢~ F 1NIEN PATIO LEVEL 55 ~,,~~ 1131 ~ NAM FLOOR LEVEL ______________ ______ NAM FLOOR LEVEL ________ 112.00' k- IIP15' 110D0' NAtUR4 GRADE LME. RNIEH GARAGE FLOOR NATURAL GRADE LME DAR ~~~.!d ~^^~ ~ rtl l 5EGTI01~ A-A~ ~~ 6O W'd'•®" . ~~ F. I i pEJ6lON5 BY tp~, { r ~ Te I ~~ LB~I E 88sI~1~ 00 Q (` O ~ ? ~ m a ~a ~ ~ U 2 w a ~ ~ O 0 ~ ~ Q ~r ~M~ S a rI ~g~ §R• ~ p~~z a 8~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ .~ ~~ ~° .. _~ ~W ~~ A5.1 M1 [~ RENSIONS AY ~~~~i~~#~li ,t~~id1~ ~l~Ai~~~~;~ ~i~~~r~~~~1~~~ '~ • SECTION B-B x. vv.r~o• SECTION G-G o~ a~ _ o~ Z a. N Q U a ~ ~ U w_ d cal O ~ ~ N b~ V1 '~8~ V ~~ y ~~ w e~~ ~ ~~~ V ~~~ -.m - - A5.2 i .s • SECTION 1?-17 SECTION E-E x. w~.r•o, AEHSIONS B! {,~~i:o~ ~~~~l~~~~f~ a~a rtl~ ~~[~~~~i#1~~~ o~ Q~ o~ Z ~~ ~ m Q U Q ~ ~ U _W ~ ~ ~ O F ~ ~ Q ~.by ~ ~I ~ g A ~~~ ~ ~ akg p~ W a~~ ~ ~~~ U ~~~ .~ vw m wo am® m ~~ wo romw- mmmo A5.3 36° Box SEQUOIA SEMPERVIRFN5 (COAST REDWOOD) • ,~ 24° BOX AGER GiRGNANht (VINE MAPLE) 36" BOX SEQUOIA SEMPERvIREIJS fG0A5T fIcDWOOD) `' \ : ; ~: ~~. \~, _~ X. I c ~~ ` ~~` ' .I' i { ~~ , ~I 11 ~~ ~ . i' I ~ ~~~ ~ '~ ~' \/ ~ _ I -_, ~-' ~%~ I c `,I ~ 1 r k p / ~ ,I' ,,I :. 1 ~ •1 .~ 1 ~ ~~ ' \\ .. / I P\~FF ~~\ \`~ ~~ \\ ~~ \ ~~~ ,.~ \ . \ \ \\\~\ ° ~ °0i r/~, ;, \ ~~ - M, ~~ ~ ti_ ARGTOSTAPHYLOS HOOKERP "MONTEREY CARET " fMANZAN!TA GRO~AIDGOVERl - -NATIVE GRA55ES \ ` \ ,\ ~, ~. ,. ~. • \ ~4 `_ ~~~ \ po ~~ ozr \ `~ 36" BOX -~~' '_ OLEA EUROPEA "SWAN HILL" r~ 1 .. / lOL!VE '"JON FyJTING") ~~ \. f opts .. \ ~ ''~ ~ ~,~ `,, ~ _. ~ ~. v ~~ y i-^' I ` ` ~ \\ .. x .~ ~~ \ ° \\ 050 `~ \ \ T~$ a ~(W ~ T }~~y /,\\ \ ~a~,~Q GA; ~ ; \, Flo ~ ~, h ~ `~ ~ F ` ~i ~ ~ YR .r r~ ~ S pu' C ~' s ~ ~ \ vv ~ . ~~ ~ ~ V A i ~ ~. ~ ~. ~ ~ A~•~~\ ~ ® ~A ~ .. V , ` 'j ~ ~~ Q ~ ~ v ' V ~ V A` ~ ~ ~ ~~ ® ~ d \ ~ . ~ ~ ~ - ~ r \ ~\ I I i ; ~¢ ~ ~ ~~ . \ ,v r ,~.r~ 1 ~ •~. \ C \~ \ ~ I - ,~ ~ _____~~_~''_ ~-+ - 1 LPL ~~~ -~~--~~-- -'~ ~ ~ o- L / CG / `Lys \\ I t 1\ `~_ ~ ~'"~__~\~`.~ ~4 w\ ,%T---~' \ ,`\ i ,\\ ~ j ~ \_ \_ 7-mss / -'-r-1' I 11 i CONCEPTUAL LANDSGAP~ PLaN _ ~~ ~~.~ \ ~Cn ~~ NATIVE GRASSES ' I I' r i ~~ NATIVE GRA55E5 'i% ~, - GEANATHUS "JULIA PHELPS" fGALIFORt•!IA LILAGJ ti' Z \\< \~ !~ ~hiS ~'~ ~\ + l \ ` ~ \ I l \ \ \ 36" BOX Q OLEA EUROPEA "SWAN HILL" (OLIVE TION FRUITING") 11 t RENSIONS ~ ~~~Iif ~E~ia 9j.a~ ~ ;~~ej'~B o n Q Z ~ o U Q W Q U w a ~ O f- ~ Ma ~~ _` w (v^ o R ~ ~a~ ~ ~~~ a~ Via, ~ ~K~ e~ 4••1 8 3 .~ 5 °g a ~.~. V =~ CL. :+ ,4 :~ LEGEND --°-- SET 3/4' LP. RCE# 28551 FOUND 3/4' I.P. PER BK. IIL, PG. 16 -•-•- DISTINCTIVE BORDER LINE -=----- WOOD FENCE - CHAIN LINK FENCE EOP. .EDGE OF PAVEMENT S 0°26'54" E 90.08' 50.79 ~,,~0.3 022' ~,. PP .. . \., ¢ 96.11 ~ - - F~\ 95.30 .~~ 94,955~~ \\~ •,.95.1\ `96.94 \ `. ~~ ~' N 41°52'30" E ' ~ ~ ~ \10.86' '-'OR~•h. ,,. 559 - 9 ~~ s \ ~ 022' 9.78 ~ {;'~ \ e_;f~.74 1 ` ~~ 9B. _-._..~20' ~. J` ~~i00.37 ' 6S5 96.76 10 15 • 99.t \ 9 1 ~~,.60 00! .., \ PP 5 `~m22' 96.61 `~.,~102.3t 109,7 z~ a'2 \ 10075 \102.26 `- '~ 0~ 2 POOL XOISE 022 ~~~ ~ ;101.0 , :101.97 9f q~. 9.89 e d6 10 35 .10731 _ 4%10 012 L0235 \ ~ ~iP ~ ~y /\ 6 W ~i~ ..,~C 105.67; I ~ \ ~~ .LET Cl~ i.l 2J5 ~ 10223 '~%~~~~ ~o A~ 024 n(06.90 °hb 99. c2 i \ ~ i9'p yob 104.76 ~ ~ ~~ 19~.i1. ,' \ \~ ~~ y6'J' 02.0 '~ `. F ,~ 10132 mzd`~ JJ 10516 \ ~6~~~ 103. B j l a I e \107.17 t0 . 7 P9 ~. 5.61 ~ A 030 ~ 7. A ~ , I9B.38i ti \ ~ 4. 024' 10T. ~ ~ r ~S5 ~ SD ,~'906.SB C ~ -:' ,'~02 ~ 10895 ~ ~ ~ . 6.14 ..,. ~ ~ ~\ ~'a0651 ~V. ~ ~ 7 6 ~p = { 110 s 4 1%V ~ ~ ' ~~~~ < OIW.62 a DECK 6TORAG€ 0, I~O.~JBi-' ~y 021' 036' % - \ ',, 8 4 l 0 78 ^ .40 7$ aa0 020.36 Q~ V \ 50.91 50.29 40.6 4 95 j~ 5023 _~~ 7 '$ 0 16' 41, _6 0 3 . X9.1 3 38. 1 '\^ 49.84 0 1 t- m ~0. 4 ~ 'C ,,, 27.6 SOA4 46.50 \ 7 23~ - .\\ 6 ~ t ~, 41 OU0854\ - i 014, '.~ S~ 111:40 1 VV i' I. 1 ~.@6 P m26 ~ ~ ~tiry ,m030' ~ ', 0 ~.~ PP J '02 ~,r `,~, '1 8B •. 111.16 m1z~~.7 o PATIO JN 59°00'30' E ~', ~~ ,1 71 "~ ``,,~ 7sr ~ 1 7 26.28' 'n2s .y \ 1 'o . 9 10.09 ~ 5 'i ~ ~`'~\ `\ ~ 9 ~ ri "~ ~ 12.60 ~ 0 V \ Q Op 0 1 ~ I2Ag 112:12 IPi '~ s' ol& '_ 111. \~, ' 1.06 m24 ~ \', ~\ h ~' \\\\', I 228 1 . 3 016~g,0~4 217 / ,, 1 ~ _ , zQ, ~.' % ' ~ gC"k ?'112.V f W. :112.37 `~~ 13.85 •0. 1. 0 '~ ~~ .77~\ "N 030' 021 ~ ~ I `~ F 5022 i2 c° ~.G~ o ~114~ . ~6 . ~f . 4 01 ' ~ ,ti 69 113.2 ~ 52. ~ 3 4 5 02 ~~ ' 0, 018' p ' N •H12.62 . ~ ~~~i1522 .. - „ ~ ~ ;12.2 ;. ~I, ~ .~ 0 1 hTS 11529 P~i6 ~ I \ ~ _o---" ] 9 - y.97U 111.95 ~~ 3. - V TS' `y10. .116.09 \ 5 \ `- 6116 ~-- _ 90.3 96. 07.91 \ \. ~, 94 B. - 0573 91.28 108AU `108.32, - ~ s6.7a -9.21 N 59°00'30' E r~ 10.00' ~ S 0°19'48' W 360.51' ~ ~'~ 'Y I i AREA = 76,662 S~.'FT. (1.7597 ACRES. ) ITEM 4 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: UP - 99-021- 20400 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road Applicant/Owner: Our Lady of Fatima Staff Planner: Ann Welsh, AICP -Assistant Planner Date: August 28, 2002 APN: 517-10-015 Department Head: 20400 Saratoga- Los Gatos Road 00(~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 10/1/99 Application complete: 8/7/00 1st Notice published: 8/30/00 1st Mailing competed: 8/31/00 1st Posting completed: 8/24/00 2nd Notice published: 8/14/02 2nd Mailing completed: 8/15/02 2nd Posting completed: 8/7/02 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant received approval for a Use Permit and Design Review on October 11, 2000 for. a request to replace an existing convent, priest quarters, chapel and visitor's apartment with an assisted living facility for the elderly and the interior conversion of an existing skilled nursing facility into assisted living units. The Use Permit was granted with the condition that the applicant return to a public meeting prior to receiving grading or building permits to address five specific issues. This report addresses the applicant response to the five issues, which were left unresolved at the original public hearing. The issues to be addressed are as follows. 1. A plan to provide restricted Below-Market Rate housing units to assist the City with compliance with state mandated affordable housing goals. This plan shall include an agreement to provide afirst-preference admittance program for Saratoga residents for both the BMR and Market Rate units. 2. A plan to provide sound attenuation of the laundry facility. This plan shall include limitations on hours of all non-residential noise generating activities. 3. A construction period traffic parking management plan. 4. A construction period compliance monitoring plan that will provide status reports to an appointed liaison member of the Planning Commission. The reports should be provided every sixty days once construction commences and should conclude sixty days from project final. 5. Measures to ensure that the evening shift employees park as far away from adjoining residents as possible. ooooo~ COMMUNITY INPUT Staff received inquiries on the Use Permit from two neighbors, Bob Dunnett and Chuck Leiter. These neighbors abut the property to the south. Their rear yards abut the rear yard of the facility in the vicinity of the laundry and the rear parking lot. In order to address their concerns staff held two meetings, the first one at the planning office and the second one at the site of Our Lady of Fatima with Sandy Barker who is the representative for the project. Also a number of phone conversations and a-mails were generated regarding their concerns. Their major issues were the noise generated by the laundry facility to the rear of the property and parking related noise at late night shift changes. Other concerns were trash being dumped in the middle of the night and truck traffic in the middle of the night. The applicant has addressed these issues and the neighbors appear to be satisfied with the resulting conditions of approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation is to approve these items of the Use Permit application by adopting the following Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution - 2. Resolution UP-99-021- October 11, 2000 3. Correspondence from Barker and Associates dated 7/23/02 4. Correspondence from Preston Wisner -Below Market Units - dated S/29/02 S. Correspondence from Charles M. Salter Associates -Acoustic consultant dated 5/30/02 6. Correspondence from Preston Wisner -Operating Policies -dated 4/10/02 7. Site Plan, Exhibit °A" dated 9/24/99 • ~0~~0~ STAFF ANALYSIS - ZONING: R-1-10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Quasi-Public Facility and Medium Density Residential MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 3.08 acres net AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Average Slope Of the site 12.6% GRADING REQvIRED: 500 cubic yards of cut to a depth of eight feet, 200 cubic yards of fill to a depth of two feet. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Brown wood horizontal shingle exterior with almond and cream trim, stone veneer with a dark brown composition shingle roof. • • 000004 • • u R-1-10,000 _- Proposed Code Requirements Lot Coverage: 57% 60% Floor Area: 68,955 sq. ft. Determined by Use Process Setbacks: Front: 32 ft. 25 ft. ' Rear: 26 ft. I 25 ft. Left Side: 10 ft.Z 10 ft. Right Side: 26 ft.3 10 ft. Height: 30 ft. 30 ft. with use permit I. This is an existing setback. No changes to this portion of [he structure is proposed. Staff notes there are existing accessory structures within the rear yard setback. - - 2. Existing and proposed setback. 3. Ibid. ~~~~~5 PROJECT DISCUSSION _ USE PERMIT The Use Permit granted for this project stated that prior to issuance of a Grading or Building _ Permit the applicant must return to the Planning Commission and address five items for review and approval as a Commission Item at a regular public_meeting. The applicant has addressed each item and their response it as follows. ITEM 1 - A plan to provide restricted below market rate housing to assist the City with compliance with State mandated affordable housinggoals. This plan shall include an agreement to provide a first preference admittanceprogram for Saratoga residents. The applicant has indicated that the studio units rent for $43,200 per year, which would fall within the range of Low Income housing based on HUD Program Income Limits. The 2002 income limits for Santa Clara County 1 person households are as follows: __. 