The project will be designated as a family community, with the following projected breakdown (the breakdown is subject to change based on funding requirements): 29% of the project (36 units) being targeted to extremely lowincome (ELI) households earning 30% AMI or less. Of the 36 ELI units, 19 units (15% of total project) are projected to be designated as 'supportive housing' units for formerly homeless veteran tenants. The remaining 71% of the units (89 units) will be restricted to households earning between 50% to 80% AMI. The average affordability for the project will be 59% AMI. Please note ROEM will be pursuing project-based vouchers (PBVs) for 36 units with AMI's at 50% or less. This equates to housing for a family of four making between $52,200 and $139,200 annually.
The project, as envisioned, will strive for a LEED Silver rating, incorporating low flow fixtures, low VOC materials, rooftop solar, native plant landscaping, bike parking, EV charging, as well as other environmentally responsible building practices.
ROEM is proposing to construct this 100% affordable housing project at the corner of Belmont Avenue and El Camino Real which is a priority development area location that was recently rezoned as part of the City's General Plan update to encourage new and innovative development activity. As part of our project preparation efforts, ROEM has worked closely with both Belmont staff and Belmont elected officials to ensure the project is consistent with Belmont's vision and adopted housing and community development goals. We believe that there is universal support from Belmont and the community for this housing project that could potentially serve both workforce families and special needs residents. With proximity to the Belmont Village Specific Plan area the project will also offer vibrant community activity and services for new residents.
Estimated Construction Start: July 2022
Estimated Construction Completion: July 2024
Density Bonus Request:
ROEM requests a density bonus of 39% percent above base density of 60 units per net acre (with approved community benefits), consistent with AB2345 and below the 50% bonus allowed. The following table summarizes the number of units per income limit.
Local Area Median Income (AMI) Number of Unit Percent of Total Extremely Low Income
(0-30% of AMI)
36 28.8%
Very Low Income
(30% - 50% of AMI)*
27 21.6%
Lower Income*
(50% - 80% of AMI)
61 48.8%
Moderate Income/Manager Unit
(80% - 120% of AMI)
1 0.8%
Total 125 100%
*To be eligible for the maximum bonus, a project must set aside at least (i) fifteen percent (15%) of total units for very lowincome households, (ii) twenty-four percent (24%) of total units for low income households. 227
Affordability TCAC is referencing the maximum AMI that a family that lives in those units will be limited to. It is the maximum income that can be earned as a portion of Area Median Income. See below for the income limits, these are subject to change:
Incentive/Concession and Waiver Request:
We are pleased to submit our entitlement application to construct a 125-unit affordable rental housing development on a 1.5 acre site located at 800-803 Belmont Avenue. The proposed development provides 100% of the rental housing units to low income households including units set aside for previously homeless veterans and 1 manager unit. We anticipate needing project based vouchers for the Very Low and Extremely Low income households.
ROEM will apply for these vouchers in the next funding round, estimated to be released August 2021. In addition to the vouchers ROEM will need to request subsidies from state, county and local resources. We will need somewhere between $10-15M in funding. These can come as grants, low interest loans and/or deferral of impact fees. As we get closer to finalizing our entitlement set and applying for funding rounds we will be better able to dial in the unit mix.
The San Mateo County Affordable Housing Fund has awarded ROEM $250,000 for this development In addition to the density bonuses outlined above, projects satisfying the requirements of the Density Bonus Law are entitled to one or more development incentives or concessions that will result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs, so long as the incentive or concession will not have specific unmitigable adverse impacts upon public health and safety, the physical environment or on historic properties, and the incentive or concession is not contrary to state or federal law. Please see include pro forma for the potential deferral of impact fees incentive. 228
Based on Assembly Bill 2345, Roem may not require any further incentives or concessions. Due to the 100% affordability of the project and the fact that we are within one-half (0.5) mile of Belmont Station (see attached distance exhibit) defined as a major transit stop, the following are no longer required to be requested as waivers:
Building Height:
As outlined in Assembly Bill No. 2345, Roem has requested a maximum building height of 65’ be allowed based on the percentages of very low and low income units being provided combined with the proximity of the site to Belmont Station.
Parking Request:
According to Table 8A.2-1 this development is required to provide 180 parking spaces. We have provided 159 parking spaces. We ask that this be accepted rather than the 180 parking spaces that would be required if this were a traditional market rate multi-family development. We have also included 2 short term and 6 long term bicycle stalls to encourage our residents to use alternative transportation options, especially since the Caltrain station is less than
0.5 miles away. This site offers great transit amenities for the tenants including many nearby bus stops. Actual parking allocation will be managed by on-site management.
Further, the Density Bonus Law provides that, upon a developer’s request, a locality must utilize state-mandated parking ratios (inclusive of handicapped and guest parking) for qualifying projects. Consistent with Density Bonus Law, ROEM requests that the City of Belmont apply the state-mandated parking ratios for the subject project of 0.5 spaces per unit. The project is a rental project with at least 11% very low income or 20% lower income units, and the project provides unobstructed access to and is within one-half (0.5) mile of the Belmont Caltrain Station, which qualifies as an accessible major transit stop. This would require only 63 spaces which we far exceed. 229
Location to Transitstop:
For purposes of determining whether a project is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop under the Density Bonus Law, would require that the measurement of the distance of a development from a transit stop be measured from any point on the property of the proposed development to any point on the property where the transit stop is located (See attached distance exhibit below).
Please note – the community outreach description will be a separate attachment with the application.
Respectfully submitted,
Stephen Emami
Vice President
230
Attachment I – General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Consistency – Determination
In determining General Plan consistency for the 800-803 Belmont Avenue residential Project, applicable goals and policies of the Belmont General Plan must be considered in light of the proposal. The goals and policies of applicable area plans must also be considered because area plans are part of the General Plan. A key determinant for evaluation of policy document consistency, is whether the project would substantially further or advance the goals and policies of the applicable policy documents.
A General Plan consistency analysis for the 800-803 Belmont Avenue residential Project is provided below. Like policies and goals are grouped together into categories for more efficient review (i.e., Land Use, Circulation, Safety, etc.), and subcategories are used for different topic areas (i.e., design, complete streets, parking, etc.); an evaluation of the project’s consistency with the goals and policies in each group is provided after each category.
Based on the analysis below, staff recommends that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, as it would substantially further or advance the objectives (Goals and Policies) of the General Plan. The project would also be consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP), and Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan.
Goal or Policy Determination and Discussion
Land Use
Goal 2.1: Promote a diversity of compatible land uses
throughout the city, to enable people to live close to
job locations, adequate and convenient commercial
services, and public services and facilities such as
transit, parks, and schools.
Consistent. The project would locate
multifamily housing in close
proximity to commercial services,
transit (bus and train), parks and
schools. The project would include
construction of streetscape
improvements (wide sidewalks), and
include bike parking, which are
integral parts of the complete streets
efforts.
Policy 2.1-2: Coordinate land use and transportation
planning to ensure that land use patterns and intensities can be supported by and are accessible to the
transportation network, including pedestrian and
bicycle facilities.
GOAL 2.2: Support the creation and enhancement of
“complete neighborhoods” in Belmont, with wellintegrated single-family and multi-family residential development, pedestrian and bicycle-friendly
environments, and activity nodes featuring schools,
parks, and neighborhood commercial areas.
GOAL 2.3: Provide balanced neighborhoods with a
variety of housing types and density ranges to meet the diverse demographic, economic, and social needs of
residents, while ensuring a cohesive urban form and
regard for compatibility with surrounding uses and
existing residential development.
Consistent. The project would bring
approximately 300 people into the
area, and would include 125 lowincome housing units. The project would be located in an alreadydeveloped area, where it can be 231
Goal or Policy Determination and Discussion
Policy 2.3-1: Encourage the provision of lower- and
moderate-income housing to meet the objectives of the
Housing Element.
served by existing public services and
infrastructure, while enhancing
infrastructure that is needed for the
project. The proposed project would
pay its fair share of all required impact
fees (sewer, park, drainage, traffic,
etc.). The project would be considered
high density residential, and would
include construction of streetscape
improvements to enhance walkability.
Policy 2.3-2: Encourage higher density residential uses located in close proximity to commercial services,
employment opportunities, and major transportation
corridors and facilities.
Policy 2.3-3: Promote residential uses mixed in
conjunction with commercial development in Belmont
Village Mixed Use and Corridor Mixed Use
designations, while ensuring that residential mixed-use developments are designed to ensure compatibility
between uses.
GP Policy 2.3-4: Focus new development in or
directly adjacent to already-developed areas, where it
can be served by existing public services and
infrastructure.
GP Policy 2.9-1: Allow sufficient density and intensity to enable new development to support all required
infrastructure, community facilities, and open space.
GP Policy 2.9-2: Require that new development “pays
its way” so as to limit fiscal impacts on the City.
Policy 2.13-5: In mixed-use, higher density residential, and commercial developments, require that building
forms create coherent and consistent street frontages
on blocks that emphasize the visibility of entrance
doors, porches, stoops, and/or entrance patios.
Land Use & Design / Place-making
GP Policy 2.13-4 & GP Policy 5.3-6: Minimize light
and glare from new development; Avoid light
pollution and unnecessary glare by requiring
development projects to use design features and
shielding methods that cast outdoor light downward
and minimize glare and to install the mini- mum
amount of outdoor lighting necessary for safety
and security.
Consistent. The project would
minimize light and glare through
building materials like stucco and precast concrete. The project is also conditioned to demonstrate that
lighting is shielded prior to issuance of
building permits.
The project would enhance walkability
by installing a sidewalk along
Belmont Avenue and constructing a
pedestrian crossing at the intersection
of Belmont Avenue and El Camino
Real.
The project provides informal
gathering space at the front of the
GP Policy 2.13-6 Enhance walkability on a citywide
scale by improving or adding side- walks, landscaping,
benches, wayfinding signage, public art, and
pedestrian-scaled lighting, where appropriate and
feasible.
GP Policy 2.13-9: Provide both formal and informal
public gathering spaces through pedestrian-oriented
street design; sidewalk furniture and pedestrianoriented development; well-designed, multi-use public 232
Goal or Policy Determination and Discussion
spaces of different sizes including pocket parks, plazas, and monuments; and community events.
project in a publicly accessible area
along El Camino Real.
GP Policy 2.19-5: Require pedestrian-oriented
amenities, such as small plazas, outdoor seating, public art, and active street frontages, where appropriate and justified in the Village to create engaging pedestrian
environments in the downtown.
Airport and Land Use Safety
GP Policy 2.16-1: Require new development located
in the San Carlos Airport Influence Area (AIA) to
comply with applicable land use compatibility
provisions of the San Carlos ALUCP through review
and approval of a site development plan, or other
development permit. Unless otherwise approved by
City Council in accordance with the provisions of
Public Utilities Code Section 21675.1(d), development
proposals must be consistent or conditionally
consistent with applicable land use compatibility
policies with respect to noise, safety, airspace
protection, and overflight notification, as contained in the San Carlos ALUCP. Additionally, development
proposals must meet FAA requirements with respect to
building height as well as the provision of obstruction lighting when appurtenances are permitted to penetrate
the transitional surface (a 7:1 slope from the runway
primary surface). Consider C/CAG recommendations
in the review of development proposals.
Consistent. The Fire and Police
Departments have reviewed the
project and included appropriate safety
measures, and conditions of project
approval. As identified in the Initial
Study (Appendix B of the DEIR), the
project was reviewed and found
consistent with the all-relevant
compatibility measures for aircraft
noise, safety, air space
protection/building height, and
notification.
Safety and Fire / Police
GP GOAL 6.6: Protect Belmont residents and
businesses from potential fire hazards.
Consistent. The Police and Fire
Departments have reviewed the
project, and provided appropriate
conditions of approval. The Fire
Department has indicated that fire
flow capacity would be adequate for
the proposed development,
appropriate access would be
provided, and that fire hydrants
would be available in accordance
with Fire Department requirements.
The Fire Department has not indicated
they cannot serve the proposed
structure.
GP Policy 6.6-3: Continue to review development
proposals to ensure that they incorporate
appropriate fire-mitigation measures, including
adequate provisions for evacuation and access by
emergency responders.
GP Policy 6.6-4: Continue the Belmont Fire
Protection District’s participation in plan review of
new buildings in potentially fire prone areas.
GP Policy 6.6-5: Continue to require a fire prevention
inspection of all buildings used as commercial
businesses, places of assembly, multi-family
residences, and hotels within the Belmont Fire
Protection District’s boundaries.
Safety and Geotechnical
233
Goal or Policy Determination and Discussion
GP GOAL 6.1 Minimize risks of property damage and
personal injury posed by geologic and seismic hazards.
Consistent. The project includes a
preliminary geotechnical report that
has been peer reviewed by the City’s
consultant. The report concluded that
the site is appropriate for the
development, provided the
recommendations contained herein are
incorporated into the design and
implemented during site grading and
foundation construction phases of the
project. The City’s consulting
geologist concurs with the
recommendations with the
investigation, and recommends
approval of the project subject to
standard conditions (i.e., geotechnical
review of final building and
grading plans and field inspections
during construction).
GP Policy 6.1-1 Continue to maintain and enforce
appropriate standards to ensure new development is
designed to meet current safety codes and requirements
associated with seismic activity. Require public and
private development to be located, designed, and
constructed to minimize the risk of loss of life and
injury in the event of a major earthquake or other
natural disaster.
GP Policy 6.1-2 Continue to regulate development,
including remodeling or structural rehabilitation, to
ensure adequate mitigation of safety hazards on sites
having a history or threat of seismic dangers, erosion, landslides, or shrink swell.
GP Policy 6.1-4 Continue to require geotechnical site
analysis for proposed development on sites as
specified in the Municipal Code, prior to allowing site development.
GP Policy 6.1-5 Geotechnical studies shall identify
any geologic hazards affecting the proposed project
site, any necessary mitigation measures, and a
statement of the site’s suitability for the proposed
development and whether or not it will be safe from
geologic hazard for its expected life. The study shall
identify net developable areas, if any, based on
landslide or ground shaking potential or erosion
risk. Impacts from the development, such as those
resulting from increased water runoff, shall also be
determined. Such studies must be signed by a
licensed Certified Engineering Geologist or
Geotechnical Engineer and are subject to review and
approval by City staff and/or contracted employees.
GP Policy 6.1-6 Require any geotechnical studies to
include the study of expansive and creeping soils, as
well as analysis of erosion, seismic, and other
geotechnical hazards, and make recommendations, as
warranted.
GP Policy 6.1-7 Prohibit mitigation measures for
potential geotechnical hazards if those measures could
adversely affect surrounding property, including the
use of public rights-of- way, or adversely affect public health, safety, and welfare
GP Policy 6.1-8 Ensure consideration of seismic
and geologic hazards at the earliest possible point
234
Goal or Policy Determination and Discussion
in the development process, preferably before
comprehensive engineering work has commenced.
Safety and Flood
GP GOAL 6.2 Protect the community from risks to
life and property posed by flooding.
Consistent. The project site is in
FEMA Flood Zone X, an area of
minimal flood hazard. While the
project would alter the drainage of the
site by replacing an existing hotel and
parking lots with a multi-family
building, run-off will be concentrated
and treated onsite. Further, the site is
in an area of minimal flooding, and the
site is void of rivers, streams, or other
bodies of flowing and/or standing
water. Accordingly, the project would
have a less than significant impact to
the impediment and redirection of
flood flows. The project includes
upgrades to storm drainage facilities
that ensure they are properly sized to
handle 100-year flood conditions.
GP Policy 6.2-1 Continue to pursue and implement
flood control programs that reduce flood hazards, such
as the City’s Grading Ordinance and Flood Plain
Management Ordinance.
GP Policy 6.2-3 Require all proposed drainage
facilities to comply with the city’s storm drainage
facility requirements to ensure they are properly sized to handle 100-year flood conditions.
Conservation and Cultural Resources
GP GOAL 5.12 Preserve and protect areas and sites of
prehistoric, cultural, and archaeological significance.
Consistent. Implementation of
standard permit conditions of approval
and mitigation measures would ensure
preservation of archeologically,
paleontologically, or culturally
significant, tribal or other resources.
A statement of overriding
considerations approved by the City
Council would be required for the
project given the impact to an
individually eligible historic
resource.
GP Policy 5.12-1 Ensure that development avoids
potential impacts to sites suspected of being
archeologically, paleontologically, or culturally
significant, tribal or otherwise, or of concern by
requiring appropriate and feasible mitigation.
GP Policy 5.12-2 If cultural, archaeological,
paleontological, or cultural resources, tribal or
otherwise, are discovered during construction,
grading activity in the immediate area shall cease
and materials and their surroundings shall not be
altered or collected until evaluation by a qualified
professional is completed.
• A qualified archaeologist or paleontologist must
make an immediate evaluation and avoidance
measures or appropriate mitigation should be
completed, according to CEQA Guidelines.
• Use the State Office of Historic Preservation’s
recommendations for the preparation of
Archaeological Resource Management Reports as
guidelines.
Conservation and Biology
235
Goal or Policy Determination and Discussion
GP GOAL 5.3 Protect and restore biological and
ecological resources in Belmont, including sensitive
wildlife species and their habitats.
Consistent. The project would not
result in significant adverse impacts
that cannot be mitigated to wildlife,
biological and ecological resources,
and their habitats. As identified in the
Initial Study in Appendix B of the
DEIR, the project site does not contain
special status species. The project
would be subject to standard
mitigation measures requiring bird
surveys prior to project construction,
which would minimize impacts on
birds. While the project would result
in the removal of trees from the site, it
would also preserve two existing
protected trees. Further, the project
includes planting of trees in excess of
City requirements. The project
includes landscaping that is consistent
with City requirements for drought
tolerant, native, deer-resistant species.
GP Policy 5.3-3 To the greatest extent feasible, ensure that development does not disturb sensitive habitat and special status species by requiring appropriate and
feasible mitigation measures.
GP Policy 5.3-5 In design and construction, require
use of best practices that preserve natural resources,
such as soil, trees, native plants, and permeable
surfaces.
GP Policy 5.3-7 Encourage the planting of native
trees, shrubs, and grasslands in order to preserve the
visual integrity of the landscape, provide habitat
conditions suitable for native vegetation, and ensure
the maximum number and variety of well-adapted
plants are maintained.
GP Policy 5.3-8 Use native or drought-resistant
vegetation in landscaping on City-owned property, and
encourage private property owners to use native or
drought-resistant vegetation in landscaping on private
property.
GP Policy 5.3-9 Promote the healthy growth of trees
and control the removal of trees within the city.
Conservation and Water Quality
GP Policy 5.5-2 Encourage residents and businesses to
use best management practices (BMPs) to reduce water
pollutant loads that result from daily activities, such as using landscaping chemicals and fertilizers and
repairing and washing cars outdoors.
Consistent. The NPDES Stormwater
Discharge Permit limits the severity of
any potential environmental effects
caused by developments associated
with the buildout of the General Plan.
The county’s SMCWPPP is a
partnership of the City/County
Association of Governments
(C/CAG), each incorporated city in the
County and the County of San Mateo,
which share a common NPDES permit
or Municipal Regional Permit (MRP).
The MRP outlines the State’s
requirements for municipal agencies in
San Mateo County to address the
water quality and flow-related
impacts of stormwater runoff. Some
of these requirements are implemented
directly by municipalities while others
are addressed by the San Mateo
GP Policy 5.5-3 Require development projects to
incorporate structural and non- structural best
management practices (BMPs) to mitigate or reduce
the projected increases in pollutant loads, in
accordance with the NPDES permit guidelines.
GP Policy 5.5-5 Implement water pollution prevention
methods to the maximum extent practicable,
supplemented by pollutant source controls and
treatment.
GP Policy 5.9-2 Encourage development projects of
all sizes to incorporate site design measures that
facilitate groundwater recharge and natural
hydrological processes, allowing stormwater to
infiltrate the ground on-site and/or be collected for
reuse in landscaping and designated to on-site
236
Goal or Policy Determination and Discussion
stormwater detention facilities. Such measures may
include:
• Canopy trees or shrubs to absorb rainwater;
• Grading that lengthens flow paths over permeable
surfaces and increases runoff travel time to reduce the peak hour flow rate;
• Partially removing curbs and gutters from
parking areas where appropriate to allow stormwater
sheet flow into vegetated areas;
• Installation of green roofs on buildings;
• Use of permeable paving in parking lots and
other areas characterized by significant impervious
surfaces;
• On-site stormwater detention, use of bioswales
and bioretention basins to facilitate infiltration; and • Integrated or subsurface water retention
facilities to capture rainwater for use in landscape
irrigation and other non-potable uses.
Countywide Water Pollution
Prevention Program on behalf of all
the municipalities. As proposed and
conditioned, the Department of Public
Works has found that the development
project would comply with all state
and federal water quality
requirements. In addition, the
proposed project would be compliant
with General Plan policies that
require: 1) the incorporation of best
management practices (BMPs) to
reduce construction and operational
water pollutant loads; 2)
implementation of Urban Design
guidelines for Low Impact
Development (as applicable for
Special projects); and 3) streetscape
and landscape designs that manage
stormwater, to ensure that runoff
potential does not exceed the storm
drain system’s capacity.
The project would enhance the City’s
storm drain system by constructing a
new line in El Camino Real to convey
water from the project to a catch basin.
GP GOAL 5.9 Maintain and improve the reliability of
the City’s storm drainage system, and promote best
management practices to protect this system from
flooding, enhance water quality, and prevent
infrastructure deterioration.
Conservation and Water Supply
GP GOAL 5.6 Preserve water resources and provide
for long-range community water needs by adopting
best management practices for water use and
conservation.
Consistent. As projects are built in
accordance with the General Plan,
Belmont Public Works in conjunction
with Mid-Peninsula Water District is
required to monitor system capacity
and construct necessary upgrades.
The proposed development project
would be considered high-density
infill development, and includes a
drought-tolerant landscape plan in
accordance with the current MPWD
water efficiency in landscape
ordinance (WELO). The project
applicant has secured an “Intent to
Serve” letter from MPWD, and the
project would be required to be meet
GP Policy 5.6-4 Set appropriate conditions of approval
for each new development proposal to ensure that the
necessary water supply facilities and water resources
are in place prior to occupancy.
GP Policy 5.6-5 Continue the City’s Water
Conservation Strategy to reduce water use, control
water cost, and promote environ- mental sustainability
in municipal buildings, parks, landscaped areas, and
athletic fields, as feasible and appropriate.
237
Goal or Policy Determination and Discussion
all applicable CALGreen (indoor
water efficiency) standards at the time
of building permit issuance
Conservation and Air Quality
GP GOAL 5.10 Reduce emissions of ozoneproducing pollutants and particulate matter to improve regional air quality and protect the health of
Belmont and Bay Area residents.
Consistent. The project would have a
less than significant impact on air
quality. The Health Risk Assessment
dated April 8, 2020, prepared by
Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. (Appendix
C of the DEIR) for the project
demonstrates compliance with
BAAQMD project level thresholds.
The project would employ BMPs for
management of fugitive dust during
construction.
GP Policy 5.10-2 Require that new development with
sensitive uses that is located adjacent to sources of
toxic air contaminants (TAC) be designed to
minimize any potential health risks.
GP Policy 5.10-3 Ensure that construction and
grading activities minimize short-term impacts to air
quality by employing appropriate mitigation measures
and best practices.
GP Policy 5.10-5 Provide information about nontoxic alternatives to construction, interior and exterior finishes and furnishings, and planting and
landscaping maintenance to contractors, business
owners and homeowners to enhance indoor and
outdoor air quality and reduce exposure to toxins.
Conservation and Energy / Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
GP Policy 5.11-2 Support the Climate Action Plan’s
goals and implement the CAP’s reduction measures
and strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Consistent. Because construction
would be temporary (12-18 months)
and would not result in a permanent
increase in emissions, the project
would not interfere with the
implementation of AB 32 in 2020 or
SB 32 in 2030. The proposed land use
and intensity is consistent with the
land use designation in the 2035
Belmont General Plan and Belmont
CAP, with the provision of a density
bonus permitted under state law, and
adherence to Action 5.10-3 would
support the CAP’s goals and
implement reduction measures and
strategies to reduce GHG.
Circulation / Mobility and Complete Streets
GP GOAL 3.1 Provide for the safe and efficient
movement of people and vehicles within and through
the community that fosters accessibility and
connectivity; accommodates a mixture of
Consistent. The project would locate
and promote high density residential
development in a transit-oriented area.
The project is located within one-half
238
Goal or Policy Determination and Discussion
automobiles, transit, bicyclists, and pedestrians; and
encourages higher transit ridership.
mile of major transit stops along a
high-quality transit corridor. The
project would also include public
improvements along all street
frontages (i.e., wide sidewalks, and
street trees.) that are consistent with
adopted Complete Streets policies to
promote the development of public
transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities,
and increase use of these facilities.
The applicant would contribute a fairshare portion fees for the construction of road improvements, based on
project impacts to roadway
intersections and segments. The
project has been reviewed by all
appropriate safety personnel to ensure
that project plans are compliant with
emergency access requirements.
Lastly, the project would include all
required accessibility improvements
consistent with guidelines established
by the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA).
GP Policy 3.1-2 Make Complete Streets practices a
part of Belmont’s planning, design, and operation of its circulation network, acknowledging that a flexible and
context-sensitive approach to design will result in each roadway serving most users and the roadway network
as a whole serving all users.
GP Policy 3.1-5 Require new development and
redevelopment projects to construct or pay their fair
share toward improvements for all travel modes to
provide and enhance connectivity to existing
transportation facilities.
GP Policy 3.1-7 Create an accessible circulation
network that is consistent with guidelines established
by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),
allowing mobility-impaired users, such as the disabled
and seniors, to safely and effectively travel within and beyond the city.
GP Policy 3.2-5 Comply with the adopted Complete
Streets Policy of the City of Belmont.
GP Policy 3.4-10 Support the installation of vehicle
traffic-calming measures to ensure bicycle and
pedestrian safety on roadways where the street
typology prioritizes pedestrian and bicycle mobility,
and especially on hillside streets.
Circulation / Mobility and Parking
GP GOAL 3.8 Provide a balanced and well-managed
parking supply that accommodates demand while
maximizing efficiency
Consistent. The project would exceed
the minimum parking requirements for
the proposed project under the
provisions of State Density Bonus
Law. Adequate and convenient
loading and unloading zones, EV
charging parking spaces, and shortand long-range bicycle parking would also be provided as part of the
project. The parking plans for the
project will be reviewed for
consistency with ADA requirements
during project plan check.
GP Policy 3.8-5 Ensure that parking is consistent with
guidelines established by the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA).
GP Policy 3.8-6 Ensure parking supply associated
with the demand from future development is adequate,
balanced, and does not adversely impact adjacent
residential areas.
City Services and Utilities
GP GOAL 6.5 Ensure that utilities that are essential to contemporary life are available and adequate to meet
the demands of the Belmont community while also
Consistent. The project would connect
to all utilities necessary for
contemporary life, including water,
239
Goal or Policy Determination and Discussion
ensuring the utilities maintain and enhance Belmont’s
physical diversity, visual qualities, and small-town
characteristics.
sewer, electrical, gas, and internet,
while not impinging on existing users.
The project has received “will serve”
letter from utility providers for the
project. The project would
underground service lines and would
be connected to the sewer system
through the extension of a service
lateral.
GP Policy 6.5-2 Require new development to
underground service lines and utilities, and continue to pursue and implement projects to underground existing
overhead utility lines.
GP Policy 6.5-5 Require all new development to be
connected to the City’s sewer system
Hazardous Materials
GP GOAL 6.3 Protect soils, surface water, and
groundwater from contamination from hazardous
materials.
Consistent. During site preparation
and construction activities, Best
Management Practices (BMPs) will be
implemented in accordance with the
City’s Stormwater and Runoff
Pollution Control requirements. BMPs
include measures to prevent spills and
require onsite materials for cleanup.
The applicant is required to comply
with all federal and state regulations as
overseen by San Mateo County. The
Phase I reports prepared for the project
site did not identify hazardous
conditions associated with the site.
The reports concluded that no past site
uses with a significant potential to
adversely affect environmental
conditions on the site were identified.
The subject property is not listed in
databases of registered hazardous
materials handlers and hazardous
waste generators. No hazardous
substance releases have been reported
for the site. Thirteen hazardous
substance sites are listed within a onequarter (0.25) mile radius of the subject property. Based on the nature
of the listings, their regulatory status
or distance/direction from the subject
property, none constitute a recognized
environmental condition for the
subject site. No recognized
environmental conditions were
identified for the subject property.
GP Policy 6.3-1 Facilitate cleanup programs at
contaminated sites, particularly on proper ties with the potential to develop or be reused for public purposes.
GP Policy 6.3-2 Require applicants for development
projects in a potentially contaminated location to
perform inspection and cleanup if the site is found to
be contaminated with hazardous substances.
GP Policy 6.3-3 Require project applicants of
potentially contaminated sites to have the site
inspected by a registered Environmental Assessor.
Reports detailing the results must be submitted for city review, and level of remediation must be in
compliance with federal and state standards.
GP GOAL 6.4 Continue to promote the reduction,
recycling, and safe disposal of household and business
hazardous wastes through public education.
GP Policy 6.4-2 Educate residents and businesses
about household hazardous wastes, less toxic materials
that can be used in place of toxic materials, and proper household and business hazardous waste disposal
methods
Noise
240
Goal or Policy Determination and Discussion
GP GOAL 7.1 Strive to achieve an acceptable noise
environment for the environmental, health, and safety
needs of present and future residents of Belmont.
Consistent. The nature of residential
uses would not generate noise in
excess of City standards. The project
is not located adjacent to a school,
hospital, or senior care facility.
Therefore, noise generated during
construction would not impact those
facilities.
The project included a noise and
vibration assessment, which evaluated
project/location specific impacts, and
developed appropriate mitigation
measures to reduce these impacts. The
assessment determined that
construction noise and vibration
impacts would be less than significant
with implementation of all applicable
General Plan noise reduction policies,
the City’s Noise Ordinance, and the
recommended mitigation measures
provided in the assessment. These
measures have been made conditions
of project approval.
GP Policy 7.1-2 Use the Community Noise Level
Exposure Standards, shown in Table 7-1, as review
criteria for new land uses. Require all new
development that would be exposed to noise greater
than the “normally acceptable” noise level range to
reduce interior noise through design, sound insulation, or other measures.
GP Policy 7.1-3 Require noise-reducing mitigation to
meet allowable outdoor and indoor noise exposure
standards in Table 7-2. Noise mitigation measures that
may be approved to achieve these noise level targets
include but are not limited to the following:
• Construct façades with substantial weight and
insulation;
• Use sound-rated windows for primary sleeping
and activity areas;
• Use sound-rated doors for all exterior entries at
primary sleeping and activity areas;
• Use minimum setbacks and exterior barriers;
• Use acoustic baffling of vents for chimneys,
attic and gable ends; and
• Install a mechanical ventilation system that
provides fresh air under closed window conditions
Alternative acoustical designs that achieve the
prescribed noise level standards may be approved,
provided that a qualified Acoustical Consultant
submits information demonstrating that the alternative
designs will achieve and maintain the specific targets
for outdoor activity areas and interior spaces.
GP Policy 7.1-5 Ensure that building regulations
require that noise-generating appliances serving new
multi-family or mixed-use residential development are
located or adequately insulated to protect residents
from the noise.
GP Policy 7.1-6 Promote the use of noise attenuation
measures to improve the acoustic environment inside
residences where existing single-family residential
development is located in a noise-impacted
environment, such as along an arterial street or
adjacent to a noise- producing use.
GP GOAL 7.2 Protect noise-sensitive land uses, such
as schools, hospitals, and senior care facilities, from 241
Goal or Policy Determination and Discussion
encroachment of and exposure to excessive levels of
noise.
GP Policy 7.2-1 Use the noise-sensitive land uses and
transportation noise sources table (Table 7-2) and
Future Noise Contours map (Figure 7-3) as criteria to
determine acceptability of noise-sensitive land uses.
Removal of Governmental Constraints
GOAL 4 Where appropriate, mitigate unnecessary
governmental constraints to the maintenance,
improvement, and development of housing.
Consistent. The BZO has been
amended to mitigate unnecessary
governmental constraints to the
maintenance, improvement, and
development of housing. The
updated standards include: 1)
Exceptions to development
standards; 2) Reduction in the
parking standards; and 3) Removal of
the CUP requirement to allow for
housing on the upper floors.
Compliance with State Density Bonus
Law streamlines and removes
development impediments for the
project related to height and parking.
Policy 4.1 Periodically review the City’s regulations,
ordinances, and fees and exactions to ensure they do
not unduly constrain the production, maintenance, and
improvement of housing.
Policy 4.2 Offer regulatory incentives and concessions
for affordable housing, such as exceptions to
development standards, density bonuses, or fee
waivers where deemed to be appropriate.
Policy 4.3 Provide for streamlined, timely, and
coordinated processing of residential projects to
minimize holding costs and encourage housing
production.
Conservation of Resources
GOAL 6 Promote the conservation of natural
resources throughout the Belmont community.
Consistent. The project would not
develop a unique environmental aspect
of the community because it would be
located on a site with an existing
motel and an underutilized urban
parcel fronting El Camino Real. The
project would promote the
conservation of resources by meeting
the energy standards identified in Cal
green (state green building code), and
is consistent with the water efficiency
in landscaping ordinance (WELO). All
necessary public services (fire, police,
water, sewer, etc.) would be available
to serve the project.
Policy 6.1 Preserve the unique environmental aspects
of the community, including hillsides and other
environmental amenities.
Policy 6.2 Promote energy conservation and the use of
alternative energy generation technology, as
appropriate.
Policy 6.3 Promote water conservation.
Policy 6.4 Integrate land use and transportation
planning in long range City planning processes.
Policy 6.5 Ensure that residential sites have
appropriate public services, facilities, circulation, and other needed infrastructure to support development.
Housing Element
Goal 2 Facilitate the development of a variety of
housing types at appropriate locations.
Consistent. The project is comprised
of a 125-unit, 100 percent affordable
at the low-income and below levels,
and contains a variety of housing units
ranging from one to three bedrooms.
Policy 2.2 Facilitate the production of affordable
housing through appropriate land use designations and
flexible development standards
242
Goal or Policy Determination and Discussion
Goal 4 Where appropriate, mitigate unnecessary
governmental constraints to the maintenance,
improvement, and development of housing.
