This word, wlower," is a distortion and should read closer to wsignificantly inhibit" the potential buildout of the San Juan Hills.
Response: This comment is directed to specific Area Plan policies which address potential constraints to development in geologically hazardous areas.
These policies are discussed on pages 50-56 of the DEIR. The EIR does not address the City's building permit review process. The Area Pl an requires detailed soils engineering and engineering geologic investigations for steep and potentially unstable lots and requires mitigation of geologic hazards prior to development of roads or structures in areas with moderate or high hazards. In some instances, this may include mitigating off-site geologic hazards. The use of the word "lower• on page 1 of the DEIR is an accurate representation of the effect of Area Pl an po 1 i ci es on the total bu i 1 dout potential of the San Juan Hills area.
Comment #39: Page 2, #1: .•. and any potential loss of open space ..• How can there be a loss of open space if it's currently zoned R-1.
Response: This conment refers to the Initial Study prepared by the City of Belmont, not the DEIR. As discussed on page 44 of the DEIR, not all of the planning area is designated R-1. The unsubdivided areas in the San Juan Hills are currently designated permanent Open Space (OS) under the Belmont General 1013
22 lsa
Plan. Under existing zoning designations, one unit per acre is permitted in the Open Space areas.
Comment #40: Page 2, Bottom: ... EIR is to serve as an objective ... The report often is non-objective and presents itself as factual when it is giving a subjective point of view. A few of the many examples will be identified subsequently.
Response: The contents of the EIR are based on technical studies conducted by the EIR consultant and other specialists under contract to the City of Belmont. The purpose of an EIR is to provide decision-makers and the general public with full, objective disclosure and clear and concise descriptions of the environmental effects of proposed actions. The DEIR for the proposed San Juan Hills Area Plan has been prepared with this objective.
Comment #41: Page 5, Land Use: 1) The City should take an active role ... Why is an objective report stating a political philosophy? Response: This mitigation measure is intended to ensure that property owners who are affected by the Area Plan are provided with information and processes which will enable participation in the programs established by the Area Plan. Implementation of plans and ordinances adopted by City governments is generally considered a local agency (i.e., City) responsibility.
Comment #42: Siting buildings such that the "view corridors" are left intact for the surrounding residential areas sounds wonderful, but why shouldn't all the beneficiaries be contributing financially to the displaced property owners. There is no mention of the funding for recommended measures proposed. Without this as part of the context, anything can be proposed. Why not have all existing homes removed to make it a purely natural setting? The point is who is going to pay for the reimbursement to the property owners for the devaluation of their property when lot merging, resubdividing and density transfer are imposed.
Response: Lot merging, resubdividing and density transfer are not proposed as a means of retaining "view corridors." These programs are intended to confine the locations of future development to areas where severe geologic hazards do not occur. As discussed on page 31 of the DEIR, Area Plan policies would effectively preclude development on many lots in the planning area. However, landowners of undevel opabl e parcels would be presented with some value for their land, as they would be permitted to sell their development rights to other property owners.
1014
23 lsa
Comment #43: Page 5, Geo 1 ogy and So 11 s, 1st sentence: Po 11 c i es were formulated based on "detailed" assessment... The study by Cotton was a general assessment of the conditions. The report does not mention that the current General Plan requires geologic reports and has total authority whether mitigating measures have been sufficiently addressed. Instead the EIR report recommends further needless costs be imposed on the property owners, duplicating the City's current permit process.
Response: The William Cotton report provided a detailed assessment of geologic conditions in the San Juan Hills area. Due to the size of the area, geologic maps were interpreted at a general level and recommendations for site-specific geologic investigations were presented. This study was not conducted as a dup 1 i cation of the City's current permit process, but rather refines the process based on a broader and more detailed base of information about geotechnical conditions in the planning area.
Comment #44: Page 7, Hydrology, #2: Didn't the City just get finished doing a storm drainage investigation relating to the new storm drainage taxes? Response: The recommendation for further storm drainage study would not duplicate the investigation conducted for the Storm Drainage Task Force in 1986 but would provide a more detailed assessment of downstream flooding impacts. As identified on page 59 of the DEIR, downstream flooding impacts have not been fully addressed in investigations conducted for the planning area to date.
Comment #45: Page 11, Traffic, #8: There is no substantiation of the statement why a sidewalk should be constructed on at least one side of the street.
Response: The text presented on pages 4-14 of the DEIR is a summary of the entire document. Substantiation of particular impacts and mitigation measures identified in the sunmary can be found in the Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation Measures chapter of the report. Potential safety concerns resulting from traffic generated by buildout under the Area Plan are identified on page 91 of the DEIR.
Comment #46: Page 20, Project Description, 4th Paragraph: The planning process involved extensive coordination with community groups and "individuals• ••. This is a distortion. Only certain individuals opinions and observations were addressed or considered. I was present at numerous San Juan committee and Planning meetings to express my position and continually asking what was being planned to compensate the property owners and how their rights were to be maintained. It is quite apparent from reviewing the San Juan 1015
24 lsa
report, the Area Pl an and the EIR report that differences of opinion were systemically ignored.
Response: The EIR addresses the draft San Juan Hills Area Plan prepared by the City of Belmont. The Area Plan was based on the recommendations of the San Juan Committee, a special committee comprised of two City Council members, one Planning Commission member and three homeowner association representatives. All interested parties were placed on the Committee's mailing list and received committee agendas and minutes. In addition, all Committee meetings were open to the public. Comments received at the meetings were considered by the Committee in formulating the recommended goals, objectives and policies of the Area Plan.
Comment #47: Page 21, Technical Project Description, 2nd Paragraph:
Slope of vacant land in the San Juan Hills area is "extremely high" ... What kind of objective language is this?
Response: The phrase "extremely high" is followed by the phrase "ranging between 15 percent and 75 percent." This provides the quantitative substantiation for the initial description.
Comment #48: Page 25, Geologic Hazards, 3rd Sentence: It states no exception would be made to this pol icy in areas mapped as having potential debris flow movement or actively moving deep landslides. Does this mean even if geologic data and engineering solutions assess that development is feasible, that it still could not be improved?
Response: As shown on Table 3 on page 54 of the DEIR, development of residential units would not be permitted on areas which are mapped as having potential debris flow movement or actively moving deep landslides unless it is clearly demonstrated that the geologic map is in error or that improvements have been undertaken which change the geologic conditions and remove the hazard.
Comment #49: Page 25, Open Space: Additionally, a continuous greenbelt of publ; cly-owned open space should be established. This statement has no supporting evidence to back up how this is done.
Response: The discussion on page 25 of the DEIR summarizes the policies of the Area Plan. This comment, therefore, is directed at the Plan and not the EIR.
1016
25 lsa
Conment #50: Page 26, Land Use Designations, (b): The purchasing of density transfer from owners of lots with geologic hazards will give value to these wasted lots.
Response: Subsection (b) on page 26 discusses the Hi 11 side Residential and Open Space designation in the Area Plan. See also the response to Comment #42.
1 1 Comment #51: Page 29, Table 2: This table's data is arbitrarily derived and repressively restrictive. It is a misconception that grade slope is directly related to the amount of floor area that should be allowed on a site, which is what this chart indicates. Percent of lot coverage is the method for figuring FAR. Does this chart read that if my lot is 40,000 s.f. and is 35% slope that it is not a buildable parcel? If it does, the chart is totally baseless when comparing it to surrounding neighborhoods slope/house square foot relationship or that a significant number of problems are associated with the slope/house square foot relationship.
Response: The Table presented on page 29 of the DEIR presents the slope density formula for the Hillside Residential and Open Space (HROP) areas that has been reconvnended by the San Juan Committee for use in the Area Plan. The commenter's interpretation of this table is correct. This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the DEIR, but rather is directed at the Area Plan.
Comment #52: Page 30, Density Transfer: This concept has proved to be an outrageous failure in the communities that it has been tried and a follow up investigation of these communities should be done.
Response: Comment noted. This comment is directed at the Area Pl an rather than the EIR.
Comment #53: Page 36, at Top (i): Development slopes exceeding 30% shall be avoided whenever possible. This report did not consult a qualified structural or soils engineer to make this conclusion.
Response: The reference on the top of page 36 is identified as policy 1016.4 (i) of the Belmont General Plan. It is not an EIR conclusion.
Comment #54: Page 40, 2nd Paragraph: The Cotton report was too general and vague to use to classify property into a moderate or critical geological hazard table.
Response: The geologic hazard table presented in the Cotton report is presented on page 54 of the DEIR. The geologic hazard policy map is shown in 1017
26 lsa
figure 10 on page 51 of the DEIR. The Cotton investigation identified potential geologic hazards throughout the entire planning area; refinement of the geologic map is permitted based on site-specific geologic investigations.
Comment #55: The "objective" report has no positive elements listed for any of the improvements that would take place to any of the areas.
Response: The EIR addresses both the beneficial and adverse environmental effects of the proposed Area Plan and implementing ordinances.
Comment #56: There is nothing in the report discussing property owners views, property owners rights, or how displaced property owners will recoup their loss.
During the May 19th EIR meeting, the councilwoman seated 2nd from left questioned why there was any discussion or indication of Marberger ever going thru to Upper Lock. Is it any wonder why the property owners don't trust the City's intentions or believe for a moment that this isn't a no growth scam? The report explains if the mitigating measures are engineered and corrected etc., the road could go in. I guess the camouflage can only last so long before true intentions slip out.
Response: Comment noted.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
City of Belmont Planning Commission Hearing {May 5, 1987) Commissioner Green
Comment #57: Commissioner Green had a question on page 23, Table 1, Current Lots and Maximum Buildup Potential on San Juan Hills Area Plan, 10th item, Laurel Creek Canyon (Unsubdivided}--the maximum buildout under the Area Pl an was actually greater than under the General Pl an and wondered how that could have happened?
Response: The maximum buildout in the Laurel Creek Canyon area under the San Juan Hills Area Plan would be greater than buildout in this area under the General Plan since the Area Plan is predicated on permitting development based on land characteristics, particularly slope. Because the Laurel Creek area includes several large, relatively level areas, it would serve as a receiver site under the Area Pl an. Under the Area Pl an, certain portions of the planning area would have development rights transferred to areas designated as 1018
f :
i
27 lsa
receiver sites and transferrance of development rights would result in greater densities at receiver sites.
Sal Pantano
Comment #58: Looking forward at the aspects of the plan, the plan seems rather confiscatory and it takes away the rights the people thought they had.
Mr. Pantano stated that transfer density is screwy and he didn't think there's any community that has adopted that type of a plan that can say 1t has worked successfully. Sometimes it is hard for one couple to decide what to do with their individual property. He asked who will receive the benefit of transfer density. The taxpayers of the City of Belmont have spent a considerable sum of money on the basis of staff time and consultant's time building up the pros for the San Juan Plan. He had not heard anything wherein the City Council or the Planning Commission have authorized any expenditure of funds for the con of the San Juan development plan. The consultants who worked on the EIR is an independent firm and was to look at all aspects and the results showed that it was all pro and no con.
Response: The intent of the San Juan Hills Area Plan is to simultaneously accomplish two basic things. The geological hazards associated with the San Juan Hills were relatively unknown at the time that the planning area was subdivided in the early 1920's. · Geologic hazards either completely or partially overlay many of the lots and some of the roads 1n the San Juan Hills. Given these development constraints, the City is attempting to devise a way for landowners to utilize their land, while avoiding the hazardous conditions in the San Juan Hills. Rather than revoking development rights where hazardous conditions exist, the City is providing a mechanism--the various implementing ordinances--to ensure that landowners can both exercise their development rights and avoid the hazardous geological conditions.
The DEIR considered the potential adverse impacts of the San Juan Hills Area Pl an. The potential adverse impacts are those for which corresponding Mitigation Measures were developed in each of the chapters under the "Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures• sect;on of the DEIR.
P.M. Melliar-Smith
Conwnent #59: In reference to the sewer collection matter on page 126 requiring that new sewer lines should be located in roadway rights-of-way for ease of aaintenance. This was requested by John .Hopkins [City of Belmont, Director of Public Works] because of the great difficulty encountered in the middle of the night in trying to maintain sewer lines through people's 1019
28 lsa
backyards on the side of steep hills. The requirement, in that sense, is reasonable, but the problem is that it doesn't address the topography of the canyon. The topography is basically is that the existing construction is on the top of the hills and it's the desire of the plan that the bottom of the canyon should remain undeveloped and that, therefore, the new construction wi 11 tend to be downslope from the top of the h il 1 s and not down into the canyon and wi 11 be accessed by roads that come downhill from the top of the hill. That means that any place which is allowed a sewer line into the roads then there will be a pumping station. There are adverse impacts of pumping stations which should be addressed by the EIR.
Response: Please see the response to Comment #37.
City of Belmont Planning Commission Hearing (May 19, 1987) Mike McHugh
Comment #60: The DEIR did not address the environmental impact of adopting the restrictive ordinances that would prevent any development of the unimproved roads in the San Juan Hills. If the Planning Commission and the -- Council adopted the San Juan Hills Area Plan with very restrictive building requirements, specifically, the floor area ratio, it would make it impossible or financially infeasible to pave the roads and put in storm drains, curbs or retaining walls as necessary that would mitigate the geologic hazards that exist. It mentioned the total number of houses that would be built which was unrealistic since it assumed there was a certain number of lots that would not be built on. The DEIR doesn't address the restrictive ordinances which would prevent the geologic hazards from being dealt with in a constructive manner.
Response: There is no ordinance specifically preventing improvement of the unimproved roads in the San Juan Hills area, and therefore the DEIR could not address such an ordinance. The proposed floor area ratio in the San Juan Hills Area Plan would be implemented through the Slope/Density Ordinance; this ordinance would result in more restrictive building requirements than those of the General Plan, as noted by the commenter. The San Juan Hills Area Plan is proposing that those who would benefit from improvements such as the mitigation of geologic hazards, the paving of roads, and the development of a storm drain system be required to finance the improvements. It would be feasible to finance needed improvements through the establishment of an assessment district which would function to collect fees from those who would benefit from the improvements.
The San Juan Hills Area Plan is different than the General Plan. One of the primary differences between the two plans is in the number of units that 1020
29 lsa
could be developed in the San Juan Hills. The General Plan assumes one unit per lot; the San Juan Hills Area Plan assumes one of three possibilities for each lot. Some lots would have one unit; other lots would have more than one unit; and other lots would have only a fraction of a unit.
Lida Paetzke
Comment #61: The DEIR did not describe Ralston Avenue as a scenic corridor. She commented about the lack of a much more restrictive alternative, such as the 50% reduction in dens;ty. She was also concerned about the mitigation measures concerning the cumulative traffic impacts from this and other projects regarding the Ralston and El Camino intersection. The DEIR said to add more through lanes in order to accommodate all the cumulative traffic. Who will supply the through lanes, where will they come from, and when will this happen? What will happen if this doesn't happen? She didn't think that type of mitigation was adequately addressed. The DEIR seemed to dwell on the need for a 1 eft turn 1 ane from Cipriani onto San Juan Canyon Boulevard because the people who turned left there created traffic blockages.
It didn't mention that the biggest traffic hazard at the intersection are: 1) the buses that stop and block one entire lane of traffic at the intersection and 2) the emergence and egress and ingress of the emergency vehicles from the fire station.
Response: The Visual Quality section of the DEIR on pages 71 through 80, discusses the visual attributes of the San Juan Hills Area; Ralston Avenue is noted for the views it provides of Laurel Creek Canyon, Sugarloaf Mountain and the San Francisco Bay. Ralston Avenue is identified as a scenic route in the second sentence of the third paragraph on page 71 of the DEIR. The following text is added after this sentence:
"Ralston Avenue is designated as a Scenic Road throughout its length in the Belmont General Plan."
Pl ease see the response to Comment #31 and pages 140-141 of the DEIR regarding a reduction of density alternative.
The DEIR identifies the existing and potential need for additional through lanes at the Ralston Avenue and El Camino Real intersection (Mitigation Measure #12 on page 96 of the DEIR). These improvements could be funded by t■plementing a traffic impact fee to which new developments could contribute.
The following ;s added as the last sentence to page 83 of the Draft EIR in the Traffic and Circulation section:
1021
30 lsa
"In addition to the vehicles turning left from Cipriani Boulevard onto San Juan Canyon Boulevard and creating traffic blockages, there are also buses stopping on Cipriani Boulevard at the intersection, which further contributes to congestion."
Although the dispatching of emergency vehicles from the fire station at the corner of Ralston Avenue and Cipriani Boulevard can disrupt traffic, the frequency of trips does not result in regular congestion of traffic at the San Juan Canyon Boulevard and Cipriani Boulevard intersection.
Hartley Laughead
Comment #62: Would a left turn lane and extra lanes on Ralston mitigate the Ralston Avenue traffic? There isn't enough room to widen streets because it would have been done.
Response: The Mitigation Measures proposed for Ralston Avenue recommend lengthening the left-turn lanes that already exist, rather than creating entire new left-turn lanes. Lengthening of the left-turn lanes on Ralston Avenue would involve minimal or no widening of Ralston Avenue.
Commissioner Rianda
Comment #63: On page 94, index values of existing volumes, indexes of
3.2 and 3.3 which correspond with traffic volume of 300, the volumes are only in the hundreds--does this mean that even though traffic is lower there's a higher impact than what the traffic warrants?
Response: The index values of existing traffic volumes at the locations listed in Table 7 on page 94 of the DEIR are derived from the Traffic Infusion on Residential Environments (TIRE) analysis that is intended to show how traffic in a residential environment will affect activities such as walking, bi eye ling, and maneuvering a veh i c 1 e out of a driveway. The focus of this type of traffic analysis is more qualitative than quantitative; a resident perceives a change in the residential living environment with each numerical change of 0.1 or more. A 0.1 or greater addition to the existing traffic volumes indicates that a resident has realized that their living environment has more traffic moving through it than before.
Comment #64: He questioned the density transfer in the Christian-Skymont area and the recommendation is for not more access onto Ralston than Christian Drive. He couldn't see that there would not be an impact on Christian and on the traffic more than what was represented in the DEIR. It does mention the 1022
31 lsa
effect on Christian but it's Marsten that would be a bottleneck since it's a lot narrower than Christian. Mr. Rianda stated that the density transfer is up along Christian and Marsten.
Response: Mitigation Measure #11 on page 96 of the DEIR in the Traffic and Circulation section and Mitigation Measure #9 on page 11 of the DEIR in the Summary section identified potential traffic impacts on Ralston Avenue if direct access were to be provided onto Ralston Avenue and recommended that, "Green Court traffic should be rerouted to access Christian Drive via Marsten Avenue. A new access directly to Ralston Avenue to serve the Green Court area is not recommended due to its impact on Ralston Avenue traffic flow." In formulating this recommendation, traffic counts were conducted at the intersection of Christian Drive and Ralston Avenue, which was determined to have adequate capacity for both existing traffic volumes and future traffic volumes, as shown in Table 4 on page 87 of the DEIR. The maximum number of additional vehicles that would use Marsten Avenue under the San Juan Hills Area Plan is 68. The capacity of Marsten Avenue is adequate to accommodate this flow. It is expected that residents will perceive a change in their living environment due to the additional traffic along Marsten Avenue, as explained in response to Commenng about? Ms. Costello stated that there was a proposal for emergency access in the Area Plan and that came from San Juan Boulevard to Marsten as an unpaved gated access.
Commissioner Feierbach
Comment #65: Page 88, trip distribution, •roadway connections of the Cipriani area to Plateau v1a a paved Marburger Road"--she was concerned about connecting Marburger with Cipriani and Plateau. She didn't think it was a good idea that people would be going up San Juan, turning right on Marburger, making a left on Upper Lock and going out.
Response: Please see response to Comment #17.
Comment #66: Page 70, mitigation measure #3, vegetation and wildlife- she would like the Convnission at a later time to consider that native plant species must be used for revegetation of native species which were removed.
For instance, a removed oak tree should be replaced with an oak tree. She would like to see a heritage hills ordinance introduced as a mitigation for tree removal.
Response: The policies of the Area Plan address preservation and protection of historic and scenic trees.
1023
32 lsa
Comment #67: The DEIR recommended that if the neighbors agreed to not have any parking on one side of the street, she thought that bumps ought to be considered on San Juan. There are al ready bumps on Winding Way and Mezes.
Construction effects should be taken into account in the DEIR since there had been a lot of development and excavation in the San Juan area during the past ten years. The hours that were recommended were 8:00 to 4:00, and she thought excavation hours were 9:00 to 2:30 and she thought they should be kept within those hours.
Response: Pl ease see response to Comment #20 regarding the possibility of speed bumps on San Juan Canyon Boulevard.
Please see response to Comment #11 regarding construction hours duration.
Comment #68: She would also like the DEIR to address no sidewalks since she would like to preserve the rural character of this subcommunity.
Response: Please see response to Comment #11.
Comment #69: Page 13, #3 -- to ensure adequate provision of emergency access to the Skymont area, the City should ... --what emergency access is it talking about? Ms. Costello stated that there was a proposal for emergency access in the Area Plan and that came from San Juan Boulevard to Marsten as an unpaved gated access.
Response: The commenter is referred to the full text of the Fi re Protection portion on page 118 through 119, the Police Protection portion on pages 119 through 120, and to the Road Development and Maintenance portion on pages 120 through 124 of the Public Services and Utilities section of the DEIR. The need for adequate emergency access to the Skymont area via a gated emergency road that would start at the junction of San Juan Canyon Boulevard and end where Marsten Avenue enters the Skymont neighborhood is identified and reiterated in the above portions of the Draft EIR.
Comment #70: Suggestion to look at solar energy domain as to how one house's shadows affected another house.
Response: Mitigation Measure #3 on page 14 of the Summary section and on page 130 of the Energy Conservation section of the DEIR address basic means of improving solar exposure in the planning area.
Comment #71: I question the alternatives of reducing 374 units, are there volunteer ways of getting it down?
1024
33 lsa
Response: The commenter is referring to the reduction of the maximum number of units that would be allowed under the Area Plan; this number is 372, rather than 374. As noted in the response to comment #31, 372 units is the maximum buildout that could occur under the Area Plan. If the slope intensity and density transfer programs are successful, buildout in the area would consist of 275 to 300 units. Voluntary participation of people to work together would be necessary to reduce the potential buildout. The Area Plan also includes other ways to encourage people to voluntarily work together to resubdivide parcels in order to reduce the number of units and to provide a better land use pattern.
Commissioner Green
Comment #72: Overall, the DEIR is good, very comprehensive, fair, reasonable, and it even allowed for negotiations. He thought that an additional 374 homes in this area would be a little overwhelming. He didn't think that this would happen immediately, if ever. He thought that some of these lots are so marginal that another 20 or 30 years from now, some of them will still be there, while some of these lots will be built on after this Plan goes into effect so he suggested dealing with the traffic problems which cannot be mitigated.
Response: Comment noted. Traffic impacts and mitigation measures are discussed on pages 88 to 96 of the DEIR.
Commissioner Collins
Comment #73: I am concerned about density transfer regarding property owners and legal rights.
Response: Comment noted. The DEIR addressed environmental, rather than legal implications, associated with implementation of the San Juan Hills Area Pl an.
Commissioner Lawhern
Comment #74: Commissioner Lawhern commented about making the Plan work with the density transfer. He was concerned about what would happen after density transfer and the unstable and unbuildable lots. He stated that the Commission should be careful when dealing with density transfer and there should be a system that does not present liability to the City in the future.
If there was density transfer and people abandoned their lots and the City ended up with them, there could be a potential monetary problem. 1025
34 lsa
Response: Comment noted. The Density Transfer Ordinance would result in the creation of sender sites, which consist of areas that are unsuitable for development due to geologic hazards, the presence of sensitive biologic resources, or for access reasons. These areas would be converted to a use more compatible with the above identified constraints. The San Juan Hills Area Plan has proposed that these undevelopable areas be designated for permanent open space use.
1026
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
lsa
1027
1028
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-0f'FICE OF THE GOVEJ
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
1.WO TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO, CA 9581A
May 28, 1987
Elaine Costello
City of Belmont
1365 Fifth Avenue
Belmont, CA 94002
•
Subject: San Juan Hills ARea Plan
SCH# 86122320
Dear Ms • Coste 11 o :
. 35
GEORGE OEUKMEJIAN, Go .. mo,
'!be State Clearinghouse sutmitted the above named draft Environmental !mpd.Ct Report (EIR) to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and the- co111Dents of the individual agency(ies) is(are) enclosed.
Also, on the enclosed Notice of Canpletion, the Clearinghouse has checked which agencies have commented. Ple� review the Notice of Canpletion to ensure that your ccmnent package is complete. If the package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse imnediately. Your eight-digit State Clearinghouse number should be used so that we may reply prcmptly.
Please note that recent legislation requires that a responsible agency or other public agency shall only make substantive carments on a project which are within the area. of the agency's expertise or which relate to activities which that agency must carry out or approve. (AB 2583, Cb. 1514, Stats. 1984.)
These carments are forwarded for your use in preparing your final EIR. If you need more information or clarification, we suggest you contact the ccmnenting agency at your earliest convenience.
Please contact Norma Wood at 916/445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process.
