Loading...
02-22-1999 Parks & recreation Agenda packetSaratoga Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting City Hall Administrative Offices 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga Monday, February 22, 1999 7:30pm AGENDA I. Organization A) Roll Call: Alberts, Clabeaux, Friedrich, Ioannou, Olsen, Swan, Whitney B) Report on Posting of the Agenda: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2 the agenda was properly posted on February 1 S, 1999 C) Approval of January 4, 1999 & February 1, 1999 Minutes II. Administration A) Saratoga News Article - Trails B) Montalvo Associates Project C) Creek Connections Action Group Correspondence D) Conflict of Interest Laws E) Brown Act Guide III. Oral & Written Communication This section is for the public to speak on any item not on the agenda IV. Old Business A) Wildwood Park Restrooms B) Play Equipment- Gardiner & Kevin Moran Park C) Playfield Project Meetings - Logistics V. New Business A) CPRS Conference - Comments & Ideas B) Joint Meeting with Council (March 9th) - Agenda Items VI. Commissioner & Staff Reports A) Commissioner Reports B) City Hall Update - Irene Jacobs C) Recreation Department Status Report - Joan Pisani VII. Adjournment Phil McCarthy 18566 Martha Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 January 25, 1999 Mayor & City Council Members Park: DovkTask Foy Mernbera Saratoga Parks & Recreation Commission 13777 Fruftvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Honorable Mayor and Committee Members: : - -'A .mlr ±Tee I grew up in Saratoga attending Sacred Heart School for eight years. My parents still live in the family home on Merrick Drive and I now live with my family on Martha Avenue. My wife Paula and I have 2 children (Claire a grade, Andrew 2"d grade) attending Marshall Lane Elementary. { Among the many experiences I had that make Saratoga a special place to me, my most vivid memories are those of playing ball in the local Little League. The memories of the adult volunteer Coaches, Mr. Savage, Mr. Graziani Mr. Burney and others, who took their time to help me grow up are very special.. - l now know that it took much more behind the scenes work to organize the teams and make the fields available. The fields 1 played on when I was Claire and Andrew's ages are now covered by the Saratoga Post Office. Our Youth Center has now been replaced by the Senior Center and Council Chambers where you may be reading this letter. The Quito Little League fields are gone, a victim of today's financial climate in the post Prop 13 environment. My understanding is that in today's tight funding climate money has become available to improve the field at Marshall Lane, enabling the children in the area to have a good place to play schoolyard as well as organized ball. Quito Little League and AYSO will commit to maintaining the fields for the right to have our children play. If we can manage a cooperative effort by all parties, the project can have side benefits for the immediate neighborhood by being a conduit to raise awareness and complete improvements in the traffic pattern and parking at the school. Turning down such an offer would be a detriment to my children's education and childhood experience. I ask you, please, do whatever is in your power to upgrade the fields at Marshall Lane so my children can have the same feeling that I remember of Saratoga as a special place to grow up. Sincerely, T5)V Phil McCarthy Saratoga Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Administrative Offices, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga January 4, 1999 7:30 p.m. Action Minutes I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:31 p.m. II. Roll Call Commissioners Present: Alberts, Clabeaux, Ioannou, Olsen, Swan, Whitney Commissioners Absent: Friedrich Others Present: Please see attached list: Joan Pisani, Irene Jacobs III. Report on Posting of the Minutes: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2 the agenda was properly posted on December 27, 1998. IV. Approval of Minutes of November 1998 Meeting: Staff member Jacobs reported to the Commission that she was unable to provide minutes for the last meeting since her workload has increased significantly since the Playfield project has developed. She would provide the Commission with a copy as soon as possible. Administration: • Staff passed out the most recent financial reports that had been compiled by the city's finance department that reflected the activity and balance of the Park Development Fund. • Other general Administrative matters were attended to. Oral & Written Communication: There were numerous members of the public present at the meeting to discuss the Playfield Project and more specifically the recommendation that would be proposed by the Playfield Task Force. The recommendation from the Task Force will not come before the Commission until their January meeting but, the four sites that are currently being proposed by the Task Force for possible development or improvements are: Congress Springs Park, Blue Hills /Azule site, Marshall Lane School site and the Foothill School site. The residents who were present were largely from the Marshall Lane School neighborhood who expressed strong opposition to the project site. The main concerns shared related to traffic and safety issues and how these concerns would affect their quality of life. Residents shared that they experience large amounts of traffic during the week and fear that this will happen again on the weekend if these playfields are developed. The Commission heard from the residents, thanked them for having shared their concerns and told them that the Commission would take their concerns into consideration when the issue comes before them in January. Oral Communications were closed at 8:55 p.m. VI. Old Business: A)Restrooms at Wildwood Park: The Commission decided that they would like to accept staffs recommendation as far as the selection of a vendor who would replace the restrooms at Wildwood Park. The Commission had asked staff to research turn-key operations who would be able to replace the restrooms at the park for a lower price than the traditional method that included hiring an architect and then going out to bid on the work. Shiela Ioannou volunteered to assist staff in following through with the vendor to receive samples or perhaps a video that would show the actual product before any contract was signed or commitment made. B) Kevin Moran & Gardiner Park /vendor selection: Commissioner Ioannou and Commission Clabeaux volunteered to assist staff in moving forward with the selection of a vendor. Staff provided the Commission with materials from two different vendors that responded to a Request for Proposal (RFP) for play equipment providers. Commissioners Ioannou and Clabeaux will more thoroughly review the submitted proposals and provide feedback to the Commission at their next meeting. C) Trail Sub - Committee Update: Commissioners Swan updated the Commission as to the work where the sub - committee has been focusing its efforts. Currently, the Commissioners are working with the Payne property owners and the Cornell Property owners to assist them in the trail improvements required of them as outlined by the Parks and Trials Master Plan as is impacted by their new developments. D) Trail Grant Request- Conunissioner Swan made a motion to approve the grant proposal submitted by Terri Baron requesting $822.00 to improve the Mt. Eden Estates trail, Lot 1 segment with the contingency that the acting Public Works Director, John Cherbone, review the grant request and explore the possibilities of purchasing the necessary materials at a lower rate. Commissioner Whitney seconded the motion and the motion passed. (5/0) VII. New Business: None VIII. Reports: Commissioner Reports: There were general updates and comments made by all Commissioners on an array of various issues related to Parks and Recreation. Commissioner Whitney recommended that the Commission look into getting some publicity on the positive projects that are moving forward with the Park Development Fund since many people may not realize what progress is being made. Commissioner Alberts, a budding photographer, volunteered some time to take photographs of these events as they develop. It was recommended that Commissioner Friedrich serve as the Commission's new representative to the Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC). City Hall Update: none Recreation Department Status Report: none IX. Adjournment Commissioner Whitney made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Commissioner Ioannou seconded the motion. The motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. (5/0) Prepared By: ne M. Jacobs ity Staff Repres tative Saratoga Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Administrative Offices, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga January 4, 1999 7:30 p.m. Attendance 1. Geraldine Barrett 14050 Marilyn Lane 378 -3899 2. Darwin Barrett 14050 Marilyn Lane 378 -3899 3. John Bellicitti 18500 Marshall Lane 374 -1742 4. Lisa Kurasch 18655 Ravenwood Drive 374 -9472 5. Stephen Kurasch 18655 Ravenwood Drive 374 -9472 6. Alice Ferguson 18495 Ravenwood Drive 379 -4015 7. Les Ferguson 18495 Ravenwood Drive 379 -4015 8. Betsy Masello 19271 San Marcos 741 -5624 9. Joanna Sloan 14041 Marilyn Lane 378 -4069 10. Pia Long 18657 Ravenwood Drive 866 -1171 11. Ken Strasser 18501 Marshall Lane - 12. Blair Conrad 18570 Ravenwood Drive 374 -2553 13. Jim Detrick 18558 Ravenwood Drive 378 -4253 14. Joan Havard 18531 Ravenwood Drive 374 -4028 15. Lynn Dickerson 155 Old Adobe Rd. L.G. 370 -3006 16. Tom Davies 18613 McFarland 374 -2402 17. Patricia Steinfurth 18606 Ravenwood 364 -1250 February 4, 1999 Saratoga City Council Members Saratoga Parks and Recreation Commissioners 19655 Allendale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Council Members and Commissioners, PD it I'd like to express strong support for the application of Park Development funds toward the following four projects: • Congress Springs soccer field improvement — improved grading for proper drainage and appropriate grass for year -round soccer play • Foothill School Girl's Softball field improvement — improved field condition and safety • Azule Park additional soccer fields & improvement of existing field — four fields can and should be created at this site with proper drainage and appropriate grass for year -round soccer play • Marshall Lane baseball and soccer field improvement — improved field condition and safety; improved grading for proper drainage and appropriate grass for year -round soccer play As you must be aware, the demographics of Saratoga are changing. We continue to be a prosperous bedroom community. Our business community is thriving and growing with an increasingly dynamic downtown "Village" shopping area and improvements underway at the Safeway/Longs shopping center. Much of this growth is fueled by the change in demographics. More families with pre - school and school -age children are moving into our community. School populations are increasing, necessitating the passage of such bond issues as Measure G, which I firmly supported. However, these children have needs beyond academics. They need facilities to participate in organized sporting activities. Such activities develop interpersonal skills, physical fitness, agility, and an appreciation for the value of teamwork. Our parks and school fields are here for the children and residents of Saratoga. Currently there are over 300 Saratoga resident children playing on Saratoga CYSA soccer teams. Yet these children do not have access to a suitable soccer field in Saratoga. They must play in Cupertino or Los Gatos for "home" games. This is wrong. Saratoga AYSO is an incredibly strong soccer program. It is my understanding that the program cannot admit the number of children that want to participate due to a lack of fields. This is wrong. Soccer is a very healthy sport for young minds and bodies. I urge each of you to strongly support the improvements listed above for the good of our youth. Our children are our future and we the people of Saratoga owe them appropriate facilities. Lastly, I'd like to point out that those who oppose improvement of the above mentioned park and school facilities do so from a self-interested and logically incorrect position. Parks and school fields are paid for and supported by the tax dollars of all Saratoga residents. Organized team sports are a usual and customary use of parks and school fields. How many of us played little league or pee -wee football as children? We benefited, and yet a few who live nearby these facilities would deny our children this same opportunity. They like living near a park for their own use, but would deny others an appropriate use of the land. I do not find this position logical or supportable. Thank you for your support of our children. Sincerely, Reggie R. of 15575 On Orbit Dr. Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 867 -0794 02/12/99 FRI 14:42 FAX 916 446 5369 STATE NET 1004 Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 18:08:34 -0800 From: Marcia Fariss <Marcia @Gizmology.com> To: City Council Members <saratoga @statenet.com> Subject: playing fields Mayor Shaw, City Council Members, Your careful and thorough research regarding the upgrading of soccer playing fields is to be commended. There are definitely points to be made on both sides of the expansion/upgrading issue; however, 1 am confident that your continued cautious consideration of all aspects of the issue will result in equitable decisions. Keep up the good work Marcia Fariss February 9, 1999 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Blue Hi1Ls/Azule Park Development Project Dear City Council Members, I have been a resident on Goleta Avenue, adjacent to the proposed Blue Hills/Azule Park Development Project, since 1971. I am opposed to the construction of soccer fields in this area for three reasons: 1. Increased traffic will change the quiet nature of our neighborhood. Currently, we have very little traffic. Soccer fields will increase traffic dramatically. That kind of high-use public space is more appropriate in a busy neighborhood, with wide streets and traffic lights. 2. Soccer fields offer recreation to only one segment of the community. My husband. and I, for example, take walks every day. We greatly enjoy the changing landscape of fruit trees, grass, birds, wildflowers and squirrels in this area. A park, with trees and shrubs, would enhance our enjoyment. But barren soccer fields would effectively eliminate our recreation. 