The project has requested a density
bonus, additional height, and parking
requirements consistent with
California Density Bonus Law. The
project is consistent with the
requirements of Density Bonus Law
and is therefore afforded the additional
density and height would contribute to
the variety of housing types and
facilitate the production of affordable
housing in the City of Belmont.
Policy 4.2 Offer regulatory incentives and concessions
for affordable housing, such as exceptions to
development standards, density bonuses, or fee
waivers where deemed to be appropriate
Belmont Climate Action Plan - 2017
Energy and Transportation
Goal 3.1.1: Increase municipal, residential, and
commercial energy efficiency, renewable energy,
efficient water use, and green building.
Consistent. The project would be
required to meet the energy
standards identified in Cal green (state
green building code), and is consistent
with water efficiency in landscaping
ordinance (WELO). The project would
be considered infill, high density
(approximately 85 units/acre), and
transit-oriented (there are bus and rail
services within a ¼ mile and ½ mile
walk, respectively, of the project site).
The project would contribute to the
creation of complete streets by
providing wide sidewalks with bulbouts, bike lanes, and both short and long-term bicycle parking
Goal 3.2.1: Reduce emissions from transportation
through efficient land use, alternate modes of
transportation, and operational innovations.
Reduce Solid Waste
Goal 3.3.1: Reduce solid waste generated and sent to
landfills.
Consistent. The applicant has
submitted a trash management plan
that provides details and methods for
collecting trash and recycling for the
proposed development project. A
Waste Zero Specialist and Operation
Supervisor with the City’s trash and
recycling hauler (Recology) have
reviewed the plan and determined the
appropriate levels service for the
project. Recology staff would verify
compliance with the plan and state law
requirements for recycling.
Measure WC1 – Increase participation in recycling
programs and ensure weekly collection of
recyclables and organic waste.
Measure WC2 – Mandate businesses recycle and
provide staff or contractor to verify compliance
(Support and enforce state law).
243
Attachment J – Development and Design Standards Evaluation Table 1: Lot, Layout, Intensity, and Building Standards BZO Section 5A and 5.7.A
Criteria Existing Proposed Required or Allowed Complies? Minimum Lot Area ~1.50 acres
~65,340 sf.
1.46 acres
63,583 sf.
0.16 acres
7,200 sf. minimum
Yes
Minimum Lot Width 100.95 ft. 100.95 ft. 60 ft. Yes
Minimum Setbacks Front: 104 ft
Street Side: 5.3 ft.
Interior Side: 1 ft.
Rear: 125 ft.
Front: 10 ft.
Street Side: 12 ft, 7
in..
Interior Side: 11 ft.
Rear: 67 ft., 5 in.
Ground-floor
residential uses to
which the following
setbacks apply:
Front: 10 ft
Side: 11 ft. required
(5 ft, plus 2 ft. per
story above 3 stories)
Rear: 15 ft.
Yes
Minimum Upper
Story Setbacks
NA 13 ft., 6 in. upper
story setback along
El Camino Real
17 ft. upper story
setback along
interior lot line (11
ft. building setback
+ 7 ft. setback of
upper story from
building)
5 ft.; 10 ft. for a
bedroom or living
window
Yes
Maximum
Residential Density
0 du/ac 85 du/ac 45 du/ac Yes, pursuant to
State Density
Bonus and with
Community
Benefits
Minimum Ground
Floor Height
10 ft. 14 ft., 7 in 10 ft. Yes
Maximum Density
(FAR)
0.19 1.92 1.75, up to 2.2 with
Community Benefits
Yes, with
Community
Benefits
Maximum Height
(ft.)
15 ft. 65 ft.
6-stories along El
Camino Real
60 ft., 5-stories at
rear of site
45 ft.
55 ft. w/provision
Community Benefits
Yes, pursuant to
State Density
Bonus Law and
with
Community
Benefits
Transitional Yards
BZO 9.7.5
Interior Side: 1 ft.
Rear: 125 ft.
Interior Side: 11 ft.
Rear: 67 ft., 5 in.
Side: 8 ft.
Rear: 20 ft.
Yes
244
Table 2: Open Space, Outdoor Living, and Landscaping Standards BZO 5A.1.10 and BZO 13.3
Criteria Existing Proposed Required or Allowed Complies? Outdoor Living
Area for
Residential Units
NA Private Decks: 7,945 sf.
Common Area:
6,500 sf.
36 sf. per unit = 4,500 sf.
Satisfied through either:
Private Space (decks or
yards directly accessible
from the unit); or
Common Open Space
Yes
Site Landscaping1 31,524 sf.
(48 percent of site)
23,050 sf.
(35 percent of site)
10 percent of site in
landscaping
Yes
Tree Planting NA 60 trees
(24” box to 15 gallon)
58 trees required:
One tree for each 400 sf. of
landscape area
Yes
Project
Requirements
NA Planting consists of live
plants, and the front of
the building contains an
plaza oriented to El
Camino Real
Required landscape design
features must consist of one
or more of the following:
1. Live Plants
2. Large-scale
sculptures, fountains
and similar urban art
related to building
design.
3. Specially designed
plazas, courtyards,
sitting areas or
walkways.
Yes
Water Efficient
Landscape
Ordinance2
NA Complies with Water
Efficient Landscape
Ordinance;
Consistent with Water
Efficient Landscape
Ordinance;
Yes
Native, NonInvasive, Drought
Tolerant, Deer
Resistant
NA Plant palette comprised
of tree, shrub, and
ground
cover species that are
California native, noninvasive
(per CAL-PIC), drought
tolerant, and deer
resistant.
Irrigation; Native, noninvasive, Drought Tolerant
Vegetation, Deer Resistant
Yes
Lighting – full
cutoff
NA Wall lights and
freestanding lighting
Per BZO Section 2.72.1,
full cutoff lighting means a
full cutoff light fixture
meets the adopted criteria
of the Illuminating Society
of North America and does
not allow any light to emit
above an angle of 90
Yes, as
conditioned
245
degrees, and above a
vertical angle of 80 degrees
the luminous intensity
cannot exceed 10 percent
of the light of the lamp or
lamps in the luminaire. 1 Landscaping along a public sidewalk, pedestrian walkway, public seating area or plaza and in rooftop gardens counts toward fulfillment of this requirement;
2 Landscaping is required to be designed and plantings selected so that water use is minimized, as defined in Belmont City Code Section 25.5-26; Landscape plans must be reviewed and conditionally reviewed/approved as meeting the MPWD water efficiency in landscape ordinance (WELO) requirements to meet City requirements under BCC25.5-26;
Public Art: Public Art will not be provided as part of the project. Consistent with Chapter 17, Article V, Section 17-128 of the Belmont City Code, a 100 percent affordable housing development, consistent with Government Code Section 65915(b)(1)(G) is excluded for the public art requirement. The subject project is comprised of a 100 percent affordable housing development that complies with the requirements of Government Code Section 65915(b)(1)(G). Accordingly, it is not required to provide public art or pay in-lieu fees for public art.
Table 3: Parking Standards
BZO Section 8A
Vehicle Parking Analysis Consistent?
Units 125
Yes
Parking Requirement 0.5 spaces/unit
Parking Required 63 spaces
Total Parking Provided 152 spaces
Excess or Deficit 89 spaces excess
EV Charging 5% of parking spaces minimum: 8 spaces required 16 spaces provided
Accessible Parking Garage parking: 5 required
9 spaces provided
Loading Space One 10’ x 25’ space required
Provided 10’ x 25’ space
Bicycle Parking Analysis
Parking Requirement 2 short term spaces
Per Transportation Demand Management : 1 per 5
dwelling units Class 1 Spaces
Parking Required 2 short term Yes
25 Class 1 spaces
Parking Provided 2 short term
84 Class 1 spaces
246
Excess 0 short term
59 Class 1 spaces
Loading Requirement Analysis
One small space, no less
than 10 ft. wide and 25
ft. in length, with
vertical clearance of
eight ft.
10 ft. by 25 ft. loading space provided in entry
driveway to project
Yes
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations
1. Size. Electric vehicle charging stations must be the same size as other spaces, and electric vehicle charging equipment may not reduce the size of the space.
2. Signage. Each electrical vehicle charging station must be clearly marked with a sign reading “Electrical Vehicle Charging Station” and the associated California Vehicle Code restrictions, and only a vehicle that is connected for electric charging may park in the stalls or spaces so designated.
3. Equipment. Electrical vehicle charging stations must be wired for a minimum of 240 volts and 32 amps, designed to allow for future provision of higher amperage conduit, equipped with electrical outlets, and may also be equipped with card readers, controls, connector devices and other equipment, as necessary for public use.
Table 4: Parking Design Standards
Criteria Proposed Required/Allowed
Regular Parking Spaces Complies Minimum 8.5’ X 18’
Tandem Parking Spaces Complies Tandem parking spaces assigned to same units; measures 8’- 6” x 36’
Aisle Width – 90 Degree Complies Minimum 24’
Loading Space1 Complies Minimum 10’ X 25’
Parking Structure driveway Complies Maximum 24’
Pedestrian Access Way2 Provided Access is provided from inside of the parking garage
Parking Location3 Complies Wrapped inside building
Vehicle Flow4 Complies
1 Loading space parking is required to be consistent with the design standards identified in Section 31.6.9 h-j) of the BZO;
2 There must be clear, well-lit, safe pedestrian walkways between parking areas and structures and the main sidewalks and building entrances.
3 The proposed parking is located inside the building.
4 Pursuant to Section 31.6.4 (b)(2), all parking areas must be designed so that: 1) a motor vehicle leaving the parking area will enter the public right-of-way traveling in a forward direction; and 2) vehicles will not have to enter a public right-of-way to move from one location to another within the parking area.
247
Objective Design Standards
BZO Section 13.6 Evaluation
Table 5: Objective Design Standard Analysis
Applicable Standards from Section 13.6.1 Proposal Complies? Carry design theme to all elevations; a theme
includes primary (non-accent) materials and
colors.
The project carries the design theme to all aspects
of the building. The project includes 20/30 sand
float cement plaster exteriors in dove grey and
Charleston colors, stone veneer on front columns
to the building, and pre-cast stone base and wall
cap on the building
Yes
Affordable units and market rate units in the
same development shall be constructed of the
same or similar exterior materials and details
such that the units are not distinguishable.
The proposed project is a 100 percent affordable
project. The exterior design theme, materials, and
colors are consistent for all units. Yes
Buildings of three stories or greater must
provide a ground floor elevation that is
distinctive from the upper stories by
providing a material change between the first
floor and upper floors along at least 75% of
the building façade with frontage upon a
street, adjacent public park or public open
space.
The project provides a distinctive base element
along the El Camino Real and Belmont Avenue
Street frontages. The base element of the building
along these frontages is comprised of stone veneer
columns with pre-cast stone base, while the
exterior of the upper stories is comprised of
stucco.
The project does not front a public park or public
open space.
Yes
Buildings of two stories or greater must
include one or more articulating features
(offsets, recesses, or projections) above the
ground floor of the building for at least 50%
of the primary frontage and corner street side
frontage. When used, the minimum length
and depth of these features shall be as
follows:
• Projection, offset, or recess of the building
wall must be at least one foot in depth, and
five feet in width.
• Balconies and decks must be at least four
feet in depth, and five feet in width.
• Projected or recessed covered porch areas
must be at least four feet in depth and width.
The project includes articulating features
consistent with this standard. Along El Camino
Real, the project includes a recessed center
portion of the building as well as a recessed first
floor inside a colonnade. The recessed colonnade
along Belmont Avenue measuring 12’ in depth
and 62’ in length. The building is naturally
articulated along Belmont Avenue, with portions
projecting and stepping back with the general
curve of the street. Further, balconies along the
Belmont Avenue frontage provide articulation
consistent with the City’s standard, measuring 4’
– 6” in depth and 9’ in length.
Yes
Blank walls on the ground floor (facades
without doors, or windows) shall be no
greater than 25 feet in length along sidewalks,
pedestrian walks, or publicly accessible
outdoor space areas. Such blank wall areas
shall include landscape screening (trees,
shrubs, or green wall) for the entire length of
the wall area at a minimum of 50% of the
height of the wall.
The project does not include blank walls on
ground floor areas. Ground floor walls include
score lines, offsets, stone veneer and pre-cast
stone bases, and the project would be screened
with landscaping along El Camino Real and
Belmont Avenue.
Yes
Trim surrounds of no less than one inch in
depth shall be provided at all exterior window
and door openings. In lieu of exterior door
The project includes foam trim surround
measuring 6” wide and 2” deep. Windows will be
further recessed 2.5” from the wall plane.
Yes
248
and window trim, windows and doors may be
recessed from wall plane by a minimum of
two inches.
Belly bands, timbering and stone/brick base
must be at least two inches in depth.
Cornices along the building façade include a onefoot, six-inch articulation. The depth of the stone base is not provided, but has been conditioned to
be two inches in depth
Yes, as
conditioned
A minimum of 5/8-inch thickness is required
for panel siding. Battens are required to be
incorporated into the design for a board and
batten appearance.
The project does not include panel siding or
battens NA
Rooflines shall be vertically articulated at
least every 50 feet along the street frontage,
through the use of architectural elements such
as parapets, varying cornices, reveals,
clerestory windows, and varying roof height
or form.
Rooflines are articulated at least every 30 feet
along the El Camino Real and Belmont Avenue
Street frontage. Along El Camino Real, the roof
line contains setbacks and does not exceed 50 feet
in length. Along Belmont Avenue, the roof is
articulated with gables, hips, and dormers, with
no portion of the roofline line exceeding 40 feet in
length.
Yes
All roof-top equipment shall be screened from
visibility from the surrounding public vantage
points (right-of-way, public trails, open space
and parks).
All roof top equipment is screened behind a
parapet wall associated with the sloped roofs of
the project as shown on Sheet 3.3 of the plan set. Yes
When dumpsters are to be used, designers
shall coordinate with the refuse pickup
provider to determine the size and number of
dumpsters required.
All dumpster enclosures shall be a minimum
of six feet tall, and shall allow adequate size
to accommodate the needed dumpsters and
recycling containers.
The project has received a will-serve letter from
Recology for adequately sized dumpsters. These
dumpsters are in an enclosed trash storage that is
22 feet from the closest residential unit. The
enclosure is 6 feet tall. Yes
Lighting must be designed to provide the
minimum lighting levels required for safety,
without undue glare off-site. All exterior
lighting shall include fully cut-off fixtures in
accordance with Section 2.72.1.
The project includes exterior lighting along walls
and in the rear and side yard areas of the lot. The
photometric plan for the project on sheet E1.0PH
demonstrates that glare offsite does not occur.
The project is conditioned to provide compliance
with cut-off fixtures during building permit plan
check.
Yes, as
conditioned
Exterior building facades, roofing materials,
fences, walls, and other structures visible
from public vantage points shall be muted or
earth-tone colors.
The proposed exterior colors, roofing materials
and other structures are muted earth-tones. The
colors consist of dove-grey, Charleston (light
beige), with the stone veneer being Indiana
limestone, which is an off-white color, and roof
tiles comprised of an amber hue.
Yes
249
NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH STRATEGY
Belmont Permit Center
APPLICANT’S GUIDE AND FORM
1. INTRODUCTION
The City of Belmont is committed to an open process of development review, and requires that applicants take a proactive approach to neighborhood outreach. Therefore, every development request which is decided by the Planning Commission or City Council in a public hearing must include a Neighborhood Outreach Strategy, submitted with the application. The strategy must include your proposal for contacting your neighbors, informing them of your proposed project and receiving their feedback in advance of the City’s review. This form is provided to assist you in preparing your Neighborhood Outreach Strategy
II. OUTREACH STRATEGY
In order to provide an effective Neighborhood Outreach Strategy, you must address these issues:
A. Contacting Your Neighbors – Since you will be providing the City with labels for all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of your property, it is strongly suggested that you notify these same people of your neighborhood outreach efforts. You can mail your own notices to them, post bulletins, make telephone calls or go door-to-door, if you wish. (Please note that these options do not give you the right to trespass or conduct any other activities which are contrary to the law.)
B. Informing Your Neighbors of the Project – This can be accomplished a variety of ways, but is most easily accomplished by a scheduled meeting or open house on the property. At the meeting, you are encouraged to have your project plans available, as well as your architect, engineer or other consultants as necessary to explain and answer questions about the project. The more convenient the meeting date, time and arrangements, the more success you will have in establishing a positive atmosphere for the dialogue. You may choose other means for informing your neighbors, such as mailing a project information packet.
C. Receiving Neighbor Feedback – If you host a neighborhood meeting, you will be able to receive immediate feedback on your proposal. You are urged to take notes on the comments you receive, as well as who attends. If you mail information, some means of communication must be established to allow neighbors to contact you and leave their comments.
D. A Schedule for Action – Your strategy must also include a schedule for achieving the above tasks prior to the first public hearing conducted by the City. While the City acknowledges that schedules may change, you must identify the approximate timing of the three steps described above.
III. YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH STRATEGY
Please submit a written description of your Neighborhood Outreach Strategy on the attached sheet, addressing the four points described above. You are required to implement the Strategy prior to the public hearing on your project. You may be asked by the Planning Commission or City Council about the results of your efforts. Failure to implement the strategy prior to the public hearing on your application may result in the hearing being continued to a later date. 250
251
252
253
254
City of Belmont Applicants Guide - Neighborhood Outreach Strategy Page 2 of 2 Continued on Page 2
1. I will contact my neighbors by: ____________________________________________________
2. I will inform my neighbors of the project by: __________________________________________
3. I will gather feedback from my neighbors by: _________________________________________
4. Here is the schedule for my outreach strategy:
A. Contact: ______________________________________
B. Informing ______________________________________
C. Feedback ______________________________________
5. As property owner, I, _______________________________(print property owner’s name), hereby acknowledge that I will make every reasonable effort to obtain neighbor comments on my project prior to presenting my request to the Planning Commission or City Council in public hearing. I understand that the purpose of the Neighborhood Outreach Strategy is to foster a positive and constructive dialogue regarding my project and its possible effects on surrounding homeowners and tenants. _________________________________________ ________________________ Property Owner’s Signature Date
May 2002
Please see attached letter of proposed outreach strategy. Please see attached letter of proposed outreach strategy. Please see attached letter of proposed outreach strategy. Summer 2020 Fall 2020 Winter 2020 Roem West 4/14/2020 ___________________ __________________
255
EXQUISITE DETAIL ON
A SOLID FOUNDATION®
1650 Lafayette Street | Santa Clara, California 95050 | T 408.984.5600 | F 408.984.3111 | www.ROEMcorp.com November 3, 2021
City of Belmont
Planning and Zoning
1 Twin Pines Lane
Belmont, CA 94002
RE: 800-803 Belmont Ave Entitlement Request Resubmittal Dear Carlos,
ROEM values the opinions of our neighbors, potential residents, community members, local businesses, and the local government. Our process of neighborhood outreach varies from project to project depending on the local feedback and we intend to continue with Community Outreach as the project moves forward.
Now that ROEM has a full set of plans generated, ROEM would like to conduct a series of regular community meetings following City protocols to garner community backing and trust in our development. During these meetings, ROEM will provide an overview of the project and present renderings of the final design in order to help community members visualize the project. Time can then given for anyone in attendance to comment and provide feedback. ROEM will note any concerns that are voiced during these meetings and will always attempts to resolve, incorporate or compromise on these issues if feasible.
Follow up meetings can then held to keep the community up to date with the development.
In order to maximize attendance, letters (in English & Spanish) can be mailed to all registered businesses and residential addresses within a quarter mile radius (or the distance required by the City) with an invitation detailing the time and location of the meeting. The meetings can be held in public spaces nearby the residents, such as a library, park or school gymnasium, and typically last one hour. Translators are hired, if needed. Upon the conclusion of these meetings, all in attendance are provided with the name of a ROEM employee and a phone number that they can contact should anyone desire to express further opinions. Subsequent to these meetings, ROEM will take all comments and attempt to incorporate as many suggestions that are practical and feasible to the project as we can, given the complexity of the development.
After ROEM’s initial community outreach meeting held in December 2020 with nearby residents and businesses to provide information about the proposed development, ROEM has taken into account questions and concerns of the community and attempted to incorporate solutions in a feasible manner.
ROEM held a follow up community meeting on August 24, 2021 to follow up on progress made in the entitlement process and to allow for further discussion of community concerns.
Previous comments from the December 2020 meeting were addressed and new items were discussed. Attached is the list of concerns brought to ROEM’s attention and our response to each item.
256
ROEM would also like to hold a follow up meeting with the community once entitlements have been approved to help keep the community informed of progress being made and to engage the community in any further items of concern they may have.
At the commencement of construction, ROEM prominently displays a contact number that neighbors and community members can call in the event they have any complaints or concerns regarding the construction process. As a general contractor, ROEM does everything it can to minimize disruption to the nearby residents and businesses. Any unavoidable disruption will be clearly communicated to all neighbors in advance.
Upon project completion, ROEM may hold a grand-opening event to encourage the public to tour the building and celebrate with residents on their successful community collaboration.
Primary Community Engagement Opportunities:
• Neighborhood meetings
• Meetings with surrounding businesses
• Meetings with community leaders and support service providers • City staff/elected officials tour of similar ROEM developments Key Discussion Points for Community:
• Circulation and parking
• Overall project massing
• Affordability and services
• Street frontage and appearance
• Architecture design and materials color
• Other engagement opportunities the City/community think are important We hope this letter to be a continuing point for discussions with the city to encourage the involvement of the community with this development. We look forward to your input.
Sincerely,
Jim Campbell, Architect
Development Manager
257
Community Meeting Notes from August 24, 2021 Community Outreach Meeting held via ZOOM ECR-Belmont
Project List of Community Environmental Concerns-Response.211103.docx December 2020 Community Meeting
List of Community Concerns:
1. Egregious height and scale. While the state density law might allow it, and there is an affordable housing shortage, a 6 story building would be unprecedented and unusual, even for the El Camino Mixed Use Corridor. A 3-4 story building would be more appropriate. • The building, while 6 stories in height, will have a lower visual impact as the facade is set back from El Camino with the uppermost floor stepped back even further • The building has been designed to follow the slope of Belmont Ave and has been cut into the hill to reduce the mass further and reducing the height to 5 stories at the uppermost portion of the development.
2. Parking. Guests and residents of the new 125 unit will not have sufficient parking and will park or leave their vehicles in front of houses, driveways, and not allow normal visitors and families to park in the existing neighborhood. The 10-25 units to be built in front of the Van's will further exacerbate the problem
• The project provides over 90 spaces above the state mandated minimum of 0.5 spaces per unit for Affordable Communities such as this one located with 0.5 miles of a major transit stop (Belmont Avenue Station).
• The spaces will be allotted and managed by an onsite manager allowing for more visitor parking to made available.
3. No local resident preference for planned rental units. Other cities have plans to offer housing to existing local residents first (local school district teachers, law enforcement employees, and low to mid-income municipal workers). The city and the developer should consider a local resident preference.
• Unless mandated by the city, ROEM cannot restrict availability of units to residency.
4. Traffic. Extra volume might necessitate a traffic light, extra turn in islands, or other traffic controls, including blocking off Belmont Ave and closing it at the Malcolm intersection (near the Van's). What are the plans to allow existing residents to get in and get out safely, with increasing El Camino traffic? How can we mitigate speeding on Malcolm? More parking on El Camino makes it difficult to see when making turns onto El Camino - how will this development impact that?
• The development has been designed per Public Works standards. • ROEM is considering the addition of a left turn barrier from East Belmont onto North El Camino to increase safety and reduce through traffic on Belmont.
5. Security. Is the new landlord considering any on-site security, residential applicant vetting, Megan's law screening, or other measures to ensure the safety of residents and neighbors for this type of density and new resident influx?
• All ROEM developments include security measures such as cameras, tenant only accessible gates and key cards.
• There will be an onsite manager to monitor and address security issues.
6. Electrical. What improvements are planned to make sure we do not see extra blackouts due to load?
258
• The project will incorporate a photovoltaic system to help reduce the impact on local electrical usage.
7. Internet access grid. What improvements are planned to make sure we do not see local switching box slow downs for Comcast Cable or At&T fiber? • Internet upgrades as required by state guidelines will be incorporated into the project if needed.
8. Sewer and water. Malcolm, Anita, and El Camino are already facing challenges, with old pipes, low water pressure, and frequent breaks and outages. What is being planned to mitigate this?
• While issues with surrounding infrastructure is a concern, our project will be designed to not increase the strain on existing systems affect by our development.
9. Density and Public Health. High density may not be safe because of health-related concerns.
What is the developer planning to encourage new behaviors and health agency recommendations?
• While public health is a concern, increased densities are needed to meet the growing demand for housing in the Bay Area. ROEM addresses this by providing well constructed, well managed, and well maintained facilities.
10. Lack of open space. No parks, courtyards, or green spaces seem to be planned by the developer. This is inconsistent with the dwelling mix, since 3 bedroom units are normally occupied by families and they need playgrounds, parks, and open space. • The building has been set back from El Camino to create an open and inviting courtyard feel to the development.
• The upper portion of the property has been left as open space with outdoor amenities and a proposed tot lot for residents.
11. Consider mixed income occupancy, versus low income only to meet the needs of all sectors of society and to alleviate the need for grants and government assistance which is currently under other pressures, financial and policy ones. 125 units is larger than any other regional low income housing development, and most are mixed.
• The project is intended to help a wide range of income levels up to and including work force levels which unfortunately qualify as low income for a family of four in the bay area
12. Lack of financial transparency. It is hard to construct market-rate housing and break even, never mind a low income-only development. What are the sources of grants, credits, and public funds at play to make this development happen?
• Financial gaps are made up for with State, County, and Local funds that the developer must apply and compete for.
13. Noise during construction and while occupied. What mitigations and measures are planned to make this manageable? Are special construction hours/curfews planned, dust mitigation, any sound walls, or vegetation in play?
• Hours of construction are set by the city.
• Dust and run-off mitigation are per code and implemented to maintain air quality.
14. Opportunities for community input. Most consultations are designed after deals between city and developer are made. Can we obtain a list of all opportunities for input with the city, developer, and the rest of community? Will some outreach happen via Nextdoor, Patch, and other electronic means? Outreach should also include a radius larger than the normally required 300 foot radius
• Once the project has been entitled, ROEM intends to hold community meetings as prescribed by the city to keep the community informed and welcome feedback.
15. Schools. Are there plans to accommodate the new residents in the local schools, and how?
16. Relationship to other low income projects. What is the distribution of low income housing, and is this density proportional and appropriate for one neighborhood? 259
17. Property Management. Will the new property have on-site management as the interface for issues relating to noise, traffic, and impact?
• There will be an on-site manager for this community
18. Environmental and other impact studies. Can the community review impact studies and conclusions without making a public record request?
• The project is intended to be designed at a LEED Silver level, minimizing the impact on the environment.
• Low flow fixtures, PhotoVoltaic systems, drought tolerant native landscaping, and many other
19. Existing home values. Any research, local analysis, or studies to reassure residents that home values will not be affected?
• By redeveloping an old motel and a vacant lot, ROEM seeks to improve the overall value of the neighborhood.
20. Will the developer/property manager limit the number of people per unit to restrict multiple families from occupying one unit which would exacerbate the parking and other issues? • Units will be limited to individuals on the lease
21. Are there any studies related to the housing impact of the pandemic and more remote work? This might change as the project continues - how would this affect development? • While we don’t have studies related to this, ROEM developments incorporate WiFi, work areas, and study areas into their designs for use by residents.
22. Is the City of Belmont attempting to change current building codes to support these types of high-density project(s) What is the status of building code changes? • There have been no code changes to allow this development. It is being designed under the current zoning using state mandated bonuses for affordable housing.
Mitigation Requests: See responses above addressing mitigation of concerns.
1. Develop mixed income housing, decrease density and height. Other projects are mixed income and mixed use. What specific thresholds do you have for renters (extremely low, very low, low, etc.) is there a distribution within the categories you are targeting? They are also between 3-4 stories on El Camino. Why is the proposal over the state high density waiver limit? (Why are 8 additional units proposed?)
2. Offer additional parking spots or a limited and managed number of residential parking permits/stickers for Malcolm, Anita, and neighboring streets. 160 net new units (low income housing and condos) would add a lot of cars and traffic. May need color coded by street so that the new developments don’t have permits that would allow them to park in our neighborhood, leaving their parking lot for their guests!
3. Upgrade infrastructure, including enlarged sewer, extra electrical capacity, buried overhead lines for neighborhood, internet junctions, and water main upgrades
4. Close off Belmont Ave at the top (near Van's) to stop vehicular and possibly pedestrian traffic, mitigating parking, traffic, and loitering concerns. Emergency vehicle access can be provided.
In lieu of complex not providing onsite tenant guest parking, Widen Belmont Ave to support parking on both sides of street and safer two-way traffic flow
5. Improve traffic and safety with speed controls on Malcolm and possible stop sign at Malcolm/Anita (everyone ignores the Yield sign, resulting in several accidents to date)
6. Offer some open space for residents and also decrease the density (Park, playground, exercise trail). Explore noise sound walls and vegetations to be added to existing design
7. Mock up the structure bulk with poles to allow the community to visualize the scale and limit view obstructions.
8. Provide On-site property manager and security
9. Offer units to local community members first
260
261
4080 Cabrilho Drive Martinez, CA 94553 Telephone (925) 930-7901 Fax (925) 723-2442 March 11, 2020
Jesse Markman
JETT Landscape Architecture + Design
2 Theatre Square Suite 218
Orinda, CA 94563
[email protected]
Re: Preliminary Arborist Report for 803 Belmont Ave, Belmont Dear Jesse,
This preliminary arborist report addresses the proposed multi-unit residential project at 803 Belmont Avenue. Per the City of Belmont’s Tree Ordinance Chapter 25, the scope of work shall include the following:
Tag, identify and measure all trees within 20’ of the project area (diameter of all stems of multitrunked trees shall be measured). Note protected trees, defined as trees of any species with DBH of 10” or more, or multi-stemmed trees where the sum of all diameters is 10” or more.
Identify dripline locations and tree numbers on site plan. Assess individual tree health and structural condition. Assess proposed improvements for potential encroachment. Based on proposed encroachment, tree health, structure, and species susceptibility, make recommendations for preservation of protected trees.
This report is considered preliminary due to the conceptual nature of the plans that were reviewed. It may need to be revised once detailed plans are available for review.
Project Summary
The property is located southwest of the El Camino Real and Belmont Ave intersection, and is currently home to the Bel-Mateo Motel and The Van’s Restaurant. The site slopes up from El Camino Real, is level at the site of the motel, and slopes up again to the west property line. The undeveloped west slope is separated from the motel’s parking lot by aging retaining walls.
The proposed project will demolish the existing motel and surrounding hardscape to construct multi-unit residential housing. The development is primarily located on the eastern & developed portions of the property, though part of the hillside will be excavated to the south of the proposed units. Proposed landscaping and play areas will occupy the remainder of the hillside.
I included twenty-seven (27) trees in my tree inventory, twenty-four (24) of which are considered protected per City ordinance. 85% of the trees comprise eucalyptuses along the southeast property line, where they are located in or just outside the existing fence. Non-eucalyptus trees include a redwood, coast live oak, plum, and loquat. Significant grading is likely required across the property, which will require removal of the redwood and nearly all of the eucalyptuses (Figures 1 & 2).
262
Preliminary Arborist Report, 803 Belmont Avenue March 11, 2020 Jennifer Tso, Certified Arborist 2
It is my opinion that a total of twenty-one (21) trees will need to be removed to accommodate the proposed project; all but one tree are considered protected. I recommend removing three additional eucalyptuses, since the species is prone to branch failure and create significant debris; even more eucalyptuses can be found upslope of the trees included in my tree inventory.
The remaining three trees can be retained given that the protection measures within this report are followed.
Assumptions & Limitations
This report is based on my site visit on 2/27/20 and the project overview/understanding plan by JETT dated 3/6/20. It was assumed that the proposed improvements were accurately surveyed.
None of the trees were surveyed, so I
approximately located them on my tree
inventory plan using satellite imagery and
field observations.
The health and structure of the trees were
assessed visually from ground level. No
drilling, root excavation, or aerial
inspections were performed. Internal or
non-detectable defects may exist and
could lead to part or whole tree failures.
Due to the dynamic nature of trees and
their environment, it is not possible for
arborists to guarantee that trees will not
fail in the future.
Figure 2. Eucalyptuses #21-27 will need to be removed to construct the proposed residential units and frontage improvements.
Figure 1. The existing motel will be demolished for the dense multi-unit residential development. The eucalyptuses in the background are located adjacent to the property line and will need to be removed. 263
Preliminary Arborist Report, 803 Belmont Avenue March 11, 2020 Jennifer Tso, Certified Arborist 3
Tree Inventory & Assessment Table
#s: Each tree was given a square metal tag with numbers ranging from #1-27. Their approximate locations are given in the tree protection plan.
DBH (Diameter at Breast Height): Trunk diameters in inches were measured at 4.5’ above average grade with a diameter tape. Height of measurement may deviate from the standard on atypical trunks; deviations are noted under the “Comments” section.
Health & Structural Condition Rating
Dead: Dead or declining past chance of recovery.
Poor (P): Stunted or declining canopy, poor foliar color, possible disease or insect issues.
Severe structural defects that may or may not be correctable. Usually not a reliable specimen for preservation.
Fair (F): Fair to moderate vigor. Minor structural defects that can be corrected. More susceptible to construction impacts than a tree in good condition.
Good (G): Good vigor and color, with no obvious problems or defects. Generally more resilient to impacts.
Very Good (VG): Exceptional specimen with excellent vigor and structure. Unusually nice.
Dripline: Canopy radius was visually estimated in each cardinal direction.
Age
Young (Y): Within the first 20% of expected life span. High resiliency to encroachment.
Mature (M): Between 20% - 80% of expected life span. Moderate resiliency to encroachment.
Overmature (OM): In >80% of expected life span. Low resiliency to encroachment.