Sincerely,
Iavid C. Nunenkamp
Chief
Office of Pennit Assistance
cc: Ptesources Agency
Enclosures
1029
•
36 a&a• _a ______ m._ca -�I --- 7 rm............ -- 64
.,1,,91 j••1'a..:lVC
1 • - ,._ San Juan Hilla Area Plan
z • ._.....,�_ _.c ... 1..,r..,y_.o ... • ..... a ... e ... J ... m.. m ... 1r ..... ______ 1 ..... ....._ Eliinc ce,tcllo llll.. - - 1365 Fifth Avenue a. - Belmont
....... --.;....;;.!1a:.ca.ae .. o.._ ______ • •• 9400� llo.. -• 1415) SZJ-)409 ----• ,. - San �ateo .., __ ,, __ a_., __ l_m_on_t ________ _ .. ----·· .... ------.. -·- -----------------
... ---lhleh a.,c.,.,e;w--,e .. :.::· ... -___________ _ .. -1 IO&•• .. ... - 92
-- a.I• - ... ------. ---------� --------
,
. --L.:--
··--
··--
... � .. --
·
·--
•. -. .....
SETii113- aa
L HIii,--
•---- ----- ··---
··-
··-----
.. _, .. _
.,_.L_,.,._
.. -,�
.. ---- •. .,,.,,,It -------- -----
··--- ....... ______ _
_.__ ___ ------------
.. _,,.__ ...... ,.__ ___ _
_.__ ___ -----------
.. � ....... ._ _____ _ - ---------
•. ----- ...UU.• --------
--· ··- .. -� :::::. - :-=: 19.���. ::� =z?:::�� l.1----· •--�'"'- ::,,1'--- - \ •;,.• U.-- la•--- 11.-JD-°:-t ��;,, "-'c.::1 9'
w.-- .u. __ .,._ l.1.-• . ., .. r��_,··
: ..
-!""" ______ ._. ___
la. -
l.1-�--- •·-=---... . . .6-.. -- - � --==--- -��-� ::� �:_;;) a. __.-aa1w '-' •· Lmtars,-.-s o. �
•. .ie-- •. ___...- la.�-
___ , ..
··---
··---
l.1
-- 11.---
u.Jt:- ··--·--- 11. �--- a . .,.-.,,,,,o--,•n
•· .t:::rn«era
:n.--- ---�--,.. •· ✓nmtm--- ., _ __,..._ 10.-- a._ = •·-.11------ .u. - ·-· - •----------------- ---------
IA. iewr:- ,he ex1ac1ng area 1■ partially developed vith 1100 dwelling units. There are alao about 160 acrea c,f vacant land currently zoned for a1ngleu. famiiv and � gr1cultural uae.
The San Juan Hills Area Plan 1a an aaendaent to the Ceneral Plan providing long-range policies for chis aru.
CI..WI�US£ CONTACT;
STAT£
7)
REYIEII
�{L)�
BEGAN: 'f-J'f-9 7
DEPT. REY! £11 TD AGENCY: 1,,.. ,,2.).
AGEIICl REVIEW TO SCH: ;--27
'klt cm.PL !AICE: 5" -.:Z 8
11/C I N/C ;RESOURCES
-+--•CONSERVATION
--+--• FISH ·1 GAME®
• f'o,r�)'Tlt'f
-+--
•DEPT WATER USOURCES
-+--
• ,-RlS I REC / DHP
••• r, IEIZ :1 fP
• ltEGL WQCB.J6:_(� l<i
�.--.-CAL TRANS f "f (e
_...,_ __
1030
.atate of cialifornia Bu1ine11, TranlpOffation onc:J Houlin1 A9ency 37-
Memorandum
To Norma Wood
State Clearinghouse
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121
Sacramento, CA 95814
Date : May 19 , 19 8 7
File No.: SM-92-PM-R7. 31
SCH 186122320
SM9242
From : DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION -4
Subject:
1 San Juan Hills Area Plan
Caltrans has reviewed the above-referenced project and has the following comment:
The Draft EIR does not address the traffic impacts at the Ralston/Route 92 interchange. This impact should be discussed in the final EIR.
Should you have any questions regarding this comment, please contact Bill Commins of my staff at (415) 557-9431.
_,,,..-- ,l_•��LE� District CEQA Coordinator
. D
A'12 e•r
l'TAfl
aE�.,�
. .
..
'
1031
2 3
DATE
TO
FROM
SUBJECT:
May 7, 1987
38 CITY OF BELMONT
INTER-OFFICE MEMOAA:l'iDUM
Elaine Costello
Ed /
Comments on the Draft EIR - San Juan
I have read parts of it carefully and perused other pnrts of it, and am impressed by the quality of the document. I have only two comments, one in the area of hydrology and drainage and the other in the area of traffic:
HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE
The draft EIR on page 61 speaks to a Study of the downstream's effect of the storm drainage solution proposed by the Task Force.
It is my assumption that the Study they speak of will, in fact, be the EIR the Council has committed to do on the San Juan component of the storm drainage recommendation. The Council will have to approve funds in the next fiscal year's Budget for that EIR and there are no additional funds being recommended for any additional studies.
I al so would like to change the wording on page 61, i tern 2. I would rather we talk about doing the Study in "Consultation with" the City of San Mateo, not in "coordination with". The term "coordination" implies that San Mateo would have a say in any final recommendation regarding any mitigations. I don't think we want to imply that. Certainly we will be talking to the City of San Mateo when we look at the EIR for that component of the Storm Drainage sysstem.
TRAFFIC SECTION
The EIR has an existing V/C rate of .97 (L.O.S. of E) for the inters�ction of i\alston and ::1 Ca.-:iino. The revised draft of ti.i.� final report o! the Crain Study �nti�l�� "�ran�por�a�ion Plan�ing Study for the Redwood Shores/101 Corridor" has been looking at the same intersection. They came up with a .88 V/C ratio at the same intersection of Ralston and El Camino. I'm sure there are differences, depending on what day one does the traffic count, but I did want to make you aware that I am also looking at a draft document that deals with traffic in depth and at Ralston and El Camino Real the V/C ratios are different. It is not beyond possibility that they are both very accurate on the particular day(s) they were measured.
(over)
1032
__ ....,.._. --·
I �as impressed �ith the in-depth analysis that the ElR did anc the quality of the discussion in the text. I certainly hope that the Planning Commission reviews this carefully and passes it on as rapidly as possible to the City Council so that we may certify this· EIR and move forward with implementing the San Juan Plan.
EE/fp
'I
1033
39 CITY of BbL1\10NT 1
1365 Fifth Avenue -----------------------------------1 Belmont, California 940( Telephone: (475)
4 5
6 Office of:
Planning and Community Development
May 28, 1987
Ms. Libby Tyler
LSA
157 Park Place
Point Richmond, CA 94801
Dear Libby:
Overall, the Draft Environmental Impact Report is a very good document.
You did a fine job of responding to the comments on the administrative draft. The folloving are my comments on the draft EIR. I will also be submitting comments to you from other departments, as well. I also wanted to let you know that I received our State Clearinghouse Number. It is 86122320. The contact person is Norma Wood and the review period ends May 28, 1987.
adopted, the Area Plan would become part of the Belmont General Plan and must be consistent. I think we had discussed that, as part of this project, we are proposing changes to the General Plan to make sure that policies in the General Plan are consistent with the policies in the San Juan Hills Area Plan. I have attached a copy of the May 19, 1987 staff report which includes the amendments to the existing General Plan text. I think this should be mentioned in the introduction and in the description of the project.
Mitigation Measures. Design review approval for all new single family residences in the San Juan is listed as in mitigation measure. I read the text of the EIR on visual quality and this mitigation is not justified in that section. I do not feel that design review approval of all new single family residences is necessary or practical. The implementing ordinances of the San Juan Hills Area Plan will set standards for the size, height, vegetation removal, and type of grading use for all new single family residences. These ordinances address the visual impacts discussed in the EIR. Design review for all single family homes is, therefore, not necessary. It would be a burden to property owners and impractical, given the current City staffing.
Design Review for Receiver Sites. The major visual impact of residential development described in the EIR would be the development of the three (3) receiver sites if property owners choose to increase density through the density transfer program. Under our current ordinances, design review is required for all new development, except single family residences. As an 1034
6 7
8 40
Letter to Libby Tyler
Re: Comments on Draft EIR
May 28, 1987
alternative to design review for all single family residences, design review could be required for development on receiver sites. This could be included in the implementing ordinances for density transfer. This would be an acceptable mitigation, if the intent of the mitigation proposing design review for single family residences was to address the visual problems pointed out in EIR of increased development of receiver sites.
word "increased" should be added before creekbank erosion and deposition downstream. Line 8-The study should be done in consultation with the City of San Mateo, rather than in coordination. As the comments from the City Manager discuss, coordination implies equal participation by both groups. This does not seem practical.
I Page 46, para. 4, Location of Development. The text states that under the Area Plan, the Bartlett area landowners would be encouraged to merge their lots. In fact, under the policies of the Area Plan, landowners would be required to merge their lots. We are now currently writing a merger ordinance to require this.
Please call me if you have any questions.
s;;;; h/ift'
Elaine Costello
Director, Planning and
Community Development
Attachment
EC/ww/42/lsa
1035
9 10
11 12
13 · 41
O':,_i26/67
lo: Planning Department. City of Belmont
From: Cioriani Hills Neighborhood Association
�e: D.E.I.R. For the San Juan Hills A�ea Plan
We would like to thank the City Staff an� �ne staff of Larry Seeman Associates, Inc. for their efforts in preparing a very comorehensive Environmental Impact Report for the
�ropasec San Juan Hills Area Flan. Our Neighborhood
Assoc1a�lon has worked hard for many years to acheive a feasible an� environmente 1 1y �ens1ble soecif1c plan for cev�locme�t cf this area.
:_,_tr com>T,er-,i..::: a.no sL1.gc;ies't ions regard 1ng the ade□Lt.ai.c:v of the S.E.l.R. ��ise from a concerG that as many �mpacts as ca� o��s1blv be identified be addressed in a clear and concise I l. We do not believe that ANY of the icentified adverse eftects wlll be redL1ced bv mitigation to "a level of
1ns1gnif1ca�ce''• vet this claim is made reoeatedly
t�roug�out tne D.E.I.R.
I Ferm1ssive language is used throughouc the D.E.I.R.
w�ic� raises concerns tn�t the mitigation measures prooosed c1re OC't::.ona1 and not manClatorv; e:,amole, oage 8, #3. "Native plc:•11t s□e=:?.1:-s SHQUL.[I be used for revegetai.tion ••••• 11 • The D.�.I.R. proooses some mitigations that are contrary es��o, 1sned City Pol1cv. ie: extendec nauling and
c=nstruct1on hours. extended sidewalks in neighborhoods ,.n,:.r,•;;i to retain a rural char-·acter. widening certain sections of Ralston Avenue.
4. Tt-,ere is no discL1ss1on of the adverse effects on
w1 ! d11�e and vegetation during the actu�1 construction pP--·c,ce-ss, wr-, 1 ch. according to the "F'l an" is ant 1 c i pated to be a twentv vear perioo.
5. Th� document assumes that c�rtain ordinances will be adopted to 1moie�ent suggested mit1g8t1on me2sures. or as car·t c� the s�n Juan Plan itself. Sine� there 1s no
as�urance th�t these ordinances WILL be adopted �ven if the San Juan Plan 1s approved tnere must be some discussion of tt-,e c::onsec1Je,,ces of .adoot 1 ng the "Pl 8n •· w 1th out SLtc::h ordin.?.nces as "Heritage Trees", "Ge::>1 og1c Hazarcs", "Lot Mer-,..,.;;,r-'·. ''Dens1t-,, Trar,s-fer-", etc ...
1036
--
42 I
�- There 1s no discussion of staff levels required to
14 adeouately monitor the construction orocess for strict enforcement of all proposed ordinances.
7. Clarification is needed of the following sentence on oage 137 <Growth-Inducing Impacts�: "To the extent that deve�ooment under the Area Plan is accompanied bv roadway 15 and service extensions, the oroJect mav ooen up future oooortunities tor develooOment 1n areas which are oresently considered inaccessib)e."
16 17
18 19
20 21
18. F1n27cic:.l imoacts to the City of the prooosed pl an a.nd the mitigations reauired are not addressed. If the
fina�cial impacts cannot be ouantif1ed this should be
clearly stated.
9. F'age 12,_; <Fotenti2<., Imoacts) "Improving and mc1.intaining Marburge� Avenue would provide year-round th�ough access oetween the Plateau ano Cipriani neighborhoods, thereby supclementing existing entry/exit ooints on Ra1 ston Avenue.
Tr,e oroi.:iosed emergency access road linking Skymont to the:, rest of the San Juan Area would likewise increase access and ool 1ce protec.:1on caoabil ities." Such a ool icv is not included anywhere in tne orooosed "Plan'', and therefore should not be included in the DEIR. What is proposed in the "F'lan" is a gated emergency road for Fire ONLY on Marstens and the "F'l an" does not addres:. imorovements on Marberger to connect C1or1an1 and Plateau. A connection for thru
tra+fic between Cior1an1 and Plateau via Marberger shall be prcnib1ted 1 The only emergency access between Cipriani and �lateau and C1Dr1ani and Skvmont shall be a gated emergency acces5 l 1k� tne one between San Carlos and Hallmark.
I 10. Given the rat� of breakdowns of the San Juan Pumo Station and the recurring oroblems of odor emmissions, we do not believe the Pump S.:ation ha: tne caoacity to accomodate an increase of any amount. (Page 126)
11. The information presented in the D.E.I.R. indicates that the orocosed "Plan'' is not restrictive enough to
protect the neighbors property, the native flora and fauna. the cumulative traffic and financial impacts to the
community. the natural contours of the hillsides. and the geologic stab1�ity of soecific areas.
1 12. Page 96. Additional mitigation neeoed: Stop signs at Ci0riani an� San Juan Canyon Road and Ponce Avenue and
Cipriani to control traffic on Cipriani. Speed control
BUMPS to replace Bots Dots on upper San Juan Canyon Road. 1 13. Page 69. Modification of Streambeds. The oroposed Plan should not a1low the modification of any streambeds. 1037
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
43 14. Pa�e 2�. Open Soace Buffer. As a buf�er is proposed as cart of the Open Soac:e Policy, the D.E.l.R. must list
n,etr1ods the City can uti 1 ize to ac:oLtire the ooen space buff�r. At the very least. the D.E.I.R. should list
cotential funding sources, as well as organizations that CuL1 l d be utilized as r-esourses to nelp find fLtnds.
I 15. Page 32. Heritage Tree Ordinance and Excavation
Restrictions and Design Review Ordinance must be added to the 1 ist o� orooosed ordinances.
I 16. Tne D.�.I.R. shows conflicting statement� regarding traffic 1mcacts. Pg. 131-136.
I
24 NatL1rc1.l Resourses Preservation: Change the word
"E' '"' SLtre II ta ·· mc:1.ndate II and "encoLtrnage to "enSLtre" • lS. Secondary Dwelling Units. The issue of secondary
dw'=': 1 in'= L•ri 1 ts is not addressed in the "F'l an" or- the L.�.1 .R. This issu� must be addressed as it has the
ootent1c:1i for a considerable increase in densitv over wnat is orocosec. If a secondary dwelling unit, as allowed bv State La� and Citv Ordinance, were to be added to each
c"'e 1 1 1 ng Ltn it prooosed for the Sam Juar, F'l ann i ng Area the aa�itioncil negative impacts must be addressed. If Secondary D��lling Un1�s are not going to be allowed in the San Juan F· 1 arining Area the "F'l an" must include this provision.
I � � F-�. 30 Roa� Imc,rovements;
"LCJ "prQhi!:•itt?d".
Char-;ge the word "discourage"
1-f·-._-,·�t The "Fl cm" sho'--11 d al 1 ow a. minimum street width of 16 -� to further minimize excavation.
I ::1. 1 r-,e "F'l an" mL1st include provision for the preservation o-:'. tne EL1�aa l yptLts trees on the "horse ranch" s:,roperty.
I
22. Un�er9rou�ding of utilities must be prohibited in areas where un�ergrounding would cause extensive disturbance of n�tura' vegetation.
( ;;i� r:������� 1 ;�s
d
=���t
� �
.
include under "more restrictive" a
1038
-
32 33
34 44
Msy 28, 1987
6 27 ?f/
Frc�: John Miller a�d Bil� Carothers, Board Merribers,
..
••
C:pr�an' Hi�ls Neighb�rh:od A:sociation
" 1987 :>1
� R�c�r,,- �
9=: C/Ty OF �- • �0 ::.r,
� PU,tv;J- •
1 �tl!1JNT
Tc: Bel�ont Citv Pla� i g Co� is:�on
Sutject: Co�-ents c� Sa Ju� Hills Area Plan Dr�ft EIR
As pr�fes icnal ge:l:gist: whc have resid[: in the
C'�r_a�: Hi�ls _rea of Bel�=nt fer a�proximatel� 15 years, we are a� re of th: hydroge:l iiC c:ndit�c�s cf the San Jua� c� vc� �rea. Th: Ge·logic H zards Analyses Report by Cotton a:-.d As' oc. (1985) and the Sr.r. Ju:.:. HiLs Area Plan (1993) :tre:s th: ge��ogica:lv unstable cond�tions pr3se�t in the 3re�. Our concer�s relat� tc �he basically gen�ralized
�-ore ch:: s�atsd in th� Ge:logy and Soils Section (p. 48-55) a�� the Hydrol·gv and Drai�· ge S?ction (p. 57-61) of the draft EIR. We hav� s �� th· results cf t:o many failed pol�cies in directing pro-er geol:gic !nvest!gat!ons prio� tc dev:lcp�ent i� the S:� Ju n _re �lresdy; th ��fore, nc: to demand the test cos· itle r!s.a�ch of the hydroge:1-gic �cnstraints o� the _ e? p�i;r tc �,;jor d velopment: as �r:cosed by the San Juan Hil:s Are� Pl-n wil� co:-:ti ue to put the home:wner i� a n:s ti.:-: cf "holdine:; the bag".
Since th" too�graphy cf the are= is char cteriz3d by
:-,,. :-ro,: va � 1 z ?S enclosed by �t: ep slopes, investiga ti o:1s and or:��sed guideli�es for sl�pe ctabil!ty are of main concer�.
Slo�� stsb_lity in th �rea is extr:mely susceptible to se!smic sha!.<ing, rock tvoe, w,;ter conte:·.t cf the rocks, and physical str_ctur_s emplaced on the slopes. Th� inte�relationship of thes� fc�r factors in oredict·ng slope stabil�ty for an ?re_ Such :: s S:.. Ju. ca not b: ov· remphazied. For example. Cc-tton a�d As:oc. (1935) (p.29) pro�erly �cint out the role of seiE�ic sh_k!ni �s a tri�gering mechenism fo� earthGuakes. Not
�e�tio �d, h?wev r, is the comple�_ ntary ef:Ect tha� lo:se rr_terials o-cu··ri g i. lan�El!� de�r!s (as in a!l�vium) under satur-ted con�iti��s wil� amplify the inte�sity of the shaking i ts-=lf and th:...:s furth-: r e:idanger the slopes and structures built uoo� the�.
I I;;;rle::.:nt;.c:io:-: :f i wel:. defined g::;ol:&ic haz-rd ordina· ce to regula7 the number a�� design of structures for th� �rea rr.ust include �xplic' t er: te:ria to defin:: wh.::::-: a e .. gi t -ri .. g 1 '" " DcPT.
fl 2L \\
1039
34 35
36 45
geol:�ic investigat!or: :.s requ:red and most iffipcrtan:ly, the :�ouir:�ents of �hat is to be included in th report. Seils re�orts on all site d�v-lop�snt a�d building permits Ehould be required (p.26, Cotto� and A�soc., 1985). Sine: the Ge:logic Mio submitted by Cotton a .d As:oc. (1985) does not reflect structure in the :: ·bsurf""ce, .:..rez..s th t a;:,pe::.r stable ca:-: in fact, be underlain by extre�:ly geol0gical:y unstable materi�l.
Th :·-�fore, :::t a ::::'.ni .um, w· encourag·c e ·,gine-erin,: ge:logic investigations for al: prcjects involving gradin� i� addit.:.on �c those condition� s�ated by Ccttor. and Assoc. (1985).
On-site inspections by the City Geol:gist prio� to and during gr�ding act:v:ites �nd a� the completi:n of such projects ddi,,i tely should be include:· in the ordina:·.ce.
C:�to: and A�soc. (1995) (p.37) Etre5s the importance of scil a:-:d f:u;;cati�-- e:·,gi er.::. g i.vestigations by a register.d civil ��gin:er for hi:l id:: st :per tha� 10% a�d mention as �el: then d for such studies in relatively flat terrain due -:c th: fr qu�nt pr:s:-r,c:. of expansive soils, high ground-water, lo:se �:il:, "etc.''. Since B�lmont"s policy has be:n to ac:ept g�otechnical rep�rt: fer sit d velo�ment projects that were do!'le during the dr? seasor., li t-:le is know:: about actu: 1 E:tur3ted scil co�d tio�s (w!nter conditions) in the study are:. Th= vast nurr.�er of springs active during the winter a�d thcs� activ: �:1 ya� arf n�t docum:nted: th refore, in
conju�cti: with the lack of water wells in the are�, little is k:·.o,..,, abcu: the ground-water systerr. in the S::. Jw:n .:.rea.
Perch:d aquif!:-S on the hil:s!des of the study ares .re n:;:r.erous ar.d w:. thout dr:.2. ling (compl: ted duri::g e:-,gin�ering geol:iic inveEt!ga:!ons), : ::il !nvest!gat!ons durir.g the dry E!ss:� often ma� prove futile fo� r:veelin: ge:logic h�zards unt!l it !s to. late.
The draft EIR hydrcl:i:.- sectic-:: ad:.res::e· · urface water h·,dr leg\· 1,:i th :-.� me,ti:.n of the ground w:1.ter hydr:::logy.
Hydr::1. g·· ce.r. ct be understo d wi th�ut kno,..ledge of beth aEp!cts and �t is reco���n�ed tha� thi: section b: revised tc !d�res� thi, mc:t i�pcrtan� hydroie:l:gic input for evaluating fJtur d:veloom:-� in th: �rea.
�e b�licv our ccncer,s oertai� to matters of import tha. w:�r�,t sericus a·.�e�tic .• I� tre:ting th�se and related rr.at�ers, w� �·culd h::pe f:r p:lic:es that are specif�c and clear.
2 Respectfully, (},2
'
John MiLer �vu.--/3, ]11-1/lJ
Bil1 Carothe:-s � (( tvAJ J-4--s1040
37 46
298 Menlo Oaks Drive
Menlo Park, CA 94025
415-322-9737
April 29, 1987
APR 1987
Planning Commission
City of Belmont �((ff�'MOH'l me�•• �- Dear Sirs:
PS�-
I wish to comment on the Environmental Impact Report for the San Juan Hills Area Plan, prepared by Larry Seeman ·Associates, dated April 1987.
On page 126, the report states that new sewer lines would be required to be located in roadway rights-of-way for ease of maintenance. While I understand the problems currently created by sewer lines constructed through rear yards, I believe that this requirement does not adequately consider the topography of the area. In many areas, new construction will be down slope from existing construction and will be accessed by roads down slope from the existing construction. If sewer pipes are restricted to lie entirely within these roads, several new sewer pumping stations will be required. In particular, the opportunity for a gravity sewer line through the canyon to serve the Naughton/Horse Ranch/Green Court area would be precluded.
I request that the environmental impact report compare the proposed policy
' .
• New sewer lines would be required to be located in roadway rightsof-way for ease of maintenance with the alternative
• New domestic service sewer lines would be required to be located in roadway rights-of-way for ease of maintenance. New main sewer lines without service connections could be constructed in undeveloped dedicated access easements provided that the access easements a.re acceptable to the City Public Works Department.
1041
37 47
In comparing the impacts of these alternatives, consideration should be given to:
• the number of pumping stations that may be necessary
• ease of maintenance
• public health and safety (there have been major failures resulting in spillage of raw sewage at pumping stations in Belmont)
• public nuisance ( e. g. odors at East Creek Drive)
• the difficulty of ensuring that P!ivate pumping stations do not eventually revert to the city for maintenance (e. g. Hastings) • the risk that unnecessary and undesirable roadway rights-of-way will be dedicated in undeveloped areas so as to accommodate sewer lines Yours sincerely,
P. M. Melliar-Smith
1042
38 39
40 41
42 43
Belmont Planning Department
1365 Fifth Avenue
Belmont, CA 94002
48 RE: Written Comments from the Public on the Draft E. I.R.
To put things in context with my situation I will describe it.
Upper Loch currently has water, sewer, gas, and electricity at the property's edge. There are homes up and down the street from my lot. The slope is moderate (39� average slope and even less at the building site) from an Architect estimation. One who is constantly dealing with foundations, soils and geologic reports, and slope drainage. The only reason stated for not allowing a building permit when my application was &ubmitted in December of 1985 was that the road wasn't paved. Numerous homes on the peninsula are doing fine without paved roads.
The report had no analysis of my type of situation. The report had no explanation of why my lots should be required to help with the mitigating measures proposed for a sliding parcel, nowhere r,ear rny property. And why other land in Belmont should nc:,t be required to help with the mitigating measures proposed.
bu i 1 dc,1.1t. • • This word 1 ower the tot al impact is a h1::i1.1ld read closer to "si gr,i ficant ly inhibit"
buildout of the San Juan Hills.
the poteY,t ial
distortion and
the potential
tage 2, #1: ••• and any potential loss of open space ••• How can r
here be a loss of open space if it's currently zoned R-1. �
age 2, Bottom: ••• E.I.R. is to serve as an objective ••• The eport often is non-objective and presents itself as factual when t is giving a subjective point of view. A few of the many xamples will be identified subsequently.
