Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-11-2023 Planning Commission Agenda PacketSaratoga Planning Commission Agenda – Page 1 of 2 SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 11, 2023 7:00 P.M. - PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Civic Theater | 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 Public Participation Information In accordance with Saratoga’s Remote Public Participation Policy, members of the public may participate in this meeting in person at the location listed below or via remote attendance using the Zoom information below. 1.Accessing the meeting via Zoom •https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82652375945 (Webinar ID 826 5237 5945) •Calling 1.669.900.6833 or 1.408.638.0968; OR 2. Viewing the meeting on Saratoga Community Access Television Channel 15 (Comcast Channel 15, AT&T UVerse Channel 99) and calling the numbers listed above; OR 3.Viewing online at http://saratoga.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=2 and calling the numbers listed above. Written Communication Comments can be submitted in writing at www.saratoga.ca.us/pc. Written communications will be provided to the members of the Planning Commission and included in the Agenda Packet and/or in supplemental meeting materials. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL 1.APPROVAL OF MINUTES Action Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of September 13, 2023. Recommended Action: Approve Minutes of September 13, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Any member of the public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three (3) minutes on matters not on this agenda. This law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications. REPORT ON APPEAL RIGHTS Any interested person objecting to the whole, or any portion of decision on this Agenda, may file an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision. The City Council conducts de novo review of appeals. Saratoga Planning Commission Agenda – Page 2 of 2 2.PUBLIC HEARINGS 2.1 Application PDR21-0019/VAR23-0002/ARB21-0086: 15269 Bohlman Road (517-14-003) Verbicaro 1 LLC (Applicant): The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for a new 5,749 square foot two-story single-family residence (maximum height 25’-11.5”) and a request for a Variance for retaining walls to exceed the maximum five-foot height limitation. One protected tree is proposed for removal. The site is zoned Hillside Residential (HR) with a General Plan Designation of Residential Hillside Conservation (RHC). Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan (408) 868-1235 or criordan@saratoga.ca.us. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 23-015 approving the project subject to conditions of approval included in Attachment 1. 3.GENERAL BUSINESS 3.1 Housing Element Update & Policy Options 4.DIRECTOR ITEMS 5.COMMISSION ITEMS 6.ADJOURNMENT CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF THE AGENDA, DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET, COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT I, Frances Reed, Administrative Analyst for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission was posted and available for review on October 6, 2023 at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California and on the City's website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Signed this 6th day of October 2023 at Saratoga, California. Frances Reed, Administrative Analyst. In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff reports and other materials provided to the Planning Commission by City staff in connection with this agenda, copies of materials distributed to the Planning Commission concurrently with the posting of the agenda, and materials distributed to the Planning Commission by staff after the posting of the agenda are available on the City Website at www.saratoga.ca.us or available at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. In Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at bavrit@saratoga.ca.us or calling 408.868.1216 as soon as possible before the meeting. The City will use its best efforts to provide reasonable accommodations to provide as much accessibility as possible while also maintaining public safety [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA title II]. Saratoga Planning Commission Draft Minutes – Page 1 of 2 DRAFT MINUTES WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 13, 2023 SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Chair Brownley called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Clinton Brownley, Vice Chair Jojo Choi, Commissioners Paul Germeraad, Anjali Kausar, Ping, Li, Razi Mohiuddin, and Herman Zheng ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Bryan T. Swanson, Community Development Director Nicole Johnson, Senior Planner Chrsitina Fusco, City Arborist Frances Reed, Administrative Analyst 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of August 9, 2023. Recommended Action: Approve Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of August 9, 2023. CHOI/LI MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 9, 2023 MEETING. MOTION PASSED. AYES: BROWNLEY, CHOI, GERMERAAD, KAUSAR, LI, MOHIUDDIN, ZHENG. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS: Tsing Bardin spoke. Dick DuBridge spoke. Pat Pfiefer spoke. 2. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2.1 (Continued from August 9, 2023) Application APTR23-0002; 18693 Devon Ave (389-13-053); Guina Wang (owner) - A neighbor to the property is appealing the approval of permit application TRP23-0356 for the removal of three (3) Canary Island Pine trees, Pinus Canariensis, with trunk diameters of 21, 23, and 28 inches which grow in the back yard of the property, Staff contact: Christina Fusco (408) 868-1276 or cfusco@saratoga.ca.us. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No.23-0012 denying the appeal. MOHIUDDIN/KAUSAR MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL. MOTION PASSED. AYES: BROWNLEY, CHOI, KAUSAR, LI, MOHIUDDIN, ZHENG. NOES: GERMERAAD. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. 2.2 Application PDR22-0015/ARB23-0001: 14256 Saratoga Ave (397-23-031) Subramanian and Krishnan Aswathanarayanan (Applicant): The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for a new 2, 865 square foot two story single-family residence (maximum height 25’7”) with an attached ADU. One protected tree is proposed for removal. The site is zoned R-1-10,000 with a General Plan Designation of Medium Density Residential (M-10). Staff Contact: Nicole Johnson (408) 868-1209 or njohnson@saratoga.ca.us. 4 Saratoga Planning Commission Draft Minutes – Page 2 of 2 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 23-014 approving the project subject to conditions of approval included in Attachment 1. MOHIUDDIN/KAUSAR MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION PDR22-0015 SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. MOTION PASSED. AYES: BROWNLEY, CHOI, GERMERAAD, KAUSAR, LI, MOHIUDDIN, ZHENG. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. 2.3 MOD23-0003; 18800 Cox Avenue; (389-12-021); Sand Hill Properties Quito Village LLC (Applicant/Property Owner) – The applicant is requesting modification of an existing master sign program for a commercial building located at 18800 Cox Avenue. The site is zoned Neighborhood Commercial (CN) with a General Plan Designation of Commercial Retail. Staff Contact: Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan (408) 868-1235 or criordan@saratoga.ca.us. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 23-013 approving the modification to the existing sign program subject to conditions of approval included in Attachment 1. KAUSAR/GERMERAAD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION MOD12-0003 SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. MOTION PASSED. AYES: BROWNLEY, CHOI, GERMERAAD, KAUSAR, LI, MOHIUDDIN, ZHENG. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. 3. DIRECTOR ITEMS Director Swanson thanked the Commission for their time in the agenda review meetings. He also reminded Commissioners about the upcoming Study Session for the Saratoga Retirement Community project on September 27, 2023. 4. COMMISSION ITEMS - NONE 5. ADJOURNMENT KAUSAR moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:07 pm. Minutes respectfully submitted: Frances Reed, Administrative Analyst City of Saratoga 5 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION 15269 Bohlman Road Meeting Date: October 11, 2023 Application: PDR21-0019/ARB21-0086/VAR23-0002 Address/APN: 15269 Bohlman Road / 517-14-003 Applicant / Property Owner: Verbicaro 1, LLC Report Prepared By: Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner 6 Report to the Planning Commission 15269 Bohlman Road– Application #’s PDR21-0019/ARB21-0086/VAR23-0002 October 11, 2023 Page | 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a proposed 5,749 square foot, 25’- 11.5” tall, two-story single-family residence on a vacant site located at 15269 Bohlman Road. The project also includes a request for a variance for retaining walls to exceed the five-foot maximum height limit. One protected tree has been removed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 23-015 approving the project subject to conditions of approval included in Attachment 1. Pursuant to City Code Section 15-45.060(a)(1) and 15-70.050, Design Review Approval by the Planning Commission is required as the project is a new two-story single-family residence which includes a request for a variance. PROJECT DATA Gross/Net Site Area: 114,083 sq. ft. (2.62 acres) / 90,293 sq. ft. (2.07 acres) Average Site Slope: 49.2% General Plan Designation: RHC (Residential Hillside Conservation) Zoning: HR (Hillside Residential) Proposed Allowed/Required Site Coverage Residence/Garage Driveway Walkways/Decks/Patios Total Proposed (structures) 3,572 sq. ft. 5,819 sq. ft. 729 sq. ft. 10,120 sq. ft. (11.2%) 25% or 15,000 sq. ft. (whichever is less) Floor Area (Main Residence) First Floor Second Floor Attached Garage Total Floor Area 2,997 sq. ft. 2,177 sq. ft. 575 sq. ft. 5,749 sq. ft. 5,766 sq. ft. Height 25’-11.5” 26’ Setbacks Front: Left Side: Right Side Rear: 1st Floor 220’-3’’ 25’-2” 54’-11” 182’-5” 2nd Floor 220’-3” 25’-2” 54’-11” 182’-5” 99’-9” (20% of lot depth) 25’ 20’ 124’-6” (25% of lot depth) Grading Cut 479 C.Y. Fill 479 C.Y. Total 958 C.Y. 1,000 C.Y. SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Previously Approved Project The Planning Commission previously approved a Design Review application for the site on October 24, 2007 which included a project to construct a 6,010 square foot, two story, single- family residence with a similar architectural appearance, massing, and square footage as the current proposed project. The Planning Commission also approved an application for a variance 7 Report to the Planning Commission 15269 Bohlman Road– Application #’s PDR21-0019/ARB21-0086/VAR23-0002 October 11, 2023 Page | 3 for retaining walls with a maximum height of 14 feet. One protected California bay tree was approved by the City Arborist for removal. A building permit was issued for the project and construction did commence but was limited to grading and the installation of the footings and steel forms for the foundation and retaining walls. Due to project inactivity the design review, variance and building permit approval expired prior to the completion of the project which necessitated the submittal of a new design review and variance application. A copy of the previously approved project plans is included as Attachment #2. Site Description The project site is an approximately 2.07-net acre vacant lot in the HR (Hillside Residential) zoning district. The site is characterized by an average slope of 49.2% and an existing approximately 275’ long unpaved access driveway off of Bohlman Road that leads to a relatively level building pad located towards the center of the site with steep slopes above and below. The site is covered in native grasses and both native and non-native trees including Oaks and Bay Laurel’s. Project Description The architectural style of the project can best be described as “Mediterranean”. The 5,749 square foot residence with a maximum height of 25’-11.5” will include a 2,997 square foot first story, a 1,177 square foot second story, and a 575 square foot attached front facing two-car garage. Architectural features will include an angled building footprint to take advantage of the curved building site that follows the slope of the site and a second story balcony above the garage that faces toward the entrance driveway and additional first and second story balconies on the north elevation directed towards the receding slopes. There is no privacy impact from the proposed windows and balconies as existing vegetative screening and hillside terrain features screen structures on adjacent sites from view. Variance for Retaining Wall Height The area of the driveway and emergency vehicle turnaround was previously graded, leveled, and expanded in size in association with the construction of the previous project before development ceased. Retaining wall steel forms are in place. The narrowest portion of the driveway before it was widened was approximately 16 feet in width at the entrance of the garage. City regulations require a two-car garage to be at least 19 feet in width, however the standard garage is typically no less than 20 feet in width. The front entrance and steps are located to the right of the garage. To provide a driveway width that can provide vehicular access and accommodate at least two vehicles when parked side to side in front of the garage including pedestrian access from the driveway required this formerly 16-foot-wide area to be widened to approximately 39 feet. Due to steep slopes below the driveway (greater than 1:1 in some areas), a 68 foot long retaining wall will be constructed to accommodate the increased driveway width. The City Code limits the maximum height of retaining walls to five feet and a portion of the retaining wall near the garage will be approximately 11 feet in height. An additional retaining wall that would be no taller than six feet is the retaining wall to construct the first story terrace adjacent to the dining and living room which is necessitated by the narrow overall width of the building footprint in this location. 8 Report to the Planning Commission 15269 Bohlman Road– Application #’s PDR21-0019/ARB21-0086/VAR23-0002 October 11, 2023 Page | 4 The applicant has provided a color and materials board (Attachment #6). Below is a list of the proposed exterior materials. Detail Colors and Materials Exterior Tan colored smooth trowelled stucco Windows/Gutters/Railings Dark Bronze Colored Metal Doors/Trim/Garage Door Dark Stained Wood Roof Brown Colored Asphalt Shingles Trees The project arborist inventoried a total of 29 protected trees on the site which include Coast Live Oak, California Bay, and Madrone. One 24” Coast Live Oak has already been removed as the City Arborist diagnosed the tree with Sudden Oak Death and advised its immediate removal given its current condition and likelihood to fail with the potential to cause injury. One 12” California Bay tree was approved for removal per the previously approved project and this tree has been removed. No other trees are proposed for removal. Tree fencing is required to be installed to minimize impacts to protected trees prior to project commencement and during its duration. The payment of a tree protection security deposit is required to be paid prior to building permit issuance. Details of the arborist’s findings and description of the trees on site are included in the Arborist Report (Attachment #3). Landscaping To maintain the natural appearance of the site very little formal landscaping is proposed. This landscaping will include drought tolerant shrubs native to South Africa named Small Cape Rush – this is an evergreen perennial which grows 2-3 feet tall which has the appearance of dense tufted clumps of grass. The new landscaping will be located in two landscaped areas located in the center of the driveway and on the south side of the driveway closer to the residence. Erosion control hydroseeding will be used for a graded area to the north of the driveway which will include native grasses. FINDINGS Design Review The findings required for issuance of a Design Review Approval pursuant to City Code Section Article 15-45.080 are set forth below and the Applicant has not met the burden of proof to support making all of those required findings: a. Site development follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is appropriate given the property’s natural constraints. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the new residence adheres to the site’s natural constraints in that it will be located on a level area of the site and minimal grading will be required to construct the building. Proposed grading will be primarily used to widen the driveway and to create an emergency vehicle turnaround area and will be limited to 479 cubic yards of cut and 479 cubic yards of fill for a total grading quantity of 958 cubic yards – the grading will be balanced so no to little off haul is to be expected. 9 Report to the Planning Commission 15269 Bohlman Road– Application #’s PDR21-0019/ARB21-0086/VAR23-0002 October 11, 2023 Page | 5 b. All protected trees shall be preserved, as provided in Article 15-50 (Tree Regulations). If constraints exist on the property, the number of protected trees, heritage trees, and native trees approved for removal shall be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal of any smaller oak trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist shall be minimized using the criteria set forth in Section 15-50.080. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project arborist inventoried a total of 29 protected trees in the vicinity of the project site which include Coast Live Oak, California Bay, and Madrone. One 24” Coast Live Oak has already been removed as the City Arborist diagnosed the tree with Sudden Oak Death and advised its immediate removal given it current condition and likelihood to fail with the potential to cause injury. One 12” California Bay tree was approved for removal per the previously approved project and this tree has been removed. A tree protection security deposit is required to be paid prior to building permit issuance. No other trees are proposed for removal. Tree protection fencing is required to be installed prior to the issuance of building permits and shall remain in place for project duration. c. The height of the structure, its location on the site, and its architectural elements are designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to community viewsheds. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project will be located near the center of the 2.07-acre vacant site and homes on adjacent sites are not visible from the project site due to dense vegetation and hillside terrain features. The project location and the setbacks from adjacent properties along with the screened vegetative views will avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to community viewsheds. d. The overall mass and height of the structure, and its architectural elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the height and massing of the home is appropriate to the Mediterranean architectural style. The building pad is relatively narrow with steep slopes both above and below and the architectural style takes advantage of the slope constraints by angling the building footprint to accommodate the limited building pad as much as possible. The 220-foot setback from Bohlman Road which exceeds the minimum 30-foot setback of the Hillside Residential Zoning District, the composed massing of the structure, and the architectural forms including the selection of exterior building materials and colors reduces the appearance of bulk. Homes on adjacent lots are not visible from Bohlman Road thereby reducing the chance that the project may not be in scale with the neighborhood. e. The landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements that are complementary to the neighborhood streetscape. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that to maintain the natural appearance of the site very little formal landscaping is proposed. This landscaping will include drought tolerant shrubs native to South Africa called Small Cape Rush – this is an evergreen perennial which grows 2-3 feet tall which has the appearance of dense tufted clumps of grass. The new landscaping will be located in two landscaped areas located in the center of the driveway and on the south side of the driveway closer to the residence. A graded area for the driveway is within the front setback area and for 10 Report to the Planning Commission 15269 Bohlman Road– Application #’s PDR21-0019/ARB21-0086/VAR23-0002 October 11, 2023 Page | 6 erosion control hydroseeding will be used. More than 50% of the front setback area will include native landscaping with minimal hardscape proposed for a new driveway. f. Development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the development is located near the center of a 2.07-acre. There are no immediate neighboring properties that would have their opportunities to utilize solar energy impacted by the project. g. The design of the structure and the site development plan is consistent with the Residential Design Handbook, pursuant to Section 15-45.055. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed project incorporates applicable design policies and techniques from the Residential Design Handbook. The overall mass and height of the structure are in scale with homes on neighboring parcels; the structure is set back in proportion to the size and shape of the lot; site development follows contours and is appropriate given the property’s natural constraints. In addition, the proposed materials, colors, and details enhance the architecture in a well-composed, understated manner. h. On hillside lots, the location and the design of the structure avoid unreasonable impacts to ridgelines, significant hillside features, community viewsheds, and is in compliance with Section 15-13.100. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project will be located on a level section of the lot which will minimize impacts to significant hillside features such as steep slopes. The project is not located on a ridgeline nor near any identified community viewshed and in compliance with City Code Section 15-13.100. Variance The proposed project is consistent with the following findings stated in SMC Section 15-70.060 necessary to grant Variance approval to exceed the maximum 5-foot height limit for retaining walls (a) That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. This finding may be made in the affirmative in the existing narrow footprint and steep slopes limit the location of the project. The narrowest portion of the driveway before it was widened was approximately 16 feet in width at the entrance of the garage. To provide a driveway width that can provide vehicular access and accommodate at least two vehicles when parked side to side in front of the garage including pedestrian access from the driveway required this formerly 16-foot-wide area to be widened to approximately 39 feet. Due to steep slopes below the driveway (greater than 1:1 in some areas), a 68 foot long retaining wall will be constructed to accommodate the increased driveway width. The City Code limits the maximum height of retaining walls to five feet and a portion of the retaining wall near the garage will be approximately 11 feet in height and the height of the retaining wall to construct the first story terrace will be approximately six feet in height. Without the variance the applicant would not be able to construct the project due to the narrowness of the building footprint thus depriving the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity. 11 Report to the Planning Commission 15269 Bohlman Road– Application #’s PDR21-0019/ARB21-0086/VAR23-0002 October 11, 2023 Page | 7 (b) That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the dimensions, shape, and slope of the site creates construction challenges not usually encountered on larger, regularly shaped parcels in the Hillside Residential zone district. Most Hillside Residential lots do not have the topographic restraints of the subject parcel and have larger buildable areas thereby making it less difficult to provide site access and reasonable building footprint and access dimensions. (c) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that allowing a retaining wall to exceed the five-foot maximum height will not be detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare since the project will be required to obtain a building permit and grading permit and conform to all requirements of the Building Department as well as receive approval of the Public Works Department and the City Geologist. NEIGHBOR NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE The applicant contacted adjacent neighbors regarding the project and was able to obtain one completed neighbor notification which included project related comments from one adjacent located at 15245 Bohlman Road (Attachment #4) concerning the potential for site erosion during heavy rainstorms. The Community Development Department mailed public notices to property owners within 500 feet of the site. In addition, the public hearing notice and description of the project was published in the Saratoga News. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of three single-family residences in a residential area. The project, as proposed, is for the construction of a new residence in a suburban, residential area. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. 23-015 2. Previously approved plans – October 24, 20007 3. Arborist Report dated May 3, 2023 4. Neighbor Comments 5. Story Pole Certification 6. Materials Board 7. Project Plans 12 RESOLUTION NO: 23-015 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW PDR21-0019, ARBORIST REPORT ARB21-0086, and VARIANCE VAR23-0002 15269 BOHLMAN ROAD (APN 517-14-003) WHEREAS, on July 19, 2021 an application was submitted by Verbicaro 1 LLC (Applicant/Owner) requesting Design Review, Arborist Report, and Variance approval to construct a new 5,749 square foot single family residence with an overall height of 25’-11.5”. The project also includes a request for a variance for retaining walls exceeding the five-foot maximum height limits. One protected tree has been removed. The site is located within the Hillside Residential zoning district. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an environmental assessment for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and recommends that the Planning Commission determine this project Categorically Exempt. WHEREAS, on October 11, 2023 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant, and other interested parties. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds, determines, and resolves as follows: Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: The project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3(a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of a single- family residence and small structures in a residential area. Section 3: The proposed residence is consistent with the following Saratoga General Plan Policies: Land Use Goal 13 which provides that the City shall use the Design Review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings; Safety Element Site and Drainage Policy 3 which provides that the City shall require that landscaping and site drainage plans be submitted and approved during Design Review for a residence prior to issuance of permits; and Conservation Element Policy 6.0 which provides that the City shall protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. Section 4: The proposed residence is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the design and improvements are consistent with the design review findings. The overall mass and height of the structure are in scale with the neighborhood; the structure is set back in proportion to the size and shape of the lot; site development follows contours and is appropriate given the property’s natural constraints; the porch and entry are in scale with other structures in the 13 15269 Bohlman Road October 11, 2023 Page | 2 neighborhood. In addition, the proposed materials, colors, and details enhance the architecture in a well-composed, understated manner. Section 5: The proposed project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the request for retaining walls in excess of five feet in height are consistent with the variance findings. There are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district; the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district, and the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity Section 6: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves PDR21-0019, VAR23-0002 and ARB21-0086, 15269 Bohlman Road (APN 517-14-003), subject to the Findings, and Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 11th day of October 2023 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Clinton Brownley Chair, Planning Commission 14 15269 Bohlman Road October 11, 2023 Page | 3 Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PDR21-0019 / ARB21-0086 / VAR23-0002 15269 BOHLMAN ROAD (APN 517-14-003) GENERAL 1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, grading for this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval documenting all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the Community Development Director. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its equivalent. 2. The Owner and Applicant will be mailed a statement after the time the Resolution granting this approval is duly executed, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). This approval or permit shall expire sixty (60) days after the date said notice is mailed if all processing fees contained in the notice have not been paid in full. No Zoning Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the City certifies that all processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained). 3. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the requirements of the Saratoga City Code incorporated herein by this reference. 4. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify, and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against: a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to said action; and b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf. In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney. 15 15269 Bohlman Road October 11, 2023 Page | 4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 5. The owner/applicant shall comply with all City requirements regarding drainage, including but not limited to complying with the city approved Stormwater management plan. The project shall retain and/or detain any increase in design flow from the site, that is created by the proposed construction and grading project, such that adjacent down slope properties will not be negatively impacted by any increase in flow. Design must follow the current Santa Clara County Drainage Manual method criteria, as required by the building department. Retention/detention element design must follow the Drainage Manual guidelines, as required by the building department. 6. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans received August 30, 2023. All proposed changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in accordance with the City Code. 7. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall submit for staff approval a Lighting Plan for the home’s exterior and landscaped areas. Proposed exterior lighting shall be limited to full cut off & shielded fixtures with downward directed illumination so as not to shine on adjacent properties or public right-of-way. All proposed exterior lighting shall be designed to limit illumination to the site and avoid creating glare impacts to surrounding properties. 