The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02-12-2003 Planning Commission Packet CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe, Zutshi and Chair Jackman Absent: Commissioners Barry, Kurasch Staff: Planners Welsh Est Vasudevan, Attorney Wittwer, Director Sullivan and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of January 22, 2003. (APPROVED 4-0-1, ZUTSHI ABSTAINED) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission mayinstructstaffaccordinglyregardingOralCommunicationsunderPlanningCommissiondirectiontoStaff. ' REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 6, 2003.y REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR - None PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communication should be filed on or before the Monday, a week before the meeting. 1. APPLICATION #02-269 (397-22-051) -CUTLER, 14480 OAK PLACE; Request for Variances to allow an existing 190-foot section of wall to be in excess of the City Code maximum 6-feet in the side yard setback and to remain 7-feet 6-inches, fora 56-foot section of fence in the front yard setback to exceed the City Code maximum of 3-feet to be allowed to be constructed 6-feet tall, and a 25-foot section of fence in the front yard setback to exceed the City Code maximum of 3-feet to be allowed to be constructed 6-feet tall. The Planning Commission will also consider allowing a structure to be constructed within 10 feet of an ordinance protected Oak tree. (SULLIVAN) (190-FOOT WALL DENIED 5-0; S6-FOOT FENCE DENIED 5-0; 25-FOOT FENCE APPROVED 4-l, HUNTER OPPOSED) 2. APPLICATION #02-238 (389-15-069) -VAN ATTA, 13235 McDOLE STREET; -Request for Design Review Approval to demolish a 2,120 square foot home and build a new two-story 2,694 square foot home. The maximum building height of the residence will be 20 feet. The project also includes demolishing 312 square feet of the existing 720 square foot detached garage. The lot size is 10,000 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-10,000. (VASUDEVAN) (APPROVED 5-0, WITH ADDED CONDITION) 3. APPLICATION #02-121 (503-27-068) - QIAN, 14261 SPRINGER AVENUE; -Request for Design Review Approval to demolish a 712 square foot home, a 126 square foot accessory structure and a 232 square foot garage, and build a new two-story 2,823 square foot home with 1,458 square foot basement. The maximum building height of the residence will be 18 feet 11.75 inches. The lot size is 7, 500 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-10,000. (WELSH) (APPROVED 5-0, WITH ADDED CONDITIONS) COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner's sub-committee reports COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN City Council Minutes from Regular Meetings on January 15, 2003 ADJOURNMENT AT 10:43 PM TO THE NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, February 26, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA If you would like to receive the Agenda's via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION LAND USE AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 3:00 p.ril. PLACE: City Hall Parking Lot, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Land Use Committee SITE VISITS WILL BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2003 is Rou CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. Application #02-096 - SPITTS (Story Pole Determination) 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road 2. Application #02-269 - CL3TLER Item 1 14480 Oak Place 3. Application #02-121 - QIAN Item 3 14261 Springer Avenue 4. Application #02-238 - VAN ATTA Item 2 13235 McDole Street LAND USE COMMITTEE • The Land Use Committee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The committee conducts site visits to properties which are new items on the Planning Commission agenda. The site visits are held Tuesday preceding the Wednesday hearing between 3:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. It is not necessary for the applicant to be present, but you are invited to join the Committee at the site visit to answer any questions, which may arise. Site visits are generally short (S to 10 minutes) because of time constraints. Any presentations and testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the public hearing. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, February 12, 2003, 5:00 p.m. PLACE: Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 6, 2003 STUDY SESSION AGENDA 1. APPLICATION #02-192 (503-24-064) - LEE, 14493 Big Basin Way (Saratoga Cleaners); -Request for Design Review Approval to construct an addition of an 875 square foot commercial tenant space at the first floor level, a 620 square foot 3-car garage, and a 1,512 square foot apartment at the second floor level of an existing 2 story structure located in the CH-1 zone. 208 square feet of the existing commercial space (Saratoga Cleaners) will be eliminated to accommodate the attached 3-car garage. However, the applicant also proposes to add 52 square feet to the Cleaners by extending the rear laundry/utility area. The existing 3,380 square foot structure consists entirely of commercial space at the first floor, a carport, and two apartment units at the second floor. The 4,277 square foot site is located in Parking District No. 3. (VASUDEVAN) ADJOURNMENT TO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - Wednesday, February 12, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe, Zutshi and Chair Jackman PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of January 22, 2003. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications underPlanning Commission direction to Staff. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 6, 2003. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR - None PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communication should be filed on or before the Monday, a week before the meeting. 1. APPLICATION #02-269 (397-22-051) -CUTLER, 14480 OAK PLACE; Request for Variances to allow an existing 190-foot section of wall to be in excess of the City Code maximum 6-feet in the side yard setback and to remain 7-feet 6-inches, fora 56-foot section of fence in the front yard setback to exceed the City Code maximum of 3-feet to be allowed to be constructed 6-feet tall, and a 25-foot section of fence in the front yard setback to exceed the City Code maximum of 3-feet to be allowed to be constructed 6-feet tall. The Planning Commission will also consider allowing a structure to be constructed within 10 feet of an ordinance protected Oak tree. (SULLIVAN) 2. APPLICATION #02-238 (389-15-069) -VAN ATTA, 13235 McDOLE STREET; -Request for Design Review Approval to demolish a 2,120 square foot home and build a new two-story 2,694 square foot home. The maximum building height of the residence will be 20 feet. The project also includes demolishing 312 square feet of the existing 720 square foot detached garage. The lot size is 10,000 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-10,000. (VASUDEVAN) 3. APPLICATION #02-121 (503-27-068) - QIAN, 14261 SPRINGER AVENUE; -Request for Design Review Approval to demolish a 712 square foot home, a 126 square foot accessory structure and a 232 square foot garage, and build a new two-story 2,823 square foot home with 1,458 square foot basement. The maximum building height of the residence will be 18 feet 11.75 inches. The lot size is 7, 500 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-10,000. (WELSH) COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner's sub-committee reports COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN - City Council Minutes from Regular Meetings on January 15, 2003 D OURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING AJ - Wednesday, February 26, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA If you would like to receive the Agenda's via a-mail, please send your e-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us • MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION O~Q~~i DATE: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Jackman called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe Absent: Commissioners Zutshi Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Planner Lata Vasudevan and Planner Christy Oosterhous PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of January 8, 2003. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the regular Planning Commission minutes of January 8, 2003, were approved as submitted. AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman and Kurasch NOES: None ABSENT: Zutshi ABSTAIN: Barry and Roupe REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 16, 2003. .REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Jackman announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b). ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 22, 2003 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO.1 APPLICATION #02-192 (503-24-064) -LEE 14493 Big Basin Way (Saratoga Cleaners): Request for Design Review approval to construct an addition of an 875, square foot commercial tenant space at the street level and an addition of a 1,476 square foot apartment to the second floor level of an existing structure located in the CH-1 zone. The existing 3,224 square foot structure consists of a service establishment at the street level and two apartments at the second floor. This project was reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Commission on 11/12/02. The 4,277 square foot site is located in Parking District No. 3 (VASUDEVAN) Planner Lata Vasudevan provided the staff report as follows: • Described the request for Design Review Approval for the addition of 875 square feet for . a commercial tenant space on the first floor, a 620 square foot garage and a second floor apartment. • Stated that the parcel is zoned CH-1 and that the Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed the ,proposal and was supportive with the recommendation to expose the original limestone exterior wall, to install S-brackets along the side and to install a plaque explaining the historic significance of the building to the community. The applicant has incorporated these recommendations into their proposal. • Said that the entire first floor would be commercial with three apartments on the second floor. • Informed that the site is situated within Parking District No. 3 and that the applicant must buy development rights for three spaces. • Explained that the facade depicted in the exhibit was intended to resemble the. existing facade but that the applicant has since submitted a.revised proposal for modifications to the facade as Exhibit B. These changes are the result of the Planning Commission's site visit the previous day and were provided by Architect Warren Heid, together with a written description, this evening. • Stated that staff feels this proposal represents an improvement over what currently exists and supports the proposal with the added conditions: 1. That the facade be developed per Exhibit B; 2. That the applicant obtain an encroachment permit for any portion of the canopy or any other minor projection that may encroach into the public right-of-way; and 3. That the plans show the restroom on the floor plan. Commissioner Barry: • Pointed out that the limestone is only included on two sides of the building and not on the front facade. • Questioned what is intended when speaking of the original design of the building. Planner Lata Vasudevan: • Explained that the original structure was constructed in the mid-1800's and looks nothing like it does today due to a major remodel that occur in the 1950°s. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 22, 2003 Page 3 • Added that the main reason the building remains on the Historic Inventory list is because the • building was constructed with original limestone walls, limestone that will be exposed along Turkey Trot Way and preserved. Chair Jackman said that the old photograph shows glass in the front. Planner Lata Vasudevan agreed. Commissioner Barry asked if the limestone was included on the front facade prior to the remodel in the 1950's. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that it is not clear. Commissioner Kurasch inquired whether the property owner, Mr. Lee, has had a chance to discuss these changes with his architect prior to tonight's meeting. Planner Lata Vasudevan advised that she had spoken with the architect, Mr. Heid, who told, her he had spoken of the changes with Mr. Lee, who is happy with the new proposal. Commissioner Hunter stated that the Village Guidelines are marvelous and asked whether staff referred to these guidelines while evaluating this project. Planner Lata Vasudevan: • Replied that she had considered the Village Guidelines during her review. • Added that the original intention was to mirror the original facade from the 1950's remodel. • Said that this new proposal does include some elements from the guidelines including articulation around windows. Commissioner Hunter asked if the inclusion of window boxes were an option or required by staff. Director Tom Sullivan explained that there have been few applications for additions, remodels or new construction within the Village. When the Patrick James remodel occurred, the window boxes were insisted upon by the City. Chair Jackman proposed the use of flower planters under the windows since flowers thrive better in the ground rather than within window boxes. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out the reference in the Village Guidelines to pedestrian and open space linkage and suggested creating a corridor effect with the two sidewalks. Planner Lata Vasudevan explained that she saw this project more as a continuity of storefronts. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out a design suggested on page 26 of the Village Guidelines and asked why two properties with separate function are not being split to look like two different storefronts and if this idea had been considered. Commissioner Roupe questioned having two entryways on the East Side of the property and why a common sidewalk is not used to allow a more integrated use as well as space for more landscaping. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 22, 2003 Page 4 Director Tom Sullivan said that the Commission could add this as a Condition but that the applicant and property owner would have to work out mutual access easements. Added that the City cannot force the neighbor to allow this easement. Commissioner Roupe asked if the applicant is at least allowed to pursue the possibility. Commissioner Kurasch suggested that they be allowed to see how they feel about the suggestion. Commissioner Roupe agreed that there was benefit in seeing if the applicant is willing to pursue this. Director Tom Sullivan cautioned that this is not a public sidewalk but rather private and that an easement is required when accessing one property requires passing through another's property. Commissioner Barry asked if the pathway only goes to the entrance. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that it goes to the stairway. Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:26 p.m. Mr. Warren Heid, Consulting Architect, 14630 Big Basin Way, Saratoga: • Identified himself as the Lee family representative and advised that his associate, Mr. Bruce Johnson, Project Architect, is also present this evening. • Advised that this building originally had limestone on the East and West Side. The East Side faces the open lot and will be covered following the completion of construction. The limestone will be visible on the West Side of the building. • Added that this is original limestone that was quarried in Saratoga. • Said that the Heritage Commission accepted that the intent is to maintain the 1950's look. • Added that due to the narrowness of the lot and building, it was decided not to make the building appear as two separate buildings. Instead it was found to be better to maintain the original architectural style. • Said that after the Commission's site visit, stained redwood elements were added. Other design features include making the limestone prominent, covering up electrical equipment and carrying out a horizontal cornice feature as a tie in between the railing at the back and carried around to the front and back also. • Said that the window treatment includes two by four redwood for a bay window effect over each of two-second story windows but not for the apartments. • Said that the neighboring property only has sidewalks to their stairs. • Stated that incorporated an archway between the two buildings would look squeezed as it is only 18 feet wide. • Said that the best use is to make it look like one building although they have tried to dress it up a bit. • Assured that the project will be harmonious with the Village rather than the stark look the building has right now. Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Warren Heid if the area between the two buildings could be improved with landscaping, etc., if an easement agreement is worked out between the two property owners. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 22, 2003 Page 5 Mr. Warren Heid: • Said that the area would be dark, that little sunlight would get in. • Said that there are few planters on buildings in the Village of which he is aware. • Added that he did not think plants would survive in that particular area. • Said that he could talk this issue over with his son, Jeff, who is a landscape architect, but that it would ultimately be up to Mr. Lee. • Reminded of the 22-foot height with only 25 feet between the buildings. Commissioner Barry suggested that the existing sidewalk of the other building could become a landscape area if shared sidewalks are worked out. Mr. Warren Heid reiterated his belief that there is simply not enough sunlight to sustain plants in that area. Chair Jackman asked Mr. Heid if they have had difficulties reaching the neighboring property owner. Mr. Warren Heid replied yes, they have had no response to their attempts as the Management Company is not being cooperative. Commissioner Kurasch asked what materials are proposed adjacent to the sidewalk, near the wing wall. Mr. Warren Heid replied concrete. Commissioner Kurasch said that this is quite an expanse of concrete and questioned the use of the overhang. Mr. Warren Heid said that the need for a overhang the result of meeting lot coverage limitations. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that the Village Guidelines encourage building from property to property without setbacks. Planner Lata Vasudevan pointed out that the lot coverage maximum is 80 percent. Mr. Warren Heid said that it would be pretty difficult to do what is being asked in such a way that would be attractive. Commissioner Kurasch suggested that a more urbane look is warranted, something other than concrete, perhaps a material such as pavers. Declared that having 15 feet of concrete would look like a service yard. Mr. Warren Heid said that he would be willing to work on other possibilities and could incorporate such changes in material to include pavers. Commissioner Barry said that she has lots of questions that she would defer to Project Architect Bruce Johnson. Asked Director Sullivan if there is any flexibility for the Commission to consider a design that extends the maximum lot coverage. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 22, 2003 Page 6 Director Tom Sullivan advised that to do so would require a Variance, an action that cannot be done tonight. Commissioner Barry asked if there is any real hope that a Variance request could be supported. Director Tom Sullivan replied that there is a weak case as far as making the required findings for a Variance. Added that some redesign is possible to give more of a property line to property line facade. Commissioner Kurasch said that having a double sidewalk seems like a large area. Commissioner Roupe cautioned that a property line to property line building would preclude access. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that there could be an arcade-like opening in the facade. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that there are many alleys in Carmel with beautiful plants. Mr. Warren Heid joked that they were likely plastic. Commissioner Roupe said that it may be difficult to grow anything but ferns in those conditions. Mr. Warren Heid: • Said that there is a garage planned for three apartments, one existing and two new. • Stated that he would take a look at what he can do to establish a pleasing facade. • Assured that he is not here to destroy the Village but rather to enhance it. • Agreed that there are narrow facades in Carmel and that nice plants do appear to thrive in that situation. Mr. Bruce Johnson, Project Architect, 80 Alice Avenue, Campbell: • Explained that the Ordinance limitations to 80 percent lot coverage are what caused the inclusion of a four-foot offset or overhang between the first and second floors. • Suggested that allowing that space to be two stories would eliminate the wing wall and that the four foot by 60-foot area would be back within the building. This would eliminate the double walkway and then planter boxes could then be maintained. • Suggested amending this project to allow the covered area to come down to the ground level. Commissioner Roupe reminded that the coverage would be more than 80 percent if that area came down. Director Tom Sullivan agreed that is the case if that occurs. Commissioner Roupe cautioned Mr. Johnson that a Variance on the 80 percent coverage is an uphill battle. If the building comes straight down at that location, they would be forced to find approximately 240 square feet of the footprint elsewhere to remove from the project. Mr. Bruce Johnson said that the planters would be maintained and that Mr. Jeff Heid could advise them on what plant materials would work under these conditions. Commissioner Hunter suggested hanging baskets as another possibility. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 22, 2003 Page 7 Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Johnson for comments on the double sidewalk situation. Mr. Bruce Johnson said that they can also check with Jeff Heid for softscape materials in lieu of hardscape materials, if such materials can be adequately maintained. Chair Jackman declared her confidence in the recommendations of Mr. Jeff Heid on this matter. Commissioner Barry: • Thanked Mr. Johnson for heeding the request of the Commissioners during the site visit and coming back this evening with changes based on those comments. • Suggested incorporating limestone on the front facade, across the first floor, to blend with the existing limestone on the side facade. • Said that in her opinion, it seems that the Heritage Commission wanted to highlight the limestone and wanted continuity with the buildings further up Big Basin Way. • Suggested arched windows as an attractive alternative if they are symmetrical. • Asked if it is possible to incorporate arched windows on the second floor. Mr. Warren Heid: • Said that he had attempted to find a matching limestone veneer for use on the front facade but has thus far been unsuccessful. • Added that normal limestone is 8 to 10 inches think which cannot be accommodated in this application on the front facade. Mr. Bruce Johnson agreed that incorporation of arched windows is a possibility. Chair Jackman pointed out that use of arched windows would be within the living room in one apartment unit and in the kitchen of another. Commissioner Kurasch said that the building is plain and that she does not mind stucco. However, she did not envision stained redwood and questioned the use of this material over the windows. Questioned if this was some sort of gable. Mr. Warren Heid said that they could make trim out of cement plaster too but that they were under the impression that the Commission wanted the plaster to be softened. Added that the wood shingled canopy over the window is intended to both protect and soften. Commissioner Kurasch asked why use shingles over an awning element. Mr. Warren Heid replied to achieve continuity of roofing materials. Commissioner Kurasch expressed support for some banding of stone on the front facade. Mr. Warren Heid said he is willing to look further for an appropriate material. Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 8:04 p.m. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 22, 2003 Page 8 Commissioner Hunter said that she attended the Heritage Preservation Commission meeting at which time this project was reviewed and the Village Guidelines did not even come up. Reminded that these guidelines were approved in 1991. Chair Jackman suggested a continuance of this item. Commissioner Garakani expressed support for a continuance and asked if this site is one parcel or two. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied one. Commissioner Garakani asked if the site has two addresses. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied yes. Director Tom Sullivan added that it is very common for a building with multiple tenants to have multiple addresses. Commissioner Garakani: • Said that this is a very sensitive area with a small corner lot and a huge building. Additionally, the building's front and sides don't match the Village corridor. • Recommended a continuation. • Expressed appreciation to the applicant. for providing computer generated final view of this building. • Said that the Commission has provided all direction possible to the staff and applicant this evening. • Said that he would like to see wood siding on the second floor on all four sides of the building. • Stated support for the inclusion of arched windows and perhaps some sort of arched walkway with landscaping in the corridor. • Reiterated that this is a sensitive area and questioned whether some sort of Variance might be possible. Commissioner Roupe: • Agreed that a continuance is in order. • Said that it might be better to have a Study Session with the applicants bringing forward a couple of alternate concepts. Commissioner Garakani said he would be willing to give up some of his time to attend such a Study Session. Chair Jackman agreed. Commissioner Barry pointed out that the design work required by the applicant would be more conceptual and less detailed than it would have to be to come back to a Planning Commission hearing. Commissioner Hunter: • Stated that she would like to see the Village Guidelines implemented. . • Said that the inclusion of arched windows is not a good idea. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 22, 2003 Page 9 • Added that the inclusion of any type of phony limestone is not desirable. To do so would take away from the beauty of the existing limestone on the building. • Supported the suggestion for a Study Session. • Advised that she would support a building much as depicted in the Village Guidelines on pages 26, 27 and 28. • Declared that she would like to see the treasure that is the Village maintained and enhanced. Mr. Warren Heid supported the suggestion for a Study Session. Director Tom Sullivan proposed scheduling this Study Session for 5 p.m. on February 12, 2003. Since the Planning Commission Meeting agenda for February 12~' is already fully booked, if the project should be continued to a Planning Commission meeting, it would have to be on February 26, 2003. Chair Jackman reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 8:15 p.m. Mr. Warren Heid: • Said he needed more direction to prepare for the Study Session since each Commissioner has offered different suggestions. • Pointed out that the Village is actually very eclectic and looks best at night with the lights on. • Asked for more definite instructions. Commissioner Roupe said that the Commission gave ideas this evening and that Mr. Heid should come • to the Study Session with several ideas. Chair Jackman assured Mr. Heid that he is well aware of what is there in the Village and what is possible. Commissioner Barry: • Said that Commissioner Hunter made an excellent point and that it may be best to utilize square instead of arched windows. • Said that the Commission has provided a pretty consistent message to the applicant that it is looking for something with a flavor of the Village Guidelines. Mr. Warren Heid questioned if anyone is aware of any arched windows within the Village. Chair Jackman replied no. Chair Jackman reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 8:20 p.m. Commissioner Kurasch: • Agreed with Commissioner Hunter about the desirability of the example given within the Village Guidelines. • Added that she cannot make the findings to support a Variance of the 80 percent coverage. • Stated that she does not like the project as it currently is proposed. • Chair Jackman supported the recommendation to continue this item to a Study Session at 5 p.m. in the Conference Room on February 12, 2003. It would later have to be readvertised for public hearing. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 22, 2003 Page 10 Commissioner Roupe recommended also pre-setting the item for public hearing on February 26, 2003, so as not to unnecessarily delay the project. Director Tom Sullivan agreed that this course of action is possible. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission continued consideration of Design Review (Application #02- 192), for 14493 Big Basin Way to a Study Session at 5 p.m. on February 12, 2003, and subsequently to public hearing at the Planning Commission meeting of February 26, 2003, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe NOES: None ABSENT: Zutshi ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 APPLICATION #02-219 (503-29-127) - MOORE, 20700 Saratoga Hills Road: Request for Design Review Approval to demolish an existing one-story residence and to construct atwo-story single-family residence. The project also includes the construction of a pool house, basement and three-car garage. Both the pool house and garage are attached to the main residence via a common roof. The total floor area on the site is 6,520. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. The lot size is approximately 98,010 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-40,000. (OOSTERHOUS) Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Informed that the applicant is seeking approval to demolish an existing one-story single-family residence and construct a new two-story single-family residence, with a pool house, basement and three-car garage. • Described the project to include a 26-foot maximum height on a two-acre parcel. The architectural style is French, with details including eaves flared outward, multi-bay windows, beige stucco and copper accents to include gutters, downspouts and the roof of a bay window. • Advised that staff is recommending an alternative to the use of copper for environmental reasons. • Added that the house would include two gas fireplaces and one wood-burning fireplace. There is an additional wood-burning fireplace in an outdoor area. Staff is recommending only one wood- burning fireplace be permitted on site. • Said that staff is also recommending the use of paving stone materials for the drive. • Advised that one tree would be removed, four additional diseased trees removed and one tree transplanted on the site. • Recommended approval with amendments to .the use of copper, limiting the site to one wood- burning fireplace. Commissioner Roupe advised that the Planning Commission had concluded several years ago that copper does not present a significant threat to the Bay following a presentation by experts at a Commissioners Retreat few years ago. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 22, 2003 Page 11 Chair Jackman added that it has been determined that when runoff from copper gutters filters to the ground, any copper in that water is neutralized. Commissioner Barry stated that she is a strong advocate against cooper roofs but feels differently about copper gutters, for which a case can be made to support, but that it was imperative that the retention of water on site occur. Commissioner Kurasch asked for the zoning designation. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied R-1-40,000. Commissioner Hunter asked if the second wood-burning fireplace is in the guesthouse. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied one is in the main house and the second is outdoors. Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:31 p.m. Commissioner Roupe commended Mr. Rob Moore for his installation of story poles, the rendering of the house and his advance work with his neighbors. Mr. Rob Moore, Applicant and Owner, 20700 Saratoga Hills Road, Saratoga: • Clarified that his site is unique in that it has 200-foot frontage. Planner Christy Oosterhous pointed out that the project meets the front setbacks and explained that the pool house is simply the closest structure to the front property line at 35 feet. Mr. Rob Moore: • Sought clarification that the shrub removal called for is just around the trees to be protected. Planner Christy Oosterhous said yes. Mr. Rob Moore: • Pointed out that the Ordinance regarding wood burning fireplaces makes the distinction of restricting them to one per structure and not one per site. • Added that he will have awood-burning fireplace in the living room of his home and agas-burning fireplace in the more often used family room. Another wood-burning fireplace is on the outdoor wall of his guesthouse. Commissioner Roupe asked staff for its interpretation of the Ordinance. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that the Ordinance clearly states one per structure and this becomes a discretionary matter for the Commission. Commissioner Roupe asked if the guesthouse is seen as a separate structure. Planner Christy Oosterhous said that the issue is not just the question of number of structures but more the number of wood-burning fireplaces. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 22, 2003 -Page 12 Director Tom Sullivan reminded that the Sobrato project was limited to one wood-burning fireplace. Commissioner Hunter asked if they asked for more. Director Tom Sullivan said he is not sure since that application initially came in prior to his tenure. Mr. Rob Moore: • Pointed out that the impervious surface he is proposing totals 16,000 square feet out of a total allowable of 34,000 square feet. • Said that he is trying to get double duty with this surface so his young children will have a flat continuous surface on which to ride bikes and rollerblade. • Stated that he is willing to put cobblestone where the drive is visible from the street if aesthetics are the concern. Commissioner Roupe advised that paving does not gain in water retention. Director Tom Sullivan advised that there are a couple of brands of paving materials that gain a lot in perviousness, up to 30 to 40 percent better than impervious materials. Chair Jackman recommended incorporating pervious material around the boarder of the drive to reduce the amount of impervious material while still leaving flat surface for the children's use. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that a 4,000 square foot asphalt area is quite large and asked if there is a reason why Mr. Moore does not want to use pavers there. Mr. Rob Moore: • Pointed out that there is no off-street parking and this area will be necessary for when they entertain. • Added that he is willing to work on the impervious surface concern. • Said that he wants a smooth surface to allow drainage. • Reminded that there are competing interests on the property. They need to retain water on site so that water from copper gutters can be diverted. He added that the water from the gutters would hit a splash and migrate into the landscape area. A bio swale will serve to filter any copper from the water before it is diverted to the street. A portion of the storm water will drain directly down the driveway. Commissioner Garakani said that while there will be water retention on site, most still will go into the drain on Saratoga Hills Road. However, more water should be retained on site than is currently the case. Mr. Rob Moore: • Said that the original soils report called for taking all water off site. • Added that the City's consultant required keeping all water on site. • Said the final decision is to retain a large portion on site but that some water needs to drain off. • Said he supports the condition in the Resolution. • Reminded that he is only incorporating 26 square feet of cooper roofing over a bay window. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 22, 2003 Page 13 Chair Jackman asked for information on what is a bio swale. Director Tom Sullivan advised that it is a landscape drain system that allows filtering. Commissioner Kurasch asked for a written confirmation that less water will drain from the site than currently. Mr. Rob Moore said that he had not been asked to provide such a document. Commissioner Barry asked for the composition of the soil in the bio Swale area. Mr. Rob Moore said that his soils engineer is not present this evening. Commissioner Barry said that she is assuming that the bio swale is being located in a place so that it will actually work. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes and added that, if not, the applicant would be wasting lots of money. Mr. Rob Moore restated his areas of concern as being the fireplace issue, paving issue and use of copper. Commissioner Garakani asked if any retaining wall would be required in the area in which the existing garage is currently located in order to flatten out that area. Mr. Rob Moore replied yes, athree-foot high retaining wall would be installed. Commissioner Garakani asked if that is enough. Mr. Rob Moore replied yes. Commissioner Roupe asked if there would be more or less impervious surface than currently exists on the property. Mr. Rob Moore replied a similar amount. On one hand, less impervious surface is required because of a two-story structure. On the other hand, additional impervious surface because of the new guesthouse. However, it is not a significant difference. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Moore if he is willing to supply documentation on the on-site drainage being increased and/or decreased and therefore not adding to the burden on Saratoga Hills Road. Mr. Rob Moore replied yes. He stated his understanding that the letter should state that. drainage systems would put less water on Saratoga Hills Road than the existing site conditions. Director Tom Sullivan asked that the amounts and/or differences be quantified. Commissioner Roupe suggested that the brick area near the pool could be a pervious surface. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 22, 2003 Page 14 Mr. Rob Moore pointed out that this is only a 20-foot by eight-foot patio by the pool that is paved. Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Moore if there is an alternative to copper that he would be satisfied with. Mr. Rob Moore said he wants and likes copper but could live without it if there is a compelling reason to do so but that he would appreciate leaving it in the design. Added that this is a 40-year home for him. Commissioner Barry asked about construction impacts on the road. Mr. Rob Moore said that he would be responsible for any damage to the road and will work with the road contractor that maintains the road. Commissioner Roupe stressed that the road would be required to be back to current conditions following completion of construction. Commissioner Kurasch questioned whether a bond should be required. Director Tom Sullivan replied if the Commission feels it is necessary. However, no final occupancy would be issued until the road is back in appropriate condition. Commissioner Barry brought out a situation raised whereby a drainage plan was approved for another site but was built differently, as far as pipe size is concerned. Mr. Rob Moore said that that was the result of a series of contractor's errors. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that calculations would be incorporated with the construction drawings. Chair Jackman asked where the nearest sewer drain is located on Saratoga Hills Road. Director Tom Sullivan pointed it out on Plan Sheet C-1. Commissioner Kurasch asked how it is determined that the right pipes are. installed. Is there an inspection to double check. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that these are not City-owned or maintained storm drains, but rather are private. Commissioner Kurasch again asked how compliance is ensured. Director Tom Sullivan replied by having the applicant provide certification that off-site drainage will be the same or less than current drainage. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Moore why he would not consider gas for the outdoor fireplace. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 22, 2003 Page 15 Mr. Rob Moore said his wife would make the best case for wood-burning fireplaces. Added that the romance and feel of a wood fire is much better than gas. Commissioner Kurasch expressed concern over potential sparks. Mr. Rob Moore replied that it would be designed to be safe. Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 9:10 p.m. Commissioner Barry: • Suggested that an Ordinance change be initiated to tighten the restriction on number of wood burning fireplaces. • Added that one per property is enough. • Said she is not persuaded that the second wood fireplace is needed. • Agreed that the applicant should be able to implement the placement of pavers where he wants on his property. • Said she is okay with copper gutters but not with the copper roof over the bay window. • Stated that the design of this home is very nice. • Expressed appreciation for the applicant's work with his neighbors. • Said that the story poles provided a good view for the Commissioners and thanked Mr. Moore for having them in place for their site visit. Commissioner Hunter: • Said that the design is great and this would be a beautiful home. • Added that she has four sons and understands the need for a space for children to play. • Said that until the Ordinance is straightened out to limit wood burning fireplaces to one per site, she will support one wood burning fireplace in the main residence's living room and a second outside the guesthouse. • Said that the use of copper is fine. Chair Jackman agreed and said she too is okay with leaving the placement of pavers to the discretion of the owner. Commissioner Kurasch asked Commissioner Barry for her position on the use of copper. Commissioner Barry replied it is okay as long as adequate on-site dispersal and retention of water occurs. Commissioner Kurasch asked staff for its opinion on how to assure that on-site drainage requirements are met. Director Tom Sullivan said that the applicant will provide calculations for conditions now and what is proposed. If there is a reduction, the situation is better. This information will be used by Public Works to evaluate the adequacy of site drainage. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the site drainage "as is" is inadequate. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 22, 2003 Page 16 Director Tom Sullivan said he did not know. Commissioner Kurasch: • Said that she supports allowing the pavement as the applicant wants. • Said that this will be a great addition on a spectacular site. • Advised that there are compelling reasons to limit wood-burning fireplaces to one and asked staff if this matter is discretionary at this point. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes and added that the Commission would have to state why it was limiting to one per site as opposed to one per structure. Commissioner Garakani stated that this project is very well done on a nice large site. Pointed out that copper tends to oxidize. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that this is part of the French architectural design. Commissioner Garakani said that minimal copper is being use. Warned that if 8 grams of copper are multiplied by a large number of homes using copper gutters, the adverse impact would be greater. For one project, it is not a big deal. Commissioner Roupe suggested having the speaker come back to advise the newest members of the Commission on the impacts of copper. Commissioner Barry stated that there is no question that copper in the Bay is a problem but that mostly copper contamination comes into the Bay as a result of break pads. Chair Jackman pointed out that there have only been one or two applications incorporated copper elements. Commissioner Garakani said that the water retention issue only pertains to storm water. Added that everything looks good and that he supports the design. Commissioner Kurasch asked Commissioner Garakani for his position on the second wood-burning fireplace. Commissioner Garakani said he has awood-burning fireplace in his own home but upon reading the new material provided on the subject, he has concerns about the impacts. Chair Jackman said that she uses candles in her own fireplace. Commissioner Roupe: • Said that this is a great, well thought out project that will be nice looking. • Commended the work with the neighbors. • Said he was willing to give the applicant latitude on the issue of pervious versus impervious. materials but that he will have to meet the requirement that less water is drained off-site than currently. • Said that copper is appropriate for gutters and acceptable. However, he does not encourage copper roofing and feels that there are good alternatives available for the roof on the bay window. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 22, 2003 Page 17 • Said that the Ordinance should be followed on the issue of the fireplaces. If necessary, the Ordinance should be changed. Therefore, he supports the allowance of two wood-burning fireplaces on this site that has two structures. • Declared that the air quality actually continues to improve although efforts should continue to improve air quality even further. Chair Jackman said she does not support the copper roof over the bay window and that the road must be returned to current condition following construction. Commissioner Hunter said that the copper roof over the bay window will be attractive and that she is in favor of allowing it. Stated that this would be a beautiful French Normandy-style home. Commissioner Kurasch agreed that there are preferable materials to a copper roof available for use on the bay window. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Planning Commission granted a Design Review Approval (Application #02-219) to allow the demolition of an existing residence and construction of a new single- family residence on property located at 20700 Saratoga Hills Road, with the following additional Conditions of Approval: 1. That the roadway be retained and maintained to its current condition during and after construction before final occupancy is issued; 2. That copper gutters be allowed as long as they drain into a landscape area to allow for filtering but that the copper roofing on the bay window be eliminated; 3. That pervious pavers be applied at the applicant's discretion given that a quantified and documented decrease in the amount of off-site water flow is achieved; and 4. That two wood-burning fireplaces be allowed, one in the main structure's living room and the second outdoors at the guestlpool house. by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe NOES: None ABSENT: Zutshi ABSTAIN: None *** DIRECTOR'S ITEM5 There were no Director's Items. COMMISSION ITEMS Council Updates Director Tom Sullivan: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 22, 2003 Page 18 • Advised that Council would hold a hearing on February 5, 2003, on the Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance. • Informed that Council would be appointing a new streamlined and downsized Committee to review the Gateway Design Guidelines. • Announced that two Councilmembers would be working with him on a Tree Committee. COMMUNICATIONS None AD TOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chair Jackman adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, February 12, 2003, to begin at 7 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • • ITEM 1 .7 • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No.: Location: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Date: APN: 397-22-051 App #02-269 14480 Oak Place MITCH &t TRACY CUTLER Thomas Sullivan, AICP February 12, 2003 Department Head: - ~ r ~ ~\ v . ~~ y i ~~ ~ ®an~r aaveRr ~, //~~~/ ~ J` ~ Parcels within 500 fe9l p~q, K ~ i~~p~,~i Q FBtCIIB _ ~ ~/ ,~~~G~~ ~~~~ ~~~./~~ ~ SVeet_M16rtH6~ ~~, h~~,~ ~/V, < ~ 11 '~ ., ~ ~, ~, ,~ ~ i L1V ,~,/..~ ~~~~ ~~, ~ ~ ,.t¢/ ~;~ ~~ ~ ~~ y~ ~~ '' / -y ,~ ,~ /t 0 150 300 450 60C N n .-. ,i, 14480 Oak Place • X00001 • Staff Recommendation All parties related to the issue before the Planning Commission has made ongoing disparaging remarks about the City Staff. I have investigated the application and am providing a report to the Planning Commission, but I am declining to make a recommendation on the application. This seems to be the most fair and equitable path. I will put forth the facts as fairly and as impartially as possible. Whatever the Planning Commission's action is, the City Attorney and I will prepare a formal Resolution, v~~ith findings, and place that Resolution on the Commission's Consent Calendar for the next regular meeting. Project Description The Applicant has requested approval of variances for the following individual items: 1. The height of the 190-foot section of the existing property line wall along the north and northeasterly sides of the parcel (adjacent to the DAVIES, SMITH AND KING properties). The City Code allows a maximum height of 6-feet; the request is to allow the existing wall to remain. The existing wall reaches heights 7-feet 6-inches in certain portions. Because the portion of the wall along the 190-foot section is requested to be allowed to remain over 6-feet tall, it is categorized as a "structure." That is because Ciry Code Section 15-06.670 defines "Structure" as follows: "'Structure' means that which is built or constructed which requires a location on the ground, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner. "Structure" includes retaining walls, decks, patios, swimming pools, and recreational courts but does not include a fence or a wall used as a fence not exceeding six feet in height." In addition, the Uniform Building Code, Section 106 -Permits states in subsection 106.2 Work Fxempt from Permit states; A building permit shall not be required for the following.' ,3~2. Fences not over 6feet (1829 mm) high. Since this wall section is higher than 6- feet, the conclusion is that the 7-foot 6-inch tall wall is a structure. As such, Section 15-50.110 of the Saratoga Code disallows structures within 10-feet of a protected Oak tree unless otherwise permitted by the approving authority. In this case, the Planning Commission is the Approving Authority. This approval is a separate action and not part of the variance. 2. The height of a yet un-built fence along a 56-foot section of the southwesterly side (adjacent to the BRECK property) of the parcel be allowed to be 6-feet tall. As this is the "Front- Yard" side of the parcel, the code restricts the height of fences in the front yard to 3-feet. 3. The Applicant is requesting that a 25-foot section of fence along the southeasterly side (adjacent to the GOLDMAN property) of the parcel be allowed to be 6-feet tall. As this is the "Front-Yard" side of the parcel, the code restricts the height fences in the front yard to 3-feet. The three requests for wall or fence height variances are appealable to the Ciry Council. The Planning Commission's determination to allow or disallow a "structure° to be placed within 10-feet of a protected Oak tree is final. There are also "easement" issues that maybe considered with regard to wall location. Staff has providcd ~OQUt~02~ a copy of the parcel map that created the various easements. The parcel map that created the three parcels, which are currently owned by BRECK, MATAS and CUTLER, created reciprocal ingress and egress easements. The DAMES gain access to their garage over CUTLER'S property, which extends to Oak Place. The Parcel Map also created a Public Ser~rice Easement and a Sanitary Sevver Easement. Subsequent to the approval of the Parcel Map, a landscape agreement was entered into between the property owners of what have become the BRECK and CUTLER properties: This agreement was recorded on June 15, 1983 and was subsequently amended on June 16, 1986. I have attached documentation regarding this agreement. In 1992, the ingress and egress easements, and the landscape agreement became the subject of litigation between the former property owners. The landscape agreement was referred to in the litigation and was referenced as Exhibit 20 of that document. Staff has attached a copy of the Court decision along .with other pertinent documents for the Commission's review. The City is not a parry to any of the easements or the landscape agreement and does not have the authority to enforce the provisions of any of them. Any approval given to any of the variances requested will be without prejudice to any property rights of any affected property owner. Even though the easements, the agreement and the history of these properties all come to play to a certain extent, the Commission needs to focus on the Variance request before it, the findings that must be made. According to the City Code, the purpose of a variance is as follows: "The Planning Commission is empowered to grant variances in order to pre~~ent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this Chapter as would result from a strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of certain zoning regulations. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon, from geographic, topographic or other physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity or from population densities, street locations or traffic conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be the sole reason for granting a variance. The power to grant variances does not extend to use regulations and any use which is prohibited under the regulations of his Chapter may not be authorized through the granting of a variance." Section 15-70.010. Both the Saratoga City Code and State law require that findings offactbe made regarding the granting of variances to the provisions of the Zoning Code. Subsections 15-70.060 (a), (b) and (c) of the Saratoga Code apply to the wall or fence height variances requested by applicant CUTLER. The applicant has prepared responses to the three required findings, which can be found in the Attachments Section of this Staff Report. Staff has provided a discussion of each of the findings offact in following sections of this Staff Report. 15-70.060 Findings required for granting of variance. The approving authority may grant a variance as applied for or in modified form if, on the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the approving authority makes all of the following findings: (a) That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and ~OQ0003 classified in the same zoning district. (b) That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the ~~iciniry and classified in the same zoning district. (c) That the granting of the variance ~~vill not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. (d) If the variance is for any regulation pertaining to signs, the Planning Commission shall also find that the granting of the variance will not introduce a visual element, which is inconsistent with the appearance of the immediately surrounding area. (e) If the variance is for any regulation pertaining to off-street parking or loading facilities, the Planning Commission shall make the following additional findings: (1) That strict enforcement of the specified regulation is not required by either present or anticipated fixture traffic volume or traffic circulation on the site. (2) That the granting of the variance will not result in the parking or loading of vehicles on public streets in such a manner as to interfere with the free flow of traffic on the streets. • Each of the separate wall or fence variance requests need to have separate discussions, conclusions and actions relating to the mandatory findings outlined in section 15-70.060 (a), (b) and (c). The reason for this is that the conditions related to the 190-foot section of existing wall are different from conditions related to the 25 and 56-foot sections. 190-FOOT WALL SECTION. n~v p~~~P SMITH DAMES KING • Highway 9 190'FENCE CUTLER SECTION This section of wall is an existing 7-foot 6-inch tall wall. The applicant has requested to be allowed to retain this wall in its 7-foot 6-inch height. The maximum height allowed pursuant to Saratoga Code section L5-29.010 (a) is 6-feet. The Saratoga Code defines how height is measured in section 15-06.340. ~~D~~3~4 . This section states, in part, ".... In the cases offences, walls and hedges, the height thereof shall be measured by a vertical line from the highest point of the fence, wall or hedge to a point directly below at either the natural grade or the f1nished grade, whichever is lower. .... " It must be noted that a small portion of this wall section is not over the 6-foot height maximum. That portion is adjacent to the KING property.. Sarar a C'~dP ~ cri~n 15-70 OCO (al- That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. Size -The parcel is 27,000 sq. ft. and is zoned R-1-10, 000. Parcels in the general vicinity range from 6,000 to 35,000 sq. ft. Shape -The parcel is a "flag" lot in a rather unusually designed subdivision that has access from both Oak Place and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. The property along the 190-foot section of the wall is irregular in that it juts into the SMITH parce112-feet and is also encumbered with an ingress/egress easement. Topography -The CUTLER property has a gentle slope and is higher in elevation than the three properties contiguous to the 190-foot wall. Location. -The most unique locational feature of the CUTLER parcel is that there are 10 properties that are contiguous to it. This impacts the ability of the residents of the parcel to maintain privacy Additionally, the existence and location of the ingress/egress easements could also be cited as a unique feature. Surroundings -The general vicinity is comprised of single-family dwellings. It is arguable that the only special circumstances that the CUTLER parcel has is the ingress/egress easement, the 12-foot offset in the property line and being surrounded by 10 other parcels. The Commission needs to determine if the strict enforcement of the 6-foot fence height limitation would deprive CUTLER from enjoying his property in the same manner as property zoned the same in the general ~~icinity. Sara_ r~~a C'~rle ~ecri~n 15-70 oEO (hl_ That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. The applicant contends and has provided a map delineating properties in the general ~~iciniry that have fences in excess of 6-feet. Staff has provided a copy of the map as Attachments labeled "Applicant's Submittals. Code Enforcement has conducted a review of the submitted information and generally concurs that there are numerous fences in the general vicinity that are in excess of 6-feet tall. At the same time,- one of the contiguous parcels, the DAVIES property, to the 190-foot section of wall had constructed a 7-foot 6-inch wood fence and through complaints filed with the City's Code Enforcement, that property owner was directed to remove the portion in excess of 6-feet. However, that property owner (DAVIES) has submitted a letter approving the CUTLER wall, as has the other property owner (SMITH) whose property is adjacent to the portion of the CUTLER wall, which exceeds 6 feet in height. Sar`. ai~ga C'cde secrinn 15-70.OFO (c~..l_ That the granting of the vaziance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfaze, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The Commission needs to ask and answer, "Does this existence of a 7-foot 6-inch property line wall ~~a~05. create a situation that is detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity?" The Commission also needs to indicate why or why not the 7-foot 6-inch wall does or does not create such a situation. As set forth above, the only two property owners (DAVIES and SMITH) adjoining the portion of the 190-foot wall, v,~hich exceeds 6 feet in height, have indicated their approval of the wall. 0 25 50 75 700 125 R • This section of fence is proposed to be located along the common property line between the CUTLER and WRECK properties. It is the rear yard of the WRECK property and the front yard of the CUTLER property. As CUTLER is the applicant and it is his front yard the fence is restricted to 3-feet in height pursuant to Saratoga Code section 15-29.010 (b). If WRECK were the applicant it would be his rear yard and the fence height could be 6-feet without consideration of a variance. Sararpga C'n P Serrinn 15 70 OfiO (al That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the . specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. Size -The parcel is 27,000 sq. ft. and is zoned R-1-10, 000. Parcels in the general vicinity range from 6,000 to 35,000 sq. ft._ Shape -The parcel is a "flag" lot that has access from both Oak Place and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. The property along the 56-foot section of the proposed 6-foot fence is irregular in that it is CUTLER'S front yard and WRECK'S rear yard. WRECK could construct a 6-foot fence in this location without benefit of permit or variance Topography -The CUTLER property has a gentle slope and is lower in elevation than WRECK'S ~. QO'~~~ 56-FOOT FENCE SECTION. property Location -The most unique locational feature of the CUTLER parcel is that there are 10 properties that are contiguous to it. Additionally, the existence and location of the landscape agreement between the BRECK and CUTLER properties that encompasses a portion of the CUTLER property could also be cited as a unique feature. Surroundings -The general vicinity is comprised of single-family dwellings. Saramaa C'cde ~ecri~n 15-7~_~C~ (hl_ That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. Most of the other parcels in the general vicinity are not "flag-lots" and they have standard street frontage. One could argue that the.CUTLER property is not similar to the typical R-1-10,000 zoned parcels in the vicinity in that his "front yard" is BRECK'S rear yard and that allowing a 6-foot tall fence in this location under these conditions does not constitute a grant of special privilege. At the same time there is no guidance in the Saratoga City Code that would either compel or preclude this interpretation. $ar^maa Code secricn 15-70 060 [cl_ That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. ' The Commission needs to ask and answer, "Does this existence of a 6-foot fence along the front property line create a situation that is detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity?" The Commission also needs to indicate why or ~vhy not the 6-foot fence does or does not create such a situation. The most obvious reason why it would not is that the area in which the variance is requested there is no "line-of-sight" vision issue nor are there any issues related to creating a `tivalled" look along a public or private roadway. 