3. As a grandmother, I know that children need natural spaces to explore, trees to climb, flowers to sniff, squirrels to chase. Some children enjoy highly organized sports, but all children need places for unstructured play. Please don't take that kind of place away from the children in our neighborhood. I urge you to consider, first and foremost, the needs of the immediate neighborhood as you plan this park project. Your decision will impact our entire quality of life. Thank you. Sincerely, Laura Brozicevic 12229 Goleta Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 .A 8 February, 1999 12340 Goleta Ave. Saratoga, Ca 95070 Kate Alexander Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Saratoga City Council: I am forwarding the enclosed three letters from my neighbors regarding the Azule Park Development. On the evening of February 7, 1999, Council members Baker and Streit attended a meeting with the Azule Park Neighbors Association at the Kastelman's home on Goleta Ave. The meeting was very informative for us all. We sincerely appreciated the council members investing time to discuss the issues. These letters were briefly mentioned but neither read nor discussed. I would like to submit them to council on behalf of my neighbors. I would also ask that they be copied to the Park & Recreation Commission. Sincerely, A Kate Alexander i January 28, 1998 Dear Jim and Dorene, We are tremendously concerned about the development of Azule Park into a Soccer Field. Most Saratogans want peace, privacy, tranquility, and a neighbor friendly community. These are major factors in the decision process to expend a great amount of money to live in Saratoga. We are original owners at 12313 De Sanka Ave. We are located directly across the street from Blue Hills School flag pole. It was so beautiful, quiet, etc. when we purchased our home in 1971. Over the years some of the serenity has disappeared. Many people voted for hiway # 85 a few years ago. What a terrible impact it has been for us and many other dwellers in the area. We knew that by buying here that we would have some traffic, but then bussing was stopped by the Cupertino Union School District. All of a sudden we were inundated with automobile traffic, car parkers, turn around drivers in our driveway, fruit and pine cone pickers enjoyed our yard without permission, etc. Almost all peace and quiet is now gone on our street and property. We put up with the school traffic 5 days and a few nights, and now by adding soccer fields at Azule Park which will require us to have traffic 7 -days a week plus many days during summer. The crowning blow would be the Azule Park and Soccer Field development concept. We cannot stand the impact of more traffic. Our street, De Sanka Ave has but four houses and is the major artery to the school from the surrounding area. How can we possibly manage a new deluge of cars driving by and parking near our home? Please speak for us at the Saratoga Planning Commission meeting because we cannot speak for ourselves. Travel plans take us out of the country until Feb. 15, 1999. We are completly against the development of the Azule Park as a Soccer Field Development Project. We were told 28 years ago that the Azule Park was going to be a PARK A COMMUNITY PARK. Convice the City that we need the one quiet place left in the neighborhood. We want to remain in Saratoga - with the last possible quiet place to walk and enjoy an undeveopped natural setting or as promised 27 years ago. a COMMUNITY PARK. Sincerely, ;�t� Carl an Mary Sessler 12313 De Sanka Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 r February 6, 1999 Azule Park Neighborhood Association Formed Azule Park was donated by the developer of Greenbrier to the City of Saratoga in the early 1970's to be developed as a park for its residents. There has been a continual increase in traffic and congestion in this neighborhood, due to decisions of the Cupertino School District to no longer transport students to the Blue Hills School, the installation of portable classrooms, the instaliation of a day care center, and the addition of soccer practice at this school. We invite anyone to visit this school on DeSanka Avenue, any weekday during school hours, to experience the traffic congestion. Adding organized soccer fields at Azule Park, will create traffic congestion 7 -days a week. Can't we have some peace and tranquility even during weekends? This substantially increased traffic congestion, posing serious safety and security hazards, is the major concern of the homeowners surrounding the Azule site. We believe that there is no solution to the current traffic congestion, which will only worsen once an organized sports field complex is built. The intrusion of traffic noise from the adjacent freeway 85 also has reduced the quality of life in this neighborhood. Adding the proposed sports complex at the Azule site is the proverbial "last straw "! We, the people of the Azule Park Neighborhood Association do not want anything that will add to the difficulties and hazards already endured. We strongly feel that this site must provide a sense of community and serenity to the neighborhood. Therefore, we adamantly oppose any plan to develop this site further, in conjunction with the Blue Hills School property, as organized sports practice or playing fields. <--� 614-V Don Johns 19997 Sea 11 Way Saratoga, CA 95070 -3941 408 - 257 -6475 e February 6, 1999 Blue Hills Schools / Azule Soccer Complex Proposal Over two years ago, a survey was made of over 200 homeowners, primarily in the Greenbrier area, to determine what should be done with the undeveloped Azule Park, off Goleta Avenue. Over 90% of the homeowners surveyed preferred that a neighborhood park be build, and they opposed any organized sports fields for this site. This survey was presented to the City of Saratoga. Currently, a proposal is before the Parks & Recreation Committee as presented in the meeting on February 1. This proposal calls for a three soccer field complex on the Azule site and the adjoining Blue Hills site. The proposal includes a 60+ parking lot just off Goleta, plus a concession stand and bathrooms. Over the recent Superbowl weekend, a group of concerned homeowners banded together as the Azule Park Neighborhood Association and they conducted a brief petition drive against this proposal for use of the Azule site for organized sports fields. Over 90 homeowners signed the petition over this weekend, and these results, plus a copy of the prior survey, are being presented to both the Parks & Recreation Commission and the Saratoga City Commission. In the meeting on February 1, a homeowner pointed out with several references to the City Charter, that placing organized sports complexes in the midst of quiet neighborhoods would be in violation of both the spirit and letter of the City Charter, which promotes neighborhoods with peace and tranquility. The homeowners in the newly formed Azule Neighborhood Association strongly oppose the proposed soccer complex because of the significant traffic congestion which will follow, creating unneeded safety hazards and further diminishing the quality of life here. Bill and Carmen Estes 12301 DeSanka Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 -3150 408 -446 -1965 February 4, 1999 Saratoga City Council Members Saratoga Parks and Recreation Comm ussioners 19655 Allendale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Council Members and Commissioners, I'd like to express strong support for the application of Park Development funds toward the following four projects: • Congress Springs soccer field improvement — improved grading for proper drainage and appropriate grass for year -round soccer play • Foothill School Girl's Softball field improvement — improved field condition and safety • Azule Park additional soccer fields & improvement of existing field — four fields can and should be created at this site with proper drainage and appropriate grass for year -round soccer play • Marshall Lane baseball and soccer field improvement — improved field condition and safety; improved grading for proper drainage and appropriate grass for year -round soccer play As you must be aware, the demographics of Saratoga are changing. We continue to be a prosperous bedroom community. Our business community is thriving and growing with an increasingly dynamic downtown "Village" shopping area and improvements underway at the Safeway/Longs shopping center. Much of this growth is fueled by the change in demographics. More fainilies with pre - school and school -age children are moving into our community. School populations are increasing, necessitating the passage of such bond issues as Measure G, which I firmly supported. However, these children have needs beyond academics. They need facilities to participate in organized sporting activities. Stich activities develop interpersonal skills, physical fitness, agility, and an appreciation for the value of teamwork. Our parks and school fields are here for fine children and residents of Saratoga. Currently there are over 300 Saratoga resident children playing on Saratoga CYSA soccer teams. Yet these children do not have access to a suitable soccer field in Saratoga. They must play in Cupertino or Los Gatos for "home" games. This is wrong. Saratoga AYSO is an incredibly strong soccer program. It is my understanding that the program cannot admit the number of children that want to participate due to a lack of fields. This is wrong. Soccer is a very healthy sport for young minds and bodies. I urge each of you to strongly support the improvements listed above for the good of our youth. Our children are our firture and we the people of Saratoga owe them appropriate facilities. Lastly, I'd like to point out that those who oppose improvement of the above mentioned park and school facilities do so from a self-interested and logically incorrect position. Parks and school fields are paid for and supported by the tax dollars of all Saratoga residents. Organized team sports are a usual and customary use of parks and school fields. How many of us played little league or pee -wee football as children? We benefited, and yet a few who live nearby these facilities would deny our children this same opportunity. They like living near a park for their own use, but would deny others an appropriate use of the land. I do not find this position logical or supportable. Thank you for your support of our children. Sincerely, David R. Holt 15575 On Orbit Dr. Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 867 -0794 February 6, 1999 Saratoga City Council Members Saratoga Parks and Recreation Commissioners 19655 Allendale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Council Members and Commissioners: C4 GAP 4AI-11� IE t,7f J J .�u FE8 0 9 1999 I'd like to express strong support for the application of Park Development funds toward the following four projects: • Congress Springs soccer field improvement — improved grading for proper drainage and appropriate grass for year -round soccer play • Foothill School Girl's Softball field improvement — improved field condition and safety • Azule Park additional soccer fields & improvement of existing field — four fields can and should be created at this site with proper drainage and appropriate grass for year -round soccer play • Marshall Lane baseball and soccer field improvement — improved field condition and safety; improved grading for proper drainage and appropriate grass for year -round soccer play As you are aware, a significant number of Saratoga children participate in organized sports including CYSA soccer teams and AYSO. At the same time, the population of children in Saratoga is increasing. Parks are important for both the good of our youth and for the community as a whole. We must look to the good of the entire community, and not to the interests of a few in the minority. Please support our parks by committing funds to the four projects mentioned above. Again, thank you for your support of our children. Sincerely, Alison Humphries 19969 Garnett Ct. Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 867 -9415 Mark P. Guidotti 20713 Trinity Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 -5337 (408) 867 -6275 Fax (408) 867 -9140 guidotti @netco February 8, 1999 The City of Saratoga Parks and Recreation Commission 1377 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 C. Re: Playfield Development & Renovation Project, Foothill School Dear Commissioners: Please accept these comments regarding the Playfield Development & Renovation Project Plan discussed at the February 1, 1999 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. Because of a schedule conflict, I could not attend that meeting. Accordingly, this letter serves to convey my input regarding the project. I reviewed the notice of the meeting and the diagram prepared by Beals Landscape Architecture that was attached to the notice. An annotated copy of the Beals diagram is attached to this letter showing, not to scale, our yard in relation to the field. Our yard abuts the southern property line, adjacent to Item 3B and generally across from the southern lines of Items 2A and 2B. In the current unimproved configuration, field users frequently occupy areas near the property line. As a result, we have scant privacy when the field is in use. On many occasions, trash (e.g., sandwich wrappers, empty snack bags, soft drink cans) and balls from the field have entered the back yard. It is also quite noisy. If the objectives of the project are realized, the field will attract more users, thereby increasing these undesirable byproducts. The Monterey Pine trees now occupying Item 3B on the Beals diagram provide an effective aural and visual barrier between the field and our yard. Changes to this area should therefore ultimately fortify the existing barrier rather than reduce it. The note corresponding to Item 3B states, "Remove & replace trees and install netting at southern property line." This description begs for clarification. If the Monterey Pines are removed, the character of our yard will change immediately and dramatically, for the worse. The yard will be fully visible from the field, and any noise abatement provided by the trees will be lost. To minimize these harmful effects and to ensure the speedy and ultimate fortification of this natural barrier, I recommend the following: 1. Replant Item 3B immediately upon removing the existing trees 2. The space between the new trees should be no greater than the space between existing trees 3. The replacement species should be fast growing, large enough when mature to abate noise, shield views, and be hardy and pest- tolerant (e.g. Coast Redwood) 4. Plant the most mature items possible (as opposed to seedlings) I would like further clarification regarding the netting proposed in Item 3B, specifically how tall would it be, what would it look like, how close to the fence, etc. Naturally, I would like to understand all of the details of Item 3B and would appreciate your advice as to the best way to learn these details in time to make further comments. Therefore, a timely reply is appreciated. Please feel free to call, write or e-mail. Thank you in advance for your assistance. I�I1Wr5 nUCa �.x-;- � -;: A111tJ Cc.�MMI� S!cl�.l� c (Ps��t'r, Sk*i!H of (;w-wv,(Aix;) ( oT -�1 ScAtr,) I'A6,t L_ ','.'rrY OF SARATOGA PARK DEVELOPMENT OO TH1LL ELEMENTARY TARY SCHOOL 't' RATO", CAUFORNI A gig fl frAira mr rev ttwAmime mmv 3T0PW69 1�- pRM1�UNbr RC76WAINS 1 pI�OL�T".y (C�'TTpV�r/6°rTGF11Nfs ce AIRES vo EMT** jor.osTmwAmmanes �A;�C -Cili INR�EIJD�i 4 RINt5 ATe TWF AWA6. II:lt16AWIN 51&N mtr k eAVKSTOP e nvLwz ANA !! STALL m..T'If'INO AT SoUn4otM pMXw QIY, LJ4 ft.w ont- masT a .40 FWT NOOK im L. r 0 J"W mNrU lo, , s!w"mw w, I CC; (� IiYEaP� Wed Feb 17 10:56:48 1999 Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 09:45:52 -0800 From: Tricia Sweeney <BigSis28 @hotmail.com> To: Saratoga @statenet.com Subject: Proposed siting of soccer fields at Blue Hills School. [The following text is in the "iso- 8859 -1" character set] [Your display is set for the "US- ASCII" character set] [Some characters may be displayed incorrectly] Dear members of the City Council, I wish to let you know how strongly I oppose this proposal to site three soccer fields right behind my house on Knollwood Dr. I live at #20018 and this plan is going to severely affect my peace and quiet at the weekends. When I came to live in this beautiful city five years ago, I chose to live on Knollwood Dr. instead of the area around Congress Springs park primarily because the noise of the soccer game being played the day we visited a listing there was horrendous. That particular house was separated from the park by railway tracks ..... I do not have even that distance. My family pay taxes and put up with the inevitable school noises even though our children attend private school, but we had considered that before purchasing the house. We battle the illegal parking (on Fri.12th Feb. a car straddled across both children's crossings on De Sanka and Knollwood. e.g.) and the congestion on a daily basis. We put up with the noise of the freeway, again we knew about it before purchasing the house. However, the idea that my precious family weekends will be disrupted by noise pollution from games played right behind my home with all the attendant shouting and swearing (yes, I hear shouting at practice but the coaches are very good as far as their language usage ... can you vouch for the parents ?) We all like to believe that our home is a place where we can kick back and relax, I'm sure you do. I don't want to be in a situation where I have to seek out a soccer schedule in order to plan when I can and cannot us my own back yard, it's bad enough that I have to go inside when the grass is being cut with that huge machine ( Ibelieve it to be that, though it may be something else) for fear that my ears will be damaged ..... I invite you along next time that occurs. If the fields are being used