8. To comply with standards that minimize impacts to the neighborhood during site preparation and construction, the applicant shall comply with City Code Sections 7-30.060 and 16-75.050, with respect to noise, construction hours, maintenance of the construction site and other requirements stated in these sections. 9. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall prepare for review and approval by City staff a Construction Management Plan for the project which includes but is not limited to the following: a. Proposed construction worker parking area. b. Proposed construction hours that are consistent with the City Code. c. Proposed construction/delivery vehicle staging or parking areas. d. Proposed traffic control plan with traffic control measures, any street closure, hours for delivery/earth moving or hauling, etc. To the extent possible, any deliveries, earth moving or hauling activities will be scheduled to avoid peak commute hours. e. Proposed construction material staging/storage areas. f. Location of project construction sign outlining permitted construction work hours, name of project contractor and the contact information for both homeowner and contractor. 10. All fences, walls and hedges shall conform to height requirements provided in the City Code Section 15-29 with the exception of the 68’ long retaining wall to the north of the garage and adjacent to the driveway which will have a maximum height of 11.18 feet. 16 15269 Bohlman Road October 11, 2023 Page | 5 11. The final landscaping and irrigation plan submitted for Building Permit approval shall demonstrate how the project complies with the State Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and shall consider the following: a. To the extent feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolong exposure to water shall be specified. b. To the extent feasible, pest resistant landscaping plants shall be used throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. c. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency, and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. d. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. e. Any proposed or required under grounding of utilities shall consider potential damage to roots of protected trees 12. Front yard landscaping shall be installed prior to final inspection or a bond satisfactory to the Community Development Department valued at 150% of the estimated cost of the installation of such landscaping shall be provided to the City. 13. A locking mailbox approved for use by the U.S. Postal service shall be installed and in compliance with Saratoga Municipal Code section 6-25.030. The mailbox shall be installed prior to final inspection. 14. A Building Permit must be issued, and construction commenced within 36 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or the Design Review Approval will expire unless extended in accordance with the City Code. 15. West Valley Collection & Recycling is the exclusive roll-off and debris box provider for the City of Saratoga. 16. The height of the rear fence shall be increased to a height not to exceed eight feet, and which shall conform to City regulations regarding fencing. FIRE DEPARTMENT 17. The owner/applicant shall comply with all applicable Fire Department requirements. ARBORIST 18. All requirements in the City Arborist Report (ARB21-0086) dated August 9, 2023 are hereby adopted as conditions of approval and shall be implemented as part of the approved plans. 17 15269 Bohlman Road October 11, 2023 Page | 6 ENGINEERING 19. The owner/applicant shall comply with all City requirements regarding drainage, including but not limited to complying with the city approved Stormwater management plan. The project shall retain and/or detain any increase in design flow from the site, that is created by the proposed construction and grading project, such that adjacent down slope properties will not be negatively impacted by any increase in flow. Design must follow the current Santa Clara County Drainage Manual method criteria, as required by the building department. Retention/detention element design must follow the Drainage Manual guidelines, as required by the building department. 20. Applicant / Owner shall obtain an encroachment permit for any and all improvements in any City right-of-way or City easement including all new utilities prior to commencement of the work to implement this Design Review. 21. Per Design Review PDR21-0019, no improvements in the public right-of-way are required. 22. Damages to driveway approach, curb and gutter, public streets, or other public improvements during construction shall be repaired prior to final inspection. 23. All new/upgraded utilities shall be installed underground. 24. Applicant / Owner shall maintain the streets, sidewalks and other right of way as well as adjacent properties, both public and private, in a clean, safe and usable condition. All spills of soil, rock or construction debris shall be removed immediately. 25. The Owner/Applicant shall incorporate adequate source control measures to limit pollutant generation, discharge, and runoff (e.g., landscaping that minimizes irrigation and runoff, promotes surface infiltration where possible, minimizes the use of pesticides and fertilizers, and incorporates appropriate sustainable landscaping practices and programs, such as Bay-Friendly Landscaping). 26. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction – Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution: • Owner shall implement construction site inspection and control to prevent construction site discharges of pollutants into the storm drains per approved Erosion Control Plan. • The City requires the construction sites to maintain year-round effective erosion control, run-on and run-off control, sediment control, good site management, and non-storm water management through all phases of construction (including, but not limited to, site grading, building, and finishing of lots) until the site is fully stabilized by landscaping or the installation of permanent erosion control measures. • City will conduct inspections to determine compliance and determine the effectiveness of the BMPs in preventing the discharge of construction pollutants into the storm drain. Owner shall be required to timely correct all actual and potential discharges observed. 18 15269 Bohlman Road October 11, 2023 Page | 7 27. Prior to the commencement of any earthwork/grading activities, the permittee shall arrange a pre-construction meeting. The meeting shall include the City of Saratoga Grading Inspector (408-868-1201), the grading contractor, and the project Soils Engineer. The permittee or representative shall arrange the pre-construction meeting at least 48 hours prior to the start of any earthwork activities. 28. Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans. 29. Prior to the Building final, all Public Works conditions shall be completed per approved plans. 30. Upon the completion of this project the elevation of the lowest floor including basement shall be certified by a registered professional engineer or surveyor and verified by the City's building inspector to be properly elevated. Such certification and verification shall be provided to the City’s Floodplain Administrator. BUILDING DEPARTMENT SUBMITTAL 31. Complete construction plans shall be submitted to the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance. The construction plans shall, at a minimum include the following: a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit “A” on file with the Community Development Department. b. Arborist Report dated August 9, 2023. c. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, notes, and/or materials required by the Building Division. d. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages. ***End of Conditions *** 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 www.saratoga.ca.us/171/trees 408.868.1276 CITY OF SARATOGA ARBORIST APPROVAL Conditions of Approval and Tree Protection Plan Prepared by Christina Fusco, City Arborist Application No. ARB21-0086 Phone: (408) 868-1276 Address: 15269 Bohlman Road Email: cfusco@saratoga.ca.us Owner: VERBICARO I LLC APN: 517-14-003 Date: August 9, 2023 PROJECT SCOPE: The applicant has re-submitted plans to build a new two-story home. The original project was received approved building permits (08-0192) on December 23, 2008, which have expired. One tree has been removed to construct the project. PROJECT DATA IN BRIEF: Tree security deposit – Required - $49,180 Tree protection – Required – See Conditions of Approval and attached map. Tree removals – Tree #7 has been removed to construct the project. Replacement trees – Required = $1,520 ATTACHMENTS: 1 – Findings and Tree Information 2 – Tree Removal Criteria 3 – Conditions of Approval 4 – Map Showing Tree Protection 1 of 10 41 15269 Bohlman Road Attachment 1 FINDINGS: Tree Removals According to Section 15-50.080 of the City Code, whenever a tree is requested for removal as part of a project, certain findings must be made and specific tree removal criteria met. One California bay tree #7 was in conflict with the new house, and met the City’s criteria allowing it to be removed and replaced as part of the original approval for the project. Attachment 2 contains the tree removal criteria for reference. Table 1: Summary of Tree Removal Criteria that are met Tree No. Species Criteria met Comments 7 California bay 4, 6, 7, 9 New Construction Based on the information provided, and as conditioned, this project complies with the requirements for the setback of new construction from existing trees under Section 15- 50.120 of the City Code. Tree Preservation Plan Section 15-50.140 of the City Code requires a Tree Preservation Plan for this project. To satisfy this requirement the following shall be copied onto a plan sheet and included in the final sets of plans: 1)Revised tree protection plan by Nigel Belton dated May 19, 2023; 2)The City Arborist report dated August 9, 2023 copied into a plan sheet. TREE INFORMATION: Project Arborist: Nigel Belton and Kate Bear Date of Report: May 19, 2023, August 2, 2021 and August 15, 2007 Number of protected trees inventoried: 29 Number of protected trees requested for removal: 1 A table summarizing information about each tree is below. Table 2: Tree information from the project arborist report dated August 2, 2021 Amended with information from the City Arborist report Dated August 15, 2007. 2 of 10 42 TREE RESOURCE MATRIX – 15269 BOHLMAN ROAD, SARATOGA – CA (APN 517-14-003) Site visit by Nigel Belton, ISA Certified Arborist WE-0410A – August 2, 2021 # SHEET 1 of 3. SPECIES TRUNK DIAMETER AT 54-INCHES ABOVE GRADE – (DBH) ESTIMATED HEIGHT ESTIMATED SPREAD HEALTH (1 = BEST RATING) STRUCTURE (1 = BEST RATING) SUITABLE FOR PRESERVATION (BASED ON CONDITION RATING) UNSUITABLE FOR PRESERVATION (BASED ON CONDITION RATING) REMOVAL REQUIRED FOR PROPERTY IMPROVEMENTS PROTECTED TREE COMMENTS 1 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) 36 40 60 2 2 X - - X Located at the property entrance. $20,900 2 Coast Live Oak 15.5 35 25 2 2 X - - X Located on the slope above the new driveway footprint. $4,430 3 Coast Live Oak 19 35 20 2 2 X - - X Located on the slope above the new driveway footprint. 4 Toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) 7.5 30 10 2 2 X - - X Located on the slope above the new driveway footprint. 5 Coast Live Oak 13 30 15 2 3 X - - X Located on the slope above the new driveway footprint. The top of this oak previously failed. 6 Coast Live Oak 12 25 35 5 4 - X - X Located on the slope above the new driveway footprint. This tree has been killed by Sudden Oak Death (Phytophthora ramorum). The tree leans out over the driveway and it will likely fail within 18 months. Remove ASAP in order to abate a potential hazard. 7 Coast Live Oak 24 35 15 5 4 - X - X Located on the slope above the driveway footprint. This tree has been killed by Sudden Oak Death. The tree leans out over the driveway and it will likely fail within 18 months. Remove ASAP in order to abate a potential hazard. 8 Coast Live Oak 7.5 30 10 2 2 X - - X Located on the slope above the new house footprint. Located close to the top of the grading limits on the slope. 3 of 10 43 TREE RESOURCE MATRIX – 15269 BOHLMAN ROAD, SARATOGA – CA (APN 517-14-003) Site visit by Nigel Belton, ISA Certified Arborist WE-0410A – August 2, 2021 # SHEET 2 of 3. SPECIES TRUNK DIAMETER AT 54-INCHES ABOVE GRADE – (DBH) ESTIMATED HEIGHT ESTIMATED SPREAD HEALTH (1 = BEST RATING) STRUCTURE (1 = BEST RATING) SUITABLE FOR PRESERVATION (BASED ON CONDITION RATING) UNSUITABLE FOR PRESERVATION (BASED ON CONDITION RATING) REMOVAL REQUIRED FOR PROPERTY IMPROVEMENTS PROTECTED TREE COMMENTS 9 Coast Live Oak 11 35 15 2 2 X - - X Located close to the top of the grading limits on the slope above the house site. $1,700 10 Coast Live Oak 7 35 15 2 2 X - - X Located close to the top of the grading limits on the slope above the house site. $940 11 Pacific Madrone (Arbutus menziesii) 24/24 45 50 4 3 - X - X Located on the slope above the back of the new house footprint. This tree has a thin canopy and it exhibits a dieback pattern. The new house will be within falling distance of this tree. 12 California Bay Laurel (Umbellularia californica) 8 40 15 2 3 X - - X Located on the slope behind the house footprint. 13 California Bay Laurel 7 35 15 2 2 X - - X Located on the slope behind the house footprint. 14 California Bay Laurel 16/16/ 17/13/ 18/18 70 80 2 2 X - - X A large codominant tree with multiple trunks attached to a Common stump. $41,400 15 Coast Live Oak 26 55 50 2 3 X - - X Located below the development footprint. $15,200 16 California Bay Laurel 30 30 20 2 3 X - - X Located below the development footprint. 17 Coast Live Oak 11 15 25 2 3 X - - X Located below the development footprint. 18 Coast Live Oak 22 45 50 2 3 X - - X Located below the development footprint. 19 California Bay Laurel 20 50 40 2 3 X - - X Located below the development footprint. 20 Coast Live Oak 19.5 45 30 2 2 X - - X Located below the development footprint. 21 Coast Live Oak 14.5 40 30 2 2 X - - X Located below the development footprint. $3,440 22 Coast Live Oak 17 35 25 2 2 X - - X Located below the development footprint. $5,500 23 Coast Live Oak 20 50 45 2 2 X -- X Located below the development footprint. 4 of 10 44 TREE RESOURCE MATRIX – 15269 BOHLMAN ROAD, SARATOGA – CA (APN 517-14-003) Site visit by Nigel Belton, ISA Certified Arborist WE-0410A – August 2, 2021 # SHEET 3. of 3. SPECIES TRUNK DIAMETER AT 54-INCHES ABOVE GRADE – (DBH) ESTIMATED HEIGHT ESTIMATED SPREAD HEALTH (1 = BEST RATING) STRUCTURE (1 = BEST RATING) SUITABLE FOR PRESERVATION (BASED ON CONDITION RATING) UNSUITABLE FOR PRESERVATION (BASED ON CONDITION RATING) REMOVAL REQUIRED FOR PROPERTY IMPROVEMENTS PROTECTED TREE COMMENTS 24 Coast Live Oak 17.5 35 35 2 2 X - - X Located below the development footprint. 25 Coast Live Oak 27/13 50 70 2 2 X - - X Located below the development footprint. $19,100 26 California Bay Laurel 22.5 60 50 2 2 X - - X Located below the development footprint. 27 Coast Live Oak 13.5 35 25 2 2 X - - X Located on the adjacent property to the south (next the Bohlman Rd). 28 Coast Live Oak 15 30 25 2 2 X - - X Located on the adjacent property to the south (next the Bohlman Rd). 7A California Bay 12 20 5 3 - - X X Approved for removal under previous approval. $1,520 5 of 10 45 15269 Bohlman Road Attachment 2 TREE REMOVAL CRITERIA Criteria that permit the removal of a protected tree are listed below. This information is from Article 15-50.080 of the City Code and is applied to any tree requested for removal as part of the project. If findings are made that meet the criteria listed below, the tree(s) may be approved for removal and replacement during construction. (1)The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services, and whether the tree is a Dead tree or a Fallen tree. (2)The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or impervious surfaces on the property. (3)The topography of the land and the effect of the tree removal upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters, particularly on steep slopes. (4)The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, erosion control, and the general welfare of residents in the area. (5)The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. (6)Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the protected tree. (7)Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article. (8)Any other information relevant to the public health, safety, or general welfare and the purposes of this ordinance as set forth in Section 15-50.010 (9)The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is no other feasible alternative to the removal. (10)The necessity to remove the tree for installation and efficient operation of solar panels, subject to the requirements that the tree(s) to be removed, shall not be removed until solar panels have been installed and replacement trees planted in conformance with the City Arborist's recommendation. (11)The necessity to remove a tree following the creation of defensible space within 100 feet of a structure located within the Wildland Urban Interface, in accordance with defensible space standards established by CAL FIRE or as determined by Santa Clara County Fire Department, and that risk of increased wildfire cannot reasonably be addressed through maintenance or without tree removal. 6 of 10 46 15269 Bohlman Road Attachment 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1.Owner, Architect, Contractor: It is the responsibility of the owner, architect, and contractor to be familiar with the information in this report and implement the required conditions. 2.Permit: a.Receipt of a Planning or Building permit does not relieve applicant of his responsibilities for protecting trees per City Code Article 15-50 on all construction work. b.No protected tree authorized for removal or encroachment pursuant to this project may be removed or encroached upon until the issuance of the applicable permit from the building division for the approved project. 3.Final Plan Sets: a.Shall include the revised tree protection plan by Nigel Belton dated May 19, 2023 copied onto a plan sheet. b.Shall include the City Arborist report dated August 9, 2023 copied into a plan sheet. 4.Tree Protection Security Deposit: a.Is required per City Ordinance 15-50.080. b.Shall be $49,180 for trees 1, 2, 9, 10, 14, 15, 21, 22, and 25. c.Shall be obtained by the owner and filed with the Community Development Department before obtaining Building Division permits. d.May be in the form of cash, check, or a bond. e.Shall remain in place for the duration of construction of the project. f.May be released once the project has been completed, inspected and approved by the City Arborist. 5.Tree Protection Fencing: a.Shall be installed as shown on the attached map. b.Shall be shown on the Site Plan. c.Shall be established prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site. d.Shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link fencing mounted on 2-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. e.Shall be posted with signs saying, “TREE PROTECTION FENCE - DO NOT MOVE OR REMOVE WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM CITY ARBORIST, CHRISTINA FUSCO (408) 868-1276”. f.A letter/email shall be provided to the City from the project arborist confirming the correct installation of the tree protection fencing once it has been installed, including photos. This is required prior to obtaining building division permits. g.Tree protection fencing shall remain undisturbed throughout the construction until final inspection. 6.Construction: All construction activities shall be conducted outside tree protection fencing unless permitted as conditioned below. These activities include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: demolition, grading, trenching for utility installation, equipment 7 of 10 47 15269 Bohlman Road Attachment 3 cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 7.Work inside fenced areas: a. Requires a field meeting and approval from City Arborist before performing work. b.Requires Project Arborist on site to monitor work. 8.Project Arborist: a.Shall be Nigel Belton unless otherwise approved by the City Arborist. b.Shall visit the site every two weeks during grading, trenching or digging activities and every six weeks thereafter. A letter/email shall be provided to the City after each inspection which documents the work performed around trees, includes photos of the work in progress, and provides information on tree condition during construction. c.Shall supervise any permitted pruning or root pruning of trees on site. Roots of protected trees measuring two inches in diameter or more shall not be cut without prior approval of the Project Arborist. d.The Project Arborist shall be on site to monitor all work within 10 feet of trees #21, 22, and 25. 9.Tree removal: Tree #7 has been removed to construct the project. 10.New trees: a.New trees equal to $1,520 shall be planted as part of the project before final inspection and occupancy of the new home. New trees may be of any species and planted anywhere on the property as long as they do not encroach on retained trees. Replacement values for new trees are listed below. 15 gallon = $350 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500 48 inch box = $5,000 60 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000 b.Trees shall be replaced on or off site according to good forestry practices and shall provide equivalent value in terms of aesthetic and environmental quality, size, height, location, appearance and other significant beneficial characteristics of the removed trees. 11.Damage to protected trees that will be retained: a.Should any protected tree be damaged beyond repair, new trees shall be required to replace the tree. If there is insufficient room to plant the necessary number of new trees, some of the value for trees may be paid into the City’s Tree Fund. Replacement values for new trees are listed below. b.Water loving plants and lawns are not permitted under oak tree canopies. Only drought tolerant plants that are compatible with oaks are permitted under the outer half of the canopy of oak trees on site. 8 of 10 48 15269 Bohlman Road Attachment 3 12.Final inspection: At the end of the project, when the contractor wants to remove tree protection fencing and have the tree protection security deposit released by the city, call City Arborist for a final inspection. Before scheduling a final inspection from the City Arborist, have the project arborist do an inspection, prepare a letter with their findings, and provide that letter to the city for the project file. 9 of 10 49 (SD)(SD)(SD)(SD)(SD)(SD)(W)(EOH ) (EOH ) (EOH ) (EOH ) (EOH ) (EOH ) (EOH ) (EOH ) (EOH ) (EOH ) (EOH ) (EOH )(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Bohlman Road Bohlman Road Propo s e d G a r a g e FF=90 2 . 5 0 Pad=9 0 1 . 5 0 Proposed Residence FF1=907.00' FF2=918.00' Pad=904.50'C0+000+50 1+00 1+502+00 2+50 AB B C-2 .2% -2.5% -8.0%-5.0% -3.0%-2.5%-1.0%-2.5% - 2 . 6% PC: 0+22.56 PC: 1+36.77 PT: 0+93.71 PT: 1+88.20 P R C : 1 + 6 2 . 7 6 - 2 . 5% -0 . 1 % 2 % 16' 22.00' 50' 50' 20' 20' 22.48' -1.0% SCALE: 1"=20'010203040NorthAPN: 517-14-003 Verbicaro I, LLC, Doc # 23551664 APN: 5 1 7- 1 4- 0 0 2 Lensc h/ L e Q u y e n, D o c # 1 6 7 7 0 3 9 9 APN: 517-14-031 Smith, Doc # 22240713 APN: 517-14-030 Lintern, Doc # 23125835-1.0%-1.0%5%Fire Truck Turnaround per SCCO Std. S-16 Driveway Approach to meet SCCO Roads and Airports Std. B-4 (existing water meter) (existing fire hydrant) (existing water valve) existing 18" cmp culvert inv: 900.48' (existing utility pole) (existing temporary electric meter) (existing overhead utility line) (existing overhead utility line) (existing utlitity pole) (existing utlity pole) fnd. 3/4" ip, open (fnd 3/4" ip w/ tack & tag, leaning, no id) (existing utility pole) (ex. 18" (ex. 1 8 " ) 6" Curb 6" AC Curb Gradebreak AC Swale Re-Grade Area to Property Line to have 2:1 max Slope SD SS SS SS SSSSSSSSSS SS SS 12" x 12" Square Inlet Rim: 906.47' Inv: 902.42', 6" Ø (In) Inv: 900.47', 6" Ø (Out) 12" x 12" Square Inlet Rim: 906.12' Inv: 903.12', 6" Ø (Out) 12" x 12" Square Inlet Rim: 901.36' Inv: 899.00', 6" Ø (In) Inv: 899.04', 6" Ø (Out) 6" Riser Rim: 897.50' Inv: 896.00', 6" Ø (Out) Existing SDMH Rim: 896.64' Inv: 891.50', 6" Ø (In) Inv: 890.79', 18" Ø (Out) Inv: 890.89', 18" Ø (In) 6" Riser Rim: 896.50' Inv: 894.50', 6" Ø (Out) 12" x 12" Square Inlet Rim: 896.12' Inv: 893.12', 6" Ø (Out) Inv: 894.04', 6" Ø (In) 12" x 12" Square Inlet Rim: 895.43' Inv: 892.09', 6" Ø (In) Inv: 892.09', 6" Ø (Out) 30' - 6"Ø PVC Pipe @ S=4.82% 19' - 6"Ø PVC Pipe @ S=1.26% 52' - 6"Ø PVC Pipe @ S=2.00% 30' - 6"Ø PVC Pipe @ S=2.00% 23' - 6"Ø PVC Pipe @ S=2.00% 36' - 6"Ø PVC Pipe @ S=0.50% Retai ni n g w all s u b dr ai n per t y pi c al r et ai ni n g w all d et ail Connect subdrain into drainage inlet Connect subdrain into drainage inlet Connect subdrain into drainage inlet ±122 LF of Retaining wall Max height 8' ±68 LF of Retaining wall Max height 11' ±37 LF of Retaining wall Max height 6' (existing 18" ) (existing 18" ) 35' - 6"Ø Corrugated HDPE Pipe @ S=2.00% Rain Garden Rain Garden (18" Ø Bay) (14" Ø Oak) (14" Ø Oak) (18" Ø Oak) (14" Ø Oak) (18" Ø Oak) (10" Ø Oak) (12" Ø Oak) (20" Ø Oak) (60" Ø Tree) (10" Ø Oak) (10" Ø Oak) (existing 18" ) Sewer pump station location per Nelsen Engineering Sewer Connection Plans Reccomended sewer pump station location 2" SCH 40 pressure pipe with 3' cover min per Nelsen Engineering Sewer Connection Plans Covered Parking See Nelsen Engineering Sewer Connection Plans for connection to existing sewer 6" AC C u r b Existing Fault per Baker Consulting Engineering Geology report dated December 31, 2005 50' Setback from existing fault 50' Setback from existing fault 50' setback line from existing fault per Baker Consulting Engineering Geology report dated December 31, 2005 50' setback line from existing fault per Baker Consulting Engineering Geology report dated December 31, 2005 Extend retaining wall as determined by Geotechnical engineer to be verified in the field -3.1% 892 894 896898(880)(890 )(900)(910) ( 9 2 0 )(930)(940 ) (9 5 0 ) (850) (860) (870) (880)(890)(900) (900) (910) (920)860870880890(860) (870) (880)(920)(930)(940)896 898 (910) (898)902900890 892 894 896 12" Square DI Traffic Rated Rim: 896.20' Inv: 894.70', 18" Ø (In) Inv: 894.70', 18" Ø (Out) Install DI in existing flow path onto existing 18" CMP culvert Install rip rap dissipator at subdrain outlets per geotechnical report -5 .0% A EP 90 6 . 2 9 EP 90 2 . 3 1 EP 897.59 EP 90 2. 3 1 ToW 906.50 EP 906.00EP 906.00BoW 900.52 ToW 906.50 BoW 901.72 ToW 914.00 BoW 906.31 ToW 910.00 BoW 906.66 ToW 904.31 BoW 901.24 ToW 909.85 BoW 906.50 BoW 895.46 EP 898.19 EP 898.86 EP 898.86 EP 898.47 EP 906.78 (ep 889.52) (ep 896.31) EP 896.06 EP 896.59 (FL 913.00) (FL 909.00) (FL 896.61) (FL 888.22) (FL 883.00) TC 898.09 TC 896.56 TC 895.93 TC 898.97 Daylite 6" PVC pipe 898.73 TC 899.36 Daylite 6" PVC pipe 895.81 TC 899.36 ToW 902.08 EP 901.58 BoW 896.53 ToW 899.63 EP 899.13 BoW 898.20 ToW 899.20 EP 898.70 BoW 893.85 ToW 902.70 EP 902.20 BoW 893.08 ToW 902.85 EP 902.35BoW 896.75 ToW 907.38 EP 906.88 PROFILE: A-A SCALE H: 1"=10' SCALE V: 1"=10' 899900 905 910 915 920 899900 905 910 915 920 0+50 1+00 1+40 PI: 0+70.36 904.50 AA Proposed Garage FF=902.50 Pad=901.50 Proposed Residence PAD=904.50' FF1=907.00' FF2=918.00' ' 2.5% Proposed Balcony FF=911.50 1% EP 902.31 5%FG 906.29 (existing ground) Foundation design by others (TYP) Finish Grade (TYP) PROFILE: DWY Centerline SCALE H: 1"=10' SCALE V: 1"=5' 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 0+501+001+502+002+502+61 Proposed Garage FF=902.50 Pad=901.50 BVC 0+12.24CL 894.10EVC 0+32.24CL 895.12BVC 2+14.09CL 901.05EVC 2+34.09CL 902.12BVC 1+78.39CL 898.92EVC 2+08.39CL 900.59PIVC 1+93.39PI 899.37PC: 0+22.56894.82PT: 0+93.71896.38PC: 1+36.77897.67PRC: 1+62.76898.45PT: 1+88.20899.30-6.44% 8.11% 2.50% 1.00% 9.04% 1.24% 3.00% FG @ CL 895.35' FG @ CL 896.57' FG @ CL 898.07' FG @ CL 899.97' FG @ Centerline Subgrade @ Centerline (eg @ centerline) Overexcavate previous soil fills in the driveway area to a max depth of 3 feet below existing grade. The excavated bottom subgrade should be scarified to a depth of 12" and recompacted to at least 90% relative maximum density in 12" lifts. Overexcavate previous soil fills in the driveway area to a max depth of 3 feet below existing grade. The excavated bottom subgrade should be scarified to a depth of 12" and recompacted to at least 90% relative maximum density in 12" lifts. PROFILE: C-C SCALE H: 1"=10' SCALE V: 1"=10' 885 890 895 900 905 910 915 920 885 890 895 900 905 910 915 920 0+50 0+60 CC Proposed Garage FF=902.50 Pad=901.50 Proposed Balcony FF=911.50 See Typical Retaining Wall Section for Details ToW 902.96 BoW 896.31 -2.0% -2.0% 35' - 6"Ø Corrugated HDPE Pipe @ S=2.00% Foundation design by others (TYP) (existing ground TYP) Fill to be compacted to 90% relative compaction per Geotechnial Report (TYP) PROFILE: B-B SCALE H: 1"=10' SCALE V: 1"=10' 890 895 900 905 910 915 920 925 890 895 900 905 910 915 920 925 0+50 0+70 BB Proposed Residence FF1=907.00' FF2=918.00' Pad=904.50' ToW 910.17 BoW 906.14 EP 906.32 -2.0% See Typical Retaining Wall Section for Details ToW 906.50 BoW 902.51 -2.0% Foundation design by others (TYP) (existing ground TYP) Finish Grade (TYP) Fill to be compacted to 90% relative compaction per Geotechnial Report (TYP) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 320 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0 L:\Projects\Allen\217094 Campagna-Bohlman Road - Brad Cox\dwg\217094 IMP C3 Grading & Drainage.dwg - 7/19/2021 11:23 AM - Plotted 7/19/2021 11:25 AM by Allen AndradeJOB NO. OF 16075 Vineyard BoulevardMorgan Hill, CA 95037DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:Xrefs: 217094 LO new; 217094 LO existing; 217094 Hatch; 20210719 sign 217094 sign grading plansSHEET 217094 C3 5Grading and Drainage, Sections, & Profile15269 Bohlman Rd. - APN 517-14-0037/19/2021As ShownDFAAImpervious Area Summary Proposed Residence 3,382 SF Patios 775 SF Proposed Driveway 5,819 SF Total Impervious Area 9,976 SF Earthwork Quantities Cut Fill Net Buildings 98 cy 1 cy 97 cy (cut) Driveway 62 cy 474 cy 412 cy (fill) Site Grading 319 cy 4 cy 315 cy (cut) Total 479 cy 479 cy Balanced ALLEN T . AND R ADEST ATE OF CA L IF O R NIAEXP. C58384 REGISTERED P R O F ESSIONAL E NGI NEER12-31-2022 Attachment 4 10 of 10 50 51 52 53 FND. FG. FTG. F.O.S. F.O.C.FACE OF CONCRETE FOUNDATION FACE OF STUD FIXED GLASS FOOTING CHALK BOARDC.B. O.F. O.D. O.C. OBSC. O.F.S. P.B. PARTN. PLWD. PLAS. OPP. P.T.D.F. LAV. LAM. L.D. LAM. LVR. M.E. MAT. MAX. M.B. MAS. MECH. PLAST. M.S. MUL. M.L. MISC. MTL. MIN. MFR. NTS. NOM. N.I.C. M.T.D.F.DRINKING FOUNTAIN DIA. DR. DWG. D.S. DIM. EB. EL. E.J. EA. EQUIP. EMER. ELEC. ELEV. DIAG. EXH. EQ. EXP. EXT. FLR. FIN. F.E. F.D. F.B. F.A. FLRG. (E) EMERGENCY FIRE EXTINGUISHER FIRE ALARM FLOORING FLOOR FINISH FLOOR DRAIN FACE BRICK EQUIPMENT EXHAUST EQUAL EXTERIOR EXPOSED EXISTING QT. P.T. LP P.L. PL. EXPANSION JOINT EXPANSION BOLT EACH ELEVATOR ELECTRICAL ELEVATION DIAMETER DRAWING DOWNSPOUT DIMENSION DOOR DIAGONAL N. NO. DET. DF. DBL. CFL. C.B. C.I. C.J. C.G. CH. CLG. CONST. CBLT. CHT. CER. COL. CLR. C.T. CONT. CTRSK. CORR. C.A.H.R. CONC. COM. d D. LC M. CLEAR ALL HEART REDWOODCERAMIC TILE DOUBLE PENNY DRAIN DOUGLAS FIR DETAIL CONTINUOUS CORRUGATED CONCRETE COMMON COUNTERSINK COUNTER FLASHING CEILING HEIGHT CAST IRON CEILING CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION JOINT COLUMN CLEAR CATCH BASIN COUNTER BOLT CERAMIC CHANNEL CENTER LINE CORNER GUARD PRESSURE TREATED PRESSURE TREATED PLYWOOD QUARRY TILE DOUGLAS FIR PLASTER PLATE LINE PANIC BOLT PARTITION PLATE PROPERTY LINE OVERFLOW DRAIN OUTSIDE FACE OF OUTSIDE DIAMETER/ NOT IN CONTRACT OBSCURE STUD DIMENSION ON CENTER OPPOSITE NOT TO SCALE NOMINAL NUMBER NORTH MEN METAL THRESHOLD MANUFACTURER MACHINE LATH MISCELLANEOUS MULLION MINIMUM MACHINE SCREW METAL EDGE