• The City should take an active role ••• Why is an objective f 'age 5, Land Use:
eport stating a political philospy?
• Siting bt.tildir,gs such that the 11view corridors" are left intact for the surrounding residential areas sounds wonderful,
1.1t why shouldn't all the benefitiaries be contributing inancially to the displaced property owners. There is no nention of the funding for recommended measures proposed. ithout this as part of the context anything can be proposed. hy not have all existing homes removed to make it a purely atural setting? The point is who is going to pay for the reimbursement to the property owners for the devaluation of their property when lot merging, resubdividing and density transfer are imposed.
�age 5, G�ology and Soils,
folicies were formulated
1st sentence:
based on "detailed" asses&ment ••• The
631 tidlcrest Woy • Redwood Oty, CA 94062 • 4151361-8357 1043
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 49
study by Cotton was a general assessment of the conditions.
The report does not mention that the current General Plan requires geologic reports and has total authority whether rnitigating measures have been sufficiently addressed. Instead the E. I.R. report recommends further needless costs be imposed on the property owners, duplicating the city's current permit prc,cess.
I
Didn't the city just get finished doing a storm
investigation relating to the new storm drainage taMes? drair,age
!
There is no substantiation of the statement why a sidewalk should be constructed on at least one side of the street.
The planning process involved eMtensive coordination with cc,rnrn•.mity grc,ups ar,d "individuals" ••• This is a distortior,. Or,ly certain individuals opinions and observations were addressed or considered. I was present at numerous San Juan committee and Planning meetings to express my position and continually asking what was being planned to compensate the property ,::iwr,ers ar-,d hc,w their rights were to be maintained. It is quite apparent frorn reviewing the San Juan report, the Area Plan and the E.I.R. report that differences of opinion were systematically i gr-,c,red.
'
Slope of vacant land in the San Juan Hills area is
high" •.• What kir,d of ob.jective language is this?!
"eMtremely
It states no eMception would be made to this policy in areas rnapped as having potential debris flow movement or actively moving deep landslides. Does this mean even if geologic: data and engineering solutions assess that development is feasible, that it still could not be improved?
I Page 25, Oper1 Space:
Additionally, a continuous greenbelt of publicly-owned open space should be established. This statement has no supporting evidence to back up how this is done.
I Page 26, Lar-,d Use Desi gr-,at ic,ns, < b) :
The puchasing of density transfer from owners of
geologic hazards will give value to these wasted lots.
I Page 29, Table 2:
631 Hillcrest Woy • Redwood Crty, CA 94062 • 415/361-8357 lots with
1044
51 52
53 54
55 56
50 This tables data is arbitrarily derived and repressively restrictive. It is a misconception that grade slope is directly related to the amount of floor area that should be allowed on a site, which is what this chart indicates. Percent of lot coverage is the method for figuring F.A.R. Does this chart read that if my lot is 40,000 s.f. and is 35� slope that it is not a buildable parcel? If it does, the chart is totally baseless when comparing it to surrounding neighborhoods slope/house square foot relationship or that a significant number of problems are associated with the slope/house square foot relationship.
I
This concept has proved to be an outragious
communities that it has been tried and a follow
of these communities should be done.
failure in the
up investigation
I
Development slopes exceeding 30 percent shall be avoided whenever possible. This report did not consult a qualified structural or soils engineer to make this conclusion.
I
The Cotton report was too general and vague to use to classify property into a moderate or citical geological hazard table.
I
The "objective" report has no pc,sitive elemer,ts listed for any of the improvements that would take place to any of the areas.
There is nothing in the report discussing property owners views, property owners rights, or how displaced property owners will recoup their loss.
During the May 19, E.I.R. meeting, The councilwoman seated 2nd from left questioned why there was any discussion or indication of Marburger ever going thru to Upper Loch. Is it any wonder why the property owners don't trust the city's intentions or believe f,:,r a momer,t that this isr,' t a no growth scam? The report explains if the mitigating measures are engineered and corrected etc., the road could go in. I guess the camouflage can only last so long befor� ��ue inten�{ons slip out.
Si r,cere 1 y, · ·/ ---�- 1 _ .,. .. _____ __ -··· ______ __ _ l)J �t�1--:;;i1v J;r -�:--z;,.
David Char'r'es Steiner
i '
631 Hillcrest Woy • Redwood Oty, CA 94062 • 415/361-8357 -
1045
51 Commissioner Feierbach was pleased to see that the alloe�tion applicants were trying to conform with the new housing size. Mrs. Feierbach said this was a new law and the Commission should try to keep houses within the floor area ratios. Commissioner Green was pleased with the staff report.
MOTION: By Commissioner Feierbach to adopt Resolution No. 1987-24 denying a Tariance from Zoning Ordinance Requirements 756 Section 7 Site Area, Dimension, and Density Standards at 3432 Lodge Drive. The motion vas seconded by Commissioner Green and Resolution No. 1987-24 was adopted by the following Tote:
AYES: Rianda, Feierbach, Green, Lavhern, Collins, Bohl, Della-Santina
PUBLIC HEARING - TO CONSIDER DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SAN JUAN HILLS AREA PLAN (APPL. NO. 86-1079); TIIE AREA LOCATED NORTH OF RALSTON, WEST OF CIPRIANI BOULEVARD AND SOUTIIWEST OF NEWLAND AVENUE; CITY
OF BELMONT (APPLICANT)
Community Development Director Costello reviewed the San Juan Hills schedule. Libby Tyler, City consultant from LSA, summarized the draft Environmental Impact Report.
Commissioner Green had a question on page 23, Table 1, Current Lots and Maximum Buildup Potential on San Juan Hills Area Plan, 10th item, Laurel 57 Creek Canyon (Unsubdivided)-the maximum buildout under the Area Plan was actually greater than under the General Plan and wondered how that could have happened? Libby Tyler answered that this is one area which would be a receiver site. Hs. Tyler said that the point of the plan is to find areas in the San Juan Hills which would be less sensitive to development and this was how the whole concept of transfer development rights evolved and this is why the total of maximum buildout of 267 under the Area Plan and 499 under the existing General Plan. In some locations, there will be additional development such as cul-de-sacs with clustered development at the end. These are areas that through the planning process has been identified as being good potential locations for development for transfer development rights in areas that had more environmental problems. Ms.
Costello added that the existing zoning and general plan designations for the San Juan Hills Area allow one dwelling unit per acre whether that acre is 70% slope or 10% slope. Ms. Costello said that what the slope density ordinance does in some parts in the Laurel Creek (unsubdivided) area that are relatively flat such as the Horse Ranch and some areas near the Baptist Church; will apply the slope density ordinance and will allow more than one dwelling unit per acre. However, the steep slopes in the canyon will probably allow one dwelling unit per three acres • . There are parts in the San Juan
such as in the Laurel Creek Canyon which are relati.vely suitable for development that are viewed as areas where you would transfer development onto. It's a different concept than the Area Plan, it's meant to respond DRAFT
MINUTES
May 5, 1987
1046
58 59
52 to specific characteristics of the land and to be more restrictive since there are steep slopes and in this one case, where it's less restrictive whether there are fewer slope constraints.
Chair Della-Santina opened the public hearing.
Sal Pantano, 1514 Escondido Way, said it was too bad that such a Plan was not in effect in 1963 prior to the development of the Hallmark subdivision. Maybe there wouldn't have been problems with the washouts at Carlmont Shopping Center and at Belmont Hills. He probably wouldn't have lost an oak tree due to the creek cutting into the bank and making the oak tree in his backyard useless. Looking forward at the aspects of the plan, the plan seems rather confiscatory and it takes away the rights the people thought they had. Mr. Pantano stated that transfer density is screwy and he didn't think there's any community that has adopted that type of a plan that can say it has worked successfully. Sometimes it is hard for one couple to decide what to do with their individual property. He understood that the 499 property owners would be allowed only 257 residences built on the 499 lots. He asked who will receive the benefit of transfer density.
His lot is buildable, a neighbor has a better potential, another neighbor isn't, and another neighbor might be. He expressed that the four or five of them will have to get together to determine how to utilize the development of the lots when each of them individually purchased their lots when each thought of doing what they thoughTthey could do at time of the purchase was to build a house and not have to be put under the constraints of the San Juan Plan. The taxpayers of the City of Belmont have spent a considerable sum of money on the basis of staff time and consultant's time building up the pros for the San Juan Plan. He had not heard anything wherein the City Council or the Planning Commission have authorized any expenditure of funds for the con of the San Juan development plan. The consultants who worked on the EIR is an independent firm and was to look at all aspects• and the results showed that it was all pro and no con. The taxpayers of Belmont and the property owners that own the 499 lots deserved more consideration in presenting the con side and instead of expecting people who own these lots to come here and expressed their point of view-... and they don't know the results of how this money was spent that was their money that did them in on on the basis of their ability to utilize their property.
P.M. Melliar-Smith, 298 Menlo Oaks Drive, Menlo Park, referred to the sewer collection matter on page 126 that required that new sewer lines should be located in roadway rights-of-way for ease of maintenance. This was requested by John Hopkins because of the great difficulty encountered in the middle of the night in trying to maintain sewer lines through people's backyards on the side of steep hills. The requirement, in that sense, is reasonable, but the problem is that it doesn't address the topography of the canyon. The topography is basically is that the existing consruction is on the tops of the hills and it's the desire of the plan that the bottom of the canyon should remain undeveloped and that, DRAFT
�N��
May 5, 1987
1047
59 53
therefore, the new construction will tend to be do'Wllslope from the tops of the hills and not down into the canyon and vill be accessed by roads that come downhill from the top of the hill. That means that anyplace which is allowed a sewer line into the roads then there will be a pumping station.
There are adverse impacts of pumping stations which should be addressed by the EIR. He had discussed this vi.th John Hopkins and Adele Della-Santina and they felt that while it was important that the lines to which service connections are made outside people's houses should be in front of the house in the road, there was much less objection to a main sewer line passing through undeveloped territory on an access easement and if it was approved by them and when those service connections there and then they could live with that. This would allow one to have gravity sewer lines from the Horse Ranch area, for instance, down through the canyon without having pumping stations. There are serious problems with pumping stations which Belmont knows all about. Belmont has problems with escape of sewage from pumping stations. Belmont has problems with pumping stations that cause a nuisance with odors. He said that Ms. Della Santina told him that Belmont is currently maintaining a pumping station that was originally intended to be privately maintained because of the difficulty of ensuring that privately maintained pumping stations continued to be privately maintained. One needs to addressed the question of the environmental impact of requesting a pumping station.
MOTION:
��r
MINUTES
By Commissioner Feierbach, seconded by Commissioner Collins to continue the Public Hearing until May 19. The motion carried unanimously.
May 5, 1987
1048
54 MINtTl'ES
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO CONSIDER DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SAN JUAN HILLS AREA PLAN (APPL. NO. 86-1079 AND 86-1053), THE AREA LOCATED NORTH OF RALSTON, WEST OF CIPRIANI BOULEVARD AND SOUTHWEST OF NEWLANDS AVENUE; CITY OF BELMONT (APPLICANT) Community Development Director Costello stated that this was the second and final public hearing on the draft environmental impact report (DEIR).
All verbal comments were needed tonight and written comments are needed by May 28. The Area Plan hearings are resumed tonight since they were stopped in August to allow for the preparation of the DEIR. Chair Della-Santina opened the public hearings.
Mike McHugh, 2600 Belmont Canyon Road, stated that the DEIR did not address the environmental impact of adopting the restrictive ordinances that would prevent any development of the unimproved roads in the San Juan Hills. If the Planning Commission and the Council adopted the San Juan Hills Area Plan with very restrictive building requirements, apecifically, the floor area ratio, it would make it impossible or financially infeasible to pave the roads and put in storm drains, curbs or retaining 60 walls as necessary that would mitigate the geologic hazards that exist.
It mentioned the total number of houses that would be built vhich was unrealistic since it assumed there was a certain number of lots that would not be built on. The DEIR doesn't address the restrictive ordinances which would prevent the geologic hazards from being dealt with in a constructive manner.
Lida Paetzke, 2501 Carmelita, stated that the DEIR did not describe Ralston Avenue as a scenic corridor. She commented about the lack of a much more restrictive alternative, such as the 50% reduction in density.
She was also concerned about the mitigation measures concerning the cumulative traffic impacts from this and other projects regarding the Ralston and El Camino intersection. The DEIR said to add more through lanes in order to accommodate all the cumulative traffic. Who will supply the through lanes, where will they come from, and when will this happen? What will happen if this doesn't happen? She didn't think that type of mitigation was adequately addressed. The DEIR seemed to dwell on the need 61 for a left turn lane from Cipriani onto San Juan Canyon Boulevard because the people who turned left there created traffic blockages. It didn't mention that the biggest traffic hazard at that intersection are: 1) the buses that stop and block one entire lane of traffic at that intersection and 2) the emergence and egress and ingress of the emergency vehicles from the fire station.
I Hartley Laughead, 2632 Sequoia Way, questioned how a left turn lane and extra lane■ on Ralston would mitigate the Ralston Avenue traffic. There isn't enough room to widen streets because it would have been done. She 1049
55 I stated that it was due to the width of the streets and the constraints of 62 the hills.
MOTION: By Commissioner Lawhern, seconded by Commissioner Green and unanimously carried, to close the Public Hearing.
Ms. Costello stated that there wasn't a feasible mitigation measure for the Ralston and El Camino intersection traffic impacts.
I Commissioner Rianda commented on page 94, index values of existing 63 volumes, indexes of 3.2 and 3.3 which corresponded with traffic volume of 300, the volumes are only in the hundreds-does this mean that even though traffic is lower there's a higher impact than what the traffic warrants? He questioned the density transfer in the Christian-Skymont area and the recommendation is for not more access onto Ralston than Christian Drive.
He couldn't see that there would not be an impact on Christian and on the 64 traffic more than what was represented in the DEIR. It does mention the effect on Christian but it's Marsten that would be a bottleneck since it's a lot narrower than Christian. Mr. Rianda stated that the density transfer is up along Christian and Marsten.
65 66
67 Commissioner Feierbach commented on the following. Page 88, trip distribution,"roadway connections of the Cipriani area to Plateau via a paved Marburger Road"-she was concerned about connecting Marburger with Cipriani and Plateau. She didn't think it was a good idea that people would be going up San Juan, turning right on Marburger, making a left on Upper Lock and going out. Page 70, mitigations measures, #3, vegetation and wildlife-she would like the Commission at later time to consider that native plant species must be used for revegetation of native species which were removed. For instance, a removed oak tree should be replaced with an oak tree. She would like to see a heritage hills ordinance introduced as a mitigation for tree removal. The DEIR recommended that if the neighbors agreed to not have any parking on one side of the street, she thought that bumps ought to be considered on San Juan. There are already bumps on Winding Way and Mezes. Construction effects should be taken into account in the DEIR since there had been a lot of development and excavation in the San Juan during the past ten years. The hours that were recommended �ere 8-4, and she thought excavation hours were 9-2:30 and she thought I they should be kept within those hours. She would also like the DEIR to 68 address no sidewalks since she would like to preserve the rural character of this subcommunity. Page 13, #3-to ensure adequate provision of emergency access to the Skymont area, the City should ••• -what emergency access is it talking about? Ms. Costello stated that there was a proposal for emergency access in the Area Plan and that came from San Juan Boulevard to Marsten as an unpaved gated access. Mrs. Feierbach suggested 69 70 I looking at solar energy domain as to how one house's shadows affected another house.
DRAFT
MIN1ITES
May 19, 1987
1050
72 56
Commissioner Green commented on the overall DEIR. He stated that the Constitution is very clear that we are all guaranteed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and there's nothing in there that guarantees a profit for speculators and real estate. He thought that it was no coincidence that the last large area of Belmont could be developed was in the San Juan area. All the good lots have already been built on and these are the marginal lots. Overall, the DEIR is good, very comprehensive, fair, reasonable, and it even allowed for negotiations. He thought that an additional 374 homes in this area would be a little overwhelming. He didn't think that this would happen immediately, if ever. He thought that some of these lots are so marginal that another 20 or 30 years from now, some of them will still be there, while some of these lots will be built on after this Plan goes into effect so he suggested dealing with the traffic problems which cannot be mitigated. The only problem he saw on the total development was that there had to be some legal basis for any further reduction but he didn't know what that is. He believed that the minimum house size should be 1200-1500 square feet.
'
Commissioner Collins expressed her concern about density 73 regarding property owners and legal rights.
transfer
71 I
Commissioner Feierbach questioned the alternatives of reducing 374, are there volunteer ways of getting it down.
Ms. Costello answered that under the CEQA requirements, one always have to look at the worst, the maximum buildout. This looked at the impacts of the change in zoning and the merger requirements which are in the Plan.
There is also in the Plan, an approach for allowing a floor area which is small and would encourage combination of lots. This involved cooperation and the actions of individual landowners; it was felt by the Consultant and concurred by staff that it shouldn't be counted in the buildout. If that is effective and people combined their lots, the number of lots would be reduced to approximately 250 or less. This is what the Plan would do, no matter whether people cooperated or not. This would be legislated into the Plan. The others, in order to be effective, would take some action of landowners, as well.
Commissioner Feierbach questioned about incorporating that particular statement into the EIR as an alternative. Ms. Costello said it could probably be incorporated as an explanation since the buildout is the maximum buildout.
MOTION: By Commissioner Lavhern, seconded by Commissioner Collins to direct the staff and the EIR consultant to prepare responses to ea..tssion.
caa.ents and deTelop the final EIR to present to the Planning The aotion carried unaniaoualy.
I
ColllDissioner Lawhern commented about making the Plan work vith the density 74 transfer. Be was concerned about what would happen after density transfer DRAFT
MINUTES
May 19, 1987
1051
57 and the unstable and unbuildable lots. He stated that the Commission should be careful when dealing with density transfer and there should be a 74 system that does not present liability to the City in the future. If there was density transfer and people abandoned their lots and the City ended up with them, there could be a potential monetary problem.
MOTION: By Commissioner Green, seconded by Co11D11issioner Rianda to continue the Public Hearing on the General Plan Amendment for the San Juan Hills Area Plan to June 2. The motion carried unanimously.
DRAFT
MINUTES
May 19, 1987
1052
lsa
APPENDIX
GENERAL PLAN TEXT AMENDENTS
1053
1054
AMENDHENTS TO nrE EXISTING GENERAL PLAN TEXT
I • FiJRPOSE:
To ensure compatibility with the proposed San Juan Hills Area Plan some amendments to the existing City of Belmont General Plan Text vill be necessary. The existing General Plan contains policies for the San Juan Canyon area which would be superseded with the adoption of the proposed Area Plan. While some references to the San Juan area will remain in the General Plan text, the following proposed amendments will eliminate any areas of potential conflict.
II. ANALYSI�:
Areas of potential conflict, overlap, or redundancy are listed below, together with a suggested amendment. Each existing general plan text excerpt is followed by a suggested amendment and a discussion explaining the basis for the proposed change.
A.
B.
types should be limited to single family detached. However, clustering or grouping of dwelling units may be permitted to preserve open space. In no case shall such clustering or grouping result in a higher dwelling unit density than called for by the standards of the land use district."
Suggested amendment: Add: "Areas subject to density transfer in the San Juan area shall not exceed the density allowed by the Sen Juan Hills Area Plan."
Discussjon: Some areas within the San Juan Hills Ares Plan boundaries would be allowed density bonuses under the proposed land use controls. Land areas which are subject to the
specified residential density may also be designated a density receiving site and be allowed additional units beyond the baseline density. Therefore, to avoid confusion concerning the allowed density this amendment would refer readers to the Area Plan for lend use density policies.
scattered residential lots that are smaller than the minimum sizes celled for by the plan if the following conditions have been met:" (a. through i.)
Suggested amendment: Add policy 11. j. to read - "The building site lies outside of the San Juan Hills Area Plan. ".
Discussion: The existing policies for development of scattered resid�ntial lots should continue to apply to areas outside of 1055
c.
D.
The San Juan Hills Area Plan. Since the Area Plan would contain more detailed and specific policies for substandard lots this existing policy should be amended to exclude lots in the San Juan Hills area. The Area Plan would then contain the only general plan policies applicable to substandard lots in the San Juan area.
Pase 2-8, Section 2014: "SAN JUAN CANYON. The San Juan Canyon area contains most of the vacant subdivided lots. Figure 6 shows this .area and the location of groups of vacant lots.
Table 5 lists by street the vacant lots, both standard and sub1standard, in this area. As of 1979, there were a total of 463 vacant lots, 282 of them classified as substandard in area or width. Of the 463 lots, 401 were on unimproved roads. Only 20 of the vacant lots were both standard and on paved roads.
Low density residential development of these lots may proceed only when it has been demonstrated that safe development can take place consistent with the policies of this plan, and that adequate access, utilities, fire service and other essential services are available. In no case will development be approved until it has been demonstrated that buildings and roads will be on geologically stable lands."
Suggested amendment: Amend to read - "SAN JUAN CANYON. The San Juan Canyon area contains most of the City's vacant, subdivided lots. The Area Plan shows this area and the location of vacant lots, improved roads, and potential geologic hazards. Low density residential development in this area may proceed only when it has been demonstrated that safe development can take place consistent with the policies of the Area Plan, and that adequate access, utilities, fire service, and other essential services are available." Table 5 and Figure 6 should also be deleted.
Discussion: The current General Plan references to lot
statistics are obsolete and should be deleted. New data in the Area Plan will replace the deleted data. Information regarding potential geologic hazards is retained in a modified form referencing the requirements of the Area Plan.
residential development may occur on unsubdivided lands in the San Juan Canyon area designated on the General Plan Diagram es Open Space. Consistent with the designation, any development in these areas must be clustered preserving most of the land in open space. Development should occur under planned development provisions of the Zoning Ordinance with density and location of housing units based on thorough evaluation of slope, slope stability, drainage, erosion potential, vegetative cover, 1056
adjacent lend uses end visual impacts. Safe and adequate provision of access and public services must be assured prior to development approval."
Suggested amendment: delete.
Discussion: This descriptive section in the existing General Plan is not needed and would be superseded upon adoption of an area plan for the San Juan area.
E. Page 2-36, section 2078, Policy 2: "San Juan Canvon.
Unsubdivided parcels in the San Juan Canyon area are designated as open space. In general, these areas are without adequate stTeet access and public services. Most of the land is over 30 percent slope and some is geologically unstable. The open spaces are important elements in the natural drainage for the entire San Juan Canyon area. In addition to ·1andslides and erosion hazards, vildfires are a potential hazard in this area.
The plan allows for clustered residential development in these open spaces. Development should be designed to retain a majority of the land in its natural state. In particular, unstable slopes over 30 percent, natural drainage ways, stands of trees, and visually prominent ridge tops should be retained in open space.
"Actions:
"a. \t.'hen fiscally possible, evaluate the larger parcels in the San Juan Canyon area to identify the specific locations to be protected as open space.
"b. Explore means of protecting the most significant open space resources of the Canyon on a permanent basis."
Sug�ested amendment: Replace vith - "San Juan Canyon. The San Juan Hills Area Plan contains provisions for protecting and enhancing private open space through density transfer,
clustering and open space easement policies."
Discussion: This suggested amendment vould update the open space element and reference the Area Plan.
F. Page 2-431 Section 2085. policy 2: "Public sidewalks shall be installed in all new residential developments except in areas where construction of sidewalks would be incompatible with existing development and/or require excessive grading or tree removal. In such cases, adequate roadway shoulders. or
alternative trails and pathways shall be provided to ensure the safety of pedestrians and bikers."
1057
II
"San
I.
J.
investigations by both registered soils engineers and
engineering geologists prior to issuing building permits for any ne.,.· construction unless waived due to current existing information and location. All such reports shall be
independently evaluated, on behalf of the City, for completeness and accuracy.
Sug�ested amendment: Amend the first sentence to read - "The City shall require investigations by both registered soils engineers end engineering geologists prior to issuing building permits for any new construction in areas of suspected geologic and soil instability unless waived due to existing, current information.
Discussion: The city does not now require both a soils and geologic report for all new construction. Both reports are only required in areas of suspected geologic and soil instability.
The proposed amendment (hi�hlighted area above) would make the existing General Plan consistent with current City practice and with the proposed policies for development in the San Juan Hills Area Plan.
Pare 3-36, Table 15:
1982 Revised
General Plan Existing Redevelopment Services
Site Designation Zoningp 2 Area Available
Juan Area low density R-lB
residential, A
open space R-lE"
Sug�ested amendment: replace
designation and existing zoning
Area Plan."
no no
1982 revised General Plan
information vith - "refer to
Discussion: This amendment will eliminate obsolete general plan and zoning designations from the General Plan and refer readers to the Area Plan.
1:sjgpa.txt
1058
1730 N. First Street, Suite 600, San Jose, CA 95112 | 408.467.9100
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Date: January 3, 2022 BKF Job Number: 20126012
Deliver To: Jared Barrilleaux, PE
Department of Public Works
From: Isaac Kontorovsky, PE, QSD/P
Michael LaVelle, PE
Subject: Kraft Residence – Storm Drain Impact Study
The following technical memo summarizes the impact that the proposed Kraft residence will have on the existing storm infrastructure originating at Barclay Way and Monte Cresta Drive.