DE: Dripline Encroachment (X indicates encroachment)
CI: Anticipated Construction Impact (L = Low, M = Moderate, H = High) P: An X indicates a protected tree (defined as trees
of any species with DBH of 10” or more, or multistemmed trees where the sum of all diameters is 10” or more)
Tree Encroachment Summary
Trees that will need to be removed: 1, 8-27
(21 trees)
o Protected trees proposed for
removal: 1, 8-12, 14-27 (20 trees)
o Additional recommended removals
(based on poor species): 5-7 (3
trees)
Trees to be saved that will not be
encroached: 2-4 (3 trees)
Figure 3. Redwood #1 has poor structure and is
causing significant hardscape damage (bottom right); it will likely be affected by significant grading.
264
Preliminary Arborist Report, 803 Belmont Avenue March 11, 2020 Jennifer Tso, Certified Arborist 4
# Species DBH Health Structure Dripline
N E S W
Age DE CI P Comments Action
1 Coast
redwood
(Sequoia
sempervirens)
21,
18.5,
17 G F-P 10 10 10 10 M X ? X Topped & shaped into circle. Codominant trunks; splits again above union. Significant hardscape damage.
10’ from proposed building; likely
significant grading around tree.
Remove due to structure
and potential
encroachment.
2 Coast live oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)
13.5 G-F G-F 15 15 10 8 Y L X Phototropic lean to N. Slightly sparse canopy. Trunk consists of twisted
grafted stems. Clear of construction (in
hillside planting area).
None.
3 Plum (Prunus
sp.)
3, 4,
6 VP P 8 4 6 6 OM L X Mostly dead; a few sprouts. Other plums failed in vicinity. Clear of
construction (in hillside planting area).
None.
4 Japanese
loquat
(Eriobotrya
japonica)
5.5 G F 6 10 6 0 Y L Bark on lower trunk damaged.
Phototropic lean due to redwood. Clear
of construction (in hillside planting
area).
None.
5 Eucalyptus
(Eucalyptus
sp.)
9, 8 F F-P 0 15 0 15 M L X Co-dominant trunks. Larger trunk with canker along lower 4' (either pruning
cut or stem failure). >20’ from proposed
retaining wall.
None.
Consider removal due to
poor species.
6 Eucalyptus 12.5 F F 0 8 0 8 M L X Co-dominant stems at 10' with minimal trunk taper. ~18’ from proposed
retaining wall.
None.
Consider removal due to
poor species.
7 Eucalyptus 9.5 F P 10N M L Single sprout resulting from old stump (others 1" diameter or smaller). ~27’
from proposed retaining wall.
None.
Consider removal due to
poor species.
8 Eucalyptus 9, 5,
9, 10
F P 10 15 6 15 M X MHX Poorly tapered sprouts from old stump. 14’ from proposed retaining wall. Poor
structure may be liability.
Remove - verify
ownership.
9 Eucalyptus 9.5,
9, 5,
8, 13,
9, 6
F P 18 10 10 15 M X H X Trunk sprouts. ~8’ from proposed retaining wall.
Remove - verify
ownership.
265
Preliminary Arborist Report, 803 Belmont Avenue March 11, 2020 Jennifer Tso, Certified Arborist 5
# Species DBH Health Structure Dripline
N E S W
Age DE CI P Comments Action
10 Eucalyptus 30 F-P P 15 10 10 18 M X H X DBH estimated at 2' above grade due to high debris. Sparse canopy. Original
tree removed at 6'; existing canopy
consists of trunk sprouts. In proposed
retaining wall.
Remove - verify
ownership.
11 Eucalyptus 10.5 F-P G-F 8 8 8 8 Y X H X Skinny with sparse canopy. In proposed retaining wall.
Remove - verify
ownership.
12 Eucalyptus 9.5, 9 F-P P 18N-NE M X H X Co-dominant stems at 3'. Sparse canopy. 3’ from proposed retaining wall.
Remove - verify
ownership.
13 Eucalyptus 8 F-P P 18NE Y X H Skinny trunk with no foliage till 30' above grade. 2’ from proposed
retaining wall.
Remove - verify
ownership.
14 Eucalyptus 15,
11, 4
F-P P 10 10 6 10 M X H X Multiple trunks. 4’ from proposed retaining wall.
Remove - verify
ownership.
15 Eucalyptus 10.5 F F-P 10N Y X H X Minor phototropic lean to N. 4’ from proposed retaining wall.
Remove - verify
ownership.
16 Eucalyptus 8, 6,
18,
18,
10 F P 8 10 15 18 M X H X Old trunk sprouts; base of tree massive. 4’ from proposed retaining wall.
Remove - verify
ownership.
17 Eucalyptus 16,
10, 7,
6 F P 0 15 8 20
N
W
M X H X Trunk sprouts originating at 3' above
grade. 4’ from proposed retaining wall.
Remove - verify
ownership.
18 Eucalyptus 36,
12,
14 F F-P 12 18 10 20 M X H X DBH estimated; trunk too large to measure with fence conflict. Trunk
wrapped by wire. Co-dominant stems at
8' above grade. ~4’ from property line;
grading likely up to property line.
Remove - verify
ownership.
19 Eucalyptus 15.5,
17,
16, 6,
6 F P 25 30 15 25 M X H X Trunk sprouts. ~4’ from property line; grading likely up to property line.
Remove - verify
ownership.
266
Preliminary Arborist Report, 803 Belmont Avenue March 11, 2020 Jennifer Tso, Certified Arborist 6
# Species DBH Health Structure Dripline
N E S W
Age DE CI P Comments Action
20 Eucalyptus 28,
26 F F 25 25 0 25
N
W
M X H X Co-dominant trunks; larger trunk has
fused co-dominant stems above union
(poor structure). ~4’ from property line;
grading likely up to property line.
Remove - verify
ownership.
21 Eucalyptus 10, 6 F F 0 0 18 18 Y X M X Dominated by adjacent tree. 12’ from proposed building; grading likely up to
property line.
Remove.
22 Eucalyptus 18,
24,
30 F F 20 20 20 10 M X H X Diameter of larger stems estimated due to bark debris. Slightly sparse canopy,
multiple leaders and elongated
scaffolds. 10’ from proposed building;
grading likely up to property line.
Remove.
23 Eucalyptus 9, 7 F-P P 6 6 6 6 Y X H X Narrow & crossing co-dominant trunks.
Highly reduced canopy from
competition. 11’ from proposed
building; grading likely up to property
line.
Remove.
24 Eucalyptus 22,
36 F F-P 18 18 0 25 M X H X Diameter estimated due to debris.
Failed branch. 10’ from proposed
building; grading likely up to property
line.
Remove.
25 Eucalyptus 15 F F-P 10E Y X ? X Tall & skinny tree due to shading. In proposed streetscape area.
Removal recommended
on account of species and
potential encroachment.
26 Eucalyptus 34 G-F P 15 20 10 0 M X ? X Co-dominant stems at 20' above grade.
In proposed streetscape area.
Removal recommended
on account of species and
potential encroachment.
27 Eucalyptus 23.5,
28,
27,
15, 4,
6 F F-P 20 0 20 20 M X ? X Cluster likely shares root system.
Elongated scaffolds. In proposed
streetscape area.
Removal recommended
on account of species and
potential encroachment.
267
Preliminary Arborist Report, 803 Belmont Avenue March 11, 2020 Jennifer Tso, Certified Arborist 7
Discussion
The proposed grading and retaining wall construction along the southwest property line will encroach upon the structural root plates (SRPs) of nearly all of the eucalyptuses (included in this report). The SRP is defined as the area adjacent to the trunk where the largest diameter supportive roots are found – excessive root loss occurring within the SRP significantly increases the likelihood of whole tree failure. Additionally, eucalyptuses are frequently condemned in both urban and wild landscapes due to several species characteristics. These include: high tendency for branch failure; high oil content (increased flammability) of leaves, branches and bark; significant debris, including shedding bark; hot and rapid burning wood; rapid growth, reportedly allelopathic (i.e. inhibits growth of other plants), naturalized & outcompetes native species.
For these reasons, I recommend removing three
more eucalyptuses (#5-7) that are clear of
construction. Additional eucalyptuses are located
upslope of these trees, but were not included in this
report since they are beyond 20’ from proposed
construction. Their removal may also be considered.
These removals should be discussed with the
adjacent property owner, since screening will be lost
& the exact ownership of the trees is uncertain.
A crucial component of eucalyptus removal is
chemical treatment of the stump. Eucalyptus stumps
tend to re-sprout, eventually growing into a multitrunked tree with poor structure. This is evident in the property line trees – many of them were previously
cut down to stumps, and their sprouts are now large,
poorly-tapered stems (Figure 4). Chemical
applications have a bad reputation but are valuable
in eradicating nuisance trees. Re-sprouting is
typically mitigated by applying systemic herbicides to
the stump immediately after the tree is removed, so
the chemicals can absorbed into the roots. Additional
chemical treatments or periodic manual removal of
the sprouts may be needed until the root systems are
completely killed. Stump grinding may be somewhat
effective as a mechanical treatment, but the slope may preclude its use.
In addition to the eucalyptuses, the redwood (#1, Figure 3) between the motel & restaurant parking lots will likely need to be removed due to grading. It is causing significant hardscape damage, which indicates that its roots are likely growing into the proposed project area. Its canopy has also been topped & shaped, so its functional benefits to the properties are limit.
The remaining cluster of trees (#2-4) can be saved with low encroachment. They are naturally protected by the slope, so protection fencing is not necessary. I provided generic recommendations to reduce encroachment when working around these trees.
Figure 4. The eucalyptuses are poorly structured, in part due to incomplete removals that resulted in multiple codominant stems. 268
Preliminary Arborist Report, 803 Belmont Avenue March 11, 2020 Jennifer Tso, Certified Arborist 8
Recommendations (to be printed on site plans)
Pre-Construction Phase
Remove trees #1 & 8-27. Eucalyptuses #5-7 are clear of construction, but their removal should also be considered due to the species’ poor characteristics. Stumps shall be immediately treated with systemic herbicides (e.g. glyphosate) to minimize the likelihood of re-sprouting. Recurring manual or chemical management may be required to manage re-sprouting until the root systems are killed.
Prior to removal, the ownership of all trees along the southwest property line shall be verified. If any portion of their trunks crosses the property line, they are considered coowned trees and approval must be obtained from the adjacent property owner. Mulch from tree removals may be spread out under the driplines of trees that will be retained, keeping at least 12” away from the trunks.
Foundation, Grading, and Construction Phase
If needed, pruning shall be performed by personnel certified by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). All pruning shall adhere to ISA and American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standards and Best Management Practices. Should any damage to the trees occur, the contractor shall promptly notify the project arborist to appropriately mitigate the damage.
Landscaping Phase
Avoid all fill work, grade changes, and trenching within the driplines of the trees to remain unless it is performed by hand.
Pipes shall be threaded under or through large roots without damaging them. All planting and irrigation shall be kept a minimum of 10’ away from the trunk of tree #2.
All irrigation within its dripline shall be targeted at specific plants, such as drip emitters or bubblers. No overhead irrigation shall occur within its dripline. All planting within the dripline of tree #2 shall be compatible with oaks, consisting of plant material that requires little to no water after two years’ establishment. A list of oakcompatible plants can be found in a publication from the California Oak Foundation, available at: http://californiaoaks.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/04/CompatiblePlantsUnderAroundOaks.pdf Thank you for the opportunity to provide this report, and please do not hesitate to contact me if there are any questions or concerns.
Please see attached tree inventory plan.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Tso
Certified Arborist #WE-10270A
Tree Risk Assessor Qualified
269
270
271
272
pg. 1 Revised 9/2019
Enclosure and New Development Guidelines
Enclosure Plans are required for all commercial, multi-family, new construction and alteration projects to demonstrate compliance with California mandated diversion requirements, provide adequate space to accommodate service needs and to ensure the safety of those utilizing the service area. This plan is subject to approval by Recology San Mateo County (RSMC), the County of San Mateo and/or the respective jurisdiction in which you are conducting business. Alteration to existing enclosure or construction of a new enclosure may require a permit from this same jurisdiction.
To begin the review process, please contact RSMC at 650-595-3900 or via email at [email protected] and a Customer Service Representative will connect you with an Enclosure and New Development Committee member who can assist you with your new enclosure/development plans.
Each plan should demonstrate compliance with the following requirements:
Structure: Enclosures should be built to allow for maneuvering of containers with ample space between each container. Enclosures should be designed to accommodate recycling, compost, solid waste services, and any FOG (Fat, Oil & Grease) containers, if applicable. Please note, that RSMC does not service FOG containers. The design of enclosure should allow for growth of mandated diversion programs and collection services.
Enclosure doors and hinges must be flush with the enclosure wall. Doors must open a minimum of 90 degrees utilizing cane bolts to secure doors to the ground during service. The enclosure should also contain bump stops which are usually concrete or steel and when installed help keep the bins/carts from hitting and damaging the inside walls of the enclosure.
Drainage: Steel grates are acceptable; however, to avoid damage, they must not be placed directly in front of the enclosure. Visit your city’s website for acceptable drainage options.
Service Times: Service times may vary. For commercial properties, collection can begin at 3:00am Mon – Fri and at 6:00am for residential/multi-family dwellings. Weekend service for commercial and multi-family properties begins at 6:00am. If containers are kept underground, they will need to be brought to the street or curb prior to the collection times listed above.
Clearance: Vertical (overhead) clearance of 25 feet is required for accessing containers.
Loading Pad and Weight Limits: A concrete stress apron extending 12’ x 12’ from the enclosure opening or furthest part of the roof, and be engineered to withstand 60,000 lbs.
Be advised there are weight limits for all containers, which vary by size and commodity. Compactor frontload containers, by nature, are heavier than standard frontload containers. As such, we cannot pull out compacted bins for service – they must be placed curbside and positioned in an area for direct access by collection vehicle. In addition, RSMC cannot pull out containers that are 4 cubic yards or larger; these containers fall under the same requirements as compactor front load bins.
Collection vehicles can weigh approximately 60,000 lbs. when at full capacity; therefore, installing wear plates at the service location and using concrete over asphalt may help to avoid more than normal wear 273
pg. 2 Revised 9/2019
on the roadway. Should collection service take place on a surface other than what is noted above, such as, but not limited to: pavers, flagstone, brick, and/or on a private road or street, a Release of Liability Form must be signed prior to approval of design and service.
Grade: The enclosure must be street level or at a grade of less than 7%.
Location and Access: The enclosure must be at street level or within 50 feet from a public street or a paved roadway that is at least 16 feet wide. A turning radius of 40 feet is required for collection vehicles. For backup distances of greater than 150 feet, a turnaround area must be provided. A curb-cut and/or loading zone may be required at street level to allow for sufficient space to meet safety requirements during service.
Containers that are housed underground will need to be brought to street-level for service. RSMC can provide service containers with tow bars and pneumatic wheels for an additional fee. Containers cannot be rolled off or pushed onto a curb. A driveway curb-cut is required to roll containers from the curb onto the street for service.
Lighting: Consider installation of lights around enclosure to allow adequate visibility in early morning hours. Lighting should not impede accessibility to enclosure or containers.
Chutes: All chutes must be equipped with a chute shut off valve. RSMC is unable to provide additional containers for use as a place-holder when full containers are being serviced.
Signage: Weatherproof “No Parking Signs” placed on the outside of the enclosure will mitigate enclosures from being blocked on service days. Contact RSMC at 650-595-3900 for recycle, compost and garbage posters, which can be placed in the enclosure to educate employees about the proper use of the containers.
Additional Services: Contact RSMC at 650-595-3900 for more information about the following services
• Distance: Commercial service is provided within 50 feet from curb/street at no additional charge. If the truck/driver cannot access bins within 50 feet, a distance fee will apply. The cost is determined by the service level and distance.
• Towing Package: A one-time fee per bin applies.
• Locks: Locks and locking containers can be provided upon request. Bins or enclosures that require drivers to unlock/lock or use a key/remote for entry are subject to a monthly fees which is determined by the number of locks and frequency of collection. • Grade: Fees may apply for any service location with a grade of more than 7%.
Please note that temporary enclosures or service areas fall under the same requirements as stated above.
A minimum 2-weeks notice is required in order to meet on-site and determine service and safety needs.
Reviewed by: _____________________________ Date: ___________________ Developer/Property Manager/Owner
274
pg. 1 Revised 4/2020
Enclosure and New Development Questionnaire
To ensure there is adequate space and accessibility to the enclosure, and to ensure the safety of service vehicles and employees, Recology San Mateo County (RSMC) must approve of enclosure location and design prior to new construction and initiation of services.
Please fill out the following questionnaire to better aid RSMC in the approval process.
Contact Name: ______________________________ Company: _________________________________ Phone #: _________________________________ Email: ______________________________________ Service Address: ___________________________ City: _______________________________________ Existing Enclosure or Building Modification: ☐ New Enclosure or Building: ☐ Expected Start Date: __________________ Expected Completion Date: __________________ Building Type:
☐ Restaurant ☐ Office ☐ Hotel ☐ Mixed Use (MFD with Retail/Commercial) ☐ Multi-Family Dwelling (MFD) ☐Other: ______________________ • Total number of buildings: Total square footage (per building):
• Will there be a cafeteria or commercial kitchen in the building:
YES ☐ NO ☐ Not determined at this time ☐
Multi-Family Dwelling Developments Only (Apartment, Condo, Townhome) • Are there chutes for: Garbage YES ☐ NO ☐
Recycling YES ☐ NO ☐
Compost YES ☐ NO ☐
• Are there trash/chute* rooms on each floor: YES ☐ NO ☐ • Will residents have access to these trash/chute rooms: YES ☐ NO ☐ If so, how many floors: ___________ How many trash rooms on each floor: _____________ *All chutes must be equipped with a chute shut off valve. • Expected number of units: _____________
• Expected number of residents occupying building at any given time: ____________________ 275
pg. 2 Revised 4/2020
• Is this building within 200’ of residential or MFD housing: YES ☐ NO ☐ Container Types:
• Compactor (s) Note: Requires Power
o Roll Off ☐ Front Load Self Contained ☐
• Metal Containers ☐
• Plastic Carts ☐
Enclosure Specifications:
• Outside of Building: YES ☐ NO ☐
• Enclosure Ceiling: YES ☐ Height______________
• Will the service containers be housed below ground level? YES ☐ NO ☐
o If yes, will you need bins equipped with a tow hitch (additional fees apply):
YES ☐ NO ☐
o Will you need bins equipped with pneumatic wheels* (additional fees apply):
*Bins equipped with pneumatic wheels will need to be pulled/pushed by the customer YES ☐ NO ☐
Total number of floors: ________ Maximum Occupancy per building: _________ • Will there be a restaurant, café and/or cafeteria onsite: YES ☐ NO☐ • Number of businesses: Total Number of employees:
Office Space Only
Number of Guest rooms: ________ Number of floors: _______ Maximum Occupancy: _______ Expected number of Conference or Banquet Rooms: _______________ • Will there be a restaurant onsite: YES ☐ NO☐
• Will Continental Breakfast be served: YES ☐ NO☐
Hotel Developments Only
276
pg. 3 Revised 4/2020
• Enclosure Size (inside dimensions): W ____________ H ____________ D ____________ • If plans include multiple enclosures, provide specs for each enclosure:
o Additional Enclosure Size (inside): W _________ H _________ D _________ o Additional Enclosure Size (inside): W _________ H _________ D _________ o Additional Enclosure Size (inside): W _________ H _________ D _________ • Enclosure should be built with the following in mind:
o Per Franchise Agreement: Enclosures should have adequate space and suitable configuration to allow the driver to safely and efficiently service the containers. Therefore, containers cannot block each other.
o Must allow space for all 3 commodities (recycle, compost and garbage) to support California mandated diversion requirements.
o Allow room for future service needs and maneuvering of containers. o Bumpers should be installed in the interior of enclosure to protect walls from damage. o Bumpers should also be installed at the staging area to prevent bins from rolling or damaging the building.
• Enclosure Material (i.e., wood, metal, etc.):
_______________________________________________________________ • Number of Enclosure Doors: ______________________________________________________ • Door (s) Type: Roll-Up ☐ Gates ☐ Steel ☐
Wood ☐ Other: ☐_______________________
• Opening of Door (s): Swing-In ☐ Swing-Out ☐ Glide ☐
Other: ☐________________________
• Door Support:
o 3 Metal Hinges (will not swell when wet): YES ☐ NO ☐
o Cane Bolts: YES ☐ NO ☐
o Locked Enclosure: YES ☐ NO ☐
• Steel grates should be used for drainage but should not be located in front of enclosure doors. 277
pg. 4 Revised 4/2020
Approach & Landing Area
• Will there be a stress pad at service location: YES ☐ NO ☐ Thickness of concrete slab: ______________________
• Do you have wear plates (concrete reinforced with metal or steel to minimize wear):
YES ☐ NO ☐
• Type of material used for driveway* (concrete, pavers, brick, stamped concrete, etc.) *Concrete is recommended. Pavers and other decorative or delicate surfaces will require a signed liability waiver from customer if Recology is required to drive on these surfaces. • Are there any overheads/obstructions (stops, bollards, beams, branches, lights, roof, wires, etc):
YES ☐ Height: ______ NO ☐
• Will there be parking and pedestrian pathways around enclosure:
YES ☐ NO ☐
• Is there a grade: YES ☐_____% NO ☐
• Require RSMC push/pull*: YES ☐ NO ☐
*RSMC does not push/pull compactors or bins larger than 3 cubic yards in size • Distance from curb/street: feet
• Located via a private road: YES ☐ NO ☐
o Permission to drive on the road: YES ☐ NO ☐
• Dimensions of access road: W ____________ L ____________ • What is the provided turning radius for our truck(s): _____________________________________ • Can the truck drive straight up to containers: YES ☐ NO ☐ • For pavement with electricity (i.e. compactors), is 50+ft unobstructed:
YES ☐ NO ☐
278
pg. 5 Revised 4/2020
Property Owner/Manager Considerations:
• Draining & Washing of enclosure and FOG (Fat, Oil, & Grease) area* *Recology does not provide/service waste oil collection containers • Weight limit
• Use of cement over asphalt, when applicable
• Lighting for early morning service (no poles within service area) • Should service be performed on a private road or street, a Release of Liability Form must be signed prior to approval of design and service.
Additional Services and Fees:
• Commercial customers are eligible for collection services within 50 feet of the collection vehicle and at a slope of less than 7%, at no additional charge. • Servicing on a grade of 7% or more is subject to additional fees • Tow Packages (i.e., Pneumatic wheels and/or tow hitches) • Locking of containers and/or enclosure
Completed by: _______________________________________
Name of Developer, Property Manager or Owner
Title: ___________________________________
Date: __________________________________________
279
TRASH ELECT.
F.C. RM. 323.9' 64 GAL. COMPOST 3CY FL WASTE Loose Container 3CY FL Loose Container RECYCLE 3CY FL Spare Loose Container RECYCLE 3CY FL Spare Loose WASTE Container 12'-0" ROLL-UP DOOR 3CY FL Spare Loose Container RECYCLE 3CY FL Spare Loose WASTE Container 64 GAL. COMPOST 64 GAL. COMPOST 64 GAL. COMPOST 64 GAL. COMPOST [email protected] F: 415.292.5410 P: 415.292.5400 EMERYVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94608 1900 POWELL STREET, SUITE 890 AMERICAN TRASH MANAGEMENT DRAWING TITLE 803 Belmont St PROJECT NO. PROJECT AS SCALE DATE APPROVED DRAWN DRAWING NO. SB 03/19/21 1/4" = 1'-0" CONSULTANT Trash Collection Room Layout T1.0 OWNER / DEVELOPER ARCHITECT NO. DATE ISSUED BY ISSUE / REVISION ROEM BFK 280
BELMONT AVE.
TRASH
ELECT. F.F. 66'-0" F.C. RM. IDF BIKE STOR. BICYCLE SHORT TERM 17 PARKING SPACES A2 B1 C2 SEC. 4 LOBBY 10x25 LOADING 239.9' 312.0' 323.9' 120.2' 64 GAL. COMPOST 3CY FL WASTE Loose Container 3CY FL Loose Container RECYCLE 3CY FL Spare Loose Container RECYCLE 3CY FL Spare Loose WASTE Container ATTEMP
ATTEMP 3CY FL Spare Loose WASTE Container 12'-0" ROLL-UP DOOR 3CY FL Spare Loose Container RECYCLE 3CY FL Spare Loose WASTE Container 64 GAL. COMPOST 64 GAL. COMPOST 64 GAL. COMPOST 64 GAL. COMPOST [email protected] F: 415.292.5410 P: 415.292.5400 EMERYVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94608 1900 POWELL STREET, SUITE 890 AMERICAN TRASH MANAGEMENT DRAWING TITLE 803 Belmont St PROJECT NO. PROJECT AS SCALE DATE APPROVED DRAWN DRAWING NO. SB 03/19/21 1/16" = 1'-0" CONSULTANT Staging Area LayoutT1.1 OWNER / DEVELOPER ARCHITECT NO. DATE ISSUED BY ISSUE / REVISION ROEM BFK 281
Recommended Service Level Form
Project Name:
Contact Name: Company:
Service Address: Franchise:
SIC:
Metal Bins
xFront Load # of Containers Size (yards) Service Per Week Yards Per Week 2 3.00 3 18.00
Metal Bins
xFront Load # of Containers Size (yards) Service Per Week Yards Per Week 2 3.00 5 30.00
Metal Bins
xFront Load # of Containers Size (yards) Service Per Week Yards Per Week 5 0.32 4 6.40
Completed By: Date:
803 Belmont Ave Project
Contact Number: 415-292-5400
Yvette Madera 3/18/2021
GARBAGE
RECYCLE
COMPOST
American Trash Management
BELMONT
Multi-Family Dwelling
Aileen Serrano
803 Belmont Ave
AL - WS Revised 11/2016
Enclosure and New Development Approval Form
Name of Development or Business: ROEM
Service Address: 803 Belmont Avenue City: Belmont
This letter serves as notice that the above-mentioned development plans and/or new enclosure(s) plans for recycle, compost and/or garbage service have been reviewed by Recology San Mateo County (RSMC).
Per the information provided by the customer in RSMC’s Enclosure and New Development Questionnaire and the Permit # PA2020-0020 submitted/dated 3/21/21, RSMC has deemed the plans acceptable for service levels and locations(s) specific to this property with the following stipulations, which have been mutually agreed upon by RSMC and the Developer, Property Manager and/or Property Owner:
RSMC’s Franchised collection times for Multi-Family Dwelling customers begins as early as 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and on weekends between 6:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Due to the limited size of the enclosure, weekend service may be required to accommodate volumes generated by a property of this size.
RSMC collection drivers will drive up to the loading dock, pull the bins out from the enclosure and return after service. Containers that are greater than 50ft from the collection vehicle will require an additional service fee.
RSMC collection drivers are unable to push/pull compactors of any size and bins larger than a 3 yard in size due to safety restrictions.
Project is approved based on a three-stream collection of Garbage, Recycling and Organics.
The project will have chutes for the garbage and recycling only. Residents will have to access organics receptacles within the trash vestibules located at each floor. Building staff will be responsible for transferring organic waste to the collection containers.
As part of the approval process and as a reference during the construction phase, RSMC has provided the customer with Enclosure and New Development Guidelines. Any modifications to the plans/project will require an additional approval by RSMC.
Please provide RSMC with a minimum of 60 days’ notice prior to initiation of recycle, compost and/or garbage services in order to guarantee container inventory and delivery. ________________________________________ _______________________________
RSMC REPRESENTATIVE DATE
________________________________________ _______________________________
TITLE EMAIL ADDRESS
03/31/2021
District Manager [email protected]
283
AL - WS Revised 11/2016
________________________________________ _______________________________
DEVELOPER/PROPERTY MANAGER/OWNER DATE
________________________________________ _______________________________
TITLE EMAIL ADDRESS/CONTACT INFO
284
UPDATED GEOLOGIC HAZARDS EVALUATION
AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
BELMONT AVENUE PROPERTY
803 BELMONT AVENUE
BELMONT, CALIFORNIA
June 28, 2019
(Revised June 8, 2021)
Prepared for
Mr. Jim Campbell
ROEM Development Corporation
Prepared by
Earth Systems Pacific
48511 Warm Springs Boulevard, #210
Fremont, CA 94539
Copyright © 2021
285
ii
June 28, 2019 File No.: 303125‐002
(Revised April 1, 2021)
Mr. Jim Campbell
ROEM Development Corporation
1650 Lafayette Street
Santa Clara, CA 95050
PROJECT: BELMONT AVENUE PROPERTY
803 BELMONT AVENUE
BELMONT, CALIFORNIA
SUBJECT: Updated Geotechnical Engineering Study and
Geologic Hazards Evaluation
REF.: Geotechnical Engineering Study and Geologic Hazards Evaluation, Belmont Avenue Property, 803 Belmont, Avenue, Belmont, California, by Earth Systems Pacific, dated June 28, 2019
Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Multi‐Use Development, 800 Belmont Avenue, Belmont, California, by Friar Associates, Inc., dated December 27, 2017.
Dear Mr. Campbell:
In accordance with your authorization of the above referenced proposal, Earth Systems Pacific has reviewed the data collected by our firm as a part of our June 2019 investigation, subsurface data collected by Friar Associates as a part of their 2017 investigation, and proposed site development plans in preparation of this report which includes geologic landslide hazard evaluation, geotechnical conclusions and recommendations for the proposed residential development at the subject 1.5‐acre site in Belmont, California. The recommendations contained herein should be considered preliminary and are subject to revision by Earth Systems Pacific (Earth Systems) once detailed plans for the new building become available.
We appreciate the opportunity to have provided services for this project and look forward to working with you again in the future. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if there are any questions concerning this report.
Sincerely,
Earth Systems Pacific
John Feltman, CEG 2530 Ajay Singh, GE 3057
Senior Geologist Principal Engineer
Doc. No.: 1906‐061.SGR.REV1/kt
286
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................... 1 Site Setting .............................................................................................................................. 1 Planned Development............................................................................................................. 1 Scope of Services..................................................................................................................... 2
2.0 GEOLOGIC REVIEW............................................................................................................... 4 Regional Geologic Setting........................................................................................................ 4 Seismic Hazards Mapping........................................................................................................ 5 Aerial Photo Interpretations ................................................................................................... 6
3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING .............................................................7 Site Reconnaissance................................................................................................................ 7 Subsurface Exploration ........................................................................................................... 8 Subsurface Profile ................................................................................................................... 8 Laboratory Testing ................................................................................................................ 10
4.0 DATA ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................. 10 Subsurface Soil Classification ................................................................................................10 Seismic Design Parameters ................................................................................................... 10 Quantitative Slope Stability Analysis.....................................................................................11 Slope Stability Analysis Results..............................................................................................11
5.0 SUMMARIZED GEOLOGIC CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................11
6.0 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONCLUSIONS...................................................................12 Site Suitability ....................................................................................................................... 12 Soil Expansion Potential ........................................................................................................ 12 Site Preparation and Grading ................................................................................................13 Foundations .......................................................................................................................... 13 Static Settlement................................................................................................................... 14
7.0 SOIL ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................................14 Site Preparation and Grading ................................................................................................14 Foundations .......................................................................................................................... 17 Retaining Walls ..................................................................................................................... 19 Slab‐on‐Grade Construction.................................................................................................. 21 Exterior Flatwork................................................................................................................... 22 Utility Trenches Backfill......................................................................................................... 23 Soil Corrosion Potential......................................................................................................... 24 Surface Drainage Management.............................................................................................24 Required Geotechnical Observation and Testing ..................................................................25
8.0 CLOSURE ............................................................................................................................ 26
9.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 27 287
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
FIGURES AND APPENDICES
FIGURES
Figure 1 – Site Location Map
Figure 2 – Site Geology and Boring Location Map
Figure 3 – Regional Geologic Map
Figure 4 – Cross Sections
Figure 5 – Site Development Plan
Figure 6 – Building Cross Sections
APPENDIX A
Boring Logs (6)
APPENDIX B
Laboratory Test Results
APPENDIX C
Quantitative Slope Stability Evaluation
288
Belmont Avenue Property June 28, 2019
Belmont, California (Revised April 1, 2021)
303125‐002 1 1906‐061.SGR.REV1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Site Setting
The subject 1.5 acre parcel includes two parcels (APN 044‐172‐190 and APN 044‐172‐200) and is located on the south side of Belmont Avenue, on the southwest side of El Camino Real, in Belmont, California. The approximate center of the site is located at 37.5270°N latitude and 122.2856°W longitude. The site area generally slopes from the southwest to the northeast with APN 044‐172‐200 being relatively flat. In addition, the site slopes down to the southeast towards the strip mall. Parcel 044‐172‐190 (Southwestern portion of the site), is currently occupied by a motel complex consisting of 4 to 5 long buildings and associated paved parking areas. The motel buildings are generally one‐story wood‐framed structures aligned roughly parallel to El Camino Real. Parcel APN 044‐172‐200 is bordered by Belmont Avenue to the northwest, El Camino Real to the northeast, Mountain Mike’s Pizza and the strip mall to the southeast.
Planned Development
The proposed development will include construction of a new affordable housing multi‐family development, including 125 units spread over a complex of two buildings over eight levels, including interior parking within portions of the lower three levels. Community spaces will be contained over portions of the lower two levels, including street level at El Camino Real, and residential living spaces will be distributed across the upper seven levels of development. The project would also include new utilities and landscaping.
Existing buildings associated with the motel will be demolished and significant cut excavation into the existing hill slope will be made to accommodate the upslope portions of the lowermost four levels of the project. The site grading operation will include cuts on the order of 29,430 cubic yards and fill on the order of 240 CY. The fill will be placed in the lower portion of the site adjacent to El Camino Real. The cuts used to accommodate the parking garages will be retained with walls. The planned grading will create a flat area behind the retaining wall and the slope behind the wall will be inclined at roughly 3H:1V.
Our previous geotechnical engineering study (June 2019) included only parcel APN 044‐172‐190 and Parcel 044‐172‐200 was added later. Earth Systems did not perform any subsurface exploration at APN044‐172‐200 but reviewed the subsurface data collected by Friar and Associates and incorporated the data collected by them into this study.
The proposed buildings will have a maximum height of 65 feet above existing proposed grade and will be 6‐ to 8‐story high. The portion of the building at the highest ground surface elevations will have a three‐level below‐grade parking garage. As the hill slopes down towards El Camino 289
Belmont Avenue Property June 28, 2019
Belmont, California (Revised April 1, 2021)
303125‐002 2 1906‐061.SGR.REV1
real, the next level will have a two story parking garage and partial basement at the lowest building will be used for common areas such as gymnasium, homework room, community room, gymnasium, mail room, office, and lobby area.
