Item 4 - 122 Whitney AvenueHPC 7-27-16
Item 4
N:\DEV\HISTORIC PRESERVATION\HPC Sheets\2016\Whitney 122.docx
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
110 E. Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95032
Phone: (408) 354-6874 Fax: (408) 354-7593
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE
PROJECT DATA SHEET
Project Data
122 Whitney Avenue
Architecture and Site Application S-16-033
Requesting approval to demolish an existing pre-1941 single-family residence to construct a
new single-family residence on property zoned R-1:10. APN 523-37-023.
PROPERTY OWNER: Laura and Samuel Schaevitz
APPLICANT: Gary Kohlsaat
PROJECT PLANNER: Jennifer Armer
FINAL ACTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
PROPERTY DETAIL
Date structure was built: 1928
Town of Los Gatos Historic Status Code: None
Does property have an LHP Overlay? No
Is structure in a historic district? No
If yes, what district?
If yes, is it a contributor?
Findings required? Yes
Considerations required? No
See back page of this document for findings and considerations.
Comments: The applicant is requesting approval to demolish an existing pre-1941 (since
substantially altered) single-family residence to construct a new single-family
residence. The applicant has completed a foundation inspection and materials are
attached.
Cc: Gary Kolhsaat, Kohlsaat & Associates, 51 University Ave., Los Gatos, CA 95030
Laura and Samuel Schaevitz, 122 Whitney Ave., Los Gatos, CA 95030
Required Findings
X As required by Section 29.10.09030(e)(2) of the Town Code for the demolition of
a single family residence (Preservation of historically or architecturally significant
buildings).
1. The building is not associated with any events that have made a significant
contribution to the Town.
2. No significant persons are associated with the site.
3. There are no distinctive characteristics of type, period or method of construction
or representation of work of a master.
4. The structure does not yield information to Town history.
5. Structural integrity of the building.
Required Considerations
Sec. 29.80.290. Standards for review.
In evaluating applications, the deciding body shall consider the architectural style,
design, arrangement, texture, materials and color, and any other pertinent factors.
Applications shall not be granted unless:
1 On landmark sites, the proposed work will neither adversely affect the
exterior architectural characteristics or other features of the landmark (and,
where specified in the designating ordinance for a publicly owned
landmark, its major interior architectural features) nor adversely affect the
character of historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the
landmark and its site.
2 In historic districts, the proposed work will neither adversely affect the
exterior architectural characteristics or other features of the property
which is the subject of the application, nor adversely affect its
relationship, in terms of harmony and appropriateness, with its
surroundings, including neighboring structures, nor adversely affect the
character, or the historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of
the district.
3 For pre-1941 structures, the proposed work will neither adversely affect
the exterior architectural characteristics or other features of the property
which is the subject of the application.
Town Policy
That the work proposed is compatible with the neighborhood.
~ = ~HiiNEy
~ -tv ---==--' tv rJ:;. lJrlJ
~ n mmm
::r: ~z~
~ = 0<i'-m-1:{
~ >>-t-1 _. _. _. }) ~~~ () ...n ...n ...n
-l -l Ut m ~ ~z () -l -fl. ()) ()0~
~ <~ IJ' :{ -n~o ~ () _. ()0"11 c l-ot :.0 ...n 'J ~()o t'I1 t'I1 Ut ~~ ...n m (!\<~
N~ r -m-
0\ Z~(J' z l-m -
(") ~ ru~ ~~ :{~ _. ~~~ 0 )> ~~r
r ~ -l mm () z m )> 'J ;-I
0 0:{ ~tJ:{ ~ m-to
(/). rJ:;. I() (j\ =tO lJ 'J ~Ic
Cl l-ot l-tJ 0 0 -I OZU\ I ~ ~ ~m 00tJ ~ ~~~I 0 0r -n l-zm -1 ()
(/). ~ )>7\ ~ ~-r z "110-> lJU\7\ ~
(") z r-(j\ om; :{ (J\ ~ot->
)> ~~ -1 ~(\0 l-z<l'
c z 0\ :{U\r mi tJ ;OI 0 z -;z rm 0 zm z~. mz u_z ~ (\ <i'c-n 0--lr )> -n-n ~ m ~0--t ;· ~)> tJ r -m-0~ ~ -c \) tJ ....n :{0 0z o(j\ l-t:J =t ~---~ =t 1\) )>Z
r~ 0 -n 0 (p zu
-< z )>r z z-t
Q() (I' .fl.