Existing Conditions
The existing site consists of one lot (APN 043-165-180) totaling ±0.22 acres, located at the dead end of Monte Cresta Drive. Presently, there is no existing storm infrastructure in Monte Cresta Drive north of Barclay Way. All storm water is conveyed via gutter to the nearest existing catch basins located at Barclay & Monte Cresta (DI-4280 & DI-4373, Belmont Sewer & Storm Reference Map – GIS). These two catch basins combine their flows into DI-4376 on the other side of the intersection. See the map in Appendix B to reference all pipe and inlet names.
Proposed Project
As currently designed, the proposed project will capture on-site storm water in a detention system and release it through a force main up to Monte Cresta Ave. The on-site system will house a pump/float that will cycle as the system is filled and drained, limiting the duty cycle and water being sent uphill to the curb. A backup generator is planned to be installed with the house, so the pump will continue to operate in any outage. See Appendix A for proposed discharge rates, which are used later in analyzing pipe capacity.
Storm Drain Analysis
Using Belmont’s Storm Drain Master Plan as a reference, completed by BKF in 2009, an impact analysis of the proposed storm infrastructure has been conducted.
Per the Storm Drain Master Plan, the current flow at I-LD-12-04-03 & I-LD-12-04-02 (DI-4280 & DI4376) is 9.1 cfs (Appendix B), accounting for 8.21 acres of drainage area. Due to topography the receiving inlet for the proposed project, DI-4373, was included in the model for the next lowest downstream inlet (I-LD-07-02). In order to model the existing contribution of DI-4373 into I-LD-12-04- 02 and P-LD-12-04-02 as it occurs outside of the model, a survey of the entire street from the project to 1059
the inlet was performed. The tributary area was analyzed and a cfs value obtained (See Appendix D).
Depth of flow analysis in the gutter was also completed to see if there was concern of overtopping driveways downstream leading the flooding on other lots. It was concluded that the gutter had adequate capacity to convey the additional stormwater.
The existing discharge from surface flows down Monte Cresta was found to be 0.42 cfs. The proposed project will increase the flow by 0.47 cfs, to a total rate of 0.89 cfs entering the system at DI-4373.
Results
The analysis shows that the flow in pipe P-12-04-02 will increase by 0.47 cfs, to a total of 0.89 cfs with the build out of the proposed turn around, future street extension and residence. Taking the existing rate of 9.1 cfs at I-LD-12-04-02, and adding the 0.89 cfs from DI-4373, the total flow in pipe P-12-04-02 is approximately 9.99 cfs.
The existing and proposed flow rates in the pipe have been modeled in Hydraflow. The values used for pipe diameter and Manning’s roughness coefficients will differ from the Master Plan, as the pipes have been slip lined with PVC since the 2009 study, which recommended the improvements. A conservative Manning’s of n=0.011 for PVC was used, as well as the 14” diameter as indicated on the survey. The Master Plan analyzed the section as a 15” RCP with an n=0.024 resulting in a max capacity of 10.1 cfs.
The capacity of the new 14” PVC slip lined pipe running at ¾ full is 16.3 cfs. These conditions have also been analyzed in Hydraflow to serve as a reference. All pipes were analyzed with the 8.3% slope indicated in the Master Plan.
The results show that the proposed project will not have any significant impact on existing infrastructure, and that all facilities would continue to operate within their designed means, the pipe has capacity for approximately 6.31 cfs of additional flow. See Appendix C for Hydraflow analysis.
In the event of a blockage or system failure, stormwater will convey to the nearest downstream inlets, modeled as I-LD-07-02/01 in the master plan. The pipe between these nodes is shown to be operating at 0.4 CFS of its 32.3 CFS capacity, which is adequate to take on all 0.89 cfs that would overflow DI-4373.
Feel free to contact me if you need any additional information or clarification.
Respectfully,
BKF Engineers
Michael LaVelle, PE
Project Engineer
1060
APPENDIX A
1061
Project Location
F=0.85
1062
1063
San Jose Office
1730 N. First Street, Suite 600
San Jose, CA, 95112
Tel 408.467.9100
Project Address: Kraft Residence
BKF Job No: 20166012
Date: 10/16/19
Calcs By: ML
Time of Concentration (Tc): Kerby's Equation = 0.83(L*n*S^-0.5)^0.467 Tc [min]= 10 Estimated Time of Concentration [10 min]
Intensity (I): 10 yr event
I [in/hr] = 2.21 Belmont Storm Drain Master Plan (Local System LD) Intensity Factor (F): From Map Rainfall Runoff Data, San Mateo County F = 0.85
Proposed Area (A):
Roof Area [ft2] = 2,970 C = 0.9 59019
Pervious Area [ft2] = 2,780 C = 0.3 Pervious area uphill of collection system Total Area [ac] = 0.13
Composite Runoff Coefficient (C):
C = 0.61
Proposed Discharge (QP):
Q P 10yr = C * i 10yr * A * F
QP [cfs]= 0.15 Rate of flow into sump pit
Proposed Pump Speed (QPS):
Q PS = C ROOF * i 10yr * A ROOF * F
QPS [cfs]= 0.14 Pump speed set equal to Q from roof area: Rate of discharge to street Detention Volume (V):
V = T D * (Q P-Q PS )* 60sec/min
V [cf]= 9.37 Time to Detain [10 min] - V=Volume of water in sump pit after 10 minutes with pumps active Sump Pit Volume (Vpipe):
Inner Diameter [in] 36
Length [ft] 4 Check Vpipe > V
Vpipe [cf]= 28.27 28.27 > 9.37
Preliminary On-Site Discharge Calculations for 10-year Event Proposed Conditions
1064
San Jose Office
1730 N. First Street, Suite 600
San Jose, CA, 95112
Tel 408.467.9100
Project Address: Kraft Residence - Monte Cresta
BKF Job No: 20166012
Date: 10/10/19
Calcs By: ML
Time of Concentration (Tc): Kerby's Equation = 0.83(L*n*S^-0.5)^0.467 Tc [min]= 10 Estimated Time of Concentration [10 min]
Intensity (I): 25 yr event
I [in/hr] = 2.64 Belmont Storm Drain Master Plan (Local System LD2) Intensity Factor (F): From Map Rainfall Runoff Data, San Mateo County F = 0.85
Proposed Area (A):
Impervious Area [ft2] = 2,970 Roof C=0.90 Collected on-site. See On Site Discharge Calculations Impervious Area [ft2] = 6,580 Road C = 0.90 59019
Pervious Area [ft2] = 1,800 Hillside C = 0.3 71493
Total Area [ac] = 0.26
Composite Runoff Coefficient (C):
C = 0.80
Proposed Discharge (QP):
Q P 25yr= C * I 25 yr * A * F
QP [cfs]= 0.47
Gutter Flow Calculations for 25-year Event
Proposed Off-Site Discharge
1065
APPENDIX B
1066
Figure 6A of the Master Plan
KRAFTRESIDENCE
DOWNSTREAM INLET,PROPOSED STORMCONNECTION, DI-4373
ANALYZED PIPESECTIONP-LD-12-04-02
I-LD-12-04-03(DI-4280)
I-LD-12-04-02(DI-4376)
STORM WATERCONVEYS IN THISGUTTER FROMRESIDENCE SD SD SD SD P-LD-12-04-02 MONTE CRESTA SD
SD
SD
DI-4373
0.89 cfs
(0.42 cfs existing) 9.99 cfs (9.52 cfs existing)
9.1 cfs I-LD-12-04-01
I-LD-12-04-02
P-LD-12-04-03
1067
Node (1) Ground Sump Hydraulic Hydraulic Inlet Lateral Inlet Inlet Cumulative Cumulative Inlet System # Elevation Elevation Grade Line Grade Line Area Area C (6) C*A Area (3) C*A Tc (5) Tc Intensity Discharge (4) (ft) (2) (ft) In (ft) Out (ft) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (minutes) (minutes) (in/hr) (cfs) Laurel Creek Drainage
Mean Annual Precipitation 24"
San Juan Court at Laurel Creek Road
Ponce Avenue
I-LD-22-01 430.00 426.50 427.32 427.32 3.31 0.50 1.66 3.31 1.7 10.0 10.0 2.21 3.7 I-LD-20-02 400.00 394.00 395.51 395.51 19.80 0.50 9.90 19.80 9.9 10.0 10.0 2.21 22.1 I-LD-20-01 387.00 381.00 384.01 383.71 7.61 0.80 6.09 27.41 16.0 10.0 10.3 2.17 35.0 I-LD-18-01 386.90 381.90 382.33 382.33 1.20 0.50 0.60 1.20 0.6 10.0 10.0 2.21 1.3 I-LD-15-03W 469.00 465.00 465.77 465.77 2.06 0.80 1.65 2.06 1.7 10.0 10.0 2.21 3.7 I-LD-15-03E 462.00 459.50 460.22 460.22 0.43 0.50 0.22 0.43 0.2 10.0 10.0 2.21 0.5 I-LD-15-01W 495.10 492.10 492.69 492.69 1.98 0.50 0.99 1.98 1.0 10.0 10.0 2.21 2.2 I-LD-15-01S 486.10 482.85 483.41 483.41 1.12 0.80 0.90 1.12 0.9 10.0 10.0 2.21 2.0 I-LD-15-04 478.00 474.00 474.73 474.73 3.89 0.50 1.95 3.89 2.0 10.0 10.0 2.21 4.3 J-LD-15-03 464.00 459.00 460.20 460.10 0.00 2.49 0.00 0.00 6.38 3.8 0.0 10.9 2.11 8.1 I-LD-15-02 464.00 457.50 458.78 458.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.38 3.8 10.0 11.0 2.11 8.1 J-LD-15-01 385.00 380.00 381.80 381.21 0.00 3.10 0.00 0.00 9.48 5.7 0.0 11.9 2.03 11.6 I-LD-12-07-01 476.50 471.50 476.50 476.50 12.02 0.50 6.01 12.02 6.0 10.0 10.0 2.21 13.4 I-LD-12-05-01 359.00 355.50 357.83 357.83 6.03 0.80 4.82 6.03 4.8 10.0 10.0 2.21 10.7 I-LD-12-04-03 424.00 420.00 422.57 422.57 8.21 0.50 4.11 8.21 4.1 10.0 10.0 2.21 9.1 I-LD-12-04-02 422.00 418.00 419.63 419.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.21 4.1 10.0 10.1 2.20 9.1 I-LD-12-04-01 389.20 384.20 385.64 385.35 0.11 0.50 0.06 8.32 4.2 10.0 10.8 2.12 8.9 I-LD-12-08 476.00 471.50 475.00 475.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.00 0.0 J-LD-12-07 475.00 470.00 478.07 475.00 0.00 12.02 0.00 0.00 12.02 6.0 0.0 10.1 2.20 13.3 I-LD-12-06 469.80 462.50 465.20 463.73 1.70 0.00 0.00 13.72 6.0 10.0 10.2 2.19 13.3 J-LD-12-05 360.00 355.00 356.91 356.72 0.00 6.03 0.00 0.00 19.75 10.8 0.0 10.6 2.15 23.5 J-LD-12-04 370.00 350.00 352.07 351.92 0.00 8.32 0.00 0.00 28.07 15.0 0.0 11.0 2.10 31.8 J-LD-12-03 275.00 269.00 270.99 270.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.07 15.0 0.0 11.4 2.07 31.3 I-LD-12-02 266.00 259.00 260.99 260.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.07 15.0 10.0 11.5 2.06 31.2 I-LD-12-01 265.00 258.00 260.08 259.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.07 15.0 10.0 11.6 2.05 31.0 Marburger Avenue
I-LD-10-05-01-01-01 563.00 559.00 559.24 559.24 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.00 0.0 I-LD-10-05-01-02 576.00 572.00 572.32 572.32 0.68 0.50 0.34 0.68 0.3 10.0 10.0 2.21 0.8 I-LD-10-05-01-01 562.90 558.90 559.24 559.24 9.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.28 0.3 10.0 10.4 2.16 0.7 I-LD-10-05-02 540.00 536.00 536.00 536.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.00 0.0 I-LD-10-05-01 530.00 524.50 525.17 525.13 2.00 10.28 0.50 1.00 12.28 1.3 10.0 12.0 2.02 2.7 I-LD-10-04-03 528.00 524.00 524.90 524.90 4.20 0.50 2.10 4.20 2.1 10.0 10.0 2.21 4.7 I-LD-10-04-02 522.00 519.00 520.27 519.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.20 2.1 10.0 10.0 2.21 4.7 J-LD-10-04-01 480.00 475.00 476.21 475.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.20 2.1 0.0 10.1 2.20 4.7 I-LD-10-03-06E 534.00 530.00 530.68 530.68 1.80 0.80 1.44 1.80 1.4 10.0 10.0 2.21 3.2 I-LD-10-03-05E 531.00 526.00 526.76 526.73 0.40 0.50 0.20 2.20 1.6 10.0 10.1 2.20 3.6 I-LD-10-03-04E 507.00 502.00 502.82 502.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.20 1.6 10.0 10.3 2.18 3.6 I-LD-10-03-03E 504.00 501.25 502.15 502.11 1.26 0.50 0.63 3.46 2.3 10.0 10.4 2.17 5.0 I-LD-10-03-02E 475.00 470.00 471.10 470.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.46 2.3 10.0 10.6 2.15 4.9 J-LD-10-03-01E 400.00 395.00 396.12 395.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.46 2.3 0.0 11.0 2.11 4.8 I-LD-10-03-W 502.60 498.60 499.34 499.34 2.70 0.50 1.35 2.70 1.4 10.0 10.0 2.21 3.0 (1) Nodes are presented in Figure D-LD in Appendix D
(2) ft = feet, in/hr = inches/hour rainfall, cfs = cubic feet per second (3) Cumlative Area = Inlet CA + Lateral Inlet CA
(4) Discharge is from the Rational Method, Q = CIA
(5) Tc = Time of Concentration is assumed to be 10-minutes roof to inlet, unless greater using the Kirpich Method.
Existing Hydrology, 10-Year Event, System LD
CITY OF BELMONT
STORM DRAIN MASTER PLAN
Table D-L2a (page 1 of 2)
BKF ENGINEERS - 3/20/2007 \\RWC-CAD-NT\Data\MAIN\2005\050132\Design\StCadTabs\L-SYSTEM-EXstormCAD10yr-060907.xls 1068
Pipe Upstream Downstream Total Capacity @ Pipe Constructed Pipe Upstream # Node Node Discharge (4) Constructed Size Length Slope Roughness Freeboard (3) Cover Velocity (1) (cfs) (2) Slope (cfs) (inches) (feet) (ft/ft) (Mannings n) Upstream Downstream Upstream Downstream Upstream Downstream (feet) (feet) (ft/s) Laurel Creek DrainageMean Annual Precipitation 24"San Juan Court at Laurel Creek RoadPonce Avenue P-LD-22-01 I-LD-22-01 J-LD-22 3.7 9.6 12 inch 389 0.073 0.013 426.5 398.0 430.0 403.0 427.3 400.1 2.7 2.5 11.5 P-LD-20-02 I-LD-20-02 I-LD-20-01 22.1 142.0 36 inch 287 0.045 0.013 394.0 381.0 400.0 387.0 395.5 384.0 4.5 3.0 14.6P-LD-20-01 I-LD-20-01 J-LD-20 35.0 62.5 36 inch 114 0.009 0.013 381.0 380.0 387.0 389.0 383.7 383.4 3.3 3.0 9.1P-LD-18-01 I-LD-18-01 I-LD-18 1.3 12.9 18 inch 249 0.051 0.024 381.9 369.1 386.9 373.1 382.3 371.5 4.6 3.5 4.7P-LD-15-04 I-LD-15-04 J-LD-15-03 4.3 50.0 24 inch 90 0.167 0.024 474.0 459.0 478.0 464.0 474.7 460.2 3.3 2.0 9.8 P-LD-15-03W I-LD-15-03W J-LD-15-03 3.7 27.2 15 inch 57 0.105 0.010 465.0 459.0 469.0 464.0 465.8 460.2 3.2 2.8 15.5 P-LD-15-03E I-LD-15-03E J-LD-15-03 0.5 2.6 15 inch 91 0.005 0.024 459.5 459.0 462.0 464.0 460.2 460.2 1.8 1.3 1.6 P-LD-15-03 J-LD-15-03 I-LD-15-02 8.1 15.2 18 inch 21 0.071 0.024 459.0 457.5 464.0 464.0 460.1 458.8 3.9 3.5 8.7P-LD-15-02 I-LD-15-02 J-LD-15-01 8.1 20.7 18 inch 586 0.132 0.024 457.5 380.0 464.0 385.0 458.6 381.9 5.4 5.0 11.0 P-LD-15-01W I-LD-15-01W J-LD-15-01 2.2 19.8 15 inch 349 0.321 0.024 492.1 380.0 495.1 385.0 492.7 381.8 2.4 1.8 10.7 P-LD-15-01S I-LD-15-01S J-LD-15-01 2.0 26.4 15 inch 181 0.568 0.024 482.9 380.0 486.1 385.0 483.4 381.9 2.7 2.0 12.7 P-LD-15-01 J-LD-15-01 I-LD-15 11.6 23.4 15 inch 179 0.447 0.024 380.0 300.0 385.0 306.0 381.2 303.3 3.8 3.8 19.0 P-LD-12-07-01 I-LD-12-07-01 J-LD-12-07 13.4 5.7 15 inch 56 0.027 0.024 471.5 470.0 476.5 475.0 483.2 475.0 ABOVE RIM 3.8 10.9 P-LD-12-05-01 I-LD-12-05-01 J-LD-12-05 10.7 8.0 15 inch 33 0.015 0.013 355.5 355.0 359.0 360.0 357.8 356.9 1.2 2.3 8.8 P-LD-12-04-03 I-LD-12-04-03 I-LD-12-04-02 9.1 7.6 15 inch 43 0.047 0.024 420.0 418.0 424.0 422.0 422.6 419.6 1.4 2.8 7.5 P-LD-12-04-02 I-LD-12-04-02 I-LD-12-04-01 9.1 10.1 15 inch 408 0.083 0.024 418.0 384.2 422.0 389.2 419.2 385.6 2.8 2.8 9.3 P-LD-12-04-01 I-LD-12-04-01 J-LD-12-04 8.9 41.0 18 inch 225 0.152 0.013 384.2 350.0 389.2 370.0 385.4 352.1 3.8 3.5 18.5 P-LD-12-08 I-LD-12-08 J-LD-12-07 0.0 6.4 12 inch 46 0.033 0.013 471.5 470.0 476.0 475.0 475.0 475.0 1.0 3.5 0.0P-LD-12-07 J-LD-12-07 I-LD-12-06 13.3 9.6 12 inch 103 0.073 0.013 470.0 462.5 475.0 469.8 479.6 465.2 ABOVE RIM 4.0 17.0 P-LD-12-06 I-LD-12-06 J-LD-12-05 13.3 18.4 15 inch 388 0.277 0.024 462.5 355.0 469.8 360.0 463.7 357.1 6.1 6.1 16.3 P-LD-12-05 J-LD-12-05 J-LD-12-04 23.5 58.4 24 inch 75 0.067 0.013 355.0 350.0 360.0 370.0 356.7 352.3 3.3 3.0 17.6P-LD-12-04 J-LD-12-04 J-LD-12-03 31.8 162.4 30 inch 517 0.157 0.013 350.0 269.0 370.0 275.0 351.9 271.0 18.1 17.5 25.7 P-LD-12-03 J-LD-12-03 I-LD-12-02 31.3 120.4 30 inch 116 0.086 0.013 269.0 259.0 275.0 266.0 270.9 261.0 4.1 3.5 20.6 P-LD-12-02 I-LD-12-02 I-LD-12-01 31.2 41.4 30 inch 98 0.010 0.013 259.0 258.0 266.0 265.0 260.9 260.1 5.1 4.5 9.3P-LD-12-01 I-LD-12-01 I-LD-12 31.0 167.4 30 inch 30 0.167 0.013 258.0 253.0 265.0 263.0 259.9 256.8 5.1 4.5 26.1 Marburger Avenue
P-LD-10-05-01-01-01 I-LD-10-05-01-01-01I-LD-10-05-01-01 0.0 1.4 12 inch 65 0.002 0.013 559.0 558.9 563.0 562.9 559.2 559.2 3.8 3.0 0.0 P-LD-10-05-01-02 I-LD-10-05-01-02 I-LD-10-05-01-01 0.8 28.2 18 inch 182 0.072 0.013 572.0 558.9 576.0 562.9 572.3 559.3 3.7 2.5 6.9P-LD-10-05-01-01 I-LD-10-05-01-01 I-LD-10-05-01 0.7 15.4 15 inch 609 0.056 0.013 558.9 524.5 562.9 530.0 559.2 525.2 3.7 2.8 6.5 P-LD-10-05-02 I-LD-10-05-02 I-LD-10-05-01 0.0 21.4 12 inch 32 0.359 0.013 536.0 524.5 540.0 530.0 536.0 525.2 4.0 3.0 0.0 P-LD-10-05-01 I-LD-10-05-01 J-LD-10-05 2.7 32.1 18 inch 124 0.319 0.024 524.5 485.0 530.0 490.0 525.1 485.8 4.9 4.0 11.1 P-LD-10-04-03 I-LD-10-04-03 I-LD-10-04-02 4.7 13.5 12 inch 35 0.143 0.013 524.0 519.0 528.0 522.0 524.9 520.3 3.1 3.0 15.6 P-LD-10-04-02 I-LD-10-04-02 J-LD-10-04-01 4.7 14.0 12 inch 84 0.524 0.024 519.0 475.0 522.0 480.0 519.9 476.2 2.1 2.0 16.0 P-LD-10-04-01 J-LD-10-04-01 J-LD-10-04 4.7 11.6 12 inch 55 0.364 0.024 475.0 455.0 480.0 460.0 475.9 456.2 4.1 4.0 14.0 P-LD-10-03-W I-LD-10-03-W J-LD-10-03 3.0 22.1 12 inch 401 0.383 0.013 498.6 345.0 502.6 350.0 499.3 346.5 3.3 3.0 19.6 P-LD-10-03-06E I-LD-10-03-06E I-LD-10-03-05E 3.2 29.1 18 inch 52 0.077 0.013 530.0 526.0 534.0 531.0 530.7 526.8 3.3 2.5 10.8P-LD-10-03-05E I-LD-10-03-05E I-LD-10-03-04E 3.6 24.6 18 inch 128 0.188 0.024 526.0 502.0 531.0 507.0 526.7 502.8 4.3 3.5 10.0P-LD-10-03-04E I-LD-10-03-04E I-LD-10-03-03E 3.6 9.3 18 inch 28 0.027 0.024 502.0 501.3 507.0 504.0 502.7 502.2 4.3 3.5 4.9P-LD-10-03-03E I-LD-10-03-03E I-LD-10-03-02E 5.0 27.9 18 inch 130 0.240 0.024 501.3 470.0 504.0 475.0 502.1 471.1 1.9 1.3 11.9P-LD-10-03-02E I-LD-10-03-02E J-LD-10-03-01E 4.9 17.2 15 inch 312 0.240 0.024 470.0 395.0 475.0 400.0 470.9 396.1 4.1 3.8 12.1P-LD-10-03-01E J-LD-10-03-01E J-LD-10-03 4.8 20.8 15 inch 141 0.355 0.024 395.0 345.0 400.0 350.0 395.9 346.5 4.1 3.8 13.8 (1) Pipes are presented in Figure 2 and Figure D-LA-LC in Appendix D(2) ft = feet, cfs = cubic feet per second, ft/s = feet per second(3) Freeboard is HGL (Hydraulic Grade Line) below Rim of Inlet(4) Discharge is from the Rational Method, Q = CIA Elevation Elevation
Invert Ground/Rim
Elevation
HGL
CITY OF BELMONT
STORM DRAIN MASTER PLAN
Table D-L2b (page 1 of 2)
Existing Hydraulics, 10-Year Event, Systems LD
BKF ENGINEERS - 3/20/2007 \\RWC-CAD-NT\Data\MAIN\2005\050132\Design\StCadTabs\L-SYSTEM-EXstormCAD10yr-060907.xls 1069
APPENDIX C
1070
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Wednesday, Nov 17 2021 EXISTING FLOW IN P-LD-12-04-02
Circular
Diameter (ft) = 1.16
Invert Elev (ft) = 63.41
Slope (%) = 8.30
N-Value = 0.011
Calculations
Compute by: Known Q
Known Q (cfs) = 9.10
Highlighted
Depth (ft) = 0.59
Q (cfs) = 9.100
Area (sqft) = 0.54
Velocity (ft/s) = 16.81
Wetted Perim (ft) = 1.84
Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 1.12
Top Width (ft) = 1.16
EGL (ft) = 4.98
0 1 2 3
Elev (ft) Section
62.50 63.00
63.50 64.00
64.50 65.00
Reach (ft) 1071
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Wednesday, Nov 17 2021 PROPOSED FLOW IN P-LD-12-04-02
Circular
Diameter (ft) = 1.16
Invert Elev (ft) = 63.41
Slope (%) = 8.30
N-Value = 0.011
Calculations
Compute by: Known Q
Known Q (cfs) = 9.99
Highlighted
Depth (ft) = 0.62
Q (cfs) = 9.990
Area (sqft) = 0.57
Velocity (ft/s) = 17.38
Wetted Perim (ft) = 1.90
Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 1.13
Top Width (ft) = 1.16
EGL (ft) = 5.31
0 1 2 3
Elev (ft) Section
62.50 63.00
63.50 64.00
64.50 65.00
Reach (ft) 1072
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Wednesday, Nov 17 2021 MASTER PLAN MAX FLOW P-LD-12-04-02 (15 in. RCP)
Circular
Diameter (ft) = 1.25
Invert Elev (ft) = 63.41
Slope (%) = 8.30
N-Value = 0.024
Calculations
Compute by: Known Q
Known Q (cfs) = 10.10
Highlighted
Depth (ft) = 1.03
Q (cfs) = 10.10
Area (sqft) = 1.08
Velocity (ft/s) = 9.32
Wetted Perim (ft) = 2.85
Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 1.19
Top Width (ft) = 0.95
EGL (ft) = 2.38
0 1 2 3
Elev (ft) Section
62.50 63.00
63.50 64.00
64.50 65.00
Reach (ft) 1073
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Wednesday, Nov 17 2021 3/4 FULL FLOW P-LD-12-04-02 (14 in. PVC)
Circular
Diameter (ft) = 1.16
Invert Elev (ft) = 63.41
Slope (%) = 8.30
N-Value = 0.011
Calculations
Compute by: Known Q
Known Q (cfs) = 16.30
Highlighted
Depth (ft) = 0.87
Q (cfs) = 16.30
Area (sqft) = 0.85
Velocity (ft/s) = 19.16
Wetted Perim (ft) = 2.43
Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 1.16
Top Width (ft) = 1.00
EGL (ft) = 6.58
0 1 2 3
Elev (ft) Section
62.50 63.00
63.50 64.00
64.50 65.00
Reach (ft) 1074
APPENDIX D
1075
Kraft Residence - Gutter Analysis
November 8, 2021
Driveway 1 Driveway 2 Driveway 3 Driveway 4 Driveway 5 Driveway 6Driveway 7 CALCULATIONS INCLUDE THE SEGMENT OF ROADWAY TRIBUTARY TO THE DRIVEWAY BEING ANALYZED.