30% of median $20,150 Very Low Income $33,600 Low Income $51,950 The studio units would qualify as low income housing since they require an income of less than $51,950 per year. The plans indicate that there will be 10 studio units available within the facility at this price range and these units would contribute towards meeting the City's Affordable Housing obligation. The preference given for Saratoga residents does not conflict with discrunination laws since these laws prohibit discrimination for protected classes, which are race, gender, age, ethnicity or national origin. Since Saratogans are not within these protected classes the City attorney has indicated that it is within the rights of the City to give first preference to Saratoga residents. The applicant has stated that this preference will be incorporated in language for the brochures that advertise the facility. ITEM 2 A plan to provide sound attenuation of the laundry' facility. This plan shall include limitations on hours of all non- residential noisegeneratingactivities. The response dated May 30, 2002 by Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc: addressed the issue of noise attenuation in a manner that resolves the issues raised by the neighbors. The acoustics report indicates that ambient noise levels varied between 49 dBa and 50 dBa. With the laundry in operation the noise level measured 52 dBa and 54 dBa. These noise levels are below the noise levels that are required within residential areas of the City. _ , ; Although the Salter report concluded that the laundry facility was in compliance with the City noise regulations the applicant has agreed to implement the following recommendations to further reduce the noise. 1. Change the hours of operation of the laundry from the current hours of 6:00 AM to 5:30 PM on weekdays to a reduced time period of 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM on weekdays. On weekends the laundry hours shall be reduced further from 5:00 AM to 5:00 PM. 00~~~ 2. Relocate the dryer exhaust ducts from the roof of the building_to the interior of the building. The new exhaust path will terminate at the north end of the building, where the laundry building and an existing fence and shed will help shield the property line from the noise, rather that on the roof, where there is a line of sight to the neighboring property's reaz yazd. 3. Replace the existing dryers with new ones. We understand that the new dryers have quieter drive systems and larger capacity than the existing ones. The larger capacity will result in a smaller number of laundry loads each day. 4. Relocate athrough-wall exhaust fan from the southwest wall to the northwest wall of the building to move it away from the residential property line. Other noise related issues brought up by the neighbors were truck deliveries and trash disposal. The applicant has agreed to post a new sign at each entry saying, "Truck deliveries will be accepted only between 8:30 AM and 5:00 PM". Regarding the complaint that trash is being dumped in the middle of the night, the applicant has agreed to provide recycle bins in an enclosed area of the kitchen (or garage), which will be taken out only between 8:30 AM and 4:00 PM. ITEM 3. A construction period tra f f is and parking managementplan The applicant has furnished a construction period traffic and parking management plan, which addresses the parking issues. The plan estimates that during the highest level of activity on the site a total of 30 workers will be present. The general contractor has arranged that during these times that workers car pool from the shop of origin to West Valley College, limiting the on-site trucks to fewer than 20 per day. The Our Lady of Fatima facility has a maximum of 28 day shift staff members. Ten employees currently use public transportation and 6 people car pool in two vehicles, making the maximum cars for the facility at 14. The site plan indicates 39 parking stalls available plus one space in the garage. Ten additional spaces are available off -site along the drive and 10 more are available across the street in front of the Church. During construction no public events will be held on site. Construction and staff parking should be able to be contained on site during even the most active times. If these measures of carpooling and using public transportation are adhered to the impact on surrounding parking should be minimal. ITEM 4. A construction period compliance-monitoring plan that will provide status reports to an appointed liaison member of the : ; Planning Commission The reports should be provided every sixty days once construction commences and should conclude" ' sixty days from project final. The appointment of Sandy Barker as liaison to the Planning Commission fulfills this condition of the resolution. The applicant has provided a letter stating that the project azchitect must submit a progress report every sixty days once the project is underway and a final report sixty days after the project is concluded. ~~ 00000'7, ITEM 5 Measures to ensure that evening shift employees will park as far away from adjoining residents as possible. . The applicant has produced three means of addressing the matter of parking to the rear of the facility. First, a letter was sent to employees requesting voluntary compliance with the condition that parking not be permitted in the rear lot between 2:00 PM and 6:00 AM. Second, signs were installed saying, "No Staff parking between 2:00 PM and 6:00 AM" in front of all spaces in the upper lot facing the fence. Third, the applicant has promised to chain off the upper parking lot adjacent the neighbors yards at the garage at 5:00 PM and reopening at 6:00 AM. These measures if enforced should minimise the amount of noise generated by shift changes late at night. ITEM 6 Designation of 24-hour facility manager to respond to neighbor's complaints. The applicant has provided a 24-hour number to call with complaints. The applicant has also agreed to provide adjacent neighbors with a direct pager number to a person who is on call twenty four hours a day seven days a week. With the above responses the applicant has addressed the five items identified in the Use Permit of October 11, 2000. CONCLUSION The applicant has satisfactorily addressed the items required in the Use Permit of October 11, 2000. STAFF • RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Use Permit be approved with the condition that the measures identified above are implemented within the timeframes identified in the resolution. • 0~00~8 Attachment 1 RESOLUTION N0.02 - APPLICATION No. UP-99-021 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA OUR LADY OF FATIMA: 20400 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS ROAD WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Use Permit to replace an existing convent, priest quarters, chapel and visitor's apartment with an assisted living facility for the elderly and the interior conversion of an existing Skilled Nursing Facility into Assisted Living Units 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 Planning Commission approved this Use Permit on October 11, 2000 with the exception that five additional items be brought before the Planning Commission prior to granting the building permit and the grading plan. WHEREAS, the applicant has satisfactorily addressed the five additional items that are identified below; ITEM I - Aplan to provide restricted below market rate housing to assist the City with compliance with State mandated affordable housinggoals. This plan shall include an agreement to provide afirst-preference admittance program for Saratoga residents. ITEM 2 A plan to provide sound attenuation of the laundry facility. This plan shall include limitations on hours of all non- residential noisegeneratingactivities. ITEM 3. A construction period traffic andparking managementplan ITEM 4. A construction period compliance-monitoringplan that will provide status reports to an appointed liaison member ; of the Planning Commission The reports should be provided every sixty days once construction commences and should conclude sixty days from project final. ITEM 5 Measures to ensure that evening shit t employees will park as far away from adjoining residents as possible. ITEM 6 Designation of 24-hour facility manager to respond to neighbor's complaints. 