The top cut for the underground parking garage will be approximately 32 feet high and will need to be appropriately retained. Additional retaining wall will be constructed along the other sides of the parking garage. The finished floor elevation of the 1st floor will be 45 feet and with a floor height of 10.5 feet, the 4th floor will have a floor elevation of 76.5 feet. The first floor elevation of the lowest portion of the building will have a finished floor elevation of 41 feet with a slightly higher (14.5 feet) difference between the first and the second floor. The rest of the floors will have the normal (10.5 feet) high floor separation.
Grading of the lower lot will mostly involve cuts but the portion of the lot near El Camino Real will receive some fill. Details of the proposed grading and architectural plans are shown on the Preliminary Grading Plan by BKF Engineers (dated December 20, 2020) and the Architectural Plans by Withee Malcolm Architects, LLP (dated November 16, 2020). The Site Development Plan (Figure 5) shows the lower level layout of the building and the Building Cross Sections (Figure 6) shows four different cross sections of the building.
Scope of Services
The scope of work for this Geologic Hazards Evaluation was based on California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) Note 42: Guidelines to Geologic/Seismic Reports and Note 49: Guidelines for Evaluating the Hazard of Surface fault Rupture; the California Geological Survey’s Special Publication 117A (2008); and ASCE/SCEC (2002) guidelinesfor the implementation of CGS SP 117.
The scope of our services included:
A review of published and unpublished geologic literature including geologic maps and aerial photography of the site and vicinity,
A general site reconnaissance,
Exploration of subsurface conditions at the site,
Evaluation of the data collected by our firm and another firm at the lower lot, and Preparation of this report which includes a summary of our findings and conclusions of the study with supporting graphics.
The scope of work for the geotechnical engineering study included:
General site reconnaissance,
Review of existing geotechnical engineering investigation reports prepared by other consultants at the subject site,
290
Belmont Avenue Property June 28, 2019
Belmont, California (Revised April 1, 2021)
303125‐002 3 1906‐061.SGR.REV1
Exploration of subsurface conditions by drilling borings, Laboratory testing of soil samples collected from the borings drilled at the site, Engineering evaluation of the collected and published data, and Preparation of this report.
The analysis and engineering recommendations presented in the following sections of thisreport are based on our understanding of the proposed development at the subject site and our experience with projects of a similar nature.
The report and recommendations are intended to comply with the considerations of Section 1803 of the California Building Code (CBC), 2019 Edition, and common geotechnical engineering practice in this area at this time under similar conditions.
Preliminary geotechnical recommendations for site preparation and grading, foundations, slabs‐ on‐grade, exterior flatwork, utility trench backfill, site drainage management, and geotechnical observation and testing are presented to guide the development of project plans and specifications. It is our intent that thisreport be used by the client to form the geotechnical basis of the design of the project as described herein, and in the preparation of plans and specifications.
Detailed analyses of the soil for infiltration rates, mold or other microbial content, asbestos, radioisotopes, hydrocarbons, or other chemical properties are beyond the scope of this report.
This report also does not address issues in the domain of contractors such as, but not limited to, site safety, loss of volume due to stripping of the site, shrinkage of soils during compaction, excavatability, shoring, temporary slope angles, and construction means and methods. Ancillary features such as temporary access roads, fences, light poles, and non‐structural fills are not within our scope and are also not addressed.
To verify that pertinent issues have been addressed and to aid in conformance with the intent of this report, it is requested that final grading and foundation plans be submitted to this office for review. In the event that there are any changes in the nature, design, or locations of improvements, or if any assumptions used in the preparation of thisreport prove to be incorrect, the conclusions and recommendations contained herein should not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed, and the conclusions of this report are verified or modified in writing by the geotechnical engineer. The criteria presented in this report are considered preliminary untilsuch time asthey are verified or modified in writing by the geotechnical engineer in the field during construction.
291
Belmont Avenue Property June 28, 2019
Belmont, California (Revised April 1, 2021)
303125‐002 4 1906‐061.SGR.REV1
2.0 GEOLOGIC REVIEW
Regional Geologic Setting
The subject site is located on hillside terrain at the eastern rangefront of the Santa Cruz Mountains along the western margin of the of the Santa Clara Valley and associated baylands of San Francisco Bay, in the Coast Ranges geomorphic province of California. The Mt. Hamilton‐Mt.
Diablo Range and the Santa Cruz Mountains, respectively, form the eastern and western boundaries of the Santa Clara Valley in the Coast Ranges geomorphic province in central California. These northwest‐trending mountain ranges are the result of tectonic uplift that has been interpreted to have been occurring since Pliocene‐Pleistocene time (beginning approximately 3 to 5 million years before present). The regional basins now occupied by San Pablo and San Francisco Bays, and the Santa Clara Valley, were formed by related tectonic processes during Pleistocene time.
The predominant structural feature in the California Coast Ranges is the San Andreas fault zone, which is the structural boundary between two tectonic plates: the Pacific Plate to the west of the San Andreas fault zone and the North American Plate east of the fault. These two plates are moving past each other at approximately 5.1 cm/year at the mouth of the Gulf of California and 1 to 3 cm/year in the central and northern parts of California (Brown, 1990). The Hayward and Calaveras faults, located on the east side of the Santa Clara Valley, are interpreted to be part of the San Andreas fault system.
For the San Francisco Bay area in general, the oldest rocks east of the San Andreas fault are the Jurassic‐Cretaceous Franciscan Complex. The Franciscan Complex is composed of a chaotic assemblage of mainly shale, sandstone, chert, limestone, greenstone, and serpentinite. These rocks are interpreted to represent components of ancient Pacific Ocean crust that have been disrupted and accreted to western California during Cretaceous to early Tertiary time and prior to development of the San Andreas fault system. The Franciscan Complex is overlain by, or in fault contact with, sedimentary rocks of upper Cretaceous age in some terranes in the southern and eastern Santa Clara Valley. West of the San Andreas fault, the oldest rocks are the predominantly Mesozoic granitic Salinian Block. Mesozoic and Paleozoic metamorphic rocks are a lesser component of the Salinian Block. On both sides of the San Andreasfault, the oldest rocks are overlain by Tertiary and Quaternary marine and terrestrial sedimentary rocks and local volcanic rocks. All of the above rock units were faulted, folded, and uplifted due to plate motions and activity on the San Andreas, Hayward, Calaveras, and smallerrelated faults. This deformation began about 30 million years ago but is mainly Pliocene to Pleistocene in age (~5 million to 11,700 years ago). Holocene‐age (11,700 years to present‐day) plate motion is expressed mainly as creep and seismicity on the various faults of the San Andreas fault system. 292
Belmont Avenue Property June 28, 2019
Belmont, California (Revised April 1, 2021)
303125‐002 5 1906‐061.SGR.REV1
The Quaternary sediment in Santa Clara Valley was deposited when older rocks in the Santa Cruz Mountains and the Mt. Hamilton‐Mt. Diablo Range were exposed to erosion by tectonic uplift.
Franciscan Complex rocks, including sandstone (fs), chert (fc), greenstone (fg), and sheared rock (mélange, fsr) underlie most of the hillside bedrock terrain between the range front location of the site and the San Andreas fault to the west (Brabb et.al., 1998). Brabb et. al. (1998) map the site as underlain by sandstone (fs) of the Franciscan Complex. Pleistocene alluvial fan deposits (QPaf) mantle the lowermost rangefront and valley margin east of the site.
A NW‐SE trending unnamed fault is mapped parallel to the range front in bedrock terrain south of the site (Brabb et.al., 1998). The linear fault trace juxtaposes Franciscan Complex chert (fc) on the southwest with sandstone (fs) on the northeast. At the latitude of the site, the fault is mapped as uncertain (dashed contact) within Franciscan Complex sandstone (fs), passing directly through Julia Court, approximately 280 feet west of the site. The fault is discontinuous to the northwest, and extends approximately 2.6 miles southeast of the site, where the trace is queried in Pleistocene alluvial fan deposits (QPaf). The fault is not zoned by the State of California for fault rupture hazard (CGS, 2018).
Seismic Hazards Mapping
Faulting
Until recently, faults were historically described as “active” and “potentially active”. Active faults were defined by the California Geologic Survey (CGS) as faults that are well defined and have experienced movement within the last 11,700 years (Hart and Bryant, 2018). The definition of "potentially active" varied, however, a generally accepted definition of "potentially active" was a fault showing evidence of displacement older than 11,700 years and younger than 2,000,000 years (i.e., Pleistocene age).
As of 2018, the California Geological Survey no longer uses the terms “Active” and “Potentially active” to describe faults. Faults are now described as “Holocene‐active” for faults having activity within the last 11,700 years; “Pre‐Holocene” for faults which have not been active within the last 11,700 years (Pre‐Holocene faults may still have potential for rupture but are not regulated by the Alquist‐Priolo Act); and “Age‐undetermined” is used for faults where timing of last rupture is unknown (within Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones these are considered active unless data can be obtained to demonstrate otherwise).
The site is located within the seismically active San Francisco Bay area but is outside an Alquist‐ Priolo Earthquake Fault Rupture Zone as delineated by the State of California. The major active faults in the Bay Area are the San Andreas, Hayward, and Calaveras faults. The San Andreas fault 293
Belmont Avenue Property June 28, 2019
Belmont, California (Revised April 1, 2021)
303125‐002 6 1906‐061.SGR.REV1
is approximately 3.6 miles southwest of the site. The Hayward and Calaveras faults are located approximately 14.9 miles northeast and 22.3 miles northeast of the site, respectively. The nearest fault of the Southwest Santa Clara Fold and Thrust Belt is the Monte Vista‐Shannon fault located approximately 10.8 miles to the south‐southeast. The San Gregorio fault zone is located approximately 11.0 miles to the southwest.
Landsliding
The subject site is located within a hazard zone for seismically‐induced landsliding on the State of California Seismic Hazard Zone Map for the San Mateo Quadrangle (CGS, 2018). The accompanying Seismic Hazards Zone Report includes a geologic materials and landslide inventory map (CGS, 2018). No landslides are mapped at the site on the landslide inventory map. Clusters of landslides are mapped within Franciscan Complex mélange (fm) west of the site within the San Andreas rift zone, but few landslides are mapped within the Franciscan Complex sandstone (KJs) unit that underlies the site.
Liquefaction
The site is located outside of State liquefaction hazard zones (CGS, 2018).
Aerial Photo Interpretations
Earth Systems Pacific reviewed aerial photographs of the site and vicinity taken between 1943 and 1974, and publicly available satellite imagery dated from 1993 to 2018, for the presence of terrain features indicative of landslides or active fault zones.
Pre‐development photos taken in 1943 show the alignment of Belmont Avenue connecting to Anita Avenue, both possibly unpaved. The site appears vacant, with sparse trees and open sloping ground. No grading is present at the site or on adjacent slopes. The present‐day treeline of eucalyptus trees along the southeast property line is present. Adjacent slopes to the south (across the treeline) are ungraded and cultivated in row crops. Comparison of pre‐development photos with post‐1968 photos show extensive grading associated with residential and commercial construction on the hillsides surrounding the site. The existing motel buildings first appear in the 1968 photographs we reviewed, and adjacent development and associated grading looks much as it does today. The parcel to the south (south of the treeline) has been extensively excavated with cutslopes parallel to the treeline (northeast‐southwest) and parallel to El Camino Real (Hwy 82; northwest‐southeast). This graded area is currently occupied by a shopping mall (Belmont Plaza), which first appears in 1993 imagery (Google Earth). Earth Systems emphasized the 1943 photographs and imagery as grading and overgrowth has not obscured natural features on the pre‐development imagery. The aerial photographs were also examined for geomorphic features characteristic of ancient (dormant) and active landslides, and faulting. 294
Belmont Avenue Property June 28, 2019
Belmont, California (Revised April 1, 2021)
303125‐002 7 1906‐061.SGR.REV1
The photographs were studied to identify the presence of geomorphic features characteristic of active faulting, and recent and active landslide processes. Aerial photo lineaments or linear tonal differences identified on photos are sometimes associated with fault zones. Lineaments and tonal differences may also be due to changes in soil or rock type, vegetation, groundwater levels, other geologic structures, or sedimentary bedding characteristics. Other geomorphic features associated with fault zones include fault scarps, shutter ridges, sag ponds, spring zones, and offset drainages. No indications of faulting were observed near or on trend with the subject site in the photographs we reviewed.
We looked for geomorphic evidence characteristic of landsliding, such as concave depressions, scarps, and hummocky topography. No evidence of landsliding was visible on or near the subject site on the photographs we reviewed. Pre‐development photos taken in 1943 show irregular topography (knolls, hills, and knobs with steeply incised drainages between) typical of Franciscan Assemblage terrain.
3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
Site Reconnaissance
An Earth Systems geologist visited the site on June 12, 2019. The subject site (APNs 044‐172‐190 and 044‐172‐200) is located on the southwest side of Belmont Avenue. The lowermost parcel (APN 044‐172‐200) fronts El Camino Real. The site is located on northeast facing slopes, just above the hillside‐valley margin. Most of the site appears modified by grading for the existing motel, and the ground surface is generally concealed beneath the motel buildings, parking areas, and associated flatwork. Exposures of geologic materials at the site are sparse. A 45‐foot‐high cut slope occupies the southwest portion of the property above the upper parking lot. The cut slope is inclined at approximately 30‐35 degrees and was covered in dry grass at the time of our site visit. Closely fractured and weathered sandstone is exposed in a subvertical cut in the south corner of the cutslope. We also observed fractured sandstone in a cutslope between the subject property and the Belmont Plaza shopping center on adjacent property to the south.
We specifically looked for signs of slope instability at the time of our reconnaissance. A 3‐foot‐ high wood retaining wall at the base of the 45‐foot‐high cutslope islocally tilted downslope, with wood shoring attached to some of the retaining wall posts as a backstop. Shallow soil slumps are present in the northwest corner of the cut slope between the parking lot and the restaurant to the northwest, with associated deformation of the concrete retaining wall below the slumps.
Retaining walls fronting Belmont Avenue are tilted toward the street by as much as 10 degrees, with associated cracked and settled asphalt behind the retaining walls. The lowermost motel building, which is likely constructed on fill, appears tilted slightly toward El Camino Real. The 295
Belmont Avenue Property June 28, 2019
Belmont, California (Revised April 1, 2021)
303125‐002 8 1906‐061.SGR.REV1
retaining wall beneath the building appears intact and undeformed. The southeast end of the building appears slumped toward the shopping center to the south, as evidenced by a slumped roof crown and repaired and/or reconstructed door and window frames. Widely‐spaced and random cracks in asphalt are present across the site. In general, existing structures and associated flatwork at the site exhibit signs of distress consistent with the age of the motel (pre‐ 1968 construction). We also examined pavement of Belmont Avenue forsigns of distress and did not find any. We did not observe evidence of deep seated landsliding on or adjacent to the property during our site reconnaissance.
Subsurface Exploration
We explored subsurface conditions at the site by logging soil conditions encountered in six exploratory borings drilled at the approximate locations shown on Figure 2, Site Geology and Boring Location Map. The borings were drilled under the direction of an Earth Systems engineer, who was responsible for examining the soil cuttings and samples and describing them in the field to create a continuous log of subsurface conditions at the boring location. The borings were drilled using a truck mounted drilling rig equipped with 8‐inch diameter hollow‐stem augers on May 9, 2019 to depths ranging from 8 to 30 feet below the ground surface. The samplers were driven with a 140‐pound, safety hammer falling about 30 inches per drop. The samplers were driven up to 18 inches and the hammer blows required to drive the samplers every six inches were recorded as Penetration Resistance and are presented on the boring logs.
In addition to our borings, we reviewed the report prepared by Friar Associates, Inc., dated October 30, 2017 for the parcel adjacent to El Camino Real (APN 044‐172‐200). Friar’s report included logs of four borings drilled using a 4‐inch diametersolid stem auger, mounted on a truck flatbed rig.
Soils encountered in the borings were logged in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System and based on the examination of soil cuttings and review of the collected samples, approximate interpreted boundaries of varioussoil layers were marked on the field logs.
Copies of the boring logs are presented in Appendix A.
Subsurface Profile
The subject site is generally underlain by bedrock materials of the Franciscan Complex. Borings B‐1, B‐2, and B‐3 were drilled in the upper parking lot area and encountered weathered bedrock at shallow depths or directly beneath asphalt concrete. Boring B‐1 encountered moderately hard yellowish‐brown sandstone to the maximum depth of drilling. The sandstone becomes less weathered with depth. Boring B‐2 encountered extremely fractured and highly weathered orange‐brown and gray claystone from 2 to 8 feet below ground surface (bgs), followed by 296
Belmont Avenue Property June 28, 2019
Belmont, California (Revised April 1, 2021)
303125‐002 9 1906‐061.SGR.REV1
yellowish brown, soft, and moderately weathered sandstone, clayey sandstone, and claystone to the bottom of the boring at 24 feet bgs. The sandstone becomes hard, massive, and well‐ cemented by approximately 18 feet bgs. Boring B‐3 encountered soft, highly weathered, orange‐ brown clayey sandstone between 2 to 8 feet bgs, followed by gray to yellow brown shale to the bottom of the boring at 15 feet bgs. The shale is crushed, with moderately hard rock fragments in a clayey matrix. Boring B‐4 was drilled in the central parking lot area and encountered fill consisting of brown lean clay with sand between 1 and 3 feet bgs, followed by native reddish brown sandy lean clay to 8 feet bgs. Tan and orange brown clayey sandstone and sandstone were encountered between 8 and 23 feet bgs, followed by hard, dark gray shale to the bottom of the boring at 30 feet bgs. The sandstone is highly weathered and soft to moderately hard.
Groundwater was encountered at the top of the shale at approximately 23.5 bgs. A gouge zone of fractured and crushed, dark orange‐brown and gray sandstone, shale, and clay with caliche was encountered in boring B‐4 between approximately 18 – 19.5 feet bgs. Borings B‐5 and B‐6 were drilled in the lowermost parking lot area. Boring B‐5 encountered reddish brown, very stiff clay soils between 1 and 4 feet, followed by yellow to olive brown clayey sandstone, sandstone, and minor shale to the bottom of the boring at 20 feet bgs. The clayey sandstone is completely weathered. The sandstone and shale are soft, crushed, and highly weathered. Boring B‐6 encountered brown clay fill between 0.5 and 3 feet bgs, followed by native reddish brown sandy lean clay soil to 8 feet bgs. Yellow to olive brown clayey sandstone and sandstone were encountered to the bottom of the boring at 14 feet bgs. Earth materials encountered in our borings are generally moist, with the exception of wet shale in boring B‐4.
The upper clay soils encountered in borings B‐4, B‐5, and B‐6 may be colluvial soils and/or alluvial fan materials draped across the range front at the valley margin. Bedrock materials are highly fractured and crushed, typical of Franciscan Complex rocks. We were unable to correlate geologic units between borings, with the possible exception ofshale in borings B‐3 and B‐4. Given the fractured condition of the rocks we encountered, and the deformed nature of Franciscan Complex rocks in general, we judge the subsurface bedrock profile to be more typical of a block‐ in‐matrix structure, composed primarily of fractured sandstone and shale interbeds, where bedrock units are discontinuous.
The borings in the lower lot conducted by Friar Associates, Inc (Friar), showed the presence of very stiff to hard lean to fat clay in the upper 6.5 to 8 feet bgs. Friar classified the entirety of borings as clay, but the high blow counts (>100) and the auger hitting refusal indicates the possible presence of bedrock at 6.5 to 10 feet bgs.
Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered in boring B‐4 at approximately 23.5 feet bgs. Groundwater was not encountered in our other borings at the site. It should be noted, however, that fluctuations 297
Belmont Avenue Property June 28, 2019
Belmont, California (Revised April 1, 2021)
303125‐002 10 1906‐061.SGR.REV1
in the level of subsurface water can occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature, and other factors, and groundwater levels should not be considered constant.
Laboratory Testing
As the borings were drilled, soil samples were obtained using a tube‐lined barrel sampler (ASTM D 3550‐01 (2007) with shoe similar to D 2937‐04). Standard penetration tests were also performed at selected intervals (ASTM D 1586‐11). Selected samples of the soil were tested for moisture and density (ASTM D 2216‐17 and D 2937‐17), Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318‐17), and direct shearing strength (ASTM D 3080/D 3080M‐11). Copies of the laboratory test results are included in Appendix B.
4.0 DATA ANALYSIS
Subsurface Soil Classification
Based on the data in our boring logs and interpretation of geologic conditions, we have assigned the site to Site Class C (Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock) as defined by Table 20.3‐1 of ASCE 7 (per Section 1613.3.2 of the 2016 California Building Code).
Seismic Design Parameters
The seismic design parameters calculated using the ASCE 7 Hazard Tool (ASCE/SEI 7‐16) for Site Class C are presented below:
Summary of Seismic Parameters ‐ CBC 2019
(Site Coordinates 37.5270°N, ‐122.2856°W)
Parameter Design Value
Site Class C
Mapped Short Term Spectral Response Parameter, (Ss) 1.859g Mapped 1‐second Spectral Response Parameter, (S1) 0.762g Site Coefficient, (Fa) 1.2
Site Coefficient, (Fv) 1.4
Site Modified Short Term Response Parameter, (SMs) 2.231g Site Modified 1‐second Response Parameter, (SM1) 1.067g Design Short Term Response Parameter, (SDs) 1.487g
Design 1‐second Response Parameter, (SD1) 0.711g
Site modified peak ground acceleration (PGAM) 0.959g
298
Belmont Avenue Property June 28, 2019
Belmont, California (Revised April 1, 2021)
303125‐002 11 1906‐061.SGR.REV1
Quantitative Slope Stability Analysis
To evaluate the stability of the slopes at the site, Earth Systems analyzed the cross section A‐A’ (see Figure 2). In accordance with ASCE/SCEC (2002) guidelines, our computer analysis was performed using Spencer’s Method with the aid of the computer program SLIDE version 8.020 (RocScience, 2018) with circular potential failure surfaces. Slopes are considered to be stable if the stability analysis results in a calculated static factor of safety of 1.5 or higher, and a seismic (dynamic) factor ofsafety of 1.0 or higher. The seismic (dynamic) stability analysis was evaluated using a seismic coefficient of 0.507g. This value was calculated based on the USGS mapped 10% in 50‐year ground acceleration of 0.744. If the dynamic factor of safety is less than 1.0, a Newmark displacement analysis is required to evaluate potential slope deformation and movement.
Earth Systems quantitatively analyzed the stability of the existing slopes using data gathered from our subsurface investigation. Groundwater was encountered at 23.5 feet bgs in Boring B‐4. We used the strength parameter from our lab testing. The strength parameters for the fill soil are assumed values.
Material Strengths Used in Models
Map Unit Description C
(psf)
Φ
(deg) Source
af Fill Soil 500 28
Qpaf Pleistocene Alluvial Fan 750 26 ESP (this study)
fs ‐ frac Franciscan Complex Sandstone
‐ fractured 750 31 ESP (this study)
fs Franciscan Complex Sandstone 300 39 ESP (this study) Slope Stability Analysis Results
The results of our analysis of the existing slope indicate a static factor of safety of 2.048 and seismic (dynamic) factor of safety of 1.133, with entry point of the slide plane at about the top of the hill. This is an indication that the slope is stable. Copies of the slope stability plots are presented in Appendix C.
5.0 SUMMARIZED GEOLOGIC CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following conclusions are based on the data acquired and analyzed during the course of this study.
299
Belmont Avenue Property June 28, 2019
Belmont, California (Revised April 1, 2021)
303125‐002 12 1906‐061.SGR.REV1
The subject site is suitable for the proposed multi‐purpose building and related improvements from a geological standpoint, provided the recommendations included in this report are followed.
A moderate to major earthquake on the San Andreas, Hayward, or Calaveras faults could cause strong to violent ground shaking at this site. The potential for surface fault rupture to impact the location of the proposed apartment buildings is deemed low. Likewise, the potentials for landsliding and debris flows are also deemed low at the site.
6.0 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONCLUSIONS
Site Suitability
Based on the results of our subsurface exploration, laboratory test results, observations and engineering analysis, it is our opinion that the site is geotechnically suitable for the proposed multi‐family residential building, provided the recommendations contained herein are incorporated into the design and implemented during site grading and foundation construction phases of the project. The primary geotechnical concerns at the site are:
Relatively high retained cuts required to accommodate the parking garage, Presence of highly expansive soils in the portion of the site adjacent to El Camino Real, Presence ofshallow soilslumpsin the cutslopes behind the upper parking lot of the motel property,
Potential post‐construction deflection of the retaining walls, Relatively high building loads and anticipated post‐construction total and differential settlement,
Cut/Fill transition within the building pad area at the lower lot, Variable seismic behavior of connected tall structures, and Possible seepage sources within the proposed large cuts.
Soil Expansion Potential
The results of the Atterberg Limits test performed by Earth Systems on a near‐surface soils collected from our borings resulted in a Plasticity Index of 10. Based on the test results, Earth Systems judged the near surface soils at the site to have a low shrinkage/swelling potential.
However, the referenced report by Friar, indicates the presence of stiff to very stiff, highly plastic clayey soil (PI = 40) in the boring drilled near the northern corner of the site adjacent to Belmont Avenue at the lower undeveloped lot. Thus, there is a potential for the surficial soils to have a very high expansion potential in the lower portion of the property adjacent to El Camino Real. 300
Belmont Avenue Property June 28, 2019
Belmont, California (Revised April 1, 2021)
303125‐002 13 1906‐061.SGR.REV1
Expansive soils tend to swell with increases in soil moisture and shrink as the soil moisture decreases. The volume changes that the soils undergo in this cyclical pattern can result in post‐ construction distress to lightly loaded structures/flatwork founded on these soils and other improvements if precautionary measures are not incorporated into the design and implemented during construction. Recommendations to minimize post‐construction distress to lightly loaded structures founded on moderately expansive soils are presented in the following sections of the report.
Site Preparation and Grading
The site grading will require deep cuts and minor fill placement in the portion of the property adjacent to El Camino Real. Additional grading work is anticipated to include fill placement behind the retaining walls and the utility trenches. The grading of the lower lot will likely result in cut/fill transition within the building pad area. Therefore, over‐excavation and placement of excavated soil as engineered fill may be required. Grading recommendations are discussed in greater details in the Recommendations section of this report.
Foundations
Due to the firm nature of the surficial bedrock, and removal of soil, the proposed loads of the residential building and the retaining walls can be adequately supported on conventional spread/strip footings. Detailed recommendations related to building foundations are included in the following sections of the report.
Retaining Walls
The proposed development will include construction of retaining walls to support sloping cuts in the southwest portion of the building and up to 32 feet high cuts around the proposed underground parking area. Since the cuts are relatively high, the recommendations contained in the following sections of the report may be considered preliminary in nature. The actual retaining wall design should be performed by a firm specializing in the design of walls keeping allowable deflection and intended application of the retention system in mind. The wall designer should explore the possibility of using tie backs and/or a soil nailed wall that would allow top down construction and eliminate the need of temporary shoring. Retaining wall structures tend to be flexible; therefore, the design engineer should keep future deflections of the wall in mind while designing the rigid structures adjacent to the wall. The design engineer should also be provided with acceptable deflection tolerances so the walls could be designed appropriately.
Design recommendations for conventional cantilever type walls for up to 12‐foot high cuts are provided in the following sections of the report. We have provided soil properties and preliminary recommendations for the soil nail design and can provide additional recommendations to the wall designer once the wall design is conceptually finalized. 301
Belmont Avenue Property June 28, 2019
Belmont, California (Revised April 1, 2021)
303125‐002 14 1906‐061.SGR.REV1
Static Settlement
It is anticipated that the foundation elements will bear into the underlying Franciscan formation bedrock in most of the building area. Bedrock may be present at greater depths in the lower lot area; therefore, the building foundations in the lower lot should be extended to greater depths so it isfounded in bedrock. Totalstatic settlements of foundationssupported on bedrock are not anticipated to exceed 1 inch with differential settlement of less than ½ inch between adjacent foundation elements. Actual settlement values will be confirmed once the actual loads and foundation dimensions are finalized.
7.0 SOIL ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS
Site Preparation and Grading
General Site Preparation
1. The site should be prepared for grading by removing structures, slabs‐on‐grade, existing trees and associated root systems within and in close proximity to the proposed building footprints, debris, and other potentially deleterious materials from areas to receive improvements. Existing utility linesthat will not be serving the proposed residence should be either removed or abandoned. The appropriate method of utility abandonment will depend upon the type and depth of the utility. Recommendations for abandonment can be provided as necessary.
2. In the areas proposed to receive fill, the differential fill thicknessshould not exceed 4 feet.
This may require over‐excavation and placement of excavated soil as engineered fill. The amount ofsoil required to be over‐excavated can be provided once the final grading plans are completed. If buried objects, soft soils, or other adverse conditions are observed during over‐excavation, additional depth of over‐excavation or other remedial grading measures may be recommended by the geotechnical engineer. The over excavation operations should be observed by the geotechnical engineer prior to continuing grading.
3. Ruts or depressions resulting from the removal of the previous building foundations, slabs, utilities, tree root systems, and abandoned and/or buried structures, buried debris, and remnants of the former use of the site that are discovered during site grading should be removed and properly cleaned out down to undisturbed native soil. The bottoms of the resulting depressionsshould be scarified and cross‐scarified at least 8 inchesin depth, moisture conditioned and recompacted. The depressions should then be backfilled with approved, compacted, moisture conditioned structural fill, as recommended in other sections of this report.
302
Belmont Avenue Property June 28, 2019
Belmont, California (Revised April 1, 2021)
303125‐002 15 1906‐061.SGR.REV1
4. Minor shallow slumps were observed at the base of the northwest corner of the slope which initiated deformation of lower concrete retaining walls at the base of the slope, which was confirmed during our site reconnaissance. The site is proposed to undergo major grading effort and these slumps observed in the field will likely be removed in their entirety. Any additional areas ofslope instability will be addressed during the site grading operation.
5. Shallow subsurface conditions not encountered during the exploratory drilling may be exposed during grading that cannot be foreseen at this time. Therefore, it is recommended that site preparation and grading operations be perform under the observation of Earth Systemsso that actual conditions can be evaluated in the field asthe job progresses. Earth Systems should be notified at least 48 hours prior to commencement of grading operations so that arrangements can be made to provide observation and soil testing services.
Compaction Recommendations
1. In general, the underlying native soil should be scarified at least 8 inches, moisture conditioned and recompacted to the recommended relative compaction presented below, unless noted otherwise. This scarification operation should be performed at locations designated for proposed structural fill, concrete slabs‐on‐grade, exterior flatwork, foundations, and pavement areas.
2. Recompacted native soils and fill soils should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of maximum dry density at a moisture content at least 2 percentage points above optimum.
3. In areas to be paved, the upper 8 inches of subgrade soil should be compacted to a minimum 92 percent of maximum dry density at a moisture content at least 2 percentage points over optimum. The aggregate base courses should be compacted to a minimum 95 percent of maximum dry density at a moisture content that is slightly over optimum.
The subgrade and base should be firm and unyielding when proof‐rolled with heavy, rubber‐tired equipment prior to paving. The pavement subgrade soils should be periodically moistened as necessary prior to placement of the aggregate base to maintain the soil moisture content near optimum.
Fill Recommendations
1. Structural fill is defined herein as a native or import fill material which, when properly compacted, will support foundations, building slabs, pavements, and other fills. The on‐ 303
Belmont Avenue Property June 28, 2019
Belmont, California (Revised April 1, 2021)
303125‐002 16 1906‐061.SGR.REV1
site native fill soils that are free of debris, organics and other deleterious material, may be used as structural fill.
2. Low‐expansive material should be placed under a conventional slab‐on‐grade as discussed above and under exterior flatwork. Low‐expansive material is defined as being coarse grained (ASTM D 2487‐17) with a plasticity index (ASTM D 4318‐17) of 15 or less.
Proposed low‐expansive material should be evaluated by the Geotechnical Engineer before being transported to the site, and on an intermittent basis during placement on the site. Processed aggregate base would be suitable for use as low‐expansive material.
Low‐expansive imported material should be compacted to a minimum 90 percent of maximum dry density. The flatwork areas should be frequently moistened with light sprays as necessary prior to placement of the low‐expansive import to maintain the soil moisture content above optimum.
3. Imported fill soils for general use at the site as low‐expansive imported material should meet the following criteria:
a. Be coarse grained and have a plasticity index of less than 15 and/or an expansion index less than 20;
b. Be free of organics, debris or other deleterious material; c. Have a maximum rock size of 3 inches; and
d. Contain sufficient clay binder to allow for stable foundation and utility trench excavations.
4. A sample of proposed imported soilsshould be submitted at least three days before being transported to the site for evaluation by the geotechnical engineer. During importation to the site the material should be further reviewed on an intermittent basis.
5. Fills placed on sloping ground (steeper than 10:1) should be properly keyed at their base and continually benched into bedrock as recommended in the field by the geotechnical engineer. The base keys should be at least 10 feet wide, or 1.5 times the width of the compaction equipment, whichever is greater, at locations and depths determined by the geotechnical engineer. The base‐keys should penetrate at least 2 feet into undisturbed native soil or bedrock. Asthe fillsincrease in height, they should be continuously benched into undisturbed native material to provide a firm bond between the fill material and the undisturbed native material. A subdrain should be placed in the heel of the keyway, if deemed necessary by the geotechnical engineer. Once the key and benches have been approved by the geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist, backfilling may proceed as described in the preceding paragraphs.
304
Belmont Avenue Property June 28, 2019
Belmont, California (Revised April 1, 2021)
303125‐002 17 1906‐061.SGR.REV1
6. Compacted fill slopes should not be steeper than 2.5:1 in finished slope. Cut slopes in natural soil slopes also should not be steeper than 2.5:1. Cut slopes should be observed by a qualified Earth Systems representative to evaluate the possible need for stabilizing buttress grading. Fill slopes should be constructed slightly oversize laterally so that they can be trimmed to a clean finished surface at the completion of grading. Constructed slopes should be protected against rain runoff or surplus irrigation water by use of an appropriate drainage control facility. Newly constructed slopesshould receive some type of erosion control planting soon after completion of grading.
Foundations
The proposed building loads may be supported on conventional spread/strip footings.