Existing cfs to DI-4373
Calculations DI-4373
1076
Driveway Grade
break 2.82" above
flow line. Flow
depth at curb 1.7"
3.9%
3.0%
DRIVEWAY 1 1.3%
FROM OFFSITE
DISCHARGE CALCS
TRIBUTARY AREA
TO DRIVEWAY:
0.29 ACRES
This number is the
0.47 cfs from the
sump pump + offsite
cfs rounded up to
0.50 cfs
1077
Driveway Grade
break 2.82" above
flow line. Flow
depth at curb 2.00" 3.5% 4.0% DRIVEWAY 2 1.0%
FROM OFFSITE
DISCHARGE CALCS
TRIBUTARY AREA
TO DRIVEWAY:
0.38 ACRES 1078
Driveway Grade
break 2.82" above
flow line. Flow
depth at curb 1.87" 3.9% 3.9% DRIVEWAY 3 1.7%
FROM OFFSITE
DISCHARGE CALCS
TRIBUTARY AREA
TO DRIVEWAY:
0.41 ACRES 1079
Driveway Grade
break 2.82" above
flow line. Flow
depth at curb 1.8"
4.5% 4.0% DRIVEWAY 4 2.3%
FROM OFFSITE
DISCHARGE CALCS
TRIBUTARY AREA
TO DRIVEWAY:
0.41 ACRES 1080
Driveway Grade
break 3.6" above
flow line. Flow
depth at curb 1.87" 3.6% 4.3% DRIVEWAY 5 2.0%
FROM OFFSITE
DISCHARGE CALCS
TRIBUTARY AREA
TO DRIVEWAY:
0.43 ACRES 1081
Driveway Grade
break 2.82" above
flow line. Flow
depth at curb 2.08" 3.1%
3.7%
DRIVEWAY 6
1.1%
FROM OFFSITE
DISCHARGE CALCS
TRIBUTARY AREA
TO DRIVEWAY:
0.44 ACRES 1082
Flow line 5.5"
below top of rolled
curb. Depth of flow
1.42". 0.7%
3.1%
DEEP ROLLED
CURB FLOWLINE
DEEP ROLLED
CURB FLOWLINE
PIPE IN
FLOWLINE DRIVEWAY 7
12.4%
FROM OFFSITE
DISCHARGE CALCS
TRIBUTARY AREA
TO DRIVEWAY:
0.47 ACRES
This number (0.89)
minus the 0.47 cfs
from the sump pump
+ propsed offsite is
where the existing
flow of 0.42 cfs into
DI-4373 comes from
84.88 TBRC
84.66 LG
84.88 TBRC
-84.66 LG
00.22 = 2.65in
82.58 LG
82.89 TBRC
82.89 TBRC
-82.58 LG
00.31 = 3.72 in
Depth of 25-yr flow does not exceed the depth of the curb or the height delta between the lip and top of curb. Flows will convey around the driveway ramp into the street. 1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
© 2017 Simple Concept Inc. | BONE Structure® est une marque déposée de Simple Concept Inc. et est utilisée sous licence exclusive par Simple Concept Inc. Tous droits réservés. © 2017 Simple Concept Inc. | BONE Structure® is a registered trademark of Simple Concept Inc. and is used under exclusive licence by Simple Concept Inc. All rights reserved.
PERMIT PLANS
THE FOLLOWING PLANS, PROVIDED BY BONE STRUCTURE, ARE FOR INFORMATIONREGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT BY A LICENSED DEALER. BONESTRUCTURE IS THE SUPPLIER OF A STRUCTURAL SYSTEM THAT INCLUDES THEANCHORS NECESSARY FOR THE EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR FINISHING. ALL OTHERSYSTEMS ARE SHOWN ONLY FOR UNDERSTANDING AND ARE UNDER THERESPONSIBILITY OF THE BUILDER.
DATE :
* THESE PLANS ARE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. 16-754 KRAFT RESIDENCE 2018/05/29
A. 000 Title Page & Sheet ListA. 001 3D ViewsA. 100 Site planA. 102 Basement planA. 103 Main Floor PlanA. 104 Upper Floor PlanA. 105 Roof planA. 200 South ElevationA. 201 North ElevationA. 202 East ElevationA. 203 West ElevationA. 204 Prescribed ArticulationA. 300 Cross SectionsA. 301 Longitudinal section NOTE: THE ENTIRE DWELLING WILL BEFITTED WITH A FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMAND THE PLAN WILL BE A DEFERREDSUBMITTAL.
SCOPE OF WORK: NEW 2 STORY FAMILY DWELLING (3 299.38 sq.ft.) ATTACHED GARAGE (561.59 sq.ft.)A RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM ISREQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NFPA 13DAND STATE AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS.
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: V-BCONDITIONED SPACE AREA: 2737.43 sq.ftOCCUPANCY: R-3UADDRESS: 0 Monte Cresta, Belmont, CA 94002APN NUMBER: APN-043-165-180
ARCHITECTURAL PLANS PROJECT INFORMATION
3D VIEW - SOUTH-WEST
1095
REVISION
SCALEDATECHECK BY
DRAWING TITLE DRAWN BY
PROJECT
Simple Concept
2812 JOSEPH-A. BOMBARDIER, LAVAL, QC, CA H7P 6E2
T.:450.978.0602 FAX.:450.978.4917
© 2017 Simple Concept Inc. | BONE Structure® est une marque déposée de Simple Concept Inc. et est utilisée sous licence exclusive par Simple Concept Inc. Tous droits réservés. © 2017 Simple Concept Inc. | BONE Structure® is a registered trademark of Simple Concept Inc. and is used under exclusive licence by Simple Concept Inc. All rights reserved. PAGE SCEAU THESE PLANS, PROVIDED BY BONE STRUCTURE, ARE FORINFORMATION ONLY REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THEPROJECT BY AN AUTHORIZED DEALER. BONE STRUCTURE IS THESUPPLIER OF A STRUCTURAL SYSTEM THAT INCLUDES THEANCHORS REQUIRED FOR INDOOR AND OUTDOOR FINISH. OTHERBUILDING SYSTEMS ARE LISTED AND SHOWN FOR INFORMATIONALPURPOSES AND ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE MANUFACTURER. * THESE PLANS ARE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.
A. 001
2018/05/29
F.S.
IB
3D Views
16-754
KRAFT RESIDENCE
0 Monte Cresta,
Belmont, CA 94002
DATE REVISION BY NO.
3D VIEW - SOUTH 3D VIEW - SOUTH-EAST
3D VIEW - WEST 3D VIEW - NORTH-WEST
3D VIEW - NORTH-EAST 3D VIEW - EAST
1096
Zoning and Site Restrictions Notes
New single Family Dwelling
Lot area• Building height• Front yard setback 15'-0"• Side yard setback• Side yard setback• Rear yard setback 18'-3 7/8"
Municipality and Project Information
• Project type and description• Municipality Belmont, California• Occupancy group R-3USetbacks 7'-0" 7'-2 5/8"
7'-0" 7'-8 3/4"
15'-0" 50'-9 1/4"
28'-0" 28'-0"
• Total lot area 9729 sq.ft• Lotcoverage
NA (20.11%) 1956.74sq.ft
• Building depth NA - • Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) NA• Gross floor area
1.69 3 300.00 sq.ft
Permitted (ft/m) Proposed (ft/m)
Basement 1031.79 sq.ft
Main floor 1445.00 sq.ft
Upper floor 822.59 sq.ft
Conditioned floor area 2737.43 sq.ft
Garage 561.59 sq.ft
Excluded 370.94 sq.ft
Total 3299.38 sq.ft
3 299.38 sq.ft
CANOPY ABOVE
CANOPY ABOVE
CANOPY ABOVE
PROPOSED SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING
ROOF PEAK LEVEL: 110.13FIRST FLOOR LEVEL: 98.80GARAGE SLAB LEVEL: 98.47MAIN FLOOR LEVEL: 81.20BASEMENT SLAB LEVEL: 70.20
DRIVEWAY CONCRETE/STEEL
94.05'
94' - 0 5/8"
120 9. 8'
120' - 11 3 4/ "
18.90'
18' - 10 3/4"
SUGGESTED LOCATION OF RETAINING WALL SEEEAST ELEVATIONTOW 79.85BOW 76.35WALL HEIGHT 3'-6"
24.08'
24' - 1"
80.92'
98.80'
FFE @ T.O. GARAGE SLAB
80.13 9
'
8.80'
82.30'
98.80'
8%
FRONT YARD SETBACK
18' - 3 7 8/ "
REAR YARD SETBACK
50' - 9"
SIDE YARD SETBACK
7' - 8 1/2"
SIDE YARD
SETBACK
7' - 2 5/8"
SUGGESTED LOCATION OF RETAINING WALL SEEEAST ELEVATIONTOW 74.57BOW 71.07WALL HEIGHT 3'-6"SUGGESTED LOCATION OF RETAINING WALL SEEEAST ELEVATIONTOW 70.92BOW 67.42WALL HEIGHT 3'-6" SUGGESTED LOCATION OF RETAINING WALL SEEEAST ELEVATIONTOW 67.08BOW 63.58WALL HEIGHT 3'-6" SUGGESTED LOCATION OF RETAINING WALL SEEEAST ELEVATIONTOW 63.25BOW 60.25.35WALL HEIGHT 3'-0" SUGGESTED LOCATION OF RETAINING WALLTOW 101.05BOW 98.5WALL HEIGHT 5'-0" Slope: 1%
SUGGESTED LOCATION OF RETAINING WALL SEEWEST ELEVATIONTOW 70.50BOW 67.50WALL HEIGHT 3'-0"
64.12'
64.12'
82.53 82.53'
SUGGESTED LOCATION OF RETAINING WALL SEEWEST ELEVATIONTOW 75.00BOW 72.00WALL HEIGHT 3'-0" SUGGESTED LOCATION OF RETAINING WALLSEE WEST ELEVATIONTOW 79.95BOW 76.95WALL HEIGHT 3'-0" 43 R
2-' "
" 8-' 2
5 R
43.132
FOR SEPTIC TANKPLACEMENT, REFER TOCIVIL PLANS
SETBACK AVERAGING ANALYSIS
LEFT SETBACK: 15% * 46.67ft = 7'RIGHT SETBACK: 15% * 46.67ft = 7'FRONT SETBACK: = 15'REAR SETBACK: = 15'
REVISIONSCALEDATECHECK BY
DRAWING TITLE DRAWN BY
PROJECT
Simple Concept
2812 JOSEPH-A. BOMBARDIER, LAVAL, QC, CA H7P 6E2
T.:450.978.0602 FAX.:450.978.4917
© 2017 Simple Concept Inc. | BONE Structure® est une marque déposée de Simple Concept Inc. et est utilisée sous licence exclusive par Simple Concept Inc. Tous droits réservés. © 2017 Simple Concept Inc. | BONE Structure® is a registered trademark of Simple Concept Inc. and is used under exclusive licence by Simple Concept Inc. All rights reserved. PAGE SCEAU THESE PLANS, PROVIDED BY BONE STRUCTURE, ARE FORINFORMATION ONLY REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THEPROJECT BY AN AUTHORIZED DEALER. BONE STRUCTURE IS THESUPPLIER OF A STRUCTURAL SYSTEM THAT INCLUDES THEANCHORS REQUIRED FOR INDOOR AND OUTDOOR FINISH. OTHERBUILDING SYSTEMS ARE LISTED AND SHOWN FOR INFORMATIONALPURPOSES AND ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE MANUFACTURER. * THESE PLANS ARE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.
1 As indicated
A. 100
2018/05/29
F.S.
C.K.
Site plan
16-754
KRAFT RESIDENCE
0 Monte Cresta,
Belmont, CA 94002
DATE REVISION BY NO.
2018-05-29 Submitted for planning review MK 1
* The proposed building is located within a High or VeryHigh Fire Hazard Severity Zone, requiring designcompliance with the California Building Code Chapter 7-A. 24'' TREE TO BE REMOVED
16'' TREE
8'' TREE
2%
FL
99.65 FL
99.35 FL
99.25 FL 100.01
1097
UP
19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
4321
2346759
1012
2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6"
F G J K
1 A1 B C D E
A. 300 A. 300
A. 300 A. 300
A. 301A. 301
A. 301A. 301
SECTION 1 SECTION 1
SECTION 2 SECTION 2
SECTION 3
SECTION 4
A I J1
8 1113
14' - 3 3/8" 5' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 4' - 3 1/2" 4' - 10" 9' - 8 3/8" UNEXCAVATED AREA 2' - 6 1/2" 7' - 5 1/2" 41' - 5"
16' - 5" 14' - 11 1/4" 14' - 11 3/4"
7' - 11 3/4" 7' - 0" 8' - 0" 6' - 11 1/4" 4' - 5 3/8" 3' - 9" 8' - 2 5/8" 9' - 1" 4' - 7" 15' - 8 5/8"
SECTION 3
SECTION 4
23' - 9 7/8" 7' - 5 1/2" 15' - 0 1/2" 2' - 3 1/8" 5' - 1" BEDROOM 1 2.1 3.1
10.1 8.1
B1 C1 D1 F1 G1 H1
BR
BR
BR
BR
BR
BR
BR
28" X 80"
BONE STAIRSTREAD DEPTH: 10"TREAD WIDTH: 3'-6"RISER HEIGHT: 7 3/4" W
F
TET
TT
T
T
T
6.1 W4 F1
W4
W3 W2
W3
F1
EXTERIOR STAIRS NOT SUPPLIEDBY BONE STRUCTURE
F3
PROVIDE GYPSUM BOARD ON THE WALLAND CEILING OF ALL ENCLOSED SPACESUNDER THE INTERIOR STAIRS.
Hr
Hr
DOOR THRESHOLD 1/2" FROM SLAB
E
12.5 12' - 0 3/8" 1' - 4" 9' - 11 3/8" 7' - 7 1/2" 9' - 5 5/8" 46' - 4" 6' - 8 1/4"
32" X 80"
46' - 3 7/8"
29' - 11"
14' - 7 1/2" 14' - 7 1/2"
24' - 2 7/8" 7' - 11 1/2" 7' - 5 5/8" 12' - 5 3/4"
52' - 1 7/8"
ELEVATOREXIT
BEDROOM 2
ELEVATOR
ELEVATOR CONTROL PANEL
5' - 0" 1' - 6 3/8" 12' - 9" UNEXCAVATED AREA
4' - 10" 10' - 5 1/2" 6' - 8 7/8"
5' - 0" 4' - 10 3/8" 7 1/8"
4' - 7 1/2" 10' - 0"
1' - 10 5/8"
BR
BR
ENTRANCE HALL
32" X 80"
R308.4
R308.4R308.4
R308.4R308.4
R308.4 R308.4
DIFFERENCE IN LEVEL 2"
48" X 80"
32" X 80"
DB
2' - 8"
BEDROOM 3
14' - 9 1/2" 12' - 2 3/8"
19' - 5 7/8"
22' - 0 3/8"
15' - 0 1/2" 7' - 5 1/2" 23' - 9 7/8"
43 1/2" X 24" 53 1/2" X 24"
53 1/2" X 88" 23 1/2" X 88"
103 1/2" X 24"
23 1/2" X 72"
W
W/D
F
28" X 80"
4' - 10" 3' - 11 3/4" 13' - 1 3/4"
53 1/2" X 24"
E
T
R308.4
W
S
BR
LEGEND:
BRACINGWALL SWITCH R303.7.1LIGHT FIXTURE ABOVE STAIR LANDING R303.7WALL MOUNTED FIXTURESMOKE ALARM PER R314.3Interconnected and equipped with a battery backup per R314.4 and R314.5Dual sensor photoelectric/ionization smoke alarms are required in all areas/roomsused for sleeping, in the immediate vicinity outside these areas/rooms and at boththe top and bottom landing of the interior staircase.Smoke alarms installed within 20 ft. of a kitchen, bathroom, or room containing afireplace or wood burning stove shall be of the photoelectric type.CARBON MONOXIDE PER R315.1Interconnected and equipped with a battery backup per R315.1.2 and R315.1.3Carbon monoxide alarms shall receive their primary power from the building wiring,be equipped with battery back-up and be interconnected in such a manner that theactivation of one alarm will activate all smoke and carbon monoxide alarms.FLOOR DRAINFor placement of smoke alarms and carbon monoxide alarms in rooms withvariations in ceiling height (sloped, pitched, etc.), refer to the manufacturersguidelines for proper placement. 4TF EXHAUST FAN PER CAL4.506.1
Energy star compliant, humidity control may be a seperate component to the exhaust fan.Not functioning as a component of a whole house ventilation system.Fully tempered glass that can withstand a human impact load.Complying with test CPSC 16 CFR 1201 (R308.4)Considered as hazardous location.Opening-control device. Restricted to 100mmConforming with ASTM F2090 NOTE:
The whole house has to be mechanically ventilated with a systeminstalled in accordance with the California Mechanical Code.* The proposed building is located within a High or Very High Fire HazardSeverity Zone, requiring design compliance with the California Building CodeChapter 7-A.* Glazing of all exterior doors and windows to be tempered glass.Interior doors to be solid core min. 1-3/8" thick or 20 minute rated.
HandrailsMin. 34", max. 38" high per R312.1.2. Continuous glazing in guards must be tempered per R308.4Guardrails42" high guard per R312.1.2Means of Egress Hr
GE
REVISIONSCALEDATECHECK BY
DRAWING TITLE DRAWN BY
PROJECT
Simple Concept
2812 JOSEPH-A. BOMBARDIER, LAVAL, QC, CA H7P 6E2
T.:450.978.0602 FAX.:450.978.4917
© 2017 Simple Concept Inc. | BONE Structure® est une marque déposée de Simple Concept Inc. et est utilisée sous licence exclusive par Simple Concept Inc. Tous droits réservés. © 2017 Simple Concept Inc. | BONE Structure® is a registered trademark of Simple Concept Inc. and is used under exclusive licence by Simple Concept Inc. All rights reserved. PAGE SCEAU THESE PLANS, PROVIDED BY BONE STRUCTURE, ARE FORINFORMATION ONLY REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THEPROJECT BY AN AUTHORIZED DEALER. BONE STRUCTURE IS THESUPPLIER OF A STRUCTURAL SYSTEM THAT INCLUDES THEANCHORS REQUIRED FOR INDOOR AND OUTDOOR FINISH. OTHERBUILDING SYSTEMS ARE LISTED AND SHOWN FOR INFORMATIONALPURPOSES AND ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE MANUFACTURER. * THESE PLANS ARE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.
1 As indicated
A. 102
2018/05/29
BONE Structure
JZ
Basement plan
16-754
KRAFT RESIDENCE
0 Monte Cresta,
Belmont, CA 94002
DATE REVISION BY NO.
2018-05-29 Submitted for planning review MK 1
1/4" = 1'-0"
Basement plan 1 027.38 sq.ft
3 1098
DN
UP
UP
14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
2346759
1012
F G J K
1 E
D
A1 B C
A. 300 A. 300
A. 300 A. 300
A. 301A. 301
A. 301A. 301
A I J1
8 1113
2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 5' - 0" TERRACE W/D
TERRACE
6' - 7 7/8" 4' - 8 5/8" 3' - 3 3/8" 7' - 3 3/4" 14' - 8 1/2"6' - 7 7/8" 3' - 5 3/8" 7' - 9 1/8" 4' - 1 1/4" 14' - 8 3/8" 7' - 1 7/8" 6' - 8" 1' - 6 1/2"
23' - 9" 7' - 6" 15' - 0 1/8" 2' - 6 1/4"
48' - 9 1/8" 7/8"
2' - 6" 19' - 11 5/8" 16' - 3 3/4"
3' - 1 7/8" 5' - 0" 8' - 1 7/8"
10' - 7 5/8" 7' - 6" 5' - 0" 12' - 7 5/8"
38' - 9 3/8" 4' - 10 1/4"
4' - 4 1/2" 3' - 9" 8' - 9" 20' - 0" 1' - 10 7/8"
SLAB ON GRADE
BONE FLOOR
SECTION 1
SECTION 1
SECTION 2 SECTION 2
SECTION 3
SECTION 4
SECTION 3
SECTION 4
BEDROOM 4 MASTER BATH
MASTER
BEDROOM
POWDER
ROOM
ENSUITE
HALL
GREAT ROOM
KITCHEN
PANTRY
2.13.1 10.1
8.1 B1 C1 D1 F1 G1 H1
30" X 80"
36" X 80"
36" X 80"
60" X 84"
72" X 84"
36" X 80"
BR BR
BRBR
BR
BR
BR
BR
BR BR
BR
BR
4' - 11 7/8" 15' - 0 1/8" 4' - 8 3/8" 6' - 6 3/8" 5' - 5 1/8" 7' - 9" 6' - 11 1/2" 3' - 6" 3' - 9 5/8" 2' - 4 1/4" 12' - 6 5/8" WW
F
F
F
T
E
TTTT
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
6.1 CANOPY ABOVE
CANOPY ABOVE
CANOPY ABOVE CANOPY
W3
F1
F1
F1
W2
W5
W1W1
W3
W1
T
WALK - IN
F3
F1
STORAGE
PROVIDE GYPSUM BOARD ON THE WALLAND CEILING OF ALL ENCLOSED SPACESUNDER THE INTERIOR STAIRS.
Hr
Hr
G
DOOR THRESHOLD 5 1/2" FROM
FINISHED FLOOR
DOOR THRESHOLD 5 1/2" FROM
FINISHED FLOOR
2* 2" SOLAR HOT WATERPIPES DIRECT TO ROOF
RADON VENT PIPE(IF APPLICABLE)
G
8' - 6" 6' - 6 1/4"
3' - 6"
12.5 4' - 4 3/4"
CEILING 6'-5 1/2"
ELEVATOR
EXIT
ELEVATOR
COOKING DEVICE
38' - 9 3/8"
24' - 8 3/8" 19' - 8 3/8" 11' - 11 1/2" 14' - 8 3/8" 26' - 7 7/8" 13' - 7 1/2"
11' - 4 3/8" 10' - 7 1/8" 14' - 8 3/8"
G
G
G
G
5' - 0"
5' - 0" 1' - 6 3/8"
F
R308.4 R308.4 R308.4
R308.4R308.4R308.4R308.4R308.4
R308.4 R308.4
R308.4 R308.4 R308.4
23 1/2" X 88" 53 1/2" X 88" 23 1/2" X 88"
113 1/2" X 96"
53 1/2" X 88" 53 1/2" X 48" 53 1/2" X 48" 53 1/2" X 48" 53 1/2" X 48" 53 1/2" X 48" 53 1/2" X 48"
53 1/2" X 48" 48 1/2" X 48"
24" X 48" 24" X 48"
EXTERIOR TANKLESS WATER-HEATER
W
S
BR
LEGEND:
BRACINGWALL SWITCH R303.7.1LIGHT FIXTURE ABOVE STAIR LANDING R303.7WALL MOUNTED FIXTURESMOKE ALARM PER R314.3Interconnected and equipped with a battery backup per R314.4 and R314.5Dual sensor photoelectric/ionization smoke alarms are required in all areas/roomsused for sleeping, in the immediate vicinity outside these areas/rooms and at boththe top and bottom landing of the interior staircase.Smoke alarms installed within 20 ft. of a kitchen, bathroom, or room containing afireplace or wood burning stove shall be of the photoelectric type.CARBON MONOXIDE PER R315.1Interconnected and equipped with a battery backup per R315.1.2 and R315.1.3Carbon monoxide alarms shall receive their primary power from the building wiring,be equipped with battery back-up and be interconnected in such a manner that theactivation of one alarm will activate all smoke and carbon monoxide alarms.FLOOR DRAINFor placement of smoke alarms and carbon monoxide alarms in rooms withvariations in ceiling height (sloped, pitched, etc.), refer to the manufacturersguidelines for proper placement. 4TF EXHAUST FAN PER CAL4.506.1
Energy star compliant, humidity control may be a seperate component to the exhaust fan.Not functioning as a component of a whole house ventilation system.Fully tempered glass that can withstand a human impact load.Complying with test CPSC 16 CFR 1201 (R308.4)Considered as hazardous location.Opening-control device. Restricted to 100mmConforming with ASTM F2090 NOTE:The whole house has to be mechanically ventilated with a systeminstalled in accordance with the California Mechanical Code.* The proposed building is located within a High or Very High Fire HazardSeverity Zone, requiring design compliance with the California Building CodeChapter 7-A.* Glazing of all exterior doors and windows to be tempered glass.Interior doors to be solid core min. 1-3/8" thick or 20 minute rated.