000009 Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the correspondence and documentation that the applicant has provided, the Planning Commission finds that the Use Permit should be approved and the building permit should be granted provided the measures noted below are undertaken in a timely manner. ITEM 1 A plan to provide restricted below market rate housing to assist the City with compliance with State mandated affordable housinggoals. This plan shall include an agreement to provide a first preference admittance program for Saratoga residents. a. The plans indicate that there will be 10 studio units available within the facility that meet the low income housing guidelines. These units shall be designated as affordable housing units, which contribute to meet the City's Affordable Housing obligation. b. Preference will be given to Saratoga residents and this fact will be incorporated in language for the brochures that advertise the facility. ITEM 2 A plan to provide sound attenuation of the laundry facility. This plan shall include limitations on hours of all non- residential noisegeneratingactivities. The applicant shall implement the following measures to further reduce the noise in the vicinity of the laundry and trash, area. a. Change the hours of operation of the laundry from the current hours of 6:00 AM to 5:30 PM on weekdays to a reduced time period of 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM on weekdays. On weekends the laundry hours shall be reduced further from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. b. Relocate the dryer exhaust ducts from the roof of the building to the interior of the building. The new exhaust path will terminate at the north end of the building, where the laundry building and an existing fence and shed will help shield the property line from the noise, rather that on the roof, where there is a line of sight to the neighboring property's rear yard. c. Replace the existing dryers with new ones. We understand that the new dryers have quieter drive systems and larger capacity than the existing ones. The larger capacity will result in a smaller number of laundry loads each day. d. Relocate athrough-wall exhaust fan from the southwest wall to the northwest wall of the : ; building to move it away from the residential property line. e. The applicant will post a new sign at each entry saying, "Truck deliveries will be accepted only between 8:30 AM and 5:00 PM". f. The applicant will provide recycle bins in an enclosed area of the kitchen (or garage), which will be taken out only between 8:30 AM and 4:00 PM. ~0~~~0 ITEM 3 A construction period traffic andparkingmanagementplan The applicant shall implement the following construction period traffic and parking management plan. a. Workers will car pool from the shop of origin to West Valley College, limiting the on-site trucks to fewer than 20 per day. b. The Our Lady of Fatima facility has a maximum of 28 day shift staff members who will car pool -- or use public transportation so that a maximum of 14 parking spaces will be used for this purpose during the day. c. During construction no public events will be held on site. ITEM 4 A construction period compliance-monitoring plan that will provide status reports to an appointed liaison member of the Planning Commission. The reports should be provided every sixty days once construction commences and should conclude sixty days from project final. -- The Planning Commission liaison shall submit progress reports to the Community Development Department every 60 days once the project is underway and a final report sixty days after the project is concluded. ITEM 5 Measures to ensure that evening shift employees will park as far away from adjoining residents aspossible. The applicant shall implement the following measures to limit use of the rear parking lot. a. Install signs at the upper lot facing the fence saying "No Staff parking between 2:00 PM and 6:00 AM" b. Chain off the upper parking lot adjacent the neighbors yards at the garage at 5:00 PM and reopen at 6:00 AM. ITEM 6 Designation of 24-hour facility manager to respond to neighbor's complaints. a. Provided a 24-hour number to call with complaints. b. Provide adjacent neighbors with a direct pager number to a person who is on call twenty-four hours a day seven days a week. 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. ~0~0~1 ~ - Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. .~ Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, Ciry and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga Ciry Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSEn AND ADOPTED by the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 28`h day of August 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:-- ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission i~ 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 bythe -City Planning Commission. ' Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • • 000012 • ~. Attachment 2 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. UP-99-021 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA OUR LADY OF PATINA: 20400 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS ROAD WxFRF~-s, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Use Permit approval to replace an existing Convent, Priest Quarters, Chapel and Visitor's Aparanents with an Assisted Living Facility for the elderly, and the interior conversion of an existing Skilled Nursing Facility into Assisted Living units; and WxF.RFAS„ t-he Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heazd and to present e~~idence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Use Permit approval, and the following findings have been determined: ^ That the proposed renovation of the facility is in accord v~ith the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the district in which it is located in that it is a conditionally permitted use that will not increase existing traffic or other impacts. ^ That the proposed renovation of the facility and the conditions under which it would be operated will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to propemes or improvements in the vicinity, in that the facility has been at the same location for many years and the renovation of the facility grill not substantially change the existing conditions. • -That the proposed renovation of the facility complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in that the location, height, size and use proposed is conditionally permitted in this zoning district. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of .Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: _ . Section 1. After careful consideration of this matter, the application of Our Lady of Fatima for Use Permit approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following `` conditions: " COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The renovation shall be constructed as shown on Exhibit "A", incorporated by reference. Witte the addition that the plans shall reflect exterior upgrading of the entire facility, including accessory structures to compliment the renovation, subject to staff's approval. 000013 File No. Up-99-021 ~ ,R-99-052; 20400 Saratoga-Los Gatc o~d ?. All conditions of DR-99-052 shall be adhered to. The emergency generator shall only be tested at 1 p.m., when needed and applicant shall incorporated a CMU barrier to screen generator noise, subject to staff and City Arborist approval. 4. The entrance/exit to Saratoga-Los Gatos Road shall be modified as discussed in the staff report and per the City Traffic Consultant's approval. 5. The exit onto Oak Street shall be maintained as an exit only. Appropriate signage as and modifications shall be installed as discussed in the staff report and subject to the City Traffic Consultant's approval. 6. Prior to issuance of Grading or Building Pern~ts, the following shall be submitted to~~ the Plaiuung =Commission for revi~~ and approval as a C_o_ mmission Item at a regular public meeting::.;; a. A plan to provide restricted Below-Market-Rate housing units to assist the City with compliance with State mandated affordable housing goals. This plan shall include an agreement to provide afirst-preference admittance program for Sazatoga -- residentsfor both the BMRand Mazket-Rate units. • b. A plan to provide sound attenuation of the laundry facility. This plan shall include limitations on hours of all non-residential noise generating activities. c. A construction period traffic and pazking management plan. d. Aconstruction-period compliance monitoring plan that will provide status reports to an appointed liaison member of the Planning Commission. The reports should be provided every sixty days once construction commences and should conclude sixty days from project final. e. Measures to ensure that the evening-shift employees pazk as far away from adjoining residents as possible. f. Designation of a 24-hour facility manager to respond to neighbor complaints. 7. The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Use Permit and may, at any time, modify, delete, or impose any new conditions of the permit to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare. CIrY Arroluv~ 8. Applicant agrees to hold the City harmless from.all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of the City in connection with the City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any P:~rli~c~o,~~c s~x~w„t i,ay..aa 000014 . File No. Up-99-021 t ,R-99-052; 20400 Saratoga-Los C~atc .oad State or Federal court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. _ 9. 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. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 3. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Sazatoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTID by the City of Sazatoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 11`t' day of October 2000 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: -- ABSTAIN: ~. Chair, Plannin o sio i~ ATTEST: ecre , Pl g Commission • P:~r~~c~cn,~csc~x~~~w~r~ay.aa 000015 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • 000016 JUL• 24 2002 4:21PM BgRKER RSSOCIRTES,RRCHITE 650... ~' ~. • BARKER ASSOCIATES ARCHITECT 5 k .PLANNER 5 • • 6/8/02 Revised 7/23/02 Thomas Sullivan Community Development Director City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Submission to Planning Commission of Conditions of DR-99-052 Dear Thomas, Attachment 3 enclosed is the submittal for review and approval as a Commission Ioem at a regular public meeting from the Design Review DR-99-052. The following is a table with the list of items to be submitted and their response. Additional information is provided in bold italic type. plan shall include an agreement to provide a first-preference admittance program for Saratoga residents for both the BMR and Market-Rate units. b. A plan to provide sound attenuation of the laundry facility. This plan shall ' include limitations on hours of all non-residential noise generating activities. Request for Submittal Responses a. A plan to provide restricted See Letter from Preston Wisner, C.E.D. of Below-Market•Rate housing units to assist Our Lady of Fatima dated May 29, 2002. the City with compliance with State The letter indicates that the project will mandat°d affordable housing goals. This meet the city requirement far BMU. See plan of action letter from owner's consultant, Charles M. Salter Associates dated May 30, 2002. The plan indicates that with the proposed plans that have either have been completed or are in progress,.the laundry's noise level from it's operation will be reduced to typical residentia! neighborhood level. ~~4 s.