01 t:J() ur
~ =t~ Ut~
I 0 t-!-n z "--t _..
t-1
~
II
-fl. _.
~
iHE ENTII'E STFWCiUI'E IS NO~ S IDED ~li H T-111 SIDING
~H I CH ~ NOi AYAIL.ASL.E ~HEN iHE HOUSE II'IAS
~IGINAL.L.Y CONSmUCTED. ASSUMED DATE IS 1"1,4.
MANY' OF THE SU6SEGUENT ADPIT IONS ARE
ARC.H ITEC. TURAL.L. "!"' PR06L.EMATIC.
J\f G C 0 N S T R U C T 0 R & E N G I N E E R S
EN GJ NEE R S , I NS P ECT O R S , B U I LD E R S
Ci\I.I FO R N I A 1\NC I NEE R I NG AND B U I L D I NG L I CENS E
1\ I B 6 4 2 0 5 H
C/0 : Renee & Skip Levy
Sereno Group Realtors
369 South San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
March 18th, 2013
RE: Foundation Inspection for 122 Whitney Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030
Based on the direction by Renee Levy of Sereno Group Realtors, MG Constructors &
Engineers Inc. (Mark Garrison) performed a summary foundation inspection to evaluate
the ove rall condition of the existing foundation and floor diaphragm for the subject
property. The purpose of this report and evaluation is to review the foundation, floor
diaphragm, related support structure and drainage for current condition and recommend
repairs if necessary. Additionally, the buyers are interested in future e xpansion by adding
to the existing structure and wanted our comments regarding additions to our work.
Findings: The existing foundation is two story structure with an exterior reinforced cast
in place concrete stem wall/footing, supporting a girder/plywood floor diaphragm, with
interior pier footing supports at varied spacing for the structure. The foundation is
original construction, with previous additions and modifications to the original found ation
structure. The building pad is level at the foundation , and sloped up to the South and
West sides , and sloping downhill on the North and East sides . No original or
subsequent to original building documents were available for review of the foundation
and related structure. There appear to have been two previou s additions to the original
structure, one under the laundry room at the NW side of the structure, and the other at
the East side of the crawl space in the lower floor elevation area, but no corroborating
documentation was available to review and confirm.
The condition of the foundation , floo r diaphragm, and visible structure overall are in
apparent continued service providing condition , with the following observations regarding
the critical elements of the foundation and related components .
1. Concrete Foundation : The existing conc rete foundation is a combination of
construction time periods, with the original structure, followed by additions to the
original in the front, sides , and rear/garage.
2
• There were +/-12 vertical c racks were noted on the original and addition
concrete foundation , (Reference photos #1 and 2). No displacement, axial
movement, separation or other issues of significance were noted with the cracks
indicating serious movement or damage. Efflorescence1 was noted in areas.
• There are several locations where the bearing is inconsistent due to original
concrete placement with voids under several sections of interior bearing
footings, and unco nsolidated sections of concrete (rock pockets) where origin al
concrete pla cement was not consolidated (Reference photo #3).
• There are areas where the interior wood framing is bearing directly on soils , or
inadequately supported by undersized piers, or shims (Reference photos 4 , 5).
• There is inconsistenUinadequate or missing seismic anchorage on the
foundation .
• The front South and West sides of the found ation have settled , and were
originally a porch (SW corner), whi c h was framed over at the same original
sloped elevation (Reference Attachment 1, Foundation Sketch and Elevation
Survey).
• Foundation anchorage and seismic restra int hardware is inconsistently or not
installed, with the North and South sides of the foundation not having seismic
restraining anchor bolts or similar hardware at all (Reference photos #6 , 7).
• No destructive, ground penetrating radar, or other testing was performed to
review/verify the strength properties , reinforcing steel , or other structural
characteristics of the foundation, as no observed reasons merited further
evaluation as of this writing.