HandrailsMin. 34", max. 38" high per R312.1.2. Continuous glazing in guards must be tempered per R308.4Guardrails42" high guard per R312.1.2Means of Egress Hr
GE
REVISIONSCALEDATECHECK BY
DRAWING TITLE DRAWN BY
PROJECT
Simple Concept
2812 JOSEPH-A. BOMBARDIER, LAVAL, QC, CA H7P 6E2
T.:450.978.0602 FAX.:450.978.4917
© 2017 Simple Concept Inc. | BONE Structure® est une marque déposée de Simple Concept Inc. et est utilisée sous licence exclusive par Simple Concept Inc. Tous droits réservés. © 2017 Simple Concept Inc. | BONE Structure® is a registered trademark of Simple Concept Inc. and is used under exclusive licence by Simple Concept Inc. All rights reserved. PAGE SCEAU THESE PLANS, PROVIDED BY BONE STRUCTURE, ARE FORINFORMATION ONLY REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THEPROJECT BY AN AUTHORIZED DEALER. BONE STRUCTURE IS THESUPPLIER OF A STRUCTURAL SYSTEM THAT INCLUDES THEANCHORS REQUIRED FOR INDOOR AND OUTDOOR FINISH. OTHERBUILDING SYSTEMS ARE LISTED AND SHOWN FOR INFORMATIONALPURPOSES AND ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE MANUFACTURER. * THESE PLANS ARE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.
1 As indicated
A. 103
2018/05/29
BONE Structure
JZ
Main Floor Plan
16-754
KRAFT RESIDENCE
0 Monte Cresta,
Belmont, CA 94002
DATE REVISION BY NO.
2018-05-29 Submitted for planning review MK 1
1/4" = 1'-0"
Main Floor Plan 1 673.35 sq.ft 1
1099
DN
DN
13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
2346759
1012
2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 5' - 0"
F G J K
1 A1 B C D E
2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 2' - 6" 5' - 0" A. 300 A. 300
A. 300 A. 300
A. 301A. 301
A. 301A. 301
A I J1
8 1113
WET BAR
TERRACE
53 1/2" X 82 3/4"
23 1/2" X 95 3/4"
18 1/2" X 88" 53 1/2" X 88"
192" X 84"
36" X 80"
21' - 10 3/4"
20'-0" x 10'-0"20'-0" x 10'-0"
23' - 10 3/4" 7' - 5 1/2" 12' - 6 3/4" 4' - 11 1/4"
48' - 10 1/4"
11' - 11 3/8" 11' - 11 3/8" 9 1/8" 3' - 6 1/2" 3' - 1 7/8" 2' - 5 3/4" 3' - 1 1/2" 6' - 11 5/8" 2' - 6 1/2" 7' - 5 1/4" 12' - 6 3/4" 1' - 3 3/4" 15' - 0" 12' - 6" 51' - 4 1/4"
4' - 5 3/8" 19' - 5 3/8"
23' - 10 3/4"
33' - 4 7/8" 7' - 3 1/2" 8' - 1 5/8" SECTION 1 SECTION 1 SECTION 2 SECTION 2 SECTION 3
SECTION 4
SECTION 3
SECTION 4
FORMAL
LIVING
2 CAR
GARAGE
2.13.1 10.1
8.1 B1 C1 D1 F1 G1 H1
48' - 10"
BR
BR BR
BR BR
BR
BRBR
BR BR
22' - 0 3/8" 19' - 10 3/8" 19' - 4 3/4" 5' - 0" BONE STAIRS TREAD DEPTH: 10 35/128" TREAD WIDTH: 3'-5 107/256" RISER HEIGHT: 7 93/256" W
W
TE
T
E
TT
T
TT
T
6.1 CANOPY ABOVE
CANOPY ABOVE
CANOPY ABOVE CANOPY
W4
W5
W4
W1
W2
W2
W6
W6
W2
1%
Hr
G
G
G
G
G
3' - 0"
20 MIN RATED, SELF CLOSING, SELF
LATCHING DEVICE PER R302.51
DOOR THRESHOLD 1/4" FROMFINISHED FLOOR
DOOR THRESHOLD 5 1/2" FROM
FINISHED FLOOR
12.5 3 1/4"
Hr
ELEVATOR
22' - 2 3/8" 4' - 8 3/8"
9' - 4 3/4"
7' - 4 3/8" 12' - 6"
11' - 10 3/4"
R308.4
R308.4
R308.4
R308.4
R308.4
R308.4R308.4R308.4
DIFFERENCE IN LEVEL 2"
BR
W
23 1/2" X 72"
108 1/2" X 82 3/4"
53 1/2" X 82 3/4"
38 3/8" X 95 3/4"
42" X 82 3/4"
ELEVATOREXIT
4' - 8 3/8" 4' - 8 3/8"
48 1/2" X 72"
48 1/2" X 72"
W
S
BR
LEGEND:
BRACINGWALL SWITCH R303.7.1LIGHT FIXTURE ABOVE STAIR LANDING R303.7WALL MOUNTED FIXTURESMOKE ALARM PER R314.3Interconnected and equipped with a battery backup per R314.4 and R314.5Dual sensor photoelectric/ionization smoke alarms are required in all areas/roomsused for sleeping, in the immediate vicinity outside these areas/rooms and at boththe top and bottom landing of the interior staircase.Smoke alarms installed within 20 ft. of a kitchen, bathroom, or room containing afireplace or wood burning stove shall be of the photoelectric type.CARBON MONOXIDE PER R315.1Interconnected and equipped with a battery backup per R315.1.2 and R315.1.3Carbon monoxide alarms shall receive their primary power from the building wiring,be equipped with battery back-up and be interconnected in such a manner that theactivation of one alarm will activate all smoke and carbon monoxide alarms.FLOOR DRAINFor placement of smoke alarms and carbon monoxide alarms in rooms withvariations in ceiling height (sloped, pitched, etc.), refer to the manufacturersguidelines for proper placement. 4TF EXHAUST FAN PER CAL4.506.1
Energy star compliant, humidity control may be a seperate component to the exhaust fan.Not functioning as a component of a whole house ventilation system.Fully tempered glass that can withstand a human impact load.Complying with test CPSC 16 CFR 1201 (R308.4)Considered as hazardous location.Opening-control device. Restricted to 100mmConforming with ASTM F2090 NOTE:
The whole house has to be mechanically ventilated with a systeminstalled in accordance with the California Mechanical Code.* The proposed building is located within a High or Very High Fire HazardSeverity Zone, requiring design compliance with the California Building CodeChapter 7-A.* Glazing of all exterior doors and windows to be tempered glass.Interior doors to be solid core min. 1-3/8" thick or 20 minute rated.
Handrails
Min. 34", max. 38" high per R312.1.2. Continuous glazing in guards must be tempered per R308.4Guardrails42" high guard per R312.1.2Means of Egress Hr
GE
REVISIONSCALEDATECHECK BY
DRAWING TITLE DRAWN BY
PROJECT
Simple Concept
2812 JOSEPH-A. BOMBARDIER, LAVAL, QC, CA H7P 6E2
T.:450.978.0602 FAX.:450.978.4917
© 2017 Simple Concept Inc. | BONE Structure® est une marque déposée de Simple Concept Inc. et est utilisée sous licence exclusive par Simple Concept Inc. Tous droits réservés. © 2017 Simple Concept Inc. | BONE Structure® is a registered trademark of Simple Concept Inc. and is used under exclusive licence by Simple Concept Inc. All rights reserved. PAGE SCEAU THESE PLANS, PROVIDED BY BONE STRUCTURE, ARE FORINFORMATION ONLY REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THEPROJECT BY AN AUTHORIZED DEALER. BONE STRUCTURE IS THESUPPLIER OF A STRUCTURAL SYSTEM THAT INCLUDES THEANCHORS REQUIRED FOR INDOOR AND OUTDOOR FINISH. OTHERBUILDING SYSTEMS ARE LISTED AND SHOWN FOR INFORMATIONALPURPOSES AND ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE MANUFACTURER. * THESE PLANS ARE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.
1 As indicated
A. 104
2018/05/29
BONE Structure
JZ
Upper Floor Plan
16-754
KRAFT RESIDENCE
0 Monte Cresta,
Belmont, CA 94002
DATE REVISION BY NO.
2018-05-29 Submitted for planning review MK 1
1/4" = 1'-0"
Upper floor plan 942.73 sq.ft. 1
1100
2 346759
1012
F G J K
1 A1 B C D E
A. 300 A. 300
A. 300 A. 300
A. 301A. 301
A. 301A. 301
A I J1
8 1113
2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 20' - 0 1/4"
CANOPY BELOW
CANOPY BELOW
TERRACE BELOW
TERRACE
MEMBRANE
19' - 7 1/8" 2 5/8"
SECTION 1 SECTION 1SECTION 2 SECTION 2
SECTION 3
SECTION 4
SECTION 3
SECTION 4
CANOPY BELOW
2.13.1 10.1
8.1 B1 C1 D1 F1 G1 H1
14' - 11 3/4" 7' - 1 5/8"
50' - 11 5/8"
4' - 7 5/8"
FLAT ROOF W/ TAPERED
INSULATION
BUILT UP DECK OVER FLAT
ROOF W/ TAPERED INSULATION
BUILT UP DECK OVER FLAT
ROOF W/ TAPERED INSULATION
GUTTER GUTTER
DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
6.1 PROVISION FOR FUTURE
10' X 10' SOLAR HOT WATER
COLLECTOR PANEL
2* 2" SOLAR HOT WATER
PIPES DIRECT TO ROOF
RADON VENT PIPE
(IF APPLICABLE)
3 5/8"
12.5 2%
2% 2% 2% 2%
2%
10%
48' - 10 1/4"
2%
43' - 11"
31' - 4 1/4" 12' - 6 3/4"
15' - 0 3/4" 11' - 4 1/4" 17' - 6" 10' - 0" 13' - 10 1/4" 5' - 0 1/2" 23' - 10 1/4" 51' - 3 7/8"
10' - 0" 12' - 6 1/2" 20' - 11 3/8" 7' - 6" 4"
8' - 10 3/8" 6' - 1 1/8" 4' - 7 5/8"
46' - 4"
REVISIONSCALEDATECHECK BY
DRAWING TITLE DRAWN BY
PROJECT
Simple Concept
2812 JOSEPH-A. BOMBARDIER, LAVAL, QC, CA H7P 6E2
T.:450.978.0602 FAX.:450.978.4917
© 2017 Simple Concept Inc. | BONE Structure® est une marque déposée de Simple Concept Inc. et est utilisée sous licence exclusive par Simple Concept Inc. Tous droits réservés. © 2017 Simple Concept Inc. | BONE Structure® is a registered trademark of Simple Concept Inc. and is used under exclusive licence by Simple Concept Inc. All rights reserved. PAGE SCEAU THESE PLANS, PROVIDED BY BONE STRUCTURE, ARE FORINFORMATION ONLY REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THEPROJECT BY AN AUTHORIZED DEALER. BONE STRUCTURE IS THESUPPLIER OF A STRUCTURAL SYSTEM THAT INCLUDES THEANCHORS REQUIRED FOR INDOOR AND OUTDOOR FINISH. OTHERBUILDING SYSTEMS ARE LISTED AND SHOWN FOR INFORMATIONALPURPOSES AND ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE MANUFACTURER. * THESE PLANS ARE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.
1 1/4" = 1'-0"
A. 105
2018/05/29
BONE Structure
JZ
Roof plan
16-754
KRAFT RESIDENCE
0 Monte Cresta,
Belmont, CA 94002
DATE REVISION BY NO.
2018-05-29 Submitted for planning review MK 1
1/4" = 1'-0"
Roof Plan 1
* PARAPETS NOT SUPPLIED BY BONE STRUCTURE.
1101
A
FLOOR AREA CALCULATION
LABEL AREA
A 1031.79 sq.ft.B 42.22 sq.ft.EFGH
J
CONDITIONED FLOOR SPACE 2737.43 sq.ft.
KLM
B
TOTAL
INCLUDED*EXCLUDED, STAIRPART BELOW 6'-6"
BASEMENT
MAIN FLOORINCLUDED 1445.00 sq.ft.
*EXCLUDED, STAIREXCLUDED, STAIROPEN TO BELOW
96.57 sq.ft.
EXCLUDED, ELEVATOROPEN TO BELOW
66.92 sq.ft.19.92 sq.ft.
1031.79 sq.ft.
1445.00 sq.ft.
UPPER FLOOR
INCLUDED 260.64 sq.ft.INCLUDED - GARAGE 561.95 sq.ft.EXCLUDED, STAIROPEN TO BELOW 96.60 sq.ft.EXCLUDED, ELEVATOROPEN TO BELOW 19.92 sq.ft. 822.59 sq.ft.
3299.38 sq.ft.
*OR CEILING LESS THAN 6'-6"
*ALL, excluding garage area only
C 19.92 sq.ft. EXCLUDED, ELEVATOR, OPEN TO BELOW
C
D 4.20 sq.ft. EXCLUDED, MECH. SHAFT OPEN TO BELOW
D
I 4.20 sq.ft. EXCLUDED, MECH. SHAFT OPEN TO BELOW
N EXCLUDED, ELEVATOR ACCESS HALL 24.63 sq.ft.
E
F
G
H
I
J
L
M
K
N
REVISIONSCALEDATECHECK BY
DRAWING TITLE DRAWN BY
PROJECT
Simple Concept
2812 JOSEPH-A. BOMBARDIER, LAVAL, QC, CA H7P 6E2
T.:450.978.0602 FAX.:450.978.4917
© 2017 Simple Concept Inc. | BONE Structure® est une marque déposée de Simple Concept Inc. et est utilisée sous licence exclusive par Simple Concept Inc. Tous droits réservés. © 2017 Simple Concept Inc. | BONE Structure® is a registered trademark of Simple Concept Inc. and is used under exclusive licence by Simple Concept Inc. All rights reserved. PAGE SCEAU THESE PLANS, PROVIDED BY BONE STRUCTURE, ARE FORINFORMATION ONLY REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THEPROJECT BY AN AUTHORIZED DEALER. BONE STRUCTURE IS THESUPPLIER OF A STRUCTURAL SYSTEM THAT INCLUDES THEANCHORS REQUIRED FOR INDOOR AND OUTDOOR FINISH. OTHERBUILDING SYSTEMS ARE LISTED AND SHOWN FOR INFORMATIONALPURPOSES AND ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE MANUFACTURER. * THESE PLANS ARE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.
3/16" = 1'-0"
A. 106
2018/05/29
BONE Structure
JZ
GFA Calculation
16-754
KRAFT RESIDENCE
0 Monte Cresta,
Belmont, CA 94002
DATE REVISION BY NO.
3/16" = 1'-0"
GFA - Basement plan 1
3/16" = 1'-0"
GFA - Main floor plan
2 3/16" = 1'-0"
GFA - First floor plan
3 1102
2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 12
2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 1 70.20Basement slab98.80Garage Slab98.47Subfloor 2110.13Roof peak81.20Subfloor 1 11' - 0" 11' - 4"
8 11 13
3 3
8 1
192" X 84"
W1
W2
W4
W1
W5
12 2.1 3.1 8.1 10.1
T E T
T T
17' - 3 1/4" 4"
1 1/4" 7' - 11 3/4"
9" 7' - 4"
6.1 98.80 98.80
12.5 85.66
97.66 98.34
6"
MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT 28'-0"
MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT 28'-0"
MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT 28'-0"
MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT 28'-0"
R308.4 R308.4
R308.4 R308.4
80.92 80.13
83.39 82.30
86.12 28' - 0"
86.38 BRIDGE NOT BY BONE STRUCTURE
T.O. GARABE SLAB @ LOWEST POINT: 98.80'
W2
12 W4
5 7
7 BRIDGE COLUMNS NOT BY
BONE STRUCTURE
EXTERIOR TANKLESS WATER-HEATER
12345678
LEGEND
PARAPET
(NOT SUPPLIED BY BONE
STRUCTURE)
DOWNSPOUT
CANOPY
EXPOSED HSS COLUMN
GUARDRAILS
ROOFING MEMBRANE
GUTTER
ARCHIECTURAL FEATURE:
WALL EXTENSION
WALL TYPE 1:
VERTICAL WOOD SIDING
WALL TYPE 2:
STUCCO FINISH
WALL TYPE 3:
METALLIC CLADDING
9 DECK
10 RETAINING WALL11 STEEL SUPPORT CABLE
WALL TYPE 4:
STONE CLADDING
12 PLANTER
W1W2W3W4
FLEGEND:
EXHAUST FAN PER CAL4.506.1Energy star compliant, humidity control may be a seperate component to the exhaust fan.Not functioning as a component of a whole house ventilation system.Fully tempered glass that can withstand a human impact load.Complying with test CPSC 16 CFR 1201 (R308.4)Considered as hazardous location.Opening-control device. Restricted to 100mmConforming with ASTM F2090 NOTE:
The whole house has to be mechanically ventilated with a systeminstalled in accordance with the California Mechanical Code.* The proposed building is located within a High or Very High Fire HazardSeverity Zone, requiring design compliance with the California Building CodeChapter 7-A.
T4E Means of egress.
WALL TYPE 4:
2 SIDED WALL (METALLIC
CLADDING / HORIZONTAL WOOD)
W5
WALL TYPE 4:
INSULATED WALL (BETWEEN
HOUSE AND GARAGE)
W6
EXISTING GRADE XX.xx'PROPOSED GRADE XX.xx'
HEIGHT LIMIT 28'-0''
REVISIONSCALEDATECHECK BY
DRAWING TITLE DRAWN BY
PROJECT
Simple Concept
2812 JOSEPH-A. BOMBARDIER, LAVAL, QC, CA H7P 6E2
T.:450.978.0602 FAX.:450.978.4917
© 2017 Simple Concept Inc. | BONE Structure® est une marque déposée de Simple Concept Inc. et est utilisée sous licence exclusive par Simple Concept Inc. Tous droits réservés. © 2017 Simple Concept Inc. | BONE Structure® is a registered trademark of Simple Concept Inc. and is used under exclusive licence by Simple Concept Inc. All rights reserved. PAGE SCEAU THESE PLANS, PROVIDED BY BONE STRUCTURE, ARE FORINFORMATION ONLY REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THEPROJECT BY AN AUTHORIZED DEALER. BONE STRUCTURE IS THESUPPLIER OF A STRUCTURAL SYSTEM THAT INCLUDES THEANCHORS REQUIRED FOR INDOOR AND OUTDOOR FINISH. OTHERBUILDING SYSTEMS ARE LISTED AND SHOWN FOR INFORMATIONALPURPOSES AND ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE MANUFACTURER. * THESE PLANS ARE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.
1 As indicated
A. 200
2018/05/29
BONE Structure
JZ
South Elevation
16-754
KRAFT RESIDENCE
0 Monte Cresta,
Belmont, CA 94002
1/4" = 1'-0"
South Elevation 1
DATE REVISION BY NO.
2018-05-29 Submitted for planning review MK 1
1103
12 10 9 7 6 5 4 3 2
2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 1 70.20Basement slab98.80Garage Slab98.47Subfloor 2110.13Roof peak81.20Subfloor 1 11' - 0" 17' - 3 1/4" 4" 11' - 6"
13 11 8
W1
W3
W4
W6
3 3
8 8
2 5
10.1 8.1 3.1 2.1
T T T E
T T
T T
T E T
T
T
T E T T T
E
X O
O X X O
X O
77 2
2 7
7 7 1/2"
4 1/4" 13' - 2"
1' - 0 1/4" 7' - 4" 1' - 2" 4' - 0"
7" 6' - 10 3/4"
6.1 W5
W5
63.78 E
E
12.5 62.86
9.81'
9' - 9 3/4" R308.4 R308.4 R308.4 R308.4
R308.4
R308.4
R308.4 R308.4
R308.4 R308.4
R308.4 R308.4
65.87 65.74
12' - 0"
45 .00°
12' - 0"
45. 00°
63.78 62.86
65.87 65.74
37.69 60.31
60.31 62.45
62.45 SUGGESTED LOCATION OF RETAINING WALLSEE EAST ELEVATIONTOW 63.25BOW 60.25.35WALL HEIGHT 3'-0" SUGGESTED LOCATION OF RETAININGWALL SEE WEST ELEVATIONTOW 70.50BOW 67.50WALL HEIGHT 3'-0" 1 1
W3
W1
10 10
7 7
W2
W2
55 59
53 1/2" X 48" 53 1/2" X 48" 53 1/2" X 48" 53 1/2" X 48" 53 1/2" X 48" 53 1/2" X 48" 113 1/2" X 96" 53 1/2" X 88" 53 1/2" X 88" 113 1/2" X 96" 53 1/2" X 88"
103 1/2" X 24"
23 1/2" X 88" 53 1/2" X 88"
103 1/2" X 24"
53 1/2" X 82 3/4"
108 1/2" X 82 3/4"
42" X 82 3/4"
48 1/2" X 72"
T
12345678
LEGEND
PARAPET
(NOT SUPPLIED BY BONE
STRUCTURE)
DOWNSPOUT
CANOPY
EXPOSED HSS COLUMN
GUARDRAILS
ROOFING MEMBRANE
GUTTER
ARCHIECTURAL FEATURE:
WALL EXTENSION
WALL TYPE 1:
VERTICAL WOOD SIDING
WALL TYPE 2:
STUCCO FINISH
WALL TYPE 3:
METALLIC CLADDING
9 DECK
10 RETAINING WALL11 STEEL SUPPORT CABLE
WALL TYPE 4:
STONE CLADDING
12 PLANTER
W1W2W3W4
FLEGEND:
EXHAUST FAN PER CAL4.506.1Energy star compliant, humidity control may be a seperate component to the exhaust fan.Not functioning as a component of a whole house ventilation system.Fully tempered glass that can withstand a human impact load.Complying with test CPSC 16 CFR 1201 (R308.4)Considered as hazardous location.Opening-control device. Restricted to 100mmConforming with ASTM F2090 NOTE:
The whole house has to be mechanically ventilated with a systeminstalled in accordance with the California Mechanical Code.* The proposed building is located within a High or Very High Fire HazardSeverity Zone, requiring design compliance with the California Building CodeChapter 7-A.
T4E Means of egress.
WALL TYPE 4:
2 SIDED WALL (METALLIC
CLADDING / HORIZONTAL WOOD)
W5
WALL TYPE 4:
INSULATED WALL (BETWEEN
HOUSE AND GARAGE)
W6
EXISTING GRADE XX.xx'PROPOSED GRADE XX.xx'
HEIGHT LIMIT 28'-0''
REVISIONSCALEDATECHECK BY
DRAWING TITLE DRAWN BY
PROJECT
Simple Concept
2812 JOSEPH-A. BOMBARDIER, LAVAL, QC, CA H7P 6E2
T.:450.978.0602 FAX.:450.978.4917
© 2017 Simple Concept Inc. | BONE Structure® est une marque déposée de Simple Concept Inc. et est utilisée sous licence exclusive par Simple Concept Inc. Tous droits réservés. © 2017 Simple Concept Inc. | BONE Structure® is a registered trademark of Simple Concept Inc. and is used under exclusive licence by Simple Concept Inc. All rights reserved. PAGE SCEAU THESE PLANS, PROVIDED BY BONE STRUCTURE, ARE FORINFORMATION ONLY REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THEPROJECT BY AN AUTHORIZED DEALER. BONE STRUCTURE IS THESUPPLIER OF A STRUCTURAL SYSTEM THAT INCLUDES THEANCHORS REQUIRED FOR INDOOR AND OUTDOOR FINISH. OTHERBUILDING SYSTEMS ARE LISTED AND SHOWN FOR INFORMATIONALPURPOSES AND ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE MANUFACTURER. * THESE PLANS ARE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.
1 As indicated
A. 201
2018/05/29
BONE Structure
JZ
North Elevation
16-754
KRAFT RESIDENCE
0 Monte Cresta,
Belmont, CA 94002
DATE REVISION BY NO.