25-FOOT FENCE SECTION The final section of fence is located along the common property line between the CUTLER and GOLDMAN properties. It is a portion of the rear yard of the GOLDMAN property and the front yard of the CUTLER property. As CUTLER is the applicant and it is his front yard the fence is restricted to 3-feet in height pursuant to Saratoga Code section 15-29.010 (b). If GOLDMAN were the applicant it would be his rear yard and the fence height could be 6-feet without consideration of a variance. $ar^r a CcdP se rinn 15-70 060 (al_ That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. Size -The parcel is 27,000 sq. ft. and is zoned R-1-10, 000. Parcels in the general vicinity range from 6,000 to 35,000 sq. ft. Shape -The parcel is a "flag" lot that has access from both Oak Place and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. The property along the 25-foot section of the proposed 6-foot fence is irregular in that it is CUTLER'S front yard and GOLDHAM'S rear yard. GOLDHAM could construct a 6-foot fence in this location without benefit of permit or variance Topography -The CUTLER property has a gentle slope and is higher in elevation than the three i properties contiguous to the 25-foot wall. Location -The most unique locational feature of the CUTLER parcel is that there are 10 properties that are contiguous to it. S Surroundings -The general ~~iciniry is comprised of single-family dwellings.. S rat~aa C'odP SPCri~n 15 70 OFiO (hl That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. Most of the other parcels in the general vicinity are not "flag-lots° and they have standard street frontage. One could argue that the CUTLER property is not similar to the typical R-1-10,000 zoned parcels in the vicinity in that his "front yard" is a portion of GOLDHAM'S rear yard and that allowing a 6-foot tall fence in this location under these conditions does not constitute a grant of special privilege. At the same time there is no guidance in the Saratoga Ciry Code that would either compel or preclude this interpretation. Saramoa C'~d sec inn 15-7~_OfiO lcl_ That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The Commission needs to ask and answer, "Does this existence. of a 6-foot fence along the front property line create a situation that is detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity?" The Commission also needs to indicate why or why not the 6-foot fence does or does not create such a situation. The most obvious reason why it would not is that the area in which the variance is requested there is no "line-of-sight" vision issue nor are there any issues related to creating a "walled" look along a public or private roadway. With regard to the Commission's needed determination of whether to allow a structure to remain within 10-feet of protected Oak trees I would refer the Commission to Barrie Coate's Arborist Report of Apri122, 2002. While in this Arborist Report, he did not specifically address removal of the wall within 10-feet of the protected Oak trees, he did recommend that the soil not be removed but rather remain and that radial trenching be accomplished. His report had specific design of the radial trenching. He also recommended that a landscape plan be prepared to assure that the activity beneath the neighbor's trees is not as destructive as the compacted fill would be. The landscape plan has recently been submitted for review. A copy of the plan has been submitted to Barrie Coate for his review. However, it is Staffs conclusion that the landscape plan is not consistent with the previous Arborist Reports or previous Planning Commission actions. Mr. Curler has so been informed. • ~~0~'~8 • CUTLER i i ., ' ~ ~ ' ; 25-foot fence section • GOLDMAN ~; TO RECAP, THE PLANNING COMMISSION NEEDS TO ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUAL ITEMS: 1. The Variance request to allow an existing 7-foot 6-inch,190-foot long wall to remain "as is" adjacent to the DAVIES and SMITH properties: 2. The Variance request to allow the construction of a 6-foot fence where the Saratoga Code limits the maximum height to 3-feet. This is a 56-foot long section in the front yard of the CUTLER property and the rear yard of the BRECK property. 3. The Variance request to allow the construction of a 6-foot tall fence where the Saratoga Code limits the maximum height to 3-feet. This is a 25-foot long section in the Front yard of the CUTLER property and the rear yard of the GOLDMAN property. 4. Determine whether or not a structure may be placed closer than 10-feet to Ordinance protected Oak trees, and if so whether any conditions should be imposed. ACTION THAT MAY BE TAKEN BY PLANNING COMMISSION City Code Section provides as follows with regard to the action the Planning Commission may take on a variance application: "(a) The approving authority may either grant or deny the application for a variance. If granted, the variance may be revocable, may be granted for a limited period of time, and may be granted subject to such conditions as imposed by the approving authority. (b) The variance shall become effective upon the expiration of fifteen days following the date on which the variance was granted unless an appeal has been taken to the City Council pursuant to Article 15- 90.050(b) of Chapter (15] " _~Q~~~9. 25-FOOT FENCE SECTION a ~ ~~ 1. APPLICANT'S SUBMITTALS 2. COURT DOCUMENTS 3. PARCEL MAP WITH EASEMENTS 4 LANDSCAPE AGREEMENT WITH AMENDMENTS S. PUBLIC HEARING MAILING LABIFS AND AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES 6. PLAl~T SET • ~a~~~0 • • ATTACHMENT 1 APPLICANT'S SUBMITTALS ~OU~11 FROM ~AFONDUE FAX N0. : 4088679144 Dec. 10 2002 02:37PM P1 • To: City of Saratoga 12-10-U2 L,. Variance Findings-Article 15-70.06U 1(a):Special circumstances applicable to the property exist. The height of the190 foot fence is within the height parameters of neighboring properties. The property at l 4480 Oak Place has 9 adjacent neighboring properties. A119 of the adjacent neighboring properties have fences that. exceed the City of Saratoga's 6 foot municipal height requirement. Therefore the variance can be supported, because denial of the variance would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified: in the same zoning district. 1(b):Special circumstances applicable to the property exist. The 25 foot set back at the southern comer of the property has been misapplied. 'The address of the property is 14480 Oak Place. The mail box and entrance to the lot is at Oak Place corner of Park Place. The City of Saratoga's Planning Department has erorred by unilaterally changing the front set back from an approved location to one that in no way serves tlae accurate representation of the property. 1(c):The City of Sarato~a's Planning and Building Deparknents have previously approved ,pemZitted and finaled the plans for the 190 foot fence and the 25 foot front set back(2-22-02,03- 11-02). As 1(a) and 1(b) demonstrate should the Planning Commission support a variance, it would not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. 3:in no way will the granting of a variance be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare of any person place or thing. It will certainly not be injurious to properties or improvements in ~-- the vicinity. Tn fact ,the granti.x~ of this variance will help neighbor privacy. 4: N/A 5:(a) N/A (b)N/A Sincerely, Mitchell Cutler 14450 Oak Place, Saratoga, Ca, 95070 cc. Allan Nudeltnan Esq City of Saratoga Planning Commission City Council of Saratoga Fx~J ~b ~~~ ~~~o ~,~ ~~- ~~ - ~~. L • • ~oo~s~ FROM LAFONDUE FAX Nt]. 4088679144 Dec. 10 z002 ~2~ ~t~F'f1 ri December 10, 2002 To: Planning Commission Planning Staff Re: uir V ri c i i h anon ' n to allow Portia ~ of a wall to exceed six feet in he' to grant anExcet~tion to allow construction of said wall_tivithin 1(1 feet of protected Qak veer. Pursuant to article 15-70.060 of the Saratoga Municipal Code, the Planning Commission may grant a variance provided it is able to make all the following findings: There are special circumstances applicable to my property, that strict enforcement of Zoning Code would deprive me from privileges enjoyed by others in tl-e same circumstance. Theses include: 1- The City of Saratoga Planning Department approved my wall plans; the City Building Department issued permits for my walls, and passed inspections of the walls, including issuing a Final inspection. The real issue here is flee preservation and property rights. I pulled permits to construct my walD with no harm intended to any of the trees on my property. In fact, I p]at to plant many more trees by final inspection of my improvement project. The City cannot approve my wall and issue permits, then decide after construction they were not fu]ly aware of what they approved. Nor sho~~ld I be reRuired to be subject to requirements that shculd have been established at the design review and approve! level. If the City had recognized my cross sections and elevations showod fill before approving the slight grade change in some areas, theme would be no question my wall is code compliant. If the City had recognized the wall was within DO feet of protected Oalt trees before approving it, I could have designed it around the trees, and theme would be no need for the exception. I would hope that others in a similar circumstance would b.e granted a similar variance and exception. 2; the granting of the variance will not constitute a special privilege. The wall exists and was legally constructed. beyond chat, the irrterpretation that the wall exceeds the six- foot height limit is erroneous in most cases, and subjective in others, rather than based on the code definition where the height should be measured from the immediate adjacent natural grado, unless the grade change is approved (which it was). • ~'Q~t~13 • c: 3- The granting of the Variance for a wall that may exceed six feet in some portions will not be detrirnerrtal to the public health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to adjacent properties or improvements. Like wise granting the exception with the implementation ofthe City Arborists recommendations to mitigate for any construction impacts, t'~ere will be no injurious damage done to any ordinance protected trues. Findings 4 and 5 are not applicable to my application nr development. Sincerely Mitchell and Tracy Cutler, ~~ -~ ~ • • • ~%OQt~i~ _ .. - / To: City of Saratoga 01-09-03 Addendum Please include this additional information into my variance request package. For your information, the property at 14480 Oak Place was originally part of a larger property belonging to 20375 Highway 9. Approximately 22 years ago the property at 20375 Highway 9 was subdivided into 3 unequal parcels. The property was divided by Mr. Al Schrager, a farmer resident at 20375 Highway 9 and Mr. Frank Matas, the current resident at 20385 Highway 9. Both Schrager and Matas were not professional engineers, and subsequently have created numerous problems due to their amateur surveying. They created a subdivision that was neither uniform nor considerate of future difficulties, which they created. In fact, there were 2 previous lawsuits against the owner of 14480 Oak Place (formerly 20379 Highway 9) in which disagreements regarding ill planned easements were addressed and solved by the courts to the satisfaction of 14480 Oak Place (enclosed). A review of the parcel map shows that there are an unusually large number of adjacent neighboring properties. In fact, there are 9 neighbors who share borders with 14480 Oak Place. There are 2 exits from the property. The first exit onto Oak Place, and the second exit onto Highway 9. Both exits have particular easements associated with their uses and not all the neighbors have legal access rights to these easements. I wonder. how many people could get a119 neighbors to agree to a few home remodel changes, never mind landscape concerns or fence issues. If we are to seriously investigate the imbalances created by the poor lot design years ago, we can appreciate the mistakes that have been made concerning this property and the necessary modifications needed. All 9 of the adjacent neighbors currently have fences above 6 feet. There exist wood fences, chain link fences, iron fences, and now a concrete fence that surround my property. In the general neighborhood there are brick fences, barbed wire fences, steel fences and plan#ic fences. As you can plainly see, there is no uniformity to the fences or their heights. My legal 190-foot concrete fence is 6 feet tall on my side and 7' 6" on the Davies side. However, a review of my engineering design that was approved by the City of Saratoga back in February of 2002 clearly shows that my side of the fence would have infill added to help to correct the drainage problem. The neighbor's side was approved by the City of Saratoga to be at 7'6".Further, should the wall be cut down by 18 inches it would create a tenuous instability for the remaining concrete wall (see engineering report). If we were forced to reduce the height of the first 190 feet of wall I would then have to remove the following 300 feet of concrete wall for obvious aesthetic unbalances. The cost for this would certainly need to be addressed by the City of Saratoga and my reimbursement paid accordingly. Regarding the southwest corner of my property. The City's position is that along any front set back there must be a 25-foot minimum height requirement no taller than 3 feet. I agree with this position, especially where there exists an unsafe, or visually ~~QC~15 ... r . z impaired condition. However, at the southwest corner of my lot there are no driveways, roads or dangerous conditions, just an ugly view of my neighbor Mr. Goldman's garbage area. A legal 6-foot high fence would cover this eyesore. A legal 6-foot fence would not further endanger the adjacent Oak Tree as the Arborist report clearly states that any damage has already been done and the mitigation actions will help the future of this Oak. Tree. Further, a proposed 3-foot fence would not help my relationship with Mr. Breck. However a 6-foot fence would allow both parties to keep to themselves. In the past, Mr. Breck's concerns have been about mean