Alternatively, pier and grade beams may be used to support the building loads. Earth Systems does not recommend the use of a combination of two foundation types.
Conventional Spread/Strip Footings
1. The anticipated loads of the proposed residential building can be supported by conventional strip/spread footings bearing on bedrock material. The footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches and should extend a minimum of 18 inches into the bedrock and it should be confirmed by a geologist from of our firm. The footing excavationsshould be kept moist, firm, and clean prior to placing structural concrete. The footings should be reinforced per the design recommendations by the project Structural Engineer.
2. The footings should be designed using a maximum allowable bearing capacity of 4,000 psf dead plus live load. This value may be increased by one‐third when transient loads such as wind or seismicity are included.
3. Resistance to lateral loads should be calculated based on a passive equivalent fluid pressure of 300 pcf and a friction factor of 0.35. Passive and frictional resistance can be combined in the calculations without reductions. These values are based on the assumption that backfill adjacent to foundations is properly compacted. The upper 12 inches of embedment should be disregarded in calculating passive resistance where concrete or asphalt pavement does not abut the foundation.
Piers and Grade Beams
1. Alternatively, a drilled, cast‐in‐place, reinforced concrete pier and grade beam type foundation system may be used to support the building loads. The piers should extend a minimum of 8 feet into the underlying bedrock. The piers should have a minimum diameter of 18 inches and 305
Belmont Avenue Property June 28, 2019
Belmont, California (Revised April 1, 2021)
303125‐002 18 1906‐061.SGR.REV1
should be sized using an allowable skin friction value of 800 psf in bedrock and 500 psf for overlying soils, against gravity loads. The allowable skin friction value for uplift loads should be limited to 70 percent the values for gravity loads. The weight of the pier should be ignored while estimating the load bearing capacity against uplift loads. These values may be increased one‐third for short term loads such as wind or seismic loads. The piers should contain reinforcing steel through the entire depth. The top 2 feet of embedmentshould be discounted when calculating vertical load transfer. The end bearing capacity of the piers should be ignored.
2. Pierslocated on sloping ground or within 15 feet of the top of a down slope should be designed for creep forces. A creep force of 50 pcf acting over a tributary area of 3 pier diameters should be applied to the upper 3 feet of embedment.
3. To resist lateral loads, a passive equivalent fluid pressure of 300 pcf and a coefficient of friction of 0.30 may be assumed. Passive resistance may begin at a point on the foundation where there is at least 5 feet of horizontal cover to the slope face. This passive design pressure may be increased by one third when including short term forces from wind and seismic forces. The passive resistance may be applied over a two pier diameter tributary area.
4. The bottoms of grade beams around the perimeter of the building structures should penetrate at least 6 inches into the prepared building pad, where raised floors are anticipated and 12 inches where slab‐on‐grades floors, are anticipated. To reduce uplift forces on the grade beams, 4 to 6 inch thick void forms should be placed under the grade beams.
5. Piers should be structurally tied to the grade beams or tie beams. Isolated interior piers are not recommended. The actual design of the piers, their reinforcement, depth,size and spacing will depend upon actual building loads and should be determined by the architect/engineer responsible for the foundation design.
6. The piers should not deviate from a plumb line by more than 2 percent of the pier length, as measured from the top to the point of interest. Adequate pier oversize may be assumed to provide the recommended tolerance.
7. Foundation piers should be drilled under the observation of a representative from Earth Systems who will verify the proper penetration depth into bedrock and provide additional recommendations if unanticipated conditions are encountered during pier drilling operations. 306
Belmont Avenue Property June 28, 2019
Belmont, California (Revised April 1, 2021)
303125‐002 19 1906‐061.SGR.REV1
Retaining Walls
Walls Less than 12 feet
1. Retaining walls may be supported on conventional strip/spread footings or a system of piers and grade beams utilizing the foundation recommendations presented in the Foundations section above.
2. Design criteria for retaining walls to laterally retain the on‐site soils are presented below:
Active equivalent fluid pressure (level backfill) ............................45 pcf At‐rest equivalent fluid pressure (level backfill) ...........................60 pcf The above earth pressures are for level backfill conditions. For sloping backfill, the above pressures should be increased by 3 pcf per every 5 degree increase in the backfill slope angle. No surcharge loads are taken into consideration in the above provided equivalent fluid pressures. Retaining walls allowed to deflect up to one‐half percent of the total height may be designed to withstand active earth pressures.
3. Surcharge loads applied at the surface on the backfill should be considered to be a uniformly distributed horizontal load. This load would equal to approximately 1/3 and 1/2 of the uniform surcharge load for “active” and “at‐rest” conditions, respectively.
4. If seismic forces are to be considered in the retaining wall design, the seismic increment of earth pressure should be 8H pounds per linear foot, where H is the height of the retained soil. The seismic pressure should be applied uniformly on the back of the wall along the height of the retained soil.
5. A concrete lined drainage ditch should be constructed at the top of exterior retaining walls to minimize surface irrigation or rain water originating upslope of the walls from flowing overthe walls. The drainage ditch should lead to one or both ends of the retaining walls and discharge into an approved collection system.
6. In order to provide proper drainage, an import drain rock blanketshould be placed behind the retaining walls. The drain rock blanket should be at least 12 inches wide and extend along the entire length of the retaining wall. The drain rock blanket should extend from the top of the footing upward to within 2 feet of the top of the wall backfill. The upper 2 feet of backfill over the drainage medium should consist of native soil, compacted to at least 90 of maximum dry density, to reduce the flow of surface drainage into the wall drain system. The drain rock blanket should be separated from the backfill soil using a 307
Belmont Avenue Property June 28, 2019
Belmont, California (Revised April 1, 2021)
303125‐002 20 1906‐061.SGR.REV1
permeable synthetic fabric conforming to Caltrans Standard Specifications, Section 88‐
1.02B, Class A. Permeable material should conform to Section 68‐2.02F(3), Class 2, of the Caltrans Standard Specifications. Manufactured synthetic drains such as Miradrain or Enkadrain may be used in lieu of drain rock and should be installed in accordance with the recommendations of the manufacturer. A 4‐inch diameter, perforated/horizontal pipe should be placed at the bottom of the drain blanket/synthetic drains with perforations down. The pipe should discharge to an approved discharge point beyond and down slope of the wall.
7. The architect/engineershould bearin mind that retaining walls by their nature are flexible structures, and the flexibility can often cause cracking in surface coatings. Where walls are to be plastered or will otherwise have a finish surface applied, this flexibility should be considered in determining the suitability of the surfacing material, spacing of horizontal and vertical joints, connections to structures, etc.
8. Retaining walls facing habitable areas, or areas where intrusion of moisture would be undesirable, should be waterproofed in accordance with the specifications of the architect/engineer.
9. Retaining walls should be backfilled with either native soil or clean imported granular material. The backfill material should be placed in thin, moisture conditioned lifts, compacted in accordance with the recommendations provided in the Site Preparation and Grading section of this report.
10. Long‐term settlement of properly compacted sand or gravel retaining wall backfill should be assumed to be about ½ percent of the depth of the backfill. Long‐term settlement of properly compacted clayey retaining wall backfill should be assumed to be about 1 percent of the depth of the backfill. Improvements constructed near the tops of retaining walls should be designed to accommodate the estimated settlement.
Preliminary Recommendations for Soil Nail Walls
1. Vertical cuts greater than 12 feet in height may be retained using soil nailed walls provided the horizontal movement of the soil nailed walls is within the tolerable range.
The design of the soil nail walls should be performed by an experienced wall designer and should adhere to the Soil Nail Walls Reference Manual by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
308
Belmont Avenue Property June 28, 2019
Belmont, California (Revised April 1, 2021)
303125‐002 21 1906‐061.SGR.REV1
2. Design criteria for retaining walls to laterally retain the on‐site soils are presented below:
ɸ (°) c1 (psf) Unit weight (pcf) Young’s
Modulus2 (ksf)
Groundwater
Upper 5 feet 26 750 120 300 n/a
Below 5 feet 31 750 130 2,000 ~23 feet bgs
1 Generally cohesion values are ignored in the design of soil nail walls 2 Young’s Modulus values are approximated based on Table 4.3 from the FHWA Soil Nail Manual, and the values are very limited in their accuracy
3. Surcharge loads applied at the surface on the backfill should be considered to be a uniformly distributed horizontal load. This load would equal to approximately 1/3 and 1/2 of the uniform surcharge load for “active” and “at‐rest” conditions, respectively.
4. Strip drains should be placed along the soil nail wall. A drainage cap and exit pipe are connected to the strip drains for the underdrain system. The underdrain system should be constructed inside a trench at the toe of the wall and consist of Schedule 40 PVC slotted drainage pipe. The pipe should be surrounded by clean aggregate wrapped in a geotextile filter fabric. The FHWA soil nail manual should be used to aid in the design of the drainage.
5. When constructing the soil nail wall with the top down method, unsupported cuts on the retaining wall will be present. Unsupported cuts in the native soil should not be greater than 5 feet and unsupported cuts for the bedrock should not be greater than 8 feet.
Slab‐on‐Grade Construction
1. The slab‐on‐grade for the building should have a minimum thickness of 4 full inches and be reinforced as directed by the architect/engineer. A layer of felt expansion joint material should be placed between the foundation and the floor slab.
2. Due to the high expansion potential of the soil, the slabs‐on‐grade should be constructed over a minimum of 12 inches of Class 2 aggregate base conforming with Section 26‐1.02B of the Caltrans Standard Specifications. The required thickness of the non‐expansive soil should be reviewed after the subgrade conditions are reviewed in the field. Prior to placement of the aggregate base, the subgrade soil should be scarified to a minimum depth of 8 inches, moisture conditioned to above optimum moisture content and compacted in place as described in the previous sections of the report. The moisture content ofslab subgrade should be maintained up until the concrete slab is placed on top. 309
Belmont Avenue Property June 28, 2019
Belmont, California (Revised April 1, 2021)
303125‐002 22 1906‐061.SGR.REV1
3. In areas where moisture transmitted from the subgrade would be undesirable, or where moisture sensitive materials will be stored directly on the slab, a capillary break system that consists of a vapor retarder and a 4‐inch‐thick, clean crushed rock layer should be placed above the pad subgrade to serve as a capillary break.
4. The vapor retarder should comply with ASTM Standard Specification E 1745‐17 and the latest recommendations of ACI Committee 302. The vapor retarder should be installed in accordance with ASTM Standard Practice E 1643‐18a. Care should be taken to properly lap and seal the vapor retarder, particularly around utilities, and to protect it from damage during construction.
5. A sand layer over the vapor retarder is optional. If sand, gravel or other permeable material is to be placed over the vapor retarder, the material over the vapor retarder should be only lightly moistened and not saturated prior to casting the slab. Excess water above the vapor retarder would increase the potential for moisture damage to floor coverings. Recent studies, including those by ACI Committee 302, have concluded that excess water above the vapor retarder would increase the potential for moisture damage to floor coverings and could increase the potential for mold growth or other microbial contamination. These studies also concluded that it is preferable to eliminate the sand layer and place the slab in direct contact with the vapor retarder, particularly during wet weather construction. However, placing the concrete directly on the vapor retarder would require special attention to using the proper vapor retarder, concrete mix design, and finishing and curing techniques.
6. When concrete slabs are in direct contact with vapor retarders, the concrete water to cement (w/c) ratio must be correctly specified to control bleed water and plastic shrinkage and cracking. The concrete w/c ratio for this type of application is typically in the range of 0.45 to 0.50. The concrete should be properly cured to reduce slab curling and plastic shrinkage cracking. Concrete materials, placement, and curing methods should be specified by the architect/engineer.
Exterior Flatwork
1. Exterior concrete flatwork should have a minimum thickness of 4 full inches and should be reinforced as directed by the architect/engineer. The flatwork should be cast over a minimum of 12 inches of aggregate base in order to mitigate the effects from expansive soil. The required thickness of the non‐expansive soil should be reviewed after the subgrade conditions are reviewed in the field.
310
Belmont Avenue Property June 28, 2019
Belmont, California (Revised April 1, 2021)
303125‐002 23 1906‐061.SGR.REV1
2. Assuming that movement (i.e., ¼‐inch or more) of exterior flatwork beyond the structure is acceptable, the flatwork should be designed to be independent of the building foundations. The flatwork should not be doweled to foundations, and a separator should be placed between the two.
3. To reduce shrinkage cracksin concrete, the concrete aggregatesshould be of appropriate size and proportion, the water/cement ratio should be low, the concrete should be properly placed and finished, contraction joints should be installed, and the concrete should be properly cured. Concrete materials, placement and curing specificationsshould be at the direction of the architect/engineer.
Utility Trenches Backfill
1. A select, noncorrosive, granular, easily compacted material should be used as bedding and shading immediately around utility pipes. The site soils may be used for trench backfill above the select material. If obtaining compaction is difficult with the site soils, use of a more easily compacted sand may be desirable. The upper foot of backfill should consist of native material to reduce the potential for seepage of water into the backfill.
2. Trench backfill in the upper 8 inches of subgrade beneath pavement areas should be compacted to a minimum of 92 percent of maximum dry density at a moisture content at least 2 percentage points over optimum. Trench backfill in other areas should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum dry density at a moisture content at least 2 percentage points over optimum. Jetting of utility trench backfill should not be allowed.
3. Where utility trenches extend under perimeter foundations, the trenches should be backfilled entirely with native soil compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum dry density. The zone of native soil should extend to a minimum distance of 2 feet on both sides of the foundation. If utility pipes pass through sleeves cast into the perimeter foundations, the annulus between the pipes and sleeves should be completely sealed.
4. Parallel trenches excavated in the area under foundations defined by a plane radiating at a 45‐degree angle downward from the bottom edge of the footing should be avoided, if possible. Trench backfill within this zone, if necessary, should consist Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM) also known as Controlled Density Fill or Flowable Fill. 311
Belmont Avenue Property June 28, 2019
Belmont, California (Revised April 1, 2021)
303125‐002 24 1906‐061.SGR.REV1
5. Where trenches pass from landscape areas to pavement areas, at least a four foot length of trench, centered on the curb line, should be backfilled with native soil to reduce the potential for lateral migration of water from the planter to the pavement area.
Soil Corrosion Potential
1. The corrosion potential of the native soil should be evaluated when the soil subgrade is exposed. The purpose of these tests would be to evaluate the need for any special type of cement or coating around metal pipesto mitigate potential adverse impact of corrosive soils that may be present at the site.
Surface Drainage Management
1. Drainage from the site should not discharge to the existing site slopes without the use of an approved dissipater system in order to control erosion potential.
2. Unpaved ground surfaces should be finish graded to direct surface runoff away from site improvements at a minimum 5 percent grade for a minimum distance of 10 feet. If this is not practicable due to the terrain or other site features, swales with improved surfaces should be provided to divert drainage away from improvements. The landscaping should be planned and installed to maintain proper surface drainage conditions.
3. Runoff from driveways,roof gutters, downspouts, planter drains and otherimprovements should discharge in a non‐erosive manner away from foundations, pavements, and other improvements.
4. Stabilization of surface soils, particularly those disturbed during construction, by vegetation or other means during and following construction is essential to protect the site from erosion damage. Care should be taken to establish and maintain vegetation.
5. Open areas adjacent to foundations, exterior flatwork, and other improvements should be irrigated or otherwise maintained so that constant moisture conditions are created throughout the year. However, irrigation systems should be controlled to the minimum levels that will sustain the vegetation without saturating the soil.
6. Bio‐retention swales constructed within 10 feet or less from the building foundation should be lined with a 20‐mil pond liner.
312
Belmont Avenue Property June 28, 2019
Belmont, California (Revised April 1, 2021)
303125‐002 25 1906‐061.SGR.REV1
Required Geotechnical Observation and Testing
1. It must be recognized that the recommendations contained in this report are based on a limited number of borings and rely on continuity of the subsurface conditions encountered.
2. It is assumed that the Geotechnical Engineer will be retained to provide consultation during the design phase, to interpret this report during construction, and to provide construction monitoring in the form of testing and observation.
3. Unless otherwise stated, the terms "compacted" and "recompacted" refer to soils placed in level lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum dry density. The standard tests used to define maximum dry density and field density should be ASTM D 1557‐12 and ASTM D 6938‐17a, respectively, or other methods acceptable to the geotechnical engineer and jurisdiction.
4. “Moisture conditioning” refers to adjusting the soil moisture to at least optimum moisture prior to application of compactive effort. If the soils are overly moist so that they become unstable, or if the recommended compaction cannot be readily achieved, drying the soil to optimum moisture content or just above may be necessary. Placement of gravel layers or geotextiles may also be necessary to help stabilize unstable soils. The geotechnical engineer should be contacted for recommendations for mitigating unstable soils.
5. At a minimum, the following should be provided by the geotechnical engineer:
• Review of final grading and foundation plans,
• Professional observation during site preparation, grading, and foundation excavation,
• Oversight of soil special inspection during grading.
6. Special inspection of grading should be provided as per Sections 1705.6 and 1705.8 and Tables 1705.6 and 1705.8 of the CBC; the soils special inspector should be under the direction of the geotechnical engineer. In our opinion, the following operations should be subject to continuous soils special inspection:
• Excavation of base keyways,
• Scarification and recompaction at bottom of over‐excavated surfaces, • Fill placement and compaction,
• Foundation pier drilling.
313
Belmont Avenue Property June 28, 2019
Belmont, California (Revised April 1, 2021)
303125‐002 26 1906‐061.SGR.REV1
7. In our opinion, the following operations may be subject to periodic geotechnical special inspection; subject to approval by the Building Official:
• Stripping and clearing of vegetation, roots and deleterious materials, • Over‐excavation to the recommended depth,
• Compaction of driveway subgrade and aggregate base, • Utility trench backfill compaction,
• Conventional foundation excavations.
8. It will be necessary to develop a program of quality control prior to beginning grading. It is the responsibility of the owner, contractor, or project manager to determine any additional inspection items required by the architect/engineer or the governing jurisdiction.
9. A preconstruction conference among a representative of the owner, the geotechnical engineer,soilsspecial inspector, the architect/engineer, and contractorsisrecommended to discuss planned construction procedures and quality control requirements. Earth Systems should be notified at least 48 hours prior to beginning grading operations.
8.0 CLOSURE
Thisreport is valid for conditions asthey exist at thistime for the type of project described herein.
Our intent wasto perform the investigation in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in the locality of this project under similar conditions. No representation, warranty, or guarantee is either expressed or implied. This report is intended for the exclusive use by the client as discussed in the Scope of Services section. Application beyond the stated intent is strictly at the user's risk.
If changes with respect to the project type or location become necessary, if items not addressed in this report are incorporated into plans, or if any of the assumptions stated in this report are not correct, Earth Systems should be notified for modifications to this report. Any items not specifically addressed in this report should comply with the California Building Code and the requirements of the governing jurisdiction.
The preliminary recommendations of this report are based upon the geologic and geotechnical conditions encountered during the investigation, and may be augmented by additional requirements of the architect/engineer, or by additional recommendations provided by Earth Systems based on conditions exposed at the time of construction. 314
Belmont Avenue Property June 28, 2019
Belmont, California (Revised April 1, 2021)
303125‐002 27 1906‐061.SGR.REV1
This document, the data, conclusions, and recommendations contained herein are the property of Earth Systems. This report should be used in its entirety, with no individual sections reproduced or used out of context. Copies may be made only by Earth Systems, the client, and his authorized agents for use exclusively on the subject project. Any other use is subject to federal copyright laws and the written approval of Earth Systems.
9.0 REFERENCES
Abrahamson, N.A., Silva W.J., Kamai, R., 2014, Summary of ASK14 Ground Motiion Relation for Active crustal Regions, Earthquake Spectra August 2014, Vol. 30, No. 3, PP. 1025‐1055.
Abrahamson, N., and Silva, W., 2008, “Summary of the Abrahamson & Silva NGA Ground‐Motion Relations”, Earthquake Spectra, Volume 24, No. 1, pages 67‐97, February 2008; © 2008, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. 2008.
Association of Bay Area Governments, 2003, THE MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE, http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/doc/mmi.html
Blake, T.F., 2004, EQFAULT, V 3.0, A Computer Program for the Deterministic Prediction of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from Digitized California Faults.
Boore, D.M., and Atkinson G. M., 2008, "Ground‐Motion Prediction Equations for the Average Horizontal Component of PGA, PGV, and 5%‐Damped PSA at Spectral Periods between
0.01 s and 10.0 s", Earthquake Spectra, Volume 24, No. 1, pages 99–138, February 2008; © 2008, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. 2008.
Boore, D.M., Stewart, J.P., Seyhan, E., Atkinson, G.M., NGA – West 2 (2014) Equations for Predicting PGA, PGV, and 5%‐ Damped PSA for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes, Earthquake Spectra: August 2014, Vol 30, No. 3, pp. 1057‐1085.
Bray, J.D., and Travasarou, T, 2007, Simplified Procedure for Estimating Earthquake‐Induced Deviatoric Slope Displacements, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, April 2007, pp. 381‐392.
Brabb, E.E., Graymer, R.W., and Jones, D.L., 1998, GEOLOGY OF THE ONSHORE PART OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: DERIVED FROM THE DIGITAL DATABASE OPEN‐FILE 98‐ 137, U.S. Geological Survey, Open‐File Report OF‐98‐137, scale 1:62,500 315
Belmont Avenue Property June 28, 2019
Belmont, California (Revised April 1, 2021)
303125‐002 28 1906‐061.SGR.REV1
Brabb, E.E., Graymer, R.W., and Jones, D.L., 1998, GEOLOGY OF PALO ALTO 30 X 60 MINUTE QUADRANGLE, CALIFORNIA: A DIGITAL DATABASE, U.S. Geological Survey, Open‐File Report OF‐98‐348, scale 1:100,000
Brown, Robert D., 1990, QUATERNARY DEFORMATION, in THE SAN ANDREAS FAULT SYSTEM, CALIFORNIA, Wallace, R.E. ed., U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1515.
California Building Standards Commission, 2016, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, Title 24, Parts 1, 2, 6, 9 and 12, 16, and 18.
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1996, PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Division of Mines and Geology in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey, CDMG Open File Report 96‐08 [U.S.G.S. Open File Report 96‐706].
California Geological Survey, 2018, STATE OF CALIFORNIA SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES REPORT 113, SAN MATEO 7.5’ QUADRANGLE, SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA California Geological Survey, 2018, STATE OF CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE ZONES OF REQUIRED INVESTIGATION: SAN MATEO 7.5’ QUADRANGLE, SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, Official Map, 1:24,000 scale.
California Geological Survey, 2009, GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATION AND MITIGATION OF SEISMIC HAZARDS IN CALIFORNIA, Special Publication 117A.
Campbell, K.W., Bozorgnia, Y., "NGA Ground Motion Model for the Geometric Mean Horizontal Component of PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% Damped Linear Elastic Response Spectra for Periods Ranging from 0.01 to 10 s", Earthquake Spectra, Volume 24, No. 1, pages 139–171, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute February 2008.
Campbell, K.W. and Bozorgnia, Y., 2014, NGA‐West2, Ground Motion Model for the Average Horizontal Components of PGA, PGV, and 5% Damped Linear Acceleration Response Spectra, Earthquake Spectra August 2014, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 1087‐1115.
Chiou, Brian S.‐J. and Young, Robert R. "A NGA Model for the Average Horizontal Component of Peak Ground Motion and Response Spectra", Earthquake Spectra, Volume 24, No. 1, pages 173–215, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute February 2008. 316
Belmont Avenue Property June 28, 2019
Belmont, California (Revised April 1, 2021)
303125‐002 29 1906‐061.SGR.REV1
Friar AssociatesInc., Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Multi‐Use Development, 800 Belmont Avenue, Belmont, California, dated December 17, 2017
Hart, E.W., and Bryant, W.A., 2007, FAULT RUPTURE HAZARD ZONES IN CALIFORNIA, California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42, 24 p.
Jennings, C.W. and Bryant, W.A., 2010, FAULT ACTIVITY MAP OF CALIFORNIA AND ADJACENT AREAS, Cal. Div. Mines and Geology, California Geologic Data Map Series Map No. 6, 1:750,000.
Lawson, A. C., 1908, THE CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE OF APRIL 18, 1906 ‐ REPORT OF THE STATE EARTHQUAKE COMMISSION, two volumes, Carnegie Institute of Washington.
Lazarte, Carlos, et. al, Soil Nail Walls – Reference Manual, 2015, U.S. Department if Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Publication No. FHWA‐NHI‐14‐007.
Witheee Malcolm Architects, LLP, Architectural plans for 803 Belmont Avenue, Belmont, CA 94002, for ROEM, 24 Sheets, dated May 13, 2020
BKF, Project Civil Plans (Planning set), 7 Sheets, Preliminary Civil Plans, Dated May 13, 2020 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 2003, EARTHQUAKE PROBABILITIES IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION: 2002‐2030, USGS Open File Report 03‐214.
Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 2008, THE UNIFORM CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE RUPTURE FORECAST, VERSION 2 (UCERF 2), U.S. Geological Survey, Open‐ File Report 2007 – 1437, California Geological Survey, Special Report 203.
Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 2013, THE UNIFORM CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE RUPTURE FORECEAST, VERSION 3 (UCERF 3), U.S. Geological Survey Open‐ File Report 2013‐1165 / California Geological Survey Special Report 228
317
Belmont Avenue Property June 28, 2019
Belmont, California (Revised April 1, 2021)
303125‐002 30 1906‐061.SGR.REV1
Aerial Photographs (Stereo Pairs)
Date Scale Type Source Ref. No.
10/11/43 1:20,000 B&W USGS DBB‐2B ‐42/43
04/20/68 1:30,000 B&W USGS GS‐VBZJ
06/07/73 1:12,000 B&W USGS 3567‐4 ‐058/059
06/25/74 1:12,000 Color USGS Area 9 9‐56/57
1993‐2018 variable B&W/color Google Earth v7.3.2.5776
318
FIGURES
Figure 1 – Site Location Map
Figure 2 – Site Geology and Boring Location Map
Figure 3 – Regional Geologic Map
Figure 4 – Cross Sections
Figure 5 – Site Development Plan
Figure 6 – Building Cross Sections
319
1000 0 1000 2000
Approximate Scale in Feet
Site Locaon Map
TN MN
13.2 Figure 1
Base: Google Earth (2019)
Earth Systems Pacific
303125-002
Proposed Property
803 Belmont Avenue
Belmont, California
SITE
320
0 20 40
Approximate Scale in Feet
Site Geologic and Boring Locaon Map
Earth Systems Pacific File No: 303125-002
Belmont Avenue Property
803 Belmont Avenue
Belmont, California
20 LEGEND
B-1
Approximate Boring Locaon (E SP, 2019)
Slope aspect and inclinaon (degr ees)
A A’ Line of Generalized Geologic Cross Sec
on
Geologic Contact, dashed where approximate
Holocene Alluvial Fan Deposits
Franciscan Complex sandstone
Qpaf
fs
Outcrop of Franciscan Complex sandstone
(arrows show direcon of mov ement)
Shallow soil slump
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-6
B-5
F-1 Approximate Boring Loca
on (Friar , 2017
F-4
F-1
F-3
F-2
A
A’
29 29
26 29
30 30
30 35
30 35
Qpaf
fs
?
? ?
?
Qpaf
Qpaf
fs
fs
fs
Figure 2
321
fs
Franciscan Complex (Cretaceous and Jurassic):
Qpaf Alluvial Fan Deposits (Pleistocene)
Qhaf Alluvial Fan Deposits (Holocene)
Sandstone
Greenstone
Chert
fg
fc
0 2000 4000 6000
Approximate Scale in Feet
Regional Geologic Map
Figure 3
Base: E.E. Brabb, et. al. (1998)
303125-002
Earth Systems Pacific
Belmont Avenue Property
803 Belmont Avenue
Belmont, California
SITE
322
Earth Systems Pacific
Belmont Avenue Property
803 Belmont Avenue
Belmont, California
Cross-Secon A -A’
303125-002
Figure 4
Qpaf
af
fs
LEGEND
Arficial fill (v ariable ages)
Pleistocene alluvial fan
Alluvium and colluvium
Geologic contact
Property Line PL
160
120
80 A’ A
Eleva
on (
)
40 0
0 40 80 120
Approximate Scale in Feet (H=V)
B2
B4
B5 af
af
fs Qpaf
fs
PL
323
Site Development Plan Earth Systems Pacific File No: 303125-002 Belmont Avenue Property
803 Belmont Avenue
Belmont, California
Base: Site Plan, Sheet 1.2, Withee Malcolm Architects, LLP, dated November 16, 2020 Legend
Buliding cross secons
Secon 1
Secon 2
Secon 4
Secon 3
Figure 5
324
Building Cross Sec
ons Earth Systems Pacific File No: 303125-002
Belmont Avenue Property
803 Belmont Avenue
Belmont, California
Base: Typical Building Secons, Shee t 3.3, Withee Malcolm Architects, LLP, dated November 16, 2020 Secon 4
Secon 3
Secon 2
Secon 1
Figure 6
325
APPENDIX A
Boring Logs (6)
326
DEPTH (feet) USCS CLASS SYMBOL INTERVAL (feet) SAMPLE TYPE DRY DENSITY (pcf) MOISTURE (%) BLOWS PER 6 IN.
SAMPLE DATA
SOIL DESCRIPTION
PAGE 1 OF 1
JOB NO.: 303125-002
AUGER TYPE: 8" Hollow Stem Auger DATE: 5/9/19
DRILL RIG: Mobile B-53
LOGGED BY: P. Penrose
Boring No. 1POCKET PEN (t.s.f) SAMPLE NUMBER
Proposed Property
803 Belmont Avenue
Belmont, California
LEGEND: 2.5" Mod Cal Sample Bulk Sample 2" Cal Sample SPT Groundwater 6" AB, 2" AC
Bdrx
-Slightly weathered, hard, strong
1.5-2.0 1-1 50/4"
3.5-4.0 1-2 50/5"
8.0-8.1 1-3 50/1"
SANDSTONE; yellow brown, moderately hard, highly
weathered
Bottom of boring at 8' due to auger refusal
Groundwater not encountered
327
DEPTH (feet) USCS CLASS SYMBOL INTERVAL (feet) SAMPLE TYPE DRY DENSITY (pcf) MOISTURE (%) BLOWS PER 6 IN.
SAMPLE DATA
SOIL DESCRIPTION
PAGE 1 OF 1
JOB NO.: 303125-002
AUGER TYPE: 8" Hollow Stem Auger DATE: 5/9/19
DRILL RIG: Mobile B-53
LOGGED BY: P. Penrose
Boring No. 2POCKET PEN (t.s.f) SAMPLE NUMBER
Proposed Property
803 Belmont Avenue
Belmont, California
LEGEND: 2.5" Mod Cal Sample Bulk Sample 2" Cal Sample SPT Groundwater 6" AB, 2" AC
SC
-Moderately hard
-With sandstone fragments
1.0-2.5 2-1
13 37
50/4"
3.5-4.5 2-2
34 50/5.5"
13.5-14.0 2-4 70/5"
CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL; reddish brown, dense,
moist
Bottom of boring at 24' due to auger refusal
Groundwater not encountered
Bdrx CLAYSTONE; orangish brown to gray, extremely
fractured, decomposed to highly weathered, firm
Bdrx SANDSTONE, clayey SANDSTONE and CLAYSTONE;
yellow brown, soft (rock), weak, moderately weathered
18.5-19.0 2-5 50/5"
23.5-24.0 2-6 50/1"
-Severely weathered
8.5-9.0 2-3 50/5"
116.4 12.6
-SANDSTONE, hard, massive, well cemented
[ɸ = 39°, c = 309 psf]
328
DEPTH (feet) USCS CLASS SYMBOL INTERVAL (feet) SAMPLE TYPE DRY DENSITY (pcf) MOISTURE (%) BLOWS PER 6 IN.
SAMPLE DATA
SOIL DESCRIPTION
PAGE 1 OF 1
JOB NO.: 303125-002
AUGER TYPE: 8" Hollow Stem Auger DATE: 5/9/19
DRILL RIG: Mobile B-53
LOGGED BY: P. Penrose
Boring No. 3POCKET PEN (t.s.f) SAMPLE NUMBER
Proposed Property
803 Belmont Avenue
Belmont, California
LEGEND: 2.5" Mod Cal Sample Bulk Sample 2" Cal Sample SPT Groundwater 4" AB, 2" AC
CL
1.5-3.0 3-1
5 7
13 3.5-5.0 3-2
13 15
16 13.5-14.0 3-4 50/6"
LEAN CLAY with SAND and GRAVEL; reddish brown,
very stiff, moist
Bottom of boring at 15'
Groundwater not encountered
Bdrx CLAYEY SANDSTONE; orangish brown, moist, fine to
coarse sand, fine to coarse gravel, soft (rock), severely weathered to clayey sand with gravel
Bdrx SHALE; decomposed gray to yellow brown, friable, firm, crushed, moderately hard rock fragments in clayey
matrix
-Highly weathered, crushed, soft (rock), weak, gray
clasts up to 3" of hard shale
1.25 8.5-9.5 3-3
44 50/5"
93.5 27.6
110.5 16.1
124.4 10.6
329
DEPTH (feet) USCS CLASS SYMBOL INTERVAL (feet) SAMPLE TYPE DRY DENSITY (pcf) MOISTURE (%) BLOWS PER 6 IN.
SAMPLE DATA
SOIL DESCRIPTION
PAGE 1 OF 2
JOB NO.: 303125-002
AUGER TYPE: 8" Hollow Stem Auger DATE: 5/9/19
DRILL RIG: Mobile B-53
LOGGED BY: P. Penrose
Boring No. 4POCKET PEN (t.s.f) SAMPLE NUMBER
Proposed Property
803 Belmont Avenue
Belmont, California
LEGEND: 2.5" Mod Cal Sample Bulk Sample 2" Cal Sample SPT Groundwater
6.5" AB, 1.5" AC
CL
1.5-3.0 4-1
10 12
15 3.5-5.0 4-2
12 14
19 13.5-14.0 4-4 50/5"
LEAN CLAY with SAND; brown, very stiff, slightly moist
[Fill]
CL SANDY LEAN CLAY; reddish brown with gray mottling,
very stiff, moist, trace gravels
Bdrx CLAYEY SANDSTONE; tan and orange brown, very stiff, moist, soft to moderately hard (rock) [Decomposed
Sandstone]
8.5-10.0 4-3
9 22
Bdrx SANDSTONE; yellow brown to dark brown, firm, 40
decomposed to highly weathered, clay matrix
Bdrx SANDSTONE; moderately hard, fractured with clay
matrix, slightly weathered, hard rock fragments
18.5-20.0 4-5
13 22
50/6"
SHALE; hard, dark gray, wet, hard, slightly weathered
23.5-24.0 4-6 50/1"
98.9 14.2
105.6 17.7
Clayey SANDSTONE; soft (rock), moist, severely
weathered to clayey sand with gravel
GOUGUE (melange); dark orange brown and gray with
caliche, soft weathered to sandy clay with gravel
[ɸ = 26°, c = 745 psf]
[ɸ = 31°, c = 773 psf]
Bdrx
Bdrx
Bdrx
330
DEPTH (feet) USCS CLASS SYMBOL INTERVAL (feet) SAMPLE TYPE DRY DENSITY (pcf) MOISTURE (%) BLOWS PER 6 IN.