2018-05-29 Submitted for planning review MK 1
1/4" = 1'-0"
North Elevation 1
1104
A1 B C D E F G J K
2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 2' - 6" 5' - 0"
70.20Basement slab98.80Garage Slab98.47Subfloor 2110.13Roof peak81.20Subfloor 1 11' - 0" 17' - 3 1/4" 4" 11' - 4"
A I J1
W5
W1
W2
5 5
12 1
W1
W2
W2
B1 C1 D1 F1 G1 H1
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
72 7
2 2
6' - 0" 9" 6' - 5"
7' - 4" 3' - 6 1/4"
4' - 0" 1' - 2" 7' - 4" 2' - 10" 6' - 0" 3' - 2 1/4"
2%
1.92%
W3
98.80 E
16' - 0"
28.52'
28' - 6 1/4"
60.00°
DAYLIGHT PLANE @ REAR SETBACK
MAX. BUILDING
HEIGHT 28'-0"
61.01 63.05
64.30 66.25 66.56
67.73 71.54
80.11 0.80
67.0863.58
70.92 67.42
79.8576.35
3.500
74.5771.07
76.35 EXISTING
GRADE FILL NEW
GRADE
0.79 5.441 3.000 63.25
60.25 8 1/4"
3.500
3.500
ELEVATOR FOR ADA COMPLIANCE
EXISTING GRADE
EXISTING
GRADE
EXISTING
GRADE
FILL NEW
GRADE
FILL NEW
GRADE
FILL NEW
GRADE
FILL NEW
GRADE
12.13 3.500
R308.4 R308.4 R308.4
R308.4R308.4 R308.4
12 12
12 12
BRIDGE NOT BY BONE STRUCTURE
EXTERIOR TANKLESS WATER-HEATER
BRIDGE COLUMNS NOT BY
BONE STRUCTURE
W2
W2
W2
W1
12345678
LEGEND
PARAPET
(NOT SUPPLIED BY BONE
STRUCTURE)
DOWNSPOUT
CANOPY
EXPOSED HSS COLUMN
GUARDRAILS
ROOFING MEMBRANE
GUTTER
ARCHIECTURAL FEATURE:
WALL EXTENSION
WALL TYPE 1:
VERTICAL WOOD SIDING
WALL TYPE 2:
STUCCO FINISH
WALL TYPE 3:
METALLIC CLADDING
9 DECK
10 RETAINING WALL11 STEEL SUPPORT CABLE
WALL TYPE 4:
STONE CLADDING
12 PLANTER
W1W2W3W4
FLEGEND:
EXHAUST FAN PER CAL4.506.1Energy star compliant, humidity control may be a seperate component to the exhaust fan.Not functioning as a component of a whole house ventilation system.Fully tempered glass that can withstand a human impact load.Complying with test CPSC 16 CFR 1201 (R308.4)Considered as hazardous location.Opening-control device. Restricted to 100mmConforming with ASTM F2090 NOTE:
The whole house has to be mechanically ventilated with a systeminstalled in accordance with the California Mechanical Code.* The proposed building is located within a High or Very High Fire HazardSeverity Zone, requiring design compliance with the California Building CodeChapter 7-A.
T4E Means of egress.
WALL TYPE 4:
2 SIDED WALL (METALLIC
CLADDING / HORIZONTAL WOOD)
W5
WALL TYPE 4:
INSULATED WALL (BETWEEN
HOUSE AND GARAGE)
W6
EXISTING GRADE XX.xx'PROPOSED GRADE XX.xx'
HEIGHT LIMIT 28'-0''
REVISIONSCALEDATECHECK BY
DRAWING TITLE DRAWN BY
PROJECT
Simple Concept
2812 JOSEPH-A. BOMBARDIER, LAVAL, QC, CA H7P 6E2
T.:450.978.0602 FAX.:450.978.4917
© 2017 Simple Concept Inc. | BONE Structure® est une marque déposée de Simple Concept Inc. et est utilisée sous licence exclusive par Simple Concept Inc. Tous droits réservés. © 2017 Simple Concept Inc. | BONE Structure® is a registered trademark of Simple Concept Inc. and is used under exclusive licence by Simple Concept Inc. All rights reserved. PAGE SCEAU THESE PLANS, PROVIDED BY BONE STRUCTURE, ARE FORINFORMATION ONLY REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THEPROJECT BY AN AUTHORIZED DEALER. BONE STRUCTURE IS THESUPPLIER OF A STRUCTURAL SYSTEM THAT INCLUDES THEANCHORS REQUIRED FOR INDOOR AND OUTDOOR FINISH. OTHERBUILDING SYSTEMS ARE LISTED AND SHOWN FOR INFORMATIONALPURPOSES AND ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE MANUFACTURER. * THESE PLANS ARE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.
1 As indicated
A. 202
2018/05/29
BONE Structure
JZ
East Elevation
16-754
KRAFT RESIDENCE
0 Monte Cresta,
Belmont, CA 94002
DATE REVISION BY NO.
2018-05-29 Submitted for planning review MK 1
1/4" = 1'-0"
East Elevation 1
1105
70.20 Basement slab98.80Garage Slab98.47Subfloor 2110.13Roof peak K J G F E D C B A1
81.20Subfloor 1
11' - 0" 17' - 3 1/4" 4" 11' - 4"
MAX. BUILDING
HEIGHT 28'-0"
J1 I A
DAYLIGHT PLANE @ REAR SETBACK
16' - 6 7/8"
5 W5
8 3
5 W3
W3
W4
W4
W5
8 3
1 W1 W2
1212
1 H1 G1 F1 D1 C1 B1
T
T
T
7 27
7 2
1' - 0 1/4" 7' - 4"
1' - 0 1/4" 7' - 4" 1' - 2" 4' - 0"
3' - 2 1/4" 2' - 0"
2%
10%
1.92%
91.64 97.64
T
E
60.00°
5' - 0" 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6"
98.59 98.80
85.64 82.53
77.31 85.02
86.20 69.51
64.12 11.80
79.9576.95
75.0072.00
70.5067.50
3.000
3.000
3.000
64.12 82.53
EXTERIOR TANKLESS WATER-HEATER
BRIDGE COLUMNS NOT BY
BONE STRUCTURE
W2
48 1/2" X 72"
T T
E
12345678
LEGEND
PARAPET
(NOT SUPPLIED BY BONE
STRUCTURE)
DOWNSPOUT
CANOPY
EXPOSED HSS COLUMN
GUARDRAILS
ROOFING MEMBRANE
GUTTER
ARCHIECTURAL FEATURE:
WALL EXTENSION
WALL TYPE 1:
VERTICAL WOOD SIDING
WALL TYPE 2:
STUCCO FINISH
WALL TYPE 3:
METALLIC CLADDING
9 DECK
10 RETAINING WALL11 STEEL SUPPORT CABLE
WALL TYPE 4:
STONE CLADDING
12 PLANTER
W1W2W3W4
FLEGEND:
EXHAUST FAN PER CAL4.506.1Energy star compliant, humidity control may be a seperate component to the exhaust fan.Not functioning as a component of a whole house ventilation system.Fully tempered glass that can withstand a human impact load.Complying with test CPSC 16 CFR 1201 (R308.4)Considered as hazardous location.Opening-control device. Restricted to 100mmConforming with ASTM F2090 NOTE:
The whole house has to be mechanically ventilated with a systeminstalled in accordance with the California Mechanical Code.* The proposed building is located within a High or Very High Fire HazardSeverity Zone, requiring design compliance with the California Building CodeChapter 7-A.
T4E Means of egress.
WALL TYPE 4:
2 SIDED WALL (METALLIC
CLADDING / HORIZONTAL WOOD)
W5
WALL TYPE 4:
INSULATED WALL (BETWEEN
HOUSE AND GARAGE)
W6
EXISTING GRADE XX.xx'PROPOSED GRADE XX.xx'
HEIGHT LIMIT 28'-0''
REVISIONSCALEDATECHECK BY
DRAWING TITLE DRAWN BY
PROJECT
Simple Concept
2812 JOSEPH-A. BOMBARDIER, LAVAL, QC, CA H7P 6E2
T.:450.978.0602 FAX.:450.978.4917
© 2017 Simple Concept Inc. | BONE Structure® est une marque déposée de Simple Concept Inc. et est utilisée sous licence exclusive par Simple Concept Inc. Tous droits réservés. © 2017 Simple Concept Inc. | BONE Structure® is a registered trademark of Simple Concept Inc. and is used under exclusive licence by Simple Concept Inc. All rights reserved. PAGE SCEAU THESE PLANS, PROVIDED BY BONE STRUCTURE, ARE FORINFORMATION ONLY REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THEPROJECT BY AN AUTHORIZED DEALER. BONE STRUCTURE IS THESUPPLIER OF A STRUCTURAL SYSTEM THAT INCLUDES THEANCHORS REQUIRED FOR INDOOR AND OUTDOOR FINISH. OTHERBUILDING SYSTEMS ARE LISTED AND SHOWN FOR INFORMATIONALPURPOSES AND ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE MANUFACTURER. * THESE PLANS ARE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.
1 As indicated
A. 203
2018/05/29
BONE Structure
JZ
West Elevation
16-754
KRAFT RESIDENCE
0 Monte Cresta,
Belmont, CA 94002
DATE REVISION BY NO.
2018-05-29 Submitted for planning review MK 1
1/4" = 1'-0"
West Elevation 1
1106
Recessed windows (min. 2") & window trims (min. 1")
Balconies and decks (min. 4'-0" depth)Building wall projections (min. 2'-0")
PRESCRIBED ARTICULATION LEGEND
REVISIONSCALEDATECHECK BY
DRAWING TITLE DRAWN BY
PROJECT
Simple Concept
2812 JOSEPH-A. BOMBARDIER, LAVAL, QC, CA H7P 6E2
T.:450.978.0602 FAX.:450.978.4917
© 2017 Simple Concept Inc. | BONE Structure® est une marque déposée de Simple Concept Inc. et est utilisée sous licence exclusive par Simple Concept Inc. Tous droits réservés. © 2017 Simple Concept Inc. | BONE Structure® is a registered trademark of Simple Concept Inc. and is used under exclusive licence by Simple Concept Inc. All rights reserved. PAGE SCEAU THESE PLANS, PROVIDED BY BONE STRUCTURE, ARE FORINFORMATION ONLY REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THEPROJECT BY AN AUTHORIZED DEALER. BONE STRUCTURE IS THESUPPLIER OF A STRUCTURAL SYSTEM THAT INCLUDES THEANCHORS REQUIRED FOR INDOOR AND OUTDOOR FINISH. OTHERBUILDING SYSTEMS ARE LISTED AND SHOWN FOR INFORMATIONALPURPOSES AND ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE MANUFACTURER. * THESE PLANS ARE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.
1 As indicated
A. 204
2018/05/29
F.S.
C.K.
Prescribed Articulation
16-754
KRAFT RESIDENCE
0 Monte Cresta,
Belmont, CA 94002
DATE REVISION BY NO.
2018-05-29 Submitted for planning review MK 1
3/16" = 1'-0"
Elevation - West 1
3/16" = 1'-0"
Elevation - East
2 3/16" = 1'-0"
Elevation - South
3 3/16" = 1'-0"
Elevation North
4 South Elevation - Prescribed ArticulationArea of elevation: 100% - 616.69 sq.ft.Recessed windows (min. 2") & window trims (min. 1"): 15.14% - 93.36 sq.ft.Balconies and decks (min. 4'-0" depth): 4.7% - 28.83 sq.ft.Building wall projections (min. 2'-0"): 35.38% - 218.17 sq.ft.TOTAL:Required: 50.0% (308.35 sq.ft.)Proposed: 55.19% (340.36 sq.ft.) North Elevation - Prescribed ArticulationArea of elevation: 100% - 2261.95 sq.ft.Recessed windows (min. 2") & window trims (min. 1"): 17.60% - 418.03 sq.ft.Balconies and decks (min. 4'-0" depth: 27.01% - 602.70 sq.ft.Building wall projections (min. 2'-0"): 7.18% - 162.48 sq.ft.TOTAL:Required: 30.0% (678.59 sq.ft.)Proposed: 52.31% (1183.21 sq.ft.) East Elevation - Prescribed ArticulationArea of elevation: 100% - 1393.17 sq.ft.Recessed windows (min. 2") & window trims (min. 1"): 12.27% - 170.95 sq.ft.Balconies and decks (min. 4'-0" depth): 6.16% - 85.85sq.ft.Belly bands, timbering & stone/brick base (min. 2"): 31.21% - 434.86 sq.ft.TOTAL:Required: 30.0% (491.22 sq.ft.)Proposed: 49.65% (691.66 sq.ft.) West Elevation - Prescribed ArticulationArea of elevation: 100% - 1208.22 sq.ft.Recessed windows (min. 2") & window trims (min. 1"): 19.67% - 237.69 sq.ft.Balconies and decks (min. 4'-0" depth): 14.47% - 174.88sq.ft.Building wall projections (min. 2'-0"): 13.09% - 158.15 sq.ft.TOTAL:Required: 30.0% (362.25 sq.ft.)Proposed: 47.24% (570.72 sq.ft.) 1107
A1 B C D E F G J K 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 2' - 6" 5' - 0" A I J1
INSULATED FLOOR BETWEEN GARAGE & LIVING SPACE
2 CAR
GARAGE
15' - 8 5/8"
15' - 8 1/2"
B1 C1 D1 F1 G1 H1
W1
W6
W2
F1
P2
R1
R1
R2R3
R2
70.20Basement slab98.80Garage Slab98.47Subfloor 2110.13Roof peak81.20Subfloor 1 11' - 4" 17' - 3 1/4" 4" 11' - 0"
MIN. height for the garage
7' - 0"
7.39'
7' - 4 3/4"
10% 2%
2% 2%
ELEVATOR
EXIT
ELEVATOREXIT
ELEVATOREXIT
ENTRANCE HALL
ENSUITE POWDER ROOM HALL ELEVATOR SHAFT MASTER BEDROOM
EXISTING GRADEPROPOSED GRADE
A1 B C D E F G J K
2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 2' - 6" 5' - 0" A I
FORMAL
LIVING
GREAT ROOM
KITCHEN
15' - 8 5/8"
15' - 8 1/2"
2%
B1 C1 D1 F1 G1 H1
7' - 4" 1' - 0"
W1
W1
W3
F1
P1
R1
R2 R1
R3
R3
R2
70.20Basement slab98.80Garage Slab98.47Subfloor 2110.13Roof peak81.20Subfloor 1 11' - 4" 17' - 3 1/4" 4" 11' - 0" STORAGE
7' - 6"
7' - 7"
7.59'
11.69'
11' - 8 1/4"
16' - 9 3/8"
ELEVATOR ACCESS HALL
8' - 4 1/2" 9' - 0 1/4"
ENTRANCE HALL
REVISIONSCALEDATECHECK BY
DRAWING TITLE DRAWN BY
PROJECT
Simple Concept
2812 JOSEPH-A. BOMBARDIER, LAVAL, QC, CA H7P 6E2
T.:450.978.0602 FAX.:450.978.4917
© 2017 Simple Concept Inc. | BONE Structure® est une marque déposée de Simple Concept Inc. et est utilisée sous licence exclusive par Simple Concept Inc. Tous droits réservés. © 2017 Simple Concept Inc. | BONE Structure® is a registered trademark of Simple Concept Inc. and is used under exclusive licence by Simple Concept Inc. All rights reserved. PAGE SCEAU THESE PLANS, PROVIDED BY BONE STRUCTURE, ARE FORINFORMATION ONLY REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THEPROJECT BY AN AUTHORIZED DEALER. BONE STRUCTURE IS THESUPPLIER OF A STRUCTURAL SYSTEM THAT INCLUDES THEANCHORS REQUIRED FOR INDOOR AND OUTDOOR FINISH. OTHERBUILDING SYSTEMS ARE LISTED AND SHOWN FOR INFORMATIONALPURPOSES AND ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE MANUFACTURER. * THESE PLANS ARE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.
1 1/4" = 1'-0"
A. 300
2018/05/29
BONE Structure
JZ
Cross Sections
16-754
KRAFT RESIDENCE
0 Monte Cresta,
Belmont, CA 94002
DATE REVISION BY NO.
2018-05-29 Submitted for planning review MK 1
1/4" = 1'-0"
Section 1 1
1108
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 12
2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 8 11 13
KITCHEN
POWDER
ROOM HALL MASTER BATH
FORMAL
LIVING
2 CAR
GARAGE
15' - 8 3/4"
STEP
STEP
INSULATED FLOOR BETWEEN GARAGE & LIVING SPACE
2.1 3.1 8.1 10.1
[No Slope]
7' - 4" 3' - 6 1/4"
6.1 W2
P2
P1
W4
W3
R1
R3
98.80Garage Slab98.47Subfloor 2110.13Roof peak81.20Subfloor 1 11' - 6" 17' - 3 1/4" 4" W6
R3
12.5 T.O. Steel 3
109' - 9 1/4"
T.O. S. 1
83' - 3 1/4"
12 10 9 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
5' - 0" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 13 11 10.1 8.1 8 3.1 2.1
2%
[No Slope]
6.1 W5
W4
R2R1
R3
70.20Basement slab98.80Garage Slab98.47Subfloor 2110.13Roof peak81.20Subfloor 1 11' - 0" 17' - 3 1/4" 4" 11' - 6"
12.5 ENTRANCE HALL BEDROOM 2
REVISIONSCALEDATECHECK BY
DRAWING TITLE DRAWN BY
PROJECT
Simple Concept
2812 JOSEPH-A. BOMBARDIER, LAVAL, QC, CA H7P 6E2
T.:450.978.0602 FAX.:450.978.4917
© 2017 Simple Concept Inc. | BONE Structure® est une marque déposée de Simple Concept Inc. et est utilisée sous licence exclusive par Simple Concept Inc. Tous droits réservés. © 2017 Simple Concept Inc. | BONE Structure® is a registered trademark of Simple Concept Inc. and is used under exclusive licence by Simple Concept Inc. All rights reserved. PAGE SCEAU THESE PLANS, PROVIDED BY BONE STRUCTURE, ARE FORINFORMATION ONLY REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THEPROJECT BY AN AUTHORIZED DEALER. BONE STRUCTURE IS THESUPPLIER OF A STRUCTURAL SYSTEM THAT INCLUDES THEANCHORS REQUIRED FOR INDOOR AND OUTDOOR FINISH. OTHERBUILDING SYSTEMS ARE LISTED AND SHOWN FOR INFORMATIONALPURPOSES AND ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE MANUFACTURER. * THESE PLANS ARE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.
1/4" = 1'-0"
A. 301
2018/05/29
BONE Structure
JZ
Longitudinal section
16-754
KRAFT RESIDENCE
0 Monte Cresta,
Belmont, CA 94002
DATE REVISION BY NO.
1/4" = 1'-0"
Section 3 1
1/4" = 1'-0"
Section 4 2
1109
CANOPY ABOVE
CANOPY ABOVE
PROPOSED SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING
ROOF PEAK LEVEL: 110.13FIRST FLOOR LEVEL: 98.80GARAGE SLAB LEVEL: 98.47MAIN FLOOR LEVEL: 84.97BASEMENT SLAB LEVEL: 70.20
SUGGESTED LOCATION OF RETAINING WALL SEE ELEVATIONS
TW 69.49
UGGESTED LOCATION OF RETAINING
WALL SEE ELEVATIONS
TW 73.87
OF RETAINING WALL SEE
VATIONS
79.15 50'
B
55'
75'
YARD SETBACK
7' - 2 5/8" SD SD SD SD SD
SD
24'' TREE TO BE REMOVED
12" OAK TREE
14" OAK TREE 24" OAK TREE
EXISTING OLEANDER
DOWN
JEFF KRAFT PROPOSED RESIDENCE0 MONTE CRESTA BELMONT, CA503-575-5320 BELMONT, CA 11 2 L-1
5 6
CANOPY ABOVE
CANOPY ABOVE
CANOPY ABOVE
PROPOSED SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING
ROOF PEAK LEVEL: 109.6
FIRST FLOOR LEVEL: 97.89
GARAGE SLAB LEVEL: 98.10
MAIN FLOOR LEVEL: 84.50
BASEMENT SLAB LEVEL: 69.50
SUGGESTED LOCATION
OF RETAINING WALL
SEE ELEVATIONS
TW 62.83
18.50'
18' - 6"
TERRACE ABOVE
DRIVEWAY
CONCRETE/STEEL
SUGGESTED LOCATION
OF RETAINING WALL
SEE ELEVATIONS
TW 75.21
SUGGESTED LOCATION
OF RETAINING WALL
SEE ELEVATIONS
TW 78.71
SUGGESTED LOCATION OF RETAINING WALL SEE
ELEVATIONS
TW 71.71
SUGGESTED LOCATION
OF RETAINING WALL
SEE ELEVATIONS
TW 68.21
SUGGESTED LOCATION
OF RETAINING WALL SEE
ELEVATIONS
TW 73.98
SUGGESTED LOCATION
OF RETAINING WALL
SEE ELEVATIONS
TW 69.77
SUGGESTED LOCATION
OF RETAINING WALL SEE
ELEVATIONS
TW 78.71
82 5. 0
73 7. 5
68 6. 0
63 6. 0
61 5. 0
59 3. 0
59 5. 0
73 5. 0
80 0. 0
79 9. 5
79 1. 0
82 7. 5
80 5. 0
98.10 12" OAK TREE
14" OAK TREE
24" OAK TREE 16" OAK TREE
8" OAK TREE
24" OAK TREE
EXISTING OLEANDER
EXISTING
TREES
8" OAK TREE 4/15/18
CANOPY ABOVE
CANOPY ABOVE
CANOPY ABOVE
PROPOSED SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING
ROOF PEAK LEVEL: 109.43
FIRST FLOOR LEVEL: 97.89
GARAGE SLAB LEVEL: 98.10
MAIN FLOOR LEVEL: 84.50
BASEMENT SLAB LEVEL: 69.50
SUGGESTED LOCATION
OF RETAINING WALL
SEE ELEVATIONS
TW 69.80
DRIVEWAY
CONCRETE/STEEL
94.05'
94' - 0 5/8"
120.98'
120' - 11 3/4"
18.50'
18' - 6"
SUGGESTED LOCATION
OF RETAINING WALL SEE
ELEVATIONS
TW 79.25
SUGGESTED LOCATION
OF RETAINING WALL SEE
ELEVATIONS
TW 74.30
SUGGESTED LOCATION OF RETAINING WALL SEE ELEVATIONS
TW 69.49
SUGGESTED LOCATION OF RETAINING
WALL SEE ELEVATIONS
TW 73.87
SUGGESTED LOCATION OF RETAINING WALL SEE
ELEVATIONS
TW 79.15
80 5. 5
72 1. 0
66 5. 5
63 0. 0
60 6. 5
61 2. 0
64 4. 0
77 9. 5
82 9. 0
82 7. 5
80 1. 0
82 7. 5
81 6. 0
98.10 77 5. 5
66 4. 5
71 9. 0
14" OAK TREE
14" OAK TREE
K TREE
8" OAK TREE
8"
CANOPY AB
SUGGESTED LOCATION
OF RETAINING WALL SEE
ELEVATIONS
TW 73.98
CANOPY AB
SUGGESTED LOCATION
OF RETAINING WALL SEE
ELEVATIONS
TW 73.98
SUGGE
SUGGESTED L
SUGGE
SUGGESTED L
SUGGESTED LOCATIO
ELEV
TW SUGGESTED LOCATION OF R
TW
SUGGESTED LOCATIO
ELEV
TW SUGGESTED LOCATION OF R
TW
SUGGESTED LOCATION
OF RETAINING WALL
SEE ELEVATIONS
82 5. 0
ESTED LOCATION
RETAINING WALL
SEE ELEVATIONS
TW 75.21
TION
WALL
ONS
8.71 2 5. 0
7 AINING
80 5.
72 1.