more often for soccer, will this maintenence also escalate? I will not benefit in any way by this plan, my children do not attend the school, nor do they play soccer, but they do occasionally play on the fields during the summer. It seems that the neighborhood is being asked to give up a lot and receive nothing in return. I thank you for your time and understand that you have a hard decision to make, but as my representatives I am telling you that my desire is to leave Blue Hills School just as it is. Thank you, Patricia Sweeney. [Part 2, Text /HTML (charset: ISO- 8859 -1 "Latin 111) 80 lines] [Unable to print this part] 19 Saratoga Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Administrative Offices, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga February 1, 1999 7:30 p.m. Action Minutes I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m. II. Roll Call Commissioners Present: Alberts, Clabeaux, Friedrich, Ioannou, Olsen, Swan, Whitney Commissioners Absent: None Others Present: Joan Pisani, Irene Jacobs ( various members of the community - seventy -one chairs were set out for the public; all were filled and there were individuals standing) . III. Report on Posting of the Minutes: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2 the agenda was properly posted on January 27, 1999. IV. Approval of Minutes of November 2, 1998 and ,Lanuary 4, 1999 Meetings. Commissioner Whitney made a motion that the approval of both sets of minutes be tabled until the next Commission meeting. Commissioner Alberts seconded the motion and the motion carried. (6/0) Administration: • Staff reminded the Commission that the CPRS Conference would be taking place February 18 -21 at the Santa Clara Convention Center. If any of the Commissioners had any questions, they should contact staff for clarification. Oral & Written Communication: Commissioner Friedrich recommended to the chair that since there were so many members of the public who wanted to speak under oral communications, they should limit the amount of speaking time to a three minute maximum per speaker and a total limit to ninety minutes for the oral Communications section of the meeting. It was agreed upon and the oral communications portion of the meeting was opened. Forty members of the public addressed the Parks and Recreation Commission on the Playfield Project and more specifically the recommendation that had been proposed by the Playfield Task Force. Some adamantly supported the project while the majority present adamantly opposed the project. The majority of the concerns voiced by the public revolved around traffic, safety and quality of life issues that they felt would be greatly affected should these playfields be developed or improved. The Commission thanked the public for their ideas, concerns and shared opinions and the oral communications portion of the meeting was closed at 9 p.m.. VI. Old Business: None k VII. New Business: A. Recommendation from the Playfield Task Force: Jaye Beals of the Beals Group, whose services were retained by the City to serve as the project manager, presented the Task Force's recommendation to the Parks and Recreation Commission. The Task Force had identified ten possible sites within the city limits for playfield development and recommended to the Parks and Recreation Commission that four of those ten sites be developed. Those proposed sites are: Congress Springs Park, Blue Hills /Azule site, Marshall Lane School site and the Foothill School site. After the consultant finished his presentation, the chair opened discussion among the Commission regarding the issue before them; the recommendation from the Task Force. City staff reminded the Commission that last year, the City Council had directed the Commission to resolve the maintenance issue regarding the playfield project first before the Council would give any further consideration to building more playfields. Thus, the Task Force was established. Its ultimate goal trying to resolve the maintenance issue, for without this, the playfield project would not proceed. The Task Force had met for nine months and after a lot of work and compromise, they were able to come to an agreement where the school districts where committing their land, the city was committing development funds and the user groups were committing maintenance funding. They were now presenting a proposal to the Commission for initial consideration. The role of the Commission that night was to consider the proposal and determine whether it sufficiently addressed the goals outlined in the list that had been prioritized by the public for the use of the Park Development Fund at the public meeting in 1996. Staff also reminded the Commission that it was their job to attempt to address the many issues shared by the public that evening before this project could come before the Council for consideration. There was general discussion among the Commissioners about the issue. Commissioner Friedrich made a motion to proceed immediately with a recommendation to Council to make improvements to Congress Springs Park and to Foothill School and then to explore the possibilities of expanding the other sites at a later date. Commissioner Iaonou seconded the motion. There was discussion among Commissioners and this motion was withdrawn. Commission Whitney expressed that she was committed to the process that had been started in 1996 at that Community Meeting where the residents who had participated at that meeting had established priorities for the use of the Park Development Fund. She said that the Commission needed to continue with the process to create more playfields; the specifics of where and how had not yet been determined but, she felt that the Commission should move forward with this process. She made a motion that the Commission host four meetings, one per proposed site consisting of a representatives from the Commission (2), the appropriate user groups, representatives from the surrounding neighborhoods, the appropriate school district and staff with the group not to exceed twelve members. After the meetings were held and a resolution or some recommendation had come from the various meetings, then the Commission would regroup and the reconsider the proposal. Commissioner Clabeaux seconded the motion and the motion carried. (5 / 1) The Commission assigned themselves to the various community meetings and those assignments are as follows: Blue Hills School /Azule: Elaine Clabeaux Marianne Swan Marshall Lane School: Frank Friedrich Sheila Ioannou Foothill School Site: Judy Alberts Barbara Olsen Congress Springs: Kay Whitney These meetings would be scheduled as soon as was possible and the logistics of the meetings would be discussed at the next scheduled meeting on February 22, 1999 in the administrative offices at City Hall. This meeting was scheduled in order to discuss all those other projects that the Commission is working on besides the Playfield project. VIII. Reports: Commissioner Reports: none City Hall Update: none Recreation Department Status Report: none IX. Adjournment Commissioner Whitney made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Commissioner Alberts seconded the motion. The motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 11:55 p.m. (6/0) Prepared By: qq6a�'X Ldt?� Vene M.Jacobs City Staff Repre ntative TO: TRANSMITTAL - CITY OF SARATOGA PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR CITY GEOLOGIST CITY ARBORIST SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT SARATOGA FIRE DIST. S.C. CO. CENTRAL FIRE SAN JOSE WATER CO. OTHER tV � Qa en.Lo 4i e^-' G7MAVVI' 1� i 6"0-' FROM: Heather Bradley, Associate Planner DATE: February 8, 1999 APPLICATION 4 AND LOCATION: Villa Montalvo, 15400 Montalvo Road OWNER'S NAME: Montalvo Associates PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Use Permit and Design Review application to construct 10 new "Artist in Residency" cottages and a common building on the hill above the parking lot at Villa Montalvo. The proposal includes 2400 cubic yards of combined cut and fill. Proposed square footages are as follows: Common Building (A): 2,478 Residence (B 1): 930 Residence (132): 930 Residence (C 1): 896 Residence (C2): 889 Residence (D1): 750 Residence (D2): 618 Residence (E 1): 705 Residence (E2): 492 Residence (F 1): 957 Residence (172): 957 TOTAL: 10,602 Your agency has been requested/invited to review and comment on this proposal. Please submit your comments by March 12, 1998 to Heather Bradley in the Community Development Department. This will ensure that we can incorporate your concerns into the review process. Thank You. Residence (C 1): VILLA M.ONTAI,VO An Orchard of Artists' Villa Montalvo is creating a community for artists — a neighborhood of cottages in the orchard — a place of personal inspiration and exploration. Imagine cottages set in an orchard, each providing functional temporary living facilities. Each cottage is planned for the execution of a form of art — a place to write, to paint, to sculpt, to play, to dance. Each cottage is a piece of environmental art, designed by a leading architect and artist of our time. The complex is an example of environmentally responsible development and construction and each cottage speaks to the human spirit: "Come stay here, explore and widen your search, be inspired, be happy." Pathways join the cottages and lead people to the center of the community, the Commons. A place to meet, to share, to challenge other artists. A place for collaborators to present works, to confer, to critique. The living room of the community. A gateway into the compound and a gateway back to the outside world — respectful of the architectural tradition of Villa Montalvo, but of this time. The Teams Master plan and landscape Concept: Marta Fry Landscape Architects The Commons StastnyBrun Architects, Inc. / Tad Savinar The Cottages Solomon, Inc. / Patrick Gleeson, Nellie Solomon Hodgetts & Fung Design Associates / Lee Breuer Jim Jennings Architecture / Richard Serra, Czeslaw Milosz AdOe Naudd Santos & Associates / Doug Hollis Mack Architect(s) / David Ireland Artist Residency Cottages & Commons Building Artist Residency program In 1912, Villa Montalvo was built by United States Senator James D. Phelan, a progressive Californian and a former Mayor of San Francisco. From 1912 to 1930, Villa Montalvo served as a center of artistic, political and social life in Northern California. Phelan's practice was to invite leading writers and artists to Montalvo where they could work on individual projects. Jack London, Ethel Barrymore, Douglas Fairbanks and Edwin Markham were once Phelan's guests. In 1930, in emulation of the academies he had visited in Rome, Phelan left Villa Montalvo as a legacy for the support and encouragement of music, art, literature and architecture. Guided by Phelan's wishes, and acting on the recommendation of the Camegie Corporation, Montalvo created the West Coast's first Artist Residency Program, providing a retreat for its first artist in 1942. Over the past fifty years, more than 500 artists have come to Montalvo from all parts of the United States and abroad. Each year, Montalvo awards the gift of time to more than thirty writers, visual artists, composers and musicians to create new works during one to three month residencies. Montalvo provides artists from a wide range of backgrounds the benefits of a beautiful and inspiring environment, far from the daily pressures of work and family life, where they are free to devote their time solely to creation. Regular readings and Open Studios give the BayArea community opportunities to meet artists and observe their work in progress. Through collaborations with national and international arts organizations, Montalvo's Artist Residency Program presents a wide array of public programming, including international group residencies, playwright festivals and other creative programming. In this decade, applications for the Artist Residency Program have increased to more than 300 each year, from artists all over the world. Montalvo can only accept less than 10%, or 25 -30 artists a year, due to the limited capacity of five residents at a time. The completion of this project will more than double the number of artists Montalvo can accept. A larger number of residents will also benefit those artists who seek the synergism and companionship of others, allowing for cross pollination and inspiration of new ideas. The Commons will provide a private space where the artists can meet with each 32her informally, invite guest artist for discussion groups, and build a sense of community. Currently, two of the five residents live in apartments in the Villa. During the spring and summer months, the noise level of the concerts and facility rentals is very disruptive and make creative work an impossibility. With the new cottages, all artist residents will have the quiet and solitude necessary for concentrated focus. In addition, the new cottages will provide improved studio facilities for the musical and visual artists, including soundproofing and overhead natural light. While creating new facilities that will improve the vitality of the Artist Residency Program, Villa Montalvo is equally committed to preserving the vitality of the environment in which those facilities will be built. Recognizing that modern construction (along with the buildings themselves) often consumes vast amounts of natural resources and threatens existing habitats, Villa Montalvo is dedicated to creating an "environmentally friendly" complex that embodies the principles of sustainable design. The cottages have been designed to be built using construction methods that have a minimal impact on the existing site, landscaping suitable to the local conditions, recycled, non -toxic and durable materials, passive heating and cooling systems, and energy efficient appliances. `An Orchard of Artists 17 illa Montalvo is a Mediterranean-style Villa situated in the foothills of California's Santa Cruz Mountains above Silicon Valley. The Villa is surrounded by several acres of formal gardens, with paths leading to quiet courtyards and redwood groves. The estate's 175 -acres serves as an Arboretum and Audubon Society bird sanctuary. Several miles of nature trails trace small creeks and hillsides forested with great oaks, redwoods, firs and eucalyptus, offering sweeping views of the Santa Clara Valley. The Villa is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The Montalvo Arboretum is open year -round as a public park, and attracts thousands of visitors annually. In addition to its Artist Residency Program, Villa Montalvo is an active arts center encompassing two theatres and a gallery of rotating exhibitions. MASTER PLAN & LANDSCAPE CONCEPT 3t ¢ 3 imev The Villa's Artist -in- Residence designated development site, a sloped orchard site with vestiges of a prune orchard, presented the design team with exciting opportunities and challenges. The concept of developing the artist cottages in a more isolated atmosphere, distanced from the daily and "public" activities of the Villa, would facilitate a "colony" atmosphere, perhaps more conducive to the needs and requirements of the artists -in- residence. The siting of the cottages and the Commons at the orchard site reinforces the importance of the Artist -in- Residence program, its success and longevity at Villa Montalvo, as it presents itself prominently at the gateway to the Villa complex. The steeply sloped site presented us with the challenge of siting the individual cottages on slopes of twenty-five to thirty percent gradients. The absence of any existing infrastructure; roads, water, electrical or gas, also presented the team with additional challenges, yet the beauty and isolation of the site also sprung from these same constraints. The orchard site provided views across the hills and into the valleys and also offered different siting aspects and exposures for the specific cottage types. Northern light became the preferred choice for the visual artist's cottages, while writer's cottages perched on the slopes along the riparian corridor and the composer's cottages became part of the hillside landscape, sculpted into the slope, utilizing specific construction techniques to modulate and control sound levels. The master plan design development that we undertook in