MECHANICAL MACHINE BOLT MATERIAL MAXIMUM MASONRY METAL LOUVER DIMENSION LAMINATED PLASTIC LOUVER LAVATORY LAMINATED A.D. ADJ. A.C. A.B. ALUM. ACOUS A.P. B.W. B.S. B.M. BSMT. BLKG. BLDG. BOT. BRD. BET. ARCH. CAB. @ ARCHITECT BASEMENT BOTH WAYS BOTH SIDES BOTTOM CABINET BOARD BENCH MARK BLOCKING BUILDING BETWEEN ASPHALT CONCRETE AREA DRAIN ALUMINUM ADJUSTABLE ACOUSTICAL ANGLE ACCESS PANEL AT ANCHOR BOLT GLS. GYP. G.S. GRD. GALV. GB. GA. GALVANIZED STEEL GALVANIZED GLASS GRADE GYPSUM GRAB BAR GAUGE GALVANIZED SHEET METAL G.S.M. HDR. HDW. H.B. H.C. HORIZ. HWD. H.M. HR. HT. HOLLOW MTL. HORIZONTAL HEADER HARDWARE HOUR HOSE BIBB HOLLOW CORE HARDWOOD HEIGHT INVERTINV. INSUL. INCL. I.D. INT. INSIDE DIAMETER INSULATION INCLUDE INTERIOR K.D. JAN. J.H. KILN DRIED JOIST HANGER JANITOR S.S.STAINLESS STEEL V.T.W. V.T.R. V.C.P. VERT. WSCT. W.W.F. W.D. W.S. W.P. WD. W/ W.C. V.G. WELDED WIRE FABRIC WINDOW DIMENSION WATERPROOF WOOD SCREW WATER CLOSET WOOD WAINSCOT WITH VENT TO WALL VENT TO ROOF VERTICAL VITRIFIED CLAY VERTICAL GRAIN PIPE V.I.F. T&G. TRD. U.O.S. V.C.T. U.N.O. TEMP. TRPL. STOR. STRUCT. V.B. U.L. T.J. TEL. T.C. T.B. TYP. S/S STL. SUS. UNLESS OTHERWISE VINYL COMPOSITION UNLESS NOTED VERIFY IN FIELD OTHERWISE VINYL BASE TILE UNDERWRITERS TEMPERED LABEL SHOWN TONGUE & GROOVE TOP OF JOIST TOP OF CURB TACKBOARD TELEPHONE TREAD TRIPLE TYPICAL SERVICE SINK STRUCTURAL STORAGE STEEL SUSPENDED RWL. RWD. REQ. REINF. RSR. REV. RAD. SHTG. SPEC. R.H. S.D. SQ. S.M. SIM. SHT. R.O. S.C. SNK. R.E. R.D. RM. REM RIGHT HAND RAIN WATER LEADER SHEETING SIMILAR SHEET SQUARE SHEET METAL SPECIFICATION SASH DIMENSION REDWOOD SOLID CORE SINK RADIUS ROOF DRAIN REVISION RISER REQUIRED REINFORCING ROOM REMOVE ROUGH OPENING RIM ELEVATION FTG. F.P. FG. F.P.FIRE PLACE SDU SECOND DWELLING UNIT PROJECT DIRECTORY OWNER VERBICARO I, LLC ARCHITECT BRAD COX, ARCHITECT, INC. 1155 MERIDIAN AVE., SUITE 208 SAN JOSE, CA 95125 ATTN: JEFF BIBY (408) 838-3667 jeff@bradcoxarchitect.com CIVIL MH ENGINEERING CO. 16075 VINEYARD BOULEVARD MORGAN HILL, CA 95037 ATTN: DAVID FARIA (408) 779-7381 x246 DavidF@mhengineering.com LANDCAPE GREGORY LEWIS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 736 PARK WAY SANTA CRUZ, CA 95065 (831) 359-0960 lewislandscape@sbcglobal.net TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION ZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 517-14-003 V-B HR LOCATED IN WUI AREA YES PROJECT DATA USE RESIDENTIAL GROSS LOT SIZE (ACRES)2.619 AVERAGE SLOPE 49.2% EXISTING SPRINKLERS NO SETBACKS: FRONT LEFT REAR RIGHT 0' -0" 0' -0" 0' -0" 0' -0" HEIGHT (FEET)0' -0"25' -11-1/2"26' -0" EXISTING ALLOWED/ REQUIRED TOTAL PROPOSED STORIES 0 2 2 220' -3" 25' -2" 182' -5" 54' -11" 99' -9" 25' -0" 124' -6" 25' -0" SETBACKS GROSS LOT SIZE (SQ. FT.)114,083 REQUIRES NEW SPRINKLERS YES FLOOD ZONE X EXISTING ADDITION TOTAL PROPOSED FLOOR AREAS FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR GARAGE 0 0 0 2,997 2,177 575 2,997 2,177 575 TOTAL AREA 0 SF 5,749 SF5,749 SF NOTE: FLOOR AREAS ARE TAKEN TO THE EXTERIOR FACE OF EXTERIOR WALLS. NET LOT SIZE (SQ. FT.)90,293 PROJECT DESCRIPTION THIS PROJECT WILL ADD A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE TO AN EXISTING OPEN LOT. IT IS ASSOICATED WITH PLANNING PERMIT 07-288, AND A GRADING PERMIT. SITE A-0 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 A-6 A-7 A-8 A-9 A-10 COVER SHEET WUI CHECKLIST SITE PLAN GARAGE FLOOR PLAN FIRST FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN ROOF PLAN EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS BUILDING SECTIONS ARCHITECTURAL C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 C-5 GRADING AND DRAINAGE COVER SHEET EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN, SECTIONS, AND PROFILE DRIVEWAY SECTIONS, PROFILES, AND DETAILS EROSION CONTROL PLAN CIVIL L1 L2 L3 L4 PLANTING PLAN IRRIGATION PLAN DETAILS LANDSCAPE SPECIFICATIONS LANDSCAPE HR -ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA 4,050 + 78(22) = 5,766 SF HR -ALLOWABLE COVERAGE 11.2 %SITE COVERAGE PERCENTAGE: SITE COVERAGE AREA:10,120 SF 90,293 SFNET LOT SIZE: 15,000 SFALLOWED SITE COVERAGE 25% (22,273) OR 15,000 (WHICHEVER IS LESS) (a) SUBTOTAL IMPERVIOUS FOOTPRINT OF HOUSE AND GARAGE SITE COVERAGE TABLE 3,572 WALKWAYS/DECKS/PATIOS IMPERVIOUS SURFACES TOTAL SF DRIVEWAY OTHER (E. G. CABANA/SHED/POOL/TENNIS COURT) 5,819 729 0 10,120 (b) SUBTOTAL PERVIOUS PERMEABLE PAVER DRIVEWAY 0 PERMEABLE ARTIFICIAL TURF/OTHER PERVIOUS SURFACES TOTAL SF PERMEABLE PAVER WALKWAYS/PATIOS 0 0 0 SITE COVERAGE TOTAL (a) + (b)10,120 SPECIAL NOTES: PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT FINAL APPROVAL, THE PROPERTY SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE VEGETATION CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED IN CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE SECTION 4906, INCLUDING CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE 4291 OR CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE 51182. PER CRC SECTION R327.1.5. AN EARLY WARNING FIRE ALARM SYSTEM INSTALLED BY A LICENSED ALARM CONTRACTOR SHALL BE INSTALLED IN COMPLIANCE WITH NFPA 72A AND CITY OF SARATOGA ORDINANCE 16-60 AND 15-80.090. THE ALARM CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE (3) COPIES OF THE WORKING DRAWINGS TO THE FIRE DISTRICT FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. A PERMIT MUST BE ISSUED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 1. 2. SHEET REVISIONS DATE Brad Cox, Architect, Inc. LEED AP, AIA (408) 838-3667 1155 MERIDIAN AVENUE, SUITE #208 SAN JOSE, CA 95125 BRADLEY J. COX No. C-25753 REN. 06-30-2023 IF THIS DRAWING IS NOT 24" x 36", THEN ITS SIZE HAS BEEN ALTERED, WHICH WILL AFFECT THE SCALE OF THE DRAWINGS. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS, USE GRAPHIC SCALES. THIS DRAWING AND THE INFORMATION ENCLOSED HEREIN IS THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT, BRAD COX, ARCHITECT, INC. 2023 ARCHI T EDE CTSNECIL C A L IF O RNIFO E TATS A07/30/21 A-0 COVER SHEETVERBICARO I, LLC15269 BOHLMAN ROAD, SARATOGA, CA 95070PLANNING SUBMITTALVERBICARO I, LLC NEW RESIDENCE SHEET INDEX ABBREVIATIONS VICINITY MAP PROJECT INFORMATION 15269 BOHLMAN ROAD, SARATOGA CA 95070 3 PERSPECTIVE 3 1 PERSPECTIVE 1 2 PERSPECTIVE 2 REGULATORY APPROVAL STAMP THIS SET OF DRAWINGS SHALL NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION, AND SHALL NOT BE PRESENT AT THE JOBSITE, UNLESS THIS COVER SHEET CONTAINS THE PERMIT STAMP OF APPROVAL FROM THE CORRESPONDING REGULATORY BODY. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR’S RESPONSIBILITY TO MAINTAIN CURRENT CITY APPROVED DOCUMENTS ON SITE, INCLUDING ANY APPROVED SUBSEQUENT REVISIONS TO THE PERMIT SET, ADDENDA, SHOP DRAWINGS, AND SUBMITTALS. 2 2 2 2 2 NO. DATE DESCRIPTION 2 04/07/23 Plan check Revision 2 2 54 WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE NOTES 1. 2. 3. 4. R337.5.2 ROOF COVERINGS.WHERE THE ROOF PROFILE ALLOWS A SPACE BETWEEN THE ROOF COVERING AND ROOF DECKING, THE SPACES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED TO RESIST THE INTRUSION OF FLAMES AND EMBERS, BE FIRESTOPPED WITH APPROVED MATERIALS OR HAVE ONE LAYER OF MINIMUM 72 POUND (32.4 KG) MINERAL-SURFACED NONPERFORATED CAP SHEET COMPLYING WITH ASTM D3909 INSTALLED OVER THE COMBUSTIBLE DECKING. R337.5.3 ROOF VALLEYS.WHERE VALLEY FLASHING IS INSTALLED, THE FLASHING SHALL BE NOT LESS THAN 0.019-INCH (0.48 MM) NO. 26 GAGE GALVANIZED SHEET CORROSION-RESISTANT METAL INSTALLED OVER NOT LESS THAN ONE LAYER OF MINIMUM 72-POUND (32.4 KG) MINERAL-SURFACED NONPERFORATED CAP SHEET COMPLYING WITH ASTM D3909, AT LEAST 36-INCHWIDE (914 MM) RUNNING THE FULL LENGTH OF THE VALLEY. R337.5.4 ROOF GUTTERS. ROOF GUTTERS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH THE MEANS TO PREVENT THE ACCUMULATION OF LEAVES AND DEBRIS IN THE GUTTER. R337.6.2 VENT REQUIREMENTS.VENTILATION OPENINGS FOR ENCLOSED ATTICS, ENCLOSED EAVE SOFFIT SPACES, ENCLOSED RAFTER SPACES FORMED WHERE CEILINGS ARE APPLIED DIRECTLY TO THE UNDERSIDE OF ROOF RAFTERS, AND UNDERFLOOR VENTILATION OPENINGS SHALL BE FULLY COVERED WITH METAL WIRE MESH, VENTS, OTHER MATERIALS, OR OTHER DEVICES THAT MEET ONE OF THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS: 1. VENTS SHALL BE LISTED TO ASTM E2886 AND COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE FOLLOWING: A. THERE SHALL BE NO FLAMING IGNITION OF THE COTTON MATERIAL DURING THE EMBER INTRUSION TEST. B. THERE SHALL BE NO FLAMING IGNITION DURING THE INTEGRITY TEST PORTION OF THE FLAME INTRUSION TEST. C. THE MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE OF THE UNEXPOSED SIDE OF THE VENT SHALL NOT EXCEED 662°F (350°C). 2. VENTS SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE FOLLOWING: A. THE DIMENSIONS OF THE OPENINGS THEREIN SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 1/16 INCH (1.6 MM) AND SHALL NOT EXCEED 1/8 INCH (3.2 MM). B. THE MATERIALS USED SHALL BE NONCOMBUSTIBLE. a. EXCEPTION:VENTS LOCATED UNDER THE ROOF COVERING, ALONG THE RIDGE OF ROOFS, WITH THE EXPOSED SURFACE OF THE VENT COVERED BY NONCOMBUSTIBLE WIRE MESH, MAY BE OF COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS. C. THE MATERIALS USED SHALL BE CORROSION RESISTANT. 5. 6. R337.7.3 EXTERIOR WALLS. THE EXTERIOR WALL COVERING OR WALL ASSEMBLY SHALL COMPLY WITH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS: 1. NONCOMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL. 2. IGNITION-RESISTANT MATERIAL. 3. SAWN LUMBER OR GLUE-LAMINATED WOOD WITH THE SMALLEST MINIMUM NOMINAL DIMENSION OF 4 INCHES (102 MM). SAWN OR GLUE-LAMINATED PLANKS SPLINED, TONGUE-AND-GROVE, OR SET CLOSE TOGETHER AND WELL SPIKED. 4. LOG WALL CONSTRUCTION ASSEMBLY. 5. WALL ASSEMBLIES THAT HAVE BEEN TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEST PROCEDURES FOR A 10-MINUTE DIRECT FLAME CONTACT EXPOSURE TEST SET FORTH IN ASTM E2707 WITH THE CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTANCE SHOWN IN SECTION R337.7.3.1. 6. WALL ASSEMBLIES THAT MEET THE PERFORMANCE CRITERIA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEST PROCEDURES FOR A 10-MINUTE DIRECT FLAME CONTACT EXPOSURE TEST SET FORTH IN SFM STANDARD 12-7A-1. EXCEPTION:ANY OF THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE DEEMED TO MEET THE ASSEMBLY PERFORMANCE CRITERIA AND INTENT OF THIS SECTION: A. ONE LAYER OF 5/8-INCH TYPE X GYPSUM SHEATHING APPLIED BEHIND THE EXTERIOR COVERING OR CLADDING ON THE EXTERIOR SIDE OF THE FRAMING. B. THE EXTERIOR PORTION OF A 1-HOUR FIRE RESISTIVE EXTERIOR WALL ASSEMBLY DESIGNED FOR EXTERIOR FIRE EXPOSURE INCLUDING ASSEMBLIES USING THE GYPSUM PANEL AND SHEATHING PRODUCTS LISTED IN THE GYPSUM ASSOCIATION FIRE RESISTANCE DESIGN MANUAL. R337.7.9 UNDERSIDE OF APPENDAGES.THE UNDERSIDE OF OVERHANGING APPENDAGES SHALL BE ENCLOSED TO GRADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CHAPTER OR THE UNDERSIDE OF THE EXPOSED UNDERFLOOR SHALL CONSIST OF ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. NONCOMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL. 2. IGNITION-RESISTANT MATERIAL. 3. ONE LAYER OF 5/8-INCH TYPE X GYPSUM SHEATHING APPLIED BEHIND AN EXTERIOR COVERING ON THE UNDERSIDE OF THE FLOOR PROJECTION. 4. THE EXTERIOR PORTION OF A 1-HOUR FIRE RESISTIVE EXTERIOR WALL ASSEMBLY APPLIED TO THE UNDERSIDE OF THE FLOOR INCLUDING ASSEMBLIES USING THE GYPSUM PANEL AND SHEATHING PRODUCTS LISTED IN THE GYPSUM ASSOCIATION FIRE RESISTANCE DESIGN MANUAL. 5. THE UNDERSIDE OF A FLOOR ASSEMBLY THAT MEETS THE PERFORMANCE CRITERIA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEST PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN EITHER OF THE FOLLOWING: A. SFM STANDARD 12-7A-3; OR B. ASTM E2957; EXCEPTION:STRUCTURAL COLUMNS AND BEAMS DO NOT REQUIRE PROTECTION WHEN THEY ARE CONSTRUCTED WITH SAWN LUMBER OR GLUE-LAMINATED WOOD WITH THE SMALLEST MINIMUM NOMINAL DIMENSION OF 4 INCHES (102 MM). SAWN OR GLUE-LAMINATED PLANKS SPLINED, TONGUE-AND-GROVE, OR SET CLOSE TOGETHER AND WELL SPIKED. 7. 8. R337.8.2.1 EXTERIOR WINDOWS, SKYLIGHTS AND EXTERIOR GLAZED DOOR ASSEMBLY REQUIREMENTS. EXTERIOR WINDOWS, SKYLIGHTS AND EXTERIOR GLAZED DOOR ASSEMBLIES SHALL COMPLY WITH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS: 1. BE CONSTRUCTED OF MULTIPANE GLAZING WITH A MINIMUM OF ONE TEMPERED PANE MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION R308 SAFETY GLAZING, OR 2. BE CONSTRUCTED OF GLASS BLOCK UNITS, OR 3. HAVE A FIRE-RESISTANCE RATING OF NOT LESS THAN 20 MINUTES WHEN TESTED ACCORDING TO NFPA 257, OR 4. BE TESTED TO MEET THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SFM STANDARD 12-7A-2. R337.8.3 EXTERIOR DOORS. EXTERIOR DOORS SHALL COMPLY WITH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. THE EXTERIOR SURFACE OR CLADDING SHALL BE OF NONCOMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL, OR 2. THE EXTERIOR SURFACE OR CLADDING SHALL BE OF IGNITIONRESISTANT MATERIAL, OR 3. THE EXTERIOR DOOR SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF SOLID CORE WOOD THAT COMPLIES WITH THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS: A. STILES AND RAILS SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 1-3/8 INCHES THICK B. PANELS SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 1-1/4 INCHES THICK, EXCEPT FOR THE EXTERIOR PERIMETER OF THE PANEL THAT SHALL BE PERMITTED TO TAPER TO A TONGUE NOT LESS THAN 3/8 INCH THICK. 4. THE EXTERIOR DOOR ASSEMBLY SHALL HAVE A FIRE-RESISTANCE RATING OF NOT LESS THAN 20 MINUTES WHEN TESTED ACCORDING TO NFPA 252. 5. THE EXTERIOR SURFACE OR CLADDING SHALL BE TESTED TO MEET THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION R337.7.3.1 WHEN TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM E2707. 6. THE EXTERIOR SURFACE OR CLADDING SHALL BE TESTED TO MEET THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SFM STANDARD 12-7A-1. 7. GLAZING IN ANY EXTERIOR DOORS SHALL HAVE MULTIPLE-GLAZED PANELS CONSISTING OF NOT LESS THAN DUAL PANE GLAZING, WITH AT LEAST ONE TEMPERED GLASS PANE. 8. EXTERIOR GARAGE DOORS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH WEATHER STRIPPING TO RESIST THE INTRUSION OF EMBERS FROM ENTERING THROUGH GAPS BETWEEN DOORS AND DOOR OPENINGS WHEN VISIBLE GAPS EXCEED 1/8 INCH. WEATHER STRIPPING OR SEALS SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE BOTTOM, SIDES, AND TOPS OF DOORS TO REDUCE GAPS BETWEEN DOORS AND DOOR OPENINGS TO 1/8 INCH OR LESS. 9. 10. R337.9.3 DECKING SURFACES.THE WALKING SURFACE MATERIAL OF DECKS, PORCHES, BALCONIES AND STAIRS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING MATERIALS: 1. MATERIAL THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION R337.9.4 WHEN TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOTH ASTM E2632 AND ASTM E2726. 2. IGNITION-RESISTANT MATERIAL THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION R337.4.3 WHEN TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM E84 OR UL 723. 3. MATERIAL THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF BOTH SFM STANDARD 12-7A-4 AND SFM STANDARD 12-7A-5. 4. EXTERIOR FIRE RETARDANT TREATED WOOD. 5. NONCOMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL. 6. ANY MATERIAL THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SFM STANDARD 12-7A-4A WHEN ATTACHED EXTERIOR WALL COVERING IS ALSO COMPOSED OF NONCOMBUSTIBLE OR IGNITION-RESISTANT MATERIAL. A. EXCEPTION:WALL MATERIAL MAY BE OF ANY MATERIAL THAT OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THIS CHAPTER WHEN THE DECKING SURFACE MATERIAL COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS ASTM E84 WITH A CLASS B FLAME SPREAD RATING. 7. ANY MATERIAL THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION R337.9.5 WHEN TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM E2632 AND WHEN ATTACHED EXTERIOR WALL COVERING IS ALSO COMPOSED OF ONLY NONCOMBUSTIBLE OR IGNITION-RESISTANT MATERIALS. A. EXCEPTION:WALL MATERIAL SHALL BE PERMITTED TO BE OF ANY MATERIAL THAT OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THIS CHAPTER WHEN THE DECKING SURFACE MATERIAL COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS ASTM E84 WITH A CLASS B FLAME SPREAD INDEX. R109.1.5.3 WEATHER-EXPOSED BALCONY AND WALKING SURFACE WATERPROOFING.WHERE BALCONIES OR OTHER ELEVATED WALKING SURFACES ARE EXPOSED TO WATER FROM DIRECT OR BLOWING RAIN, SNOW, OR IRRIGATION, AND THE STRUCTURAL FRAMING IS PROTECTED BY AN IMPERVIOUS MOISTURE BARRIER, ALL ELEMENTS OF THE IMPERVIOUS MOISTURE BARRIER SYSTEM SHALL NOT BE CONCEALED UNTIL INSPECTED AND APPROVED. EXCEPTION:WHERE SPECIAL INSPECTIONS ARE PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE SECTION 1705.1.1, ITEM 3. DETAILS OF THE SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION OF WUI WILL BE DELINEATED AND DETAILED IN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT PERMIT SET, WHICH IS FORTHCOMING, PENDING PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL. APPLICANT AGREES TO FULLY IMPLEMENT ALL ITEMS OF THE WUI CHECKLIST AND DEFERS SPECIFIC DECISIONS ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF EACH ELEMENT UNTIL THE DESIGN IS PROGRESSED FURTHER TO ENABLE THAT DECISION. INCLUSION OF THE FULL WUI CHECKLIST IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW SET IS EVIDENCE OF APPLICANT’S COMMITMENT TO ADHERE AND FOLLOW THE REQUIREMENTS, AND APPLICANT AGREES TO MAKE WUI COMPLIANCE A CONDITION OF APPROVAL. NOTE: 1. WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS: POTABLE WATER SUPPLIES SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM CONTAMINATION CAUSED BY FIRE PROTECTION WATER SUPPLIES. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT AND ANY CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS TO CONTACT THE WATER PURVEYOR SUPPLYING THE SITE OF SUCH PROJECT, AND TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THAT PURVEYOR. SUCH REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE DESIGN OF ANY WATER-BASED FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS, AND/OR FIRE SUPPRESSION WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM OR STORAGE CONTAINERS THAT MAY BE PHYSICALLY CONNECTED IN ANY MANNER TO AN APPLIANCE CAPABLE OF CAUSING CONTAMINATION OF THE POTABLE WATER SUPPLY OF THE PURVEYOR OF RECORD. FINAL APPROVAL OF THE SYSTEM(S) UNDER CONSIDERATION WILL NOT BE GRANTED BY THIS OFFICE UNTIL COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WATER PURVEYOR OF RECORD ARE DOCUMENTED BY THAT PURVEYOR AS HAVING BEEN MET BY THE APPLICANT(S). 2016 CFC SEC. 903.3.5 AND HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE 13114.7 2. ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION: NEW AND EXISTING BUILDING SHALL HAVE APPROVED ADDRESS NUMBERS, BUILDING NUMBERS OR APPROVED BUILDING IDENTIFICATION PLACED IN POSITION THAT IS PLAINLY LEGIBLE AND VISIBLE FROM THE STREET OR ROAD FRONTING THE PROPERTY. THESE NUMBERS SHALL CONTRAST WITH THEIR BACKGROUND. WHERE REQUIRED BY THE FIRE CODE OFFICIAL, ADDRESS NUMBERS SHALL BE PROVIDED IN ADDITIONAL APPROVED LOCATIONS TO FACILITATE EMERGENCY RESPONSE. ADDRESS NUMBERS SHALL BE ARABIC NUMBERS OR ALPHABETICAL LETTERS. NUMBERS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 4 INCHES (101.6 MM) HIGH WITH A MINIMUM STROKE WIDTH OF 0.5 INCH (12.7 MM). WHERE ACCESS IS BY MEANS OF A PRIVATE ROAD AND THE BUILDING CANNOT BE VIEWED FROM THE PUBLIC WAY, A MONUMENT, POLE OR OTHER SIGN OR MEANS SHALL BE USED TO IDENTIFY THE STRUCTURE. ADDRESS NUMBERS SHALL BE MAINTAINED. CFC SEC.505.1 3. CONSTRUCTION SITE FIRE SAFETY: ALL CONSTRUCTION SITES MUST COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE CFC CHAPTER 33 AND OUR STANDARD DETAIL AND SPECIFICATION SI-7. PROVIDE APPROPRIATE NOTATIONS ON SUBSEQUENT PLAN SUBMITTALS, AS APPROPRIATE TO THE PROJECT. CFC CHP. 33 4. REQUIRED EMERGENCY ACCESS: (NOTED IN ARCHITECT RESPONSE LETTER AND SHEET A-3.0) MINIMUM CLEAR WIDTH: THE MINIMUM CLEAR WIDTH OF FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS ROADS SHALL BE 20 FEET. FACILITIES, BUILDINGS OR PORTIONS OF BUILDINGS HEREAFTER CONSTRUCTED SHALL BE ACCESSIBLE TO FIRE DEPARTMENT APPARATUS BY WAY OF AN APPROVED FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD (INCLUDING BRIDGES AND CULVERTS) WITH AN ASPHALT, CONCRETE OR OTHER APPROVED DRIVING SURFACE CAPABLE IF SUPPORTING THE IMPOSED LOAD OF FIRE APPARATUS WEIGHING AT LEAST 75,000 POUNDS (34,050 KG) OR AS OTHERWISE DETERMINED BY THE FIRE CODE OFFICIAL. THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF THE STRUCTURE AND REVISED LOCATIONS OF PARKING SPACES IMPEDES THE MINIMUM REQUIRED ACCESS TO PORTIONS OF BOTH THE NEW AND EXISTING STRUCTURES. FCF SEC.503 AND SCCFD SD&S A-1 5. FIRE DEPARTMENT (ENGINE) DRIVEWAY TURN-AROUND: (NOTED IN ARCHITECT RESPONSE LETTER AND SHEET A-0.5) PROVIDE AND APPROVED FIRE DEPARTMENT ENGINE DRIVEWAY TURNAROUND WITH A MINIMUM RADIUS OF 44 FEET OUTSIDE AND 23 FEET INSIDE. INSTALLATIONS SHALL CONFORM WITH FIRE DEPARTMENT STANDARD DETAILS AND SPECIFICATION D-1. CFC SEC. 503 6. FIRE ALARM SYSTEM REQUIRED: (NOTED IN ARCHITECT RESPONSE LETTER AND SHEET A-3.0) A FIRE ALARM SYSTEM AS REQUIRED IN CFC SECTION 907 FOR ASSEMBLY OCCUPANCIES SHALL BE INSTALLED AS PER THE CURRENTLY ADOPTED EDITION OF NFPA 72 AS AMENDED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PLANS SHALL BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY OF THIS OFFICE AS A DEFERRED SUBMITTAL BY A PROPERLY LICENSED CONTRACTOR. 7. EMERGENCY GATE/ACCESS GATE REQUIREMENTS: INSTALLATIONS SHALL CONFORM WITH FIRE DEPARTMENT STANDARD DETAILS AND SPECIFICATION G-1 AND, WHEN OPEN SHALL NOT OBSTRUCT ANY PORTION OF THE REQUIRED WIDTH FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS ROADWAYS OR DRIVEWAYS. LOCKS, IF PROVIDED, SHALL BE FIRE DEPARTMENT APPROVED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. GATES ACROSS THE EMERGENCY ACCESS ROADWAYS SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH AN APPROVED ACCESS DEVICES. IF THE GATE ARE OPERATED ELECTRICALLY, AN APPROVED KNOX KEY SWITCH SHALL BE INSTALLED; IF THEY ARE OPERATED MANUALLY, THEN AN APPROVED KNOX PADLOCK SHALL BE INSTALLED. CONTACT WWW.KNOXBOX.COM TO ORDER KEY SWITCH FOR GATE. CFC SEC.503 AND 506. ACCESS GATES UNOBSTRUCTED WIDTH IN THE OPEN POSITION SHALL NOT ENCROACH INTO THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY WIDTH AND WILL BE FIELD VERIFIED. A KNOX KEY SWITCH SHALL BE PROVIDED AND INSTALLED. 8. SPRINKLERS SHALL BE INSTALLED THROUGHOUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH NFPA 13. THE OWNER, OCCUPANTS, AND ANY CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSULTING WITH THE WATER PURVEYOR OF RECORD IN ORDER TO DETERMINE IF ANY MODIFICATIONS OR UPGRADE OF THE EXISTING WATER SERVICE IS REQUIRED. A STATE OF CALIFORNIA LICENSED (C-16) FIRE PROTECTION CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT PLANS, CALCULATIONS, A PERMIT APPLICATION AND APPROPRIATE FEES TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK. FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES SHEET REVISIONS DATE Brad Cox, Architect, Inc. LEED AP, AIA (408) 838-3667 1155 MERIDIAN AVENUE, SUITE #208 SAN JOSE, CA 95125 BRADLEY J. COX No. C-25753 REN. 06-30-2023 IF THIS DRAWING IS NOT 24" x 36", THEN ITS SIZE HAS BEEN ALTERED, WHICH WILL AFFECT THE SCALE OF THE DRAWINGS. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS, USE GRAPHIC SCALES. THIS DRAWING AND THE INFORMATION ENCLOSED HEREIN IS THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT, BRAD COX, ARCHITECT, INC. 2023 ARCHI T EDE CTSNECIL C A L IF O RNIFO E TATS A08/19/21 A-1 WUI CHECKLISTVERBICARO I, LLC15269 BOHLMAN ROAD, SARATOGA, CA 95070PLANNING SUBMITTALNO. DATE DESCRIPTION 2 04/07/23 Plan check Revision 2 55 (SD)(W)(412.32')'22.46=L,"54'20°530=Δ,'00.501=R'82.102=L,"81'02°481=Δ,'65.26=R(112.31')(S85°18'12"E)'78.151 = L ,"20'65°660=Δ,'00.031=R (54.81') (N27°45'46"E) '80.89=L,"64'63°120=Δ,'00.062=R (7 6 .3 1 ') (7 6 .3 1 ') '67.68=L,"64'63°120=Δ,'00.032=R (54.81') (S27°45'46"W)'28.611=L ,"20'65°660=Δ,'00.001=R (112.31')(N85°18'12"W)'97.792=L,"81'02°481=Δ,'65.29=R '54.56=L,"00'00°050=Δ,'00.57=R(75.00')(S39°38'30"E)(i nv 851.88')(i nv 852.57')existing sdmhrim:896.64'inv: 890.59' - 18"∅ cmp ininv: 890.79' - 18" ∅ hdpe out(896)(894)(893)(892)(891)(889)(888)(887)(886)(895)(890)(954)(953)(952)(951)(949)(948)(947)(946)(944) (943)(942)(941)(9 3 9 ) (9 3 8 ) (9 3 7 ) (9 3 6 ) (9 3 4 ) (9 3 3 ) (9 3 2 ) (9 3 1 ) (9 2 9 ) (9 2 8 ) (9 2 7 ) (9 2 6 ) (9 2 4 )(9 2 3 )(9 2 2 )(921)(91 9 )(918)(917)(916)(914)(913)(912)(911)(909)(908)(907)(906)(904)(903)(902)(901) (899) (898) (897) (896)(8 9 4 )(8 9 3 )(8 9 2 )(8 9 1 )(8 8 9 ) (888) (887) (886) (884) (883) (882) (881) (879) (878)(955)(950)(945)(9 4 0 )(9 3 5 ) (9 3 0 ) (9 2 5 )(920)(915)(910)(905)(900) (8 9 5 )(890)(885) (880) (945) (940) (935) (930) (925) (920) (915) (910)(935)(930)(925)(920)(915)(910) (905)(925)(920)(915)(910)(905)(900)(885) (880) (875) (870) (865)(860)(855)(8 5 0 )(900)(895)(890)(885)(880)(875)(870)(865)(860)(855)(850)(905) (900) (895) (890) (885) (880) (875) (870) (865) (860) (905) (900) (895) (890) (885) (880) (8 7 5 )(875)(f l 877.51')(fl 884.17')(fl 889.20')(fl 893.99')(f l 899.02')(fl 905.42') (fl 909.63') (fl 913.88') (ep 954.78') (ep 950.66') (ep 945.73')(ep 943.00')(ep 941.24')(ep 939.67')(ep 933.15')(ep 928.98')(ep 923.25')(ep 919.72')(ep 917.13')(ep 911.09')(ep 905.47')(ep 903.02')(ep 9 0 1.0 3 ')(ep 898.66')(ep 895.72')(ep 890.39')(ep 883.27')(ep 878.36')(ep 878.14')(ep 884.63')(ep 889.62')(ep 894.54')(ep 897.50')(ep 899.56')(ep 901.29')(ep 904.23') (ep 910.18')(ep 915.81')(ep 918.73')(ep 923.52')(ep 929.29')(ep 933.33')(ep 937.08')(ep 940.85') (ep 942.59')(ep 943.95')(ep 946.61') (ep 951.49') (ep 955.55')44(ex. 18"∅ cmpsd)(ex. 18"∅ hdpe sd)(l i mi ts of detai l ed survey)(exi sti ng uti l i ty pol e)(fnd 3/4" i p w/ t ack & t ag, l eani ng, no i d)fnd. 3/4" ip, open(exi st i ng 6"∅ p v c ris e r )(exi st i ng 6"∅ p v c ris e r )(exi st i ng 6"∅ p v c ris e r )(exi sti ng 6"∅ p v c ris e r )(exi st i ng utl i typol e)(exi st i ng ut l i ti ty pol e)(exi sti ng overhead ut i l i ty l i ne)(exi st i ng overhead uti l i t y l i ne)(exi sti ng temporary el ectri c meter)(exi sti ng uti l i ty pol e)exi sti ng 18"cmp cul vert i nv: 900.48'(exi st i ng water val ve)(exi st i ng f i re hydrant)(exi sti ng wat er met er)Bohlman RoadAPN:517-14-030Li ntern,Doc#2312583529M44APN:517-14-031Smi th,Doc#2224071329M44360' R/W360' R/W360' R/W 360' R/W UP DN UP CRC R401.3 DRAINAGE. SURFACE DRAINAGE SHALL BE DIVERTED TO A STORM SEWER CONVEYANCE OR OTHER APPROVED POINT OF COLLECTION THAT DOES NOT CREATE A HAZARD.LOTS SHALL BE GRADED TO DRAIN SURFACE WATER AWAY FROM FOUNDATION WALLS. THE GRADE SHALL FALL A MINIMUM OF 6 INCHES (152 MM) WITHIN THE FIRST 10 FEET (3048 MM). EXCEPTION:WHERE LOT LINES, WALLS, SLOPES OR OTHER PHYSICAL BARRIERS PROHIBIT 6 INCHES (152 MM) OF FALL WITHIN 10 FEET (3048 MM), DRAINS OR SWALES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED TO ENSURE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM THE STRUCTURE. IMPERVIOUS SURFACES WITHIN 10 FEET (3048 MM) OF THE BUILDING FOUNDATION SHALL BE SLOPED A MINIMUM OF 2 PERCENT AWAY FROM THE BUILDING. NO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT OR PRIVATE VEHICLES SHALL PARK OR BE STORED WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY ORDINANCE PROTECTED TREES ON THE SITE. PROVIDE SEWAGE BACKFLOW DEVICE / CHECK VALVE PER SANITATION DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS. GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO DIRECT WATER FLOW TO VEGETATED/LANDSCAPED AREAS AND ALLOW STORM WATER TO PERCOLATE INTO THE SITE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. SITE GENERAL NOTES 1. 2. 3. 4. 1 A-10 2 A-10 30' - 0" R.O.W.36" MIN.3 6 " M IN .RETAINING WALL ON THIS SIDE NOT TO EXCEED 12' FROM GRADE DESIGN INTENT IS TO HAVE NO RETAINING WALL ON THIS SIDE, AND A 2:1 SLOPE TO TOE AT NEIGHBORS PROPOERTY 3 A-10 26.03 33.02 220' - 3" 2 5 ' - 2 " 182' -5" T O R E A R P L RAIN GARDEN 5 4 ' - 1 1 "25' -8" RI GHT SETBACK25' -0" LEFT SETBACK 98' -9" FRONT SETBACKL O T W ID T H 1 1 9 ' - 0 "L OT DEPTH 4 9 8 ' - 0 "NSEW124' -6" R E A R S E T B A C K SHEET REVISIONS DATE Brad Cox, Architect, Inc. LEED AP, AIA (408) 838-3667 1155 MERIDIAN AVENUE, SUITE #208 SAN JOSE, CA 95125 BRADLEY J. COX No. C-25753 REN. 06-30-2023 IF THIS DRAWING IS NOT 24" x 36", THEN ITS SIZE HAS BEEN ALTERED, WHICH WILL AFFECT THE SCALE OF THE DRAWINGS. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS, USE GRAPHIC SCALES. THIS DRAWING AND THE INFORMATION ENCLOSED HEREIN IS THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT, BRAD COX, ARCHITECT, INC. 2023 ARCHI T EDE CTSNECIL C A L IF O RNIFO E TATS AREGULATORY APPROVAL STAMP 07/30/21 A-2 SITE PLANVERBICARO I, LLC15269 BOHLMAN ROAD, SARATOGA, CA 95070PLANNING SUBMITTAL1" = 20'-0"1 SITE PLAN KEYNOTES NO.NOTE 26.03 ELECTRICAL MAIN PANEL AND METER. 33.02 (E) OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL SERVICE TO REMAIN NO. DATE DESCRIPTION 2 04/07/23 Plan check Revision 2 2 56 UP UP 1 A-10 2 A-10 10 9 9.1 8 6 7.2 7.1 74321.11 J H G F 5 8.1 A B C D E K A-7 2 A-9 2 A-7 1 A-9 1 A-8 2 3 A-10 GARAGE +9'-6" 09.26 03.21 03.21 24' - 5"20' - 5"4' - 6"12' - 7" 575 SF GARAGE EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN PROPOSED PLAN LEGEND: 2x4 WALL NEW 1-HOUR RATED WALL TO BE ADDED, OR (E) WALL TO BE VERIFIED IN FIELD NEW WINDOW OR DOOR TO BE INSTALLED (WHERE "XXXX" INDICATES THE SIZE) RETROFIT WINDOW OR DOOR TO BE INSTALLED (WHERE "XXXX" INDICATES THE SIZE) (N) XXXX (R) XXXX EXISTING WINDOW OR DOOR TO REMAIN (WHERE "XXXX" INDICATES THE SIZE) (E) XXXX 2x6 WALL DOOR SYMBOL WINDOW SYMBOL XXX XXX SHEET REVISIONS DATE Brad Cox, Architect, Inc. LEED AP, AIA (408) 838-3667 1155 MERIDIAN AVENUE, SUITE #208 SAN JOSE, CA 95125 BRADLEY J. COX No. C-25753 REN. 06-30-2023 IF THIS DRAWING IS NOT 24" x 36", THEN ITS SIZE HAS BEEN ALTERED, WHICH WILL AFFECT THE SCALE OF THE DRAWINGS. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS, USE GRAPHIC SCALES. THIS DRAWING AND THE INFORMATION ENCLOSED HEREIN IS THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT, BRAD COX, ARCHITECT, INC. 2023 ARCHI T EDE CTSNECIL C A L IF O RNIFO E TATS AREGULATORY APPROVAL STAMP 07/30/21 A-3 GARAGE FLOOR PLANVERBICARO I, LLC15269 BOHLMAN ROAD, SARATOGA, CA 95070PLANNING SUBMITTAL3/16" = 1'-0"1 GARAGE FLOOR PLAN 1/16" = 1'-0"2 GARAGE FLOOR AREA PLAN KEYNOTES NO.NOTE 03.21 TERRACOTTA STEPS WITH TILE RISERS. 09.26 1-HOUR RATED WALL CONSTRUCTION TO UNDERSIDE OF ROOF SHEATHING, BETWEEN GARAGE AND HOUSE. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION 57 DN UP DN UP DN DN UP DN UP DN 1 A-10 2 A-10 23' - 8"46' - 2 1/2"11' - 5"13' - 0"13' - 0"5' - 7" 12' - 8"37' - 5"19' - 6"4' - 0" 10 9 9.1 8 6 7.2 7.1 74321.11 J H G F 5 8.1 A B C D E K 12' - 0"18' - 1 1/2" A-7 2 A-9 2 A-7 1 N S E W4' - 5"A-9 1 A-8 1 A-8 2 6' - 0"9' - 0"FAUFAU53' - 7 1/2" 74' - 6" 30' - 4 1/2" 23' - 6"12' - 0"39' - 0" 3 A-10 FAMILY ROOM NOOK DINING KITCHEN PANTRY HALL GALLERY MECH. LAUNDRY LIVING ENTRY TERRACE OFFICE STOR. DECK +10'-0" +10'-0" +10'-0" +10'-0" +10'-0" +10'-0" +10'-0" VAULTED 06.06 06.22 08.03 08.06 POWDER REF DW FZR 22.15 22.15 22.0923.0323.03 10.09 03.21 03.21 08.06 MW 22.09 05.09 06.48 26.03 06.36 10.03 10.09 22.09 10.25DW 10.10 10.26 WINE WINE ICE W/D23.15 2997 SF FIRST 214 SF PATIO 515 SF PATIO EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN PROPOSED PLAN LEGEND: 2x4 WALL NEW 1-HOUR RATED WALL TO BE ADDED, OR (E) WALL TO BE VERIFIED IN FIELD NEW WINDOW OR DOOR TO BE INSTALLED (WHERE "XXXX" INDICATES THE SIZE) RETROFIT WINDOW OR DOOR TO BE INSTALLED (WHERE "XXXX" INDICATES THE SIZE) (N) XXXX (R) XXXX EXISTING WINDOW OR DOOR TO REMAIN (WHERE "XXXX" INDICATES THE SIZE) (E) XXXX 2x6 WALL DOOR SYMBOL WINDOW SYMBOL XXX XXX SHEET REVISIONS DATE Brad Cox, Architect, Inc. LEED AP, AIA (408) 838-3667 1155 MERIDIAN AVENUE, SUITE #208 SAN JOSE, CA 95125 BRADLEY J. COX No. C-25753 REN. 06-30-2023 IF THIS DRAWING IS NOT 24" x 36", THEN ITS SIZE HAS BEEN ALTERED, WHICH WILL AFFECT THE SCALE OF THE DRAWINGS. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS, USE GRAPHIC SCALES. THIS DRAWING AND THE INFORMATION ENCLOSED HEREIN IS THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT, BRAD COX, ARCHITECT, INC. 2023 ARCHI T EDE CTSNECIL C A L IF O RNIFO E TATS AREGULATORY APPROVAL STAMP 07/30/21 A-4 FIRST FLOOR PLANVERBICARO I, LLC15269 BOHLMAN ROAD, SARATOGA, CA 95070PLANNING SUBMITTAL3/16" = 1'-0"1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN 1/16" = 1'-0"2 FIRST FLOOR AREA PLAN KEYNOTES NO.NOTE 03.21 TERRACOTTA STEPS WITH TILE RISERS. 