3
Photo #3, Interior bearing grade beam with severe rock pockets and voids under bearing
sections of floor frami
4
Photo #5, Poor bearing and inadequate access on Southeast side of foundation-typical
5
Photo #6 , Previously shimmed section of floor framing and sill plate connection with no
lateral/seismic resistin hardware installed .
Photo #7 , Void between the sill plate and floor frame-no anchor bolting , seismic
hardware or related framing to positively connect the foundation to the upper frame -
South side of foundation -typical
Recommended Action: The cracks and horizontal cracks are recommended to be
professionally repaired , as follows :
1. The vertical cracks, voids and heavy rock pockets are recommended to be structurally
repaired per PE and International Concrete Repair Institute guidelines.
2. The foundation to floor frame connection needs is recommended to be
repaired/added to meet current building code requirements for seismic resistance .
3 . A separate structural access is recommended in the area of horizontal crack repair
for access to the South facing side of the crawl space, future maintenance access and
monitoring of crawl space.
4 . Bearing piers and connections are recommended to be removed and repaired per
current building code and PE design .
2. Wood Floor Diaphragm. The floor diaphragm is a composite of original and
subsequent construction . Some adequate, other areas not. There has been
substantial substandard work (over spanning of joists, undersized joists, etc.) done to
several areas of the crawl space, which is recommended to be repaired as part of
recommended foundation repairs noted above. Additionally, the existing framing
clearance between the lower framing girders is too low in the South and East
sections of the crawl space, not allowing access through area (Reference photos 8
and 9). Recommended Action: As part of recommended repairs noted above for
6
foundation and seismic repairs, Professionally Engineer and repair existing framing
deficiencies throughout lower crawl space.
Photo #8, Twisted/offset joist, over spanned (Reference Attachment 2) and inadequate
clearance between soils and irder ust be minimum of 12" per current building code).
r
Photo #9 , Poorly framed interior support, piers and posts-typical in lower section
7
3. Floor Elevation Survey. The floor was measured with a liquid level throughout , with
over 30 locations checked (Reference Attachment 1, Floor Elevation Survey).
Normal acceptable floor elevation amounts are within the 1" in 20 ' of lateral distance .
The lower floor section on the South and West sides of the foundation have settled
or were originally framed lower (could not tell during inspection) up to 3-1/4 " in the
SW corner, and 2-5/8" in the NW corner below the entry. No structural damage or
related damaged was noted, although there are several locations of minor interior
drywall cracking (Referen ce photo #10). Recommended Action: As part of seismic
repairs, framing and foundation repairs noted in this report , the floor diaphragm and
related framing should be lifted to meet current acceptable levels per PE design and
current building codes , by a competent c ompany experienced in this type of work .
4. Drainage. There is no significant water intrusion in the crawl space, the exterior roof
rain gutters and ex isting drainage appears to be functional at the house. Exterior
grading and decks are sufficiently draining away from the foundation. Clean and
maintain existing drains, ma intain per recommendations noted below.
5. Relative Humidity. The relative humidity was measured, in the crawl space and
exterior, as follows : Crawl Space , 50 .8 % at 57.9°F and Exterior, 45.5% at 62 .8 °F.
These levels on the South side where the soils are wet are higher, and the fact that
there is very water intrusion in the crawl space currently are consistent with
acceptable levels of RH. No further action recommended as of this writing , maintain
drainage as recommended below.
Other: There are several other non structural items that will need to be repaired as part
of this work, as follows:
1. Plumbing and Electrical. The existing plumbing and electrical is a composite of
original and subsequent repairs, most poorly done, and non compliant with current
building code . Multiple code violations were noted: open electrical junctions and wiring ,
detached plumbing from structure, poorly installed pltlmbing and electrical , etc.
(Reference photos 3 , 1 0).
2. Detached, and too long of dryer duct run from dryer to foundation (Reference
photo #11 ). Recommended Action: Re-route duct to shorter run of 8 ' in length or less,
or add fan per current building code, and duct to exterior.