spirited punishments, not for providing for privacy rights or genuine tree comcerns. The southwest corner of my lot should have a 6-foot fence and not a 3-foot fence for another important reason. My plans fora 6-foot fence along this comer were approved on February 22, 2002. A 6-foot tall cedar fence was approved then without any concerns. The topographical map clearly shows this approval. I do not believe that the unfair and unjust recent alteration from a 6foot to a 3-foot fence is based on any rational view. I believe that the City of Sazatoga has unfairly reinterpreted the height factors to my detriment because of efficient politicking by a few bitter neighbors. I believe the right decision at my variance request would be to allow my 190-foot fence to remain the way it is. I believe that my concrete fence at the southwest corner should be allowed to 6 feet tall. I hope that the continuous proposed fence between the Cutlers and the Brecks be allowed to be built up to 6 foot in height. Mitchell Cutler cc. City of Saratoga Planning Commission City Council of Saratoga Allan Nudelman Esq Saratoga News SanJose Mercury News ~;d~t~16 To: City of Saratoga Ol -15-02 Addendum #2 • Yesterday, my attorney asked me why I needed a fence around my entire property? In order to clearly explain my need for adequate fencing, please consider your own house first. I assume you live on a street with one neighbor on either side and one neighbor at your rear property line. Perhaps you may even have twa neighbors at your rear property line, for a total of four neighbors. Must normal lots in Saratoga have a balanced and proportionally designed lot. However, my lot is different. I have an uneven flag lot exposed from all sides. I have an unusually large xtumber of neighbors. In fact, I have nine neighbors who are adjacent to my property. Eight of the nine neighbors have second floors that peer over my_property froxn every az e. This condition provides my family with an intzusivc condition that does not allow any privacy. A tall fence helps relieve the tension that occurs by blocking the neighbor's second floor viewing into my space. Also, we inadvertently hear the private conversations t8at occur in the neighbor's backyards at all times of the day or night. I have no desire to bother or to interest myself about my neighbor's private matters. How would you fuel if you were under the constant scrutiny of two nosey and gossipy neighbors located atthe side of your property? We have the impossible chore of deterring the daily obnoxious and shiffiy inspections by Bill Breck and Frank Mat:as. A tall fence would certainly help deter these two neighbors unwanted anal unwarranted attention. Mr. Frank Matas performed such a poor separation and subsequent alignment of 20375 Highway 9 that all three neighbors who now share the original lot over the past 20 years have been forced to deal with his mistakes since. Because of bad planning, all niDC neighbors have had to deal with a certain lack of privacy since the lot was divided. My family has inherited the problems of the past. Because of the location of my property, and nine neighbors who are affected by tensiotLS created by a lack of privacy, my need for privacy is greater than most conventional. lots. Please approve my variance request to allow the 190-foot concrete fence to exist the way it is. Please approve my variance request to have a 6-foot fence at the southwestern corner of zny property, in order to block Mr. Goldman's garbage collection. Please consider that this southwest comer, which has mistakenly been called xny front, set back. Any reasonable view of this corner can plainly see this is my side yard set back as my address is 14480 Qak Place. I eater my driveway at Oak Place and this southwest convex is at the rear of my property. Please do not continue to punish my lot because of Mr. Breeks mean spirited pettiness. Sincerely, Mitchell Cutler • CC.1Ulan Nudelman Esq City of Saratoga Platuting Commission San Jose IV.[ercury News ~~~~~~ 'td WdbS:It ~BBZ Si 'u2j' bbti6L9880b 'oN Xd~ ~naNO~d~ Woa~ ff b~ ••t86.AI •' S?~/.~/~ ~" .. 1 ~i bri°•i.~ lr,~~ xso I so I so I .,~so,~ I u2 6~ ~ Z'~ o ,Y ~ • '~ ~~ ~ 'i :~~~ zf 1 I ~ , •~ ~ ~ ;'~'., ~ to •\/ as ~ o ~ .59 ..C• rr• 2„', ',; ~;3 .~ t vv4 •ti 5 i ~' 6 c` t ~ •] 1 1 ~ • '~ ! ~ ~~ ~~ ` a° ~+~ . ~-,tiP Lv' , .~~ I.,,.. ,~ w~ •~I •tl/I;' 1 1 8 Itir9 r. t0'\ _~, `~~; 'L Q p• 'S ~ !i1C t ~ ,~ 1 t A ~7.~tt h ;,~~1 I I ~.y,,+, .,, i~ •~~! ~~j A~ .~1~~ ~~Q~'' _ ~'y ~~ 'I vr0~~~'j~~;~~~'62`~ ~ I~ , I ~ I`r ~~n Q~0 ~ Pc.• ~.. SB~'\ ""i ~-~-~ Eby ~ i 'i~ f1~1' ~`il~~~G, ~~ ~I 29 o`f~ '28 v~ :J ~~.1_ :~ low~3' r, ., 5 /. a1,~ a~y 1}'.<<••~`~s" tir-~ ~'^~-_. L1.~ ;1- ,..:~ L 21 1 ~" St ~i r~ ;,I '~",52t'` ,~qEpuEsr ~ sR~ ~~"<o .;,,~ S I ~ ~~, P`. ~. t-~_ ,~t_C~ ~; ~' ~ ~ 1 1Cy _I ~~~~~ .l i/9B!/B3 i ~ ~P S'6 •, p0 Q• OWNERS OWNERS OWNERS ' Q t Q• 1 REOUfSn REQUEST 1 R£OU ST I 1 ~ 1 j~~~i ~ ( '~ ff `~~ \~ ~~ 1998/991 1998/991199899 ~ I~' j I~'~f- N ( ` ~ ~~ ~ •. ,1(~c\~° P _Nt 0 ~OS7a I F' t I. ~ n~Q3 2~3~S .:•r~.i ~ 4x 69>>I 50.0 1'' 4~2 ~~r °^ ~ 8 ~a~ \ . ,~•~~cA QG k. -MAro~q BLpC t4 ~ i'' I~'~' ~', , 3 ~ PS-$ FA~K L075K-2 P0363 ~p `1,~•- ~2~1 ~a A la4.ss 3at7 f7.o; ao 8. 8-17 ,4 p~ ~~C~ ~~ r `` yAp4 ' 12 .G7 ~ Mi79 ~ 0 ~ - v A R k °~ ff4 ~~ ~,{. ~ / -1 X480 d4K PLACE- ~ 44 '~ -sPa •Z52. ~' eb . ~~ ~~s ~ •.-~ -3~ ~ sUa.-3b= - ~~'" ~~'.~ ~~~ 6 ~ '`' ~ 1 S LOT C a.4g3 '~' •t5 a s '~ T.~' ~\ 14 12 gD•- 8g-otZ 't m 13 ~ o` !J ~ ~ *a' BJ ~,`' ~, 5 ~ ~~ ~ai~9~~ Q6 2 Av. - _-' ~ n ~ ~ ~,~ s. o ~ 4 ~ ~. o~ 6.se ~~ S i) i2 - 4ati C' 5 36 , , A tia "~,~i~ ~,i~.~ . 5t7i2- 13r1`I ,~,~~.. tic ;; a~ LOT A e ~ C'. ~L.•2.5 R ,_ G~3¢. - 49 LOT B ~ Z w 5~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ . •. 0.58AC. ~1 j 0,78 AC ` ~~ . ~„« IP2.23 6S7 t,gg ~1° /~ :oasa ROAD .. o N. P r@ : .397- ~.'~.- ~ a, tit, b"L 1=oRMEitly 3'11-.2.2-30 ~ , N P, M, 4 4 6-M - 7 LAWRENCE E. STONE -ASSESSOR Cadaslral mop for assessment purposes only. Compiled under R. do T. Code, Sec. 327. EHectW~s Rail Year 2001-2002 W i• ~~ i• i~ OAK 's} '~~ ~. fi~=,i; s ~~ . ' ~~,~ ~o ~ s ~ ~ G~ / ~o ;~ s ~~~ ~0,~ 5 / ~~~ ~\ ~ '~C ~~ ~. ,, ~r ~ ,r' . ~00(~19. --' --_ . . ~. . ~ ,, ~ .' , o .. <~ ~ n ~ . . a N N N 1 .o ..1~ ~ p p X II Fi€ _ ' • `o o ti ~_. :'~:_ ~ .. A .'.... ... -. .. ~ - o ~ ^ ...... ~' a * S4 93 ~..~' \\ ' ....... _ » 94.80.:.. ..... .... . \~ . .... o ~ o s p~' i O 1>a110` / , V`/• ~. d. N ~ - - J00. ~sT ~ 1 ...... .... ..... ..... ' . ~... ~ . / !r 5.02 ''~, • 95.72 \ ~ 05.5 4.96 • ~ . _, , .. .. .. _ ... .. .: . _. ~ 94.36 ... - 96.06 .204.89 04. 94:77~1yj~, ~^~ ... - 96.42 1 \ O~ 1 °n ~ ,4P P 4 78 n ?~ 94.97 a \4`O , ^~ ~P ~ 93.89 INGRESS-EGRESS, I P ~ 96.05 C ~ 96.6 95 I SE AND SSE EASEMENT y ~ • C 1 3r~~ +-4 94,77' .59 , s.30 ~ S~ 96.60 95.87 - ~ GROUND 1 94.42 ~ 94.10 .~~ ~ t~. ~ 95. 95.41 7 - ~ ~ ~,P~'' ~ , • ~ 93.96 GROUND 97.6 'IC 95.90 i8'FINE 95.07 4g 5.69 ~ 1 1'Fjy ~ 94.44 ~ 1 ~ 6.52 . 7y ~ .44 ~ ',y~v I ~ erg` .~ ~ PG&E 80x .32 96.97- ~ ~~8g~~ 98.0 \ .75 O~ ~~~ 1 MAILdOx14 97.0 i 96.7 6.70 ~1` Q 1 ,` +.~ _._ 4~BAY 95.1 I ~ 97.73 ~7.U ~ 95.OJ GROUND 7.83 87.70 AC Oligy. .. _.._.. ;.::. _ ..... ..... ......._ ....-....___....__ SPA 1 7.63 ~ - _.. ... y YJ 1 700.00 '3 97.49 GARAGE FF.97.4 3 98.10 _~ ... I 7.04 se.OS ,o t~ 1 97:55 T~ DECK 98.1 1 97. 7.06 -03 ... 4 .1e 9z„ 2° °AK .?7 7.s1 l ~ 97.97 \ ~ 1 ~ 98.58 + W ~ 1. GROUND 8.20 .. . .. ... 96 X68 1 0 I 98.36 ~.i 99.78 ~ ~ 8.10 % 4 ~ 95.65 '- 1 i4 OAK - .. G ~ . O N ; ~ . ?~ ~ e~ 100.tf ~9.7 ~ i n ~ m ~ I, . n a ae . M 1 i .. .. ... 1 - i ... ~ 1 M I ~ .... .. R ~ .. 6.25 n -~- - - -" ~, ... o..m _ .. .. ~ w ~ n Z 1 $ .g ~Si °i 1 . 1 ~ ~ u ~ 98.22 ' I 99.16 % .. .. .. N ~(y GROUND 99: ~9 ~ U M 1 . w ~ 99.07 Z og, . M LL 1 101.33 ~ ~ 1 Z 1 _ 90, ~ ~ .... 1... ~. ... 399.36 ..20.-.. _. .. .. ~.. " ~ I- I C 1 za•oAK 3 > s6.2o 1 70 ~ PAIp 599 K I t2'TR di ~ OA4 1 ~ -~ . .. .. .. ...1 . .. ~03. ...~ ..... .. .. ... ...... .... .. ... ... ... - 1 99.72 . .. _6. 99. ~.. ...~. ~ ... .. .. ~ ... ...: .._... .......40~E. ..... ... ..... 99.82 6'TREE ~ 704.20 3 8 RAISED PA710 99 ¢- ~ 4n 1 . .. ~ u. ....... .... ... ...99.77. ~: 99.6U '-.. ...~. .. ~ ._.. .. _.... _. ..... _ ... .. .~.~ ~ .. . . 4 99.Yi ~ ~ I 100.05 700.90 ~ 1 1. ' ~ 703.69 ~ ~ .< - .. ... ~ 98.28 - .. 97.77 ~._ .. GROUND .. .. 100.04. .. -... ~ .73~. cr+ouND szlo 97.96 1 GROVNO 0. ~ wAU(- ' ~98ii2 1 40~OAK .. ~ GROUND ~ t O ~ L1yIV Q . 03 t _ ~ _ ~~ ~- ~ - 196.64 J~ .. / 546'26'28"W 137.00 FENCE d ~~~~ C~ ~ 13777 FRL7ITVALE AVENLTE • SAitATOGA, CALIFORNIA 8070 • (~i08) gti8-120(1 COt~NCiL AIEMBERS: ]ncorporated October '12,1956 March 2, 2001 :~Sitch Cutler 20379 Saratoga-T.os Gatos Road Saratoga. GA 950'0 c van 22Y.er Sian Boynsiar _~ohn A~ehaNey Nick Strett Ann i"~at;onsmtth RE: ADDRESS CHA. Mr. t'utler: Per your recjuest; the Ci~y of Saratoga Buiidingi'~eparlment has made tht iollowirtg '` address change: ~ arato -Los Gatos Road has bee crap ed to 14480 Oak Place. Please begin to use this new address upon receipt of this letter. The Building Department has notified all necessary agencies of the address change. Please install netiv address n.ambers at the access road on Oak Place, your House and mailbox. Sh~~uld yuesticns or comments arise, please contact me C, (448) 858-1224. 'T'hank you. Sincerely, ~ Brad D. Lind Building Official • ~~0~~21 - F,,,r ~eea a-~~5 oz .... FwK ~~:; F~ /}~i.7, ~y, aoo~. He 9uA .~an~ BwU:n~ Ayt. Serile~~~sa~a Al1av 6u~1. ~.iu~' 4t hu..o#~ vu vaaJ.l~. tAet /k"kr~ Cu.tLr lu. luw~i t ~~;° . w~Al..P A+6 3) 7llw~ 1Juk t4. *'i.U "° :tr~wf M~.v, t 1 ~+~"~^ yn~rt~ y*.../ ~avL. 1llilrA Cl~~ ~} ~{~.~~/' y ~. Mm. !~L ~W./tl ~J. M1Ufm. ~ Aiu 1~ 1n A. ~ M{/N.~.~n~ U ~ ~~ Pn,*~ ~,tk h4~rA. )I,,. pu4Le„~ h~wtw ~h+~ ~huc tu;rkdnd au .au.~.~ [a~4a- W~fta,- &7l H 7,mw). Jk ~u. In vr4sid Qtr~uv plus Xlwv __ att.. ~ ~, G~ A-Snrnfi~w. awak ~. wMt ~. ~ c~00022 .Y ~ ~ mwt b. ~, ~. aU fw iw, ~u~M.l, ~4 wxU ,u ~tU ofiinLA~ ~" w (u~1t ~ 7t ~{-. ,lfin~' Im~fA Ic dun; jet it :t m+a~ ft ~exi++l rv l+ui. dt~i~a~ , ~irn, .0 n.[C At~rxl.~ LNrv~u ~. ~, ~~~ • • i~~~ Qom, 4.t Q~~ ~- gs117o ~~ ~,~~ ~ _ ~d ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ vv v,._Y,w.,- --°A~~~~~ 1 0 v~~' ~ . ~ ,,.. ~i,... r,~ne.,t M,dcV S ~~ I~,II~ ~`~ c~C ~' ~ ~~ ~ ~~ I~pI~ ~~~~,. ~il' ~a~.,~~ 'i1 oS~~C ~~- v~su,~~ ~r~.~ 5 ~a~a~~3 • May 6, 2002 447A Oak Pace Saratoga, CA 95070 To Wlwm k May Co~ccrn: Yours uvly, /~/ ~~ ~~ ~.. ~,,,~~o ~ ~ ? Maggie and Nest Smith • ~oQOZ~ May-08-02 02:39P May 8, 2002 ~v Alan and Caroyn Kinp 14472 Oak Piece Saratcpa, CA 85070-6929 Mr. gnd Mrs. MitcttQll Cutler 1+4480 Oak Rlace Saretgpa, CA 86070 Dear t,A~. and Mrs. Cutler, This latter of intent outlines our ~rssi~tent rs~ardinp the height flf the concrete well cn the perimeter of your prapEtty and dated tn:ttera. Tate Kittpt v~N wkhdrSw their pblsctian is the helt~ht of ell walls as aurr+snthr poured on the periphery of the Cutler'a property. The Cu~~ s to continua the height of ths wall on the property INs beM+een lhti Hueton's (14488 t~k P18Ge) 8nd the Cuiier'e property in the SE direction sE or t»IoM- the sxlstinQ hsl~M. (For roforonce purpo~ Chia portbn of the wail ss poured is 89" s+bovs 1Ys tootlrt~ measured d~liy west of the oak tree M the comer of the King's kri.) 'i'hs portion of ttts well poured between the Cutler's and the Kings w111 remeht at its prear+nt hsiyht (68" e~ove the ssms reference point) unless the parties fatsr iQ11p 1o a modlfict+tion. The Cutlers e~ree to grant ve4~ladoat on or ed~oent to CutlerlHuston portion at the wail that wiM covet a1 Est the top 24" of !hs t~lE side of this wall to screen it from view from ttw King's and other n~hbofs pr~psrtles. They wilt consuR with the Hustons on the nature of iriis plant matrirtsi. They w1A have this pier~in~ in place during 2002. The C~~ will e.~ree not to prune pr trim tits protected Th~t,s~ gr~,thet the prr~Ry tat have canopy extendtnQ over their property. Kings shsH have sore rAntrd over arty gnarling of that's treat in the future, 1Na intend that lhie be an e-pre~tnent bet,~sn the Cutlers and the Kings. Beth partie9 agree not to reopen these issues ~ art of any other dispute between thsrneeNss and ~tir~d patties. now or lr1 the future. Ws do not intend.this ggr>esmeM to cover grey other issues that may surface due to earlier actlons by either party. Agreed: V ~ `-~ N'T' cfieD Cutl Alan ignp ~ ~ ~~` ``rraey C' ~ Cgroiyn Ki 0 • ~0®~25 A.S.E. Consulting Engineering, Inc. 255 N. Market Street, Suite 220 San Jose, CA 95110 December 9, 2003 Planning Comnission Ciiy of Saratoga Saratoga, CA SUBJECT: 190 feet Concrete fence wall 14480 Oak 1<lace, Saratoga Dear Planning Commission: • Tel; 40$1899-6636 Fax: 408/ 999-6638 'Phis is to clarify that subject concrete fence wflll i5 designed and constructed with two continuous rebar at top of the wall which forms rho bond beam, these two bats are essential design part of tlae wall, therefore top 18" of the wail should riot be removed. Retard .S.E. CUNSULTiTIG ENG1NEEkING,1NC. BY Massoud Modjtchedi, P.E. C.Q.O. Td Wdb0:~0 ~00Z 0I 'up!' bbZ6Z9880b 'oN XFJ~ • ~3Q0(~26 ~naNO~d-1 woa~ • • ATTACHMENT 2 COURT DOCUMENTS • ooc~~'~ .~ ,. ~ S ~ .. ~ - • .1 LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLA SS M. ADAMS DOUGLASS M. ADAMS, Esq. 2 19100 Cox Avenue, Suite A Saratoga, California 95070-4170 ,' 3 ~ , Telephone: [408J 865-1000 4 Attorney for Defendants: Young I. Kim and ~, 5 Choon J. Kim . 6 7 ._.__~ $ SUPERIOR COURT OF"TfiE STATE~~F1~CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CI;.ARA 9 10 EDNA YOUNG AND FARLEY YOUNG, ) Case No. ~7 1 2 4 1 5 t 11 plaintiffs, ) II ) STATEMENT OF DECISION 12 v. ) ) 13 YOUNG I. KIM; CHOON~J. KIM; ) ! 14 ail persons unknown, claiming ) any legal or equitable right, ) 15 estate, lien, or interest in ) he property described in the ) complaint adverse to Plain- ) i 16~' tiffs' title thereto; and ) 17 DOES I through 20,~inclusive j I 18 Defendants.. ) j~ is ~• 20 The above-entitled cause came on regularly for trial on 21 March 16, 1992, August 13, 1992 and August 14, 1992 in Department 14A of the above entitled court, the Honorable MARK E. THOMAS, ~ 22 ' 'ttin without a jury. TIMOTHY T. IiUBER, Esq. of ! 23 JR. presiding, si g 24 BERLINER, COHEN appeared as counsel for Plaintiffs and. DOUGLAS3 25 M. ADAMS, Esq. as counsel for the Defendants. Oral and documentary evidence was introduced on behalf o j 26 I the respective parties and the cause was argued and submitted f ~ 27 ~ decision. The court has considered the evidence heard and seen, i' 28 . . 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ti . ,~~ r~ u 1 the arguments of counsel, and is fully advised in the premises.: 2 STATEMENT OF DECISION ,; 3 1. With regard to the issue of whether Plaintiffs have the 4 right to quiet title to an alleged easement for ingress to and 5 egress from the lot B Landscape Area through the gate on the 6 fence (described by Plaintiffs as the "Perimeter Fence Gate") 7 bordering Lot B Landscape Area, ,the Court's. decision is that g Plaintiffs and GRODxAUB (Defendants' predecessor) intended the 9 gate to provide access to the owners of Lot C and not to the 10 owners of Lot B and Plaintiffs have no such right to quiet title 11 and Defendants ,have the right to lock said gate. 12 a) The court based its decision on the following 13 facts: The June 16, 1986 Amended Landscape Agreement 14 gives no right of ingress or egress to Plaintiffs; 15 Plaintiffs have access to Lot B Landscape Area through 16~ their own property; the "Perimeter Fence Gate" was 17 installed for the purpose of providing Defendants' lg predecessor access to the Lot B Landscape Area; without lg such access Defendants would not be able to enter Lot 20 B Landscape Area without climbing over or taking down the 21 fence. The intent of the Plaintiffs and Defendants' 22 predecessor GRODHAUS was to provide Lot C owners access 23 to the said gate and not to provide access for Plaintiffs. 