05.09 42" HIGH DARK BRONZE METAL GUARD RAILS, TYPICAL 06.06 2X6 WOOD STUD WALL 06.22 CUSTOM BUILT-IN CASEWORK, COORDINATE WITH OWNER 06.36 STAIRWAY 06.48 DARK STAINED WOOD TIMBER POST, TYPICAL 08.03 MARVIN BRONZE COLORED CLAD WINDOWS, OR APPROVED EQUAL, AS SELECTED BY OWNER, TYPICAL. 08.06 MARVIN BRONZE COLORED CLAD WOOD DOORS, OR APPROVED EQUAL, AS SELECTED BY OWNER, TYPICAL. 10.03 36" RANGE W/ 100CFM MIN. RANGE HOOD W/ INTEGRATED TASK LIGHTING 10.09 24" DISHWASHER 10.10 24" UNDERCOUNTER MICROWAVE 10.25 WINE STORAGE AND DISPLAY AREA 10.26 STACKABLE CLOTHES WASHER AND DRYER, AS SELECTED BY OWNER. 22.09 SINK, AS SELECTED BY OWNER 22.15 TOILET, AS SELECTED BY OWNER 23.03 DIRECT VENT FURNACE/AC SYSTEM 23.15 FAUX FIREPLACE SCULPTURE 26.03 ELECTRICAL MAIN PANEL AND METER. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION 58 DN DN DN DN 1 A-10 2 A-10 39' - 0" 9' - 8" 12' - 7" 46' - 2 1/2" 4' - 0" 10 9 9.1 8 6 7.2 7.1 74321.11 J H G F 5 8.1 A B C D E K 12' - 0"6' - 0"4' - 5"23' - 8"19' - 6" 3' - 6 1/2" A-7 2 A-9 2 A-7 1 N S E W A-9 1 A-8 1 A-8 2 3 A-10 34' - 1 1/2"19' - 6" 74' - 6" 12' - 1 1/2" 2' - 2" 18' - 3" 18' - 3" 53' - 7 1/2" MAIN BEDROOM MAIN BATH MAIN CLOSET CL. BALCONY BEDROOM 3 BATH 2 BEDROOM 2 OPEN TO BELOW BEDROOM 4BATH 4 VAULTED +8'-0" +8'-0" +8'-0" +8'-0" +8'-0" CL. CL. LAU. 10.13 10.17 22.09 22.15 22.09 22.15 22.09 22.15 22.24 22.09 08.03 08.06 06.06 W D 06.4806.46 05.09 06.36 06.36 CAB. BATH 3 2177 SF SECOND EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN PROPOSED PLAN LEGEND: 2x4 WALL NEW 1-HOUR RATED WALL TO BE ADDED, OR (E) WALL TO BE VERIFIED IN FIELD NEW WINDOW OR DOOR TO BE INSTALLED (WHERE "XXXX" INDICATES THE SIZE) RETROFIT WINDOW OR DOOR TO BE INSTALLED (WHERE "XXXX" INDICATES THE SIZE) (N) XXXX (R) XXXX EXISTING WINDOW OR DOOR TO REMAIN (WHERE "XXXX" INDICATES THE SIZE) (E) XXXX 2x6 WALL DOOR SYMBOL WINDOW SYMBOL XXX XXX SHEET REVISIONS DATE Brad Cox, Architect, Inc. LEED AP, AIA (408) 838-3667 1155 MERIDIAN AVENUE, SUITE #208 SAN JOSE, CA 95125 BRADLEY J. COX No. C-25753 REN. 06-30-2023 IF THIS DRAWING IS NOT 24" x 36", THEN ITS SIZE HAS BEEN ALTERED, WHICH WILL AFFECT THE SCALE OF THE DRAWINGS. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS, USE GRAPHIC SCALES. THIS DRAWING AND THE INFORMATION ENCLOSED HEREIN IS THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT, BRAD COX, ARCHITECT, INC. 2023 ARCHI T EDE CTSNECIL C A L IF O RNIFO E TATS AREGULATORY APPROVAL STAMP 07/30/21 A-5 SECOND FLOOR PLANVERBICARO I, LLC15269 BOHLMAN ROAD, SARATOGA, CA 95070PLANNING SUBMITTAL3/16" = 1'-0"1 SECOND FLOOR PLAN 1/16" = 1'-0"2 SECOND FLOOR AREA PLAN KEYNOTES NO.NOTE 05.09 42" HIGH DARK BRONZE METAL GUARD RAILS, TYPICAL 06.06 2X6 WOOD STUD WALL 06.36 STAIRWAY 06.46 WOOD DECK 06.48 DARK STAINED WOOD TIMBER POST, TYPICAL 08.03 MARVIN BRONZE COLORED CLAD WINDOWS, OR APPROVED EQUAL, AS SELECTED BY OWNER, TYPICAL. 08.06 MARVIN BRONZE COLORED CLAD WOOD DOORS, OR APPROVED EQUAL, AS SELECTED BY OWNER, TYPICAL. 10.13 CLOTHES WASHER, AS SELECTED BY OWNER. 10.17 CLOTHES DRYER, AS SELECTED BY OWNER. 22.09 SINK, AS SELECTED BY OWNER 22.15 TOILET, AS SELECTED BY OWNER 22.24 SHOWER WITH TEMPERED GLASS SURROUND. PROVIDE A MINIMUM FINISHED INTERIOR AREA OF 1,024 SQUARE INCHES, AND A MINIMUM CLEAR CIRCULAR SPACE HAVING A 30 INCH DIAMETER. PROVIDE A SMOOTH, HARD, NON-ABSORBANT MATERIAL ON WALLS UP TO 72". STYLE AS SELECTED BY OWNER. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION 59 PROPOSED ROOF LEGEND: WALL LOUVERED VENT STATIC ROOF VENT 6" x 6" OPENING ON LOWER ROOF PLYWOOD HOLES IN BAY BLOCKING, PER VENTING CALCULATION SCREENED EAVE VENT RIDGE VENT SCREENED CONTINUOUS EAVE VENT NOTE: ALL VENTING QUANTITIES AND LOCATIONS ARE TO BE PER VENTING CALCULATION PROVIDED. IF ANY QUESTIONS ARISE, PLEASE CONTACT THE ARCHITECT. DIRECTION OF SLOPE NEW ROOF FINISH NEW ROOF STRUCTURE AND FINISH EAVE INTAKE VENT ON ROOF LOW PROFILE DORMER VENT EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN FOR SPECIFIC ROOFING PRODUCT SELECTED BY OWNER, FOLLOW MANUFACTURE’S INSTALLATION RECOMMENDATIONS. AT ROOF SLOPES LESS THAN 4:12, USE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS TO RETAIN ROOFING WARRANTEES: a.ADD ADHESIVE BITUTHANE UNDERLAYMENT (SUCH AS GRACE ICE AND WATER SHIELD, CERTAINTEED WINTERGUARD, OR EQUAL) TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL WEATHER PROTECTION AT LOWER SLOPED ROOFS, PER MANUFACTURER’S RECOMMENDATIONS, OR b.IF MANUFACTURER ALLOWS, ADD 2 LAYERS OF 30# FELT IN LIEU OF ADHESIVE BITUTHANE UNDERLAYMENT, OR c.FOLLOW OTHER SPECIFIC MANUFACTURE’S RECOMMENDATION AT LOWER SLOPED ROOFS. FOR TYPICAL ROOF INSULATION, SEE SECTION ON SHEET A-7.0. ROOF GENERAL NOTES 1. 2. 1 A-10 2 A-10 10 9 9.1 8 6 7.2 7.1 74321.11 J H G F 5 8.1 A B C D E K A-7 2 A-9 2 A-7 1 A-9 1 A-8 1 A-8 2 3 A-10 N S E WSLOPESLOPESLOPESLOPESLOPE3:123:124:124:124:124:124:12 4:12 SLOPESLOPESLOPESLOPE4:124:12SLOPE07.08 05.03 07.08 06.19 07.08 05.032:12SLOPESHEET REVISIONS DATE Brad Cox, Architect, Inc. LEED AP, AIA (408) 838-3667 1155 MERIDIAN AVENUE, SUITE #208 SAN JOSE, CA 95125 BRADLEY J. COX No. C-25753 REN. 06-30-2023 IF THIS DRAWING IS NOT 24" x 36", THEN ITS SIZE HAS BEEN ALTERED, WHICH WILL AFFECT THE SCALE OF THE DRAWINGS. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS, USE GRAPHIC SCALES. THIS DRAWING AND THE INFORMATION ENCLOSED HEREIN IS THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT, BRAD COX, ARCHITECT, INC. 2023 ARCHI T EDE CTSNECIL C A L IF O RNIFO E TATS AREGULATORY APPROVAL STAMP 07/30/21 A-6 ROOF PLANVERBICARO I, LLC15269 BOHLMAN ROAD, SARATOGA, CA 95070PLANNING SUBMITTAL3/16" = 1'-0"1 ROOF PLAN KEYNOTES NO.NOTE 05.03 DARK BRONZE COLORED METAL GUTTERS, TYPICAL 06.19 DARK STAINED WOOD FASCIA, TYPICAL 07.08 CLASS 'C' PRESIDENTIAL SHAKE TL COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING IN AUTUMN BLEND, ROOFING FASTENERS ARE TO BE CORROSION RESISTANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CRC R905.2.5, UNDERLAYMENT SHALL BE MINIMUM 15# FELT NO. DATE DESCRIPTION 60 First Floor 906' -4" Second Floor 917' -4" Roof 930' -10" T.O.P. -First 916' -4" T.O.P. -Second 925' -4" Middle Floor 912' -4" Garage Floor 901' -10" J H G FK 05.03 08.03 08.05 09.03 08.2608.2603.21 07.08 05.12 03.21 05.09 06.19 Average Grade 904' -10 1/2" 18' Above Average Grade 922' -10 1/2" 26' Above Average Grade 930' -10 1/2" N A T U R AL G R A D E FINISHED GRADE First Floor 906' -4" Second Floor 917' -4" Roof 930' -10" T.O.P. -First 916' -4" T.O.P. -Second 925' -4" 1 A-10 Middle Floor 912' -4" Garage Floor 901' -10" 1099.187.27.17 8.1 05.03 06.19 07.08 08.06 07.08 09.03 05.12 08.03 07.08 09.03 26.03 05.03 Average Grade 904' -10 1/2" 18' Above Average Grade 922' -10 1/2" 26' Above Average Grade 930' -10 1/2" NATURAL GRADE FINISHED GRADE SHEET REVISIONS DATE Brad Cox, Architect, Inc. LEED AP, AIA (408) 838-3667 1155 MERIDIAN AVENUE, SUITE #208 SAN JOSE, CA 95125 BRADLEY J. COX No. C-25753 REN. 06-30-2023 IF THIS DRAWING IS NOT 24" x 36", THEN ITS SIZE HAS BEEN ALTERED, WHICH WILL AFFECT THE SCALE OF THE DRAWINGS. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS, USE GRAPHIC SCALES. THIS DRAWING AND THE INFORMATION ENCLOSED HEREIN IS THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT, BRAD COX, ARCHITECT, INC. 2023 ARCHI T EDE CTSNECIL C A L IF O RNIFO E TATS AREGULATORY APPROVAL STAMP 07/30/21 A-7 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSVERBICARO I, LLC15269 BOHLMAN ROAD, SARATOGA, CA 95070PLANNING SUBMITTAL3/16" = 1'-0"1 FRONT ELEVATION (EAST) 3/16" = 1'-0"2 LEFT FRONT ELEVATION (SOUTH) KEYNOTES NO.NOTE 03.21 TERRACOTTA STEPS WITH TILE RISERS. 05.03 DARK BRONZE COLORED METAL GUTTERS, TYPICAL 05.09 42" HIGH DARK BRONZE METAL GUARD RAILS, TYPICAL 05.12 36" HIGH DARK BRONZE METAL STAIR HANDRAILS, TYPICAL 06.19 DARK STAINED WOOD FASCIA, TYPICAL 07.08 CLASS 'C' PRESIDENTIAL SHAKE TL COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING IN AUTUMN BLEND, ROOFING FASTENERS ARE TO BE CORROSION RESISTANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CRC R905.2.5, UNDERLAYMENT SHALL BE MINIMUM 15# FELT 08.03 MARVIN BRONZE COLORED CLAD WINDOWS, OR APPROVED EQUAL, AS SELECTED BY OWNER, TYPICAL. 08.05 CUSTOM DARK STAINED WOOD ENTRY DOOR, OR APPROVED EQUAL, AS SELECTED BY OWNER, TYPICAL. 08.06 MARVIN BRONZE COLORED CLAD WOOD DOORS, OR APPROVED EQUAL, AS SELECTED BY OWNER, TYPICAL. 08.26 CUSTOM DARK STAINED WOOD CARRIAGE STYLE GARAGE DOORS, AS SELECTED BY OWNER, TYPICAL 09.03 DAVIS COLORS #641 "PEBBLE" INTEGRAL COLORED 3 COAT, 7/8" SMOOTHE TROWELED STUCCO WALL FINISH OVER 2 LAYERS GRADE D PAPER, AND 26 GA. GALVANIZED WEEP SCREED AT FOUNDATION PLATE LINE AT LEAST 4" ABOVE GRADE (OR 2" ABOVE CONCRETE PAVING) PER CRC R703.6, OR APPROVED EQUAL, TYPICAL 26.03 ELECTRICAL MAIN PANEL AND METER. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION 2 04/07/23 Plan check Revision 22 2 2 2 2 61 First Floor 906' -4" Second Floor 917' -4" Roof 930' -10" T.O.P. -First 916' -4" T.O.P. -Second 925' -4" 2 A-10 Middle Floor 912' -4" Garage Floor 901' -10" 64321.11 5 3 A-10 07.0807.08 05.03 06.19 09.03 05.12 08.2608.26 08.06 07.08 05.09 26.03 06.49 Average Grade 904' -10 1/2" 18' Above Average Grade 922' -10 1/2" 26' Above Average Grade 930' -10 1/2" NATURAL GRADE FINISHED GRADE First Floor 906' -4" Second Floor 917' -4" Roof 930' -10" T.O.P. -First 916' -4" T.O.P. -Second 925' -4" Middle Floor 912' -4" Garage Floor 901' -10" A B C D E 07.08 07.08 08.06 08.03 05.09 06.48 06.19 05.03 06.19 Average Grade 904' -10 1/2" 18' Above Average Grade 922' -10 1/2" 26' Above Average Grade 930' -10 1/2" N A T U R A L G R A D E FINISHED GRADE SHEET REVISIONS DATE Brad Cox, Architect, Inc. LEED AP, AIA (408) 838-3667 1155 MERIDIAN AVENUE, SUITE #208 SAN JOSE, CA 95125 BRADLEY J. COX No. C-25753 REN. 06-30-2023 IF THIS DRAWING IS NOT 24" x 36", THEN ITS SIZE HAS BEEN ALTERED, WHICH WILL AFFECT THE SCALE OF THE DRAWINGS. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS, USE GRAPHIC SCALES. THIS DRAWING AND THE INFORMATION ENCLOSED HEREIN IS THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT, BRAD COX, ARCHITECT, INC. 2023 ARCHI T EDE CTSNECIL C A L IF O RNIFO E TATS AREGULATORY APPROVAL STAMP 07/30/21 A-8 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSVERBICARO I, LLC15269 BOHLMAN ROAD, SARATOGA, CA 95070PLANNING SUBMITTAL3/16" = 1'-0"1 LEFT REAR ELEVATION (SOUTH EAST) 3/16" = 1'-0"2 REAR ELEVATION (SOUTHWEST) KEYNOTES NO.NOTE 05.03 DARK BRONZE COLORED METAL GUTTERS, TYPICAL 05.09 42" HIGH DARK BRONZE METAL GUARD RAILS, TYPICAL 05.12 36" HIGH DARK BRONZE METAL STAIR HANDRAILS, TYPICAL 06.19 DARK STAINED WOOD FASCIA, TYPICAL 06.48 DARK STAINED WOOD TIMBER POST, TYPICAL 06.49 DARK STAINED WOOD TIMBER HEADER, TYPICAL 07.08 CLASS 'C' PRESIDENTIAL SHAKE TL COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING IN AUTUMN BLEND, ROOFING FASTENERS ARE TO BE CORROSION RESISTANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CRC R905.2.5, UNDERLAYMENT SHALL BE MINIMUM 15# FELT 08.03 MARVIN BRONZE COLORED CLAD WINDOWS, OR APPROVED EQUAL, AS SELECTED BY OWNER, TYPICAL. 08.06 MARVIN BRONZE COLORED CLAD WOOD DOORS, OR APPROVED EQUAL, AS SELECTED BY OWNER, TYPICAL. 08.26 CUSTOM DARK STAINED WOOD CARRIAGE STYLE GARAGE DOORS, AS SELECTED BY OWNER, TYPICAL 09.03 DAVIS COLORS #641 "PEBBLE" INTEGRAL COLORED 3 COAT, 7/8" SMOOTHE TROWELED STUCCO WALL FINISH OVER 2 LAYERS GRADE D PAPER, AND 26 GA. GALVANIZED WEEP SCREED AT FOUNDATION PLATE LINE AT LEAST 4" ABOVE GRADE (OR 2" ABOVE CONCRETE PAVING) PER CRC R703.6, OR APPROVED EQUAL, TYPICAL 26.03 ELECTRICAL MAIN PANEL AND METER. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION 2 04/07/23 Plan check Revision 2 2 2 2 62 First Floor 906' -4" Second Floor 917' -4" Roof 930' -10" T.O.P. -First 916' -4" T.O.P. -Second 925' -4" 1 A-10 Middle Floor 912' -4" Garage Floor 901' -10" 10 99.1 8 7.2 7.1 78.1 07.08 07.08 07.08 07.08 06.19 05.09 08.03 08.06 05.09 06.48 05.03 06.48 Average Grade 904' -10 1/2" 18' Above Average Grade 922' -10 1/2" 26' Above Average Grade 930' -10 1/2" NATURAL GRADE FINISHED GRADE First Floor 906' -4" Second Floor 917' -4" Roof 930' -10" T.O.P. -First 916' -4" T.O.P. -Second 925' -4" 2 A-10 Middle Floor 912' -4" Garage Floor 901' -10" 6 4 3 2 1.1 15 3 A-10 07.0807.08 07.08 05.09 05.12 06.48 05.03 08.03 07.08 Average Grade 904' -10 1/2" 18' Above Average Grade 922' -10 1/2" 26' Above Average Grade 930' -10 1/2" NATURAL GRADE FINISHED GRADE SHEET REVISIONS DATE Brad Cox, Architect, Inc. LEED AP, AIA (408) 838-3667 1155 MERIDIAN AVENUE, SUITE #208 SAN JOSE, CA 95125 BRADLEY J. COX No. C-25753 REN. 06-30-2023 IF THIS DRAWING IS NOT 24" x 36", THEN ITS SIZE HAS BEEN ALTERED, WHICH WILL AFFECT THE SCALE OF THE DRAWINGS. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS, USE GRAPHIC SCALES. THIS DRAWING AND THE INFORMATION ENCLOSED HEREIN IS THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT, BRAD COX, ARCHITECT, INC. 2023 ARCHI T EDE CTSNECIL C A L IF O RNIFO E TATS AREGULATORY APPROVAL STAMP 07/30/21 A-9 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSVERBICARO I, LLC15269 BOHLMAN ROAD, SARATOGA, CA 95070PLANNING SUBMITTAL3/16" = 1'-0"2 RIGHT FRONT ELEVATION (NORTH) 3/16" = 1'-0"1 RIGHT REAR ELEVATION (NORTHWEST) KEYNOTES NO.NOTE 05.03 DARK BRONZE COLORED METAL GUTTERS, TYPICAL 05.09 42" HIGH DARK BRONZE METAL GUARD RAILS, TYPICAL 05.12 36" HIGH DARK BRONZE METAL STAIR HANDRAILS, TYPICAL 06.19 DARK STAINED WOOD FASCIA, TYPICAL 06.48 DARK STAINED WOOD TIMBER POST, TYPICAL 07.08 CLASS 'C' PRESIDENTIAL SHAKE TL COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING IN AUTUMN BLEND, ROOFING FASTENERS ARE TO BE CORROSION RESISTANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CRC R905.2.5, UNDERLAYMENT SHALL BE MINIMUM 15# FELT 08.03 MARVIN BRONZE COLORED CLAD WINDOWS, OR APPROVED EQUAL, AS SELECTED BY OWNER, TYPICAL. 08.06 MARVIN BRONZE COLORED CLAD WOOD DOORS, OR APPROVED EQUAL, AS SELECTED BY OWNER, TYPICAL. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION 2 04/07/23 Plan check Revision 2 2 2 63 First Floor 906' -4" Second Floor 917' -4" Roof 930' -10" T.O.P. -First 916' -4" T.O.P. -Second 925' -4" Middle Floor 912' -4" Garage Floor 901' -10" J H G FK 07.08 05.03 06.19 08.03 08.06 05.12 03.21 08.06 09.03 06.48 Average Grade 904' -10 1/2" 18' Above Average Grade 922' -10 1/2" 26' Above Average Grade 930' -10 1/2" 895' - 9" 06.49 First Floor 906' -4" Second Floor 917' -4" Roof 930' -10" T.O.P. -First 916' -4" T.O.P. -Second 925' -4"11' - 0"8' - 0"ABCDE 914' - 0" 07.08 05.09 06.48 05.03 06.19 03.21 09.03 06.15 Average Grade 904' -10 1/2" 18' Above Average Grade 922' -10 1/2" 26' Above Average Grade 930' -10 1/2" First Floor 906' -4" Second Floor 917' -4" Roof 930' -10" T.O.P. -First 916' -4" T.O.P. -Second 925' -4" ABCDE 05.03 06.19 08.03 06.06 Average Grade 904' -10 1/2" 18' Above Average Grade 922' -10 1/2" 26' Above Average Grade 930' -10 1/2" AVERAGE ELEVATION POINT (BASED ON HIGHEST AND LOWEST POINTS ABOVE) TOP MOST ELEVATION POINT -MEASURED FROM AVERAGE POINT (ABOVE) TO THE TOP MOST POINT OF THE ROOF. INCLUDE SEPARATE CALCULATIONS FOR CHIMNEY, ETC. LOWEST ELEVATION POINT AT THE BUILDING'S EDGE FROM NATURAL GRADE HEIGHT INFORMATION TABLE 895' -9" HIGHEST ELEVATION POINT AT THE BUILDING'S EDGE FROM NATURAL GRADE 914' -0" 904' -10-1/2" 930' -10-1/2" HEIGHT FOOT ELEVATION SHEET REVISIONS DATE Brad Cox, Architect, Inc. LEED AP, AIA (408) 838-3667 1155 MERIDIAN AVENUE, SUITE #208 SAN JOSE, CA 95125 BRADLEY J. COX No. C-25753 REN. 06-30-2023 IF THIS DRAWING IS NOT 24" x 36", THEN ITS SIZE HAS BEEN ALTERED, WHICH WILL AFFECT THE SCALE OF THE DRAWINGS. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS, USE GRAPHIC SCALES. THIS DRAWING AND THE INFORMATION ENCLOSED HEREIN IS THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT, BRAD COX, ARCHITECT, INC. 2023 ARCHI T EDE CTSNECIL C A L IF O RNIFO E TATS AREGULATORY APPROVAL STAMP 07/30/21 A-10 BUILDING SECTIONSVERBICARO I, LLC15269 BOHLMAN ROAD, SARATOGA, CA 95070PLANNING SUBMITTAL3/16" = 1'-0"1 SECTION @ FRONT OF HOUSE 3/16" = 1'-0"2 SECTION @ MIDDLE OF HOUSE 3/16" = 1'-0"3 SECTION @ REAR OF HOUSE KEYNOTES NO.NOTE 03.21 TERRACOTTA STEPS WITH TILE RISERS. 05.03 DARK BRONZE COLORED METAL GUTTERS, TYPICAL 05.09 42" HIGH DARK BRONZE METAL GUARD RAILS, TYPICAL 05.12 36" HIGH DARK BRONZE METAL STAIR HANDRAILS, TYPICAL 06.06 2X6 WOOD STUD WALL 06.15 2x WOOD STUD ROOF FRAMING 06.19 DARK STAINED WOOD FASCIA, TYPICAL 06.48 DARK STAINED WOOD TIMBER POST, TYPICAL 06.49 DARK STAINED WOOD TIMBER HEADER, TYPICAL 07.08 CLASS 'C' PRESIDENTIAL SHAKE TL COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING IN AUTUMN BLEND, ROOFING FASTENERS ARE TO BE CORROSION RESISTANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CRC R905.2.5, UNDERLAYMENT SHALL BE MINIMUM 15# FELT 08.03 MARVIN BRONZE COLORED CLAD WINDOWS, OR APPROVED EQUAL, AS SELECTED BY OWNER, TYPICAL. 08.06 MARVIN BRONZE COLORED CLAD WOOD DOORS, OR APPROVED EQUAL, AS SELECTED BY OWNER, TYPICAL. 09.03 DAVIS COLORS #641 "PEBBLE" INTEGRAL COLORED 3 COAT, 7/8" SMOOTHE TROWELED STUCCO WALL FINISH OVER 2 LAYERS GRADE D PAPER, AND 26 GA. GALVANIZED WEEP SCREED AT FOUNDATION PLATE LINE AT LEAST 4" ABOVE GRADE (OR 2" ABOVE CONCRETE PAVING) PER CRC R703.6, OR APPROVED EQUAL, TYPICAL NO. DATE DESCRIPTION 64 (SD)(SD)(W)(EOH) (EOH) (EOH) (EOH)(EOH)(EOH)>>>>>>>GW W XX Bohlman Road APN: 517-14-002 Lensch/Le Quyen, Doc # 16770399 APN: 517-14-031 Smith, Doc # 22240713 APN: 517-14-030 Lintern, Doc # 23125835 APN: 517-14-003 Verbicaro I, LLC, Doc # 23551664 APN: 517-14-004 Taherian/Nahavandian, Doc # 22945948 APN: 517-14-005 Page, Doc # 20692839 Proposed Residence Proposed Driveway Proposed Garage North50100403020100SCALE: 1"=50' Connect to existing gas main Project Site Bohlman Rd.Oak St.(Note)Stoneridge Dr.Big Basin Way Congress S pri n g s R d.Bohlman Rd.Kittridge Rd 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 320 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0 L:\Projects\David\217094 Campagna-Bohlman Road - Brad Cox\dwg\217094 IMP C1 Cover Sheet.dwg - 7/5/2023 10:32 AM - Plotted 9/7/2023 4:32 PM by David FariaJOB NO. OF 16075 Vineyard BoulevardMorgan Hill, CA 95037DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:Xrefs: 217094 LO new; 217094 LO existing; 217094 Hatch; 217094 Vicinity Map; 20230221 217094 Improvement PlanslSHEET 217094 C1 5Grading & Drainage Cover Sheet15269 Bohlman Rd. - APN 517-14-0038/2/2023As ShownDFDFImpervious Area Summary Proposed Residence 3,382 SF Patios 775 SF Proposed Driveway 5,819 SF Total Impervious Area 9,976 SF Earthwork Quantities Cut Fill Net Buildings 98 cy 1 cy 97 cy (cut) Driveway 62 cy 474 cy 412 cy (fill) Site Grading 319 cy 4 cy 315 cy (cut) Total 479 cy 479 cy Balanced Grading & Drainage Plans 15269 Bohlman Road APN 517-14-003 W E (SD) (SS) SD SS storm drain manhole sanitary sewer manhole water valve fire hydrant curb inlet water meter electrical service utility pole County standard street monument street light (W) (E) symbol newexisting Symbols () existing features are labeled in italics in parenthesis typ. Grading & Drainage Plan Sheet Index 1. Grading & Drainage Plan Cover & Notes 2. Existing Topography 3. Grading and Drainage Plan, Profile, & Sections 4. Driveway Sections, Profiles, & Details 5. Erosion Control Plan Applicant\Owner: Verbicaro I, LLC PO Box 6150 San Jose, CA 95150 408.754.3855 jim@snapfi.com Engineer: David L. Faria CE 92432 MH Engineering 16075 Vineyard Blvd. Morgan Hill, CA 95037 408.779.7381 davidf@mhengineering.com Project Information: APN 517-14-003 Present Use:Vacant Proposed Use: Residential Present Zoning: Hillside Residential Proposed Zoning: Hillside Residential Sanitary Sewer: West Valley Sanitation District Gas and Electric: PG&E Water: Telephone:Verizon Existing Improvements: As Shown Area Gross:2.619 ac Area Net:2.073 ac Topo:Field Topo Basis of Bearings: The bearings shown upon this map are based on the centerline right of way of Bohlman Road as found monumented and recorded as South 50°06'30' East on that map thereof recorded in Book 29 of Maps, Pages 44, Santa Clara County Records. Benchmark: Elevations shown on this plan are based on the top of a storm drain manhole located just inside the Bohlman Road 60' right-of-way on site. ELEVATION = 896.64'. Boundary Note: Property lines shown on this plan are based on record data and boundary monumentation measured to date. Underground Utility Note: Observed surface evidence of utility lines including facilities, appurtenances and markings where used in depicting the locations of underground utilities. However, lacking excavation, the exact location and depth of underground features cannot be accurately, completely and reliably depicted. Where additional or more detailed information is required, the client is advised that excavation may be necessary. Flood Zone: The property lies wholly is Zone X; areas in which flood hazards are undetermined, but possible. City of Saratoga Standard Grading Plan Notes: 1. Prior to the commencement of any earthwork/grading activities, the permittee shall arrange a pre-construction ion meeting. The meeting shall include the City of Saratoga Grading Inspector (408-868-1201), the grading contractor and the project Soils Engineer. The permittee or representative shall arrange the pre-construction meeting at least 48 hours prior to the start of any earthwork/grading activities. 2. Approval of this plan applies only to the excavation, placement and compaction of natural earth. This approval does not confer any rights of entry to either public property or the private property of others. Approval of this plan does not constitute approval of any improvements. Any proposed improvements are subject to review and approval by the responsible authorities and all other permits/approvals shall be obtained. 3. It shall be the responsibility of the permittee to identify, locate and protect all underground facilities. 4. The permittee shall maintain all streets, sidewalks and other public right-of ways in a clean, safe and usable condition. All spills of soil, rock or construction debris shall be removed from public property. All adjacent property, both public and private, shall be maintained in a clean, safe and usable condition. 5. All grading and earthwork activities shall be performed in such a manner as to comply with standards established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for airborne particulates. 6. All known water well locations on site shall be maintained or abandoned according to current regulations administered by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Call 408-265- 2600 x2660 to arrange for District observation of well abandonment. 7. This plan does not approve the removal of any trees. Appropriate tree removal permits shall be obtained from the Community Development Department. Any required tree protection measures shall be maintained throughout construction. 8. The project Civil Engineer, MH Engineering, has designed this project to comply with the recommendations of the geotechnical report prepared by Pollak Engineering, INC. 9. All grading and earthwork activities shall conform to the approved plans and specifications. All grading and earthwork activities shall be observed and approved by the Soils Engineer. The Soils Engineer shall be notified at least 48 hours prior to any grading or earthwork activities. Unobserved or unapproved work shall be removed and replaced under observation of the project soils engineer. 10. All construction sites are to be winterized with appropriate erosion control measures in place from October 15th to April 15th of each year. 11. Grading activities are only allowed Monday through Friday, 7:30 am to 6:00 pm. Grading Notes: 1. All site preparation including grading, compaction and trenching shall be performed in accordance with the "Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, for Proposed Residence" by Silicon Valley Soil Engineering, Dated June 2019, File number SV1832. A copy of this report is on file for review in the office of MH engineering. 2. All work shall conform to the lines and grades as shown on the herein plans prepared by MH engineering and approved by the City Engineer. 3. The site clearing, grubbing, grading and interim BMPs shall be performed under the direction of the geotechnical engineer and the City Engineer. The geotechnical engineer shall be consulted during the course of the work for observation and testing to an extent sufficient to ensure that the construction is performed in accordance with the soil report. The geotechnical engineer shall be notified at Silicon Valley Soils Engineering (408) 324-1400, 48 hours prior to beginning of construction. 4. The contractor's grading bid reflects his own calculation of the earthwork to be compacted and placed to the details, line, and grade shown on the plans. No other compensation shall be made for exporting excess material or importing additional material to complete the site grading. 5. All cut and fill slopes are to be 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) maximum unless otherwise shown. 6. It is the contractor's responsibility to import/export as necessary to grade project to conform with the soils report, City standards and these plans. 7. The previous soil fills in the driveway area should be sub-excavated to a maximum depth of 3 feet below existing ground elevation. The excavated bottom subgrade should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches and recompacted to at least 90% relative maximum density using ASTM D1557 procedure. The excavated area should be backfilled and compacted to at least 90% relative maximum density with excavated soil material in 12-inch lifts to original grade. 8. If non-engineered fill which is not competent and/or compacted (previous placed fill soil material) encountered during the grading for the proposed driveway, it should be removed and explored as necessary. 9. The improved areas should be excavated to a depth of 3 feet below existing ground surface, scarified by machine to a depth of 12 inches and thoroughly cleaned of vegetation and other deleterious matter. 10. After stripping, excavation, scarifying and cleaning operations, native and/or on-site soil material should be compacted to not less than 90% relative maximum density using ASTM D1557 procedure over the entire improved area, 5 feet beyond the perimeter of the pad and the edge of the driveway area or any other improvements. The top 12 inches of the driveway subgrade should be compacted to not less than 95% relative maximum density. 11. All engineered fill or imported soil should be placed in uniform horizontal lifts of not more than 8 inches in un-compacted thickness and compacted to not less than 90% relative maximum density. This should extend a minimum of 5 feet beyond the perimeter of the pad and beyond the edge of driveway area. Before compaction begins, the fill shall be brought to a water content that will permit proper compaction by either; 1) aerating the material if it is too wet, or 2) spraying the material with water if it is too dry. Each lift should be thoroughly mixed before compaction to assure a uniform distribution of water content. 12. The relative compaction will be based on the maximum dry density obtained from a laboratory compaction curve run in accordance with ASTM procedure #D557-78. (latest edition) This test will also establish the optimum moisture content of the material. The on-site soil may be used as compacted fill: however soil to be used as fill which must be imported should meet the requirements of the aforementioned geotechnical investigation. 13. All fill material shall be approved by the project geotechnical engineer.Abbreviations (...) items italicized and in parenthesis are existing ( typical) AA##non-italicized non-parenthesis are proposed typical AB aggregate base AC Asphaltic Concrete APN Assessor's Parcel Number BC beginning of curve BVC begin vertical curve BW back of walk CL centerline EC end of curve EG existing ground EP edge of pavement ER end of radius EVC end vertical curve ex existing FG finish grade FL flowline HDPE high density polyethylene HGL hydraulic grade line HP high point INV invert LP low point PCC Portland Cement Concrete PI point of intersection PIVC point of intersection vertical curve P/L property line PRC point of reverse curvature PT point of tangency PUE public utility easement R/W right of way SCCO Santa Clara County SD storm drain SS sanitary sewer TC top of curb typ. typical VC vertical curve Geotechnical Engineer Silicon Valley Soil Engineering 2391 Zanker Road, Suite 350 San Jose, CA 95131 408.324.1400 Site Map Vicinity Map X (x) X [x] (SD) (SS) (EOH) (E) Project Property Line Adjacent Property Line Centerline ex 6' Chainlink Fence ex 6' Wooden Fence ex Storm Drain new Sanitary Sewer ex Overhead Electrical Line ex Joint Trench (gas/elect/comm) (W)ex Waterline existing ground Index contour line (5' interval) existing ground Interim contour line (1' interval) Legend proposed ground Index contour line (5' interval) proposed ground Interim contour line (1' interval) W new Waterline SS SD new Storm Drain new Impervious Area (284) 284 ex Sanitary Sewer (285) 285 Fire Notes: 1. The property is in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). 2. The property is located in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). 3. All road surfaces to support 75,000 pounds and driveway surface to support 40,000 pounds. 4. Max driveway slope to be less than 16%. 5. Fire sprinklers are required.DAVID L . FA RI AS T ATE OF CA L IF O RNIAEXP. No. 92432 REGISTERED PR O F ESSIONAL E N GI NEER06-30-2025 CI V I L Underground Service Alert Note Observed surface evidence of utility lines including facilities, appurtenances, and markings were used in depicting the locations of the underground features shown on these plans. Underground features depicted are approximate and it is the responsibility of the contractor to determine the actual location and depth of underground utilities prior to starting excavation. Call USA North: 1.800.227.2600 OR 811 65 (SD)(SD)(SD)(SD)(SD)(SD)(W)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>R = 75.00', Δ=050°00'00",L=65.45'R=92.56',Δ=184°20'18",L=297.79'(N85°18'1 2 " W ) (112.31')R=100.00',Δ =0 6 6 °5 6 '0 2 ",L =1 1 6 .8 2 '(S27°45'46"W)(54.81')R=230.00',Δ=021°36'46",L=86.76'(S6°09'00"W)(76.31')R=50.00',Δ =1 2 3 °4 4 '3 0 ",L =107.98'(N 5 0 ° 0 6 ' 3 0 " W ) ( B a s i s o f B e a r i n g s ) (1 5 4 . 7 7 ' ) R=20.00', Δ=119°44'32", L=41.80'(N6°09'00"E)(76.31')R=260.00',Δ=021°36'46",L=98.08'(N27°45'46"E)(54.81')R =130.00',Δ =0 6 6 °5 6 '0 2 ",L =1 5 1 .8 7 ' (S85°18'12 " E ) (112.31')R=62.56',Δ=184°20'18",L=201.28'R=105.00',Δ=035°02'45",L=64.22' (S80°03'12"W)(412.32')(S19°32'36"E)(386.89')NorthSCALE: 1"=20'010203040(ep 955.55')(ep 951.49')(ep 946.61')(ep 943.95')(ep 942.59')(ep 940.8 5') (ep 937.08')(ep 933.33') (ep 929.29') (ep 923.52') (ep 918.73') (ep 915.81')(ep 910.18')(ep 904.23')(ep 901.29')(ep 899.56')(ep 897 .50 ' ) (e p 8 9 4 . 5 4 ' ) (ep 88 9 . 6 2 ' ) (ep 8 8 4 . 6 3 ' ) (e p 8 7 8 . 1 4 ' ) (ep 878.36') (ep 8 8 3 . 2 7 ' ) (ep 89 0 . 3 9 ' ) (e p 8 9 5 . 7 2 ' ) ( e p 8 9 8 . 6 6 ' )(ep 901.03')(ep 903.02')(ep 905.47') (ep 911.09') (ep 917.13')(ep 919.72') (ep 923.2 5 ' ) (ep 928.9 8 ' ) (ep 933.15') (ep 939.67') (ep 941.24') (ep 943.00')(ep 945.73')(ep 950.66')(ep 954.78')(fl 913.88')(fl 909.63')(fl 905.42')(fl 899.02') (fl 8 9 3 . 9 9 ' ) (fl 889 . 2 0 ' ) (fl 884.17') (fl 877.51')(875)(875)(880)(885)(890)(895)(900)(905)(860)(865)(870)(875)(880)(885)(890)(895)(900)(905)(850) (855) (860) (865) (870) (875) (880) (885) (890) (895) (900)(850)(855)(860)(865)(870)(875)(880)(885)(900) (905) (910) (915) (920) (925) (905)(910) (915) (920) (925) (930) (935)(910)(915)(920)(925)(930)(935)(940)(945)(880)(885)(890)(895)(900)(905) (91 0 ) (91 5 )(920)(925)(930)(935)(940)(945)( 9 50 ) ( 95 5 ) (878) (879)(881)(882)(883)(884)(886)(887)(888)(889)(891)(892)(893)(894)(896)(897)(898)(899)(901) (902) (903) (904) (906) (907) (908) (909 ) (91 1 ) (91 2 ) (91 3 ) (91 4 ) (9 1 6 ) ( 9 1 7 ) (918 )(919)(921)(922)(923)(924)(926)(927)(928)(929)(931)(932)(933)(934)(936)(937)(938)(939)(941)(942)(943)(944)(946 ) (947 ) ( 948 ) ( 949 ) ( 9 5 1 ) ( 9 5 2 ) ( 9 5 3 ) ( 9 5 4 ) (890) (895) (886) (887) (888) (8 8 9 ) (891) (892) (893) (894) (896) (existing water meter) (existing fire hydrant) (existing water valve) existing 18" cmp culvert inv: 900.48' (existing utility pole)(existing temporary electric meter) (existing overhead utility line) (existing overhead utility line) (existing utlitity pole) (existing utlity pole) fnd. 3/4" ip, o p e n fn d . 