collaboration with StatsnyBrun was to site the Commons and develop its relationship to the artist's cottages as the "core" or "nucleus" of the development. It became both the symbolic and physical manifestation of the "meeting- place" the center for cross - fertilization. The cottages were sited up -slope from the Commons and paired; two cottages in direct relationship to each other, developed by each Architect/Artist team. The relationship 1 ' �Ie t and siting of each cottage evolved both from their intended use by a specific "type" of Artist, and from the appropriate sites for the cottage architectural type, although crossover and more generic cottage usage was not precluded. The "journey" or path to the cottages was developed in response to many factors. The pure aesthetic of movement through space, the journey, in conjunction with the practical aspect of getting supplies and materials to the cottages, in addition to housekeeping and handicap accessibility were all design parameters. Circulation through the site and to the individual cottages were to meet all or most of these objectives. Additional requirements of fire and safety had to be meet by the City and County standards and the development of an emergency and fire road was woven through the site in its most minimal form and expression in order to minimize the visual impact on this steep site. The pedestrian circulation developed in the form of an axial stairs /ramp system as one proceeds vertically up or down the slope, with the Commons at the terminus of this axial expression. Paths to the individual cottages take advantage of the contours and run parallel to the slope, maintaining relatively level grades with site specific stairs to some of the cottages as required by the cottage architecture and orientation to the slope. The landscape concept then became a response and reinforcement of the groundplane circulation. The existing landscape consists of scrub oaks, live oaks, poison oak, dry chaparral, "orchard remains" in severe decline, and many introduced species of eucalyptus and non - native grasses. The central area of the site is predominately open grassland with groupings of scrub and live oaks. The creek or riparian edge of the site is thickly wooded and creates a strong southern edge to the site, whereas the northern edge is less defined with scrub chaparral and introduced species. Our goal would be to further define and strengthen the Marta Fry Landscape Architects "edges" with an emphasis on retaining and maintaining a strong and appropriate native riparian edge and strengthen the northern edge with appropriate plantings, reinforcing the oaks and native plantings. The landscape gesture that is expressed in a linear manner parallel to the slope is the introduction of a planting of columnar trees or "markers" at each path to the cottages. These columnar hedgerows delineate the cottage sites with vertical markers. The fastigate form and selection of an agricultural planting pattern or hedgerow along the contours is also reminiscent of the agricultural past of this specific site. Foliage coloration and seasonality are also important characteristics of the landscape development. The evergreen oak groupings in contrast to the deciduous columnar trees and meadow grasses present the artists and community-at -large with a variable and seasonal landscape expression. Casual resting or meeting areas have been developed along the paths as a respite to the steep climb. An informal gathering area has also been sited at the top of the slope in close proximity to a proposed cistern which functions as water retention for fire safety and presents itself as a backdrop to the gathering area. Further agricultural expression has been suggested by a water spillway from the upper level of the cistern into an ornamental pool at its base. Stepped, informal seating surrounds the cistern site. The overall expression and intent in the development of the master plan has been, appropriate cottage siting that maximizes privacy, views, light and solar orientation and the pairing of the specific cottage types as a response to the Architect/Artist design team's intentions. The site development became a conscious response to maintaining both a sense of individuality yet at the same time, develop a circulation and landscape expression that begins to weave these different elements into a cohesive fabric, an environment conducive -to creativity and collaboration. NX and siting of each cottage evolved both from their intended use by a specific "type" of Artist, and from the appropriate sites for the cottage architectural type, although crossover and more generic cottage usage was not precluded. The "journey" or path to the cottages was developed in response to many factors. The pure aesthetic of movement through space, the journey, in conjunction with the practical aspect of getting supplies and materials to the cottages, in addition to housekeeping and handicap accessibility were all design parameters. Circulation through the site and to the individual cottages were to meet all or most of these objectives. Additional requirements of fire and safety had to be meet by the City and County standards and the development of an emergency and fire road was woven through the site in its most minimal form and expression in order to minimize the visual impact on this steep site. The pedestrian circulation developed in the form of an axial stairs /ramp system as one proceeds vertically up or down the slope, with the Commons at the terminus of this axial expression. Paths to the individual cottages take advantage of the contours and run parallel to the slope, maintaining relatively level grades with site specific stairs to some of the cottages as required by the cottage architecture and orientation to the slope. The landscape concept then became a response and reinforcement of the groundplane circulation. The existing landscape consists of scrub oaks, live oaks, poison oak, dry chaparral, "orchard remains" in severe decline, and many introduced species of eucalyptus and non - native grasses. The central area of the site is predominately open grassland with groupings of scrub and live oaks. The creek or riparian edge of the site is thickly wooded and creates a strong southern edge to the site, whereas the northern edge is less defined with scrub chaparral and introduced species. Our goal would be to further define and strengthen the Marta Fry Landscape Architects "edges" with an emphasis on retaining and maintaining a strong and appropriate native riparian edge and strengthen the northern edge with appropriate plantings, reinforcing the oaks and native plantings. The landscape gesture that is expressed in a linear manner parallel to the slope is the introduction of a planting of columnar trees or "markers" at each path to the cottages. These columnar hedgerows delineate the cottage sites with vertical markers. The fastigate form and selection of an agricultural planting pattern or hedgerow along the contours is also reminiscent of the agricultural past of this specific site. Foliage coloration and seasonality are also important characteristics of the landscape development. The evergreen oak groupings in contrast to the deciduous columnar trees and meadow grasses present the artists and community-at -large with a variable and seasonal landscape expression. Casual resting or meeting areas have been developed along the paths as a respite to the steep climb. An informal gathering area has also been sited at the top of the slope in close proximity to a proposed cistern which functions as water retention for fire safety and presents itself as a backdrop to the gathering area. Further agricultural expression has been suggested by a water spillway from the upper level of the cistern into an ornamental pool at its base. Stepped, informal seating surrounds the cistern site. The overall expression and intent in the development of the master plan has been, appropriate cottage siting that maximizes privacy, views, light and solar orientation and the pairing of the specific cottage types as a response to the Architect/Artist design team's intentions. The site development became a conscious response to maintaining both a sense of individuality yet at the same time, develop a circulation and landscape expression that begins to weave these different elements into a cohesive fabric, an environment conducive -to creativity and collaboration. THF, COMMONS he Commons is an introduction and a transition. It is a blend of old and new. It relays a message of historic continuity and contemporary community. Adjacent to the lower parking lot of Villa Montalvo, the building is the first thing the visitor sees upon entering the grounds. The facade is reminiscent of the traditional architecture of the Villa, with stucco walls, wood trellises supported by white columns, and planting that is a combination of columnar trees and flowering vines. In time, it will have the same patina that enhances the old Villa. Upon entry to the community (up a grand staircase or on the promenade pathway), one experiences the opposite side of the building. It is restless and dynamic, not a single building, but a village of forms. The three structures encompass the focus of the community — the central courtyard. For the Artists in Residence, this is the central meeting place — a place to gather (singularly or communally), a place to have discussion, or a place to bask in the sun. The building forms pick up the colors of the historic inner courtyard of the Villa — a grey green, a terra cotta and the cream stucco. StastnyBrun Architects, Inc. / Tad Savinar The trellis on the front of the building covers a connecting walkway with a private stair from the parking lot, providing an easy access for residents to move groceries from their cars to the kitchen. The stair would be behind a gate, keyed into the master locking system so it could be used by residents and not general ' visitors. Under the walkways, and available from the parking lot, is a potentially large storage space. The roofs of the forms are envisioned as copper or another weathering material that will age and make the building an extension of the land and the place. Windows and doors are designed and located to bathe the interior of the building in light as well as provide natural ventilation potential. There is no front door, but a series of doors off the courtyard. This design intentionally provides greater flexibility of use of the internal spaces. Groups or individuals can use different rooms or services within the Commons without disturbing others. Most doors open to a large gallery that can be used for display of artists' work. The living space is for gathering, but is also equipped for audio /visual presentation. The kitchen is large and roomy, providing opportunity for individuals or groups to prepare food. Service from the kitchen to the dining area is convenient and the dining room can be set up with smaller tables an/or a large banquet venue. A balcony looks out into the trees. At the opposite end of the gallery is the library/office. This room is for the use of the Artist Residency Program — both staff and artist. It is seen as fully equipped with computer, communication and reproduction technology — as well as having the ambiance of a library. The laundry is located so it (and the library/office) is available from inside or outside the building. There is a trellis - covered terrace where activities of the office can spread to the outside, or one can read or contemplate while waiting for the wash to dry. Above the library/office is a skylight, providing a shaft of natural light into the circular room. Above the dining room, and accessible from the courtyard, is a manager's unit, designed to the same standards as the artist cottages. The Commons is a landmark — welcoming the visitor while providing insulation for the Artists in Residence. It provides a beacon of warmth from the cottage above and is accessible to all. And it is a place of art and craft — demonstrating the incorporation of art into the building systems, the craft of construction through lasting material and the play of light externally and internally. It is a focus of the inspirational architecture of "an orchard of artists ". i l :,A ;{ Solomon, Inc. grt; I r Introduction The two composer /musician cottage are self - contained units isolating sound from the environment; they are also integral components of a community. Our design therefore addresses somewhat contradictory requirements: a composer's need to work in privacy in a comfortable and flexible environment (a hermetic retreat), yet without feeling isolated from a pleasant rural environment and surrounding artist neighbors (the need for community). It also addresses the composer's need to control the acoustic environment of each residence and the neighbors' need for quiet. Since some composers will want a workroom separate from the rest of the interior while others will not, we have created a space which can be quickly rearranged to satisfy either need. For reasons of cost, aesthetics, and ecology, we have relied heavily on natural building materials available on -site. Sound Considerations Noise, it has been said, is the music on your neighbor's stereo. The two composer residences are sited among the other artist residences on the same hillside and could easily subject others to such noise, particularly because the rural Montalvo site is more than ordinarily quiet. This means that the acoustic noise masking which would ordinarily occur in an urban environment will be slight. Further, each residence will have a grand piano, not a quiet instrument. A good hard forte in octaves will hit and perhaps exceed the 100dB mark on a sound -level meter — about 10dB less than the sound level of a jet -plane at take -off. The piano also has an extended low range. Low- frequency sound waves contain the most energy and are most difficult to control. While this might seem at first to be an over - reaction to the noise problem, we note that neighboring residences border the chosen hillside without intervening natural noise barriers. These pose potential community - relations and even legal problems if a solution is not achieved. Noise Control Solutions What stops sound energy? Two things basically. First mass stops sound. A three -inch thick lead wall will stop sound more effectively than a3-inch thick wood wall. Secondly, isolation controls sound. Pound for pound, multiple walls with intervening dead -air spaces control sound more effectively than a single wall. It must be noted that neither mass nor isolation comes cheap. The Foundation budget does not allow for costly solutions. Therefore, we decided to keep as much of the building as possible below grade, thus using the existing hillside soil and rock to keep some of the sound from going anywhere at all. Secondly, we have made extensive use of comparative massive but inexpensive elements: the bearing walls are two -foot thick concrete block cavity walls made from a sustainable product utilizing a combination of high content fly ash and recycled wood chips. The roof system is comprised of 3 x 12 wood beams with a rigid insulation and plywood diaphragm, waterproofing membrane and 6 -8 inches of sod. The composite system (including beams) will be 20 -24 inches thick. Necessary elements for light to enter are potential sound - control weak spots. Therefore we've limited these to two: a single overhead skylight and a full -width glass wall at the front of the residence. The front of the residence consists of two separate glass walls. The inner wall, of stacked sliding glass doors employing laminated glass, opens onto an approximately 6 -foot porch. The outer wall, a similar glass wall using French doors, encloses the porch. The porch Patrick Gleeson / Nellie Solomon becomes a significant dead -air element between the two walls when sound isolation is needed; at other times it provides a flexibility open transition to the exterior. The skylight is also a double system. The skylight's outer layer is a conventional proprietary skylight assembly. Approximately 18 inches below this (and thus providing another dead -air space) is the skylight's inner -layer of approximately 2 -1/2 inch thick glass brick.. Its weight and thickness, and the