~ ~m ~~. A9rnlo Park, CA 9iW3 65Q.325.1504 FAX b50.3~B.b723 offioe~barkerasaodates.eom fl0401'7 JUL• 24 2002 4: 21 PM BARKER RSSOCIRTES,RRCHITE 65 328 6713 / '- c. A construction period traffic and pazking management plan. d A construction period compliance- monitoring plan that will provide status reports to as appointed liaison member of the Planning Commission. The reports should be provided every sixty days once construction commences and should conclude sixty days from project final. e. Measures to ensure that the evening-shift employees park as faz away See reduced plan A 0.5 Arborist Findings and Construction Management Plan and letter from the General Contractor, E. W. Thorpe, Inc. about the anticipated level of construction during the construction process, dated 11gay 21, 2002. The Contractor anticipates that during the highest level of activity on the site a total of 30 workmen will be present, including himself. Thorpe has arranged with the major sub during these times to car pool for the shop of origin or from West Valley college, limiting the on-site trucks to fewer than 20 per day. The OLF has a maximum of 28 dory shift staff members. ID employees currently use public transportation and 6 people car pool in two vehicles, making the maximum cars for Our Lady of Fatima 14. The site plan indicates 39 parking stalls available plus one space in the Garage. We have also indicated S additional visitor parking and emergency vehicles. 10 additional spaces are available off site along the drive and 10 more are available across the street in front of the Church except for Wednesdays and Sundays. During construction no public events will beheld on site. Construction and staff parking should be able to be contained on site during even the most active time. See Letter from Preston Wisner, C.E.O. of Our Lady of Fatima dated June 7, 2002. The letter indicates that Sandy Barker of Barker Associates will make reports every 60 days to the appointed liaison member of the Planning Commission. These reports will be based on x~eekly meetings, daily reports from contractor and quality control manger retained by the Owner. See Letter from Preston Wisner, C.E.Q. of Our Lady of Fatima dated June 7, 2002. p.3 • ,; • T_ .n 000018 '_ ~ JUL• 24 2002 4:21PM H_RKER RSSOCIRTES,RRCHITE 65 328 6713 ~~, ~ . 5 ~ • from adjoining residents as possible. Sincerely, A.W. `Sandy' Barker, A.I.A. BARKER ASSOCIATES, Architects and Planners CC Preston Wisner, Our Lady of Fatima The letter indicates that an employee will receive an initial packet of information about respecting the neighbors and community privacy by panting as close to the facility as possible and not using the electronic remote locking system on their cars from 10 PM to 7 AM. Signs have been made and installed saying "No Staff parking between 2:OOPM and 6:ODAM" in front of all spaces in the upper Tot facing the fence (west). • • T_.1 p.4 OOOOlg • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • ~~ • 000020 • • ~ - ~ ~ ~,.` i r/ , OUR LADY OF FA21MA VILLA DOMINICAN SISTERS 20400 SARA70GA•LOS Gi4TOS ROD • SARArOGA, CA 95070 (408) 741-2950 FAX~(408) 741-9930 i I i Date: May 29, 2002 TO: Sandy Barker i i Subjec . `:Below Market Units i Fro : jr eston H. Wisner ~ .Attachment 4 I Based on information received from the:city, it appears that some of our ALF units inay qualify for acceptance as Below Marlcet:Valuc Units. We need to exclude the one- bedroomunits and possibly the Alzheiruer's unit. _ , .. , 1-person households .: I . 30% of Median $20,150 .. Very Low income 33,600 Santa Clara County Mediaa Family Income $96,000 Low Income 51,950 ~ ~ - .. I)I Rased on our studio units venting at $3,600 per rtiOnth or $43,200 per year and an allocatuon of 66% for units and 33% for:personaljservices, this would put the rental value of each unit at $28,512 per year. i The one-bedroom units at 54,400 per month or $~ 2,800 per year and an allocation of 66% for units and 33% for personal services would al~o qualify at $34,848. This would be especially true for double occupancy. Regarding the preference for Saraiogat~, we v brochures carry language giving preference to :~ t0 39bd T tlWIlti~ ~0 l~Qti~ 2lf10 make sure the information and SaJratogans. 0£6btbt80b ,,, 65:bt aeet~J0~21 ~~` / ~•~ • _ ,,. ~~ , • .. (. • • •~ :~ l d p ~ A Q ~ ~'~ ~~~ ~~ .13777 k.RTII'tVALi; AV1i1/I:L•' • SA tATUC)A, CnI:1T'C)RNtA ~)5U70 • (4Uti) fiti8-1200 • ~~ COCJ.NCA. hiL•'M2ff.123 Inc~orT>oraf.cd C)cca5rr'L'2, 1n~iG ~ ~ Ivan tlaxe~ . " S!sn 8opos~an ~nroi M~AnIley . Ivfcx suefr . . ~ ~ ~ ~ Ann r~~srronsm%tn .. . `: ~i ~ ' • ~ ::; __ i . May 28, 2002 l Mr. Preston Wisner PhD •~ • . Chief Executive Officer _~ _ ~ •. Our. Lady Of 1~atima Villa I •. • • • 20400 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road ' 'Saratoga, CA 95070: ~ • • • ~~~ • • RF:~Bclow Markct and Mazket Ratc Hgi~sing Tnf rmation • .' .. .. Dear Mr. Wisner: , . • .+ • In response to your request.for information regaz ing below market rate housing; T am . forwarding you the current HUD Income Limits or Santa Clara County. These figures • axe used to calculate rctits for•below m~~cet hous ng. ' 1f ou.have any additional.questions please feel lee to call me at 408•-$68-1230.• •. y ~ . Regards: ~ ~ ~ . • ~ .. • • • . . Anrl Welsh, AICP I • • ~ • Assistant Planner ' '-` ~ •• • ,J ' ~ I i / ' ,.~ .. w. i ' ~' . ~i i •~ . I ..' Z0 39yd i tlWtlt/~ ~0 1~Qt7~ ano 8E6bZhL80b 6S ~vt Z00t~a/~02~ FY 2002 HUD PROGR:A ~ INCOME LIMITS 3aMa Clara ~'MoaaMn 01/30/0? D t Fam~lylclnootMO: 198,000 o e: EtfaCtlve . M '3096 OF MEOUw j s~o,t so VERY LOW INCOM E 33,800 LOW INCOME 61,850 N ~EHOLO 30% OF;MEDIAN b23A60 VERY C.OW INCOM, 38~t00 LOW INCOME I 59,400 / ~ i 408 441 0365 P, 01 _. _1---- t67t ae ~ oa+s~ " ~ ~~ ~.. rram : ~ ~i •e~ co. _ . a Ption~ Y ~ \ ¢F' ~ Fns • ~r .r1 G 30% OF MEDIAN ~ 826,000 VERY LOW ItJCOtv~E 43,200 t:ow IIVC,OME I c~,~0 • I ? MAY-23-2002 16:56 HCD3JWMP8PPP.'. Count' of Santa CXara Pcst•It• Fa_ N~ i TO Ecivirin~mHntal Resources ngericy I-Ipu4irlK Ana G+~n7rnuril~y t~cvclupmclU CoIC•p~ pons / ~ ~ 1" ~ l X35 Nonh Elr9t ~IrCCr, ti11119 ~«' Fu • gin Jbtie. CalifOmla 9g 1 1 d (408)441-0?ti1 F/'J(44i-0:ltf5 , VERYOLOW 1DNCOME 848,000 LOW INCOME ~ T4,250 3096 OF MEDIAN I $31,100 VERY LDW INCO E 61,850 LOW INCOME ~II ~~ e PERcnN H 30'96 OF MEDIAN ~ gU3 EHOL,Q 533,400 VERY:I~OW INCOI r,E 66,700 IJDW II!1COME I 138,100 7 PERSON H 30°,6 OF MEDIAN I OU SF~il~ $5-`~~~ VEpY LOW INCOM E 59,500 LOW INCOME i 92.060 ~_ p;~e90N F+OU SEHOLII 30%OF MEDIAN J $98,000 _ E LOW INCO VERY B3,3fi0 , LOW INCOME I j 88.000 :Z3-^ • ._. 2002 HUD.income fimtto.y16102 ~ j nrLrrd of Sups+rvlFOro. O~~wld R. fJ~lf1~. ~I~+r~~~ nlvarailn. f'erc McMURh. !arms T. ElctJl .~c, Lii Krd~a (:rxu-ty ESieeWCive: RlGnarct v+nrtenhcrg ~ %~ ~ E0 39tid i tiWIltid d0 AQt/~ 21f10 0E6bTDL800 ~~ T07RL P.01 65 ~ b t ZlV3 THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • ~~ ;: • 00002 ~~:'.. "~L ~s ~ i ; ". ~{ ~:.~ _ _Charles .:Cs..~-. rY~--:r~. ;i: -. .. C^^>U~I3nt5 in A~oushcs & A_~io'Visual S,se~1 D<sign 13J Sutter Street San Francisco Ca;:tornia 9.104 T='::7 S 39 i 0442 Fet ~? 5 397 0454 cr: aaCar~s crosattaccom v. rr:,.crosalteccam Crane; P.I Salte:. PE Da'+'~ R Schwind. FAES .,.. rrr F Nash, PE Eva Dues;er Tnena; A Schindler, PE Ata^ T Rosen P= Kenneth N/ Graven, PE Timofny P.t Der Eric L oroadhurt. PE bt. T^a?: D Toy. PE Thccas J Cc:oett Duran R Begault, Ph.D. R.xer- E Skye Ross A!erozal PrLO N Sanders Jason R Duty Ccs"na L Wiyar Jule A M1lalork Poo?r- F Alvarado Joey G D'Angelo 6"ar =rustad orer.Ca R Yee ~r,c A Yee T~mctry C hlcLair, Trey C,-.bel Jcsnua M1t RoFer Kas:r ?.t Fowell Crr;~czhr A Peltier a Kraehe a !Chns:(Jn :r.ela VI Vold Kav~r. Frye ' Waricn G tildes hfarva D Noartlzee Rayko Kurosaki C Freyfag. PE c S Goldberg. May 30, 2002 M S a l t e r Sandy Barker Barker associates 114 Santa Margarita Avenue Menlo Park, CA 94025 i. ,:;~; i~ A s s o c ~ a:i Subject: Our Lady of Fatima Villa, Saratoga Laundry Facility_Noise Evaluation CSA Project No. 98-0350 Dear Mr. Barker: Attachlr~ent 5 This letter summarizes our evaluation of noise from the laundry facility at Our Lady.of Fatima Villa in Saratoga, and the proposed noise attenuation plan per use permit approval UP-99-021 dated October 11, 2000. _ EXISTING NOISE Noise measurements conducted on the site over a 24-hour period on September 7 and 8 2000 revealed that existing noise levels at the residential property line closest to the laundry facility comply with the requirements of section 7-30.050 of the City of Saratoga Noise Ordinance: Sound levels at the property line with the laundry facility in operation are fewer than 6 decibels above the ambient noise level in the same location with the laundry facility silent. We measured ambient noise levels in the morning before the laundry began operation, in the middle of the day during a specially scheduled mid-day shutdown, and in the evening just after the laundry shut down for the day. Ambient noise levels were fairly consistent at 7 am, 2 pm and 5:30 pm, varying between 49 and 50 dBA. Noise levels with the laundry in operation varied between 52 and 54 dBA. NOISE REDUCTION Although in compliance with the limits in the noise ordinance, Our Lady of Fatima Villa has agreed to implement the following recommendations for further reducing noise from the laundry facility. i oooO~~ ~ _ _ Panay tsat~er ~; May 30, 2002 Page 2 1. Change hours of operation from 6:00 am - 5:30 pm to 7:00 am - 4:30 p.m. y This change has already been implemented. 