SAMPLE DATA
SOIL DESCRIPTION
PAGE 2 OF 2
JOB NO.: 303125-002
AUGER TYPE: 8" Hollow Stem Auger DATE: 5/9/19
DRILL RIG: Mobile B-53
LOGGED BY: P. Penrose
Boring No. 4POCKET PEN (t.s.f) SAMPLE NUMBER
Proposed Property
803 Belmont Avenue
Belmont, California
LEGEND: 2.5" Mod Cal Sample Bulk Sample 2" Cal Sample SPT Groundwater
28.5-30.0 4-7 50/5"
Bottom of boring at 30'
Groundwater encountered at 23.5'
-crushed with clay seams
SHALE (continued)
331
DEPTH (feet) USCS CLASS SYMBOL INTERVAL (feet) SAMPLE TYPE DRY DENSITY (pcf) MOISTURE (%) BLOWS PER 6 IN.
SAMPLE DATA
SOIL DESCRIPTION
PAGE 1 OF 1
JOB NO.: 303125-002
AUGER TYPE: 8" Hollow Stem Auger DATE: 5/9/19
DRILL RIG: Mobile B-53
LOGGED BY: P. Penrose
Boring No. 5POCKET PEN (t.s.f) SAMPLE NUMBER
Proposed Property
803 Belmont Avenue
Belmont, California
LEGEND: 2.5" Mod Cal Sample Bulk Sample 2" Cal Sample SPT Groundwater 8" AB, 2" AC
CL
1.5-3.0 5-1
7 9
10 3.5-5.0 5-2
7 12
31 13.5-14.0 5-4 50/6"
LEAN CLAY with SAND; reddish brown, very stiff, moist
Bdrx CLAYEY SANDSTONE; yellow brown, hard, moist,
completely weathered to lean clay, fine sand
8.5-9.0 5-3 50/5"
Bdrx SANDSTONE; yellow to olive brown, soft (rock)
decomposed and highly weathered, weakly cemented,
crushed
-Some dark brown mottling, severely weathered
18.5-19.0 5-5 50/5"
Bottom of boring at 20'
Groundwater not encountered
3.25 3.5
99.8 22.8
114.0 17.9
SANDSTONE and SHALE in clay matrix, soft, crushed
-Moderately hard, crushed (poor sample recovery)
Bdrx
332
DEPTH (feet) USCS CLASS SYMBOL INTERVAL (feet) SAMPLE TYPE DRY DENSITY (pcf) MOISTURE (%) BLOWS PER 6 IN.
SAMPLE DATA
SOIL DESCRIPTION
PAGE 1 OF 1
JOB NO.: 303125-002
AUGER TYPE: 8" Hollow Stem Auger DATE: 5/9/19
DRILL RIG: Mobile B-53
LOGGED BY: P. Penrose
Boring No. 6POCKET PEN (t.s.f) SAMPLE NUMBER
Proposed Property
803 Belmont Avenue
Belmont, California
LEGEND: 2.5" Mod Cal Sample Bulk Sample 2" Cal Sample SPT Groundwater 4" AC
CL
1.5-3.0 6-1
5 4
6 3.5-5.0 6-2
11 11
20 13.5-14.0 6-4 50/3"
LEAN CLAY with SAND;brown, medium stiff, very moist,
brick pieces [FILL]
Bottom of boring at 14'
Groundwater not encountered
CL SANDY LEAN CLAY; reddish brown, very stiff, moist
Bdrx CLAYEY SANDSTONE; decomposed yellow brown, more
moderately hard, friable, severely weathered to clayey
sand
8.5-9.5 6-3
16 50/6"
85.1 19.3
29.2 12.0
[LL = 27, PI =10]
SANDSTONE; olive brown, crushed, caliche and
carbonate veins
Bdrx
333
APPENDIX B
Laboratory Test Results
334
Belmont Avenue Property 303125-002
BULK DENSITY TEST RESULTS ASTM D 2937-17 (modified for ring liners) May 31, 2019
BORING DEPTH MOISTURE WET DRY
NO. feet CONTENT, % DENSITY, pcf DENSITY, pcf
2-1 2.0 - 2.5 12.6 131.0 116.4
3-1 2.5 - 3.0 27.6 119.4 93.5
3-2 4.5 - 5.0 16.1 128.3 110.5
3-3 9.0 - 9.5 10.6 137.5 124.4
4-1 2.5 - 3.0 14.2 112.9 98.9
4-2 4.5 - 5.0 17.7 124.4 105.6
5-1 2.5 - 3.0 22.8 122.6 99.8
5-2 4.5 - 5.0 17.9 134.3 114.0
6-1 2.5 - 3.0 19.3 101.6 85.1
6-2 4.5 - 5.0 29.2
6-3 9.0 - 9.5 12.0
335
Belmont Avenue Property 303125-002
PLASTICITY INDEX ASTM D 4318-17
May 31, 2019
Test No.: 1 2 3 4 5
Boring No.: B-6
Sample Depth: 2.5 - 3.0'
Liquid Limit: 27
Plastic Limit: 17
Plasticity Index: 10
#1
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Plasticity Index
Liquid Limit
Plasticity Chart
CL or OL
CL-ML
CH or OH
ML or OL
MH or OH
336
Belmont Avenue Property 303125‐002
DIRECT SHEAR ASTM D 3080/D 3080M‐11 (modified for consolidated, undrained conditions) May 31, 2019
INITIAL DRY DENSITY: 118.0 pcf
Yellowish Brown Lean Clay with Gravel (CL)
Undisturbed, Saturated PEAK SHEAR ANGLE (Ø): 39°
COHESION (C): 309 psf
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500
SHEAR STRESS, psf
NORMAL STRESS, psf
SHEAR STRESS vs. NORMAL STRESS
337
Belmont Avenue Property 303125‐002
DIRECT SHEAR ASTM D 3080/D 3080M‐11 (modified for consolidated, undrained conditions) May 31, 2019
INITIAL DRY DENSITY: 128.7 pcf
Olive Yellow Lean Clay (CL)
Undisturbed, Saturated PEAK SHEAR ANGLE (Ø): 26°
COHESION (C): 745 psf
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500
SHEAR STRESS, psf
NORMAL STRESS, psf
SHEAR STRESS vs. NORMAL STRESS
338
Belmont Avenue Property 303125‐002
DIRECT SHEAR ASTM D 3080/D 3080M‐11 (modified for consolidated, undrained conditions) May 31, 2019
INITIAL DRY DENSITY: 133.5 pcf
Yellowish Brown Lean Clay (CL)
Undisturbed, Saturated PEAK SHEAR ANGLE (Ø): 31°
COHESION (C): 773 psf
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500
SHEAR STRESS, psf
NORMAL STRESS, psf
SHEAR STRESS vs. NORMAL STRESS
339
APPENDIX C
Quantitative Slope Stability Evaluation
340
1.133
0.399
Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/Ō3) Strength Type Cohesion (psf) Phi (deg) fs 131 Mohr-Coulomb 300 39
fs - frac 138 Mohr-Coulomb 750 31
Qpaf 125 Mohr-Coulomb 750 26
af 102 Mohr-Coulomb 500 28
Wall 145 Infinite strength
Safety Factor
0.0000.2500.5000.7501.0001.2501.5001.7502.0002.2502.5002.7503.0003.2503.5003.7504.0004.2504.5004.7505.0005.2505.5005.7506.000+ -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Analysis Description A-A' Dynamic Existing
Company Earth Systems Drawn By Phillip PenroseFile Name A-A' existing dynamic.slmd Date 6/21/2019 Project
Belmont Avenue Proprty
SLIDEINTERPRET 8.020
C2
341
2.048
Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/Ō3) Strength Type Cohesion (psf) Phi (deg) fs 131 Mohr-Coulomb 300 39
fs - frac 138 Mohr-Coulomb 750 31
Qpaf 125 Mohr-Coulomb 750 26
af 102 Mohr-Coulomb 500 28
Wall 145 Infinite strength
Safety Factor
0.0000.2500.5000.7501.0001.2501.5001.7502.0002.2502.5002.7503.0003.2503.5003.7504.0004.2504.5004.7505.0005.2505.5005.7506.000+ -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Analysis Description A-A' Static Existing
Company Earth Systems Drawn By Phillip PenroseFile Name A-A' existing static.slmd Date 6/21/2019 Project
Belmont Avenue Proprty
SLIDEINTERPRET 8.020
C1
342
534 23rd Avenue, Oakland, California 94606
925.314.7100 | oneatlas.com
November 24, 2021
City of Belmont
Community Development Department
1 Twin Pines Lane, Suite 110
Belmont, California 94002
Attention: Mr. Adam Petersen, Principal Planner, M-Group Subject: Geotechnical Engineering 4th Submittal Response Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development
800-803 Belmont Avenue, Belmont, California 94002
Atlas Project No. 91-03897-AI
Dear Mr. Petersen:
In accordance with your request, Atlas Technical Consultants LLC (Atlas) has reviewed for the City of Belmont (City) the following document submitted by the project applicant for the proposed multi-family residential development to be located at 800-803 Belmont Avenue in Belmont, California. Our review included the following scope of work:
• Review of a revised report prepared by Earth Systems Pacific (ESP), titled, Updated Geologic Hazards Evaluation and Geotechnical Engineering Study, Belmont Avenue Property, 803 Belmont Avenue, Belmont, California, dated June 28, 2019, revised June 8, 2021.
Atlas previously conducted a peer review on previously submitted geotechnical-related documents for the project, including previous versions of the ESP report dated June 28, 2019, and April 1, 2021; and our summary and comments were presented in our previous review letters to the City dated May 14, 2020 and May 27, 2021. These letters also provided our summary of the geotechnical considerations pertaining to this project as presented in the previously submitted documents, and/or our discussion and conclusions regarding the submitted materials.
CONCLUSIONS
The submitted revised ESP geotechnical report (2nd revision dated June 8, 2021) appears to satisfy our comments presented in our May 14, 2020, and May 27, 2021, review letters.
We note that the following previously presented comments pertaining to the geotechnical review of the project architectural, civil and structural plans, and geotechnical observation and testing during project construction continue to apply:
• Geotechnical Plan Review - The geotechnical consultant should review the geotechnical aspects of the completed project civil and architectural drawings and provide a professional certification letter to the City. In addition, the consultant should review the completed structural plans and calculations for the new residential buildings for conformance to his geotechnical recommendations, provide supplemental recommendations as necessary, and also provide a professional certification letter to the City to that effect. • Geotechnical Construction Observation and Testing – Following the approval of the project, the Geotechnical Engineer of Record (GEOR) should be retained to observe the geotechnical and foundation aspects of the construction. The consultant’s Certified Engineering Geologist should 343
Atlas Project No. 91-03897-AI
November 24, 2021
2 observe rock cut excavations and shoring (if applicable) during construction to confirm that excavation and slope conditions are as anticipated per their geotechnical report. The GEOR should also observe foundation excavations and based on their observations, confirm that adequate embedment has been achieved in materials judged to be competent supporting material consistent with that anticipated from the geotechnical study. The consultant should provide written documentation in a final construction report to the City for the following activities:
• Earthwork and excavation operations, including cut excavations and shoring, (e.g., soil nailing), subgrade preparation, earthwork construction, and site drainage and subdrainage installations, as applicable;
• Recording of test locations and results of field and laboratory compaction tests where testing is determined to be appropriate by the project geotechnical engineer; • Building foundations, including observation of foundation supporting materials, and confirmation of individual foundation embedment and/or supporting materials with respect to the geotechnical engineer's recommendations; and
• Site drainage, including finish grading around the new buildings and other site improvements, and discharge of collected surface and subsurface water to appropriate discharge facilities.
LIMITATIONS
The opinions presented in this letter were prepared in accordance with generally accepted, local and current geotechnical engineering and engineering geologic principles and practice. There is no warranty, either expressed or implied.
We greatly appreciate the opportunity to be of continuing service to the City of Belmont. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me via email at [email protected].
Sincerely,
ATLAS TECHNICAL CONSULTANTS LLC
Corey T. Dare, PE, GE
Geotechnical Engineer
Distribution: PDF to Addressee; [email protected]
PDF to Mr. Anwar Mirza, City of Belmont; [email protected]
CTD:tlt
344
at&t
6/24/2021
Radius Design
C/O Jenna Rasmussen
1460 Maria Lane #420
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
[email protected]
925-269-4575 x233
RE: 803 Belmont Ave., Belmont
To whom it may concern,The owners have requested that we furnish a statement of our policy for providing communications facilities to the above project.
Communication facilities will be extended to and within the parcel in accordance with our TariffSchedule No. 2, Rule 15 and 16. These rules are on file with the California Public Utilities Commission and are available at our Marketing office upon request.These facilities will be installed in accordance with the tariff applicable at the lime ofconstruct ion.
Regards.
David ClarkManager, BICYTRACT Engineer
AT&T, Construction & Engineering
870 N McCarthy BI
Milpitas, CA 95035
T: 408.635.8824
dc9651 @att.com
345
Comcast Cable
3055 Comcast Place
Livermore, CA 94551
8 September 2021
Jim Campbell
ROEM West, Inc.
1650 Lafayette St.
Santa Clara, CA 95050
RE: Comcast Broadband Communications Services Availability at – 803 Belmont Ave., Belmont, CA 94002
Dear Owner:
This letter is to confirm that your proposed project located at – 803 Belmont Ave., Belmont, CA 94002 is within Comcast’s service territory.
Under its present plans, and upon owner’s/developer’s completion of the service application documents, Comcast expects to be in a position to provide its services to occupants in the referenced projects. Our broadband services include television, high-speed internet with a minimum average download speed of 25 megabits/second, and telephone services.
Arrangements to install the necessary service facilities are being made in accordance with Comcast’s wiring infrastructure specifications and requirements.
You will be contacted by our local Engineering department, as well as our Contract Access Department, to discuss the specifics and align your project details to our internal processes.
Sincerely,
David Higginbotham
Comcast Cable Corporation
Business Development Operations
346
MID.PENINSULA
WATER DISTRICT
i |airy lane, Belnonl, CA 94002
C0ilStfiVt TlATtfl * SAUE tel: 650.591.8941 lax: 650,591,4998 MidPeninsalawater.org July 7,2021
TYLER T NGUYEN
BKF Engineers
1730 N. First Street, Suite 600
San Jose, C495112
RE: "lntent to Serve" Letter for 803 Belmont Avenue Belmont, CA 94002 Dear Tyler Nguyen
In response to your request for the Mid-Peninsula Water District (MPWD) to issue the "lntent to Serve" letter for the referenced project, please accept this letter as confirmation of the MPWD intent to serve the referenced project water.
Please provide two full size sets of the final project plans for review and verification of service needs. Upon review of the final project plans, the MPWD can provide the calculation of fees for the requested service within the water service agreement.
After review and approval, including receipt of all applicable fees and charges, and in full accordance with all applicable rules and regulations, the MPWD will provide water for the referenced project.
We look fonruard to working with you. Please contact me at (650) 591-8941, regarding any further questions.
Si ly
trez
Manager
f|Af0 0t 0lftCl|f8: BftAllSCtlMnf ptsidsnt / KMn.WttttlEf yiu'President / LAV|WlfLttt uteiu / L\ABl. I/ELIA lJireiu / MfrttEWP,ilCCA 0h0ct0t Praduced rvlh €co{iendly prinlhg and pap.r.
g
347
Pacific Gas and Electric Company 275 Industrial Rd
Service Planning Department San Carlos, CA 94070
Peninsula Division Phone: 650-730-3696
June 23, 2021
Jim Campbell
1650 Lafayette St
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Re: Will Serve Letter
803 Belmont Ave
Belmont, CA 94002
Notification: No Application Submitted Yet
Dear Jim Campbell,
Per the email request from you, this letter is to document PG&E’s ability to serve your new development at 803 Belmont Ave, with gas and electric services.
PG&E will serve the above referenced property with gas and/or electric service provided The Applicant meets all requirements of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Gas and Electric Tariffs, PG&E Engineering Standards, PG&E Requirements for Service Manual (“The Greenbook”, www.pge.com/greenbook), and pays to PG&E all necessary payments as determined by PG&E and allowed by the CPUC Tariffs.
New gas and electric services must be installed according to PG&E’s Gas and Electric Service Requirements Manual (The Greenbook, www.pge.com/greenbook), PG&E Engineering Standards, and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Gas or Electric Tariffs. PG&E engineering responsibilities are scheduled when your information is complete and approved, and is subject to available time, resources, and other priority or previously scheduled work. Contracts and payments due are prepared after Engineering is complete and approved.
PG&E construction responsibilities are scheduled when all documents and any necessary payments have been received and processed by PG&E, your service requirements and locations are complete and have been final inspected by the authority having jurisdiction, and are subject to available time, resources, and previously scheduled, priority, or emergency work. Please discuss this information with your project team. If you have any questions, please call me at 650-730-3696, or you may email at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Scott Lee
348
349
350
Pacific Ocean
Francisco San Bay
Bay
San Pablo
Suisun
Bay
Francisco San Bay
Bay
San Pablo
Suisun
Bay
351
352
BLX410101
PROPOSED BUILDING
353
COMPACT
COMPACT
COMPACT
COMPACT
COMPACT
COMPACT
EV
EV
BLX410101
354
SCALE: 1" = 20' HORIZ; 1" = 4' VERT.
PROFILE STA. 3+00.00 TO STA. 6+80.00
BELMONT AVE
BELMONT AVE
BELMONT AVE
BELMONT AVE
EL CAMINO REAL BLVD.
355
COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT
EV
EV
BLX410101
356
BLX410101
COMPACT
PROPOSED
TYPICAL AERIAL ACCESS SECTION
SCALE: NTS
357
BLX410101
COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT
EV
EV
358
JOB. B9055
WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP
2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504
t. 310. 217. 8885f. 310. 217. 0425
803 BELMONT AVENUE BELMONT, CA 94002
PRINTED: January 11, 2022
March 10, 2020
APPLICANT / OWNER
ROEM
Santa Clara, CA 950501650 Lafayette Street
C1.0
EXISTING CONDITIONS
359
BLX410101
COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT
COMPACT
EV
JOB. B9055
WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP
2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504
t. 310. 217. 8885f. 310. 217. 0425
803 BELMONT AVENUE BELMONT, CA 94002
PRINTED: January 11, 2022
March 10, 2020
APPLICANT / OWNER
ROEM
Santa Clara, CA 950501650 Lafayette Street
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
C1.1
360
361
SCALE: 1" = 20' HORIZ; 1" = 4' VERT.
PROFILE STA. 3+00.00 TO STA. 6+80.00
BELMONT AVE
BELMONT AVE
BELMONT AVE
BELMONT AVE
EL CAMINO REAL BLVD.
JOB. B9055
WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP
2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504
t. 310. 217. 8885f. 310. 217. 0425
803 BELMONT AVENUE BELMONT, CA 94002
PRINTED: January 11, 2022
March 10, 2020
APPLICANT / OWNER
ROEM
Santa Clara, CA 950501650 Lafayette Street
C2.1
PRELIMINARY CROSS SECTIONS
362
TRASH
ELECT.
F.F. 66'-0"
F.C. RM.
IDF
MECH.
17 PARKING
SPACES
LOADING 10x25
JOB. B9055
WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP
2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504
t. 310. 217. 8885f. 310. 217. 0425
803 BELMONT AVENUE BELMONT, CA 94002
PRINTED: January 11, 2022
March 10, 2020
APPLICANT / OWNER
ROEM
Santa Clara, CA 950501650 Lafayette Street
C3.0
PRELIMINARY UTLITY PLAN
363
COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT
COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT
EV
EV
JOB. B9055
WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP
2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504
t. 310. 217. 8885f. 310. 217. 0425
803 BELMONT AVENUE BELMONT, CA 94002
PRINTED: January 11, 2022
March 10, 2020
APPLICANT / OWNER
ROEM
Santa Clara, CA 950501650 Lafayette Street
C4.0
PRELIMINARY STORMWATER MANAGMENT PLAN
364
SITE AREA DISTURBED
PROJECT PHASE NUMBER (N/A, 1, 2, 3, ETC):
TOTAL SITE (ACRES): DISTURBED (ACRES):
PERVIOUS AND IMPERVIOUS SURFACES COMPARISON TABLE
EXISTING CONDITION OF
(SQUARE FEET) REPLACED NEW
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACES:
IMPERVIOUS SURFACES
PROPOSED CONDITION OF SITE AREA DISTURBED
(SQUARE FEET)
TOTAL AREA OF SITE
PERVIOUS SURFACES
TOTAL PERVIOUS SURFACES:
TOTAL PROPOSED REPLACED + NEW IMPERVIOUS SURFACES:
TOTAL PROPOSED REPLACED + NEW PERVIOUS SURFACES:
TOTAL SITE AREA:
TABLE B
SITE CONDITIONS
JOB. B9055
WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP
2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504
t. 310. 217. 8885f. 310. 217. 0425
803 BELMONT AVENUE BELMONT, CA 94002
PRINTED: January 11, 2022
March 10, 2020
APPLICANT / OWNER
ROEM
Santa Clara, CA 950501650 Lafayette Street
C4.1
PRELIMINARY STORMWATER NOTES AND DETAILS
365
COMPACT
JOB. B9055
WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP
2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504
t. 310. 217. 8885f. 310. 217. 0425
803 BELMONT AVENUE BELMONT, CA 94002
PRINTED: January 11, 2022
March 10, 2020
APPLICANT / OWNER
ROEM
Santa Clara, CA 950501650 Lafayette Street
C5.0
PRELIMINARY EROSION CONTROL PLAN
366
JOB. B9055
WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP
2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504
t. 310. 217. 8885f. 310. 217. 0425
803 BELMONT AVENUE BELMONT, CA 94002
PRINTED: January 11, 2022
March 10, 2020
APPLICANT / OWNER
ROEM
Santa Clara, CA 950501650 Lafayette Street
C5.1
PRELIMINARY EROSION CONTROL NOTES AND DETAILS - - SPILLWAY 367
TEMPORARY SHORING EXHIBIT
L
803 BELMONT AVENUE
DRILLING & SHORING, INC.
RI D L TECH
PRELIMINARY PLANS
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
368
L
803 BELMONT AVENUE
DRILLING & SHORING, INC.
RI D L TECH
PRELIMINARY PLANS
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
369
L
803 BELMONT AVENUE
DRILLING & SHORING, INC.
RI D L TECH
PRELIMINARY PLANS
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
370
L
803 BELMONT AVENUE
DRILLING & SHORING, INC.
RI D L TECH
PRELIMINARY PLANS
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
371
JOB. B9055
WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP
2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504
t. 310. 217. 8885
f. 310. 217. 0425
803 BELMONT AVENUE BELMONT, CA 94002
PRINTED: September 02, 2021
September 08, 2020
APPLICANT / OWNER
ROEM
Santa Clara, CA 95050
1650 Lafayette Street
SHEET INDEX
SHEET INDEX
CIVIL
C1.0 EXISTING CONDITION PLAN
C1.1 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
C2.0 PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
C2.1 PRELIMINARY CROSS SECTION
C3.0 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN
C4.0 PRELIMINARY STORM WATER CONTROL PLAN
C4.1 PRELIMINARY STORM WATER NOTES AND DETAILS
ARCHITECTURAL
SD-0.1 CONCEPT IMAGERY
SD-0.2 CONCEPT IMAGERY
SD-0.3 CONCEPT IMAGERY
SD-0.4 CONCEPT IMAGERY
SD-0.5 CONCEPT IMAGERY
SD-1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
SD-1.1 EXISTING SITE IMAGES
SD-1.2 SITE PLAN
SD-1.3 OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM
SD-2.1 LEVEL 01 BUILDING PLAN
SD-2.2 LEVEL 02 BUILDING PLAN
SD-2.3 LEVEL 03 BUILDING PLAN
SD-2.4 TYPICAL LEVEL BUILDING PLANS
SD-2.5 LEVEL 06 BUILDING PLAN
SD-2.6 LEVEL 07 BUILDING PLAN
SD-2.7 LEVEL 08 BUILDING PLAN
SD-2.8 ROOF PLAN
SD-3.1 BUILDING ELEVATION
SD-3.2 BUILDING ELEVATION
SD-3.3 BUILDING SECTIONS
SD-3.4 ENLARGED WALL SECTIONS
SD-3.5 ENLARGED WALL PLANS
SD-3.6 TYPICAL WALL DETAILS
SD-3.7 EXTERIOR WALL OPENING EXHIBIT
SD-3.8 ADJACENT SITE SECTION
SD-4.1 TYPICAL UNIT PLANS
SD-4.2 TYPICAL UNIT PLANS
SD-4.3 TYPICAL UNIT PLANS
SD-5.1 MATERIAL BOARD
LANDSCAPE
L-1 LANDSCAPE PLAN
L-2 TREE REMOVAL PLAN
L-3 PLANTING PLAN
L-4 PLAN PALETTE
L-5 COURTYARD LANDSCAPE PROGRAM
L-6 REAR YARD LANDSCAPE PROGRAM
L-7 IRRIGATION PLAN
ELECTRICAL
E1.0 ELECTRICAL SITE LIGHTING PLAN
E1.0PH ELECTRICAL SITE LIGHTING PHOTOMETRIC PLAN
E2.0 SITE LIGHTING DETAIL CUT SHEETS
SPRINKLER
FP-1 COVER SHEET
FP-2 BASEMENT LEVEL 2 SPRINKLER & PIPING PLAN
FP-3 BASEMENT LEVEL 2 SPRINKLER & PIPING PLAN
FP-4 BASEMENT LEVEL 1 SPRINKLER & PIPING PLAN
FP-5 BASEMENT LEVEL 1 SPRINKLER & PIPING PLAN
FP-6 1ST FLOOR SPRINKLER & PIPING PLAN
FP-7 1ST FLOOR SPRINKLER & PIPING PLAN
FP-8 2ND FLOOR SPRINKLER & PIPING PLAN
FP-9 2ND FLOOR SPRINKLER & PIPING PLAN
FP-10 3RD FLOOR SPRINKLER & PIPING PLAN
FP-11 3RD FLOOR SPRINKLER & PIPING PLAN
FP-12 4TH FLOOR SPRINKLER & PIPING PLAN
FP-13 4TH FLOOR SPRINKLER & PIPING PLAN
FP-14 5TH FLOOR SPRINKLER & PIPING PLAN
FP-15 5TH FLOOR SPRINKLER & PIPING PLAN
FP-16 6TH FLOOR SPRINKLER & PIPING PLAN
FP-17 6TH FLOOR SPRINKLER & PIPING PLAN
FP-18 ATTIC SPRINKLER & PIPING PLAN
FP-19 ATTIC SPRINKLER & PIPING PLAN
FP-20 BUILDING SECTIONS
BELMONT AVE.
EL CAMINO REAL
372
JOB. B9055
WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP
2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504
t. 310. 217. 8885
f. 310. 217. 0425
803 BELMONT AVENUE BELMONT, CA 94002
PRINTED: September 02, 2021
September 08, 2020
APPLICANT / OWNER
ROEM
Santa Clara, CA 95050
1650 Lafayette Street
0.1 PERSPECTIVE IMAGERY
373
JOB. B9055
WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP
2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504
t. 310. 217. 8885
f. 310. 217. 0425
803 BELMONT AVENUE BELMONT, CA 94002
PRINTED: September 02, 2021
September 08, 2020
APPLICANT / OWNER
ROEM
Santa Clara, CA 95050
1650 Lafayette Street
0.2 PERSPECTIVE IMAGERY
374
JOB. B9055
WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP
2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504
t. 310. 217. 8885
f. 310. 217. 0425
803 BELMONT AVENUE BELMONT, CA 94002
PRINTED: September 02, 2021
September 08, 2020
APPLICANT / OWNER
ROEM
Santa Clara, CA 95050
1650 Lafayette Street
0.3 PERSPECTIVE IMAGERY
375
JOB. B9055
WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP
2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504
t. 310. 217. 8885
f. 310. 217. 0425
803 BELMONT AVENUE BELMONT, CA 94002
PRINTED: September 02, 2021
September 08, 2020
APPLICANT / OWNER
ROEM
Santa Clara, CA 95050
1650 Lafayette Street
0.4 PERSPECTIVE IMAGERY
376
JOB. B9055
WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP
2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504
t. 310. 217. 8885
f. 310. 217. 0425
803 BELMONT AVENUE BELMONT, CA 94002
PRINTED: September 02, 2021
September 08, 2020
APPLICANT / OWNER
ROEM
Santa Clara, CA 95050
1650 Lafayette Street
0.5 PERSPECTIVE IMAGERY
377
JOB. B9055
WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP
2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504
t. 310. 217. 8885
f. 310. 217. 0425
803 BELMONT AVENUE BELMONT, CA 94002
PRINTED: September 02, 2021
September 08, 2020
APPLICANT / OWNER
ROEM
Santa Clara, CA 95050
1650 Lafayette Street
PROJECT INFORMATION
PROPOSED
SITE
BELMONT AVE.
EL CAMINO REAL
DAVEY GLEN RD.
ANITA AVE.
MALCOLM AVE.
RUTH AVE.
1.0 PARKING ALLOCATION MATRIX
UNIT 1 (1BR)
152 TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED ( 126 STANDARD 33 TANDEM) * STANDARD PARKING INCLUSIVE OF ACCESSIBLE AND EVCS STALLS ST 1
ST - STANDARD / COMPACT T - TANDEM
UNIT 2 (1BR) ST 2
UNIT 3 (1BR) ST 3
UNIT 4 (1BR) ST 4
UNIT 5 (1BR) ST 5
UNIT 6 (1BR) ST 6
UNIT 7 (1BR) ST 7
UNIT 8 (1BR) ST 8
UNIT 9 (1BR) ST 9
UNIT 10 (1BR) ST 10
UNIT 11 (1BR) ST 11
UNIT 12 (1BR) ST 12
UNIT 13 (1BR) ST 13
UNIT 14 (1BR) ST 14
UNIT 15 (1BR) ST 15
UNIT 16 (1BR) ST 16
UNIT 17 (1BR) ST 17
UNIT 18 (1BR) ST 18
UNIT 19 (1BR) ST 19
UNIT 20 (1BR) ST 20
UNIT 21 (1BR) ST 21
UNIT 22 (1BR) ST 22
UNIT 23 (1BR) ST 23
UNIT 24 (1BR) ST 24
UNIT 25 (1BR) ST 25
UNIT 27 (1BR)
ST 26
UNIT 28 (1BR)
ST 27
UNIT 29 (1BR)
ST 28
UNIT 30 (1BR)
ST 29
UNIT 31 (1BR)
ST 30
UNIT 32 (1BR)
ST 31
UNIT 33 (1BR)
ST 32
UNIT 34 (1BR)
ST 33
UNIT 35 (1BR)
ST 34
UNIT 36 (1BR)
ST 35
UNIT 37 (1BR)
ST 36
UNIT 38 (1BR)
ST 37
UNIT 39 (1BR)
ST 38
UNIT 40 (1BR)
ST 39
UNIT 41 (1BR)
ST 40
UNIT 42 (1BR)
ST 41
UNIT 43 (1BR)
ST 42
UNIT 44 (1BR)
ST 43
UNIT 45 (1BR)
ST 44
UNIT 46 (1BR)
ST 45
UNIT 47 (1BR)
ST 46
UNIT 48 (1BR)
ST 47
UNIT 49 (1BR)
ST 48
UNIT 50 (1BR)
ST 49
UNIT 26 (1BR) UNIT 52 (1BR) ST 59
UNIT 51 (1BR) ST 58
UNIT 53 (2BR) ST 51
ST 50
UNIT 54 (2BR)
UNIT 55 (2BR)
UNIT 56 (2BR)
UNIT 57 (2BR)
UNIT 58 (2BR)
UNIT 59 (2BR)
UNIT 60 (2BR)
UNIT 61 (2BR)
UNIT 62 (2BR)
UNIT 63 (2BR)
UNIT 64 (2BR)
UNIT 65 (2BR)
UNIT 66 (2BR)
UNIT 67 (2BR)
UNIT 68 (2BR)
UNIT 69 (2BR)
UNIT 70 (2BR)
UNIT 71 (2BR)
UNIT 72 (2BR)
UNIT 73 (2BR)
UNIT 74 (2BR)
UNIT 75 (2BR)
UNIT 76 (2BR)
UNIT 77 (2BR)
UNIT 78 (2BR)
UNIT 79 (2BR)
UNIT 80 (2BR)
UNIT 81 (2BR)
UNIT 82 (2BR)
UNIT 83 (2BR)
UNIT 84 (2BR)
UNIT 85 (2BR)
UNIT 86 (2BR)
UNIT 87 (2BR)
UNIT 88 (2BR)
UNIT 89 (2BR)
UNIT 90 (2BR)
UNIT 91 (2BR)
UNIT 92 (2BR)
UNIT 93 (3BR)
UNIT 94 (3BR)
UNIT 95 (3BR)
UNIT 96 (3BR)
UNIT 97 (3BR)
UNIT 98 (3BR)
UNIT 99 (3BR)
UNIT 100 (3BR)
UNIT 101 (3BR)
UNIT 102 (3BR)
UNIT 103 (3BR)
UNIT 104 (3BR)
UNIT 105 (3BR)
UNIT 106 (3BR)
UNIT 107 (3BR)
UNIT 108 (3BR)
UNIT 109 (3BR)
UNIT 110 (3BR)
UNIT 111 (3BR)
UNIT 112 (3BR)
UNIT 113 (3BR)
UNIT 114 (3BR)
UNIT 115 (3BR)
UNIT 116 (3BR)
UNIT 117 (3BR)
UNIT 118 (3BR)
UNIT 119 (3BR)
UNIT 120 (3BR)
UNIT 121 (3BR)
UNIT 122 (3BR)
UNIT 123 (3BR)
UNIT 124 (3BR)
UNIT 125 (3BR)
ST 52
ST 53
ST 54
ST 55
ST 56
ST 57
ST 60
ST 61
ST 62
ST 63
ST 64
ST 69
ST 70
ST 71
ST 72
ST 73
ST 74
ST 75
ST 76
ST 77
ST 78
ST 79
ST 80
ST 81
ST 82
ST 83
ST 84
ST 85
ST 86
ST 87
ST 88
ST 89
ST 91
ST 90
ST 92
ST 93
ST 94
ST 95
ST 96
ST 65
ST 66
ST 67
ST 68
ST 97
ST 99
ST 100
ST 101
ST 102
ST 103
ST 104
ST 105
ST 106
ST 107
ST 108
ST 109
ST 110
ST 111
ST 112
ST 113
ST 114
ST 115
ST 116
ST 117
ST 118
ST 119
ST 120
ST 121
ST 122
ST 123
ST 124
ST 125
/ T 15
/ T 16
/ T 17
/ T 18
/ T 19
/ T 20
/ T 21
/ T 22
/ T 23
/ T 24
/ T 25
/ T 26
/ T 27
/ T 10
/ T 7
/ T 6
/ T 5
/ T 4
/ T 3
/ T 2
/ T 1
ST 98
/ T 9
/ T 8
/ T 11
/ T 12
/ T 13
/ T 14
378
JOB. B9055
WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP
2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504
t. 310. 217. 8885
f. 310. 217. 0425
803 BELMONT AVENUE BELMONT, CA 94002
PRINTED: September 02, 2021
September 08, 2020
APPLICANT / OWNER
ROEM
Santa Clara, CA 95050
1650 Lafayette Street
EXISTING SITE IMAGES
1.1 379
EXISTING
RESTANRANT
EL CAMINO REAL
B1
B1
45 A2
BELMONT AVE.