24 b) The legal basis for the Court's decision is 25 as follows: The purpose of the gate was to provide 26 Defendants' predecessor access to the said gate and 27 not to provide access for Plaintiffs. The access is 28 part of Exhibit 20 and the rights and duties created ~t~0~29 2 I i I T 1' it I i .: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 V 2F 2E 27 28 thereby are appurtenant to Lot B and Lot C. ' Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of proof to show that an easement for ingress and egress through the "Perimeter Fence Gate" existed, and Plaintiffs have ample access to the Lot B Landscape Area directly from their own property; Plaintiffs have failed to establish ownership of any such easement rights. 2. With regard to the issue of whether Lot C is subject to an .easement appurtenant to and for the benefit of Lot B for ingress to and egress from the Lot B Landscape Area. on and through the ingress/egress area and through the "Perimeter Fence Gate" the Court's decision is that no such easement over Lot C exists and Defendants have the right to lock such gate. a) The Court based its decision on the following facts: No such right of ingress or egress is given to Plaintiffs by any agreement; Plaintiffs have access to the Lot B Landscape Area through their own property (Lot B) and the said gate was installed for the purpose of providing access to Defendants' predecessor. as set forth in the June 16, 1986 Agreement (Exhibit 20) ; b) The legal basis for the Court's decision is as follows: The purpose of the gate was to provide • 1 i i I Defendants' predecessor access to the said gate and I not to provide access for Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs ' to show that have failed to meet their burden of proof an easement for ingress and egress through the ~ ~QQ~30 ~ . _ 3 ~ ~ i ..: e. , , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1S 2C 2: i "Perimeter Fence Gate" existed, and Plaintiffs have ample access to the Lot B Landscape Area directly from j their own property; 'Plaintiffs have failed to establish ownership of any such easement rights.- i 3. With regard to the issue of whether the landscaping and ~ called by Plaintiffs "The Fountain and ancillary stone work structures") built by Defendants' predecessor on Lot C I (Defendants' property) in the Public service Easement should be i removed, the Court's decision is that such "Fountain and ar Structures" should not be removed and may remain. where Ancill y 1 they are, and Plaintiffs are not entitled to injunctive, relief or damages. The "Fountain and ancillary structures" do not interfere with or unreasonably burden the public service easement. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 a) The Court based its decision on this issue on the following facts: The underlying property belongs to Defendants; while it was being built the Plaintiffs did nothing to stop its construction although they were well aware of its construction; "The Fountain and ancillary structures" are not inconsistent with and do not affect or interfere with the use and enjoyment of the easement, nor do they create a hazard or cause a dangerous or hazardous condition; large emergency vehicles can still turn around in the easement; Defendants' predecessor who built the structures first obtained the approval of the appropriate 4 i ~00~31 .~ i ,. • i ,. 1 government entities before commencing 2 construction; Defendants would not have purchased this property if they had known that Plaintiffs ~. 3 . 4 intended to assert a right to remove the "Fountain 5 and Ancillary Structures". Plaintiffs waited an g unreasonable length of time before filing suit ~ and Plaintiffs could have provided notice to Defendants of Plaintiffs' claim prior to Defendants I 8 9 purchase of their property (Lot C) but failed 10 to do so. Plaintiffs failed to assert their rights 11 prior to this action, unreasonably delayed in 12 asserting their rights which caused prejudice to 13 ~ the Defendants. Neither the Public Service easement 14 nor Lot B is burdened by the said structures in the 15 Public Service easement. 16 b) The legal basis for the Court's 17 decision is as follows: The Defendants, as i the owners of the servient tenement are entitled i 18 to use their property in any manner and for any 19 20 purpose which is not inconsistent with and does 21 not unreasonably interfere with the use and 22 enjoyment of the easement; the government 23 agencies who were involved were both contacted b the Defendants' predecessor and'approval I 24 Y 25 given before Defendants' predecessor began 26 construction; Plaintiffs are guilty of laches 27 with respect to their failure to object to the i construction of the "Fountain and ancillary 28 ~ 5 ~ 3QQ~a~iZ . =~ • 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2c 2' V 29 2` 2E 2t 2F structures" for a very long time~and only after Defendants purchased Lot C. Plaintiffs failed to assert their rights; if any, to remove such structures before Defendants purchased Lot C, unreasonably delayed in asserting such rights and caused prejudice to Defendants thereby. The owners of Lot C can use the easement in any manner that ,does not unreasonably burden the public service easement. 4. With regard to the issue of prescriptive easement(s) for , l parking on Defendants' property the Court's decision is that no ~I rescri tive easements for parking on any part of Defendants'. P P ~ property exist, nor are Plaintiffs entitled to quiet title to any such easement. a) .The Court based its decision on this issue on the following facts: Although there was permitted parking on Defendants' property by owners of Lot B, there was no evidence of continuous parking for a period. of five (5) years or more; as to the "parking slot" that is mainly on Defendants' property and partly on Plaintiffs' property, what parking occurred was permissive from the time Mr. GRODHA08 owned Lot C; as to the other "parking area" claimed by Plaintiffs there was little or no parking and what occurred was permissive; when the structures were built Plaintiffs did not object although they were well aware of the construction; Plaintiffs waited a very long time before filing suit 6 ~O~f~33 ., 1 and Plaintiffs could have provided notice to 2 Defendants of its claim prior to Defendants 3 purchase of Lot C byefiling suit, recording a 4 lis pendens or other means of notification but i 5 failed to do so; any parking by owners of Lot B 6 was not exclusive nor by claim of right nor was 7 there such parking. $ b) The legal basis for the Court's 9 decision is as follows: No prescriptive 10 right can be obtained without at least five 11 (5) years of continuous open hostile and 12 notorious use which the evidence does not show. 13 5. For the reasons set forth in 1. through 4. above, the 14 Court will issue no injunctions, .preliminary or permanent, 15 requested by .Plaintiffs. 16 6. A. J. SCHRAGER (Plaintiffs' predecessor) did not reserve ' self the use of any areas on Defendants' property for his l 17 to him 18 own personal parking use and/or for parking use by his customers. ~ a) The court based its decision on this i' 19 ~ 20 issue on the fohlowing facts: Any parking by 21 Mr. SCHRAGER or his invitees on Lot C was 22 by permission of Mr. GRODHADB. There is nothing ' have 23 in writing establishing such parking and it would 24 been easy for Mr. SCHRAGER to provide for this; 25 Plaintiffs did nothing to stop Defendants' predecessor 26 from building on that area; the parties acted as if 27 there were no rights to park, scHRAGER, or his invitees did not park there except with the permission of GRODHAU3. l~ ~ 28 l ~I ,, 1 The agreement between GRODHADS and SCHRAGER never 2 mentioned any such right of Lot H over Lot C property. 3 b) The legal basis for the Court's decision 4 is as follows: There is no written agreement 5 establishing such a right, nor prescriptive 6 easement nor implied easement. 7 7. The Plaintiffs and the Defendants' predecessors intended g that the second amendment to landscape agreement (Exhibit 20) 9 eliminated any and all property interests that Lot B owners may 10 have had prior thereto. Therefore, if there ever were any 11 .easements, or other property rights, they were also eliminated. 12 a) The Court based its decision on this 13 issue on the following facts: Exhibit 20 (Second 14 Amendment to Landscape Agreement) provided that 15 the Plaintiffs abandoned all of their property 16• interests in Lot C that were not a part of 17 the Lot B Landscape Area. lg b) The legal basis for the Court's decision 19 is as follows: An easement is an interest or right 20 in property which in Exhibit 20 is abandoned by 21 Plaintiffs.. 22 8. The Plaintiffs and the Defendants' predecessor intended 23 that the boundaries of the Lot B Landscape Area as defined in the 24 Second Amendment to Landscape Agreement (Exhibit 20) were 25 described by the Points G, T, B, 3, C, D, E, and G, as set forth 26 in Exhibit A of that Agreement and the agreement itself.- The-Lot 27 B Landscape Area Boundaries are the Points G, T, B, 8 C, D, E, 28 and G. ~0~~35 8 .~ ,. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 a) The court bases its decision on this issue on the following facts: Exhibit A to the Second Amendment to Landscape Agreement specifically defines the Lot B Landscape Area, both by points and by lines within the Lot B Landscape Area. This is also supported by the testimony of GRODHAUS which the Court believes. b) The legal basis for the Court's j decision is as follows: The is a specific document describing the area. Plaintiffs and Defendants'.. predecessor, GR0DH.AIIB, intended that the said points, G, T, B, 8, C, D, E, and G, described the new Lot B landscape area. All parties to said- agreement (including Plaintiffs) having signed the .Agreement which manifests the intention and agreement of Plaintiffs and Defendants' predecessor to the .i aforementioned boundaries of the Lot B Landscape Area. i 9. Plaintiffs and Defendants' predecessor intended that the ~ a Lot C Owners had and have the right to use the gate for the.! purpose of gaining access to and from the Lot B Landscape Area. The Defendants have the right to use the gate for access to and from the Lot B Landscape Area. a) The Court based its decision on this issue on the following facts: Defendants have no other way to gain access to the Lot B Landscape Area and the Second Amendment to Landscape Agreement provided for such access and the testimony of GRODHA08 which the Court believes, and each of them. 9 ~~~~~V i ~, .., 1 2 3 4 • • b) The legal basis for the'Court's decision is as follows: The second amendment to Landscape Agreement provided for this access and the Plaintiffs have access to Lot B landscape area. from their own property. 10. SCHRAGER and Plaintiffs, his successors in interest, did not acquire a prescriptive easement for parking on Lot C. The use of sCHRAGER was not hostile and did ,not continue for an uninterrupted period of five (5) years and was not made,, claim of right. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2? 28 a) The Court based its decision on this issue on the following facts: SCHRAGER's use which was minimal was permissive while GRODHAIIS owned Lot C and there never was a continuous five (5) years of open notorious, and hostile use. It was not under claim of right. b) The legal basis for the Court's decision is as follows: No prescriptive right can be established without five (5) years continuous open notorious, and hostile use. 11. GRODHAIIB, Defendants' predecessor in interest, did not encroach upon the rights of the owners of Lot B either for parking or ingress/egress to Lot B Landscape Area. a) The Court based its decision on this issue upon the following facts: There was not sufficient evidence believed by the Court to show that the owners of Lot B had any rights of parking or ingress and egress. Neither Defendants nor Defendants' 10 v~~~~~ ~ , ` 1 2 3 4 5 6 ell 9 II 10 11 12 13 14 15I 16 17 18 191 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 predecessor GRODHAIIB encroached upon any rights of the. owners of Lot B for parking or ingress/egress. ,~ b) The legal basis for the Court's decision is as follows: Plaintiffs had no such easement. GRODHAIIS did not and could not have encroached upon them. In 1986 after the execution of the Second Amendment to Landscape Agreement what property rights Lot B might have had, if any, were abandoned by Plaintiffs. 12. It was intended by the Plaintiffs and Defendants' predecessor that Exhibit A to the Second Amendment to Landscape Agreement defines the Lot B Landscape Area; the former Lot B Landscape Area, the property line between Lots B and C, the fence and many other points and subjects that relate to the agreement. The subsequently generated survey of the Plaintiffs shows th fence, the dividing line between Lot B Landscape Area and the former Lot C Landscape Area and a portion of the property line between Lots B and C. i 13. The purpose of Paragraph C of the Second Amendment to Landscape Agreement is to permit the fencing of Plaintiffs' dogs and the connection of the fence to fencing on Plaintiffs' property. 14. There is no significance to Plaintiffs failure to initial Exhibit "A" to Exhibit 20. a) The Court bases its decision on this -issue on the following facts: Plaintiffs executed the Agreement (Exhibit 20) of which said. Exhibit A was a part; Plaintiffs have not claimed that Exhibit A was not a part of ~^~, Q ii ®~ 4J'a~L7 11 l f I . . . ~ ~.. • • • 1 the Agreement. If Plaintiffs. had a secret . 2 intention that said Exhibit "A" did not express 3 their agreement with. Defendants:' predecessor 4 they should have expressed it to Defendants'. 5 predecessor. 6 b) The legal basis for the Court's decision 7 is as follows: Exhibit A is referred to and g is a part of the Agreement which was executed 9 by the then owners of Lots B and C. 10 15. BCHRAGER did not retain an implied easement by 11 reservation, or otherwise either for parking on Lot C or for 12 ingress/egress to the Lot B Landscape Area. 13 a) The Court bases its decision on this 14 issue on the following facts: There was no parking 15 on Lot C by SCHRAGER when GRODHAU3 bought Lot B, 16 and later SCHRAGER parked upon Lot C only 17 with the permission of GRODHAU3. Later when lg GRODHAIIS began construction the Plaintiffs- lg did not bring legal action and when Defendants 20 bought., the construction had been completed. There 21 was nothing obvious on Lot C to indicate to any owner 22 of Lot B that any such right to parking or ingress/egress 2g was intended to be used by Lot C owners. 24 b) The legal basis for the Court's decision. 25 is as follows: Since there was no existing 26 known use, an implied easement could not arise. 27 16. The Defendants did not have notice of Exhibits 13, 14, Zg 15, and 17. ~~O~U~9 12 f W ,S ~ ~. ~ v _ ,v 1 2 3 i 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18~'. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 a) This is based upon the title documents . and the testimony of YOUNG RIM. 17. Defendants took 'their property subject to the recorded public service easement. 18. Defendants are bound by the boundaries of the Lot B Landscape. Area as defined in Exhibit 20 to wit: Points G, T, 8, S,C, D, E, and G. a) .They are bound as successors to GRODHAIIB. 