intervening dead -air spaces, will provide the greater part of the total noise reduction achieved. The two full -width glass walls and the large overhead skylight will provide ample light and openness to the exterior. Ultra -quiet exhaust fans in noise ducts at the skylight will pull fresh air in form the porch. Not other windows or opening will be needed. The present design uses natural materials, relatively inexpensive building materials and a design incorporating significant dead -air space between interior and exterior elements to adequately control noise without raising construction costs beyond available limits. Will this design solve all possible noise problems? It will not. Given a sufficiently headstrong composer who likes to work out double -bass parts on the lowest octave of a grand piano at three in the morning (with the lid up, to make matters worse) there will be dissatisfaction. The proposed design, however, ensures that under normal circumstances the composer can work in a comfortable environment without sonically intruding on her neighbors. Equally, when community rather than isolation is desired, both glass walls at the front of the residence can be opened. Similarly, two large pivot doors can be opened or closed between the composing and sleeping areas; since one side of each door is sound - reflective while the other is sound - absorptive, the doors can also be used to make adjustments in the reverberation of the composing room. Aesthetic Considerations Building below grade proved to be a superior noise - control solution. We decided that this also suggested an appropriate aesthetic. We imagine a system of roman stairs planted with native grasses and radiating outward as the staircase flows downhill. At a specific elevation two segments begin to diverge from the system: the two sod roofs. Planted with grasses available at the site they begin at grade at the upper end of each building and project outward as if cut out and pried upward from the hill itself. Similarly and beginning at the same elevation, four spokes of the stair- system begin to rise out of the land: the four earth bearing walls. These rise from grade -level at the highest elevation, where each building begins, to a height of 14 feet at their furthest point, as if each wall had been pulled upward out of the hill in the same motion that created the two sod roofs. Nellie King Solomon has designed finishes for the surfaces of the four walls, which emphasize their earth origin and status as natural artifact. Mach Architect(s) Inspiration In 1954 when Peter Blake designed his pinwheel house in Water Mill, Long Island, it was thought to be a collaboration between the architect and the painter, Jackson Pollock. The house consists of four walls which slide on rails into the landscape. These eight - by- eighteen -foot panels were thought of as suspended canvases. The walls regulate the conditions of the house — from "wide - open", allowing breezes and sunshine to come in — to "completely closed" for adverse weather conditions and when unoccupied. Even though Jackson Pollock did not paint on the giant wall canvases, the house was nevertheless built and still exists as a single family home. Concept For the Artist Cottages at Montalvo the pinwheel house idea was transformed into an environmentally responsive and comfortable work shed in the pastoral landscape of Saratoga. Open to the breezes and to the views, the cottages reconfirm the Californian Condition of living in the open air — light and easy construction looking over the sloping landscape. The large one- room studios, which can be divided and expanded, are connected with the landscape through a series of transformations; the large sliding walls and louvered sun controls manipulate the immediate landscape surrounding the cottages. Sited to form a small court on the end of the tree -lined promenade, the cottages have two different approaches to the site; one hovers over the site exposing the ravine and lifts the inhabitant over the site. This unit is also handicap accessible and it allows a somewhat soaring quality, especially for those who cannot soar very easily. The other uses the slope of the hill to create a split level arrangement and allows for separation and mobility between studio and living area. Furthermore, it allows for the physically r µ —I-. _1� t Cottage I - Entrance inclined a constant opportunity of stair climbing and staying in shape. The orientation of the cottages is basically north /south, with the high part of the shed to the north to let in even light. The exterior form is simple and follows the basic construction parameters of the panel system used. Cladding of galvanized corrugated metal and colored mineral fiberboard create a fireproofed and environmentally sound enclosure for the artist. Construction and Green Points A new panel system, R- Control panels, are used to build both roof and wall construction. A sandwich board and two OSB panels surround expanded Polystyrene cone, and create a stronger, more efficient, more durable, lighter and (foremost) a more regulated building system, which takes about half the time of conventional framing to erect. It is roughly half the price of stud frame construction and makes for a tighter construction schedule. The environmentally friendly material, OSB, uses farm trees and recycled wood materials and can be used with other engineered wood products to create truly modern yet comfortable environments. The foundation system and retaining walls is conventional concrete and CMU with permeable pavers in the areas surrounding the cottages. The colored concrete floor is both surface and heating element. A conventional or on -demand water heater can function both as a heater and hot water supplier. The skin on the exterior and the interior consists of recycled Cottage 1- Studio material, corrugated metal, colored mineral boards, and exposed OSB boards. Hardback boards are used to create a vaned and tactile material palette. A basin cistern above for the collection and storage of rain water is connected to the gravity driven irrigation system surrounding the cottage. Future amendments to the cottages: solar collectors on the north - oriented roofs and /or solar voltaic panels would compliment the already efficient design. CoUa oration Between Artist and Architect Artist and architect established the sizing of the building as a collaborative process and articulated the material finishes in order to create a comfortable environment for the visiting artists. The cottages have an almost stripped down character to expose the underlying quality of the simple construction. The materials used are also susceptible to stain and coloring suggesting the hands -on materials quality is part of the interior and exterior. David Ireland 7T I Pln it r- Cottage 2- Northwest view �Y Cottage 2 - Entrance Cottage 1 - hiving Space Cottage 2 - Studio Hodgetts & Fung Design dissociates :l sister suzie here are those who write standing up in the kitchen, those who cannot find the works without a laptop, and those who write only longhand — with a pencil. There are as many habits and postures and chemical brews design to release the creative spark as there are writers. Lee Breuer's "Death in Venice" and "Sister Suzy Cinema" provided a rough framework for this pair of cottages. Like two characters from two plays from the same hand, these cottages are sympathetic yet contrary, disciplined yet laid back, orthodox yet radical. They are design to provide resident writers a palette of experiences to compliment their need for the "right" place to work. Both cottages hare a slope by a glade, and a simple roster of materials chosen for sustainability as well as tactile appeal. In each there are places of refuge, but Sister Suzie is more conspicuously upbeat, even jaunty, offering framed views and an airy penthouse; while DIV is jagged, even melancholic, with a casual, intimate geometry suggesting a Jungian retreat. Both are informed by the murmur of the nearby stream, shadowed by stands of eucalyptus, and surrounded by tall grasses. We hope the writers who work there will find what they are looking for. Lee Breuer v Sister Suzie This cottage is approached by a bridge which joins the adjacent slope to the rooftop, where a small pavillion provides minimal shelter for a workplace. From there, access to the living quarters is provided by an exterior stair within the cottage. A raised area is located adjacent to a large bay which affords views up and down the glade, as well as below to the surrounding landscape. Construction of walls and floors is expected to employ prefabricated stress skin panels with color stained plywood faces. Foundation and retaining walls are of integrally colored concrete block. Death in Venice The living space in this cottage is carved from the hillside itself, and partially covered by an extension of the landscape. An irregular arrangement of retaining walls offers opportunities for a variety of room arrangements. A small patio depressed below grade provides a protected outdoor workspace, sheltered by one of four fan -like roof which enclose the room. Clerestories between the leaves of the roof will provide glimpses of the sky. Construction of the walls and floors is of concrete and integrally colored concrete block. Engineered wood beams and prefabricated stress skin panels for the roof structure. Jim .Jennings Architecture 0 ne cottage is composed of solid block walls housing a writer. It was inspired by the writing of Nobel Prize winning poet Czeslaw Milosz. Area breakdowns are as follows: Enclosed Area: 408 sf Exterior Covered Area: 216 sf Open Patio Area: 438 sf The writer's cottage places the living area above and open floor plate underneath. This space below opens to an outdoor courtyard on one end and a double height dining area on the other. Entrance to the cottage is gained through a large opening in the east elevation which ushers the visitor into the central open area of the cottage. Open to the sky and providing varied views into and out of the space this area leads up to the living space via a staircase attached to the west wall. The whole was composed with attention to an idea of beauty defined throughout Milosz's poetry. According to the poet this beauty and clarity is found through careful attention to the articulation of clearly defined volumes and spatial experience. The entire structure is cut into the side of the slope berming earth to one side and allowing it to slope away on the other. Stone and concrete composite pavers will be used as flooring throughout the space, , J�. ' T R To find my home in one sentence, concise, as if hammered in metal, not to enchant anybody, not to earn a lasting name in posterity. An unnamed need for order, for rhythm, for form, which three words are opposed to chaos and nothingness. First plain speech in the mother tongue... One clear stanza can take more weight than a whole wagon of elaborate prose. Czeslaw Milosz r r ` i A \ a 7, J�. ' T R To find my home in one sentence, concise, as if hammered in metal, not to enchant anybody, not to earn a lasting name in posterity. An unnamed need for order, for rhythm, for form, which three words are opposed to chaos and nothingness. First plain speech in the mother tongue... One clear stanza can take more weight than a whole wagon of elaborate prose. Czeslaw Milosz r r ` i A \ T� r « ry i The other cottage is made up of block walls and polygal translucent sheathing. It was inspired by sculpture artist Richard Serra. Area breakdowns are as follows: Enclosed Area: 598 sf Exterior Covered Area: 0 sf Open Patio Area: 204 sf The block and translucent polygal cottage was conceived as a composition of four cubes. A solid living cube, an open courtyard cube and two translucent cubes providing a studio space for the artist. The solid cube and the base of the translucent cubes will be made up of the same material as the solid block cottage. These four spaces differentiate function and material while holding together as a unified whole. Pulling ideas of lightness and heaviness from the work of Serra, the structure balances these two positions through material and composition. Allowing light into the studio during the day, the translucent polygal sheets function in reverse at night allowing light to emanate from all sides in the darkness. A large solid door provides an area to move large pieces into the studio and, when opened fully, works to change pedestrian flow through the building. Instead of entering through the courtyard space the door blocks the walking path to bring the visitor directly into the studio. Stone and concrete composite pavers will be used as flooring throughout the spaces. Richard Serra / Czeslaw Milosz Materials and Technology The block in both structures will be made up of a composite concrete. This construction brings recycled and cementious materials together into a more environmentally sensitive building material. Both structures will utilize the simple construction of concrete block systems. I'X I think that any person coming upon one of my structures, not knowing anything about art can find pleasure and engagement in the logic of their construction. I actually think that people who don't know my work and don't know anything about sculpture, wont approach it as sculpture. They will know it as a structure. A kind of obscure, peculiar structure, and they will have a relationship to it quite different from those people who know about art. Richard Serra r - 4 tv a,4 Adele 1 v auJee Santos & Associates The two cottages are oriented north -south with one cottage slightly canted 20 degrees west of south. The site location allows for the back side of the cottages to be pushed up against the brush line. The location also allows the live space to take advantage of southern light while the studio receives northern light. We decided that it was important that the live space and work space be completely separate form each other to prevent unnecessary fumes from entering the live space. The cottages were broken apart to separate the live space from the studio space. This allowed for courtyards on either side of each structure. By doing so, the building opens up to the surrounding exterior spaces and feels bigger than it is. The two spaces have different characters. The work space is more introverted, with the roof curving down. The form of the studio maximizes wall space. The live space is more extroverted and view- oriented, with the curve of the roof opening to the sky. Although the volumes are separated, the roofs form a continuous curve. The live space, which is 433 sf is located on the up slope. The front entrance is on the south side and the entry door ties into a folding door system which allows for the lower part of the front facade of the building to open up onto the front courtyard and the rest of the landscape. A staircase runs across the live space separating the kitchen and sitting area from the sleeping area and the bathroom. As the landscape steps up so does that of the live space and the sleeping area is located four feet up. It is the first landing as you ascend the stairs. The bathroom, located on the north, has a shower that opens to the outside and allows for a person to shower among the trees. The kitchen for the unit is located below the stairs. At the top of the stairs, is a door leading to a terrace on the outside. This terrace allows for elevated views into the courtyards and views of the landscape beyond. Extending off of the terrace is an overhang to provide shade for the kitchen and sitting area below. The terrace also acts as a connection between the live space and the work space. Down slope from the live space is the 447 so studio space. The studio faces north to take advantage of the north light. The north facade of the studio is also comprised of the glass folding doors. The glass doors of the live space are lined up with the glass doors of the studio. We call this the "zipper ". When all of the doors are folded open the two buildings again become one and the cottage feels twice its size. With a glass door continuing around the comer of each facade, a diagonal view is created from inside one cottage to the other. The two parts again feel visually connected. Solar collectors will be used to collect solar radiation for both domestic hot water and space heating. This system would be more efficient and less expensive to operate than other heating systems. The location of the solar collectors in the buildings create special windows and allow additional light into each space. In the live space, the solar collectors become shades over a skylight above the bathroom and staircase landing. The hot water tanks are located on the outside of the building and act as a shield for the outdoor shower area. In the studio, the solar collectors sit above a niche that juts out from the building in which the hot water tanks and the utility sink are located. Both structures allow for passive ventilation. Cool air is brought in from below and the hot air escapes through operable windows above. The building shell will be made of In- Steel, a 3 -D panel system. The 3 -1) system is a core of modified polystyrene, flanked by wire mesh, connected with galvanized truss wires, and finally field coated with shotcrete. The interior finish in the studio will be simply the shoterete finish. In the live space, some of the interior walls will be made of Ecocolors wheat panels. The roof will be a metal roof made of Galvalume. The terrace will be a metal grating. The glass door system, described earlier, is a wood framed folding french door system. The square footage of the terrace is 72 sf. The total square footage of the entire cottage including the terrace is 952 sf. ' mss' .. - - - . "{ ` is , - •,1 j i 4: �!