2. Relocate the dryer exhaust ducts from the roof of the buildin to the interio g r of - the building. The new exhaust path will tenminate at the north end of the building, where the laundry building and an existing fence and. shed will help shield the property line from noise, rather than on the roof, where there is a line of sight to the neighboring property's rear yard. 3. Replace the existing dryers with new ones. We understand that the new dryers have quieter drive systems and larger capacity than the existing ones. The larger capacity will result in a smaller tiumber of laundry loads each day. 4. Relocate athrough-wall exhaust fan from the southwest wall to the northwest wall of the building to move it away from the residential property line. We anticipate that these measures will reduce noise from ttre laundry by 5 to 7 dB at the south and west property lines (adjacent to residences). Noise attributable ~o the laundry facility alone will then be below the existing ambient noise levels. Because sound levels are cumulativet, the measured noise level.at the property line after the noise reduction plan is implemented is expected to be 1 or 2 dB above the ambient. The reduction in noise level combined with reductions in _- operating hours and the number of daily laundry loads should result in a clearly -- perceptible reduction in laundry facility noise. During the laundry's operating hours, noise levels at the property line are expected to be typical of a suburban i residential neighborhood. Please call if you have questions. Sincerely, CHARLES 117. SALTER ASSOCIATES, INC. ~ / Philip N. Sanders Principal Consultant Sound levels sum logarithmically. Two sounds of equal level and spectrum combine to produce a sound level 3 dB higher than each individual sound. For example, two sound sources each generating 50 dBA combine to produce a sound level of 53 dBA. Charles M Salter A S S O C 1 a t@ S 1 A C t30 Sutter Street San Francisco California 9at04 Te°: at5 397 Oa42 ®~~ f ., ., • DATE: SUBJECT: PURPOSE OPERATING POLICY 02-02 April 10, 2002 HANDLING OF SPECIAL PROBLEMS AND COMPLAINTS Attachment f To insure the appropriate referral of problems and complaints POLICY: It is the policy of this facility to handle all problems and complainrts in a timely and appropriate manner. Anyone bringing a special problem, incident or complaint to the attention of a staff member should have that concern handled in the most expeditious manner possible. Examples of special problems are suspected abuses to residents or guests, damage to the facility or personal property or complaints made by neighbors regarding any unsafe or annoying conditions that concern them. PROCEDURE: Each special condition or complaint call should be immediately documented on an incident report. During regular duty hours (9:OOa.m to 5:00 p.m.) these incident reports should be immediately reported to the appropriate department head or the CEO. All incidents should be promptly responded to, letting the person reporting the incident know that he/she will be advised of any action taken or when the final action may be expected. On Saturdays these issues should be referred to the manager on duty. After hours all calls are routed through the St. Dominic's nursing station. The following persons should be notified: ~ Any Issue -Chief Executive Officer* Clinical Issues - Director of Nursing Maintenance Issues - Chief of Maintenance Administrative Issues -Administrative Assistant *In spite of any issue if you can't reach the appropriate department %.~ head, contact the CEO. All emergency telephone numbers are available at each nursing station in the medication room. THOSE NUMBERS ARE NOT TO__BE GIVEN OUT TO THE PUBLIC. n isner PhD Chief Executive Officer 00002'7 ;, J ~a - vUR LADY OF FATtMA VILLA DOMINICAN SISTERS * 20400 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS ROAD • SARATOGA, CA 95070 (408) 741-2950 FAX (408) 74I -4930 DATE: June 7, 2002 SUBJECT: Restricted Employee Parking/ Pay Day Notice TO: All P.M. and Night Employees FROM: Preston H. Wisner PhD CEO Please avoid parking next to the back fence due to neighbor complaints of nighttime headlights radios and car alarms going .off at the change of shifts. Avoid back fence parking during the hours of 2:30. p.m. and 6 a.m. Evening and nighttime employees should utilize the parking spaces adjacent to St. Raymond's, next to the eucalyptus grove and next to the garage. If it becomes necessary to use one of the back fence spaces when you arrive for p.m.'s please move your car before the end of the shift. Our neighbors have complained that when evening and night shift employees arrive and leave S they are disturbed by loud radios, lights shining through the fence and car alarms going off By parking in the designated areas those noises will be limited or eliminated. When family members come to the Villa to drop off or pick up employees from duty they are to be asked not to remain in the parking lots with their radios on at a high level. Lets try to treat our neighbors as nice as we wish to be treated in our own homes. Thanks for your support in this matter. ly, inr hD Chief Executive Officer • 00008 ~ ~ _~ ~. \I ~~0 D ~~ j l l I C I ~~ -? t , ,.,~-'""~- I I I I I I I I I I I , I 1 I , , I ~ I~ 4>~ EXISTNG PARKING LOT ___.~ ~ i I I^. _ 1 i I i i +~ E%:STING BUILUING E%ISnNG BUILDNG EwSnNGPORnoN oFCOURTYARD - AND LAWN TO REMaN UNCFiNJGED ~, f, .. I Al3fJMERSGAFDEk f ~ ~ / ( v Jl Robed planters with klteractive (~ i ~ , pI0MiI1gF. Plant materid to bb '-' -~ ~ Fats to tar, kagrant, and/ or = +n ~ cdorful Small trees for - ~-~ ~:~ ~,1. OVarMad 6hade, la: - Girae Fpp. • Enobotrw deh.o, basal ~ ,~ • FoFmor:rr oRdonolie, Twemory t,MmPa rdea'u, ax .. ~ ~ EwSnNG BUILDING • Hula spa., craccpp4 - I I I • Croeya rer+ato, mock ararge ~ . • lawrdub epp., Iwyndo • Nmrrad4 epp, daralw ~ i '1 v r+.r. - phaMun Epp. An ~ - ~ • Fnhra ov:n, Nr feew _ ~ 1. ,~ J~ + I.~ .,,®ti. A~® ~ ; .~, ~ ~. ~ ~ ,1 REDWOOD TREEU~DF7t5TORY ~' {X ` Pt.MNiPL^+5: Cobrful Fhode tolerant plantingf I.s: far etrol garden 4 J • ~ , ~ „ l ~. , ~ , ~ Ardaoe ~ ~ ® ® . • ~ ~ ~ k" • RhedodeMOne V' • Earccram h. huniF, troyant rorcacocw .I ~S - ~. "' ;. .. I ~~~ ' h,a~ba pponba, edd dot plant ' ~`, ® ~ m ® ~ - ,•rcn„ .. ~hr••- • Needlcppm t+y • ,4ah'4n hrbridwa Aowerrq mopY l 1\ O (~ ... ~ ~ ... ~ I nJ ~ ~ . ,.•1 • taod'na damseke, heo+rdy ba ti I . /' • Llrope mnwA, bq bLv fy turf ~'. (...- lY ~~ _.. _- _.__._ ^ns rr" ~~ LOS GAT05-SARATOGA ROAD --~ ~~ r ,r i 5TA'NE, .~ PROPOSED BUILDING EXISnNG BUILDItrYa ~ ~~~ q >, ~4 ~;:~ fir. ~© ~-~- - ARBOR E CA>•pPY OVERHEAD GT FI nl, rM•J. FnR4Y `, "'fir, ..f~l j - E+'Ir,TING gUILD:NG \ • I I SnNG DRNEWAY TO OAK STREET ~ I I u I t 1 ~I __-- li ---- I I Y i plI _ `~IPROPOSED 10 5?ACE PARKING LOT F 1 ~~ ~~; '. ~• •J EwsnNG oAx TREES To aEMaN, ttP. 1B' -16' HYaH KENNING WALL W/SHRUBS-ter I N FTtONT ®DARKING LOT EDGE -- PIJdGhk3 LOT BtJFFBR PLdJNiT~Gx •--------/ • ~ Screen ahnM at least 5 Ngh to hida wn from view from Dak Street, Le.: • Peloepal+n Mbn4 modt aanpe . Dodetloa NFCaea InFeeed bull '- Eecabnir Nbrq teuGede -- CS+APEL PLAIYTIt•IG6: Worm, WMr patio for anjging.. - - ' cartyvd whh' plantings to vlew kam molds and oufslde, le.: _ iMmYm Wp, An . - LwvrMO epa•. le..rd.r • 5dis epl•, ceps ReFemariw epF. raFengfy • 7neoFporum 'WlyderY D,wrf . • Hvwaam perNtoium, preerrary myopaun • WMa Ida NsdeFeM', ne~aryeM MI S NEU PAAKiHG SPICES 1.1 OAK TRFJE U~aTORY PLAIY~INGBr Shade and drought tderam ground cash and bw ehnba, Le: • RAae ~urifakm, everpern arrant • tknd+a domnliaa, Me+edy bamtoo • Wuchra eanp:ra4 cvd bdb • Mohoiie equifolur4 Orepon props ,. EtJTRY TURN,4ROUND 6Kahl~0l: Low rabrfid amud plantings ' wiH, wrw IrripaMoa &WDED Q COLORED ENTRY CONCRETE PAVING FOR AUTOnOBILES B PEOESTRUWS ExIsnNG crtY SIDEWALK AND wN.L@ ----__ PARKING 5PACE DAiH CONNECTS TO E%ISTGNG PATHS . ON ADJACENT PROPERTY. I '-18' HIGH STONE WALL W/48' HIGH ~ SOLID WO ~ FENCE ON TOP E%15TING SDEWALK 4 r NOTES • A9 new Irrllpalion syafertu Fhal be drip or bT flow drip bubbler unless epecificdy noMd on plan Irtipatial system aho9 be operated whh o multi- program lima clock with a rain override avMth. I • All new pbMing areas shall ba co+ered with a 1' deep 6yer d bark mulch • No trenchhp shall occur wrlhin tk critical roof zone of oak frees m par proJM orb~rlFt report, A9 trenchhg within the drip Ins d e><kfirlg freer ehdl be hcioi dug. No roots greater than T dbmeter ehdl be af. N cut roots shop be cleanly art ord dressed. I ~, ~O~ pF 4 z OA Am =t 0 10 10 Io .. i ~, I: D -~ BARKER ASSOCIATES ARCHI7ECTg k PLAN N6A5 G sw Ia4Me A,.. WiMG~ vra'timmw w.aww+a~e. r 14 Assacwres ladx'V>r hrronnue vn n+,.np t~~~~M ~ Iu MmiOq'GWON (Anal Tle 7tlp to. tewl rx ten J J JD U< C ~0 L ,~~ u,N ~ r0 ~I. 4 ~ Jt7 N2 _ ~ ~OL r=rx ~ ~0 0 ~a yj VIJ 20~ JFV J ,C 4 . tY 4 F. S j Doo _ot O HT~ a+04 <Y mN USE PERMT 51JBMTTAL a~ui 10.08 ~.. i ~J :F. • MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL JUNE 19, 2002 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met iri Closed Session, Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue at 5:00. p.m. Conference With Legal Counsel -Existing Litigation (2 cases): (Government Code section 54956.9(a)) Name of case: Saratoga Fire Protection District v. City of Saratoga (Santa Clara County Superior Court No. CV-803540) Name of case: City of Saratoga v. Michael S. Costa (Santa Clara County Superior Court No. CV-806843) ___ Conference With Legal Counsel -Existing Litigation: (Government Code section 54956.9(a)) City of Saratoga v. West Valley-Mission Community College District (California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District No. H022365) • Initiation of litigation (Gov't Code Section 54956.9(c): (1 potential case) MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 n.m. Mayor Streit reported there was Council discussion but no action was taken. Mayor Streit called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and requested Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. Rni.i, C'Ai,i, PRESENT: Councilmembers Stan Bogosian, John Mehaffey, Ann Waltonsmith, Vice Mayor Evan Baker, Mayor Nick Streit ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager • Richard Taylor, City Attorney Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Jesse Baloca, Administrative Services Director John Cherbone, Director of Public Works Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director Lata Vasudevan, Assistant Planner Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst Rick Torres, Public Works Supervisor S REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POS__TING OF AGENDA FORM JUNE 19.2002 • Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of June 19, 2002 was properly posted on June 14, 2002. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The following person requested to speak at tonight's meeting: Bill Breck, 2075 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, reported the latest incidents in his neighborhood in regards to the property located at 14480 Oak Place. Mr. Breck reported that since he was before the Council two weeks ago neighbors' trees have been cut. Mr. Breck stated that two neighbors have requested tree protection fences. Mr. Breck stated he has three issues he would like bring to the Council's attention: • A concrete wall has been constructed on the south side of the property. Holes have been dug that have damaged protected trees. • Extremely difficult to receive status reports from the City. Mr. Breck requested that one person be responsible to communicate with his neighbors. • No notice was given of that item heard at a recent Planning Commission meeting -- in regards to an appeal to remove a tree. Hollie Davies, 14478 Oak Place, reported that damage to the neighborhood trees is still taking place. Ms. Davies noted that most of the trees located at 14480 Oak Place have been killed or severely damaged also all of the tree on the peripheral have been killed or damaged. Ms. Davies stated that Barrie Coates, City Arborist, wrote an arborist report on four of the protected oak trees on her property. Mr. Coates recommended that in order to save her trees the following needs to happen; protective fencing, landscape plan radial trenching some the trees on her property have been damaged. Last Thursday, six weeks after the report was released, radial trenching was finally carried out. Ms. Davies stated that on June 14, 2002 New Life Tree Service began cutting the limbs of one of her protective oaks on the property line. Ms. Davies noted that she called Rhett Edmonds and when he arrived they left the property. Vice Mayor Baker asked if she was sure of the name of the tree service that cut her trees. Ms. Davies responded that she is pretty sure that New Life Tree Service was the company. Brett England, 13896 Yerba Santa Court; noted that he was preset this evening to report on the progress of the proposed VTA operator facilities at West Valley College. Mr. England thanked Councilmember Waltonsmith and City Manager Anderson for their help in this matter. Mr. England noted that he met with the VTA and West Valley College representatives. Mr. England noted that he recently presented two alternative locations to the Safety and Security Council at West Valley College. The next step would be to present the alternatives to the West Valley Board of Directors and the VTA Board. City Council Minutes 2 June 19, 2002 Cheriel Jensen, 13737 Quito Road, requested a status report in regards to the Highway 85 Noise Mitigation Study. Ms. Jensen also thanked the Council for their support in opposing measure E. COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF Vice Mayor Baker asked when the test section of microgrinding would take place on Highway 85. Councilmember Waltonsmith responded that Mr. Evanhoe has scheduled a public meeting on July 18, 2002. City Manager Anderson stated that the one-mile test strip should be completed by August. In response to Mr. Breck's comments, Vice Mayor requested the Arborist Report from Mr. Cutler's project. Mayor Streit reassured the public that the City Council is well aware of what is going on with this project and noted that staff has their full support. ANNOUNCEMENTS None CEREMONIAL ITEMS 1 A. APPOINTMENT AND OATH OF OFFICE FOR THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution and administer Oath of Office. BAKER/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPOINTING TOM LOWDERMILK, PATRICIA BAILEY, AND PAUL CONRADO TO THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION. MOTION PASSED 5- 0. Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, administered the Oath of Office to the new Heritage Preservation Commissioners. City Council Minutes 3 June 19, 2002 1B. APPOINTMENT AND OATH OF OFFICE FOR THE YOUTH COMMISSION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution and administer Oath of Office BAKERBOGOSIAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPOINTING VALERIE FARNUM TO THE YOUTH COMMISSION. MOTION PASSED 5-0. Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, administered the Oath of Office to the new Youth Commissioner. PUBLIC HEARINGS APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW REAL ESTATE OFFICE USE AS FIRST FLOOR FRONTAGE AT 14500-14506 BIG BASIN WAY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conduct public hearing; deny the appeal. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 02=049 • RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING - 14500 BIG BASIN WAY Tom Sullivan; Community Development Director, presented staff report. Director Sullivan reported that the applicant was denied a Conditional Use Permit to locate a real estate office in the 1,440 square-foot corner storefront located at 14500 Big Basin Way. The proposed location abuts the existing 700 square foot storefront real estate office, which is located at 14508 Big Basin Way. The corner location houses the "Exclusively Yours Boutique" which is going out of business. The expansion would result in a combined office area of 2,140 square feet or the entire first floor of the 9,051 square foot two story building known as Pollack Plaza. The proposed change would render the Pollack plaza building street level frontage entirely non-retail in character. This outcome is inconsistent with the intent of the CH-1 zoning district; which is designed to maintain the retail vitality of Saratoga Village and encourage generation of sales tax revenue. Mayor Streit opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. • City Council Minutes 4 June 19, 2002 ' Miles Rankin, Big Basin Way, noted that he took a survey of all of the business in the Village. Mr. Rankin explained the breakdown of the businesses and indicated that currently there are four vacant spaces in the Village. Mr. Rankin noted that he has been a resident in Saratoga for 50 years and a business owner (in the same spot in the Village) for 40 years. Mr. Rankin noted that he has been involved in the - Chamber of Commerce, Rotary, Heritage Preservation Commission, Hakone Board member, Villa Montalvo Board member, and a member of the Real Estate Board. Mr. Rankin explained that his business has grown over the years and really needs more space. Mr. Rankin noted that if he is granted the permit he intends on remodeling the building and vacating his other office in the Buy and Save Center. Robert Pollock, Property Owner, Granite Way, noted that he has owned the building for 25 years. Mr. Pollock stated that he feels real estate is retail and Mr. Rankin~should be allowed to expand his business. Mayor Streit closed the public hearing at 7:54 p.m. Councilmember Mehaffey stated the Mr. Rankin has been a key business owner and resident in Saratoga for many years. Councilmember Mehaffey stated that he does not agree with Mr. Pollock that real estate is destination retail. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that the City hired an Economic Development Coordinator last year to help revitalize the retail in the Village so he cannot support this appeal at this time. _ Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that Mr. Rankin has been a valued person ion this community. Unfortunately, Councilmember Waltonsmith stated that she cannot support an increase of a real estate office in the Village. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he would like to give the City's Economic Development Coordinator a chance to bring more retail stores into the Village. Councilmember Bogosian stated that perhaps some additional space could be made for Mr. Rankin in his current location. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he cannot support this appeal. Vice Mayor Baker stated that he would not support this appeal. Mayor Streit noted that he agrees with Councilmember Bogosian that the City should give the Economic Development Coordinator a chance to bring more retail into the Village. Mayor Streit stated that he sees no reason to overturn the Planning Commission's decision. BAKER/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION 14500 BIG BASIN WAY. MOTION PASSED 5-0. • City Council Minutes 5 June 19, 2002 4. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR BASEMENTS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conduct public hearing; introduce ordinance; place on next agenda for adoption. Lata Vasudevan, Assistant Planner, presented staff report. Planner Vasudevan explained the background on how the proposed amendment was formulated. Planner Vasudevan stated that last December a Planning Commission Subcommittee was formed, including herself and Planning Commissioner Chair Erna Jackman. The Subcommittee was formed for two purposes: 1. Discuss issues that the planning staff and commission have come across when reviewing basements 2. Modify the current zoning ordinance to provide written clarification and written requirement to address these issues. Planner Vasudevan reported that on May 8, 2002 the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council amend the Zoning Ordinance regarding requirements for basements in all zoning districts. The purpose of the amendment is to provide clarification and specify planning review requirements to address issues raised by Staff and the Planning Commission with regard to proposed basements. Planner Vasudevan noted that the'proposed ordnance amendment will include a revised definition of "Basement",'a definition of "Lightwell", planning review requirements, and size and setback requirements for proposed basements. In regards to the definition on hillside lots, Vice Mayor Baker asked for clarification on the slope of the land in comparison to the levels of house. Vice Mayor Baker stated that what if the because of the slope of the land exposes the basement where part of the rear wall is more than 42 inches out of the ground does it now become third story. Planner Vasudevan noted that staff feels that issue has been address by the requirement that states no one vertical measurements does not exceed the story limits. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked about the possibility of people constructing basements as secondary units. ' Planner Vasudevan noted that there are requirements regarding secondary units. Planner Vasudevan noted that one requirement is that a kitchen facility is prohibited, which helps prevent a room becoming a second unit. Councilmember Bogosian noted that Councilmember Waltonsmith's concern is more of an enforcement effort on the City. Director Sullivan noted that when the Planning Commission has doubts about the future use of a basement they a have a Covenant recorded on the deed. City Council Minutes ( June 19, 2002 A discussion took place on the City's requirement of a 4-foot requirement for lighwells compared to the UBC requirement of a 3-foot requirement. Mayor Streit opened the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. Cheriel Jensen, 13737 Quito Road, stated that she has some real issues about this ordinance. Ms. Jensen noted that she doesn't support excluding basements from the total square footage of a house. Ms. Jensen noted that the setback requirements should be at least 20 feet. Ms. Jensen pointed out that basements could produce mold. Director Sullivan noted that the existing basement ordinance does not include basement as a story or floor area in floor area ratio studies. Russ Edwards, 15145 Sobey Road, noted that he supports this ordinance. Mr. Edwards noted that he supports 4-foot lightwells. In regards to mold, Mr. Edwards stated with more lightwells and more windows it prevents a lot of mold growth. Mr. Edwards noted that as the size of house you can build on a $2 million dollar lot decreases the only place a developer can go is down. Mr. Edwards noted that he does not support taking away from the square feet of the house if the ceiling goes over 9 feet. Mr. Edwards stated ceilings should the 9-foot ceiling height limitation should be eliminated and make ceiling height 12-feet. Mayor Streit closed the public hearing at 8:20 p.m. In regards to ceiling limitation of 9-feet, Councilmember Mehaffey noted that he agrees with Mr. Edwards that there should not be a ceiling limitation. Councilmember Mehaffey.noted the setbacks requirements should be less for nonconforming lots. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she supports this ordinance. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she shares Councilmember Mehaffey's concerns regarding set backs for nonconforming lots. Councilmember Bogosian stated that he generally supports this ordinance. Councilmember Bogosian noted he also feels setbacks for nonconforming lots should be addressed. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he supports 4-foot lightwells. Vice Mayor Baker stated he generally supports this ordinance. Vice Mayor Baker noted that he supports a 12-foot ceiling limitation, it would help prevent people from violating the ordinance. Mayor Streit concurred with his colleagues. Mayor Streit suggested that setbacks for nonconforming lots be addressed at a future meeting. Director Sullivan suggested that this public hearing be continued the July 17, 2002 City Council meeting. BAKER/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO JULY 17, 2002. MOTION PASSED 5-0. City Council Minutes 7 June 19, 2002 5. ADOPTION OF HOUSING ELEMENT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conduct public hearing and adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 02-050 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL GRANTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT TO THE ADOPTION. OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE SARATOGA GENERAL PLAN TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 02-051 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA BY ADOPTING A REVISED HOUSING ELEMENT Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director, presented staff report. Director Sullivan thanked the City Council for their diligence helping him draft the Housing Element. Director Sullivan noted that on June 11, 2002 he received a letter confirming the State's acceptance of the City's Housing Element. The City Council congratulated and expressed their sincere thanks and appreciation to Director Sullivan for his hard work and effort to draft the Housing Element for the City of Saratoga. Mayor Streit opened the public hearing at 8:48 p.m. Betty Feldheym, 20184 Franklin Avenue, commended the City on the approval of the Housing Element by the State. Ms. Feldheym suggested that the City try to implement some of the housing programs listed in the Housing Element. Cheriel Jensen, 13737 Quito Road, congratulated Director Sullivan for an approved Housing Element. Ms. Jensen referred to page 13 of the Housing Element and stated that people who suffer from disabilities. Ms. Jensen stated that many people suffer from chemical sensitive the housing Element should include ways to make our neighborhoods safe. Mayor Streit closed the public hearing at 8:55 p.m. BAKER/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION GRANTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT. MOTION PASSES 5-0. BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION AMENDING THE GENERAL. PLAN OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA BY ADOPTING A REVISED HOUSING ELEMENT. MOTION PASSES 5-0. • • • City Council Minutes 8 June 19, 2002 OLD BUSINESS 6. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD TRAIL VTA FUNDING UPDATE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst, presented staff report. Analyst Bloomquist reported that in light of Union Pacific Railroad Company's unwillingness to discuss land acquisition along their lien die to potential liability the plan to develop the Union Pacific Railbird Trail was deferred. Analyst Bloomquist noted that on Apri123, 2002 staff presented Council with the task Force `s options and noted that the VTA indicated that tier 1 funding, earmarked for the U.P.R.R project, would probably be reallocated to other projects likely to be completed within the next 8 years. VTA staff indicated if Saratoga was able to secure an agreement with PG&E for usage of their easement for implementation of the trail, tier 1 funding maybe available to offset incurred costs. Analyst Bloomquist noted that recent conversations with VTA staff have confirmed the VTA's willingness to set aside funding for Saratoga if the City is willing to negotiate with PG&E for the usage of their easement form Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road to Saratoga Avenue for trail development. Analyst Bloomquist noted that VTA is willing to reserve funding for the trail segment identified as reach 3 in the feasibility study. The segment is 1.6 miles in length, with the goal of placing the trail on the PG&E easement. Projected development cost for reach 3 is $1,997,577.00 dollars, with a required local match by the City of 20%, or $399,515.40. Analyst Bloomquist noted that the City must submit a resolution to VTA by July 29, 2002 Councilmember Mehaffey noted that he would like more information on this before he is willing to support any negotiations with PG&E. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted the City could apply for grants to cover the City's 20% match. Mayor Streit noted that he could support the trail along this section as long as it is a public process. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she supports going forward to secure the funds and agrees that a public outreach program should be implemented. Logan Deimler, -14320 Springer Avenue, noted that he is a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Trails Subcommittee. Mr. Deimler read a letter explaining why he feels Council should direct staff to act favorably in acquiring, the $1.6 million dollars from VTA. City Council Minutes 9 June 19, 2002 Mr. Deimler noted that if the money if secured for the City of Saratoga the PRC would hold public meetings to inform residents of the purposed trail. Gregory Gates, 13226 Montrose Street, noted that he lives near the trail and use it frequently to walk his dog. Mr. Gates noted that everyone should look at this trail in the future.. Mr. Gates.noted that he fully supports the public outreach process. Cheriel Jensen, 13737 Quito Road, noted that she supports the trial. Consensus of the City Council to direct staff to pursue the VTA tier 1 funding by submitting the required application packet to VTA by July 5, 2002 and a resolution to the VTA by July 29, 2002. Also Council requested that the Parks and Recreation Commission implement a community outreach program in order to get everyone involved in this proposed trail. __ Mayor Streit declared aten-minute recess at 9:25 p.m. Mayor Streit reconvened the meeting at 9:30 p.m. NEW BUSINESS PG & E PRESENTATION -DAWN JACKSON, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS REPRESENTATIVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Informational only. This item will be continued to July 17, 2002. 