±76.5
55 60
65 70
75 80
85 90
100
105
110
115
95 50
45 TR
IDF
IDF
EXISTING
RESTANRANT
A2
C1
B1
B1
A2
C1
C1
A2
A2 A2
A2
A2
B1
C3
A2
C1
A2
C3
B1
B1 B1
C2
BLX410101
SEC. 1
SEC. 2
SEC. 4
SEC. 3
SEC. 4
SEC. 1 SEC. 2
±66
JOB. B9055
WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP
2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504
t. 310. 217. 8885
f. 310. 217. 0425
803 BELMONT AVENUE BELMONT, CA 94002
PRINTED: September 02, 2021
September 08, 2020
APPLICANT / OWNER
ROEM
Santa Clara, CA 95050
1650 Lafayette Street
1.2 SITE PLAN
60 scale: 1" = 20'-0"
0 20 40 80
54'-0"
16'-6"
15'-0" MIN. SIDE SETBACK
10'-0"
10'-0" MIN. FRONT SETBACK
11'-0" MIN. SIDE SETBACK
11'-0" MIN. SIDE SETBACK
11'-0" MIN. SIDE SETBACK
19'-0"
10'-0"
19'-6"
11'-0"
11'-0" 12'-10
1 2
"
11'-0"
12'-9"
30'-8"
20'-0" VEHICULAR
ENTRANCE
65'-9"
80'-2"
22'-8
1 2
"
26'-0" FIRE ACCESS ROAD
AFTER
STREET
IMPROVEMENT
N
TREES SHOWN FOR GRAPHIC ONLY, SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR MORE INFORMATION 15'-7"
26'-0"
15'-0"
'EXIT' STAIR TYP.
ELEVATOR TYP.
VEHICULAR GATE WITH KNOX BOX
LEGEND:
150'-0" EGRESS PATH
150'-0" FIRE HOSE PULL
FIRE SEPARATION
WALL
EXISTING FIRE
HYDRANT
EXISTING FIRE
HYDRANT
'EXIT' STAIR
TYP.
380
COMM.
ROOM
BELMONT AVE.
EL CAMINO REAL
69 PARKING SPACES
F.F. 45'-0"
80 55
50 45
LAUNDRY LOBBY
MAIL 41' F.F. ±38.5' ±41.0' ±36.0' ±35.0'
45' F.F.
±51.5' F.F.
±45.0' ELEV. MACHINE OFFICE
OFF. HOMEWORK ROOM
STOR. SEC. 4 SEC. 1 SEC. 2
23'x14'
54'x26'
31'x26' 25'x26'
GYM
26'x26' M W
OFF.
ELEV. MACHINE
BELMONT AVE.
EL CAMINO REAL
C3
A2
±55.5
63 PARKING SPACES
F.F. 55'-6"
STOR.
MECH.
C1
B1 A2
C3
B1 SEC. 4 SEC. 1 SEC. 2
EL CAMINO REAL
78 BELMONT AVE. TR IDF
IDF
B1
B1
A2
A2 C1
B1
B1
A2
C1
C1 A2 A2
A2 A2 A2
B1
B1
C2 SEC. 4 SEC. 1 SEC. 2
EL CAMINO REAL
B1
B1
A2
BELMONT AVE.
±76.5
80 TR IDF
IDF
A2 C1
B1
B1
A2
C1
C1 A2 A2
A2 A2 A2B1 C3
A2 C1
A2
C3
B1
B1
B1
C2
BLX410101 SEC. 4 SEC. 1
±66 SEC. 2
EL CAMINO REAL
BELMONT AVE.
TRASH
ELECT.
F.F. 66'-0"
55 50
45 F.C.
RM.
IDF
MECH. BIKE STOR.
SHORT TERM
BICYCLE
20 PARKING
SPACES
A2 A2 A2B1
C3
A2 C1
A2
C3
B1
B1
B1
C2 SEC. 4 SEC. 1 SEC. 2
LOBBY 10x25 LOADING
66 EL CAMINO REAL
78 BELMONT AVE. TR IDF
B1
B1
A1
A1 C1
B1
B1
A1
C1
C1 A1 A1 SEC. 4 SEC. 2 SEC. 1
JOB. B9055
WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP
2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504
t. 310. 217. 8885
f. 310. 217. 0425
803 BELMONT AVENUE BELMONT, CA 94002
PRINTED: September 02, 2021
September 08, 2020
APPLICANT / OWNER
ROEM
Santa Clara, CA 95050
1650 Lafayette Street
1.3 OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED
50 SF EACH (36SF MIN.)
COMMON OPEN SPACE PROVIDED (EXTERIOR)
COMMON OPEN SPACE PROVIDED (INTERIOR)
OPEN SPACE REQUIRED
UNIT TYPE
1 BEDROOM UNIT
2 BEDROOMS UNIT
3 BEDROOMS UNIT
QTY. REQ'D TOTAL
52 40
33 36 SF
36 SF
36 SF
1,872 SF
1,440 SF
REQUIRED OPEN SPACE 4,500 SF
TOTAL REQUIRED OPEN SPACE
OPEN SPACE PROVIDED (COMMON OPEN)
L3 OUTDOOR OPEN SPACE 6,500 SF
TOTAL COMMON OPEN SPACE 6,500 SF *
OPEN SPACE PROVIDED (PRIVATE)
L2 - L8 PRIVATE BALCONIES 7,945 SF
TOTAL PRIVATE OPEN SPACE 7,945 SF
125 VARIES
QTY.
TOTAL OPEN SPACE
TOTAL COMMON OPEN SPACE 6,500 SF
TOTAL PRIVATE OPEN SPACE 7,945 SF
TOTAL OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 14,445 SF
GROUND LEVEL PLAN
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
50 SF EACH (5'-0" X 10'-0" MIN.) TYP.
OUTDOOR OPEN SPACE
6,500 SF
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
50 SF EACH (5'-0" X 10'-0" MIN.) TYP.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
50 SF EACH (5'-0" X 10'-0" MIN.) TYP.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
50 SF EACH (5'-0" X 10'-0" MIN.) TYP.
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
50 SF EACH (5'-0" X 10'-0" MIN.) TYP.
BZO 5A.1.13(C)
1,188 SF
4,500 SF
LEVEL 02 PLAN
LEVEL 03 PLAN
TYPICAL LEVEL PLAN
LEVEL 07 PLAN
LEVEL 08 PLAN
381
COMM. ROOM
BELMONT AVE.
EL CAMINO REAL
69 PARKING SPACES
F.F. 45'-0"
55 60
65 70
75 80
85 90
100
105
110
115
95 50
45 LAUNDRY
MECH.
SEC. 1
SEC. 2
SEC. 4
EXISTING
RESTANRANT
LOBBY
MAIL 41' F.F.
±38.5'
±41.0'
±36.0'
±35.0'
45' F.F.
±51.5' F.F.
±45.0'
ELEV. MACHINE
OFFICE
OFF. HOMEWORK ROOM
STOR.
SEC. 3
SEC. 4
SEC. 1 SEC. 2
23'x14'
54'x26'
31'x26'
25'x26'
GYM
26'x26' M
W
OFF.
ELEV. MACHINE
JOB. B9055
WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP
2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504
t. 310. 217. 8885
f. 310. 217. 0425
803 BELMONT AVENUE BELMONT, CA 94002
PRINTED: September 02, 2021
September 08, 2020
APPLICANT / OWNER
ROEM
Santa Clara, CA 95050
1650 Lafayette Street
2.1 LEVEL 01 - BUILDING PLAN
60 scale: 1" = 20'-0"
0 20 40 80
10'-0" MIN. FRONT SETBACK
RAMP UP
TO ABOVE LEVEL
S
T
S
T
S
T
S
T
S
T
S
T
S
S
S
S
S T
T
S
T
S
S T
T S
T S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
T
15'-0" MIN. SIDE SETBACK
10'-0"
10'-0" MIN. FRONT SETBACK
11'-0" MIN. SIDE SETBACK
11'-0" MIN. SIDE SETBACK
11'-0" MIN. SIDE SETBACK
11'-4"
N
8'-6"
36'-0"
1'-0"
24'-0"
24'-0"
24'-0"
4,875 SF
LEGEND:
COMMUNITY ROOM
RESIDENTIAL
CIRCULATION
MECHANICAL / UTILITY
VERTICAL CIRCULATION
PARKING
- SF
2,200 SF
1,135 SF
880 SF
23,370 SF
303'-8
1 2
"
12'-4
1 2
"
204'-7
1 2
"
64'-0"
20'-0"
11'-0" 17'-0"
25'-0"
R20'-0"
1'-0"
* TRASH TO BE COLLECTED AT TRASH
COLLECTION ROOM ON THIRD LEVEL
BY MEANS OF ELEVATOR
S
ST 103
ST 104
T 15
T 27
S
S
S S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
1'-0"
8'-6" 1'-0"
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
ST 69
T 14
S ST 105
ST 106
ST 107
ST 108
ST 109
ST 110
ST 111
ST 112
ST 113
ST 114
ST 115
ST 102
ST 101
ST 100
ST 99
ST 98
ST 97
ST 96
ST 95
ST 94
ST 93
ST 92
ST 91
ST 90
ST 89
ST 88
ST 87
ST 86
ST 83
ST 84
ST 85
T 16
T 17
T 18
T 19
T 20
T 21
ST 125
ST 124
ST 123
ST 122
ST 121
ST 120
ST 119
ST 118
ST 117
ST 116
T 26
T 25
T 24
T 23
T 22
ST 76
ST 77
ST 78
ST 79
ST 80
ST 81
ST 82
ST 70
ST 71
ST 72
ST 73
ST 74
ST 75
382
55 60
65 70
75 80
85 90
100
105
110
115
BELMONT AVE.
EL CAMINO REAL
C3
A2
±55.5
63 PARKING SPACES
F.F. 55'-6"
95 50
45 STOR.
MECH.
EXISTING
RESTANRANT
C1
B1
A2
C3
B1
SEC. 1
SEC. 2
SEC. 4
SEC. 3
SEC. 4
SEC. 1 SEC. 2
JOB. B9055
WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP
2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504
t. 310. 217. 8885
f. 310. 217. 0425
803 BELMONT AVENUE BELMONT, CA 94002
PRINTED: September 02, 2021
September 08, 2020
APPLICANT / OWNER
ROEM
Santa Clara, CA 95050
1650 Lafayette Street
2.2 LEVEL 02 - BUILDING PLAN
60 scale: 1" = 20'-0"
0 20 40 80
12'-82
1"
19'-0"
RAMP UP
TO ABOVE LEVEL
RAMP DN
TO BELOW LEVEL
S
T
S
T
S
T
S
T
S
T
S
T
S
T
S
S
S
T S
T S
T S
S T
T S
T S
S
S
S
EV
S
EV
EV
S
EV
EV
S
EV
S
HC
HC
S
S
S
T
15'-0" MIN. SIDE SETBACK
10'-0"
10'-0" MIN. FRONT SETBACK
11'-0" MIN. SIDE SETBACK
11'-0" MIN. SIDE SETBACK
11'-0" MIN. SIDE SETBACK
11'-10"
N
8'-6"
36'-0" 1'-0"
24'-0"
24'-0"
- SF
LEGEND:
COMMUNITY ROOM
RESIDENTIAL
CIRCULATION
MECHANICAL / UTILITY
VERTICAL CIRCULATION
PARKING
6,025 SF
1,000 SF
840 SF
880 SF
23,550 SF
R20'-0"
297'-2"
181'-3"
23'-4
1 2
"
18'-0"
116'-2"
28'-0"
20'-0"
17'-1
1 2
"
1'-0"
* TRASH TO BE COLLECTED AT TRASH
COLLECTION ROOM ON THIRD LEVEL
BY MEANS OF ELEVATOR
S
T 8
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
ST 49
ST 50
ST 51
ST 52
ST 53
ST 54
ST 55
ST 56
ST 57
ST 58
ST 59
T 9
T 10
T 11
T 12
T 13
T 14
T 1
T 2
T 3
T 4
T 5
T 6
T 7
ST 48
ST 47
ST 46
ST 45
ST 44
ST 43
ST 42
ST 41
ST 40
ST 39
ST 38
ST 37
ST 36
ST 35
ST 34
ST 21
ST 22
ST 23
ST 24
ST 25
ST 62
ST 61
ST 60
ST 63
ST 64
ST 65
ST 66
ST 67
ST 68
ST 69
ST 26
ST 27
ST 28
ST 29
ST 30
ST 31
ST 32
ST 33
383
EL CAMINO REAL
BELMONT AVE.
TRASH
ELECT.
F.F. 66'-0"
55 60
65 70
75 80
85 90
100
105
110
115
95 50
45 F.C. RM.
IDF
MECH.
BIKE STOR.
SHORT TERM
BICYCLE
20 PARKING
SPACES
EXISTING
RESTANRANT
A2
A2
A2
B1
C3
A2
C1
A2
C3
B1
B1 B1
C2
SEC. 1
SEC. 2
SEC. 4
SEC. 3
SEC. 4
SEC. 1 SEC. 2
LOBBY
LOADING
10x25
66 JOB. B9055
WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP
2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504
t. 310. 217. 8885
f. 310. 217. 0425
803 BELMONT AVENUE BELMONT, CA 94002
PRINTED: September 02, 2021
September 08, 2020
APPLICANT / OWNER
ROEM
Santa Clara, CA 95050
1650 Lafayette Street
2.3 LEVEL 03 BUILDING PLAN
60 scale: 1" = 20'-0"
0 20 40 80
24'-0"
8'-6"
18'-0"
54'-0"
11'-4"
11'-3" 12'-1"
11'-0"
32'-8
1 2
"
20'-0"
22'-2
1 2
"
19'-0"
S
S
S
S
HC
HC
EV
HC
HC
EV
S
EV
S
RAMP DN
TO BELOW LEVEL
EV
EV
EV
26'-0"
15'-0" MIN. SIDE SETBACK
10'-0"
10'-0" MIN. FRONT SETBACK
11'-0" MIN. SIDE SETBACK
11'-0" MIN. SIDE SETBACK
11'-0" MIN. SIDE SETBACK
11'-9
1 2
"
N
- SF
LEGEND:
COMMUNITY ROOM
RESIDENTIAL
CIRCULATION
MECHANICAL / UTILITY
VERTICAL CIRCULATION
PARKING
10,595 SF
2,585 SF
2,285 SF
880 SF
10,915 SF
203'-4
1 2
"
18'-0"
16'-6"
77'-3
1 2
"
181'-3"
23'-4
1 2
"
116'-2"
62'-6"
55'-0"
63'-0"
1'-0"
TYPICAL BICYCLE RACK DETAIL
EV
S
ST 1
EV
EV
S
S
R20'-0"
ST 2
ST 3
ST 4
ST 5
ST 6
ST 7
ST 8
ST 9
ST 10
ST 11
ST 12
ST 13
ST 14
ST 15
ST 16
ST 17
ST 18
ST 19
ST 20
1'-0" BUILDING
FACADE RECESS
384
EXISTING
RESTANRANT
EL CAMINO REAL
B1
B1
45 A2
BELMONT AVE.
±76.5
55 60
65 70
75 80
85 90
100
105
110
115
95 50
45 TR
IDF
IDF
EXISTING
RESTANRANT
A2
C1
B1
B1
A2
C1
C1
A2
A2 A2
A2
A2
B1
C3
A2
C1
A2
C3
B1
B1 B1
C2
BLX410101
SEC. 1
SEC. 2
SEC. 4
SEC. 3
SEC. 4
SEC. 1 SEC. 2
±66
JOB. B9055
WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP
2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504
t. 310. 217. 8885
f. 310. 217. 0425
803 BELMONT AVENUE BELMONT, CA 94002
PRINTED: September 02, 2021
September 08, 2020
APPLICANT / OWNER
ROEM
Santa Clara, CA 95050
1650 Lafayette Street
2.4 TYPICAL BUILDING PLAN
60 scale: 1" = 20'-0"
0 20 40 80
10'-0"
19'-6"
67'-4
1 2
"
81'-8"
11'-6"
15'-0" MIN. SIDE SETBACK
10'-0"
10'-0" MIN. FRONT SETBACK
11'-0" MIN. SIDE SETBACK
11'-0" MIN. SIDE SETBACK
N
11'-4"
11'-3" 12'-1"
11'-0"
32'-8
1 2
"
11'-0" MIN. SIDE SETBACK
11'-9
1 2
"
16'-6"
22'-2
1 2
"
- SF
LEGEND:
COMMUNITY ROOM
RESIDENTIAL
CIRCULATION
MECHANICAL / UTILITY
VERTICAL CIRCULATION
PARKING
20,120 SF
3,535 SF
440 SF
1,075 SF
- SF
203'-4
1 2
"
18'-0"
16'-6"
77'-3
1 2
"
132'-7
1 2
"
22'-10
1 2
"
39'-1
1 2
"
62'-6"
55'-0"
63'-0"
19'-0"
116'-2"
63'-0"
13'-2" 22'-0"
20'-0" 7'-3"
385
EXISTING
RESTANRANT
EL CAMINO REAL
45 78
BELMONT AVE.
55 60
65 70
75 80
85 90
100
105
110
115
95 50
45 TR
IDF
IDF
EXISTING
RESTANRANT
B1
B1
A2
A2
C1
B1
B1
A2
C1
C1
A2
A2 A2
A2
A2
B1
A1
A2
C1
A2
A1
B1
B1 B1
C2
SEC. 1
SEC. 2
SEC. 4
SEC. 3
SEC. 4
SEC. 1 SEC. 2
JOB. B9055
WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP
2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504
t. 310. 217. 8885
f. 310. 217. 0425
803 BELMONT AVENUE BELMONT, CA 94002
PRINTED: September 02, 2021
September 08, 2020
APPLICANT / OWNER
ROEM
Santa Clara, CA 95050
1650 Lafayette Street
2.5 LEVEL 06 BUILDING PLAN
60 scale: 1" = 20'-0"
0 20 40 80
10'-0"
19'-6"
67'-4
1 2
"
81'-8"
11'-6"
15'-0" MIN. SIDE SETBACK
10'-0"
10'-0" MIN. FRONT SETBACK
11'-0" MIN. SIDE SETBACK
11'-0" MIN. SIDE SETBACK
N
11'-4"
11'-3" 12'-1"
11'-0"
32'-8
1 2
"
11'-0" MIN. SIDE SETBACK
11'-9
1 2
"
- SF
LEGEND:
COMMUNITY ROOM
RESIDENTIAL
CIRCULATION
MECHANICAL / UTILITY
VERTICAL CIRCULATION
PARKING
19,250 SF
- SF
3,535 SF
440 SF
1,075 SF
10'-0"
191'-2
1 2
"
18'-0"
16'-6"
77'-3
1 2
"
132'-7
1 2
"
22'-10
1 2
"
39'-1
1 2
"
62'-6"
55'-0"
63'-0"
19'-0"
103'-7
1 2
"
62'-0"
22'-2
1 2
"
13'-2"
22'-0"
20'-0" 7'-3"
12'-0" UPPER LEVEL BUILDING STEP BACK
BUILDING STEP BACK
5'-6" UPPER LEVEL
BUILDING STEP BACK
5'-6" UPPER LEVEL
386
EXISTING
RESTANRANT
EL CAMINO REAL
45 78
BELMONT AVE.
55 60
65 70
75 80
85 90
100
105
110
115
95 50
45 TR
IDF
IDF
EXISTING
RESTANRANT
60 B1
B1
A2
A2
C1
B1
B1
A2
C1
C1
A2
A2 A2
A2
A2
B1 B1
C2
SEC. 1
SEC. 2
SEC. 4
SEC. 3
SEC. 4
SEC. 1 SEC. 2
JOB. B9055
WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP
2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504
t. 310. 217. 8885
f. 310. 217. 0425
803 BELMONT AVENUE BELMONT, CA 94002
PRINTED: September 02, 2021
September 08, 2020
APPLICANT / OWNER
ROEM
Santa Clara, CA 95050
1650 Lafayette Street
2.6 LEVEL 07 BUILDING PLAN
60 scale: 1" = 20'-0"
0 20 40 80
10'-0"
19'-6"
67'-4
1 2
"
81'-8"
11'-6"
15'-0" MIN. SIDE SETBACK
10'-0"
10'-0" MIN. FRONT SETBACK
11'-0" MIN. SIDE SETBACK
11'-0" MIN. SIDE SETBACK
N
11'-4"
11'-3" 12'-1"
11'-0"
32'-8
1 2
"
11'-0" MIN. SIDE SETBACK
11'-9
1 2
"
- SF
LEGEND:
COMMUNITY ROOM
RESIDENTIAL
CIRCULATION
MECHANICAL / UTILITY
VERTICAL CIRCULATION
PARKING
14,095 SF
- SF
2,700 SF
440 SF
680 SF
10'-0"
203'-10
1 2
"
18'-0"
16'-6"
77'-3
1 2
"
132'-7
1 2
"
22'-10
1 2
"
39'-1
1 2
"
62'-6"
55'-0"
63'-0"
19'-0"
116'-2"
63'-0"
22'-2
1 2
"
13'-2"
22'-0"
20'-0" 7'-3"
387
EXISTING
RESTANRANT
EL CAMINO REAL
45 78
BELMONT AVE.
55 60
65 70
75 80
85 90
100
105
110
115
95 50
45 TR
IDF
60 65
B1
B1
A1
A1
C1
B1
B1
A1
C1
C1
A1
A1
SEC. 1
SEC. 2
SEC. 4
SEC. 3
SEC. 4
SEC. 2 SEC. 1
JOB. B9055
WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP
2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504
t. 310. 217. 8885
f. 310. 217. 0425
803 BELMONT AVENUE BELMONT, CA 94002
PRINTED: September 02, 2021
September 08, 2020
APPLICANT / OWNER
ROEM
Santa Clara, CA 95050
1650 Lafayette Street
2.7 LEVEL 08 BUILDING PLAN
60 scale: 1" = 20'-0"
0 20 40 80
20'-0"
67'-4
1 2
"
81'-8"
11'-6"
15'-0" MIN. SIDE SETBACK
10'-0"
10'-0" MIN. FRONT SETBACK
11'-0" MIN. SIDE SETBACK
11'-0" MIN. SIDE SETBACK
N
11'-4"
11'-3" 12'-1"
11'-0"
32'-8
1 2
"
11'-0" MIN. SIDE SETBACK
11'-9
1 2
"
- SF
LEGEND:
COMMUNITY ROOM
RESIDENTIAL
CIRCULATION
MECHANICAL / UTILITY
VERTICAL CIRCULATION
PARKING
9,525 SF
- SF
1,560 SF
335 SF
480 SF
10'-0"
203'-10
1 2
"
18'-0"
16'-6"
77'-3
1 2
"
132'-7
1 2
"
22'-10
1 2
"
39'-1
1 2
"
62'-6"
55'-0"
63'-0"
19'-0"
116'-2"
63'-0"
22'-2
1 2
"
13'-2"
22'-0"
388
EXISTING
RESTANRANT
EL CAMINO REAL
45 EXISTING
RESTANRANT
BELMONT AVE.
SEC. 1
SEC. 2
SEC. 4
SEC. 3
SEC. 4
SEC. 1 SEC. 2
JOB. B9055
WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP
2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504
t. 310. 217. 8885
f. 310. 217. 0425
803 BELMONT AVENUE BELMONT, CA 94002
PRINTED: September 02, 2021
September 08, 2020
APPLICANT / OWNER
ROEM
Santa Clara, CA 95050
1650 Lafayette Street
2.8 ROOF PLAN
60 scale: 1" = 20'-0"
0 20 40 80
N
CONDENSING UNITS
WITH ISOLATION PAD
TYP.
FUTURE SOLAR PANEL
AREA (15% OF ROOF
AREA) TYP.
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
ROOF ACCESS HATCH WITH
FIRE DEPARTMENTS
APPROVED FOLDABLE
STAIRS TYP.
NOTE:
1. STANDPIPE IN EXIT STAIRS REQUIRED TO EXTEND
TO THE ROOF
2. FOLDABLE STAIRS FOR ROOF ACCESS HATCH
MUST BE FIRE DEPARTMENT APPROVED
ROOF ACCESS HATCH WITH
FIRE DEPARTMENTS
APPROVED FOLDABLE
STAIRS TYP.
389
JOB. B9055
WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP
2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504
t. 310. 217. 8885
f. 310. 217. 0425
803 BELMONT AVENUE BELMONT, CA 94002
PRINTED: September 02, 2021
September 08, 2020
APPLICANT / OWNER
ROEM
Santa Clara, CA 95050
1650 Lafayette Street
3.1 BUILDING ELEVATIONS
60 scale: 1" = 20'-0"
0 20 40 80 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6" 9'-3" 60'-0" BUILDING HEIGHT 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6" 9'-3" LEVEL 01 F.F. 14'-6" 14'-6"
LEVEL 02 F.F.
LEVEL 03 F.F.
LEVEL 04 F.F.
LEVEL 05 F.F.
LEVEL 06 F.F.
T.O.P.
LEVEL 01 F.F.
LEVEL 02 F.F.
LEVEL 03 F.F.
LEVEL 04 F.F.
LEVEL 05 F.F.
LEVEL 06 F.F.
T.O.P.
LEVEL 06 F.F.
LEVEL 07 F.F.
LEVEL 08 F.F.
T.O.P.
LEVEL 05 F.F.
LEVEL 04 F.F. 10'-6" 9'-3" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6" 52'-0" BUILDING HEIGHT @ EAVE
MATERIAL LEGEND
1 20/30 FLOAT FINISH EXTERIOR CEMENT STUCCO
DUNN EDWARDS PAINT DEW337 OR SIMILAR
2 DUNN EDWARDS PAINT DE6149 OR SIMILAR
3 4
5 6 PROFILED STUCCO ENCASED SILL
7 METAL AWNING
8 PRE-CAST STONE TRIM
9 METAL RAILING
10 STONE VENEER
11 PRE-CAST STONE BASE
12 METAL DOOR
20/30 FLOAT FINISH EXTERIOR CEMENT STUCCO
DUAL GLAZED VINYL WINDOW SYSTEM
FOAM PROFILE WITH STUCCO FINISH
13 TILE ROOF WITH MIX COLOR PALETTE
DUNN EDWARDS PAINT DE6211 OR SIMILAR
SMOOTH FINISH EXTERIOR CEMENT STUCCO 60'-0" BUILDING HEIGHT 52'-0" BUILDING HEIGHT
1. BELMONT / FRONT ELEVATION
2. EL CAMINO REAL / FRONT ELEVATION
1 2
13 2 1 4 5
3 8 9 7 8
7 8
5 13 1 4 2
3 6
10 11 12 9
14 FOAM SHUTTERS
14 14
PL
PL
PL
15 SCREED LINES
15 TYPE III TYPE I TYPE III TYPE I TYPE III TYPE I 65'-0" BUILDING HEIGHT 65'-0" BUILDING HEIGHT NOTE:
ALL WINDOWS WILL BE TRIMMED OR RECESSED.
13'-6" UPPER LEVEL
STEP BACK
7'-0" UPPER LEVEL
STEP BACK
390
JOB. B9055
WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP
2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504
t. 310. 217. 8885
f. 310. 217. 0425
803 BELMONT AVENUE BELMONT, CA 94002
PRINTED: September 02, 2021
September 08, 2020
APPLICANT / OWNER
ROEM
Santa Clara, CA 95050
1650 Lafayette Street
3.2 BUILDING ELEVATIONS
60 scale: 1" = 20'-0"
0 20 40 80
MATERIAL LEGEND
1 20/30 FLOAT FINISH EXTERIOR CEMENT STUCCO
DUNN EDWARDS PAINT DEW337 OR SIMILAR
2 DUNN EDWARDS PAINT DE6149 OR SIMILAR
3 4
5 6 PROFILED STUCCO ENCASED SILL
7 METAL AWNING
8 PRE-CAST STONE TRIM
9 METAL RAILING
10 STONE VENEER
11 PRE-CAST STONE BASE
12 METAL DOOR
20/30 FLOAT FINISH EXTERIOR CEMENT STUCCO
FOAM PROFILE WITH STUCCO FINISH
13 TILE ROOF WITH MIX COLOR PALETTE 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6" 9'-3" 52'-0" BUILDING HEIGHT @ EAVE 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6" 9'-3" 52'-0" BUILDING HEIGHT @ EAVE LEVEL 04 F.F.
LEVEL 05 F.F.
LEVEL 06 F.F.
LEVEL 07 F.F.
LEVEL 08 F.F.
T.O.P.
LEVEL 04 F.F.
LEVEL 05 F.F.
LEVEL 06 F.F.
LEVEL 07 F.F.
LEVEL 08 F.F.
T.O.P.
LEVEL 04 F.F.
LEVEL 05 F.F.
LEVEL 06 F.F.
T.O.P.
LEVEL 03 F.F.
LEVEL 02 F.F. 10'-6" 9'-3" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6"
LEVEL 01 F.F. 14'-6"
DUNN EDWARDS PAINT DE6211 OR SIMILAR
SMOOTH FINISH EXTERIOR CEMENT STUCCO 60'-0" BUILDING HEIGHT 60'-0" BUILDING HEIGHT
2. SIDE / REAR ELEVATION
1. SIDE ELEVATION
1 2
13 1
8 4 5
9 6
13 4 5 1 2
6 9 8
2 14 FOAM SHUTTERS
14 14
PL PL
PL
PL
15 SCREED LINES
15 15 TYPE III TYPE I TYPE III TYPE III TYPE I
DUAL GLAZED VINYL WINDOW SYSTEM 65'-0" BUILDING HEIGHT
NOTE:
ALL WINDOWS WILL BE TRIMMED OR RECESSED.
13'-6" UPPER LEVEL
STEP BACK
391
±41
±55.5
±66
±76.5
±87
±97.5
±108
±118.5
±41
±55.5
±66
±76.5
±87
±97.5
±108
±118.5
±45
±55.5
±66
±76.5
±87
±97.5
±108
±118.5
±41
±55.5
±66
±76.5
±87
±97.5
JOB. B9055
WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP
2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504
t. 310. 217. 8885
f. 310. 217. 0425
803 BELMONT AVENUE BELMONT, CA 94002
PRINTED: September 02, 2021
September 08, 2020
APPLICANT / OWNER
ROEM
Santa Clara, CA 95050
1650 Lafayette Street
3.3 TYPICAL BUILDING SECTIONS
60 scale: 1" = 20'-0"
0 20 40 80
LEVEL 04 F.F.
LEVEL 05 F.F.
LEVEL 06 F.F.
T.O.P.
LEVEL 03 F.F.
LEVEL 02 F.F. 10'-6" 9'-3" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6" 65'-0" MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT LEVEL 01 F.F. 14'-6"
LEVEL 04 F.F.
LEVEL 05 F.F.
LEVEL 06 F.F.
T.O.P.
LEVEL 03 F.F.
LEVEL 02 F.F. 10'-6" 9'-3" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6" 65'-0" MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT LEVEL 01 F.F. 14'-6"
LEVEL 06 F.F.
LEVEL 07 F.F.
LEVEL 08 F.F.
T.O.P.
LEVEL 05 F.F.
LEVEL 04 F.F. 10'-6" 9'-3" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6"
LEVEL 03 F.F. 10'-6" 62'-0" BUILDING HEIGHT @ EAVE 52'-0" 60'-0" 52'-0" 60'-0" 52'-0" 60'-0" SECTION 4
SECTION 2
SECTION 1
1 2
1 2
4 LOBBY
RESIDENTIAL TYP.
PARKING COMMUNITY
PARKING
PARKING ELECT. / TRASH RESIDENTIAL TYP.
RESIDENTIAL TYP.
COMMUNITY
RESIDENTIAL TYP.
PARKING
PARKING
RESIDENTIAL TYP. TYPE III TYPE I TYPE III TYPE I TYPE III TYPE I 65'-0" MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT LEVEL 04 F.F.
LEVEL 05 F.F.
LEVEL 06 F.F.
T.O.P.
LEVEL 03 F.F.