✓ ` .. {- OU r+ fe x�e Doug Hollis North Elc,,ation South Elevation ICI i7' r g The two cottages are oriented north -south with one cottage slightly canted 20 degrees west of south. The site location allows for the back side of the cottages to be pushed up against the brush line. The location also allows the live space to take advantage of southern light while the studio receives northern light. We decided that it was important that the live space and work space be completely separate form each other to prevent unnecessary fumes from entering the live space. The cottages were broken apart to separate the live space from the studio space. This allowed for courtyards on either side of each structure. By doing so, the building opens up to the surrounding exterior spaces and feels bigger than it is. The two spaces have different characters. The work space is more introverted, with the roof curving down. The form of the studio maximizes wall space. The live space is more extroverted and view- oriented, with the curve of the roof opening to the sky. Although the volumes are separated, the roofs form a continuous curve. The live space, which is 433 sf is located on the up slope. The front entrance is on the south side and the entry door ties into a folding door system which allows for the lower part of the front facade of the building to open up onto the front courtyard and the rest of the landscape. A staircase runs across the live space separating the kitchen and sitting area from the sleeping area and the bathroom. As the landscape steps up so does that of the live space and the sleeping area is located four feet up. It is the first landing as you ascend the stairs. The bathroom, located on the north, has a shower that opens to the outside and allows for a person to shower among the trees. The kitchen for the unit is located below the stairs. At the top of the stairs, is a door leading to a terrace on the outside. This terrace allows for elevated views into the courtyards and views of the landscape beyond. Extending off of the terrace is an overhang to provide shade for the kitchen and sitting area below. The terrace also acts as a connection between the live space and the work space. Down slope from the live space is the 447 so studio space. The studio faces north to take advantage of the north light. The north facade of the studio is also comprised of the glass folding doors. The glass doors of the live space are lined up with the glass doors of the studio. We call this the "zipper ". When all of the doors are folded open the two buildings again become one and the cottage feels twice its size. With a glass door continuing around the comer of each facade, a diagonal view is created from inside one cottage to the other. The two parts again feel visually connected. Solar collectors will be used to collect solar radiation for both domestic hot water and space heating. This system would be more efficient and less expensive to operate than other heating systems. The location of the solar collectors in the buildings create special windows and allow additional light into each space. In the live space, the solar collectors become shades over a skylight above the bathroom and staircase landing. The hot water tanks are located on the outside of the building and act as a shield for the outdoor shower area. In the studio, the solar collectors sit above a niche that juts out from the building in which the hot water tanks and the utility sink are located. Both structures allow for passive ventilation. Cool air is brought in from below and the hot air escapes through operable windows above. The building shell will be made of In- Steel, a 3 -D panel system. The 3 -1) system is a core of modified polystyrene, flanked by wire mesh, connected with galvanized truss wires, and finally field coated with shotcrete. The interior finish in the studio will be simply the shoterete finish. In the live space, some of the interior walls will be made of Ecocolors wheat panels. The roof will be a metal roof made of Galvalume. The terrace will be a metal grating. The glass door system, described earlier, is a wood framed folding french door system. The square footage of the terrace is 72 sf. The total square footage of the entire cottage including the terrace is 952 sf. ' mss' .. - - - . "{ ` is , - •,1 j i 4: �!✓ ` .. {- OU r+ fe x�e Doug Hollis North Elc,,ation South Elevation Longitudinal Section Cross Section — Working Cross Section — Living ICI g Longitudinal Section Cross Section — Working Cross Section — Living s SHEET INDEX PROJECT DIRECTORY A0.0 COVER SHEET C1.0 CIVIL C1.1 CIVIL S.aw.0 A.xn C1.2 Ai.!3 CIVIL SITE P644 Sep. Al A AA-2.2 arE R611PI ROOF PLAN -BLDG. A AA-1 7 NQU AA -4.1 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS/ SECTIONS - BLDG. A AB -2.1 FLOOR PLANS / ROOF PLAN - COTTAGE B1 &2 m+V..d.. Wn AB -2.2 ISOMETRIC - COTTAGE B1 & 2 AB -3.1 SECTION / ELEVATIONS - COTTAGE B1 &2 AC -2.1 FLOOR PLAN -COTTAGE Cl AC -2.2 FLOOR PLAN - COTTAGE C2 ROTECHMCAL ENVNEER AC -2.3 ROOF PLANS - COTTAGE Cl & 2 Sw.rB.. AR6rtn.1. AC -3.1 ELEVATIONS - COTTAGE Cl AI�e.CA.ma AC -3.2 ELEVATIONS - COTTAGE C2 AC -4.1 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS/ SECTIONS - COTTAGE Cl &2 D.. S..-... AD -2.1 FLOOR PLANS - COTTAGE D1 & 2 dwr.r • x.... r6......, AD -2.2 ROOF PLANS - COTTAGE D2 & 2 A496-4.2 AE -2.1 EI:EYA;FIE)P4S+SFEi+IeN- FLOOR PLANS- COTTAGE El & 2 CR•C ENJINUR AE -2.2 ROOF PLANS - COTTAGE E1 & 2 AE -3.1 ELEVATIONS COTTAGE E1 AE -3.2 ELEVATIONS COTTAGE E2 JAN 1 2 1999 AE -4.1 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS / SECTIONS COTTAGE E1 &2 C6...R..L.m AF -2.1 FLOOR PLANS COTTAGE F1 &2 PLANNING DEPAR_ATMENT r_- __ AF -2.2 ROOF PLANS COTTAGE F1 & 2 AF -3.1 ELEVATIONS COTTAGE F1 &2 AF -4.1 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS/ SECTIONS COTTAGE F1 &2 PROJECT DIRECTORY MONTALvo AS 'KvmN LAND_cAm ARCKTECT S. _CA- OR: PO B.. iv S..E.-CA..n S.aw.0 A.xn .OF.aa.a, .4 xsFtl. (u KI-Fn M -T.-L. Ek" CL.B.... E,.,..... D-_ GEOTECHMCAL ENO WUlt .d.l6e a..IL...aJ..... m+V..d.. Wn S... J...• CA ma B..J A- ROTECHMCAL ENVNEER A n[Hr.Ec7 HT H...n! A... Sw.rB.. AR6rtn.1. .aEL6nA Se - SWAIL.•S....� AI�e.CA.ma xi.eo L. en.son L. D.. S..-... D.. S. , P... 1 dwr.r • x.... r6......, C"AL- P-w lvi_, CR•C ENJINUR RECEIVED -..: w N.Fw S_ 5�.J -CA.. JAN 1 2 1999 C6...R..L.m .. K.Ap. """ PLANNING DEPAR_ATMENT r_- __ • 132 M 42 .�. _ . -. .. -_ 128 M 19 \ \1 \.,.. I \ \ GRADING AREA CUT -Y) FILL SCY� BLDG A 250 160 BLDG B 200 3C BLDG C 160 1C BLDG D 50 30 BLDG E 10 30 BLDG P 130 90 ROAD 400 850 ;CTRL _ 1200 1200 MAX 12 FT 8.5 FT J ❑ _ rr 22 22 22 ra vILLT pp� VICINITY MAP NO SCALE SITE INFORMATION A.P.N. 517 -15 -013 PROJECT 115400 MON TAI VO ROAD AOORESS SARATOGA. CA OWNER MONTALVO ASSOCIATES 'AR, -i IST RESIDENCY LCT SIZE 9.09 AC LfASE: !Nt r NSTAE_L 67, .CONNEC`i 1 I COUNTY PARKS SF\fdITARY 'SE,,`,/ER ,i — ISTING 6" SANITARY SEWER +NSTA`LI. WATER (DOMESTIC, FIFE, IRRIGATION) COf�dP�E.0 i;.? E,"IS1 -ING WATER 'RSACT`NO. 5289 48 M m TRACT NO. 4646 �2nA M 28 AGGREGATE BASE PERMEABLE PAVEMENT MAY BE ALLOWED ON GRADES LESS THAN 15% AND DNLY WHERE ALLOWED BY THE SDILS ENGINEER TYPICAL DRIVEWAY SECTION NO SCALE GRAPHIC SCALE N IN F®T' ) I eT - 200 it. iE u ^O° OHM IN)'" fl[ z a 5 a O �O BENCHMARK iSE BENCHMARK FOR THIS PRCJECT �.( IS SE 1 NAIL IN PARKING LOT 1. EL= 672.74 rc i BLDG Cl \ FF 726.0 - PAD 724.0 I \ Zop P 4 7360� 1��i111111'I {1 5.a —� FLU= 0 \ i BCD C2� 'j rR i{'ARiJ / FF - \ FF 7,3 0 7 2.5 / ..,. 38 AD 35 PAD : %i w 9 731.5 P 7zai 539 p W HIGH PT r r -n P /TW69� 733.9 { /!' /,t v - aroma `(L l ! ••_° - I- /� i _ rl BLDG A ✓ -"e :l ii n r I l FF:687.0 .� 'BLDG B1 PAD 6860 17F '708 o N < .51'74 ' /HIGH P7 A�� O .) �; iTWb95.0 Y <' FI'724 w \ FF 708:0 A,( _ ^P• 74'7§ PAD 7050 Q /'- TW7510 LK - •� X57 �;�, t+ Bw75o o BLDG D} ` 7<S7 5 � �' ' r 7esa f. FF 71W 0 'PAD 733'0 .BENCHMa �a �.. I ' $! >4QO c ...7729 5: $ _ `I . • J. - d / N. 77 k � I i BLDG Cl \ FF 726.0 - PAD 724.0 I \ Zop P 4 7360� 1��i111111'I {1 5.a —� FLU= 0 \ i BCD C2� 'j rR i{'ARiJ / FF - \ FF 7,3 0 7 2.5 / ..,. 38 AD 35 PAD : %i w 9 731.5 P 7zai 539 p W HIGH PT r r -n P /TW69� 733.9 { /!' /,t v - aroma `(L l ! ••_° - I- /� i _ rl BLDG A ✓ -"e :l ii n r I l FF:687.0 .� 'BLDG B1 PAD 6860 17F '708 o N < .51'74 ' /HIGH P7 A�� O .) �; iTWb95.0 Y <' FI'724 w \ FF 708:0 A,( _ ^P• 74'7§ PAD 7050 Q /'- TW7510 LK - •� X57 �;�, t+ Bw75o o BLDG D} ` 7<S7 5 � �' ' r 7esa f. FF 71W 0 'PAD 733'0 .BENCHMa �a �.. I ' $! >4QO c ...7729 5: $ _ `I . • J. - d / N. 77 sm no 'PIFR MINIMUM L NGiTUDINAL SLOPE OF WALE HALL E I% 2i: 'r❑ 4% EFERRED GRADE A CURB TYPE REINFORCED CONCRETE BOX FOR USE IN LIGHT DRAINAGE INSTALLATIONS. APPROXIMATE DIMENSIONS SHOWN, SWALE DETAIL GNRISTY APPREI X. COMPUTER CODE IT. LBS. NO SCALE V2415OX #V64 DRAIN BOX. IB'NIBI/l SQUARE 137 V24 -71C 71038 GRATE CAST IRON . 59 V24X12 1245 EXTENSION 12' REINFORCED CONCRETE IS -E As 137 TO FIND CENTIMETERS MULTIPLY INCHES BY 2,5 TO FIND KILOGRAMS MULTIPLY POUNDS BY 45 V24 DRAIN BOX 18° X 19 1/2 • HO SCALE .. I OF BERM BERM ( P VEMENT ASE A.C. BERM DETAIL....' NU SCALE ENERGY DISSIPATOR DETAIL NO SCALE MU ➢SILL - - _ _ i 10' F FLOOR JII TS 3' MIN I It le, '�1�_• 6' IN _ 10' PAD _i 1 NUT I OF BERM BERM ( P VEMENT ASE A.C. BERM DETAIL....' NU SCALE ENERGY DISSIPATOR DETAIL NO SCALE v fit RIPAWAN V -GLTA '16N I T z, Existing Tree to Remain anopy Tres Columnar Tree Riparian MitigationVegelation Meadow Planting Aftem VINSIAOrNifto 15400 mcown ftw SWOOP. CA 95070 OWWK. MWA" Association ZINW. R-1-40,000 sin Of Lot 11" S" StOl Of INFU01— A : I- Fl...�� .: ONW. 11i $301K. C34 8110d, CS NW. Dt Wast. 104: INK El: 1450. E2:41ftd4 Fl: 9574 F2:951$1 9nPKAOUSa*,W0FO.4W. Woo AISNA&VSts: Vadwompho Averap Ob Slope: 20.01 I GRAPHIC SCALE IN rjzr I inch = 20 it VICINITY MAP 9820.01 MANTA FRY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 165 TENTH STRE:T 8. , FR ANCIS 00. CA , 03 TEL:M,552.421f FAX:415.$52.6210 6p e�i O Z < J CL LLJ A-1.3 4 ji j BENCHMAR I GRAPHIC SCALE IN rjzr I inch = 20 it VICINITY MAP 9820.01 MANTA FRY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 165 TENTH STRE:T 8. , FR ANCIS 00. CA , 03 TEL:M,552.421f FAX:415.$52.6210 6p e�i O Z < J CL LLJ A-1.3 ExisUna Tree Leaend N_ 60 Cons NWW ato c4rwmm at" 1 ak O aT Ink- goad mrWn 2 Oak 2-tr IW- goad mron S Oak 74s kk- goad mnm 4 Oak 1r hk- good ra ok 6 Oak 2-r I*- good mneM 6 Oak tr fak- good FWAM 7 Tres 5a- hk- good famM a Troy 24• fak- goad MWAM 9 Tray 5r fair - goad vi ob 10 Tro 1. lair- good tenon 11 Trn 5r Ilk- good M do 12 Tr" r for- good ." Nkr 15 14 Two 1— 5r tr fak- good fair- good rMron mn.M 16 TM 2T fak- good mnon to Toe 1T fair- goad remdrr 17 Tr" 1P fak- good r0 wh 16 Tmo IT fak- goad - orlon 19 Tr" tr tat - good roman 20 Oak 2 -10• fair- good moon 21 Oak 1r far- good mnovs 22 Oak 1r lair- good wm m 25 Oak a' fair- good small 24 Oak 6' lat- goal mrara 26 Oak 2-17 1*- good remain 2a Oak r W. good mmdn 27 Too 17 fair- good romdn 26 Tree r fak- good ranratr 29 Toe IT tW- good MMM 30 Oak 6r fak- goad romw 61 Oak 1P fair- good mmom 32 Oak r fat- good ranlere 77 Oak IT fat- good mndn 74 Oak 61 fair- goad mrldn 35 Oak tr fair- good mnaM 05 Oak r fat- good mrdn 37 Oak 1r rat- good tenon 76 oak 1r fak- good mldn 39 Oak IT W- good mlroln 40 Oak a- fW- goad rerrme 41 Oak 2-40- fair - good mmdo 12 Oak 25• fair- good rsmaM N Oak 17 fW- good mnWn 44 Oak Sd fak - good ream 4$ Oak IT fW - good mndn 45 Oak tr fak- good mndn 47 oak 20- 1W - good remakr 4e Oak IT fW- goad mum 40 Oak 24r fat*- good rafnakr so Oat 1r W. good rsmdn 51 Oak 2.17 fW- goad ramdn WWa w u2u r I F wepof* Paoal Nafma: 1.5174"ll, ...._ 44drna; Vlh mod" - 16100 klodalro Itea0 .. Sa lop, CA 05070 Onmr. VGntW O AsMakdar Zoos: fi�tt--1810,000 ' Bkea dtaL NA K'flll - )t'fir Stn of Sbwd A: I'FkW -.�," %. god FMer-'.':,�, BI: 9". e2: Md. Qt ow, G: 596d, DL' 61681, DI: "W. H: 7064, ES 46011, F1: 95781. Ft 95781 b pwvkxw 6grrs FaolaW: 25.112 d 6Mpe Al BWNng SM Vada, ne plan Avaraga Sb SMM: 20.6% P-14 W-14 FOR 1.891 SQ. FT. FIRST FLOOR 347 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR 4.238 80. FT. TOTAL FIRST FLOOR PLAN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET KEY PLAN ROOF PLAN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET KEY PLAN +691' Nal +691' Fin WEST/ REAR ELEVATION +689' Nei Gid +687' Fin Grd Fin Grd •874' Nal Grd _______...____.___..-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -676' Nat Grd SOUTH / LEFT ELEVATION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET KEY PLANn..a ��. \ ' ----------'----------'- NORTH / RIGHT ELEVATION +886' Nat Grd \ _____________ \_ . +888' Nat Grd SECTION LOOKING WEST SECTION LOOKING EAST +848' Not Grd +88T Fin Grd +S$r Fin Grd +888' Nat Grd CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET 'T x KEY PLAN ROOF PLAN A82.1 %or/P 044 Cea 81&2 14tlq, Joury 11. IM 10:25 VY Cotlage iJir1j\ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET KEY PLAN ISOMETRIC CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET KEY PLAN wr.�ww.rtuvc�rnomw TM MINERALIZED WOOD FIBER ."_..--' -- °•" DOORS DOORS LNENNDRK SPACE EAST WEST SECTION INNER TERRACE I OUTER TERRACE EAST / FRONT ELEVATION Fin Ord ra71W Nil Ord CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET �- r:: . KEY PLAN . . . .. . v..t_ . . `. .. _ &iwln 118.00 sq R LIVING ROOM 328.00 sq It SLEEPING NOOK 58.25 sq 8 AM 53.75 sq It Sae sq ft SLIDING WALL FINISH GYPBOARD PAINT '• SLIDING MTL L SLIDING MTL WC /PORCHERVF WALL FINISH _ SHOWER COAT & HARDIBOARD COLLAPSABLE SE/ SINK / PORCHER SAPF TRACK RAINWATER m 97-(r a l 12.00 a LIVING ROOM 328.00 sq R COLORED CONCRFLOOR RADIANT HEAT �111� =farmi ............ f........ ..........:.................... fiTu= 118.00 COLORED sq8 CONCR.FLOOR RADIANT HEAT .. ..• W1 .CORRUGATED MTL R- CONTROL PANEL r R 30 W2 .COLORED ETERNIT PANEL R- CONTROL PANEL r R 30 W3 .R- CONTROL PANEL S' SLIDING DOORS WALL FINISH GYPBOARD PAINT CEIL. EXPOS. RCONTROL PANEL WALL EXPOS. RCONTROLPANEL EI�Y TRACK SLIDING MTL LOUVER T. WALK e EXT. WALL ROOF OVERHANG CONCRETE PAVERS ro COTTAGE 1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET Jy`..4, .:;r• a ,*. �6 KEY PLAN b A -----7WALL FINISH :GYPBOARD PAINT IDING DO D STEPS jSLIDING MTL LOUVER ................. L.UDING MTL LOUVER ........................................................................ LOFT PLAN fMH 90.00 sq It STAIRS1 HAI 1 78.00 sq a STUDIO 448.00 aq It UVINGROOM 168.00 sqft FIRST FLOOR TOTAL MOO sq IN TOTAL COTTAGE j!LOFT 889.00 SOFT A A Wl CORRUGATED MTL 4'4r t It 414r t r-1, t T_9' t R-CONTROL PANEL Ir R 30 tW2 -COLORED ETERNIT PANEL - R-CONTROL PANEL r R 30 0,11 t It 1d -10" 11d -10" i t W3 ...R -CONTROL PANEL 6" SLIDING MTL LOU tEJ'TRACK -CONCRETE PAVERS ONCRETE STEPS .............. ii glu in EaL ..... ............ UL -ISINK PORCHER SAPHO i / PORCHER VENETO N&E FL OW" VIM i RADIANT H I SEAT T SLIDING MTL LOUVER ELLVVEE ............... .......................... A —�VMOD STEPS t% HEATER/ .177. TO E w ............. TRACK WALL FIN MPr-- GYPBOARD PAINT 4 78.00 sq fl T ..................................... ....... ONCRETE STEPS CEIL. EXPOS. R-CONTROL PANEL STUIDIO T-0" KITCHENUNIT 448.00 sq R NALL EXPOS. R-CONTROL PANEL COLORED CONCRYLOOR SLIDING MTL LOUVER RADIANT HEAT SUDING DOORT' 70 ............................. . . . ................... .................. 0-- LIVINGjjOOM WALL FINISH 160 SLIDING EXT. VWRr— AV GYPBOARD PAINT COLORED RADIANT HEAT TRACK -4� ............... RETAINING VMLt-el*bl-- - ................ ............... ................... ..................... RAINWATER Clffl ...... ...... ....... 1421 p ft L—SLIDING DOORS LIONCRETE PAVERS SLIDING MTL LOUVER JAV1" 2W-0" GROUND FLOOR PLAN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET Map 0 ................ I I -----7WALL FINISH :GYPBOARD PAINT IDING DO D STEPS jSLIDING MTL LOUVER ................. L.UDING MTL LOUVER ........................................................................ LOFT PLAN fMH 90.00 sq It STAIRS1 HAI 1 78.00 sq a STUDIO 448.00 aq It UVINGROOM 168.00 sqft FIRST FLOOR TOTAL MOO sq IN TOTAL COTTAGE j!LOFT 889.00 SOFT A A Wl CORRUGATED MTL 4'4r t It 414r t r-1, t T_9' t R-CONTROL PANEL Ir R 30 tW2 -COLORED ETERNIT PANEL - R-CONTROL PANEL r R 30 0,11 t It 1d -10" 11d -10" i t W3 ...R -CONTROL PANEL 6" SLIDING MTL LOU tEJ'TRACK -CONCRETE PAVERS ONCRETE STEPS .............. ii glu in EaL ..... ............ UL -ISINK PORCHER SAPHO i / PORCHER VENETO N&E FL OW" VIM i RADIANT H I SEAT T SLIDING MTL LOUVER ELLVVEE ............... .......................... A —�VMOD STEPS t% HEATER/ .177. TO E w ............. TRACK WALL FIN MPr-- GYPBOARD PAINT 4 78.00 sq fl T ..................................... ....... ONCRETE STEPS CEIL. EXPOS. R-CONTROL PANEL STUIDIO T-0" KITCHENUNIT 448.00 sq R NALL EXPOS. R-CONTROL PANEL COLORED CONCRYLOOR SLIDING MTL LOUVER RADIANT HEAT SUDING DOORT' 70 ............................. . . . ................... .................. 0-- LIVINGjjOOM WALL FINISH 160 SLIDING EXT. VWRr— AV GYPBOARD PAINT COLORED RADIANT HEAT TRACK -4� ............... RETAINING VMLt-el*bl-- - ................ ............... ................... ..................... RAINWATER Clffl ...... ...... ....... 1421 p ft L—SLIDING DOORS LIONCRETE PAVERS SLIDING MTL LOUVER JAV1" 2W-0" GROUND FLOOR PLAN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET lil mwme_!, KEY PLAN H o -----7WALL FINISH :GYPBOARD PAINT IDING DO D STEPS jSLIDING MTL LOUVER ................. L.UDING MTL LOUVER ........................................................................ LOFT PLAN fMH 90.00 sq It STAIRS1 HAI 1 78.00 sq a STUDIO 448.00 aq It UVINGROOM 168.00 sqft FIRST FLOOR TOTAL MOO sq IN TOTAL COTTAGE j!LOFT 889.00 SOFT A A Wl CORRUGATED MTL 4'4r t It 414r t r-1, t T_9' t R-CONTROL PANEL Ir R 30 tW2 -COLORED ETERNIT PANEL - R-CONTROL PANEL r R 30 0,11 t It 1d -10" 11d -10" i t W3 ...R -CONTROL PANEL 6" SLIDING MTL LOU tEJ'TRACK -CONCRETE PAVERS ONCRETE STEPS .............. ii glu in EaL ..... ............ UL -ISINK PORCHER SAPHO i / PORCHER VENETO N&E FL OW" VIM i RADIANT H I SEAT T SLIDING MTL LOUVER ELLVVEE ............... .......................... A —�VMOD STEPS t% HEATER/ .177. TO E w ............. TRACK WALL FIN MPr-- GYPBOARD PAINT 4 78.00 sq fl T ..................................... ....... ONCRETE STEPS CEIL. EXPOS. R-CONTROL PANEL STUIDIO T-0" KITCHENUNIT 448.00 sq R NALL EXPOS. R-CONTROL PANEL COLORED CONCRYLOOR SLIDING MTL LOUVER RADIANT HEAT SUDING DOORT' 70 ............................. . . . ................... .................. 0-- LIVINGjjOOM WALL FINISH 160 SLIDING EXT. VWRr— AV GYPBOARD PAINT COLORED RADIANT HEAT TRACK -4� ............... RETAINING VMLt-el*bl-- - ................ ............... ................... ..................... RAINWATER Clffl ...... ...... ....... 1421 p ft L—SLIDING DOORS LIONCRETE PAVERS SLIDING MTL LOUVER JAV1" 2W-0" GROUND FLOOR PLAN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET KEY PLAN RAINWATER CISTERN COTTAGE 1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET ?Pv� KEY PLAN E RED .A' -2• MTL HOPPER +4'.0• SLIDING MTL LO -0• NORTH / REAR ELEVATION SOUTH / FRONT ELEVATION . MTL WALL .IDING WINDOW DECK .3'-p MTLROOF t IG MTL LOUVER MTL WALL so-0• NAT GRD -7 tjr-r MTL HOPPE MTL SLIDI EAST / RIGHT ELEVATION +1&-2" II -0• CORR. MTL SIDING ju -0. jj -0. - GRD +727' WEST / LEFT ELEVATION RR. MTL PARAPET CORR. MTL ROOF 1.s : 12 I ETERNIT PANELS LING MTL LOUVER SLIDING WINDOW CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET CI SLI C CORR. L SLIDING E EAST /LEFT ELEVATION WEST / RIGHT ELEVATION +,gd a •,r-g• a IEL IV s'd a -16`1 NATL +Irkd STOREFRONTWII NAT OR RAINWATER NORTH / FRONT ELEVATION SOUTH / REAR ELEVATION A. MTL ROOF ,2 ETERNIT PANEL NO MTL LOUVER NATURAL GRADE +1 0•a 30•-0• a a •5' -0' a +18'd a MTL LOUVER RR. MTL SIDING �d 734' a WALK CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET rig KEY PLAN SLIDING NATURAL GRADE FOUNDATION PE NAT CORRUGATED MTL 1.5:12 SECTION COTTAGE C2 SECTION COTTAGE Cl CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET KEY PLAN 3B': Floor Plan Cottage D1 Coehy. D1 750 SOFT r COLORED CMU BLOCK WALL CONCRETE SLAB ON GRADE SLIDING DOORS OCK WALL R TO E *ANEL (WOOD )R MOOD 3ANEL FLOOR Floor Plan Cottage D2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET ✓ -T �I1 ��ti i' C ` KEY PLAN A ♦ AN AN \ ♦ \ \ \ \ \ \ , AN AN AN BRm(fAOCESS \ , \ TO SISTER SLOE ♦ ♦ AN \ \ COTTAGE \ At ♦ \ ♦ ♦\ 1 \ \ ♦ ♦ AN AN \ \ \ \ \ ♦ ♦ \ { 11 A \ \ ♦ ` 1 % \ \ \ 1 L-i ♦ \ 1 \ \ ♦ { 1 1 iTaSealE \♦ ♦ O O ❑ 1:1 El El ❑ ❑ \I \\ 1,11 1 1 1 1 1 11 ❑11110 ❑0 ❑❑ 1 1 .. \ ❑11 0 11 11 1 \` 1 ♦` , 11 1 \ 1 11 1 1 1 1 \ \ 1 11 1 ♦ { 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 , 1 1 ' OOF3i164TED \ \ . hM ROOF 1 1 1 1 1 \ \ 1 1 \ \ 1 1 1 \ { \ \ 1 { 1 , A A ` 1 1 1 I { \ 1 1 1 1 111♦ { ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ♦11 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 ,1 \ \ 1 \ 1, 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 \ { 1 1 1 1 1 1 { \ 1 1 I I 1 �1 1 1 1 1 1 it it i 1 1 i i i I i 1 1 I 1 i i i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i i i I i 1 i i I I i i i 1 i i I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 \ 1 1 1 .............._1, 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 i I1 i I 1 i 1 1 i 1 1 i 1 1 1 i 1 1 i i i I i I / 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET Y 0 (i l 3 , KEY PLAN { { { { 1 1 DECOMPOSED 1 GRANITE 1 1 � 1 1 1 1 DECOMPOSED 1 1 1 1 1 Y 1 GRANITE 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 �• 1 i 1 1 1 : 1 RAISED WOOD DECK 1: 1: 1 I 1' 1 1: 1 1: 1 1' 1: 1 1: 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 { { 1 1 I 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 ACCESSTO 1 1 1 1 COTTAGE DI 1 1 1 1 1 { 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 •� 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 , 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET Y 0 (i l 3 , KEY PLAN CORRUGATED MTL. GREEN CMU BLOCK WA WOOD FRAME SLIDING DC SISTER SUZIE ELEVATION ROOF R SISTER SUZIE SECTION /DEATH IN VENICE ELEVATION ANELS LAME SLIDING DOOR HOOD DECK PLYWOOD :H PANEL STEEL STRUT CK WALL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET 03 KEY PLAN / APPROPRUTE BUILDING HIGHUG T H CORRUGATED MTL. ROOF Fin G GREEN CMU SLOCF ORRUGATED MTL ROOF deaM In venke socUon/sblersumee elevaflon SISTER SUZIE SECTION /DEATH IN VENICE ELEVATION J.D. PAINTED EELCOLUMNS TAINED PLYWOOD ANDWICH PANEL GLASS PANELS BLOCK WALL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET KEY PLAN�4 t FIRST FLOOR PLAN COTTAGE 2 T N I SECOND FLOOR PLAN COTTAGE 2 FIRST FLOOR PLAN COTTAGE 1 -■ 111111 I I I I I I I I �:' • `�XmN �. COTTAGE 2: 218 SF FIRST FLOOR 218 SF SECOND FLOOR 192 SF TOTAL: COTTAGE 1: TOTAL: 705 SF 1 KEY PLAN ROOF PLAN COTTAGE 2 ROOF PLAN COTTAGE 1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET ti oi KEY PLAN -F.-MMN - 787.75' NAT. ORD. FLAT, BUILT -UP SOUTH COURT ELEVATION 15'-4" 14 30'-0 POLYGJu JUMBO GRAY emu KEY PLAN ............................ --------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- ----------- FIN. FLR. EAST / FRONT ELEVATION emu NORTH COURT ELEVATION EXT. METAL CLAD, WOOD, DUAL GLAZED, SINGLE LITE, FRENCH DOORS ............... )111 ---- I ---- I ---- I ---- NAT. ORD. ----------- ------ ----------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FIN. ORD. : -:::: --------- --------- -------------------------- ---------- --------------------- -____-- °______________ : ------------- - --------- ......... - - -------------------------- .......... . . . .............................. FIN. ORD. ---------------- ...... ............. ---------------- ---- --------------- -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 767 S' FIN. FLR. WEST I BACK ELEVATION NORTH / RIGHT ELEVATION 130 GRAY emu ------------ "--i;� 6 �7 ----------- ------------- NAT. ORD. ` °__ °----- -- ---------------------- .............................................. FIN. ORD. SOUTH / LEFT ELEVATION cc)NnITIONIAl I IcF PERMIT UT KEY PLAN FLAT, BUILT-UP EAST / FRONT ELEVATION DEM -791'Fin Ord -------------- : ------------------- — ----------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 --------------------------- I'll— ----------------------------------- : ------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I --------------------- "I'll, ------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- +791. Nal Ord --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -788 Fin Fir 7 WEST / BACK ELEVATION EXT. METAL CLAD, WOOD, DUA SINGLE LITE, FIXED WINDOW ..................... .6 Fin Ord----------- - -------- --- --------- -791' Fin Ord +788' Fin Ord ---------- . +791'Nad Ord ------------------------- ------------------------ +788' Not Ord NORTH RIGHT ELEVATION NNI Ord Fin Ord SOUTH / LEFT ELEVATION ffl.YAADma.a (D To aOPlll CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET KEY PLAN FIN. FLR. BUILDING SECTION COTTAGE 1 769.5' /.NAT. GIRD. BUILDING SECTION COTTAGE 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET KEY PLAN �:..�_:�- '� - -�M`/ Ii FIN. FLR. BUILDING SECTION COTTAGE 1 769.5' /.NAT. GIRD. BUILDING SECTION COTTAGE 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET KEY PLAN �:..�_:�- '� - -�M`/ s Typical Plan Cottage Fi & F2 1/4 " -1'-0" Cottage F1 & F2 Sim. - 957 Total SQFT Each WORKSPACE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET �s KEY PLANn�v�a �TM r 4 f ROOF PLAN / COTTAGES F1 & F2 SIMILAR \ 1, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET KEY PLAN o�a th 1 • In -Steel 3D panel syster coated with shotcrete (Cream colored stucco niu Nat / Fin Grd -8W In-Steel coated 1 (cream South / Front Elevation GahWume metal roof _ / Fin Grd -790' North / Rear Elevation o.e' CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET KEY PLAN nw�rv�auawhwr�mu �m wiltJOLU 11101 .wa,uvn %..Uuayc 1 a c aun. ...........m.. ......• _ ow gab r ` Cross Section- Working space Cottage 1 & 2 Sim. a►a' Cross Section- Living Space Cottage 1 & 2 Sim. 1!!" CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET KEY PLAN Building C1 Residence 23, A-U, . .... . Average SIoRa:22.9% al I EDGE OF -�! �FARIAN E STATION /` U R Unnin on P'Sl 20 j j 41' ff. 24., Y y T at 23 3 MAO W 7 Cr c V 777 - nullo!ng tsz 29, Aveage at" 3T xW 23,A 25' 015 . 20 7 W 030 c IAN WiDIA G TATION. TV. ETOON. T),T. EDGE —&ARfAW YVEGET, T 0 Plant Legend Existing Tree to Remain - ------ GRAPHIC SCALE artopy Tree IN FEET i-h = 20 & Columnar Tree Riparian Mitigation Vegetation Meadow Planting AssesWs Parcel Number 1. 517-15413 Address: vote mordel" 16400 MontaN*RO$d Saratoga, CA:95070 0ANIer. Mordatvo Assodallon Zone: R-11-40,000 Sim of Lot, NA Size of Structures: A: 11" Floor 2, 0705f. 20d Floor - 403. Bt: 9305f, B2:9305(. CZ: 8526f. QP898sf. Dz 818d, 01: 7509f. El: 705sf. Ek 422sf. Ft: 957sf;F2:957.1 Impervious Square Footage: 25,112 at Slope At Building Slur Vades, w plan Average site Slope: 20.8% VICINITY MAP RECEIVED JAN 15 1999 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 9820.01 YI 8r. MARTA FRY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 1 65 TENTH STREET SAM F ANCISC 0,CA N103 TEL;4 15.552.4214 FAX:415.552.8219 q4� X83 0 Z < < i CL z C) A -1.3 0 Existing Tree Legend £ .. Number Common Name Siza Condition Status 1 Oak 3r fair- god remain 2 Oak 2 -16' fair - god remain 3 Oak 7.15' fair - god remove 4 Oak tai' fair - god remain 5 Oak 24r fak- god remain a Oak 10' fair - good remain 7 Tree 36' fair - goad remain a Tree 24' fair- god remawl 9 Tree 3a' fak- goad roruln 10 Tree 24' fair- good remain 11 Tree 30' fair. goad remain 12 Tree 5' faw- good remain 13 Tree 30' fair - god remain 14 Tree 15' fair- god remain 15 Tree 27' fair- good remain 16 Tree IT fair- goad remain 17 Tree 14' fair. god remain to Tree 12' fair - god amain 19 Tree fa' fair. good remain 20 Oak 2.10' fair - good remain 21 Oak 10' Lair - goad remove 22 Oak 15' 'fair- god remaln 23 Oak a' fair- gad remain 24 011 6' far- good mnove 25 Oak 2 -1r fair- good remain 25 Oak a' fair- goad remain 27 Tree 12' fair - god remain 20 Tree 5' fair. gad rerrratn 29 Tree 12- fair- good roman 30 Oak 30' fak- good remain 31 Oak 10' few- gad remove 32 Oak 6' fair - god remove 33 Oak 12, fair - god remain 34 Oak 6' fair - god remain 35 Oak 10' fair - good remain 35 Oak a' fair - good remain 37 Oak 10' fair- god renwin 38 Oak 10' fair - god roman 39 Oak 12* fair - good remain 40 Oak 9' fair- good remove 41 Oak 240' fair- good roman 42 Oak 26' fair- god vernaln 43 Oak tr fair - god remain M Oak 5.6' fair. god remaYe 45 Oak tr fair- god remain 45 Oak Iir fair - god reran 47 Oak 20' fair- goad remain 4a Oak 1r fair- - go reman 49 Oak 2 -10' fak- god remain 50 Oak fa' fak- goad remain 51 Oak 2.12- fair - good remain 49� S_ 40 �s i • '01 AS 45 •4a. 1RPrL t.seaeola Parcel Number. 1. 517 - 16-013; Vdfess: VIII. M-t&W £ .. 15100 Morllalvo Rood Saratoga, CA 95070 _ Owner. Moreallo Association .- Zone: R- 140,000 z i She of Lot . NA She of shwures: A: 1a Fluor -2, 0705f, 20d Floor -405, r Bt: 930sf, 62: 930af, CIE: 689d. C7: 59851. ,u DY 61531, D.P. 7509!, E1: 7050. E2: 4WAf, K F1: 95791, F2: 95751 kyi anpeMOUS Square Footage: 25.112 sl Slope At 9ulkling Sae: Vedas, see pan 9820.01 Average Site Slope: 20.515 :I ulldW F2 �s9WSna -✓ average Slope: a 37 •. i VEAPTA710I&TTF. a;. EDGE OF ' x RIPARIAN VEGETATION r W 2 S Q� 7 2.070 SO. FT. FIRST FLOOR 408 SO. FT. SECOND FLOOR 2478 SO. FT. TOTAL FIRST FLOOR PLAN +691' Nat +691' Fin WEST/ REAR ELEVATION +676' Nat Grd EAST / FRONT ELEVATION +688' Nat Grd +687' Fin Grd 9n Grd +671' Nat Grd CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET KEY PLAN - - -• •-----------•------ - - - - -- NORTH / RIGHT ELEVATION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET ql- KEY PLAN SISTER SUZIE ELEVATION OOF t GLASS PANELS SISTER SUZIE SECTION /DEATH IN VENICE ELEVATION )OR 1/4' CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET KEY PLANw, APPROPRIATE BUILDING HIGHLIGHTEK - CORRUGATED MTL. ROOF Fn G GREEN CMU BLOCI ORRUGATED MTL ROOF SISTER SUZIE SECTION /DEATH IN VENICE ELEVATION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET KEY PLAN.n�.a�.�.