3. Tree's near foundation on North side of foundation (Reference photo #12).
Recommended Action: Monitor tree 's over time. Their distance to the foundation is
<5 ', which may cause lifting issues in the future (currently there is no apparent lifting by
tree roots under foundation). If future work is to be done by adding second story to
garage area, these trees should be professionally removed.
4 . Existing Clearance in Crawl Space. There is a lack of clearance in the crawl space
for the lower area , and the area behind the garage is either slab on grade, or
inaccessible . The area on theSE corner of the lower crawl space is inaccessible as well ,
and will need to be excavated to maintain clearance . Recommended Action : The
ducting will also need to be removed and replaced to maintain access to perform the
above recommended work, and meet current building code for clearance . The soils in
the areas where access is limited will need to be removed and disposed of.
5 . Rear Yard Retaining Walls. The rear yard is a sloped hillside toward the e xisting
structure, which has several low wood retaining walls, and a lower stacked rock retaining
wall at the rear of the foundation on the lower slab on grade patio area and adjoining
8
hillside (Reference Attachment 1, photo #13}. These appear to be functioning as
installed. Monitor over tim e per item number 2 noted below.
Photo# 11, Disconnected a nd too long per code dryer duct in lower c rawl space area.
Also note open electrical junction box-typical, and corrosio n to plumbing pipe conn ect or
9
Photo #13, Grouted rock gravity retaining wall in rear yard/patio area .
deflection in central area, and minor cracking .
Maintenance: As a recommended standard, it is important to maintain existing drainage
controls , and implement the following recommendations as the standard for
maintenance of drainage systems:
10
1. Keep roof, rain gutters , downspouts, exterior irrigation and drain lines d irected away
from foundation to lower are as of the site .
2. Have qualified professional review and evaluate existing foundation and dra inag e
conditions every 2-3 years or after a seismic event of significance .
3 . Monitor exterior trees , plantings and planter boxes near foundation for deg rad a tion
changes over time, by a qualified professional.
4 . Maintain proper function of existing interior and exterior drain lines annually.
5. Maintain standard pest maintenance/treatment by a qualified professional.
Summary: The overall condition of the drainage, foundation and related floor
diaphragm components all appear to be fun ctional , and in continued service p roviding
condition , except as noted above. The foundation and framing repairs noted above are
re c ommended to be professionally repaired as described above for th e longevity of the
structure noted above .
If owners wish to add on to this structure the above noted and additional building code
corrections and upgrades will be required to be done as part of recommended
addition/remodel.
Implement foundation and drainage monitoring and maintenance for the long term health
of the foundation and related structure , per recommendations noted above .
Sincerely,
Mark R. Garrison , MSCT
Owner, MG Constructors & Engineers Inc.
Californ ia Engineering and Build i ng License A/8642058
Disclaimer: This inspection report has bee n developed and prepared to address observations, site c onditions
and evaluations relating to professional construction standards at the time of construction for this type of
structure. Current Building Code (2009 IRC/2010 CBC) is revised from original construction, and is only used as
a basis of knowledge, not as a comparison. This inspection report is contingent only on what was visible at the
time of inspection, and excludes any hidden, latent or other defects/situations which were undetectable to the
naked eye during inspection. The recommendations noted in this report do not reflect non structural items, only
visible structural issues. No pest or general inspection items were performed as part of this inspection. Neither
MGC&E Inc., Mark Garrison, nor any company personnel assume any liability for all unforeseen problems. This
report should not be construed as a warranty of any kind , express or implied
Foo tn o tes:
1 5 650 V INE Y AR D BL V D , S UITE A , #232• MORGAN HILL , C A • 95037
PHONE : (4 08)842-559 9 • FA X : (88 8 )2 34 -805 7
1 Efnorescence is the development of m in eral salt deposits o n th e surface of conc rete or other soi l matrix caused by seepage of wa ter
through concrete and surfa ce deposits of m inera l sa lt to adh ere to concrete surface. Over time th ese deposits can cause d eco mposition
(usually mi nor) to th e su rface o f concrete.
11
Attachment 1, Floor Elevation Survey, Scope of Work Sketch
c = .
~
; i "" • f l e • "t ". E ... "'
12
13
Attachment 2, Joist Calcul ations -Fai ls
MG Cooslt'urtors & EnglnH1-s Inc. P'roa..m .. ..