3 / 4 " i p , o p e n fn d . 3 / 4 " i p , o p e n (fnd 3/4" ip w/ tack & tag, leaning, no id) (existing utility pole) APN: 517-14-003 Verbicaro I, LLC, Doc # 23551664 APN: 517-14-004 Taherian/Nahavandian, Doc # 22945948 APN: 517-14-005 Page, Doc # 20692839 APN: 517-14-002 Lensch/Le Quyen, Doc # 16770399 APN: 517-14-031 Smith, Doc # 22240713 APN: 517-14-030 Lintern, Doc # 23125835 30' R/W 30' R/W 30' R/W30' R/WBohlman R o a d B o h l m a n R o a d existi n g s d m h rim:8 9 6 . 6 4 ' inv: 8 9 0 . 5 9 ' - 1 8 " (limits of detailed survey) (inv 852.57') (inv 851.88') (ex. 1 8 " (e x . 1 8 " ) 40' Utility easement per Doc# 741967 & 735159 10' Sewer easement per Doc# 2047511 (existing 18" ) (existing 18" ) Existing Fault per Baker Consulting Engineering Geology report dated December 31, 2005 existing 6" (existing 6" ) (existing 6" ) (subdrain outlets) existing 6" existing 6" existing 6" (#16-30" Ø Laurel) (#17-11" Ø Oak)(#19-20" Ø Laurel) (#18-22" Ø Oak) (#20-19.5" Ø Oak) (#21-14.5" Ø Oak) (#23-20" Ø Oak) (#24-17.5" Ø Oak) (#25-17/13" Ø Oak) (#1-36" Ø oak) (#2-15.5" Ø Oak)(#3-19" Ø Oak)(#4-7.5" Ø Toyon)(#5-13" Ø Oak) (#6-12" Ø Oak) (#7-24" Ø Oak) (#8-7.5" Ø Oak) (#9-11" Ø Oak) (#10-7" Ø Oak) (#11-24"/24" Ø Madrone)(#12-8" Ø Laurel) (#13-7" Ø Laurel) (#14- 16/16/17/13/18/18" Ø Laurel) (#15-26" Ø Oak) (#22-17" Ø Oak) (#27-13.5" Ø Oak)(#26-22.5" Ø Laurel) (#28-15" Ø Oak)L:\Projects\David\217094 Campagna-Bohlman Road - Brad Cox\dwg\217094 IMP C2 Existing Topography.dwg - 7/5/2023 10:32 AM - Plotted 9/7/2023 4:33 PM by David FariaJOB NO. OF 16075 Vineyard BoulevardMorgan Hill, CA 95037DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:Xrefs: 217094 LO existing; 217094 Points; 217094 Points from Previous Civil; 217094 Vicinity Map; 20230221 217094 Improvement PlanslSHEET 217094 C2 5Existing Topography15269 Bohlman Rd. - APN 517-14-0038/2/20231" = 20'KWDFDAVID L . FA RI AS T ATE OF CA L IF O RNIAEXP. No. 92432 REGISTERED PR O F ESSIONAL E N GI NEER06-30-2025 CI V I L 66 (SD)(SD)(SD)(SD)(SD)(SD)(W)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Bohlman Road Bohlman Roa d Propose d G ar a g e FF=901. 8 3 Pad=90 0. 8 3 Proposed Residence FF1=906.33' FF2=917.33' Pad=903.83'C0+000+50 1+00 1+502+00 2+50 AB B CPC: 0+22.56 PC: 1+36.77 PT: 0+93.71 PT: 1+88.20 PRC: 1+62.76 2 % 20' 28.00' 80' 22.48' SCALE: 1"=20'010203040NorthAPN: 517-14-003 Verbicaro I, LLC, Doc # 23551664 APN: 517-14-002Lensch/Le Quyen, Doc # 16770399 APN: 517-14-031 Smith, Doc # 22240713 APN: 517-14-030 Lintern, Doc # 231258355%Fire Truck Turnaround A per SDS Std. D-1 (existing water meter) (existing fire hydrant) (existing water valve) existing 18" cmp culvert inv: 900.48' (existing utility pole) (existing temporary electric meter) (existing overhead utility line) (existing overhead utility line) (existing utlitity pole) (existing utlity pole) fnd. 3/4" ip, open (fnd 3/4" ip w/ tack & tag, leaning, no id) (existing utility pole) (ex. 18" (ex. 18" ) 6" Curb 6" AC Curb Gradebreak AC Swale Re-Grade Area to Property Line to have 2:1 max Slope SS SS SS S S S S S S S S SS SS SS SD(EOH)W W W W W XXXX X XX 12" x 12" Square InletRim: 905.82' Inv: 902.42', 6" Ø (In) Inv: 900.47', 6" Ø (Out) 12" x 12" Square InletRim: 905.47' Inv: 903.12', 6" Ø (Out) 12" x 12" Square Inlet Rim: 901.12' Inv: 899.00', 6" Ø (In) Inv: 899.04', 6" Ø (Out) 6" Riser Rim: 897.50' Inv: 896.00', 6" Ø (Out) Existing SDMH Rim: 896.64' Inv: 891.57', 6" Ø (In) Inv: 890.79', 18" Ø (Out) Inv: 890.89', 18" Ø (In) 6" RiserRim: 896.50' Inv: 894.50', 6" Ø (Out) 12" x 12" Square InletRim: 895.89' Inv: 893.00', 6" Ø (Out) Inv: 893.85', 6" Ø (In) 12" x 12" Square Inlet Rim: 895.40' Inv: 892.14', 6" Ø (In) Inv: 892.14', 6" Ø (Out) 30' - 6"Ø PVC Pipe @ S=4.82% 19' - 6"Ø PVC Pipe @ S=1.26% 43' - 6"Ø PVC Pipe @ S=2.00% 28' - 6"Ø PVC Pipe @ S=2.00% 32' - 6"Ø PVC Pipe @ S=2.00% 36' - 6"Ø PVC Pipe @ S=0.50% Retaining wall subdrainper typical retaining wall detail Connect subdraininto drainage inlet Connect subdrain into drainage inlet Connect subdraininto drainage inlet ±122 LF of Retaining wallMax height 5' ±68 LF of Retaining wallMax height 11' ±37 LF of Retaining wall Max height 6' (existing 18" ) (existing 18" ) 35' - 6"Ø Corrugated HDPE Pipe@ S=2.00% Rain Garden Rain Garden (#16-30" Ø Laurel) (#17-11" Ø Oak) (#19-20" Ø Laurel) (#18-22" Ø Oak) (#20-19.5" Ø Oak) (#21-14.5" Ø Oak) (#23-20" Ø Oak) (#24-17.5" Ø Oak) (#25-17/13" Ø Oak) (#1-36" Ø oak) (#2-15.5" Ø Oak) (#3-19" Ø Oak) (existing 18" ) Reccomended sewerpump station location 2" SCH 40 pressure pipe with 3' cover min per Nelsen Engineering Sewer Connection Plans Covered Parking See Nelsen Engineering Sewer Connection Plansfor connection to existing sewer 6" AC C ur b Existing Fault per Baker Consulting Engineering Geology report dated December 31, 2005 50' Setback from existing fault 50' Setback from existing fault 50' setback line from existing fault per Baker Consulting Engineering Geology report dated December 31, 2005 50' setback line from existing fault per Baker Consulting Engineering Geology report dated December 31, 2005 Extend retaining wall as determined by Geotechnical engineerto be verified in the field 12" Square DI Traffic RatedRim: 896.20' Inv: 894.70', 18" Ø (In) Inv: 894.70', 18" Ø (Out) Install DI in existingflow path onto existing 18" CMP culvert Install rip rap dissipator at subdrain outlets per geotechnical report BoW 900.52 BoW 901.72 BoW 892.52 (ep 889.33) (ep 896.54) EP 895.09 (FL 913.00) (FL 909.00) (FL 896.61) (FL 888.22) (FL 883.00) BoW 891.15 BoW 893.08 BoW 896.75 EP 895.29 20' 20' EP 895.69 EP 896.19 6" Curb 12" x 12" Square InletRim: 895.09' Inv: 893.98', 6" Ø (Out))(880)( 8 9 0 )(900)(910) (9 2 0 )(930)(940 ) (95 0 ) (850) (860) (870) (880)(890)(900)(900) (910) (920)860870880890(860) (870) (880)(910)(920)(930)(940)(910) (898) 890 888 892 894 49' - 6"Ø PVC Pipe @ S=2.00% Proposed Electric Meter Proposed Overhead Electric Service Proposed Electric Gate with knox box Extend existing gas main to serve property Proposed water line R70' R20' Proposed water line (#4-7.5" Ø Toyon) (#5-13" Ø Oak) (#6-12" Ø Oak) (#7-24" Ø Oak) (#8-7.5" Ø Oak) (#9-11" Ø Oak) (#10-7" Ø Oak) (#11-24"/24" Ø Madrone) (#12-8" Ø Laurel) (#13-7" Ø Laurel) (#14- 16/16/17/13/18/18" Ø Laurel) (#15-26" Ø Oak) (#22-17" Ø Oak) (#27-13.5" Ø Oak) (#26-22.5" Ø Laurel) (#28-15" Ø Oak) Chain-link tree protection fence location 2 Chain-link tree protection fence location 1 Install staw waddle around tree #25 Install staw waddle around tree #22 900898898 896 896 896894892EP 895.69 EP 895.30 EP 895.78 EP 895.15 Gradebre a k EP 897.59 EP 898.19 EP 898.86 EP 893.82 EP 898.47 EP 901.35 BoW 897.20ToW 898.65EP 898.15 ToW 902.85 ToW 902.33EP 901.83 ToW 906.70EP 906.20 ToW 906.50 ToW 906.50 EP 906.00EP 906.00A 898 EP 905. 6 2 EP 906.11EP 906.01ToW 910.00 ToW 910.00EP 905.64 -1.0%-1.0%906EP 905.85ToW 910.00 EP 901.07 EP 896.90 EP 895.70 EP 899. 2 8 EP 896.78 EP 897.20 Daylight 6" PVC pipe INV: 896.00 EP 897. 7 7 -2 .5% -2. 5 %0.0%-2.5%-6.6% -0.5 % - 2 . 5% EP 897. 1 7 EP 897.56 EP 899. 2 8 PROFILE: A-ASCALE H: 1"=10'SCALE V: 1"=10' 899900 905 910 915 920 899900 905 910 915 920 0+50 1+00 1+40 AA Proposed Garage FF=901.83 Pad=900.83 2.5% Proposed BalconyFF=912.33 1% EP 901.83 5%FG 905.85 (existing ground) Foundation design by others (TYP) Finish Grade (TYP) Proposed Residence FF1=906.33' FF2=917.33' Pad=903.83' PROFILE: DWY Centerline SCALE H: 1"=10' SCALE V: 1"=5' 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 0+501+001+502+002+502+61 Proposed Garage FF=901.83 Pad=900.83 BVC 0+12.24CL 894.10EVC 0+32.24CL 895.12BVC 2+14.09CL 900.73EVC 2+34.09CL 901.64BVC 1+78.39CL 898.92EVC 2+08.39CL 900.36PIVC 1+93.39PI 899.37PC: 0+22.56894.82PT: 0+93.71896.38PC: 1+36.77897.67PRC: 1+62.76898.45PT: 1+88.20899.28-6.44% 6.57% 2.50%0.00% 9.04% 1.24% 3.00% FG @ CL 895.35' FG @ CL 896.57' FG @ CL 898.07' FG @ CL 899.85' FG @ Centerline Subgrade @ Centerline (eg @ centerline) Overexcavate previous soil fills in the driveway area to a max depth of 3 feet below existing grade. The excavated bottom subgrade should be scarified to a depth of 12" and recompacted to at least 90% relative maximum density in 12" lifts. Overexcavate previous soil fills in the driveway area to a max depth of 3 feet below existing grade. The excavated bottom subgrade should be scarified to a depth of 12" and recompacted to at least 90% relative maximum density in 12" lifts. PROFILE: C-C SCALE H: 1"=10' SCALE V: 1"=10' 885 890 895 900 905 910 915 920 885 890 895 900 905 910 915 920 0+50 0+60 CC Proposed Garage FF=901.83 Pad=900.83 Proposed Balcony FF=912.33 See Typical Retaining Wall Section for Details ToW 906.70 BoW 896.31 -2.0%-2.0% 35' - 6"Ø Corrugated HDPE Pipe @ S=2.00% Foundation design by others (TYP) (existing ground TYP) Fill to be compacted to 90% relative compaction per Geotechnial Report (TYP)BoW 892.14 EP 906.20 PROFILE: B-B SCALE H: 1"=10' SCALE V: 1"=10' 890 895 900 905 910 915 920 925 890 895 900 905 910 915 920 925 0+50 0+70 BB Proposed Residence FF1=906.33' FF2=917.33' Pad=903.83'ToW 910.00 BoW 905.50 EP 905.65-2.0% See Typical Retaining Wall Section for Details ToW 906.50 BoW 902.51 -2.0% Foundation design by others (TYP) (existing ground TYP) Finish Grade (TYP) Fill to be compacted to 90% relative compaction per Geotechnial Report (TYP) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 320 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0 L:\Projects\David\217094 Campagna-Bohlman Road - Brad Cox\dwg\217094 IMP C3 Grading & Drainage.dwg - 9/7/2023 4:07 PM - Plotted 9/7/2023 4:33 PM by David FariaJOB NO. OF 16075 Vineyard BoulevardMorgan Hill, CA 95037DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:Xrefs: 217094 LO new; 217094 LO existing; 217094 Hatch; 20230221 217094 Improvement PlanslSHEET 217094 C3 5Grading and Drainage, Sections, & Profile15269 Bohlman Rd. - APN 517-14-0038/2/2023As ShownDFDFImpervious Area Summary Proposed Residence 3,382 SF Patios 775 SF Proposed Driveway 5,819 SF Total Impervious Area 9,976 SF Earthwork Quantities Cut Fill Net Buildings 98 cy 1 cy 97 cy (cut) Driveway 62 cy 474 cy 412 cy (fill) Site Grading 319 cy 4 cy 315 cy (cut) Total 479 cy 479 cy Balanced R20'DAVID L . FA RI AS T ATE OF CA L IF O RNIAEXP. No. 92432 REGISTERED PR O F ESSIONAL E N GI NEER06-30-2025 CI V I L Average Natural Grade of footprint: S= I L (100) S= SLOPE I= CONTOUR INTERVAL L= CONTOUR LINEAR LENGTH A= AREA IN SQUARE FEET A I= 1' L= 288' A= 3382 SF S=(1)(288) (100) (3382) S= 8.52% 67 12" Typical Retaining Wall Section Typical 6" Riser Detail Drainrock per Geotechnical Report wrapped Mirafi 140 filter fabric 4" perforated PVC subdrain 2" above base of permeable material Slope @ 2% and connect to catch basins per plan Grade beam designed by others 1" Eco-Rain of America drainage cell wrapped in Mirafi 140 filter fabric (existing ground) Pier designed by others Retaining Wall designed by others 6" PVC Pipe @ Slope per plan 6" Round Plastic Drain Cover @ RIM elevation per plan 6" Long sweep 90° elbow Invert elevation per planXX3' Debris fence along top of retaining wall 3' Depth of subdrain trench to be 36" below building pad grade to be verified in the field by the Geotechnical Engineer Section: 0+50 - DWY Centerline Scale: 1"=10' H / 1"=5' V 888 890 892 894 896 898 888 890 892 894 896 898 0 10 20 300-10-20-30 Section: 1+00 - DWY Centerline Scale: 1"=10' H / 1"=5' V 886 888 890 892 894 896 898 900 902 886 888 890 892 894 896 898 900 902 0 10 20 30 40 50 600-10-20-30-40-50 CL 896.57'0.00'EP 896.77'8.00' REP 896.27'12.00'LFL 896.27'12.00'LEP 897.77'42.00' L2.5%-2.5% 5.0% 8.00' L EP 895.43' 8.00' R EP 895.45' 15.66' R eg 891.63' 6" 18" 6" 18" Key and Bench per Detail this Sheet Compact Fill to 90% relative compaction in 8" lifts per Geotechnical Report (TYP) Overexcavate previous soil fills in the driveway area to a max depth of 3 feet below existing grade. The excavated bottom subgrade should be scarified to a depth of 12" and recompacted to at least 90% relative maximum density in 12" lifts. 3' 5' -11.20% -13.33%Overexcavate previous soil fills in the driveway area to a max depth of 3 feet below existing grade. The excavated bottom subgrade should be scarified to a depth of 12" and recompacted to at least 90% relative maximum density in 12" lifts. 3' 2: 1 m a x 2: 1 m a x 5.0%EP 895.27'38.00' R-6.09% -13.81% Section: 1+50 - DWY Centerline Scale: 1"=10' H / 1"=5' V 888 890 892 894 896 898 900 902 904 906 908 910 888 890 892 894 896 898 900 902 904 906 908 910 0 10 20 300-10-20-30-40-50 CL 898.07'0.00'EP 898.27'8.00' REP 897.72'13.94' L2.5%-2.5% Section: 2+00 - DWY Centerline Scale: 1"=10' H / 1"=5' V 882 884 886 888 890 892 894 896 898 900 902 904 906 882 884 886 888 890 892 894 896 898 900 902 904 906 0 10 20 30 400-10-20 -5.0%CL 899.97'0.00'EP 899.85'20.00' REP 899.85'8.00' L0.0% 38.84' L EP 898.83' 2: 1 m a x ToW 900.35' BoW 891.87' 6" Key and Bench per Detail this Sheet -21.0 4 % -9.87% Compact Fill to 90% relative compaction in 8" lifts per Geotechnical Report (TYP) Overexcavate previous soil fills in the driveway area to a max depth of 3 feet below existing grade. The excavated bottom subgrade should be scarified to a depth of 12" and recompacted to at least 90% relative maximum density in 12" lifts. Overexcavate previous soil fills in the driveway area to a max depth of 3 feet below existing grade. The excavated bottom subgrade should be scarified to a depth of 12" and recompacted to at least 90% relative maximum density in 12" lifts.2: 1 m a x 2.5% 8'8' 2:1 Fill CL 2:1 Cut or Fill 6" AC Curb 3" AC on 8" CL II AB Typical Driveway Section Compact class II baserock to 95% relative compaction Native material Overexcavate previous soil fills in the driveway area to a max depth of 3 feet below existing grade. The excavated bottom subgrade should be scarified to a depth of 12" and recompacted to at least 90% relative maximum density in 12" lifts. PROFILE: Existing Culvert SCALE H: 1"=10' SCALE V: 1"=10' 845 850 855 860 865 870 875 880 885 890 895 900 905 845 850 855 860 865 870 875 880 885 890 895 900 905 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+17 Existing SDMH Rim: 896.64' Inv: 891.57', 6" Ø (In) Inv: 890.79', 18" Ø (Out) Inv: 890.89', 18" Ø (In) ( ex 145' - 18"Ø corrugated hdpe pipe @ s=6.02 % ) ( ex 5 7 ' - 1 8 " Ø c o r r u g a t e d h d p e p i p e @ s = 5 1 . 5 1 % ) PROFILE: Existing Culvert SCALE H: 1"=20' SCALE V:1"=20' Regrade under culvert with hand tools and resecure to new slope New Driveway Regraded area with max slope of 2:1 Existing tee @ outlet to remain (existing ground) Finish Grade PROFILE: SD Flowline SCALE H: 1"=20'' SCALE V: 1"=10'' 880 882 884 886 888 890 892 894 896 898 900 902 904 906 908 910 912 880 882 884 886 888 890 892 894 896 898 900 902 904 906 908 910 912 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+35 ⅊12" x 12" Square Inlet Rim: 905.47' Inv: 903.12', 6" Ø (Out) 12" x 12" Square Inlet Rim: 905.82' Inv: 902.42', 6" Ø (In) Inv: 900.47', 6" Ø (Out) 30' - 6"Ø PVC Pipe @ S=4.82% 12" x 12" Square Inlet Rim: 901.12' Inv: 899.00', 6" Ø (In) Inv: 899.04', 6" Ø (Out) 19' - 6"Ø PVC Pipe @ S=1.26% 6" Riser Rim: 897.50' Inv: 896.00', 6" Ø (Out) 36' - 6"Ø PVC Pipe @ S=0.50% 6" Riser Rim: 896.50' Inv: 894.50', 6" Ø (Out) 32' - 6"Ø PVC Pipe @ S=2.00% 12" x 12" Square Inlet Rim: 895.89' Inv: 893.00', 6" Ø (Out) Inv: 893.85', 6" Ø (In) 43' - 6"Ø PVC Pipe @ S=2.00% 12" x 12" Square Inlet Rim: 895.40' Inv: 892.14', 6" Ø (In) Inv: 892.14', 6" Ø (Out) 28' - 6"Ø PVC Pipe @ S=2.00% Existing SDMH Rim: 896.64' Inv: 891.57', 6" Ø (In) Inv: 890.79', 18" Ø (Out) Inv: 890.89', 18" Ø (In) 1%1% 35' - 6"Ø Corrugated HDPE Pipe @ S=2.00% Rain Garden Rain Garden 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 320 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0 L:\Projects\David\217094 Campagna-Bohlman Road - Brad Cox\dwg\217094 IMP C3 Grading & Drainage.dwg - 9/7/2023 4:07 PM - Plotted 9/7/2023 4:33 PM by David FariaJOB NO. OF 16075 Vineyard BoulevardMorgan Hill, CA 95037DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:Xrefs: 217094 LO new; 217094 LO existing; 217094 Hatch; 20230221 217094 Improvement PlanslSHEET 217094 C4 5Driveway Sections, Profiles, & Details15269 Bohlman Rd. - APN 517-14-0038/2/2023As ShownDFDFDAVID L . FA RI AS T ATE OF CA L IF O RNIAEXP. No. 92432 REGISTERED PR O F ESSIONAL E N GI NEER06-30-2025 CI V I L 68 (SD)(SD)(SD)(SD)(SD)(SD)(W)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Bohlman Road Bohlman Road(880)( 8 9 0 )(900)(910) (9 2 0 )(930)(940 ) (95 0 ) Propose d G ar a g e FF=901. 8 3 Pad=90 0. 8 3 Proposed Residence FF1=906.33' FF2=917.22' Pad=903.83'0+000+501+00 1+502+00 2+50 (850) (860) (870) (880)(890)(900)(900) (910) (920) (860) (870) (880) (890) SS SS SS S S S S S S S S SS SS SS SD(EOH)GGG G GGW W W W W XXXX X XX 2 %(910)(920)(930)(940)SCALE: 1"=20'010203040NorthAPN: 517-14-003 Verbicaro I, LLC, Doc # 23551664 APN: 517-14-002Lensch/Le Quyen, Doc # 16770399 APN: 517-14-031 Smith, Doc # 22240713 APN: 517-14-030 Lintern, Doc # 23125835 Material Staging Area. All excess material will be taken off site to an approved disposal site. Recommended Port-o-Let Location Port-o-Let location to follow guidlines per WM-9860870880890 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O O O O Fire Truck Turnaround per SCCO Std. D-1 (existing water meter) (existing fire hydrant) (existing water valve) existing 18" cmp culvert inv: 900.48' (existing utility pole) (existing temporary electric meter) (existing overhead utility line) (existing overhead utility line) (existing utlitity pole) (existing utlity pole) fnd. 3/4" ip, open (fnd 3/4" ip w/ tack & tag, leaning, no id) (existing utility pole) (ex. 18" (ex. 18" ) 6" AC Curb 6" Curb 6" AC Curb AC Swale Covered Parking Re-Grade Area to Property Line to have 2:1 max Slope ±122 LF of Retaining wallMax height 5' ±37 LF of Retaining wallMax height 6' SE-5 SE-5 SE-5 SE-5 TC-1 Reseed area with natural vegetation SE-10 SE-10 SE-10 SE-10 SE-10 Limit of Disturbance Limit of Disturbance Limit of Disturbance Limit of Disturbance Limit of Disturbance Limit of Disturbance SE-1 SE-1 SE-1 Reseed area with natural vegetation SE-10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 320 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0 L:\Projects\David\217094 Campagna-Bohlman Road - Brad Cox\dwg\217094 IMP C5 & C6 Erosion Control.dwg - 9/7/2023 3:45 PM - Plotted 9/7/2023 4:33 PM by David FariaJOB NO. OF 16075 Vineyard BoulevardMorgan Hill, CA 95037DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:Xrefs: 217094 LO new; 217094 LO existing; 217094 Hatch; 20230221 217094 Improvement PlanslSHEET 217094 C5 5Erosion Control Plan15269 Bohlman Rd. - APN 517-14-0038/2/2023DFNotes: SE-5 Fiber Rolls Installation ·Locate fiber rolls on level contours spaced as follows: ·· Slope inclination of 4:1 (H:V) or flatter: Fiber rolls should be placed at a maximum interval of 20 ft. ··Slope inclination between 4:1 and 2:1 (H:V): Fiber Rolls should be placed at a maximum interval of 15 ft. (a closer spacing is more effective). ··Slope inclination 2:1 (H:V) or greater: Fiber Rolls should be placed at a maximum interval of 10 ft. (a closer spacing is more effective). ·Turn the ends of the fiber roll up slope to prevent runoff from going around the roll. ·Stake fiber rolls into a 2 to 4 in. deep trench with a width equal to the diameter of the fiber roll. ··Drive stakes at the end of each fiber roll and spaced 4 ft maximum on center. ··Use wood stakes with a nominal classification of 0.75 by 0.75 in. and minimum length of 24 in. ·If more than one fiber roll is placed in a row, the rolls should be overlapped, not abutted. Inspection and Maintenance ·Inspect BMPs prior to forecast rain, daily during extended rain events, after rain events, weekly during the rainy season, and at two-week intervals during the non-rainy season. ·Repair or replace split, torn, unraveling, or slumping fiber rolls. ·If the fiber roll is used as a sediment capture device, or as an erosion control device to maintain sheet flows, sediment that accumulates in the BMP must be periodically removed in order to maintain BMP effectiveness. Sediment should be removed when sediment accumulation reaches one-half the designated sediment storage depth, usually one-half the distance between the top of the fiber roll and the adjacent ground surface. Sediment removed during maintenance may be incorporated into earthwork on the site of disposed at an appropriate location. ·If fiber rolls are used for erosion control, such as in a mini check dam, sediment removal should not be required as long as the system continues to control the grade. Sediment control BMPs will likely be required in conjunction with this type of application. Notes: TC-1 Stabilized Construction Entrance/Exit Inspection and Maintenance ·Inspect and verify that activity–based BMPs are in place prior to the commencement of associated activities. While activities associated with the BMPs are under way, inspect weekly during the rainy season and of two-week intervals in the non-rainy season to verify continued BMP implementation. ·Inspect local roads adjacent to the site daily. Sweep or vacuum to remove visible accumulated sediment. ·Remove aggregate, separate and dispose of sediment if construction entrance/exit is clogged with sediment. ·Keep all temporary roadway ditches clear. ·Check for damage and repair as needed. ·Replace gravel material when surface voids are visible. ·Remove all sediment deposited on paved roadways within 24 hours. ·Remove gravel and filter fabric at completion of construction Notes: SE-10 Storm Drain Inlet Protection Installation ·DI Protection Type 2 - Excavated Drop Inlet Sediment Trap - The excavated drop inlet sediment trap (Type 2) is shown in the attached figures. Install filter fabric fence in accordance with DI Protection Type 1. Size excavated trap to provide a minimum storage capacity calculated at the rate 67 yd3/acre of drainage area. ·Inspection and Maintenance ·Inspect BMPs prior to forecast rain, daily during extended rain events, after rain events, weekly during the rainy season, and at two-week intervals during the non-rainy season. ·Filter Fabric Fences. If the fabric becomes clogged, torn, or degrades, it should be replaced. Make sure the stakes are securely driven in the ground and are in good shape (i.e., not bent, cracked, or splintered, and are reasonably perpendicular to the ground). Replace damaged stakes. ·Gravel Filters. If the gravel becomes clogged with sediment, it must be carefully removed from the inlet and either cleaned or replaced. Since cleaning gravel at a construction site may be difficult, consider using the sediment-laden stone as fill material and put fresh stone around the inlet. Inspect bags for holes, gashes, and snags, and replace bags as needed. Check gravel bags for proper arrangement and displacement. ·Sediment that accumulates in the BMP must be periodically removed in order to maintain BMP effectiveness. Sediment should be removed when the sediment accumulation reaches one-third of the barrier height. Sediment removed during maintenance may be incorporated into earthwork on the site ore disposed at an appropriate location. ·Remove storm drain inlet protection once the drainage area is stabilized. ·Clean and regrade area around the inlet and clean the inside of the storm drain inlet as it must be free of sediment and debris at the time of final inspection. Note 1: All concrete washout shall be done at the supplier. If concrete washout is required on-site, all concrete washout areas shall conform with California State BMP WM-8 Note 2: No hazardous material is anticipated for this project. If hazardous materials are used, notify engineer, Santa Clara County Land Development Engineering Department, and comply to California Stormwater Quality Association Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook. Note 3: It is expected that all grading equipment is to remain in the disturbed area. If sediment tracking occurs, a vehicle wash down will be required and must comply with California State BMP TC-3 near or within the Stabilized Construction Entrance (TC-1). Note 4: All cut and fill slopes are to be re-seeded to match existing on-site vegetation. BMPs required by construction phase Mass Grading / Clearing & Gubbing phase ·TC-1 Stabilized construction entrance @ entry/exit points to paved roads ·SE-5 Fiber Rolls around temporary stockpiles ·SE-10 Storm drain inlet protection at inlets in project vicinity ·EC-4 Hydroseed distubed areas upon completion of grading in areas that are not subject to further disturbance Underground Utilities phase ·SE-5 Fiber Rolls around temporary stockpiles/trench spoils ·SE-10 Storm drain inlet protection at inlets in project vicinity and installed inlets ·TC-1 Stabilized construction entrance @ entry/exit points to paved roads Vertical Construction phase ·SE-5 Fiber Rolls around stockpiles and at back of sidewalks once installed ·SE-10 Storm drain inlet protection at inlets in project vicinity and at any installed inlets ·TC-1 Stabilized construction entrance @ entry/exit points to paved roads ·EC-4 Hydroseed disturbed areas that are not subject to further disturbance. Stabilization phase ·SE-5 Fiber Rolls to remain in place until final landscaping is complete ·SE-10 Storm drain inlet protection to remain in place until final landscaping is established ·EC-4 Hydroseed all non-landscaped disturbed areas in project vicinity General Notes: 1. Best management practices(BMPs) for this project shall be in substantial compliance at all times with the storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) prepared for the project in accordance with the state water resources control board (SWRCB) order no. 2009-0009-DWQ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit No. CAS000002. This permit requires that the SWPPP be kept up to date to reflect the changing site conditions and the SWPPP be kept up to date to reflect the changing site conditions and the SWPPP is to be available on site at all times for review by state and local inspectors. 2. The erosion control measures are to be operable during the rainy season,September 15 to April 15. By September 15, grading, installation of storm drainage and erosion control facilities will need to be completed with erosion control planting established by that time. no grading shall occur between October 1 and April 15 unless authorized by the City Engineer. 3. Standard drop inlet, underground drainage pipe and appurtenances shall be constructed prior to winterization and will remain as permanent tract improvements. 4. Changes to this erosion and sediment control plan shall be made to meet field conditions only with the approval of or at the direction of the City Engineer. During the rainy season, all paved areas shall be kept clear of earth material and debris. the site shall be maintained so as to minimize sediment laden runoff to any storm drainage system. 5. This plan covers only the first winter following grading. Plans are to be resubmitted for City approval prior to September 1 of each subsequent year until the tract improvements are accepted by the City. 6. Seed and mulch are to be placed on all disturbed slopes steeper than 2% and higher than 3 feet, on all cut and fill slopes within or adjacent to all public rights of way and as directed by the City. Seed placed between May and September shall be irrigated as necessary to establish growth by October 1. 7. Stabilized entrance shall be installed per detail TC-1&TC-3 of SWPPP manual prior to grading activities. 8. Drain inlets shall be protected per details SE-10 of SWPPP manual prior to grading activities or as soon as practical. 9. Sediment control BMPs shall be installed prior to grading activities or as soon as practical, and maintained year round. County of Santa Clara Construction Stormwater Control Plan (CSCP) Notes: 1. The contractor shall comply with all County of Santa Clara Standards, and is advised that the County has adopted the California Storm Water Quality Association (CASQA) Handbook for Construction as its Storm Water best management practices (BMP) standards. The BMPs contained within the County standards are minimum requirements. The contractor shall comply with all BMPs for sediment control, tracking control, waste management and materials pollution control, non-stormwater management control, and erosion control. Examples of BMPs that are required but are not limited to: SE-10 Storm Drain Inlet Protection SE-7 Street Sweeping and Vacuuming WM-5 SSolid Waste Management WM-9 Sanitary/Septic Waste Management WM-10 Concrete Waste Management 2. Portable sanitary facilities shall have secondary containment, and be located on relatively level ground away from traffic areas and storm drain inlets. 3. The contractor shall notify the County 48 hours in advance of the start of construction to request inspection of stormwater BMPs. All stormwater BMPs shall be in place prior to the start of construction, and maintained throughout the duration of the project. 4. The interim CSCP is considered a "living document" which may be subject to change from time to time in order to facilitate construction. All requested changes must be approved by the County of Santa Clara prior to installation. 5. The contractor shall inspect all stormwater BMPs regulary to assure they are functioning properly. If a BMP fails, the contractor shall make repairs immediately and clean all portions of storm drain systems that may have been contaminated by the failure of BMP to the satisfaction of the County of Santa Clara. Notes: SE-1 Silt Fence Installation Guidelines ·Silt fences are to be constructed on a level contour. Sufficient area should exist behind the fence for ponding to occur without flooding or overtopping the fence. · A trench should be excavated approximately 6 in. wide and 6 in. deep along the line the proposed silt fence. ·Bottom of the silt fence should be keyed-in a minimum of 12 in. ·Posts should be spaced a maximum of 6 ft apart and driven securely into the ground a minimum of 18 in. or 12 in. below the bottom of the trench. ·When standard strength filter fabric is used, a plastic or wire mesh support fence should be fastened securely to the upslope side of posts using heavy–duty wire staples at least 1 in. long. The mesh should extend into the trench. When extra-strength filter fabric and closer post spacing are used, the mesh support fence may be eliminated. Filter fabric should be purchased in a long roll, then cut to the length of the barrier. When joints are necessary, filter cloth should be spliced together only at a support post, with a minimum 6 in. overlap and both ends securely fastened to the post. ·The trench should be backfilled with compacted native material. ·Construct silt fences with a setback of at least 3 ft from the toe of a slope. Where a silt fence is determined to be not practicable due to specific site conditions, the silt fence may be constructed at the toe of the slope, but should be constructed as far from the toe of the slope as practicable. Silt fences close to the toe of the slope will be less effective and difficult to maintain. Inspection and Maintenance ·Inspect BMPs prior to forecast rain, daily during extended rain events, after rain events, weekly during the rainy season, and at two-week intervals during the non-rainy season. ·Repair undercut silt fences. ·Repair or replace split, torn, slumping, or weathered fabric. The lifespan of silt fence fabric is generally 5 to 8 months. ·Silt fences that are damaged and become unsuitable for the intended purpose should be removed from the site of work, disposed of, and replaced with new silt fence barriers. ·Sediment that accumulates in the BMP must be periodically removed in order to maintain BMP effectiveness. Sediment should be removed when the sediment accumulation reaches one-third of the barrier height. Sediment removed during maintenance may be incorporated into earthwork on the site or disposed at an appropriate location. ·Silt fences should be left in place until the upstream area is permanently stabilized. Until then, the silt fence must be inspected and maintained. ·Holes, depressions, or other ground disturbance caused by the removal of the silt fences should be backfilled and repaired. TC-1 SE-10 SE-5 Legend Re-seed distubed areas with natural vegetation Stabilized construction entrance Storm drain inlet protection Fiber Rolls BMP - 1. Site Housekeeping 1 Objective: 1.1 to reduce impacts from storm water runoff by developing and implementing good housekeeping practices. 