�n� A 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868 -1200 Incorporated October 22, 1956 February 3, 1999 Terri Baron 19830 Via Escuela Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Ms. Baron: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Evan Baker Stan Bogosian John Mehaffey Jim Shaw Nick Streit On behalf of the Parks and Recreation Commission I would like to congratulate you on the approval of your Trail Grant request for the Mount Eden Estates Trail, Lot 1 segment improvement. At their January meeting, the Commission reviewed your proposal and decided to recommend that your proposal be funded for the entire $822.00. The Commission also requested that you work with City Staff to explore the possibility of purchasing the materials through the City hopefully resulting in a lower cost. Per our previous conversation, you mentioned that you had spoken with the Acting Public Works Director, John Cherbone, who verified that the City would not be able to obtain the materials at a lower cost. The City will therefore reimburse you for the costs of the materials outlined in the attached proposal once they are purchased. Please submit those receipts to me along with some descriptions of what was purchased. In addition, you will need to work with Lori Burns, our Administrative Analyst /Volunteer Coordinator, who will need to register the Saratoga Trail Enthusiasts as official City Volunteers for liability purposes. In light of these liability issues, you will also need to coordinate your efforts with the Public Works Department so that they can verify that your group of volunteers are aware of how to properly perform the work and are trained to handle any tools that may be necessary to complete this project. I am looking forward to working with you and invite you to call me should you have any questions regarding the necessary preparations. Thank you for your interest in improving the condition of the trails and working with the City and the residents to improve our community. Sincerely, Irene M. Jacobs Staff Liaison to the Parks & Recreation Commission cc: John Cherbone, Acting Public Works Director David Mooney, Parks Maintenance Leadworker Lori Burns, Administrative Analyst /Volunteer Coordinator Marianne Swan, Trail Sub - Committee Member Sheila Ioannou, Trail Sub - Committee Member Parks & Recreation Commission Members Larry Perlin, City Manager James Walgren, Community Development Director Printed on recycled paper. TERI LYNN BARON 19830 Via Escuela Dr. Saratoga, CA 95070 408 741 -0954 Fax 408 867 -6100 e-mailtlbaron@aol.com 12 -3 -98 Parks and Recreation Commission 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Attn: Marianne Swan, Trails Sub - committee RE: Grant Request for trail improvements, Mt. Eden Estates trail, Lot 1 segment This is a request for funds under your new Trails Grant Program recently developed. I am asking for these funds on behalf of the The Saratoga Trail Enthusiasts. I have put together a group of volunteers that use the trails in Saratoga and are willing to maintain them for the benefit of all Saratogans. This group is known as the Saratoga Trail Enthusiasts. I believe that all members of the committee know me personally and know that I will account properly for all funds used. Improvements are desperately needed to a trail segment located in the Mt. Eden Estates Subdivision, Lot # 1, see maps attached. This segment is listed as "Segment #9" in the Parks and Trails Master Plan. When the house was built on Lot 1, the trail was simply graded flat. No erosion control, headers boards or footing was installed. Per the Parks and Trail Master Plan of 1991, these items should have been done. I am now asking for funds for the following items to be purchased and used to improve this trail segment as it suffers from extreme footing problems during any wet weather. In addition, I have talked to John Cherbone and he will be providing asphaltic chips to fill in between the headers boards to provide the proper footing. This segment is mostly used by residents on Via Regina as well as some on Pierce Rd., Pike Rd. and riders from Garrods. MATERIALS NEEDED: Units Description Cost 46 4 "x4 "x8' pressure treated posts for header boards $400.00 25 Rebar, to set header boards 50.00 Auger drill bit, to drill holes in header boards 15.00* Roll of soil control fabric (Any leftover will be inventoried to 300.00* be used in the future on other trail segments) Spade shovels 40.00* Flagging material 17.00* TOTAL $822.00 *These items will be inventoried for future trail maintenance by the Saratoga Trail Enthusiasts. All labor is to be provided by the Saratoga Trail Enthusiasts under the guidance of the Saratoga Volunteer Coordinator. Work will be commenced as soon as materials can be purchased and weather allows. Depending on how many workers will be there, it is a two to four day project. The homeowner of lot 1 will be notified when we will be working on the trail. I have done work on this trail over the last 6 years, so the owner knows who I am. Respectfully submitted, Teri Lynn Baron - J t2 m -4M +1- 5 P. k 641 -M -29 TRACT NO. 7761 AMENDED MOUNT EDEN ESTATES u 1 9 � i sip �• PTN. PCB. 4 iD.47 Ac. PCL 4 = $ 28.5 AG L 14 AC it 1�dlr ` 79 2.4mc. \ 22 _1 -�, aFa SPACE Isvr. uI +` PIN PCL 1 23.E 1.4o A1. i, 21 ` ' .• LaIAC. .,i r PM. LOT 18 4 1-1 WMAC. 34 \♦ ti� 1 =) �� 19 / • �r p 1n 18 A (15.43 AG 701AL� PT" PC L. 2 OEEfl 4.41 1 Ae. �� MLY C `"�`„ i►:cLi r' ° 12 12 rte_ 1.uAC• iq - 33 C = • 30 AC. .1 ` 1 act. 1 h =' •��• -I gtr'15 L,98c. s 3 16 �t ' NOp V• n eeewt 9 1.2tAC. 1 W s / Y 1.Ot AC_ �e* 0 A fs fA i tea/ I Vi LA lD d rat• I 9 �~ >>� ♦ , 0�'' 9 "+ - f .40 •R/+,. 2.54 AC. I Lee ) � :3 1.JVaC. I L59AC. � � / 1.4DAC_ ( 1 1 LDlAC� LOZAC, T. 1 \ ` J. 75. R_�w f 9 8 T 1 6 S 4 \ 34A t.00AC. 3 2 1 �. vs 3S U"O. I / 1 1 off �� � 3 uo 1 1741 � _. � �� ... e&a.� \�4e 1 ... ..• 1 � at, t.e S.- x 13 69 cd.+m ; a�ee.v .+. a 4 .. R 1 1 n+ h mm� win cr1.c11.. fw 10! 11~ 1997 -91 ITT � 4 t� �s°r #* Tc LA/lpILI 1= _ .1 rel I st r1 _ _ •y�p`' �? l a s69•S'4f. "2.3 �y _ 5 L = /22.07 • ��Q �» \ �3 ?. �. E sci/ ssv t� SO'i'44 '22 `E 92 . 64 ' s .?7'o��'2s'iY W. 27 ' i X4s'"2/ a27 "E' /Ole. .38 , I OF '.N LANDS OF SCHOEN i e , A A L� P TrU I t. 6&&L-65 A41- TG 6E ,VS-7 -A,- '0000" lyo.•tti s 63.00 ' _ X rO'AV , Of SCEN /G E�lsE�`fEN r LANDS OF- K0HLEFR N73 4s w 140. 040, tT (A Z LOT 2 I5'TRAIL I &,*Mr. r ro A ,742 Ac. LOT 1 A 999 ,4 _ kr N'¢ •E � 79. ov 25.00' �� N 2(0(0. Gv ' Q _ N 590419# /Y,S ;� , •: \ OF '.N LANDS OF SCHOEN i e , A A L� P TrU I t. 6&&L-65 A41- TG 6E ,VS-7 -A,- '0000" lyo.•tti s 63.00 ' _ X rO'AV , Of SCEN /G E�lsE�`fEN r LANDS OF- K0HLEFR History and Purpose The Saratoga Parks & Recreation Commission, appointed by the Saratoga City Council, has worked diligently toward the implementation of a Parks & Trails Master Plan which will serve the park and recreational needs of our community. Our goal is to acquire, develop, and maintain a system of parks, trails, bicycle lanes, recreational facilities, and park - related community service facilities which meet the needs of Saratoga's residents. In 1990, the City of Saratoga commissioned a study for the preparation of a Parks & Trails Master Plan. This plan was completed by Wallace, Roberts & Todd in November 1991, and was subsequently approved by the City Council. This plan provides a framework for the City's actions in implementing a recreation system which will serve all ages and sections of the Saratoga's population. The very lengthy Master plan is available for all Saratogans to view at City Hall. The Parks & Trails Master plan is a comprehensive document which includes recommendations for active parks and play fields, passive parks, as well as pedestrian, multi- use trails, and bicycle trails and pathways. In June of 1996, the Commission held a very well attended community workshop to determine an updated priority list for the expenditure of the Park Development Fund. Trail improvements were one of the items that was on the priority list and that the Commission is dedicated to improving. [OW4 tarak�r The Trails Grant Program was established to address the need for trails improvements at a time when there are insufficient funds available to maintain existing trails and to create new ones. The grant program is designed to provide groups with an opportunity to volunteer their time and talent to improve portions of trails that they most use. The main purpose of the grant program is to supply grant recipients with the necessary materials and supplies to make the requested improvements to the designated trails. The grant proposal submitted to the Parks & Recreation Commission should address the following items: • Description of the agency or group (background) • Highlight or describe the area or trails that you would like to improve • Your experience in_ improving or creating trails • What can your agency offer that is unique to this job? • Number of (trail) users that would benefit from the proposed improvement • Itemized budget of project • Has this need been addressed by the City's Parks & Trails Master plan? • Timeline for the proposed project • What area of Saratoga is it serving. In evaluating the grant proposal, the Parks & Recreation Commission will take into consideration the following criteria: • Alignments & linkages of and to existing trails to Saratoga, Mid- • Peninsula open space & Santa Clara County Trails. • Will it encourage additional bodies off busy city streets? • Does it improve the safety of the existing trail or of trail area? • Does it keep multi -use trails open? • Does it provide additional signs identifying the trail? • What percentage of the Community is benefiting from this project? The Parks and Recreation Commission meets the first Monday of the month at 7:30 am at the City Hall Administrative Offices. All grant proposals submitted to the Commission will be agendized and discussed at a regular commission meeting. In order to have your grant proposal included in a commission packet, you must submit nine copies of your proposal to City Hall no later than 5:00 p.m. on the third Monday of the month. Since the Commission may have follow -up questions to the submitted proposal, we do ask that a member of your organization be present at the commission meeting when your proposal is discussed. Please allow two to three weeks time in order to receive a response to your proposal. Meeting dates are subject to change so please contact Irene Jacobs Staff Liaison to the Parks & Recreation Commission if you would like to have your item agendized. City of Saratoga Trail Grant Program 14 1 1111 p MEMORANDUM Date: February 10, 1999 To: Mike Riback, City Attorney From: Irene Jacobs, Staff Liaison to the Parks & Recreation Commission RE: Playfield Development Project This memo is in response to your question about the status of the Playfield Development Project. In 1996, the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) sponsored a Community Meeting to receive input from the Community regarding how the Parks Development Fund should be spent. Some 70 members of the Community showed up, and a priority list was established with one of the top priorities being the development and improvement of playfields. To this day, the PRC has held faithful to this priority list and to the response from the Community regarding this issue. The PRC has shared this priority list with the City Council and received support from the Council in the past; this is not a new issue. In March of 1998, the Commission requested and received approval from the Council to hire Jaye Beals, of Beals Landscape Architecture, ( who have since changed its name to the Beals Group), as the Project Manager. Although the Commission had been trying for years to move forward on this project, the shortage and turnover in City staff made this difficult and therefore, the PRC proposed hiring an outside manager. One month later, in an attempt to recover costs after the loss of the UUT, staff proposed that the city enact a $12 per participant user fee in place of the current flat rate of $1,500 per season for the use of Congress Springs Park by organized sports leagues. Residents were upset and packed the Council Chambers. As a result, the City Council did not accept the Commission's recommendation and did not enact the per participant fee but, the Council did request that the Project Manger's scope of services be expanded to include the establishments of joint -use agreements between the City, user groups and school districts for existing sites in addition to the proposed sites that had not yet been identified. The City Council made it clear to the user groups and members of the public present at that meeting, that the City would not invest in playfield development projects if there was no commitment from the part of the user groups to help in the maintenance of these fields. The City was and is unable to provide additional maintenance above the level that it is currently providing for existing sites let alone additional playfield sites. If this group could not first prove that the maintenance issue could be resolved, the City Council would not consider building additional playfields. Thus was born the Playfield Taskforce. The Task Force was formed, with the assistance of the City Council, and included representatives from the various user groups that use playfields in Saratoga ( AYSO, CYSA, Saratoga Little League, Cupertino Little League, Saratoga /Los Gatos Girls Softball League, Pony League and Quito Little League) the Saratoga Union School District, the Campbell Union School District, the Cupertino Union School District, the PRC, City Staff, a City Council representative and the Project Manager. This group met for nine months and after all this time, the group was able to sketch out a proposal that had the schools committing their land, the City committing development dollars and the user groups committing to pay for maintenance costs. Believe me, getting thirty people with different agendas, lots of ego and a high mistrust of each other to come to an agreement like this was miraculous. I do want to point out two issues that did occur during this nine month process. First, half way through our scheduled meetings with the Task Force, the Project Manager approached the City and explained that he was unable to provide this group with the specific dollar amounts for the various proposed developments without schematic plans. The Task Force did not feel comfortable committing to paying a ballpark amount of money for maintenance for a development that had not yet even been sketched out. The PRC went to the City Council requesting to expand the project manager's scope of services to include these schematic plans and it was approved. The sole reason for moving forward with schematic plans at this point was in order to nail down specific maintenance costs I should also point out that the specific sites were not proposed by the Task Force until we were already 3/4 of the way through the process. Once the schematic plans were completed, we scheduled public input meetings in order to unveil this to the public. A major complaint that we heard from the public was that we excluded them from the process and did not have a representative from their neighborhood as part of the Task Force. We have tried to explain many times that we did not identify any specific locations until far into the process and that is why as soon as sites were identified, we scheduled public input meetings. Also, please remember that the Council wanted to see proof that this Task Force could address these maintenance issues before this entire project would be considered further. My second point was that we did start informing the public once we had something to share and after the site had been identified. Three different meetings were held, one per site. The public input meetings were held to hear the initial concerns from residents regarding the developments proposed by the Task Force and in turn see if there was any way to alter the drawings to address some of the concerns up front. Again, the purpose was to see how this would ultimately affect maintenance costs. After changes to the schematic drawings were made, the Task Force made a commitment as a group and forwarded this to PRC for consideration. The PRC met at the beginning of this month and decided that the next step was to schedule individual site meetings that would include neighborhood representatives surrounding the proposed site, Commission members, city staff, user group representatives and school district representatives. I have not yet scheduled these meetings but our goal is that they will take place within the next two month period of time. After the PRC hold these meetings, the Commission will forward a decision to the Council. They will request that the Council approve the project in concept and give approval to conduct traffic, noise or any other required study that would be required for this project. The PRC hopes to bring this recommendation to the City Council some time in April. After that point, we would use the information to see if these were still viable sites and proceed from there. We have a long way yet to go in this process and the community has had and will continue to have many opportunities to voice their opinions and concerns. I hope that this helps to clarify things somewhat. Please let me know if I can answer any further questions.