~Ttlfl~bo~Dnii'IIWM~~at.uppamllniiM4-fl_ ......... '""t&likiiMonlr . ...,_lrll~narcanoM!ou-t..~ ..... NIC~.~wit\:KIOt •2003
18C.Nt ..... ~O.Cif'oecMci..,•-P"IfllptllfnliciNLAI..,....INII~·Sbtl~t..w . .,.,.llnll f ore._.._,..fnwn.......,uwfll .. ~
Job Nome: 122 Wl1lney Dr, Loo Gatos
Boom 1.0.:1-----Conor.ol::-"-7.-:--:-_ -----1 load and Span Diagram tt+oo:ToSc•lt.,IXh.if~"/.riCI'l t-""'!!t
Oilier lnfo.:.__-==-==F-:-ra<:-:-W_alrand=-::;:~· ;;:W;;:ol==:
Main span. L :L..! --""'1~2-~oo~n~__J
Main Span Max.~ Uve Deft L 1: • ...... -360 • • .... ·: • OM•
f ............... -.-....... .
Main Span Max. Allowed Total Deft: u •.••••• 2.4~ •••• -~-o.eo~
cantilever (Overhang) Eldsls? ' "' ...
Pit<tl n Sloped: I o.o :12
loac:l Ol.r.llion T-.oc.«• I ,:J •
LoadS From Continuous Ment»er? Y"
AdO 5ei!Wt71 o ·~ ... 1
sawn Member Repelitive u.e? : '"
Unllonn Loads OVer Full Length of Memt..r
U...DSI
zoo
1 ~0
I 100
~ ..
3 ...
·100
-t'!O
Root Loa<IS (nOIInclJOing s.-)1--= .Wi la!.l osll_-+_..,!li;.I!!!._,L_~~~...J
R~~~~~~----~----,-~~~-.
~~:::~--------+----~1------i
Wal Dead lOad 7 DSI 6 .00 ft
10
lpan(f\1
Olhef "pSr toad and trlb width:------+------''-----+---'---.
Additionat"pll' unil. Live Loaos.; •••• .!.>!•.!'!1'~ .. ~1----------t-----'
Additional 'pll' unn. Dead LoadS.; •••• .!.>!~~ .. ~'-:-:=::-::=-.-----_.
Load SUb!otals
TOial AdjUsled unworm l.oadS
COmbined Total Unnorm Load
•• And 5molltr ILumiMr!
Acct!!l.lblt Solutions
Timber Malef1al
Timber~
BO.Oiblft
92.01>111
163.3blft
BO.Oiblll 62.0 iblft
w0 z 71.31br'ft
&x And Loratr Qlm!Mrs!
.~•fW·IMcf'l
WWH.-~1
Acc!pg!>!t Soty!lons
FlnollolemiMr s.-w_, •1
Material Ubrlry _o-..,O"")Misc.,Ofa.-'f)pt ..,.
Final Member: 2 x 8 •, Douglas Fir·
Larch, No. 1 (Falls)
Final ..... RnyiiS
Bending overuestgn: .J5.N
ShearOvenJesign: t5.1%
Flul Stze: 2s:a • • Dellecllon Ov..-tgn: .36.2%
Bearing I Buckling Overosgn: NIA
"
............ l ...... ;. 1.50 ln.(Loll) . -1.50 ln.·~:~
Vlft 011' (IIPP'"OXI: 0.00 ft • Trw Ltn (tNfOI
ActueUh...,lll•: 1.50"'x7.2S.. 12.00ft
Cont 11om Loodng. Flnol-FAILS by: 36.2%
ConiJOIIng a11er1a Is : Doftoctlon
Rtaetlons
Ma.muns R,-UII
LiYe Lood: 552 lb
o-tlood: ~
Toal Lood: 960 1b
LiYe C...~ Max NIA
l!bn!lm. &.:..1.111
I.Ne Lood: Olb
0.6or 1.00oad : 25711>
NotRoodim 2571>
IMC...~ Mn NIA
~
552 1b
~
96011>
NIA
&.:..Biil
Olb
~
2571>
NIA
I