2 General Housekeeping 2.1 Keep parking areas, material storage and staging areas clean and orderly. 2.2 Establish a daily checklist to confirm cleanliness and adherence to proper storage and security. Where feasible, individual employees should be assigned specific inspection responsibilities and given the authority to remedy any problems found. 2.3 Provide an adequate number of trash and recycling receptacles. 2.4 Post "No Littering" signs and enforce anti-littering laws. 2.5 Dispose of wash water properly. Wash water shall not be allowed to flow to the storm drain system. 2.6 Sediment and sweeping debris shall be properly disposed. 3 Mechanical Sweeping 3.1 Mechanical sweeping shall be performed on a scheduled basis. The frequency of mechanical sweeping shall be based on visual observation of waste accumulation. 3.2 Mechanical sweeping equipment shall only be used by personnel trained in using mechanical sweeping equipment. 3.3 Mechanical sweeping of all outside equipment staging areas, materials storage areas and parking areas will be performed at least once prior to the onset of the wet season (September 15th). 3.4 Mechanical sweeping will be coordinated with maintenance activities on other storm water treatment measures located on the site (i.e. stormceptors, CDS units, drain inlet filters). 3.5 Dispose of debris properly. 4 Manual Sweeping 4.1 Manual sweeping will be used in areas where mechanical sweeping cannot be effectively implemented. 4.2 Manual sweeping will be coordinated with maintenance activities on other storm water treatment measures located on the site. 4.3 Dispose of debris properly. 5 Surface Cleaning 5.1 Surface cleaning shall be used in areas where heavy oil deposits are encountered. 5.2 Dry cleaning methods (e.g. application of absorbent followed by sweeping and vacuuming) shall be employed first to prevent the discharge of pollutants to the storm drain system. 5.3 If wet cleaning is required to effectively remove pollutants, all wash water shall be collected and disposed to landscape or the sanitary sewer, as appropriate. If discharge to the sanitary sewer is necessary, prior approval from City of Morgan Hill is required. 5.4 Dispose of debris properly. 6 Vector Control 6.1 Ensure that there are no areas of standing water on site. Areas of standing water shall be drained or cleared as soon as they are located, 6.2 Vector Control District: The Santa Clara County Vector Control District (SCCVCD) will be contacted as needed for assistance should any mosquito issues arise. Mosquito larvicides should be applied only when absolutely necessary as indicated by the SCCVCD, and then only be a licensed professional or contractor. The contact information for SCCVCD follows: 7 Pesticide Reduction Plan and Measures 7.1 Objectives: to reduce or eliminate the use of chemicals necessary to prevent pests of the landscape and to reduce the potential for pesticides to runoff the landscape. 7.2 Employ non-chemical controls (biological, physical and cultural controls) before using chemicals to treat a pest problem. 7.3 Use geotextiles and apply 2-4 inches of mulch to exposed soils to prevent weed growth. 7.4 Replace problem plants with locally adapted, pest resistant plants. Do not plant invasive species. 7.5 Prune plants properly and at the appropriate time of year. 7.6 Limit fertilizer use unless soil testing indicates a deficiency. Slow-release or organic fertilizer is preferable. 7.7 Provide adequate irrigation for landscape plants. Do not over water. 7.8 Sweep up spilled fertilizer and pesticides. Do not wash away or bury such spills. 7.9 If chemical controls are necessary, use least-toxic pesticide first. Avoid the use of broad-spectrum pesticides. 7.10Do not over apply pesticide. Spray only where the infestation exists. Follow the manufacturer's instructions for mixing and applying materials. 7.11 Only licensed, trained pesticide applicators shall apply pesticides. 7.12 Apply pesticides at the appropriate time to maximize their effectiveness and minimize the likelihood of discharging pesticides into runoff. With the exception of pre-emergent pesticides, avoid application if rain is expected. 7.13Unwanted/unused pesticides shall be disposed as hazardous waste. 7.14 Correspondence :Correspondence regarding operations, inspections and maintenance of the storm water treatment measures shall be provided to the City Engineer as required and according to the schedule outlined in this SWRMP. NOTE:Best Management Practices delineated in this Operations & Maintenance Agreement are minimum requirements. More stringent requirements may apply to specific projects as environmental mitigation measures under the California Environmental Quality Act, and/or as conditions of approval for a development project (such as a map, a planned district, a zoning administrator permit, a conditional use permit, or other permit or project approval by the City). Storm Drain Maintenance The home owner is responsible for maintaining the storm drainage system and all components. Every year, prior to the wet weather season (october 15th) all the catch basins and storm drain cleanouts shall be inspected and cleaned of any debris, silt, trash and sediment. Total Disturbed Area = 21,781 SF OOSE-1 Silt Fence DAVID L . FA RI AS T ATE OF CA L IF O RNIAEXP. No. 92432 REGISTERED PR O F ESSIONAL E N GI NEER06-30-2025 CI V I L 69 Covered ParkingFire Truck Turnaround Aper SDS Std. D-1GradebreakRe-Grade Area toProperty Line to have2:1 max SlopeRain Garden(SD)(SD)(SD)(SD)(SD)(SD)(SD)(SD)(SD)(SD)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)>> > > > >>> > > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>(SD)(SD)(SD ) (SD )(SD)SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS(SS)SSof#2176GREGORY LEWIS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 736 Park Way Santa Cruz, CA 95065 (831) 359-0960 lewislandscape@sbcglobal.net"I have complied with the criteria of the Water Conservation in Landscaping Ordinance and appliedthem for the efficient use of water in the landscape design plan"Gregory Lewis - Landscape Architect Lic. #2176 4/29/2170 Covered ParkingFire Truck Turnaround Aper SDS Std. D-1GradebreakRe-Grade Area toProperty Line to have2:1 max SlopeRain Garden(SD)(SD)(SD)(SD)(SD)(SD)(SD)(SD)(SD)(SD)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)(EOH)>> > > > >>> > > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>(SD)(SD)(SD ) (SD )(SD)SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS(SS)SSof#2176GREGORY LEWIS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 736 Park Way Santa Cruz, CA 95065 (831) 359-0960 lewislandscape@sbcglobal.net"I have complied with the criteria of the Water Conservation in Landscaping Ordinance and appliedthem for the efficient use of water in the irrigation design plan"Gregory Lewis - Landscape Architect Lic. #2176 8/19/2171 #2176GREGORY LEWIS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 736 Park Way Santa Cruz, CA 95065 (831) 359-0960 lewislandscape@sbcglobal.net 72 #2176GREGORY LEWIS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 736 Park Way Santa Cruz, CA 95065 (831) 359-0960 lewislandscape@sbcglobal.net 73 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: October 11, 2023 Subject: Housing Element Update & Policy Options Address/APN: Citywide Owner / Applicant: City of Saratoga From: Bryan Swanson, Community Development Director STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1. Review policy options for responding to comments from California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on the third Draft Housing Element. 2. Receive public comments. 3. Provide comments to City Council on policy options for the Housing Element for resubmittal to HCD. BACKGROUND: Since adoption of the California Housing Element Law in 1969, the State of California has required cities and counties to designate sufficient land at sufficient densities to provide their share of projected housing needs for people of all income levels through the General Plan Housing Element. The Housing Element is a blueprint for future housing development and must be updated every eight years and is subject to review and approval by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). On July 28, 2022, the City submitted the initial draft of the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element to HCD for their 90-day review. On October 26, 2022, the City received HCD’s comment letter and prepared responses and revisions to the draft, which was resubmitted to HCD on January 26, 2023. On March 17, 2023, the City received a second letter from HCD where a number of new comments were introduced including the need for additional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) analysis, more information on Land Use Controls, additional analysis to satisfy Assembly Bill 2339 (Emergency Shelters), and further justification/clarification on accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and Senate Bill (SB) 9 units projections. At the May 17, 2023 City Council Meeting, the Council approved the responses to comments received from HCD on the second draft of Saratoga's 2023-2031 Housing Element. The third draft was submitted to HCD on May 30, 2023. On July 27, 2023, the City received additional HCD comments on the recent draft. The current comments from HCD noted that the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) sites are geographically concentrated, and more actions are required to provide housing mobility throughout the city, including lower density areas. While HCD is not requesting that the RHNA sites be moved, they have indicated that the City must work to identify additional housing opportunities in other areas of the city, particularly lower density single-family neighborhoods. Other HCD comments included further incentivizing the potential for lot consolidation and analyzing 74 Report to the Planning Commission Draft Housing Element October 11, 2023 Page | 2 the City’s existing mixed-use and multi-family development standards that could pose a constraint on the ability to achieve maximum densities. DISCUSSION: Many of HCD’s comments on the third draft can be addressed by providing additional information and pointing to information already in the draft Housing Element and by performing additional technical analysis. However, the comments also point to what HCD staff believe are several shortcomings of Saratoga’s current proposed Housing Element. To have a certified Housing Element, new and/or modified Housing Element policies/programs are needed to meet HCD’s standards. Housing Mobility Policies HCD has indicated that the Housing Element must identify additional sites or adopt a comprehensive package of new policies/programs that does not rely solely on ADUs and SB 9, to increase housing supply and mobility throughout the city, including in lower density single-family areas. Given the lack of available properties within low-density single-family neighborhoods of Saratoga, City staff is recommending new policies to address this comment. Staff has researched policies from other similar Bay Area cities’ certified Housing Elements and has identified options for new Housing Element policies that address HCD’s request to increase housing opportunities in the City’s single-family neighborhoods: 1. Three Primary Dwellings - The City could consider allowing up to three primary dwellings on a conforming lot in certain residential zoning districts subject to adopted objective standards. This could include converting a home to a tri-plex or allowing up to two ADUs on property with an existing home. Los Altos Hills adopted a similar policy to apply to certain areas of their single-family residential districts that are lower in fire hazards and have adequate sewer and water services available. The Planning Commission could consider this change for properties designated as Residential Low Density (R-1-20) and Residential Very Low Density (R-1-40) in the General Plan that are located outside of the very high fire hazard severity zone. These areas are shown in Attachment 2. This policy would encourage more housing options in lower density areas of the city. 2. SB 9 regulations - The City could modify its SB 9 regulations to make SB 9 more widely available. Los Altos Hills keyed this change to their SB 9 monitoring program, providing that the City would implement changes if monitoring finds that SB 9 targets are not being satisfied. To do this, the City could take the following actions: A. Saratoga’s current SB 9 regulations require that lot splits continue to use the allowable floor area and site coverage of the original parcel and be divided proportionally. On smaller lots or on lots that have already used up most of their allowable floor area or site coverage, this significantly disincentivizes SB 9 projects, as development on the new parcel may be limited to a total of 1,600 square feet, which must also include two garage parking spots. Expanding the minimum floor area and/or site coverage allowed for SB 9 lot split projects, perhaps by scaling them to the size of the new lots, could encourage the development of more units in low-density areas. 75 Report to the Planning Commission Draft Housing Element October 11, 2023 Page | 3 B. The current SB 9 code limits units built pursuant to SB 9 to one story and eighteen feet, sixteen feet if the unit is in the setback required by the underlying zoning. Allowing taller homes could encourage more development of these units. C. The current code requires an enclosed parking space for each unit, with exceptions for units near transit. Expanding the exceptions or eliminating the enclosure requirement could reduce the cost of development and as noted above, free up scarce floor area and site coverage. D. The current code requires each new lot to have a width 50 percent of the width of the original parcel. Allowing more flexibility in lot dimensions could make lot splits feasible on more lots and make development under SB 9 more attractive to the owners of those lots. E. The City could also consider the following revisions to the SB 9 code provisions: i. Waive application fees for SB 9 projects and ADUs. ii. Allow an ADU and Junior ADU on each new lot allowing for up to 8 units instead of the 6 allowed under the current ordinance. iii. Streamline approval of single-family homes under a certain size by allowing them to move forward under the SB 9 ministerial review process. 4. Housing on religious institution sites and shared housing - The City could allow higher density affordable housing on religious institution sites and encourage shared housing: A. Housing on religious institution sites - SB 4, currently on the Governor’s desk awaiting approval, allows religious institutions (such as churches, synagogues, and mosques) to build 100 percent affordable housing on their property by-right, but allows up to 20 percent of the units to be for moderate-income households and five percent may be for staff of the institution. The City could adopt a policy to expand on what SB 4 allows by allowing by-right construction of housing on religious institution property, but with a lower affordability requirement, such as by requiring that only 20 percent or 40 percent of units be set aside for affordable housing. Attachment 4 shows the location of religious institutions in Saratoga. Allowing housing development on religious institution sites subject to objective standards could enable more types of housing throughout the city. B. Shared housing - The City could research and pursue a shared housing program that allows and encourages the sharing of housing units provides a more affordable housing option for fixed-income seniors, young adults, and others in the community who cannot afford their own home or apartment while allowing homeowners to supplement their income or to better age in place. The program could include coordination with non-profits and other organizations to increase awareness and potentially facilitate matching tenants with existing homeowners. 5. Encouraging and streamlining housing applications - Saratoga could also adopt the following new policies to help streamline and encourage housing development applications: 76 Report to the Planning Commission Draft Housing Element October 11, 2023 Page | 4 A. The City could allow for more than one Junior ADU per structure subject to objective design standards, as Los Altos Hills has done. B. Encouraging and streamlining ADU applications would also contribute to this goal. Saratoga could develop and offer pre-approved model plans for ADUs that meet building and fire codes, height and size requirements, including designs that are ADA accessible. C. The City could also develop and implement a marketing and outreach program to advertise the ability of homeowners to create ADU and SB 9 units on their properties, to increase awareness and encourage more development in lower density areas. D. Eliminating the requirement for story poles, as Los Altos Hills has done, would reduce the application timeline, costs, and subjectivity of development. Other HCD Comments Lot consolidation - To expand opportunities for additional housing development, the Housing Element includes Program 1.2-4, which includes incentives to encourage the consolidation of small parcels to accommodate housing developments. Because the City does not have recent examples of lot consolidations occurring, HCD is requiring that the program be enhanced. They have suggested to clarify that the City would work with affected landowners to develop and implement the program. In addition, the City could add a provision to track the program’s progress. If by mid-way through the RHNA cycle (2027), trends indicate a potential shortfall in meeting the estimated units in the Village East area, the City could consider additional efforts to incentivize lot consolidation and/or identify additional sites to expand site capacity to the extent necessary to accommodate the RHNA. If the policy is not modified, certain sites may need to be removed from the City’s current inventory of RHNA sites and additional sites would need to be identified. Existing Mixed-Use and Multi-Family Development Standards - HCD directed the City to provide additional analysis to demonstrate that development at the maximum densities allowed under the City’s Mixed-Use Development Standards and Multi-Family zoning districts is feasible. Staff will be reviewing the height, coverage, and parking requirements to ensure there are no constraints to achieving the maximum density of 20 dwelling units per acre for mixed-use projects using those standards. A similar review of the R-M standards will also be conducted. BUILDER’S REMEDY PROJECT INFORMATION California Government Code Section §65589.5 “The Housing Accountability Act”, contains provisions, known as the “Builder’s Remedy”, that prohibits a city that does not have an adopted housing element that is substantially compliant with Housing Element Law from disapproving or conditioning in a manner that renders infeasible a housing development project which includes at least 20 percent of the overall units set aside “for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, even when that housing development is inconsistent with both Saratoga’s zoning regulations and the General Plan. To date, the City has received three projects that are subject to the Builder’s Remedy. Each project is subject to an independent review, including review under the California Environmental Quality Act. More information on the Builder’s Remedy is included in Attachment 5. 77 Report to the Planning Commission Draft Housing Element October 11, 2023 Page | 5 The three projects are: • Allendale/Chester Site. On September 19, an application was submitted for an 11.57-acre site located at the intersection of Allendale and Chester Avenues. The site has an Agriculture zoning designation. The project will include 199 condominiums within 32 separate buildings of which 40 would be affordable. A total of 498 parking spaces are proposed which would include 398 spaces within garages. The residential buildings will be three stories and 38 feet tall. The site has been identified as a Housing Element opportunity site to be rezoned as R-1- 20,000 with a residential density of 24 housing units. • Pierce Road near Saratoga Heights Drive. On July 20, an application for a project to subdivide a 74.45-acre vacant site on Pierce Road near the intersection of Saratoga Heights Drive. The project would include 21 single-family homes with four of the single-family homes available for low-income households. The site is zoned Hillside Residential and is not a Housing Element opportunity site. • 20851 Wardell Road: On July 18, an application was submitted for a 7.5-acre site located at 20851 Wardell Road. The project would include 58 housing units within 16 buildings of which 15 units would be designated as affordable for low-income households. This property is designated as a Housing Element opportunity site and currently zoned Hillside Residential (HR). The draft Housing Element is proposing the rezoning of the property to R-1-12,500. The location of these Builder’s Remedy projects is shown in Attachment 6. These projects will be reviewed as a part of the “pipeline projects” described in section 6 of the Housing Element. With the addition of these projects and revisions to other aspects of the RHNA sites, the City’s housing production numbers for the housing element will be as follows: Very Low- Income Low- Income Moderate- Income Above Moderate- Income Total 2022-2031 RHNA Need 454 261 278 719 1,712 Land Resources Pipeline (approved) & Pending (in process) Projects 0 9 4 213 226 Projected ADU Development 120 120 120 40 400 Vacant Sites 0 0 0 55 55 Non-Vacant Sites Fellowship Plaza site 80 0 0 0 80 Gateway North site 0 0 7 37 44 Gateway South site 52 30 32 83 197 Saratoga Avenue site 93 52 55 144 344 Village East site 23 13 14 37 87 Prospect Lawrence site 111 61 66 172 410 78 Report to the Planning Commission Draft Housing Element October 11, 2023 Page | 6 Wardell site 0 15 0 58 73 Allendale/Chester site 0 40 0 159 199 Quito Pollard site 0 0 0 10 10 Non-Vacant Sites Subtotal 359 211 214 700 1,444 TOTAL Unit Potential 479 340 298 1,008 2,125 Percentage Buffer of RHNA Need 6% 30% 7% 40% 24% A more complete table is shown on Attachment 7. Next Steps Feedback and direction from the City Council will be incorporated into a revised draft Housing Element and posted on the Housing Element website for a minimum of seven (7) days for public comments prior to resubmittal to HCD. Once the draft Housing Element has been updated to address all HCD comments, public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council will be scheduled for final review and adoption of the General Plan and Housing Element, together with updates to the Zoning Ordinance to establish the new Mixed-Use Districts and adoption of the Objective Design Standards. PUBLIC NOTICING: A city-wide postcard was sent on September 28, 2023, and public notification of this meeting was published in the Housing Element Newsletter, Saratoga Source, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Nextdoor. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Comments received from the public can be found in Attachment 8. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 – HCD Comment Letter dated July 27, 2023 Attachment 2 – Map of RLD & RVLD designated properties Attachment 3 – Map of Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones Attachment 4 – Map of religious institutions Attachment 5 – Builders Remedy Frequently Asked Questions Attachment 6 – Location of Builder’s Remedy projects Attachment 7 – Housing Element unit analysis table Attachment 8 – Public Comment 79 STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT 2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500 Sacramento, CA 95833 (916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453 www.hcd.ca.gov July 27, 2023 Bryan Swanson, Director Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Bryan Swanson: RE: City of Saratoga’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Revised Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of Saratoga’s (City) revised draft housing element received for review on May 30, 2023. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. In addition, HCD considered comments from Joanne Cornbleet, pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (c). The revised draft element addresses many statutory requirements described in HCD’s March 17, 2023 review; however, revisions will be necessary to substantially comply with State Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, § 65580 et seq). The enclosed Appendix describes the revisions needed to comply with State Housing Element Law. For your information, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), if a local government fails to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of the statutory deadline (January 31, 2023), then any rezoning to make prior identified sites available or accommodate the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline pursuant to Government Code sections 65583, subdivision (c) and 65583.2, subdivision (c). Please be aware, if the City fails to adopt a compliant housing element within one year from the statutory deadline, the element cannot be found in substantial compliance until these rezones are completed. 80 Bryan Swanson, Director Page 2 Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD. Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant, the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program, and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City will meet housing element requirements for these and other funding sources. For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at: https://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html. We are committed to assisting the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Clare Blackwell, of our staff, at clare.blackwell@hcd.ca.gov. Sincerely, Paul McDougall Senior Program Manager Enclosure 81 City of Saratoga’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Revised Draft Housing Element Page 1 July 27, 2023 APPENDIX CITY OF SARATOGA The following changes are necessary to bring the City’s housing element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the supporting section of the Government Code. Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD’s website at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/hcd-memos. Among other resources, the housing element section contains HCD’s latest technical assistance tool, Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks), available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and- community-development/housing-elements/building-blocks and includes the Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other resources. A. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints 1. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).) Integration and Segregation: While the element was revised to briefly report differences in income relative to the region, the analysis still should incorporate other relevant factors, such as zoning and land use patterns, local growth-related measures or investments. In addition, the element must still describe and analyze any local concentrations or patterns of familial status geographically within the City. For more information, please see HCD’s March 17, 2023 review. Identified Sites and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH): The element now identifies sites by income and location and generally concludes that sites do not exacerbate current fair housing conditions because all the RHNA) sites are located in high resource areas. While all the RHNA sites are located in high resource areas, the entire City is a high resource area and a significant portion of the lower-income RHNA is geographically isolated, including areas that correspond with other fair housing coincidences including higher levels of renter overpayment and higher rates of individuals that are part of a protected class. The element should either identify additional sites to better promote inclusive neighborhoods throughout the City or clearly recognize and evaluate the isolation of the lower-income RHNA and add or modify significant and meaningful actions to promote housing mobility (e.g., housing choices and affordability) throughout the City, including lower density single-family areas. 2. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).) 82 City of Saratoga’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Revised Draft Housing Element Page 2 July 27, 2023 Progress in Meeting the RHNA: While the element now mentions the status of approved pipeline projects, it must still address the gap between approval and building permit application submittal for the Marshall Lane Subdivision, including any barriers to development. The element must also discuss the status and anticipated completion of pending projects such as the Saratoga Retirement Community project, including any known barriers to development, and address drop-out rates of all pending SB 9 applications. Small Sites: The element was not revised to address this finding. For more information, please see HCD’s March 17, 2023 review. Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: While the element was revised to evaluate the potential for redevelopment on some of the parcels within the Village East Site; the element must still provide analysis of existing uses of the sites at 20440 Arbeleche Ln. and 14363 Saratoga Avenue; and demonstrate that the existing uses at these sites will likely discontinue during the planning period. For more information, see HCD’s March 17, 2023 review. SB 9 Sites: While the element now briefly mentions the ease of potential subdivisions on identified lots, it generally was not revised to address HCD’s prior finding and must still provide a complete analysis demonstrating the likelihood of redevelopment. For more information, please see HCD’s March 17, 2023 review. The element should add or modify programs based on the outcomes of a complete analysis. Electronic Site Inventory: For your information, pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, subdivision (b), the City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD when preparing the sites inventory. Please see HCD’s housing element webpage at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/housing-elements-hcd for a copy of the form and instructions. The City/County can reach out to HCD at sitesinventory@hcd.ca.gov for technical assistance. Please note, upon adoption of the housing element, the City must submit an electronic version of the sites inventory with its adopted housing element to sitesinventory@hcd.ca.gov. 3. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).) Land Use Controls: While the element was revised to identify height and lot coverage requirements of the new mixed-use district MU(VHD), it must also analyze these controls for impacts on housing costs and ability to achieve maximum densities. The element states that development standards within the commercial zoning districts (CN, C-V, CH-1, CH-2, and P-A) do not pose a constraint since other mixed-use projects have been built under these regulations. However, simply mentioning that development has occurred does not mean that the standards were not constraints. The element should include analysis, 83 City of Saratoga’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Revised Draft Housing Element Page 3 July 27, 2023 including impacts on the ability to achieve maximum density. In addition, the element must still analyze the 40 percent maximum lot coverage, setbacks, and two-story height limits in multifamily zones as a constraint on development and add programs as appropriate. The element must also still discuss minimum lot sizes and any impacts on identified sites to accommodate the RHNA. For more information, please see HCD’s March 17, 2023 review. While Program 3.3-1 was revised to include a proposed amendment to the parking standards for multifamily, the element must still analyze the parking requirements of one garage space and an additional 0.5 space for a one-bedroom unit, particularly the cost impacts of requiring a garage. In addition, Program 3.3-1 must include actions to specifically commit to reviewing and revising the constraints identified and include specific timing and commitment to proposed revisions. Local Processing and Permit Procedures: The element was revised to include additional information on processing and permit procedures. However, the element must also analyze this approval process for its impact on housing cost, supply, timing, feasibility, and approval certainty. Particularly, the element should evaluate approval findings for impacts on approval certainty and add or modify programs to address identified constraints. B. Housing Programs 1. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09. Sites shall be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).) As noted in Finding A2, the element does not include a complete site analysis; therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. 2. The Housing Element shall contain programs which assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low-, very low-, low- and moderate-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(2).) Program 4-2.4 (Affordable Housing Incentives and Waivers): The Program should be revised to include a quantified objective for units to be developed that will be affordable to lower-income households or special needs groups. 84 City of Saratoga’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Revised Draft Housing Element Page 4 July 27, 2023 3. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).) As noted in Finding A3, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints. 4. Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).) As noted in Finding A1, the element must include a complete analysis of AFFH. The element must be revised based on the outcomes of a complete analysis. For more information, see HCD’s March 17, 2023 review. In addition, the entirety of the City falls into the highest resource category in access to opportunity, has significant areas that are racially concentrated areas of affluence and consists of households with the highest median income category. Further, the City geographically isolates the lower-income RHNA. These conditions and circumstances warrant significant and robust actions (not limited to the RHNA) to promote housing mobility and increase housing choices and affordability throughout the City, including in lower-density neighborhoods. C. Public Participation Local governments shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the Housing Element, and the element shall describe this effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.(c)(9).) HCD received comments with many meaningful suggestions related to the likelihood of development of Gateway South and Prospect/Lawrence sites, potential for additional residential capacity at Saratoga Village and Allendale/Chester Housing Site and other issues related to sites and AFFH. HCD encourages the City to consider these comments in subsequent revisions. 85 Parcels in Residential Low/Very Low Density and Not in Very High Fire Hazard Area Legend City Limits Selected Parcels 86 Saratoga The State of California and the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of data or maps. Neither the State nor the Department shall be liable under any circumstances for any direct, special, incidental, or consequential damages with respect to any claim by any user or third party on account of, or arising from, the use of data or maps. Obtain FRAP maps, data, metadata and publications on the Internet at http://frap.cdf.ca.govFor more information, contact CAL FIRE-FRAP, PO Box 944246, Sacramento, CA 94244-2460, (916) 327-3939. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor, State of CaliforniaMike Chrisman, Secretary for Resources,The Resources AgencyRuben Grijalva, Director,Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Government Code 51175-89 directs the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) to identifyareas of very high fire hazard severity zones within Local Responsibility Areas (LRA). Mapping of the areas, referredto as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ), is based on data and models of, potential fuels over a 30-50year time horizon and their associated expected fire behavior, and expected burn probabilities to quantify the likelihoodand nature of vegetation fire exposure (including firebrands) to buildings. Details on the project and specific modelingmethodology can be found at http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/projects/hazard/methods.htm. Local Responsibility Area VHFHSZmaps were initially developed in the mid-1990s and are now being updated based on improved science,mapping techniques, and data. In late 2005 to be effective in 2008, the California Building Commission adopted California Building Code Chapter 7Arequiring new buildings in VH FHSZs to use ignition resistant construction methods and materials. These new codesinclude provisions to improve the ignition resistance of buildings, especially from firebrands. The updated very high firehazard severity zones will be used by building officials for new building permits in LRA. The updated zones will also beused to identify property whose owners must comply with natural hazards disclosure requirements at time of propertysale and 100 foot defensible space clearance. It is likely that the fire hazard severity zones will be used for updates tothe safety element of general plans. This specific map is based on a geographic information system dataset that depicts final CAL FIRE recommendationsfor Very High FHSZs within the local jurisdiction. The process of finalizing these boundaries involved an extensive localreview process, the details of which are available at http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/projects/hazard/btnet/ (click on "Continueas guest without logging in"). Local government has 120 days to designate, by ordinance, very high fire hazard severityzones within its jurisdiction after receiving the recommendation. Local government can add additional VHFHSZs.There is no requirement for local government to report their final action to CAL FIRE when the recommended zones areadopted. Consequently, users are directed to the appropriate local entity (county, city, fire department, or FireProtection District) to determine the status of the local fire hazard severity zone ordinance. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRAAs Recommended by CAL FIRE Projection Albers, NAD 1983Scale 1: 12,000at 36" x 36"October 9, 2008 ©0 2 Miles 0 3 Kilometers This map was developed using data products such as parcel and city boundaries provided by local government agencies. In certain cases, this includes copyrighted geographic information.The maps are for display purposes only - questions and requests related to parcel or city boundary data should be directed to the appropriate local government entity. DATA SOURCESCAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZL06_3) MAP ID: FHSZL_c43_Saratoga Fire Hazard Severity Zones County Boundary Parcels City Boundary Local Responsibility Area State or Federal Responsibility Areas VHFHSZ Non-VHFHSZ VHFHSZ Non-VHFHSZ 87 C a m p b e l l M o n t e S e r e n o Religious Institutions Sanborn Map Company, Santa Cruz County, Maxar City Limits Religious Institutions 0 0.7 1.40.35 mi 0 1 20.5 km 1:36,112 County of Santa Clara; Sanborn Map Company | Earthstar Geographics | 88 Builder’s Remedy FAQ October 2023 Builder’s Remedy Frequently Asked Questions Q: What is the "Builder's Remedy?" A: There have recently been press reports regarding the so-called “Builder’s Remedy” that can be used to avoid local zoning requirements when a locality’s housing element does not substantially comply with state law. These reports have stated that, if a locality has a noncompliant housing element the city or county must approve the housing development project, regardless of the local zoning. The “Builder’s Remedy” arises from the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code Section 65589.51 ; the HAA). Q: How Does the "Builder's Remedy" Work? A: The HAA requires that cities and counties make one of five findings to deny, or to apply conditions that make infeasible, a housing development project “for very low, low- or moderate- income households” or an emergency shelter. (Section 65589.5(d).) A housing development project with 20 percent of the total units available to lower-income households or with all of the units available for moderate or middle-income households may qualify as housing “for very low, low- or moderate-income households” (see detailed description below). The five findings that would allow the denial of an eligible project can be summarized as follows: 1. The city or county has met or exceeded its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the proposed income categories in the development. 2. The housing development or emergency shelter would have a specific adverse impact on public health and safety, and there is no way to mitigate or avoid the impact without making the development unaffordable. The impact must be based on objective, written public health or safety standards in place when the application is deemed complete. 3. The denial or condition is required to meet state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply without making the development unaffordable. 4. The project is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agriculture or resource preservation or there are not adequate water or sewage facilities to the serve the project. 5. The project is inconsistent with both the zoning ordinance and the land use designation as specified in any general plan element. However, a city or county cannot make this finding if it has not adopted a housing element in substantial compliance with state law. 89 Builder’s Remedy FAQ October 2023 Q: Are Projects Using the “Builder’s Remedy” Exempt from CEQA Review? A: The HAA contains no exemptions from the California Environmental Quality Act. The HAA states specifically that nothing relieves the local agency from making the required CEQA findings and otherwise complying with CEQA. (Section 65589.5(e).) A project may be exempt from CEQA under other provisions of CEQA, other state laws, or the CEQA Guidelines. Q: When Does a Housing Element No Longer Comply with State Law? Is There a Grace Period If the Housing Element Is Not Adopted by the Due Date? A: Housing elements are required to comply with current state housing element law on the established due date (January 31, 2023, in the ABAG region). State law has changed significantly since fifth-cycle housing elements were adopted, and it would be unlikely that a fifth-cycle housing element would substantially comply with current state law. If a sixth cycle element has not been adopted by the due date, the housing element would likely be out of compliance with state law until a complying sixth cycle housing element is adopted. There is no grace period, even for the period when a housing element is being reviewed by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). HCD approval is not required for a housing element to be found substantially compliant with state law. State law provides that a city or county may adopt its own findings explaining why its housing element is substantially compliant with state law despite HCD’s findings. (Section 65585(f).) However, HCD is authorized to refer agencies to the Attorney General if it finds a housing element out of compliance with state law. (Section 65585(j).) Q: Are a Local Agency’s Development Standards Null and Void If the Housing Element is Not in Compliance with State Law? A: No, the local agency’s development standards are not null and void if the housing element is not in substantial compliance with state law. The “Builder’s Remedy,” however, may require a local agency to approve an eligible housing development project despite its noncompliance with local development standards. Conversely, other projects may be challenged because a finding of general plan consistency cannot be made if the general plan is out of compliance with state law. Q: What Projects Are Eligible to Use the “Builder’s Remedy”? A: The “Builder’s Remedy” applies only to a housing development project “for very low, low- or moderate-income households” and to emergency shelters. The HAA defines a “housing development project” as either: • Residential units only; 90 Builder’s Remedy FAQ October 2023 • Mixed-use developments with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use; or • Transitional housing or supportive housing. (Section 65589.5(h)(2).) “Housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households” includes either: • 20% of the total units sold or rented to lower-income households; • 100% of the units sold or rented to moderate-income households; or • 100% of the units sold or rented to middle-income households. Monthly housing costs for lower-income households cannot exceed 30 percent of 60 percent of median income, adjusted for household size, and the units must remain affordable for 30 years. Monthly housing costs for moderate-income households cannot exceed 30 percent of 100 percent of median income. There are no standards in the HAA for housing costs for middle- income households. (Sections 65589.5(h)(3), (h)(4).) An emergency shelter is housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay. (Section 65582(d); Health & Safety Code Section 50801(e).) 91 C a m p b e l l M o n t e S e r e n o Builders Remedy Projects Sanborn Map Company, Santa Cruz County, Maxar City Limits 10/5/2023, 9:39:15 AM 0 0.7 1.40.35 mi 0 1 20.5 km 1:36,112 County of Santa Clara; Sanborn Map Company | Earthstar Geographics | 92 Saratoga Housing Element Update - Revised Sites InventoryCurrent Housing Element (May 2023) With Builder's Remedy Projects + No Projected SB 9 Units Very Low- IncomeLow- IncomeModerate- IncomeAbove Moderate- IncomeTotalVery Low- IncomeLow- IncomeModerate- IncomeAbove Moderate- IncomeTotal2022-2031 RHNA Need454 261 278 719 1,712 454 261 278 719 1,712PIPELINE (approved) & PENDING (in process) projects0 9 0 196 205 0 9 4 213 226projected adu development120 120 120 40 400 120 120 120 40 400Vacant Sites0 0 0 55 55 0 0 0 55 55Projected SB 9 Units0003737 00000Fellowship Plaza site80 0 0 0 80 80 0 0 0 80Gateway North site0 0 7 37 44 0 0 7 37 44Gateway South site52 30 32 83 197 52 30 32 83 197Saratoga Avenue site93 52 55 144 344 93 52 55 144 344Village East site23 13 14 37 87 23 13 14 37 87Prospect Lawrence site111 61 66 172 410 111 61 66 172 410Wardell site0 0 0 20 20 0 15 0 58 73Allendale/Chester site0 0 0 24 24 0 40 0 159 199Quito Pollard site0 0 0 10 10 0 0 0 10 10Non-Vacant Sites Subtotal359 156 174 527 1216 359 211 174 700 1444TOTAL Unit Potential479 285 294 855 1913 479 340 298 1008 2125Percentage Buffer of RHNA Need 6% 9% 6% 19% 12% 6% 30% 7% 40% 24%Land Resources NonVacant Sites93 1 Nicole Johnson Subject:FW: Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com>   Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2023 4:41 PM  To: Clinton Brownley <cbrownley@gmail.com>; Anjali Kausar <aakausar@outlook.com>; Razi Mohiuddin  <razi@mohiuddin.com>; Herman Zheng <zheng.herman@gmail.com>; Jonathan Choi <jojo.choi@gmail.com>; Ping Li  <ping.li2@comcast.net>; Paul Germaraad <pgermeraad@gmail.com>; Bryan Swanson <bswanson@saratoga.ca.us>;  Britt Avrit <bavrit@saratoga.ca.us>; Frances Reed <freed@saratoga.ca.us>  Subject: Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form  CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking  links, especially from unknown senders.  Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Mary Lou Snowden Phone Number  Email Address  Comments Please fight Sacramento on the mandated high density housing. It is not what the people want. Our roads, electric bed and other services cannot handle any more . Stop the push from Sacramento and ask the residents what they want. Fight the high density building mandate. Mary Lou and Terry Snowden Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 94 1 Nicole Johnson From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Saturday, September 30, 2023 4:37 PM To:Chuck Page; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Crystal Bothelio; Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking  links, especially from unknown senders.  Council Comments Form Your Name Mary Lou Snowden Phone Number  Email Address  Subject Housing developments Comments My husband and I highly oppose high density housing in Saratoga. There is no plan for traffic management, community services such as fire and police protection, water resources etc. our state is overloaded , the roads and freeways are a mess. Continuing to build in high density areas is just not a rational plan! Please consider fighting back …the state legislature continues to mandate so many things without considering its constituents. We have been mandated to go all electric when our power grid is not prepared to handle it. We are paying higher and higher bills for water and other services. Why not ask the electorate how they feel about all of this? Thank you…please stop the crazy building spree. Fight back! Mary Lou and Terry Snowden Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.   95 1 Nicole Johnson From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Friday, September 29, 2023 12:00 AM To:Chuck Page; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Crystal Bothelio; Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking  links, especially from unknown senders.  Council Comments Form Your Name Ramin Naimi Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address  Subject Builders remedy Comments Hello, I am writing to voice my opposition to the builders remedy for building more than 77 units at the end of Wardell road. I live on Wardell and I am very concerned about the increase in traffic on Wardell, right in front of my house, as well as the safety issues and noise and many other undesirable side effects that will come with this development. We need to stop this aww development now. Ramin Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.   96 1 Nicole Johnson From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Thursday, September 28, 2023 10:54 PM To:Chuck Page; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Crystal Bothelio; Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking  links, especially from unknown senders.  Council Comments Form Your Name Reginald Ricket Phone Number  Email Address  Subject Failed Housing Plan Comments I applaud the States rejection of the unequitable housing plan put forth by our city council that placed almost all the required housing north of Cox--where I live. Now,sadly, all the city residents--specifically including those south of Cox must suffer the results of that rejected plan. I hope the City Council will now undertake to create a housing plan that distributes proposed housing around the city--such as the Safeway-CVS complex on Saratoga-Sunnyvale rd. Email Subscription Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.   97 1 Nicole Johnson Subject:FW: Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form   From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com>   Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2023 1:12 PM  To: Clinton Brownley <cbrownley@gmail.com>; Anjali Kausar <aakausar@outlook.com>; Razi Mohiuddin  <razi@mohiuddin.com>; Herman Zheng <zheng.herman@gmail.com>; Jonathan Choi <jojo.choi@gmail.com>; Ping Li  <ping.li2@comcast.net>; Paul Germaraad <pgermeraad@gmail.com>; Bryan Swanson <bswanson@saratoga.ca.us>;  Britt Avrit <bavrit@saratoga.ca.us>; Frances Reed <freed@saratoga.ca.us>  Subject: Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form    CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking  links, especially from unknown senders.  Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Tanya Roosta Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address  Comments Words cannot describe how frustrated and angry I am with such useless council members. I am not sure what your role is good for if you cannot come up with a fair housing plan that is scattered AROUND Saratoga, and not pockets that are far away from your house and your high powered friends houses. I have attended every housing meeting and have heard nothing but lies and excuses from all of you, and no real justification for such a big failure. If you have any shred of dignity, you should just resign and let more competent people take your place. I live near Allendale, and the builders have proposed a 199 unit monstrosity to be built at the corner of Chester and Allendale. Who is going to be responsible for the traffic congestion, potential neighborhood unsafety, and all the other issues that come with such huge complex being put in the middle of residential single family homes. A very irritated and unhappy Saratoga resident. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.    98 1 Nicole Johnson From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Sunday, October 1, 2023 1:34 AM To:Chuck Page; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Crystal Bothelio; Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking  links, especially from unknown senders.  Council Comments Form Your Name Vandy Agrawal Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address  Subject Disappointed at our council members Comments We Saratoga residents are very disappointed with our elected council members who couldn't come up with a fair and equitable housing plan and restrict the number of stories being built to 2 stories high. Feels like you guys don't care about Saratoga. Then why are you in those jobs that is supposed to represent our voices when you have clearly ignored them. Very disappointed Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.   99 CITY OF SARATOGA Memorandum To: Saratoga Planning Commission From: Bryan T. Swanson, Community Development Director Date: October 11, 2023 Subject: Housing Element Update & Policy Options - Supplemental Memo No. 1 Please see attached public comment received after the publication of the agenda packet. 100 Frances Reed From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 7:29 AM To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi; Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or  clicking links, especially from unknown senders.  Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Vivek Tiwari Phone Number  Email Address  Comments The Builder's Remedy needs to be rejected and the Planning Commission cannot give in and bend over backwards to builders by creating environmentally harmful multi-story complexes next to creeks which are home to dozens of wildlife species and heritage flora. It has not been legally established that HCD has the sole authority to decide substantial compliance to RHNA requirements. The Housing Element, such as it is, already meets RHNA requirements. The HCD comments are not binding and the City can establish that it is already substantially compliant. " State law provides that a city or county may adopt its own findings explaining why its housing element is substantially compliant with state law despite HCD’s findings. (Section 65585(f).)" The State Attorney General may then redirect this to the courts and THAT'S OK. It is the job of the City to fight for its Citizens. Many cities in California are doing just that. It will be huge and permanent disservice to the citizens for Saratoga if the Planning Commission and the City just gives in now vs fight the Builder's Remedy as is its legal right and obligation.We elect the City Council and it Commissions and pay the salaries for the City Staff to work to protect the interests of the citizen and not to just take the path of least resistance. The time has come for the Planning Commission to stand up for the citizens of Saratoga and to fight the builders and 101 political lobbies for the sake of the city, its unique character and for its citizens. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.   102 Frances Reed From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Sunday, October 8, 2023 11:02 AM To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi; Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or  clicking links, especially from unknown senders.  Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Joanne Phone Number  Email Address  Comments Builder’s Remedy proposal in Menlo Park at the site of the former Sunset Magazine campus: The dense project proposed by N17 Development features four buildings, two of them residential, to replace the single-story former Sunset Magazine campus at 80 Willow Road. The tallest building (30 stories) would rise 326 feet, taller than the 305-foot Statue of Liberty and only 4 feet below most modern definitions of a skyscraper. The developer wants to build between 800 and 1,150 apartment units, a 150-room hotel and office space on the site. Menlo Park’s HE may have been rejected because they proposed designating most sites for affordable housing in the less affluent east side of the city. https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2023/08/18/local-elected- officials-unite-in-opposition-to-huge-builders-remedy-project-in- menlo-park Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.   103 Frances Reed From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Saturday, October 7, 2023 3:19 PM To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi; Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or  clicking links, especially from unknown senders.  Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Latika Munjal Phone Number  Email Address  Comments Hi I am Latika Munjal and have lived in Saratoga woods for the last 29 years. I have seen traffic increasing over the years to the point that getting on the freeway on Saratoga Avenue takes me about 10-12 minutes during commute time even though I live only a mile away from the freeway. What you are proposing by putting the majority of this housing near Saratoga/Cox avenue will not only increase the traffic on the roads here, but our schools and quality of life will go down. The existing Housing Element places the majority of the housing in our northern area, and when this is coupled with the El Paseo project and Costco, it will create unsafe increased traffic on Saratoga avenue and the surrounding northern Saratoga area. The city of Saratoga has not addressed the looming traffic issue on Saratoga Avenue and in fact exacerbates it with their Housing Element. I do not understand why the majority of that housing is being put here instead of being divided equitably. I would respectfully like to ask the City Council to Please be fair to all Saratogans. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.   104 Frances Reed From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Saturday, October 7, 2023 11:04 AM To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi; Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or  clicking links, especially from unknown senders.  Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Joanne Cornbleet Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address  Comments Much of the proposal to addressing HCD's comments on Saratoga's HE draft is devoted toward new policies promoting SB9 (lot subdivision) units in the south part of the city with the lowest density housing. This is projected to create a whooping 37 new ABOVE MODERATE INCOME units in the next 8 years! While I have no objection to policies that encourage lot splitting, this approach does nothing to address the concentration of AFFORDABLE units in the north part of Saratoga. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.   105 Frances Reed From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Saturday, October 7, 2023 10:08 AM To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi; Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or  clicking links, especially from unknown senders.  Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Joanne Cornbleet Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address  Comments Saratoga’s HE proposes 120 ADUs as Very Low Income units. To qualify, these ADUs would have to have affordable rent for people at or below 50% of the median income for our area (paying a max of 30% of their income for rent). This works out to about $1800-$1900 per month rent for a 1 bedroom ADU. I don’t think anyone in Saratoga is going to build an ADU and rent it for that amount. I can find one ADU in Saratoga for rent for $2900. When Saratoga falls short of the number of Very Low Income units due to unrealistic proposals, developers once again will be able to build anywhere without the city’s approval. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.   106 Frances Reed From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Friday, October 6, 2023 7:20 PM To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi; Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or  clicking links, especially from unknown senders.  Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Chris Vasquez Phone Number  Email Address  Comments I urge the Planning Commission and City Council to respond to the State’s most recent rejection of the Housing Element in a manner that results in a Saratoga Housing Element that is fair. Right now, Over 90% of affordable housing is placed in northern Saratoga (Gateway North, Gateway South, Prospect/Lawrence, and Saratoga Avenue, which is only 20% of the city area. As the State highlighted, the City is a high resource area and a significant portion of the lower-income RHNA is geographically isolated, including areas that correspond with other fair housing coincidences including higher levels of renter overpayment and higher rates of individuals that are part of a protected class. This approach is flawed and the State recognizes this as evidenced in their comments. Saratoga is required to provide 454 Very Low-Income Units. With the addition of the Builder’s Remedy projects at Allendale/Chester and Wardell, the total number of Very Low- Income units is 479. However, a large number of these units are projected to come from two commercial sites with a low probability of sale and lot consolidation. Saratoga’s revised housing production numbers include Gateway South (52 Very Low-Income Units), despite knowledge to the Council that the owner “showing interest” in selling specifically wrote a letter to the Council that his site no longer was for sale! He also mentioned other Gateway South owners that were unwilling to sell. 107 Prospect/Lawrence (111 Very Low-Income Units) likewise has multiple commercial site owners who have not been willing to sell in the past. According to the staff, the City has not contacted any of these owners to see if there is interest. “Interest” for Prospect/Lawrence was simply based on mentioning that mixed commercial/residential development has occurred at El Paseo! These two commercial sites contribute 163 Very Low-Income Units to Saratoga’s housing numbers. How will Saratoga ensure that these two commercial sites included in the Housing Element have a REALISTIC chance for lot consolidation and high-density housing development? If progress is not made toward the goal for Very Low-Income Housing units in a few years, the City once again will be required to give ministerial approval to developers despite zoning restrictions. HCD’s comments on the 3rd Draft Housing Element also encouraged the City to consider additional sites in subsequent revisions and not to rely solely on ADUs and SB9 to increase housing supply throughout the city, including in the lower density single-family areas. Because of this, I strongly recommend to the Planning Commission and Council those additional commercial properties in the southern parts of Saratoga be proposed for Opportunity Sites. These sites should be vetted to determine if there is selling interest from the owners as the other sites should have been. For example, Argonaut (one owner) and Compass + retail stores (2 owners) could be combined into a retail/residential village, preserving the grocery store, CVS, and possibly other retail establishments as well. The Village was improperly rejected by the Council as an Opportunity Site because of “fire hazard,” but the “Map of Very High Fire Hazard Zones as recommended by CAL FIRE” shows that much of The Village is not within a severe fire hazard zone so this area appears viable to be included in the Housing Element. Sites that could be examined in the southern part of Saratoga to increase density are: Quito/Pollard site, increase density The Village – Increase density as surrounding areas are higher density, multi-level apartments, etc. Marshall Lane subdivision – increase density If Churches are proposed as a possibility, ensure these too are evenly spread in the South and North parts of the city These are just some sites, not exhaustive, and I’m sure you 108 could identify others in the spirit of equitably constructing a viable Housing Element. New policies are meaningless unless the revised Housing Element spreads the planned housing equitably, North and South in Saratoga. Respectfully, Chris Vasquez Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.   109 Frances Reed From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Friday, October 6, 2023 5:12 PM To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi; Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or  clicking links, especially from unknown senders.  Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Jacqueline Holmes Phone Number  Email Address  Comments It seems to me the choice was made to “put our head in the sand”, rather than City Council pass a plan to comply with the clearly worded state law, and thereby avoid Builders Remedy. :/ However, rather than fight the entire idea of density/state housing requirements , which seems a lost cause whether we like it or not - why don’t we take advantage to enhance Saratoga’s quality of life , property values and commercial tax revenue (as well as housing equity)? 1) Create more vibrancy in our downtown Village , actively attracting more amenities and filled storefronts including a market; 2) Regain the vibrancy lost when outdoor seating on Big Basin was lost, which City Council blamed on the state although the state was waiting and asking for City Council’s proposal which never came as they never had city staff to address the issue as requested; 3) Create transportation to reduce car dependency to major destinations within 10 miles, for all including students/teens/youth , the elderly, those employed by local businesses and residents (employee transport is a major challenge), and others wanting a more convenient, active and environmentally friendly lifestyle. On demand shuttles (like Hopper) are being used by Cupertino/MV and could be extended to Saratoga & LG, and there are other services (like 110 Circuit) which are advertising supported, all of which could be supported by state and federal grants if prioritized by City Council, as could be development of safer, fully physically protected/separated and contiguous bicycle lanes to all major road arteries/destinations, which would be used by a much wider audience for transportation as well as recreation. Food for thought!! Everything is a matter of priorities. Thank you. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.   111 Frances Reed From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Friday, October 6, 2023 4:48 PM To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi; Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or  clicking links, especially from unknown senders.  Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Joanne Cornbleet Phone Number  Email Address  Comments Saratoga is required to provide 454 Very Low Income Units. With the addition of the Builder’s Remedy projects at Allendale/Chester and Wardell, the total number of Very Low Income units is 479. However, a large number of these units are projected to come from two commercial sites with a low probability of sale and lot consolidation. Saratoga’s revised housing production numbers include Gateway South (52 Very Low Income Units), despite knowledge to the Council that the owner “showing interest” in selling specifically wrote a letter to the Council that his site no longer was for sale! He also mentioned other Gateway South owners that were unwilling to sell. Prospect/Lawrence (111 Very Low Income Units) likewise has multiple commercial site owners who have not been willing to sell in the past. According to the staff, the City has not contacted any of these owners to see if there is interest. “Interest” for Prospect/Lawrence was simply based on mentioning that mixed commercial/residential development has occurred at El Paseo! These two commercial sites contribute 163 Very Low Income Units to Saratoga’s housing numbers. How will Saratoga ensure that these two commercial sites included in the Housing Element have a REALISTIC chance for lot consolidation and high density housing development? If progress is not made toward the goal for Very Low Income Housing units in a few years, the City once again will be required to give ministerial approval to developers despite zoning restrictions. 112 HCD’s comments on the 3rd Draft Housing Element also encouraged the City to consider additional sites in subsequent revisions and not to rely solely on ADUs and SB9 to increase housing supply throughout the city, including in the lower density single-family areas. Thus, I strongly recommend to the Planning Commission and Council that additional commercial properties in the southern parts of Saratoga be proposed for Opportunity Sites IF there is selling interest from the owners. For example, Argonaut (one owner) and Compass + retail stores (2 owners) could be combined into a retail/residential village, preserving the grocery store, CVS, and possibly other retail establishments as well. The Village was improperly rejected by the Council as an Opportunity Site because of “fire hazard,” but the “Map of Very High Fire Hazard Zones as recommended by CAL FIRE” shows that much of The Village is not within a severe fire hazard zone. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.   113 Frances Reed From:James Lindsay Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 1:54 PM To:Frances Reed; Britt Avrit Cc:Leslie Arroyo; Bryan Swanson Subject:FW: Heritage Orchard Attachments:20220117_AoA_Final_To_Council.pptx Hello Frances & Britt,    Could you please include this email and the attached document as part of the public comments on the Housing  Element Update for the October 11 Planning Commission and November 1 City Council meetings.    Thank you,  James          From: John T. Reagan   Sent: Sunday, October 8, 2023 9:31 PM  To: Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us>; Yan Zhao <yzhao@saratoga.ca.us>; Belal Aftab  <baftab@saratoga.ca.us>; Chuck Page <cpage@saratoga.ca.us>; Tina Walia <twalia@saratoga.ca.us>  Subject: Heritage Orchard      CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or  clicking links, especially from unknown senders.  Councilmembers:     Given that the State has rejected three of your submissions and now there are Builder’s Remedies (BR) popping up  throughout the City, I wanted to share this analysis once again.  This will be the first time that Belal and Chuck will  have seen this proposal.     There was no good reason why the Compass/Bagel Shop site should not be part of submission #4.     Any arguments previously presented are no longer defensible in light of the rejections and BR projects.     As you know, James has the spreadsheet that generated this material.     John Reagan  114 19-Jan-2022 City Council Meeting Housing Element Analysis of Alternatives A Collection of Community Generated Proposals 115 Purpose •This presentation identifies three (3) alternative RHNA-mandated housing allocations generated by representatives from impacted communities “north of 85” that aims to achieve: •A more equitable distribution across the city (“spread the load”) •Reduce required height of housing units (“keep it low”) •A more equitable distribution between Saratoga Union and Campbell Union school districts. •One (1) option utilizes the nine (9) areas identified by the Planning Commission and the other two (2) utilize City-owned property to achieve these goals. •We would like the City Council to direct Staff to review these plans and provide their independent assessment. Updated 19-January Opportunity Sites Proposed Alternatives 116 1.64 acre, APN: 393 01 032 Option 1: Utilize Bagel Shop and Compass Parcels •Compass Realty and “Bagel Shop” are two (2) different parcels •Develop both sites (3.2 acres combined) •Change zoning from CR to RMF 30-60 du/acre •37-units •Only rear abutting neighbors are directly impacted, but they are already RMF (residential multi-family) 2- story (~20du/acre) and separated by creek •Saratoga Union, Los Gatos Union school districts •Pierce Road evacuation site is Argonaut shopping center, no need to hold onto this site for this purpose 1.56 acre, APN: 393 47 001 117 Option 1: Utilize Bagel Shop and Compass Parcels CONS: •82% of allocation to North of 85, 18% to South of 85, still not equitable; better than Jan-19 proposal, but not good enough PROS: •Identifies only sites required to meet RHNA requirements vs. Jan-19 recommendation which identifies 8% more than required •Improves SUSD / CUSD disparity •Bagel shop can move into Argonaut shopping center (where Alpine Travel site currently sits empty); still walking distance to Pierce Road •Larger contiguous site would support underground parking with less impact to abutting neighbors 118 Options 2 and 3: Utilize City-Owned Property •Usable portion of the Orchard is ~10 acres •Option 2 would propose utilizing 3 acres of the orchard adding 120 units leaving ~7 acres of functional orchard •Option 3 proposes utilizing 5 acres adding 141 units leaving ~5 acres of functional orchard •This would put more traffic on Saratoga Avenue, but it would be South of 85 and not likely to unduly burden the Lawrence & Prospect and Lawrence & Saratoga intersections •There are, of course, other City-owned properties that could be utilized, but no other site offers as much opportunity achieve the three goals of “spreading the load”, “keeping it low” and reducing the disproportionate impact to CUSD. library 3 -5 acres OrchardTo HWY 85 To HWY9 LOS GATOS HWY 17 VILLAGE Not drawn To scale Heritage-Orchard-Master-Plan-2020 (saratoga.ca.us)indicates 13.9 acres of Orchard. For planning purposes, we used 10 acres. If it’s actually 13.9, our argument is even stronger 119 Option 2: Use City-Owned Property Use 3 Acres of The ~10 Acres (30%) of the Orchard CONS: •Lose 30% of Orchard PROS: •City controls affordability levels; can ensure very low housing is built (teachers, City employees, etc.) •Relieves impact on North of 85 (Saratoga Ave, Gateway) •Could “tuck” orchard units behind library to minimize street view and impact •Can still have a functional orchard •NO abutting residential neighbors •Walking distance to: City Hall, Joan Pisani Center, RMS, West Valley, Library, Sacred Heart, St. Andrews, Farmer’s Market, major VTA hub (4 routes, some connect to light rail), Hwy 85, 9 PROS: •Improved SUSD / CUSD disparity •75% of allocation to North of 85, 25% to South of 85, still not equitable; better than Jan-19 proposal, but not good enough 120 Option 3: Use City-Owned Property Use 5 Acres of The ~10 Acres (50%) of Heritage Orchard CONS: •Lose 50% of Orchard PROS: •Same as option 2 AND •Considerably Improved SUSD / CUSD disparity •67% of allocation to North of 85, 33% to South of 85, still not equitable but the best of all proposals presented so far 121 Why We Should Use (some of) The Heritage Orchard •The Heritage Orchard is walking distance to: •Major VTA hub with four (4) VTA routes that connect up to Light Rail and major employment centers (see VTA Congestion Management Program 2018 Conformance & Monitoring Report) •Four (4) schools (West Valley, Redwood Middle School (SUSD), Sacred Heart, St. Andrews), two (2) churches (Sacred Heart, St. Andrews) •Civic center, Joan Pisani Center, Post Office, Library, Farmer’s Market, Recreation Areas (RMS fields, courts, walking and running trails, West Valley College) •Orchard has easy access to HWY 85 and HWY 9 •Site is consistent with HCD Best Practices •City, not developers, gets to control the affordability distribution (not subject to RHNA allocations) and actually allocate housing to valued but at-risk population (teachers, City staff, etc) •Offers a much more equitable distribution of RHNA opportunity sites…more fair to all Saratogans A previous City Council put the Orchard on the historical list; a current City Council can take it off that list 122 A Cautionary Tale •It is easy to simply identify the bulk of opportunity sites North of 85 at Lawrence & Prospect and Lawrence & Saratoga and Gateway without consideration of the impacts. •Lawrence is a VTA roadway (expressway) •If Congestion Management Agencies (CMA) like Saratoga develop irresponsibly and cause LOS to drop below LOS “E” on a VTA roadway there can be serious repercussions for Saratoga •VTA projects nearly all Lawrence intersections to be LOS “F” by 2025 (https://countyroads.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb681/files/ expresswaysystem.pdf) •2018 peak PM measurements of Lawrence & Prospect show overall LOS “D”, but South- and East-bound at LOS “E” and “F” already…doesn’t include COSTCO or El Paseo or Jan-19 housing element proposal •VTA may withhold Prop 111 gas tax; pre-COVID, this was averaging about ~$729K/year Relying on EIR to identify impacts to community is too late. Need to assess community impact before finalizing opportunity sites. 123 VTA Peak PM Congestion LOS Measurements Lawrence & Prospect 2018 Nov 15, 4:30-5:30pm Lawrence & Prospect already problematic not counting Costco, El Paseo or this proposal E D C E+ D B F DC- E D-C North-Bound South-Bound East-Bound West -Bound •Exiting to 85 •Leaving Prospect High•To Saratoga Sunnyvale •To Saratoga Ave 124 Conclusions •These are viable alternative plans that could effectively spread and share the load on the neighborhoods, traffic and schools •Please direct Staff to quickly review these options and provide report back to Council •Consideration should also be given to: •Increasing density on Allendale/Chester •Utilizing Saratoga Prospect Center (city-owned) •Developing and energizing the Village with mixed-use housing + commercial •Keep the height limit across Saratoga to 3 stories maximum otherwise we will be faced with the reality shown here •This site is almost unrecognizable as the pumpkin patch!!!Shown here is a composite of the 4-story Penny Lane Development on Campbell/San Tomas and the existing Saratoga Ave “Pumpkin Patch” site (Saratoga Ave & Cox). Please limit this site to 3 stories maximum.125 CITY OF SARATOGA Memorandum To: Saratoga Planning Commission From: Bryan T. Swanson, Community Development Director Date: October 11, 2023 Subject: Housing Element Update & Policy Options - Supplemental Memo No. 2 Please see attached public comment received after the publication of the agenda packet. 126 Frances Reed From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 2:30 PM To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi; Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or  clicking links, especially from unknown senders.  Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Vigen Salmastlian Phone Number  Email Address  Comments I am Saratoga resident and homeowner on Apricot Hill in Saratoga near the large Allendale/Chester lot that is now being considered for 198 unit Builder's Remedy. I am strongly opposed to this proposed rezoning that is inconsistent with the neighborhood and surrounding area. All of the lots on chester are 40,000 square foot and larger in size, and what is being proposed here is dense condos. Even on the Allendale side lots are 1/3 acre and more. The reason we and many others have bought homes in this area of Saratoga is because of the large lots, open spaces, nature preserves, and wooded environment, with a small population, and no traffic. Adding 198 units at the corner will drastically change the neighborhood and will set a dangerous precedent to continue developing more and more lots into dense housing. To the extent any rezoning happens to build homes it must be consistent with the zoning in the surrounding area. The city should not allow anything smaller than subdividing into 1 acre lots. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.   127 Frances Reed From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 2:26 PM To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi; Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or  clicking links, especially from unknown senders.  Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Sriram Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address  Comments The Builder's Remedy must be rejected. The builders remedy is creating environmentally harmful multi-story complexes next to creeks which are home to dozens of wildlife species and heritage flora. The Planning Commission should fight against this. The Housing Element already meets RHNA requirements. HCD's comments are not binding and the City can establish that it is already substantially compliant. If the Planning Commission gives in now, it will be a huge disservice to the citizens of Saratoga. The Planning Commission must stand up for the citizens and fight the builders and political lobbies for the sake of the city, its unique character, and for its citizens. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.   128 CITY OF SARATOGA Memorandum To: Saratoga Planning Commission From: Bryan T. Swanson, Community Development Director Date: October 11, 2023 Subject: Housing Element Update & Policy Options - Supplemental Memo No. 3 Please see attached public comment received after the publication of the agenda packet. 129 Frances Reed From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 2:43 PM To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi; Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or  clicking links, especially from unknown senders.  Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Curt Bianchi Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address  Comments The State’s third comment letter regarding Saratoga’s Housing Element makes clear that the City has not chosen housing opportunity sites in an equitable manner. Specifically, the State calls out the "geographic isolation" of lower income opportunity sites within the City, and notes that this must be corrected either by identifying additional housing opportunity sites or by specifying meaningful actions to promote housing mobility (e.g., housing choices and affordability) throughout the City, including lower density single-family areas. Maybe the State’s objections can be overcome with the staff's recommendations, which fall in the category of meaningful actions. Even so, the fact will remain that the overwhelming number of housing opportunity sites, especially for lower income, will still be geographically isolated in the northern part of the City. It is clear from the Dec. 7, 2021, Planning Council meeting and the subsequent City Council meetings that this was as intended. The Planning Commission represents the entire City. As such, residents rely on it to make decisions in a manner that is fair and equitable to us all. In a process such as the Housing Element, there will naturally be a lot of “not in my backyard” complaints regardless of the decisions made. These decisions are defensible if objective standards are applied and they adhere to the State’s requirements. But it feels like that has not been the case with respect to the Housing Element opportunity sites. 130 Certain commercial properties were designated as opportunity sites while others outside the “geographically isolated” portion of the City were excluded for arbitrary reasons. For instance, Saratoga Sunnyvale / Pierce Road was excluded because certain Council members and residents like the bagel shop there. The Argonaut shopping center—a prime opportunity for redevelopment as mixed use—was excluded because, per one Council member, the grocery store would have to temporarily close during conversion to mixed use. The Village was excluded because part of it is in the high fire hazard zone. Never mind that the City has previously approved, and there currently exists, a significant amount of high density housing in the fire hazard zone adjacent to the Village; plus, parts of the Village itself were in the 2015-2023 Housing Element. On the other hand, commercial properties in the "geographically isolated" part of the city were chosen for very high housing densities even though developers would have to cobble together multiple small parcels in order to create a large enough footprint to achieve the densities that the Housing Element calls for. Owner interest and lease encumbrances were not considered. It seems highly unlikely that these properties can be redeveloped to the densities required by the Housing Element in the next eight years, a problem that the State also called out. And unlike the bagel shop, I don’t recall the Planning Commission or the City Council expressing regret regarding the many mom-and-pop shops and restaurants that would be put out of business if their properties were redeveloped. Comparable vacant parcels received drastically different treatment in the Housing Element. Allendale/Chester—a 12.13-acre parcel which the City describes as “observably underutilized as one of the last remaining vacant lands within the central part of the city, and located in proximity to a number of public transit options provided by VTA”—is designated for a density of just two housing units per acre, whereas Saratoga Avenue (aka the “pumpkin patch”)—a similarly sized vacant parcel at 11.45 acres, and also served by VTA—is assigned a minimum density of 30 du/ac. The Heritage Orchard was excluded because, we were told, if it was included there would be no excuse not to develop it into housing because it is City-owned. One Saratoga resident told me he was opposed to development of the orchard because to him the orchard represents the “gateway" to Saratoga. And that right there is the problem in a nutshell. If that’s the gateway to Saratoga, then a lot of Saratoga is not really Saratoga. And not-really-Saratoga is where nearly all of the 131 lower income housing was proposed in Saratoga’s Housing Element. Granted, some of these decisions were made by the City Council, not the Planning Commission. But the opportunity sites that the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council on Dec. 14, 2021, were even more heavily skewed to the northern part of town than what the Council ultimately approved. Why was West Hope Church on Saratoga Ave. north of Cox the only religious institution property recommended to the City Council as a housing opportunity site? The only preschool recommended was in Northern Saratoga. The only day care center targeted was in Northern Saratoga. The State’s Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook requires that “sites identified to accommodate the lower income RHNA must be distributed throughout the community in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing.” I feel that the commissioners failed to look at the cumulative effect of their choices through that lens. Or maybe it was their job to merely identify suitable sites, and the Council’s job to assess them as a whole and decide which ones to include in the Housing Element. In any case, the Housing Element sent a message that some parts of the City are acceptable for lower income housing while others are not, and the State noticed. I highly doubt that the Planning Commission or the City Council is interested in re-addressing the housing opportunity sites, instead hoping that the Staff recommendations will be enough to get our Housing Element across the finish line. But if the opportunity sites are reconsidered, I urge the Planning Commission to do so in a way that meets the State’s requirement that "sites identified to accommodate the lower income RHNA must be distributed throughout the community in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing." Sincerely, Curt Bianchi Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.   132 Frances Reed From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 3:07 PM To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi; Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or  clicking links, especially from unknown senders.  Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Som Nag Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address  Comments Saratoga needs to respect its citizens' wishes and preserve its character. As such our HE plan meets all RHNA criteria of min added units and min affordable low-income units. HCD feedback does NOT mandate we amend our plan which also opts for the Environmentally Superior alternative identified by the EIR. We are NOT in non-compliance, pending the adoption of our last draft. HCD simply points out further areas of improvement above and beyond compliance. The Builder's Remedy proposals are pre-emptive overtures by predatory big money builders who want to destroy Saratoga, with only their own and their associates' financial gains in mind. The citizens, City, Council and Planning Commission need to stand up and fight back. It has not been legally established that HCD has the sole authority to decide substantial compliance to RHNA requirements. The Housing Element, such as it is, already meets RHNA requirements. The HCD comments are not binding and the City can establish that it is already substantially compliant. Per the Law, the City simply needs to write back to the HCD explaining our reasons (that I state above) why we believe we ARE in compliance. " State law provides that a city or county may adopt its own findings explaining why its housing element is substantially compliant with state law despite HCD’s findings. (Section 65585(f).)" The State Attorney General may then redirect this to the courts and THAT'S OK. It is the job of the City to fight for its Citizens. Many cities in California are doing just that. 133 It will be huge and permanent disservice to the citizens of Saratoga if the Planning Commission and the City just gives in now vs fighting the Big Builders as is the legal right and obligation. If we give in now, the Builders will not stop here - the destruction of our City will continue to multiply their gains. Let us ALL citizens from every part of Saratoga UNITE to fight these Builders and not allow divisive forces to weaken our combined resolve. We elected the City Council and it Commissions and pay the salaries for the City Staff to work to protect the interests of the citizen and not to just take the path of least resistance. The time has come for the Planning Commission and Council to stand up for the citizens of Saratoga and to fight the builders and political lobbies for the sake of the city, its unique character and for its citizens. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.   134 Frances Reed From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 3:55 PM To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi; Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or  clicking links, especially from unknown senders.  Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Rae Williams Phone Number  Email Address    on ALLENDALE/CHESTER. This area is and was one-acre parcels and should remain. We drive daily on Chester to our home, the plan for 198 homes is a devastation to the area and our city of Saratoga. VOTE NO. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.   135 CITY OF SARATOGA Memorandum To: Saratoga Planning Commission From: Bryan T. Swanson, Community Development Director Date: October 11, 2023 Subject: Housing Element Update & Policy Options - Supplemental Memo No. 4 Please see attached public comment received after the publication of the agenda packet. 136 Frances Reed From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Wednesday, October 11, 2023 4:10 PM To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi; Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or  clicking links, especially from unknown senders.  Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Navin E Samuel Phone Number  Email Address  Comments The commission's plan to build a 199 condo complex at the Belleciti Vineyard is outrageous and unacceptable to all of us living in and around the area. Allendale and its access rods along Quito and Fruitvale are already crammed in the morning with traffic and I don't understand why you would approve of another 200 units on the road and increase the traffic on an already busy road. You are destroying my right to live peacefully to meet your own vested interests and I fully object to this proposal. Please stop this nonsense and find better ways to meet housing needs of California other than by trodding over others lives. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.   137 Frances Reed From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Wednesday, October 11, 2023 9:51 PM To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi; Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or  clicking links, especially from unknown senders.  Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Janette L FuldePorta Phone Number  Email Address  Comments Can we please make builders pay for bike lanes and safty improvements ifor safe roads. West Valley should build student housing will this meet some goals? Can we get busses again for susd? Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.   138 Frances Reed From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Wednesday, October 11, 2023 5:29 PM To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi; Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or  clicking links, especially from unknown senders.  Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Elaheh Firoozi Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address  Comments I disagree with any Builder remedy project on Allendale/Chester Ave. It will have profound adverse effect on the neighborhood demographic, culture, noise and traffic. Our household requests City Council members to reject the builder proposal. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.   139 Frances Reed From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Wednesday, October 11, 2023 8:52 PM To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi; Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or  clicking links, especially from unknown senders.  Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Hassan Sedarat Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address  Comments Our family leaves near Allendale/Chester Orchard and we oppose to changing this beautiful lot to a dense community of condos. City needs to consider the neighborhood input and follow the plan for residential lots similar to the area zoning. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.   140