TERRACE ABOVE
SUGGESTED LOCATION OF RETAINING WALL SEE
ELEVATIONS
TW 71.71
" OAK TRE
SUGGESTED LOCATION OF RETAINING WALL SEE ELEVATIONS
TW 69.49
CANOPY ABOVE
CANOPY ABOVE
CANOPY ABOVE
PROPOSED SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING
ROOF PEAK LEVEL: 110.13
FIRST FLOOR LEVEL: 98.80
GARAGE SLAB LEVEL: 98.47
MAIN FLOOR LEVEL: 84.97
BASEMENT SLAB LEVEL: 70.20
SUGGESTED LOCATION
OF RETAINING WALL
SEE ELEVATIONS
TW 69.80
SUGGESTED LOCATION
OF RETAINING WALL SEE
ELEVATIONS
TW 79.25
SUGGESTED LOCATION
OF RETAINING WALL SEE
ELEVATIONS
TW 74.30
SUGGESTED LOCATION OF RETAINING WALL SEE ELEVATIONS
TW 69.49
SUGGESTED LOCATION OF RETAINING
WALL SEE ELEVATIONS
TW 73.87
SUGGESTED LOCATION OF RETAINING WALL SEE
ELEVATIONS
TW 79.15
50'
B
55'
75'
SIDE YARD SETBACK
7' - 2 5/8" SD SD SD SD SD
SD
SD
SD SD SD SD SD SD
24'' TREE TO BE REMOVED
16'' TREE 24" OAK 12" OAK 8" OAK 16" OAK 12" OAK
7 11
CONRETE PAN DECK ON
STRUCTURAL STEEL WITH
RECCESSED ARTIFICAL TURF
DECORATIVE INSERTS
WALKWAY DRIVEWAY
UNCOVERED
DECK
1110
UPPER DECK MID DECK LIVING DECK
DOWN
JEFF KRAFT PROPOSED RESIDENCE
0 MONTE CRESTA
BELMONT, CA
503-575-5320 L-2
5 UPPER DECK
LAWN AREA
CANOPY ABOVE
CANOPY ABOVE
CANOPY ABOVE
PROPOSED SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING
ROOF PEAK LEVEL: 109.6
FIRST FLOOR LEVEL: 97.89
GARAGE SLAB LEVEL: 98.10
MAIN FLOOR LEVEL: 84.50
BASEMENT SLAB LEVEL: 69.50
SUGGESTED LOCATION
OF RETAINING WALL
SEE ELEVATIONS
TW 62.83
18.50'
18' - 6"
TERRACE ABOVE
DRIVEWAY
CONCRETE/STEEL
SUGGESTED LOCATION
OF RETAINING WALL
SEE ELEVATIONS
TW 75.21
SUGGESTED LOCATION
OF RETAINING WALL
SEE ELEVATIONS
TW 78.71
SUGGESTED LOCATION OF RETAINING WALL SEE
ELEVATIONS
TW 71.71
SUGGESTED LOCATION
OF RETAINING WALL
SEE ELEVATIONS
TW 68.21
SUGGESTED LOCATION
OF RETAINING WALL SEE
ELEVATIONS
TW 73.98
SUGGESTED LOCATION
OF RETAINING WALL
SEE ELEVATIONS
TW 69.77
SUGGESTED LOCATION
OF RETAINING WALL SEE
ELEVATIONS
TW 78.71
82 5. 0
73 7. 5
68 6. 0
63 6. 0
61 5. 0
30 59 5. 0
73 5. 0
80 0. 0
79 9. 5
79 1. 0
82 7. 5
80 5. 0
98.10 12" OAK TREE
14" OAK TREE
EXISTING OLEANDER
DOWN
CANOPY ABOVE
CANOPY ABOVE
CANOPY ABOVE
PROPOSED SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING
ROOF PEAK LEVEL: 109.6
FIRST FLOOR LEVEL: 97.89
GARAGE SLAB LEVEL: 98.10
MAIN FLOOR LEVEL: 84.50
BASEMENT SLAB LEVEL: 69.50
SUGGESTED LOCATION
OF RETAINING WALL
SEE ELEVATIONS
TW 62.83
18.50'
18' - 6"
TERRACE ABOVE
DRIVEWAY
CONCRETE/STEEL
SUGGESTED LOCATION
OF RETAINING WALL
SEE ELEVATIONS
TW 75.21
SUGGESTED LOCATION
OF RETAINING WALL
SEE ELEVATIONS
TW 78.71
SUGGESTED LOCATION OF RETAINING WALL SEE
ELEVATIONS
TW 71.71
SUGGESTED LOCATION
OF RETAINING WALL
SEE ELEVATIONS
TW 68.21
SUGGESTED LOCATION
OF RETAINING WALL SEE
ELEVATIONS
TW 73.98
SUGGESTED LOCATION
OF RETAINING WALL
SEE ELEVATIONS
TW 69.77
SUGGESTED LOCATION
OF RETAINING WALL SEE
ELEVATIONS
TW 78.71
82 5. 0
73 7. 5
68 6. 0
63 6. 0
61 5. 0
0 59 5. 0
73 5. 0
80 0. 0
79 9. 5
79 1. 0
82 7. 5
80 5. 0
98.10 14" OAK TREE
24" OAK TREE
16" OAK TREE
8" OAK TREE
EXISTING OLEANDER
EXISTING
TREES
8" OAK TREE 4/15/18
59 3. 59 3.
1111
JEFF KRAFT PROPOSED RESIDENCE
0 MONTE CRESTA
BELMONT, CA
503-575-5320 L-3
5 4/15/18
1112
JEFF KRAFT PROPOSED RESIDENCE
0 MONTE CRESTA
BELMONT, CA
503-575-5320 L-4
5 4/15/18
1113
CANOPY ABOVE
CANOPY ABOVE
PROPOSED SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING
ROOF PEAK LEVEL: 110.13FIRST FLOOR LEVEL: 98.80GARAGE SLAB LEVEL: 98.47MAIN FLOOR LEVEL: 84.97BASEMENT SLAB LEVEL: 70.20
SUGGESTED LOCATION OF RETAINING WALL SEE ELEVATIONS
TW 69.49
UGGESTED LOCATION OF RETAINING
WALL SEE ELEVATIONS
TW 73.87
OF RETAINING WALL SEE
VATIONS
79.15 50'
B
55'
75'
YARD SETBACK
7' - 2 5/8" SD SD SD SD SD
SD
24'' TREE TO BE REMOVED
12" OAK TREE
14" OAK TREE 24" OAK TREE
EXISTING OLEANDER
DOWN
JEFF KRAFT PROPOSED RESIDENCE0 MONTE CRESTA BELMONT, CA503-575-5320 BELMONT, CA 11 2 L-1
5 6
CANOPY ABOVE
CANOPY ABOVE
CANOPY ABOVE
PROPOSED SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING
ROOF PEAK LEVEL: 109.6
FIRST FLOOR LEVEL: 97.89
GARAGE SLAB LEVEL: 98.10
MAIN FLOOR LEVEL: 84.50
BASEMENT SLAB LEVEL: 69.50
SUGGESTED LOCATION
OF RETAINING WALL
SEE ELEVATIONS
TW 62.83
18.50'
18' - 6"
TERRACE ABOVE
DRIVEWAY
CONCRETE/STEEL
SUGGESTED LOCATION
OF RETAINING WALL
SEE ELEVATIONS
TW 75.21
SUGGESTED LOCATION
OF RETAINING WALL
SEE ELEVATIONS
TW 78.71
SUGGESTED LOCATION OF RETAINING WALL SEE
ELEVATIONS
TW 71.71
SUGGESTED LOCATION
OF RETAINING WALL
SEE ELEVATIONS
TW 68.21
SUGGESTED LOCATION
OF RETAINING WALL SEE
ELEVATIONS
TW 73.98
SUGGESTED LOCATION
OF RETAINING WALL
SEE ELEVATIONS
TW 69.77
SUGGESTED LOCATION
OF RETAINING WALL SEE
ELEVATIONS
TW 78.71
82 5. 0
73 7. 5
68 6. 0
63 6. 0
61 5. 0
59 3. 0
59 5. 0
73 5. 0
80 0. 0
79 9. 5
79 1. 0
82 7. 5
80 5. 0
98.10 12" OAK TREE
14" OAK TREE
24" OAK TREE 16" OAK TREE
8" OAK TREE
24" OAK TREE
EXISTING OLEANDER
EXISTING
TREES
8" OAK TREE 4/15/18
CANOPY ABOVE
CANOPY ABOVE
CANOPY ABOVE
PROPOSED SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING
ROOF PEAK LEVEL: 109.43
FIRST FLOOR LEVEL: 97.89
GARAGE SLAB LEVEL: 98.10
MAIN FLOOR LEVEL: 84.50
BASEMENT SLAB LEVEL: 69.50
SUGGESTED LOCATION
OF RETAINING WALL
SEE ELEVATIONS
TW 69.80
DRIVEWAY
CONCRETE/STEEL
94.05'
94' - 0 5/8"
120.98'
120' - 11 3/4"
18.50'
18' - 6"
SUGGESTED LOCATION
OF RETAINING WALL SEE
ELEVATIONS
TW 79.25
SUGGESTED LOCATION
OF RETAINING WALL SEE
ELEVATIONS
TW 74.30
SUGGESTED LOCATION OF RETAINING WALL SEE ELEVATIONS
TW 69.49
SUGGESTED LOCATION OF RETAINING
WALL SEE ELEVATIONS
TW 73.87
SUGGESTED LOCATION OF RETAINING WALL SEE
ELEVATIONS
TW 79.15
80 5. 5
72 1. 0
66 5. 5
63 0. 0
60 6. 5
61 2. 0
64 4. 0
77 9. 5
82 9. 0
82 7. 5
80 1. 0
82 7. 5
81 6. 0
98.10 77 5. 5
66 4. 5
71 9. 0
14" OAK TREE
14" OAK TREE
K TREE
8" OAK TREE
8"
CANOPY AB
SUGGESTED LOCATION
OF RETAINING WALL SEE
ELEVATIONS
TW 73.98
CANOPY AB
SUGGESTED LOCATION
OF RETAINING WALL SEE
ELEVATIONS
TW 73.98
SUGGE
SUGGESTED L
SUGGE
SUGGESTED L
SUGGESTED LOCATIO
ELEV
TW SUGGESTED LOCATION OF R
TW
SUGGESTED LOCATIO
ELEV
TW SUGGESTED LOCATION OF R
TW
SUGGESTED LOCATION
OF RETAINING WALL
SEE ELEVATIONS
82 5. 0
ESTED LOCATION
RETAINING WALL
SEE ELEVATIONS
TW 75.21
TION
WALL
ONS
8.71 2 5. 0
7 AINING
80 5.
72 1.
TERRACE ABOVE
SUGGESTED LOCATION OF RETAINING WALL SEE
ELEVATIONS
TW 71.71
" OAK TRE
SUGGESTED LOCATION OF RETAINING WALL SEE ELEVATIONS
TW 69.49
CANOPY ABOVE
CANOPY ABOVE
CANOPY ABOVE
PROPOSED SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING
ROOF PEAK LEVEL: 110.13
FIRST FLOOR LEVEL: 98.80
GARAGE SLAB LEVEL: 98.47
MAIN FLOOR LEVEL: 84.97
BASEMENT SLAB LEVEL: 70.20
SUGGESTED LOCATION
OF RETAINING WALL
SEE ELEVATIONS
TW 69.80
SUGGESTED LOCATION
OF RETAINING WALL SEE
ELEVATIONS
TW 79.25
SUGGESTED LOCATION
OF RETAINING WALL SEE
ELEVATIONS
TW 74.30
SUGGESTED LOCATION OF RETAINING WALL SEE ELEVATIONS
TW 69.49
SUGGESTED LOCATION OF RETAINING
WALL SEE ELEVATIONS
TW 73.87
SUGGESTED LOCATION OF RETAINING WALL SEE
ELEVATIONS
TW 79.15
50'
B
55'
75'
SIDE YARD SETBACK
7' - 2 5/8" SD SD SD SD SD
SD
SD
SD SD SD SD SD SD
24'' TREE TO BE REMOVED
16'' TREE 24" OAK 12" OAK 8" OAK 16" OAK 12" OAK
7 11
THERE ARE CURRENTLY MATURE COAST LIVE OAKS AND OLEANDER ON THE PROPERTY. THE
INTENT IS TO PROPERLY MAINTAIN THE MATURE LIVE OAKS REMOVING DEADWOOD AND TRIMING THEM TO 8' ABOVE GRADE AND CLEANING OUT THE OLEANDER OF ANY DEAD WOOD.
PROPOSED PLANTINGS THOUGHOUT THE SITE WILL INCLUDE FIRE RESITANT (1) IRRAGATED (2) SHRUBS, PERINNIALS AND GROUND COVERS (SEE PLAN) VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN L-5 30'-0" 30'-0"
30'-0" 30'-0"
DEFENSIBLE SPACE
1114
1730 N. First Street, Suite 600. San Jose, CA 95112. | 408.467.9100 BKF No. 20122004
May 30, 2017
CITY OF BELMONT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Attn: Rob D. Gill
One Twin Pines Lane
Belmont, CA 94002
Transmitted Via Email
Subject: Planning Application No. 2015-0057
(Complex Project - APN 043-165-180)
Mr. Gill:
Thank you for your time in reviewing the above-mentioned project and for providing comments related to the previous submittal package. Upon reviewing your comments for the project (Incomplete Letter - April 21, 2017) we noticed two outstanding items that we intend to address as follows:
Condition #1:
We reviewed the civil engineering plans prepared by LTI Engineers, Inc. for the proposed road improvements at Monte Cresta Drive. For reference, BKF Engineering acquired selected assets of LTI Engineers, Inc. that include all related engineering plan and calculations for such road improvements. On May 1st, 2017 I visited the scope of work area in question and compared the conditions to the road improvement plans previously submitted. As best ascertained from visual observations, it is our professional opinion that the conditions within the proposed road improvement area are generally similar to those conditions shown on plans by LTI Engineers, Inc. dated September 26, 2003.
Condition #4:
As requested, we are hereby officially requesting an exception from BBC Section 7-13 for the proposed fire truck turnaround. It is our opinion that the fire truck turnaround would create a positive impact for the neighborhood and we also understand that the Fire Department has reviewed and they are satisfied with the proposed improvements.
Please feel free to contact me if you need any additional information or clarification.
Respectfully,
BKF Engineers
Isaac Kontorovsky, P.E., QSD/QSP
Associate
1115
1116
L U Z U R I A G A
T A Y L O R , N C . I
Civil Engineers Land Surveyors
00-9848
NTS
HALF MOON
BAY
SAN
FRANCISCO
BAY OCEAN PACIFIC
BELMONT
1860 El Camino Real, Suite 500
Burlingame, California 94010
Tel 650.652.9590
Fax 650.652.9596
1117
L U Z U R I A G A
T A Y L O R , N C . I
Civil Engineers Land Surveyors
00-9848
1860 El Camino Real, Suite 500
Burlingame, California 94010
Tel 650.652.9590
Fax 650.652.9596
1118
L U Z U R I A G A
T A Y L O R , N C . I
Civil Engineers Land Surveyors
00-9848
1860 El Camino Real, Suite 500
Burlingame, California 94010
Tel 650.652.9590
Fax 650.652.9596
1119
L U Z U R I A G A
T A Y L O R , N C . I
Civil Engineers Land Surveyors
00-9848
1860 El Camino Real, Suite 500
Burlingame, California 94010
Tel 650.652.9590
Fax 650.652.9596
1120
L U Z U R I A G A
T A Y L O R , N C . I
Civil Engineers Land Surveyors
00-9848
1860 El Camino Real, Suite 500
Burlingame, California 94010
Tel 650.652.9590
Fax 650.652.9596
1121
RECIEVIVING
PARCEL
SENDING
PARCEL SENDING
PARCEL RECEIVING
PARCEL
DONOR
PARCEL
DONOR
PARCEL
1122
Annual Mobility Update for 2023 - Staff Report
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: February 13, 2024
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Elizabeth Wada, Associate Civil Engineer, [email protected]; Tracy Scramaglia, Asst. PW Director/City Engineer, [email protected] Agenda Title: Annual Mobility Update
Agenda Action: For Information Only
Recommendation
This is an informational item only; no action is required.
Strategic Focus Area
Infrastructure and Mobility
Background
As a part of the City’s Strategic Plan, Infrastructure & Mobility continues to be a Strategic Focus Area.
An objective for this Strategic Focus Area is to Enhance Multi-Modal Transportation, with one of the initiative projects being the creation of the Parking and Traffic Safety Committee (PTSC). This committee identifies and addresses trends to inform traffic management and develop Mobility/Capital Plans. The City receives direct requests on the needs within the community to further develop improvements.
Belmont’s hilly and narrow residential roads create unique challenges from both a maintenance and accessibility standpoint. Maintenance and emergency vehicle access is an issue, and often results in more red curb and loss of street parking in residential areas. For example, roads with widths of less than 20 feet become difficult for emergency vehicle maneuvering due to the width of engines and trucks. Trucks present a unique challenge as they need to deploy outriggers to stabilize the vehicle when the ladder is deployed. These outriggers extend out from the vehicle, enlarging its width up to 26 feet. With these types of constraints in mind, the Committee does what is best for the community’s a safety as whole.
This report intends to provide Council and the community an update of the major activities that were performed as part of the Committee, as well as highlight Public Works projects that have been completed, are in progress, or scheduled for the future.
Analysis
The Parking and Traffic Safety Committee (PTSC) is made up of members from Belmont Public Works, Belmont Police Department and the San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department. The Committee continues to improve traffic and mobility safety via the policy focus founded on the three “E’s”: Engineering, Education and Enforcement. Each component is vital to having a successful system in place to improve traffic and mobility safety.
1123
Annual Mobility Update for 2023 - Staff Report
Our Public Works Department continues to resolve safety issues throughout the City, of which, many improvement opportunities are requested by the public through the Committee. The Public Works Department reviews on average 22 requests every year. Most requests are quick Public Works fixes and others warrant full Committee review to address the issue. This is done through various improvements from simple signage to painting curb to incorporating improvements into a larger Capital Improvement Project. For the implemented requests up to Fall 2023, please see Attachment B. The remaining 2023 requests are currently under review by the Committee.
Engineering
While Committee requests receive attention throughout the year, most of our work happens in the background. Our Public Works Department’s Streets and Traffic field operations divisions made the following improvements to maintain city streets so they are usable and safe:
Refreshed:
o 4,354 feet of red curb
o 7 crosswalks located in School Zones
o 1,400 feet of lane/parking stall striping
o 20 pavement marking legends (arrows, STOP, KEEP CLEAR) Replaced:
o 13 regulatory signs
o 8 warning signs
o 6 guide signs/street signs
Repaired 352 potholes
Crack Sealed 47,156 linear feet of pavement
Installed:
o 235.12 tons of asphalt
o 11.75 yards of concrete for sidewalk, curb, and gutter o Flashing LED signage (4 signs and 2 push buttons, solar powered, push button activated) o 1 additional solar panel power source for Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
1124
Annual Mobility Update for 2023 - Staff Report
Other major transportation and mobility accomplishments that occurred in 2023 include:
1. Completion of the Ralston Corridor Phase 3 CIPR Project.
2. Ralston Avenue Adaptive Signal Project Cabinet Relocation has a contractor on board. Project completion is expected by Spring 2025.
3. Design advancement of:
Alameda de Las Pulgas Corridor Project
Belmont Village Bike and Pedestrian Project
2023 Pavement Project
2024 Slurry Project
4. Policy Updates (part of this Strategic Focus Area to Enhance Multi-Model Transportation):
Traffic Calming Policy (completion expected by December 2024) Revisions to the Sidewalk Installation Policy (completion expected by Summer 2024) Residential On-Street Parking Space for the Disabled (Completed in 2023) ADA Transition Plan (ongoing)
5. Advancing Firehouse Square, Artisan Crossing and 815 Old County Road (just to name a few) private developments through design or construction which will install new pedestrian crossing and sidewalk safety and mobility improvements in conjunction with new development and in compliance with General Plan Policy 3.1-5, which requires new development to contribute their fair share towards improvements for all travel modes.
6. Coordinating smaller private developments and private construction projects replacing and installing sections of sidewalk throughout the City supporting the City’s recognized Sidewalk Installation Policy.
The remaining objective per this Strategic Focus Area to Enhance Multi-Model Transportation is to develop a Transportation Master Plan that addresses how significant development, mobility, traffic congestion, and infrastructure can be managed for all modes of transportation. Currently, the City is seeking grant funding.
Other projects fall under the remaining four objectives:
1. Advance pavement and street improvements (see projects above)
2. Advance sewer and storm system improvements
3. Advance improvements at parks, athletic fields, and buildings and
4. Advance climate actions and adaption goals
Construction projects will continue to focus on gaps in mobility such as bike lane improvements/connectivity or non-standard sidewalks.
1125
Annual Mobility Update for 2023 - Staff Report
Public Works continues to work with City Council’s mobility priorities throughout the City while also addressing projects identified in the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan, the Ralston Avenue Corridor Improvements and the Alameda de las Pulgas Transportation Safety Plan. We look to keep improving policies and strive for more complete streets.
Education
Public Works updates the City’s social media most weeks to inform residents of street improvements.
With traffic projects or policies that have more impact, such as the Traffic Calming Policy, Public Works will present to BPAC and City Council, plus at PTSC Meetings, which has a more intimate setting for discussion. The residents in attendance include those who have made requests and those interested in what the Committee discusses. These meetings are also advertised through social media and post cards, and residents can voice their opinions and give input.
On the Police Department side, a dedicated traffic team continues to be committed to education and enforcement of traffic laws such as speeding, texting while driving, distracted driving, seat belt usage, and impaired driving (DUI). During all events and stops, officers use the time to educate motorists about traffic safety and the impact to the public they have. Education does not end with the Police Department, but also includes public outreach through social media, events, and word of mouth. An engaged community leads to a safer, more aware community.
San Mateo Consolidated Fire also hosts education efforts throughout the year, including the Youth Fire Setter intervention and education, Wildland-Urban Interface campaigns and assorted Public Safety Issue trainings. These efforts hope to reduce residential fires and lessen the need for emergency vehicles up in the hills of Belmont.
Enforcement
The Belmont Police Department does an excellent job with community education and enforcing traffic laws. Along with the traffic team, all patrol officers are responsible for enforcing traffic laws during their normal patrol duties. Along with their own knowledge of the City, the department looks to the community to identify problem areas. Community involvement is a crucial piece leading to directed traffic enforcement and traffic hotspots. Directed traffic enforcement is a tool the Police Department uses to enforce and educate motorists in a designated area throughout the City over an extended period, whereas a traffic hotspot is typically a day event where heavy enforcement is performed in a particular location to address a safety issue. Additionally, in late 2023 the Belmont Police Department received a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety to reduce the number of DUI involved crashes as well as bicycle involved crashes. Over the course of 2023, the Police Department has performed the following:
4,033 traffic stops
754 directed traffic enforcements
Issued:
o 1,903 moving citations
o 233 written warnings
o 1,707 unclassified citations*
1126
Annual Mobility Update for 2023 - Staff Report
o 303 criminal citations
*Administrative, code enforcement, misdemeanor and warning citations Alternatives
1. None.
Attachments
A. “Annual Mobility Update” PowerPoint
B. Parking and Traffic Safety Committee Improvements Table Fiscal Impact
☐ No Fiscal Impact
☒ Funding Source Confirmed:
Receiving the annual mobility update has no direct fiscal impact. Capital improvement projects (CIP) related to
transportation and mobility are incorporated as part of the fiveyear CIP plan.
Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:
Staff Council Vision/Priority Posting of Agenda
1127
Parking and Traffic Safety Committee Improvements Table
LOCATION IMPROVEMENT
Maywood Drive at
Ralston Ave
Painted approximately 20 feet of “no parking zone” red curb along southbound Maywood Drive
Hallmark Drive,
various intersections
Painted curb returns red at Hallmark Drive intersections at Soho Circle, Paddington Court, Wakefield Drive, Somerset Drive (south side only), Leigh Way and the intersection of Somerset drive and Leigh Way Monserat Ave at
Cipriani Blvd
Painted approximately 30 feet of “no parking zone” red curb along eastbound Monserat Avenue
Manzanita Avenue Installed 4-hour parking signs (6 AM to 10 AM MONDAYS) and painted green curb
1128
ANNUAL TRANSPORTATION & MOBILITY UPDATE
FOR PARKING, TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY
IMPROVEMENTS
February 13, 2024
1129
2 THREE “E’s”
Education
Enforcement
Engineering
1130
PARKING & TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE (PTSC)
3 Belmont Police Department
San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department
Belmont Public Works Department
1131
ENGINEERING
4 Parking and Traffic
Safety Committee
City Staff
Maintenance
Capital Improvement
Projects
1132
PARKING & TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
Receives requests from internal staff or the public
Requests are reviewed and taken to public meetings if
necessary
City Council approval is requested when necessary for certain improvements
51133
PARKING & TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
Striping and Markings
Crosswalks
Stop Bars
Sharrows
etc.
Signage
Installation
Replacement
Maintenance
Tree Trimming
Painting Curbs
61134
2023 PTSC IMPROVEMENTS
LOCATION IMPROVEMENT
Maywood Drive at
Ralston Ave
Painted approximately 20 feet of “no parking zone” red curb along southbound Maywood Drive
Hallmark Drive, various
intersections
Painted curb returns red at Hallmark Drive intersections at Soho Circle, Paddington Court, Wakefield Drive, Somerset Drive (south side only), Leigh Way and the intersection of Somerset drive and Leigh Way
Monserat Ave at Cipriani
Blvd
Painted approximately 30 feet of “no parking zone” red curb along eastbound Monserat Avenue
Manzanita Avenue Installed 4-hour parking signs (6 AM to 10 AM MONDAYS) and painted green curb 71135
MAINTENANCE
• Refreshed:
• 4,354 feet of red curb
• 7 crosswalks located in School Zones
• 1,400 feet of lane/parking stall
striping
• 20 pavement marking legends
(arrows, STOP, KEEP CLEAR)
• Replaced:
• 13 regulatory signs
• 8 warning signs
• 6 guide signs/street signs
8 • Repaired: 352 potholes
• Crack Sealed: 47,156 linear feet
of pavement
• Installed:
• 235.12 tons of asphalt
• 11.75 yards of concrete
• Flashing LED signage
• Solar panel power source for
RRFB
1136
MAINTENANCE
9 Finishing curb & gutter Sign installation Pavement striping 1137
MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS
• Completion of the Ralston Corridor Phase 3 CIPR Project • Policy Updates:
• Traffic Calming Policy
• Sidewalk Installation Policy (revision)
• Residential On-Street Parking Space for the Disabled
• ADA Transition Plan (ongoing)
101138
MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS (cont’d)
• Ralston Avenue, Cabinet Relocation Project (relocated of electrical cabinets at Ralston Ave/Cipriani Blvd and Ralston Ave/Belmont Canyon Road)
111139
CURRENT PROJECTS
• Fire House Square
• Artisan Crossing
• 815 Old County Road
• Single Family Homes
• New builds
• Additions
• Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
12 • Ralston Ave cabinet relocations
• 2023 Pavement Project
• Alameda de Las Pulgas Corridor
Improvement Project
• Belmont Village Bike and Pedestrian
Project
• 2024 Slurry Project
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
1140
EDUCATION
13 Outreach and Events Police Department Media
1141
ENFORCEMENT
14 Traffic Hotspots Directed Traffic
Enforcement
Parking Hotline
1142
BELMONT POLICE STATISTICS FROM 2023
• Performed:
• 4,033 Traffic Stops
• 754 Directed Traffic Enforcements
• Issued:
• 1,903 Moving Citations
• 233 Written Warnings
• 1,707 Unclassified Citations*
• 303 Criminal Citations
*Administrative, code enforcement, misdemeanor and warning citations 151143
16 Questions
1144