LEVEL 02 F.F. 10'-6" 9'-3" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6" 65'-0" BUILDING HEIGHT @ EAVE 14'-6" LEVEL 01 F.F. TYPE III TYPE I
SECTION 3
4 3
3 PROPOSED FINISHED
GRADE
EXISTING
FINISHED
GRADE
EXISTING
FINISHED
GRADE
EXISTING
FINISHED
GRADE
PROPOSED FINISHED
GRADE
EXISTING FINISHED
GRADE
LINE OF 65' MAX. HEIGHT
ABOVE PROPOSED FINISH
GRADE
LINE OF 65' MAX. HEIGHT
ABOVE PROPOSED FINISH
GRADE
LINE OF 65' MAX. HEIGHT
ABOVE PROPOSED FINISH
GRADE
LINE OF 65' MAX. HEIGHT
ABOVE PROPOSED FINISH
GRADE
13'-6" UPPER LEVEL
STEP BACK
7'-0" UPPER LEVEL
STEP BACK
13'-6" UPPER LEVEL
STEP BACK
EXISTING FINISHED
GRADE BEYOND 65'-0" 65'-0" 65'-0" 63'-9" 63'-9" ±4'-0" ±4'-0" ±4'-0" 5'-6" 5'-6" 58'-3" 62'-10 1 2
" 58'-3" 64'-3
1 2
" 52'-4
1 2
" 59'-3
1 259'-3
"
1 2
" 62'-10
1 2
"
LINE OF ELEVATOR
SHAFT BEYOND
LINE OF ELEVATOR
SHAFT BEYOND
SEE WALL SECTION 1 SHEET 3.4 FOR MORE
ARCHITECTURAL ARTICULATION DETAILS AND
DIMENSIONS
SEE WALL SECTION 1 SHEET 3.4 FOR MORE
ARCHITECTURAL ARTICULATION DETAILS AND
DIMENSIONS
SEE WALL SECTION 3 SHEET 3.4 FOR MORE
ARCHITECTURAL ARTICULATION DETAILS AND
DIMENSIONS
SEE WALL SECTION 2 SHEET 3.4 FOR MORE
ARCHITECTURAL ARTICULATION DETAILS AND
DIMENSIONS (SIM.)
392
JOB. B9055
WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP
2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504
t. 310. 217. 8885
f. 310. 217. 0425
803 BELMONT AVENUE BELMONT, CA 94002
PRINTED: September 02, 2021
September 08, 2020
APPLICANT / OWNER
ROEM
Santa Clara, CA 95050
1650 Lafayette Street
3.4 ARTICULATION DIAGRAM
15 scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"
0 5 10 20
SECTION 3 SECTION 2 SECTION 1 27'-0" 31'-3"
13'-6" TOTAL UPPER LEVEL
BUILDING STEP BACK
COMMUNITY ROOM COLONNADE
SECTION 3 SECTION 2 SECTION 1
ENLARGED WALL SECTIONS /
DEEP RECESSED
WINDOW
FOAM PROFILE
FABRIC AWNING
METAL PLANTER BOX
FOAM PROFILE 65'-0" MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT FROM PROPOSED FINISH GRADE 65'-0" MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT FROM PROPOSED FINISH GRADE 5'-6"
7'-0" TOTAL UPPER LEVEL
BUILDING STEP BACK
1'-6" ARTICULATION 31'-3" 18'-0"
COMMUNITY ROOM COMMUNITY ROOM
1'-6" ARTICULATION 12'-0"
1'-2"
ARTICULATION 18'-0" 31'-6"
2'-0"
ARTICULATION
1'-2"
ARTICULATION
1'-2"
ARTICULATION
DEEP RECESSED
WINDOW
FOAM PROFILE
FABRIC AWNING
METAL PLANTER BOX
FOAM PROFILE
FOAM PROFILE
FOAM PROFILE
11'-0" 11'-0"
12'-6"
METAL RAILING
DECK
TYP.
UNIT
TYP.
UNIT
TYP.
UNIT
TYP.
SD3.6
8 SIM.
SD3.6
1 SIM.
SD3.6
5 SIM.
SD3.6
3 SIM.
SD3.6
2 SIM.
SD3.6
6 SIM.
SD3.6
1 SIM.
SD3.6
5 SIM.
SD3.6
3 SIM.
SD3.6
2 SIM.
SD3.6
8 SIM.
SD3.6
4 SIM.
SD3.6
6 SIM. SD3.6
6 SIM.
SD3.5
1 SIM.
1'-0"
1'-0" BUILDING FACADE RECESS 1'-0" BUILDING FACADE RECESS 393
JOB. B9055
WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP
2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504
t. 310. 217. 8885
f. 310. 217. 0425
803 BELMONT AVENUE BELMONT, CA 94002
PRINTED: September 02, 2021
September 08, 2020
APPLICANT / OWNER
ROEM
Santa Clara, CA 95050
1650 Lafayette Street
3.5 ARTICULATION DIAGRAM
15 scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"
0 5 10 20
ENLARGED BUILDING PLANS / PARTIAL GROUND LEVEL PLAN
PARTIAL SECOND LEVEL PLAN
PARTIAL TYPICAL LEVEL PLAN
PARTIAL SIXTH LEVEL PLAN
24'-81
2 " 14'-7" 24'-81
2 " 12'-0"
24'-2" 14'-7" 24'-2"
24'-2" 14'-7" 24'-2" 1'-6" FURR OUT WALL 1'-0" 12'-0" 1'-0" OFFSET
LINE OF FURR OUT
WALL BELOW
ARCHITECTURAL
ARTICULATION - SEE
WALL SECTION FOR
MORE DETAIL
BUILDING STEP BACK
AT TOP FLOOR
12" MIN. FURR OUT
WALL
BUILDING STEP BACK
AT GROUND LEVEL
ARCHITECTURAL
ARTICULATION - AWNING
(2'-0" PROJECTION)
7'-0"
5'-6"
ARCHITECTURAL
ARTICULATION - PLANTER
(1'-0" PROJECTION)
1'-0" MIN. RECESS
COLONNADE
LOBBY
ARCHITECTURAL
ARTICULATION - SEE
WALL SECTION FOR
MORE DETAIL
SD3.6
8 SD3.6
1 SD3.6
2 SD3.6
2 SD3.6
5 SD3.6
8 SD3.6
6 SD3.6
3 1'-6" 1'-0" OFFSET 1'-0" OFFSET 1'-0" OFFSET
18'-2" 14'-7" 18'-2"
394
JOB. B9055
WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP
2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504
t. 310. 217. 8885
f. 310. 217. 0425
803 BELMONT AVENUE BELMONT, CA 94002
PRINTED: September 02, 2021
September 08, 2020
APPLICANT / OWNER
ROEM
Santa Clara, CA 95050
1650 Lafayette Street
3.6 TYPICAL DETAILS
RECESSED WINDOW
SILL SILL
JAMB JAMB
HEAD HEAD
5 FOAM TRIM AT WINDOW SILL 3 DEEP RECESSED WINDOW 2 1
4 AWNING
FOAM TRIM AT PARAPET 8 WROUGHT IRON PLANTER 6 PROFILE AT RAILING 2" 6"
INDICATES LINE OF FOAM
TRIM
2" 6"
INDICATES LINE OF FOAM
TRIM
6" 2"
INDICATES LINE OF FOAM
TRIM
6" 2"
INDICATES LINE OF FOAM
TRIM WHERE OCCURS
TYP. 2 1/2" DOOR &
WINDOW RECESS
TYP. 2 1/2" DOOR & WINDOW RECESS
6" TO 1'-0" RECESS @
FURRED WALL
6" TO 1'-0" RECESS @
FURRED WALL 6" TO 1'-0" RECESS @ FURRED WALL
6" TO 1'-0" RECESS
6" TO 1'-0" FOAM
PROFILE
395
JOB. B9055
WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP
2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504
t. 310. 217. 8885
f. 310. 217. 0425
803 BELMONT AVENUE BELMONT, CA 94002
PRINTED: September 02, 2021
September 08, 2020
APPLICANT / OWNER
ROEM
Santa Clara, CA 95050
1650 Lafayette Street
3.7 EXTERIOR WALL OPENING EXHIBIT
24 scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
0 8 16 32
PARTIAL EL CAMINO REAL ELEVATION
PARTIAL BELMONT ELEVATION
SOLID AREA ±220 SF (45%)
OPEN AREA ±270 SF (55%)
SOLID AREA ±1,043 SF (46%)
OPEN AREA ±1,223 SF (54%)
NOTE: BZO SECTION 5A.1.13(a)(1)
OPENINGS FULFILLING THE REQUIREMENT PER BZO SECTION 5A.1.13
SHALL HAVE TRANSPARENT OR MODERATELY-TINTED GLAZING AND
PROVIDE VIEWS INTO WORK AREAS, DISPLAY AREAS, SALES AREAS,
LOBBIES OR SIMILAR ACTIVE SPACES, OR INTO WINDOW DISPLAYS THAT ARE AT LEAST THREE FEET DEEP AND FIVE FEET WIDE. 5'-6" 14'-6"
AREA SETBACK LESS
THAN 20'-0"
FROM PROPERTY LINE
AREA SETBACK MORE THAN 20'-0"
FROM PROPERTY LINE 2'-6" 7'-0" 2'-6"
ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE
AND LANDSCAPING 4'-6"
396
±76.5
±87
±97.5
±118.5
±108
JOB. B9055
WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP
2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504
t. 310. 217. 8885
f. 310. 217. 0425
803 BELMONT AVENUE BELMONT, CA 94002
PRINTED: September 02, 2021
September 08, 2020
APPLICANT / OWNER
ROEM
Santa Clara, CA 95050
1650 Lafayette Street
3.8 SITE SECTION / VIEW EXHIBIT
60 scale: 1" = 20'-0"
0 20 40 80
LEVEL 04 F.F.
LEVEL 05 F.F.
LEVEL 06 F.F.
T.O.P.
LEVEL 03 F.F.
LEVEL 02 F.F. 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6" 65'-0" MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT LEVEL 01 F.F. 10'-6"
1 2
4 PARKING
PARKING TYPE III TYPE I
3 3
LEVEL 07 F.F. 10'-6"
LEVEL 08 F.F. 10'-6" 9'-3"
EXISTING
RESTAURANT
EXISTING
RESIDENTIAL
MALCOLM
AVENUE
1. VIEW TOWARD PROPOSED SITE FROM MALCOLM AVENUE 2. VIEW TOWARD ADJACENT SITE FROM MALCOLM AVENUE 3. VIEW TOWARD PROPOSED SITE FROM BELMONT AND MALCOLM AVENUE 1 2
3 SITE SECTION THROUGH MALCOLM AVENUE AND EXISTING ADJACENT RESTAURANT
WITH PROPOSED BUILDING WITH PROPOSED BUILDING WITH PROPOSED BUILDING 397
JOB. B9055
WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP
2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504
t. 310. 217. 8885
f. 310. 217. 0425
803 BELMONT AVENUE BELMONT, CA 94002
PRINTED: September 02, 2021
September 08, 2020
APPLICANT / OWNER
ROEM
Santa Clara, CA 95050
1650 Lafayette Street 12
scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"
0 4 8 16
4.1 TYPICAL UNIT PLANS 28'-0"
24'-0"
KITCHEN / DINING
12'-6" x 14'-0" BATH COAT
LIVING
12'-6" x 12'-0"
BEDROOM
10'-6" x 10'-6"
1 BEDROOM / 1 BATH
DECK AREA = 400 SF
GROSS UNIT SF = 595 S.F.
UNIT TYPE A1
2 UNITS
2 BEDROOM / 1 BATH
DECK AREA = 60 S.F.
GROSS UNIT SF = 885 S.F.
UNIT TYPE B1
40 UNITS
P.
REF.
CLOSET
DECK
13'-4" 10'-8" 22'-6" 5'-6" 28'-0"
34'-0"
21'-3" 12'-9" 22'-6"
DECK 5'-6"
LIVING
12'-6" x 18'-6"
BEDROOM 2
10'-0" x 10'-6"
M. BEDROOM
10'-0" x 12'-0"
CLOSET
CLOSET
P.
REF.
KITCHEN / DINING
15'-0" x 11'-6"
BATH
COAT
L.
L.
NET UNIT SF = 815 S.F. NET UNIT SF = 540 S.F.
P.
1 BEDROOM / 1 BATH
DECK AREA = 50 S.F.
GROSS UNIT SF = 600 S.F.
UNIT TYPE A2
50 UNITS
NET UNIT SF = 540 S.F. 28'-0"
24'-6"
13'-0
1 2
11'-5 " 1
2 " 22'-6" 5'-6" 18'-2" 7'-4"
BEDROOM
10'-6" x 10'-6"
LIVING
12'-6" x 10'-0"
KITCHEN / DINING
14'-0" x 14'-0"
REF.
P.
BATH
CLOSET
398
JOB. B9055
WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP
2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504
t. 310. 217. 8885
f. 310. 217. 0425
803 BELMONT AVENUE BELMONT, CA 94002
PRINTED: September 02, 2021
September 08, 2020
APPLICANT / OWNER
ROEM
Santa Clara, CA 95050
1650 Lafayette Street 12
scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"
0 4 8 16
4.2 TYPICAL UNIT PLANS
GROSS UNIT SF = 995 S.F.
UNIT TYPE C1
20 UNITS
3 BEDROOM / 2 BATH
DECK AREA = 65 S.F. MIN. 28'-0"
38'-6"
13'-0
1 2
25'-5 " 1
2 " 22'-6"
DECK 5'-6"
BATH
M. BATH
M. BEDROOM
11'-0" x 10'-0"
BEDROOM 3
10'-6" x 10'-0"
BEDROOM 2
10'-6" x 10'-0" CLOSET
REF.
P.
LIVING /
KITCHEN / DINING
13'-0" x 21'-6"
COAT
CLOSET CLOSET
NET UNIT SF = 935 S.F.
GROSS UNIT SF = 1,000 S.F.
UNIT TYPE C2
5 UNITS
3 BEDROOM / 2 BATH
DECK AREA = 65 S.F. MIN. 28'-0"
40'-0"
13'-0
1 2
26'-11 " 1
2 " 22'-6"
DECK 5'-6"
BATH
M. BATH
M. BEDROOM
12'-6" x 10'-0"
BEDROOM 3
9'-0" x 10'-6"
BEDROOM 2
10'-6" x 10'-0" CLOSET
REF.
P.
LIVING /
KITCHEN / DINING
13'-0" x 21'-6"
COAT
CLOSET CLOSET
NET UNIT SF = 940 S.F. 10'-11
1 2
" 17'-0
1 2
"
399
JOB. B9055
WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP
2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504
t. 310. 217. 8885
f. 310. 217. 0425
803 BELMONT AVENUE BELMONT, CA 94002
PRINTED: September 02, 2021
September 08, 2020
APPLICANT / OWNER
ROEM
Santa Clara, CA 95050
1650 Lafayette Street 12
scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"
0 4 8 16
4.3 TYPICAL UNIT PLANS
GROSS UNIT SF = 1,030 S.F.
UNIT TYPE C3
7 UNITS
3 BEDROOM / 2 BATH
DECK AREA = 65 S.F. MIN. 28'-0"
37'-0
1 2
" 13'-0
1 2
" 24'-0" 22'-6" 5'-6"
NET UNIT SF = 970 S.F.
GROSS UNIT SF = 1,030 S.F.
UNIT TYPE C3 - MANAGER
1 UNITS
3 BEDROOM / 2 BATH
DECK AREA = 65 S.F. MIN. 28'-0"
36'-61
2 " 13'-0
1 2
" 23'-6" 22'-6"
DECK 5'-6"
BATH
M. BATH
BEDROOM 2
10'-6" x 10'-0" CLOSET
REF.
P.
LIVING /
KITCHEN / DINING
13'-0" x 24'-6"
COAT
W/D CLOSET
NET UNIT SF = 970 S.F. 7'-4" 23'-8" CLOSET
DECK
BATH
M. BATH
BEDROOM 3
9'-0" x 10'-0"
M. BEDROOM
10'-6" x 10'-6"
BEDROOM 2
10'-6" x 11'-0" CLOSET
REF.
P.
LIVING /
KITCHEN / DINING
13'-0" x 24'-6"
COAT
CLOSET CLOSET
BEDROOM 3
9'-0" x 10'-0"
M. BEDROOM
10'-6" x 10'-6"
400
JOB. B9055
WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP
2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504
t. 310. 217. 8885
f. 310. 217. 0425
803 BELMONT AVENUE BELMONT, CA 94002
PRINTED: September 02, 2021
September 08, 2020
APPLICANT / OWNER
ROEM
Santa Clara, CA 95050
1650 Lafayette Street 12
scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"
0 4 8 16
4.4 COMMUNITY ROOM PLAN
GYM
26'-0" x 26'-0"
ELEVATOR MACHINE
ROOM
MEN'S RESTROOM WOMEN'S RESTROOM
LAUNDRY ROOM
31'-0" x 26'-0"
HOMEWORK ROOM
25'-0" x 26'-0"
OFFICE
STORAGE
OFFICE
COMMUNITY ROOM
54'-0" x 26'-0"
LOBBY
41' F.F.
OFFFICE
23'-0" X 14'-0"
MAIL
401
JOB. B9055
WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP
2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504
t. 310. 217. 8885
f. 310. 217. 0425
803 BELMONT AVENUE BELMONT, CA 94002
PRINTED: September 02, 2021
September 08, 2020
APPLICANT / OWNER
ROEM
Santa Clara, CA 95050
1650 Lafayette Street
5.1 MATERIAL BOARD
5 PRECAST 4 METAL GRILLE 3 CANVAS CANOPY 2 FOAM CEMENT MOLDING 1 FOAM TRIM PROFILES
STONE BASE
6 VINYL
WINDOW
7 METAL RAILING
10 STONE VENEER
12 LA HABRA - SAND FLOAT 20/30
INTERGRATED COLOR - DOVE GREY OR SIMILAR
EXTERIOR CEMENT PLASTER
11 EXTERIOR CEMENT PLASTER
LA HABRA - SAND FLOAT 20/30
INTERGRATED COLOR - CHARLESTON OR SIMILAR
VANDERBILT CLASSIC
INDIANA LIMESTONE OR SIMILAR
8 ROOF TILE
MIX COLOR PALETTE
EAGLE ROOFING TILE OR SIMILAR
9 FOAM SHUTTER
9 5 10
11 12 8
7 1 6
2 3 1 3
AND WALL CAP
11 5 10
402
803 BELMONT AVE L-1
BELMONT, CA March 31, 2021
LANDSCAPE PLAN
SITE AREA- 67,193 SF (100%)
OPEN SPACE- 34,069 SF
LANDSCAPE AREA- 23,050 (34%)
NUMBER OF NEW TREES- 60
LOBBY TERRACE OVERLOOK
ADA RAMP
BIKE RACK, TYP (2 SPACES TOTAL)
DECORATIVE VEHICULAR ENTRY GATE AND PEDESTRIAN GATE
BENCH SEATNG AND TABLES
BARBEQUE AND DINING AREA
INTIMATE READING LOUNGE GARDEN WITH FOCAL FEATURE
STORMWATER TREATMENT
ADA COMPLIANT AGE 5-12 PLAY STRUCTURE
ADA COMPLIANT AGE 2-5 PLAY ELEMENTS
SLIDE AND CLIMBING FEATURE
CAFE TABLES AND CHAIRS
STEPPER STONES
SITE WALL
LEGEND
5 6
4 3
2 1
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
1 3
2 4
5 8
11 12
14 13
10 14
7 9
6 BELMONT AVENUE
EL CAMINO REAL
8 8
6 8
LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS
403
803 BELMONT AVE L-2
BELMONT, CA March 31, 2021
TREE REMOVAL PLAN
BELMONT AVENUE
EL CAMINO REAL
404
803 BELMONT AVE L-3
BELMONT, CA March 31, 2021
PLANTING PLAN
BELMONT AVENUE
EL CAMINO REAL
GENERAL PLANTING AND IRRIGATION NOTES:
1. THESE PLANS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CRITERIA OF THE CALIFORNIA MODEL
WATER EFFICIENCY ORDINANCE AND APPLY THOSE CRITERIA FOR THE EFFICIENT USE OF WATER IN THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN PLAN.
2. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE AGRICULTURAL SOIL ANALYSIS DONE BY A QUALIFIED SOIL-TESTING LABORATORY.
3. ALL PLANTING AREAS SHALL BE TOP-DRESSED WITH A 3” LAYER OF ORGANIC, UN-DYED MULCH.
4. FORTY PERCENT OF ALL SHRUBS AND GROUNDCOVER SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 5-GALLON SIZE OR LARGER.
5. IRRIGATION SYSTEM IS TO BE A FULLY AUTOMATIC WEATHER-BASED SYSTEM USING LOW FLOW DRIP AND BUBBLER DISTRIBUTION.
6. STREET TREES SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH ROOT BARRIERS TO PROTECT EXISTING UTILITY LINES.
7. PLANT PALETTE COMPRISED OF APPROPRIATE TREE, SHRUB, AND GROUND
COVER SPECIES THAT ARE CALIFORNIA NATIVE OR ADAPTED, NON-INVASIVE (PER CAL-IPC), DROUGHT TOLERANT, AND DEER RESISTANT.
8. SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER QUANTITIES TO BE PROVIDED ON FINAL PLANTING PLAN FOR BUILDING PERMIT.
405
803 BELMONT AVE L-4
BELMONT, CA March 31, 2021
PLANT PALETTE
CAREX DIVULSA CHONDROPETALUM TECTORUM JUNCUS PATENS SYSRINCHIUM BELLUM LIRIOPE ‘SILVER DRAGON’ OTHROSANTHUS MULTIFLORUS PENSTEMON ‘MARGARITA BOP’ POLYSTICUM MUNITUM ARCTOSTAPHYLOS UVA URSI CEANOTHUS ‘ANCHOR BAY’ COPROSMA KIRKII ‘VARIEGATA’ RIBES VIBURNIFOLIUM SARCOCOCCA H. VAR HUMILIS LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA ‘BREEZE’ LOROPETALUM ‘SUZANNE’
MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS PHORMIUM HYBRID PITTOSPORUM ‘WHEELER’S DWARF’ ANIGOZANTHOS SPP. ASPIDISTRA ELATIOR LIMONIUM PEREZII ARCTOSTAPHYLOS X ‘SUNSET’ PITTOSPORUM TOBIRA ‘VARIEGATA’ RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA RIBES SANGUINEUM ACACIA COGNATA ‘COUSIN ITT; AGAVE ATTENUATA BUXUS ‘GREEN MOUNTAIN’ DIETES BICOLOR ACER PALMATUM CORNUS SERICEA GINGKO BILOBA ARBUTUS UNEDO ‘MARINA’ CERCIS ‘FOREST PANSY’ PLATANUS X ACERIFOLIA TREES
LARGE SHRUBS
SMALL SHRUBS
MEDIUM SHRUBS
GROUNDCOVERS AND VINES STORMWATER
BOUGAINVILLEA SP.
KOELREUTERIA BIPINNATA LAGERSTROEMIA SPP. PISTACHIA CHINENSIS NOTE:
1. ALL PLANTS ARE OF APPROPRIATE TREE, SHRUB, AND GROUND COVER SPECIES
THAT ARE CALIFORNIA NATIVE OR ADAPTED, NON-INVASIVE (PER CAL-IPC), DROUGHT TOLERANT, AND DEER RESISTANT.
406
803 BELMONT AVE L-5
BELMONT, CA March 31, 2021
COURTYARD LANDSCAPE PROGRAM
NOTE:
1. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL MATERIALS BOARD FOR WALL
FINISHES.
DECORATKIVE VEHICYLAR ENTRY GATE
BARBEQUE AND DINING
INTIMATE SEATING AREA
BENCH SEATING
STORMWATER TREATMENT
RAISED PLANTERS
ENTRY PLAZA WITH BICYCLE PARKING
LEGEND
5 6
4 3
2 1
7 2 6
3 4
1 7
5 2 3 4
407
803 BELMONT AVE L-6
BELMONT, CA March 31, 2021
REAR YARD LANDSCAPE PROGRAM
5-12 PLAY STRUCTURE + ADA COMPLIANT STRUCTURE
HILLSIDE SLIDE
ADA COMPLIANT AGE 2-5 PLAY ELEMENTS
NATURE-INSPIRED PLAY ELEMENTS
HILLSIDE CLIMBING FEATURE
LEGEND
5 4
3 2
1 1
1 2 3 3
5 4 5 4
408
803 BELMONT AVE L-7
BELMONT, CA March 31, 2021
IRRIGATION PLAN
BELMONT AVENUE
EL CAMINO REAL
409
JOB. B9055 WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP 2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504 t. 310. 217. 8885 f. 310. 217. 0425 803 BELMONT AVENUE BELMONT, CA 94002 PRINTED: April 06, 2020 March 10, 2020 APPLICANT / OWNER ROEM Santa Clara, CA 95050 1650 Lafayette Street PLOT DATE 04/06/20 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN 60 scale: 1" = 20'-0" 0 20 40 80 E1.0 410
Luminaire Schedule Symbol Qty Label Arrangement LLF Description 4 TRP1-12L15-3K7-4 SINGLE 0.900 TRP1-12L15-3K7-4 4 TRP1-12L15-3K7-3 SINGLE 0.900 TRP1-12L15-3K7-3 3 TRP1-12L15-3K7-2 SINGLE 0.900 TRP1-12L15-3K7-2 24 615-1321 SINGLE 0.900 615-1321 14 501 LED SINGLE 0.900 501-1LED19-SAL 3 UR20-24L-25-3K7-5QM SINGLE 0.900 UR20-24L-25-3K7-5QM 4 UR20-24L-25-3K7-4-BC SINGLE 0.900 UR20-24L-25-3K7-4-BC Luminaire Schedule Symbol Qty Tag Label Arrangement Lum. Lumens BUG Rating LLF Description 4 WALL - TYPE 4 TRP1-12L15-3K7-4 SINGLE 1471 B0-U0-G1 0.900 TRP1-12L15-3K7-4 4 WALL - TYPE 3 TRP1-12L15-3K7-3 SINGLE 1477 B1-U0-G1 0.900 TRP1-12L15-3K7-3 3 WALL - TYPE 2 TRP1-12L15-3K7-2 SINGLE 1497 B1-U1-G1 0.900 TRP1-12L15-3K7-2 24 STEP 615-1321 SINGLE 178 B0-U1-G0 0.900 615-1321 14 SCONCE 501 LED SINGLE 1263 B0-U4-G1 0.900 501-1LED19-SAL 3 POLE - TYPE 5 UR20-24L-25-3K7-5QM SINGLE 2999 B2-U0-G0 0.900 UR20-24L-25-3K7-5QM 4 POLE - TYPE 4 UR20-24L-25-3K7-4-BC SINGLE 2330 B0-U0-G1 0.900 UR20-24L-25-3K7-4-BC Calculation Summary Label CalcType Units Avg Max Min Avg/Min Max/Min Ground_Planar Illuminance Fc 1.32 3.4 0.0 N.A. N.A. Calculation Summary Label CalcType Units Avg Max Min Avg/Min Max/Min Ground_Planar Illuminance Fc 1.32 3.4 0.0 N.A. N.A. WALL - TYPE 3 MH: 10 WALL - TYPE 3 MH: 10 WALL - TYPE 4 MH: 10 WALL - TYPE 4 MH: 10 POLE - TYPE 4 MH: 10 POLE - TYPE 4 MH: 10 POLE - TYPE 4 MH: 10 POLE - TYPE 5 MH: 10 POLE - TYPE 5 MH: 10 POLE - TYPE 5 MH: 10 SCONCE MH: 7.5 SCONCE MH: 7.5 SCONCE MH: 7.5 SCONCE MH: 7.5 SCONCE MH: 7.5 SCONCE MH: 7.5 SCONCE MH: 7.5 SCONCE MH: 7.5 SCONCE MH: 7.5 SCONCE MH: 7.5 SCONCE MH: 7.5 SCONCE MH: 7.5 WALL - TYPE 2 MH: 10 WALL - TYPE 2 MH: 10 WALL - TYPE 2 MH: 10 STEP MH: 1.5 STEP MH: 1.5 STEP MH: 1.5 STEP MH: 1.5 STEP MH: 1.5 STEP MH: 1.5 STEP MH: 1.5 STEP MH: 1.5 POLE - TYPE 4 MH: 10 SCONCE MH: 7.5 SCONCE MH: 7.5 WALL - TYPE 4 MH: 10 STEP MH: 1.5 STEP MH: 1.5 STEP MH: 1.5 STEP MH: 1.5 STEP MH: 1.5 STEP MH: 1.5 STEP MH: 1.5 STEP MH: 1.5 STEP MH: 1.5 STEP MH: 1.5 STEP MH: 1.5 STEP MH: 1.5 STEP MH: 1.5 STEP MH: 1.5 STEP MH: 1.5 STEP MH: 1.5 WALL - TYPE 4 MH: 10 WALL - TYPE 3 MH: 10 WALL - TYPE 3 MH: 10 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.4 2.1 2.0 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.2 1.8 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.4 2.2 2.3 1.7 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.0 2.4 1.6 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.8 2.4 2.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 2.6 1.6 0.3 0.7 1.3 2.1 2.3 1.9 0.6 1.1 1.3 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 2.2 2.1 0.6 0.4 0.9 1.6 2.1 2.1 0.4 1.1 1.9 1.8 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 1.1 1.9 1.0 0.2 0.5 1.1 1.8 2.1 2.0 1.6 0.2 0.8 1.9 2.5 2.2 1.9 1.4 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.8 1.5 2.0 2.2 1.9 0.1 0.4 1.4 2.5 2.7 2.4 2.1 1.6 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.5 1.4 2.1 2.0 1.5 0.7 0.1 0.3 1.0 2.2 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.1 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.0 0.6 0.8 1.6 1.7 1.2 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.7 1.9 2.8 2.9 2.6 2.3 1.9 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.4 0.9 1.3 1.2 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.3 1.3 2.6 3.1 2.9 2.6 2.1 1.6 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.4 1.0 1.4 1.7 0.9 1.2 1.3 1.1 0.8 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.7 1.9 2.8 2.9 2.7 2.3 1.8 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.3 1.1 1.9 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.2 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.4 1.4 2.5 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.0 1.6 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.4 1.7 1.7 1.0 1.7 1.6 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.9 2.0 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.2 1.8 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.1 0.9 1.4 1.0 0.3 1.2 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.9 2.0 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.0 1.6 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.9 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.6 1.6 2.7 3.0 2.8 2.5 2.1 1.7 1.4 1.3 1.1 0.8 0.5 1.0 1.5 1.6 1.3 1.6 1.7 0.9 0.3 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.3 1.2 2.2 2.7 2.8 2.5 2.1 1.7 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.3 0.9 0.4 1.1 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.2 2.1 2.0 1.4 0.8 0.4 0.8 1.0 1.1 0.9 0.6 0.2 0.6 1.8 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.2 1.7 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.2 0.8 1.1 1.6 1.9 2.0 1.8 1.4 0.9 2.2 2.4 2.2 1.8 1.3 0.7 0.8 1.2 1.4 1.2 0.8 0.5 0.3 1.0 2.2 2.7 2.6 2.3 1.9 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.7 2.3 2.3 2.0 1.7 1.5 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.1 1.6 0.8 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.4 1.4 2.2 2.4 2.3 2.1 1.6 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.1 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.8 2.5 2.2 2.1 2.2 2.1 1.4 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.5 1.2 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.6 3.2 3.3 3.1 2.6 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.7 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.8 3.4 3.4 3.0 2.5 2.3 2.2 1.9 1.1 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 2.0 2.2 2.2 2.4 3.0 3.4 3.2 2.7 2.3 2.3 2.2 1.7 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.2 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.7 3.2 3.3 3.0 2.5 2.2 2.2 2.0 1.5 1.6 1.3 0.3 0.7 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 1.3 1.5 1.7 2.1 2.7 3.2 3.2 2.8 2.4 2.3 2.2 1.8 1.2 2.0 2.1 1.6 0.7 1.2 1.3 1.1 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.1 1.1 0.8 1.2 1.4 1.8 2.4 3.0 2.9 2.4 2.1 2.2 2.1 1.9 2.2 2.0 1.3 1.4 1.2 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.2 0.9 1.2 1.6 2.2 2.6 2.5 2.1 1.9 2.1 1.7 1.7 2.0 1.6 1.3 1.3 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.7 2.1 2.4 2.3 2.1 2.1 1.8 1.3 1.8 1.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.1 1.1 0.9 1.6 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.2 1.5 0.7 1.3 1.7 1.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.7 1.3 2.0 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.3 1.9 1.0 1.4 1.5 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 1.8 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.2 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.3 1.4 1.3 0.9 0.5 0.9 1.0 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.3 2.0 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.6 1.9 1.5 1.6 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.1 0.7 0.4 1.6 1.4 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.7 2.0 2.3 2.6 2.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 0.8 0.5 1.4 1.7 1.3 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.2 1.8 1.2 1.2 0.8 0.5 0.4 1.2 1.7 1.5 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.6 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.3 1.4 2.1 2.0 1.4 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.5 1.6 2.0 2.6 2.0 1.2 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 1.3 2.2 2.3 1.6 1.0 0.6 0.1 1.3 1.8 1.5 1.1 0.7 1.3 1.0 0.7 1.1 1.2 0.9 1.1 1.0 0.1 NOTES: - MOUNTING HEIGHTS AS MARKED AT FIXTURE LOCATIONS. - CALC PTS @ GROUND: 0'-0" A.F.F. - PRELIMINARY ONLY PENDING COMPLETED PLANS JOB. B9055 WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP 2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504 t. 310. 217. 8885 f. 310. 217. 0425 803 BELMONT AVENUE BELMONT, CA 94002 PRINTED: April 06, 2020 March 10, 2020 APPLICANT / OWNER ROEM Santa Clara, CA 95050 1650 Lafayette Street PLOT DATE 04/06/20 ELECTRICAL PHOTOMETRIC PLAN 60 scale: 1" = 20'-0" 0 20 40 80 E1.0PH 411
JOB. B9055 WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP 2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504 t. 310. 217. 8885 f. 310. 217. 0425 803 BELMONT AVENUE BELMONT, CA 94002 PRINTED: April 06, 2020 March 10, 2020 APPLICANT / OWNER ROEM Santa Clara, CA 95050 1650 Lafayette Street PLOT DATE 04/06/20 LIGHTING CUT SHEETS 60 scale: 1" = 20'-0" 0 20 40 80 E2.0 412