8. CITY OF SARATOGA SPRING 2002 CLEANUP SUMMARY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and authorize payment of invoice. Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst, presented staff report. Analyst Bloomquist reported that this years Spring 2002 cleanup event was a huge success, with high levels of resident participation, resulting in 293 tons of refuse being collected from Apri129-may 17, 2002. The cleanup event ran smoothly, with City staff receiving no complaint calls and several calls from residents supporting the event. Green Valley disposal Company provided exceptional service during the event, responding quickly and efficiently to customer needs and picking up all waste left out by our residents. Analyst Bloomquist explained that this year's cleanup event cost was $39,467.00, which was actually under the approved budget of $45,000.00. Analyst Bloomquist noted that tonight staff is recommending that Council authorize the City Manager to execute payment in the amount of $39,467.00 to Green Valley Disposal for the 2002 City of Saratoga Spring Cleanup. City Council Minutes 10 June 19, 2002 Vice Mayor Baker suggested that next year the program be restructured so residents the refuse that can be recycled won't end up in the landfill. . Phil Couchee, General Manager/Green Valley Disposal Company, responded that a few years ago the City of Campbell attempted to do what Vice Mayor Baker suggested. The City of Campbell manually went through the refuse. The City of Campbell's attempt to recycle during their cleanup days cost them more money and they needed to use more trucks. Mayor Streit asked Mr. Couchee if holding the Spring Clean Up over athree-w.eek period made the program run better. Mr. Couchee responded that athree-week program was easier on his crews. BAKERIBO_GOSIAN MOVED TO ACCEPT REPORT AND AUTHORIZE PAYMENT OF INVOICE. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 9. COST RECOVERY HEARING FOR THE ABATEMENT OF 12623 QUITO ROAD STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 02-052 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING COST RECOVERY FOR THE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE LOCATED AT 12623 QUITO ROAD (COSTA) Richard Taylor, City Attorney, presented staff report. City Attorney Taylor explained that Government Code 38773.1 allows the City to set ups procedures for recovery for abatement costs. Saratoga City Code Section 3-15.120 establishes this procedure for the City. This section of he City Code required the City Manager to keep an accurate- accounting of the abatement costs, including investigative, administrative, direct abatement costs and other reasonably related costs. City Attorney Taylor noted that the total cost for the abatement at the property located at 12623 Quito Road is $85,887,51. MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION TO RECOVER THE MONEY SPENT FOR ABATEMENT AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12623 QUITO ROAD. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 10. APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR PHASE II OF THE GRACE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH RENOVATION PROJECT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize City Manager to execute agreement. City Council Minutes 11 June 19, 2002 Dave Anderson, City Manager, presented staff report. City Manager Anderson requested that this item be continued to July 17, 2002 Consensus of the City Council to continue this item to July 17, 2002. CONSENT CALENDAR 2A: REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve check register. BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2B. MAY FINANCIAL REPORTS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept reports. BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ACCEPT MAY FINANCIAL REPORTS. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2C. REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES -JUNE 12, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE PLANNING ACTION MINUTES. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2D. SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE AGENCY AGREEMENT FOR COUNTYWIDE HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION PROGRAM STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and authorize City Manager to execute agreement. Vice Mayor Baker requested that Item 2D be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor Baker noted that he feels the price to recycle latex paint is unreasonable and he feels discourages people to recycle it. Vice Mayor Baker requested that the City write a letter to the County asking why the charge is so high to recycle paint. City Council Minutes 12 June 19, 2002 • • BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO ACCEPT REPORT AND AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF CONTRACT WITH THE PROVISO OF A LETTER FROM THE CITY REQUESTING AN EXPLANATION OF CHARGES ON LATEX PAINT. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2E. 2002 CONCRETE & STORMDRAIN MAINTENANCE PROGRAM - AWARD OF CONTRACT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Declare lowest bidder; award contract; and authorize City Manager to execute agreement. BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED AWARD BID AND AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF CONTRACT WITH GEORGE BIANCHI. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2F. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT PERMITTING SMALL WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS - STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt ordinance. TITLE OF ORDINANCE: 206 AN ORDINANCE BY THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING CHAPTER 15 OF THE SARATOGA CITY CODE RELATING TO SMALL WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT ORDINANCE - RELATING TO SMALL WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS. MOTION PASSED 5- _. 0. -- 2G. JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT AND COOPERATION AGREEMENT TO UNDERTAKE ACTIVITIES PURSUANT TO TITLE I OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute agreement. TITLE OF RESOTLUION:02-043 AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA TO ENTER INTO A JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT AND COOPERATION AGREEMENT TO UNDERTAKE OR TO ASSIST IN THE UNDERTAKING OF ESSENTIAL ACTIVITIES PURSUANT TO TITLE I OF THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974, AS AMENDED FOR THE PERIOD OF OCTOBER 1, 2002 -SEPTEMBER 30, 2005 BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION AND AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF CONTRACT. MOTION PASSED 5-0. City Council Minutes 13 June 19, 2002 2H. RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO CHANGE OF CONTROL OF CATV FRANCHISE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. __ TITLE OF RESOTLUION:02-047 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE CHANGE OF CONTROL OF THE CABLE COMMUNICATIONS FRANCHISE BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION. MOTION PASSED 5-0. COMMISSION ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Vice Mayor Baker reported the following information: Parks and Recreation Commission -Discussed Azule Park 100% Design Plan and took a position on it. Finance Commission -Last meeting reviewed the entire fee structure for the City. Commissioners will soon start to review all polices and procedures used by the Administrative Services Deparhnent. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember Bogosian requested that the Village Green Neighborhood traffic modifications be brought back to Council for discussion. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she supported Councilmember Bogosian's request. Vice Mayor Baker explained that he and Councilmember Waltonsmith were the two Councilmembers assigned to review all CDBG applications. Vice Mayor Baker noted that they had no guidelines to follow when evaluating requests to process CDBG grants. Vice Mayor Baker requested that staff draft a set of guidelines to be use in this process. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he supported Vice Mayor Baker's request. Councilmember Waltonsmith requested that City Attorney Taylor provide Council with a report on options in regards to the future development of the Mt. Winery. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he supported Councilmember Waltonsmith's request. Referring to a newsletter from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (dated June 2002), Vice Mayor Baker stated that a recent Senate bill proposes changes in MTC- ABAGrelationship. Vice Mayor Baker explained that Senator Tom Torlakson of Contra County sponsors SB 1243. City Council Minutes 14 June 19, 2002 c Vice Mayor Baker noted that SB 1243 would name MTC as the Bay Area Land Use and Transportation Commission and would require the new commission to assume the land use responsibility now held by ABAG. The bill would also require the renamed Commission to adopt along-range policy plan, focused on transportation and housing on or before January 1, 2005: Vice Mayor Baker requested that the City oppose this bill and send a letter to California State Assembly. OTHER None CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None ADJOURNMENT There be no further business Mayor Streit adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk • • City Council Minutes 15 June 19, 2002