19. Defendants had actual notice of Exhibits 16, 18, 20, and 21. 20. The court believed the testimony of Mr. GRODHAUB. This fact the Court relied on throughout this statement of decision. The Court also believes that Mrs. YOUNG is a very capable person with a strength of character that would prevent her from being- intimidated by anyone. 21. Exhibit 20, herein referred to, was recorded December 17, 1986, in Book J 964, pages 229 through 237 Official Records of Santa Clara County, California.. Dated : /L 2 I ,~ /f I JU GE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT ;.~00~44 13 . • • ATTACHMENT 3 PARCEL MAP WITH EASEMENTS ~Q~~~1 APN J97-Z2-001 CA 15-_.3 D~d•r No. FrcroworLwnNb1609 RECAROING RECNJESTED B1f SANTA CLARA COUNTY TITS 1f~OM]RI1NY $~I ' M7rn Recorded Mail To: Hr. L Hrs. Yraak Hatsa , 15480- Peseh..Hill Road Satatota, Calitornla 95070 "'• MAIL TAX STATEMENTS T0: CITY CONVEYANCE Iir. b Hrr. Prank Hataa T.,: t NONE • 15680 Prach Hill Aoad Saratoga, Cs111uro1a c"Y` 95070 a 0 0 I rV N 1 n n 6QG°QG5 _ E 720 ~::=492 . 9tL0iDED AT THE REQUEST Qf- SANfA CIARA OOl1NiY 11TLE CplIPAlfY '.::.~~9:~~1iG.151979 aaoAx fiDtG[ A IWOI ttrdl'1D SAr1A fiat! COWQY. (Xi1L7A1 ~ ts::~~i92,.:.,;.~ ~ . - vAU AitSVt T-+Ituwt roa. ucotoflrf ufa D~OCIJbfENTARY TRANdiER TAX S 4 0.7 0 . - x ~CowipVrd'on rr tOM:Ow•~ion d r•Iw or woo..ry tow.•yd: on. Cornouwe a M• coirWnirion a r•4r :cam li•w, a •ncvw- a~j~' nw,rMry al 1iw1e er .//_c~ •7M• r~ d O• W 1~w.p W - • V t• r••ny SANTA CLARE 0 Y TITLE COHPAHY • K GRANT DEED fC~R A VALUABLE CONS!JERATION, r•o•~pl of whi,~ i• h•~•by acknoMi•dp•d, A. J. SCHkACER, ALSO KNOYH AS ADOLPH JACK SCHRACEA•;s maTSiad saa A•nby GRANTISI to _ ".';j :.~, •.~. PRANK HATAS AHD LETHA. J.: HATAS';. buabaad and".vi'ta';"::ai'~~oiot. tanaata ., . . IM iNi property In tM City Ot 9 a ra toga ~ . "' ~ ~• ~, Saa of Cal~lo+nie, dnaibd rr . CouMyot Santa clara LECAL,ATTACHED AND HARE A PART HEREOF KNOYN AS "EXHIDIT.:AN . .. :f'~.'::..~-,j~ . .. .,... " ,.~Y.,crw:: cril7h~~eY: ~i:+.c ..a. .....~. PAFCEL ONE......... .. .. .. ... ~,.:; . LDT A, •e .•huin up..n lhat c:•tuin Pa-rMl `ta ~~%" • p, r.•c, rrlvd"July•:.19''- 14)9:`iii'look 646 ~f Nape at paces 6 and ]. PAMCF.1. T'~TI • ~xh1b{~- Q.R a( ~.e~ L~iE,t~-spa ~~ An .•a.rmen{ t.+r inR.rvee end eRre.e,tar rAwn and dedieatrd on tAr Partrl Hap ~cr.inatt,ir-rrterr~d-{,u fur thr brnrlit oY Lotr A. 0 rnd'C.,rt rhovn'on raid Map. r j • • . ............. . CONHONLY KNOVH AS 20375 SaratoSa-Loa Cato~~ Road, Sara'to~a, Califoraii• COO p17 o,ud Auaure 10. 1979 ~~,':~; ....-~ fTATt Oe CALDORNIA ~ ~) '•~ ~ .' COUNTY 0/ '. I ~... .!'',.,;. ,;~ Santa Clara I .. .. . 1 o„ Auguat..30, 1979•• _ oda• wr; ry rnOwve~d, • Nawx•'ruW ^e_.o~0.lx a•id iYa, ~ .. • a.:r• mown ro nr io a ra pr•on,,,_~ •%oa wee 1 a ~. wq.r/.a10 l0 W MIMII INItVwryll •I,~ Kingr4ry0 ryI' h r _ e+KV as w war. WITN[Sf wry twd• olri[i•1 y„i ///~ ~f,; . fq~•.rq - . ~li .~~ il~I ~ G. %~..-. (TAB vw ~a WIsW nwrW wll ELLtN H. READ MAIL TAX STATEMENTS AS DIRECTED ABOVE . .~~~ . ;~0~~~2 .. ~ .. ~ ~ '~' f V ~ •w~wl NUAwrlnu((rw,J - ~r - - ® w uM ••a...wo..oAn•o. ~ t~ J ~t -.7~ s i ® '~ ~. 0 .. ,~,: ~~ ~ , `~,;~. `~(a ~ o LANQS'OF ~SC~RaOE(~ ' ~+.~~'' `cf \ '{ANOa ae' gE iNEETt Oft ~p a WNGN1wR /RUrM Nr01 • wwrw V ..+~ ~ coNawow i~ wtm w1o ~r..u « itic cIn w [iwRwcpy~ ewurpll~~ 1 nvunar~ U w•IrAM(lrww navel ~ •\ ~~ - - 3~ N+11.\ap w :~•.`\ E_ _ MARNS E NELSEI~ CIVLL ENGRtECER . 1t. -•wa .wo o.a r..((. ® ~~ :• ~• w MOUNTMM VIEW, CALIFORNn1 • r'V-YIN/1 (Anaaos +T / ' •' i - .IUnE, 1979 •'• / t -NIR r(wcf o~ .,.~ ownu ~`++ /+~ ta1AV{ DATA ' \ i • rawao-ssW~~wwuccA / ~ t7+AK A A ' L OAR ~ 4. • wlrl,n.lpntw{[w N.1 ~ A t t j ~ t+ ~~. \.•\ Ior (• rut - • 1RY a 7{" ~~ 77.A fi<R ' \`I., , .. I.aw r•aa 4a.R• ~' 7f t 7-- ~~ 1(L•1 `1.~ ~ C Z O d r' 7{- ¢07 „~ 47'1 i a~o1o7 as 4., Twwn a ~ ®~ tl•/N {4 R. {J70 At, cROii S i o ar N• 0°~ ~-« a.u iiii CA\/7lW N ` 70jN iQ R-O.N7 AG MEi G N ~•K('~ nm {1M 7117 \ ~ d~ . 1 uro um a.u \! O } I ~ t r N• sr N.ao .-.1 a71 . •'.~ I 7 1r 71'07' q,pY . 1N{ M/w ~ G R fY Q {t• 11r lO7 /{t wrwtN•0\ ~ ( p•N 7lio 11.7 ' K•w1 wai •f N\ W IY V• N- N.OY ~' X•7 IS7 tArlas a aN ni»:;i; verve %. e 4 • K K tA^ Rw .. •7ea{Rr ~ ~ • Jt {c ov 7{A{ 7w /7q ^ LAIIOS OT / ~ ! - Ro'v arN Uaw L tANOd01 6A1[rpp0 101A10 M-1 ~^ w7 t.A c~ YAM PAIR{MNAGK ® ,? CG / t rwarwvw • A fM•N'0r{Ii ~ 1.•w•IwrMnnl •a•{H l p(, raoNU( ~ ,C.• P~ ~: a% c;' ~ O . / Q J//! / s~74fi-0.NIAC.ORO7J • ~m 71.711f0.7rOiT.ii{At;OR06i Sy S~ A.Ni70. 7i-OAN KRLi 71.77(14/1. {J7•AC REi ~ S / Asr 7rr ~, • Iw. ~ . L ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~~ _ _ ~ N'M fOr OIMCwR010 `INI nn' w Mw1110Cw r InJa _ IIII { d~M• N' (wlJa ' 1 M•r'r••1l7,a •t ... w.n 'Qw \ ... 1nJ• a~ .~ «1'I/I ''• ~ ~ fouoNONUrENTwa7aico •.! r••r ^ wave •y w 1 .• ~ O ifi 7N'II. T/gOEO ACl lo7s/ ! i/~/~, - t••vw~T (~I~O,I~w•~Iwu'T~'•~~I ~tt'~~A~WOIOt ORios ROw ~ i! ••••• . .~ r 1'- ~{N' ! 7{I17~ REOOM DATA N X01110 U A[ftRLNR OOCUM[IR OLf[6f71L(pg~ry(t;u { - 4 L Of{O 00pR O VL OI/ICIA( A({,glpt. /AOt /N, MNIw q/IM OD1MTt T weoowoc 1 • • • !" ~;...' PARCEL MAP LANDS OF SCHRAGER S~E~ CONTAiNifJG TWO S}tEETS AND LYING IN THE CITY OF SARATOGA, CAUfOANiA !VlARlUS E. NELSEN, CIYit. ENGlNEEER .MOUNTAIN 1!lE1N, CA!_lFORNtA ,TUNE,1~979 . ~ sASls~ot:SEARIf~i~ Trw bearing d &at for Lhs o-nt~.rne of Oak Pace m dao~ on fire "Arrrended Map of Saratngs 3'aric Lott" rtoordei! r Book O of Maps ai Pa9e+ 68 and 1i9. Sawa maw fbw~ty f~oords and as found morwmented rrat used as :fs_ basis of batrin¢ as shoym upon thB map. SUFiVfYO#i'S CERT1FtCATE 'his crap wes prs?arad Lry' me or under mY direotior, arsd h based upon a tieid survey ir. ecnforsrssrxe rith t±ra rsouiron+ants of the Subd+vkion Map Aa at tM request of A. J. Sduager, .anuary 1978. trersby state tfsat tlse paraei maa prom of the loeai agency base bttn oorapiied with and thst this peru! asap conforms ~0 2fse approrad ttrriaRhet mao snd tix tonditiorq O! approval thertof ~+Irh Wert *egs:i;ed to be itdtif~$ prix *= 7te f'~ o! tM puay"?/~rtna~p~. ,, ~ ~ ~~ s6 f/~//jQ ~ ~ ~ QUO J~s'~1~ 4. _~ f r. ~s_ ~ fAarits E. Heiaan, RL`S SECRETARY OF PLAIVNINCa COMMtlSSiON CERTIFICATE i heTtbY or:lfY thst the whMn paasi map self approved by tfsa piannirg aortar>Mion o! 6'n Cty of Sarstogs, Stale of C+iHarrs}a by tasotsAbn No. 13 9 9- ~ , ax, duly suthorksd rnsedny held or. file .. ~~ day of ~'!/L Y , f9~~, and the by Laid raeo>~lon. ail etneats and otlser ssse+rrarrb shown on aid map and offatd for dadivtioa eiat ryeA+ed on bdraff of tfi. public, :aet .r+d esmpl public ssrviee sarnsant end to ti» 8ndtsd.xt.nt fast any offal for yubec eb.st purpose ddsae esprsdy a y are-„e. effaa +« saas+'sentf foe ~ pergolas ttorg a beneath said street riQnb of-vaay, stn ss to asrt, expne tr knptiea offtn d +sa.rrrerrL for f+~ic ~ ourPoe. the tame an sompeed. R.S. Robiruors, Jr. Att:rsp SebeS~y of s3se ?MnnM9 C.OmrttfBSiOn by: • ~ ~ I'~ U~'`+~?L~i ~i . %//P, ~ oaf Serataye, dated 7 ~2 i~'9 ~nc~ .~ ~j ~y • • . . • ~~4~~~~ E .° C; .' !. CITY ENGINEEfZ'SCERTIFICATE Thh map oonforrru with the rapuLanserrts of the Subdhdslon Map Act and kWol ordinsnee and further certlfles, purwant to SeeBon 88411.1 of the Goverrut»nt Coda. that the toltowirg rcqulrernenb f+awe not yet been oomPleted, and must be tatkfaetorpy ~d~d a for to one year from date hreof in eccordsnae whh the 8ullding 3'rte Approval Agreement or Contract for the improvement of SDfl 1389. 7. Construct driveway approadles 18 feet wide flared to 24 feet ai street paving. iise double seal coat oil and screening or better on ! fnd»s of sg~agele base nxk. 2. Construct access road 18 teat wide plea 1 foot shwldus using double seat coat o!i end screening ar bettor on 8 irscifes of aggregate Casa rook from Serata9a-i-os C*itos Road fNid+way 9} to tun ffiound. The minimum inside verve rsditri sMl! b 42 tact. A tr_'nirnum vertical oTeaance of ?C feet tfidi be r:seirKahred. fridges and other roadway struedires steel! be da'sgnsd m 38000 pounds dynamic bad'ing. 3. Conatrua tun around fssvup 32 feet radius ar approved etgsa! usbrg double see! coat a9 and acrecnxtga or batter 12.1x1 irxlses asphah conotts? on B lra:ircs of aggregau base rods. 4. Submit irrevoeaDte offer of dedereon to provide for a 45 foot haHstnei on Saratoga-L.oe Gatos Rosd {highway 91. ii. Convey drainage water to start. scorn sewer or water course as desynatad by the threeier of Pttbtie Works. Wster eourxs must be keitt tree at obsrsdas vrhicfs vri0 ti+sn9e, :etarC a prevent fiver. 8. r'rovide sdaquaU sight distance and remove obetuetiom o!'view as requ'wed M driveway and access road i J~,~ j1 Robert S. Shoaic .:+tY t'sngineer RCE 14893 City o} Saratoga Date: ~, f1ti~/ 7 g err:clw_e.w~ !. ~:. ,.xEC6 Si~;7R tike! :.CllN" l er:r.~nisc:n Ez:;r.;az ;7.147 CEATlFiCATf Filed nor r9~ deY of ~ U~~t ,16'J~_ n '~. in Book ~~ of . ~Rr r at wgCi y ~~ r at vie r.quett of i~riut E. ri.it.r4 F'pe fio. ~D ~3'18~'7 Fee i ~ ~. ~ ~ Pald George A. Men County Reoordw 9y ~~.~ ~. G~ya~.tQ~J E ~ Orrr Clw~ 3tA{. a. ~ t. A. ~gC.4fCu ~ l' ~~ 14'Xr AJgst _ r~Oe,.Ry _ SR91A ARA w 1~. Ar [~Ilwsvs~ fr,.'.~ x, 17, i9t7 Yr:A „A~t ~y~y e*t:~ssi~a taF:r Jr_ 17. ~ t~'O®V~V _:,.ti_; -...~..ti:.::~,3 •'''=~;~ - ,'"i+:=''1~+Tmsa:' ,-~_ ~"tea.. - - Y '_-_~'k::~.:.wr:w..,«w........' .. i 1 OWNER'S C£RT1FfCATE AJ. Sd,ragm. 1 busby teriity that - am the owner of or have some right, irtk, or interest in and to the mtl property included in the subdivision slfosvn within the blue border as shown on this map, that ! am the only person whoa CorurM K necessary to pass dear tick to said real property: that i hereby ooraen: to tM preFaration and recordation of this map within the distirutirx border line as shown an this [trap. , 1 hereby dedicate to public use and offer to dedieete to the City of Seratoge sl! straits and portions of streeb trot heretofore existing and designated a! Ssra'toga-Los Gatos Road fHi~sway 9) as shown upon this - rnsP. said dedieatioro and ohms of dedication ere for arty and stl putalie uses undm, upon. and orer said streets and portions thereof. t hereby eed'icate to the owners of tots A. B, and C, their iicerssses, dsitots, , and tarranb, redproeal rights of ingress and egess upon and ovm those nrtain snipe of tend dssipnated as ingress artd ogres eesernerK. There is shown on the hereon ~ easemenb for storm drainage purposes daigrset~d as "Ptivab S.t).E" for ttw irgtallation and rrroirrterbnoe of private storm drainage facilities.) hers4y dedicate t0 puldie use easmnvnb for pub4'ic utlitie under on or ova those etrmyr areas oesignsted as "$.S.E" lStxtiforyr Sewer Eosement), ond'P.S.E"(Public Service Eosement),soiti P.SE. to be kept openor+d ftee from byild'inq, All Of the hme~ desen'bed streets end essernenb shat! be kepi free Of Duild'mgb except tavAvl vtnuppo^.ed too'. overhangs, and obautscflorss that irr!pair the up of or are inoort>w..snt with !!» purpose o! ttr: scoot or eaaerr+asrt. Cwnm: Trustee: ~~//~~ N0~ American Seauities Gorrtpeny, a t~rpornar. m Trustee ... f said _ ,~-x.'~` ~ .'~~LQ/LR~ (~ . f~ ~±! Calkornla. raid4r:g hereto. duty ~rrsrnissiorred and sworn, persanaltY asgemed n ) ~ ~n 1 nB}c_~ known to me to De time person whose name it subtaibd to the wtthir. instrwrerti and adcrrovrledgsd to tree that he exearted to tame at o+anar. . w r,..:..... . ! t+Llic in and for [tie tourtty of Sams Gan Stan of ,^,ali`.or:,ia ~~~~~.. •~-R--~---•r-~ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1 ~ f COifNTY OF SANTA CLARA i ' ~;,.~.....,.,..... ._ On the~.vsday of , Tt179 before tna, tM wrdmsi0ned, a Notarll pubik In and L' for 7l,e County of fianu C lara, State o! tslifomla residing Derain, duly eortrrtdsdonad and a.rom, txrsornHy ~ tf ~~ ~~ appeared .rlSC ~~~ and . krgwn t0 nr0 tb hf ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA ! SS COUfJTY OF SANTA CLARA / - On this ~~day of ~ , lg~, before me, time yrsdersigrxd, a Notary fvbtie in and far r and of Anwriean Seasritiesty,tM ~ that axararied tM witlrin inarsrrtwrit, and known Zc :na ib be the penuss srfso esfeartad the within, k>strytrront on behalf of itra ocrporatien herein named, and no- icno,Nedgad to trM that suds oorporat°,on axaevead tM aama as trtinitaa. '~' :n ,vitrmefs whentof, 1 hwe hereyr:tp art my hsrr6 and affixed :sty offectl pal, the deg artd Year !^. this aer•.ffeeata first above writsan. >yotery sgl (,v~~ 1•1c ~lic In and for the Co+rr+tY of Sane C+ma Sab o! California o ~ v~c ~ a ;• i 1 - ~ ~ - ` a'' : i lid •~~ ~ ...a • ~3 .~ . T~~...~i {~ - • • k®®~~6 • • ATTACHMENT 4 • LANDSCAPE AGREEMENT WITH AMENDMENTS ~~0~~47 ..~.. yww.y..~.~..,a~F.ar+*"~. .. ..-~....... S .:. .. ~ r ~ ` , M ~:.. .. ' " - RDOQ~iDING R~ BYt ~ , r s ' . ` Califo~ie I~arisl Title 'Y a ~1'4~~ .~`~ , 1 .. $ `. F Acoocmn ~dt~-tlror'l No. I~j$~ d> ~, FILED FDA R£CORl~ ~ :f •-~ 3 ~ ~' ~ flEv^.. .. .. AT REaU£ST Of~ ~ ~, 'r- J~~~ $~ 24379 Saratoga IDa Gags ~tw8 .. ..,_. •. ~~ ~,~ 14 S&,rtitvga, California ~~ L1EN NDT ~ . ,: ~ ~'° .. 4FF1ClAL A£CCRDS ~` ~` ~' _!_ gso7o. - s,~!~7~ c:aA~ cevNTY SNiPF { ~- , ;'` ~ ' GEORGE A: MANN ~ ~~" ~~^ . ' ~'-- ~ R£~lStAAR. Rcl'ORaEii'.:> _ : . .v .. 1~ , f s vx ~' a ~,. ,'vet s ~yV~ i; a/' 7 .:.~t n A -.~ ~: ~ ; ~fli a J. n -:.,, ssy, .... , ., . .,.a ~ 1 .a, ~ a s ~ .. - ,~ ~ i, s ~ ~ 'qr 3l +t _~ e= .. ~ .1 ~ n '.ws. 1. ~' r. yJ~r, .~~: ~ i cam: r...~: .~.~ .. ' . C '• i ' q'~++~ .. - ~ .2 ~:'C-~ a. , ~.. t ~ ' L n .~ 1F ~. ~ t 'i. .' '~'. .- - ^ . .. .'. w ti alJ y ~. . 1 .lri~ !.~i is `~ M. ~ ~._~~~~ j~n + T .c V 4 y . F ~ ~ T ~ k r ,._ ~, . w. . - _ LANDSCAPING AGREEMENT'S .~ ` ., ::' ~-• , u . - WHEREAS A.J.SCNRAGER also knq-ittl a~.,,~DQ~.~~.-~CK SC~i3~GER, is the ar~er of. , - ~ ~%~ that certain real property re#erre~ to herein as "Lot 8", be1n~ more, ~. .~- .., ss#~ .+ - .Yb .. f S i~rJ, ~ h't` 7~3, /y+ . ~ ±es p J Y , '- n kibitz attac~ied4 tereto; and ~ ~ _ ,~" ;particularly described i .Ex {~ ! ~ ,~ . .. ~ q !* i ~::, a ~`'~ J .~?`7~ic'1~w r ¢"" .~r` ~'~' ..~a t :~.s ~ .,'a ~ r. ..• ~ ~ - ~. ~. WHEREAS, on ,August :8; 3980, the a~ov~'na~d A.J. SCHRAGER'-_tonv~jred the ~ ~ ~ ~' . ti ~.~; i 4 A we ~ kph. ~. ~ _ ,~ ad~oining:'parcel of-land,~referred/to `herein a~. *LoL C", ~ef~~g,more - ~. ;~. k 4 ,,r ~; particularly..descri~ed in Exhibit 8 attached heretq,;to DAVID ARCANGEt ~'^ 1 1 i - ~' ~ < + s t(r lv q ti ~ C,,... 7 ~ n -. ~ . ~ ~q' "!^ ~w ,w' ' '. T~: 1 ~t 4'i ..i J t . ' 'YT ~ .t:.,iG yyl'd ', q! ~ f .! •1.: t -Y ~ L. ~ t .~.. 6 ~.L..: :t i. ~ 'yam.. ,! ' .r: -.f.i s ~ :~ 7 P... ,, ~s~, ~ id ~conve ~ance .an ~ ~~ :; t;•.r:.tt~ n si~rc .sa Y. .: n awn got e ~ # -:-~1, . AND 'JEANEITE PETERS(NJ, T'es$rvi ~g 'r~~y, .~yf~;+,t gqi-~ ~~~. ' _ ,a rye , r r ,~ ~ A F y r N .. ~-, , ,. ~ of Lot C - easerrs?r,t fora l andscnpe Pur. ~Se~., dyad q~~~:.r~~~~:'~s ~c~gr ,that- ~r~ia~, q ,• ~ ;>.~~ ~~ . ~~as~destribed'~ir Exhibit Catt~~!-ed*~~rer ~~°~~~e ~~~~~i~ s~~~his re~r~i,Wing ~`r ~``~,~.~, y. a~+- r -M 1~! 5 •y~ wa.r,K~1 .1.4 s; ~i+. sr v yam. clot Bu: ~bnd .'r L ~~~ } , ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ''.,; ~ I .k aY n 'nv w~ z •y x ~ ~ _ - L ~t .~ ks tilt ~ra,r a 4'+( _ ~, a X~ >~p ~. d .. ~ - " y~7 ~, ay_-r i9 ~~~ ,1 . t~t1!`~, +i, ~ ~~ ! .r3~_ ~ y Y twF h~ ~ ~T. /.h 'S `l - ! y'~i _.yy Styr, .. ; .. ~RS~'~.1 =i~o~~.has since ac~uireQ Y; '~ ~< r -.# . S Mrs, Y R'a d . Wi~EREAS, the above narr~d ,pa is ~ - rs N , . ,,f ~s an Interest ia:.tfie said :"Lot C", roar desire` t~';~~~ aid ref#r~ the ~ , .~~' w .,. "t ... landscap9ng rights to s~iu, lardsca~lr~g a.riea i~-~> d~~ t~q. F,rUVide' the 'carers of ,' 4 3+.. .- w ir..3f 1~ i +.. ~•.x~ ^, M ? yn s• * ~ i ~ n~ M1-y~1 . clot C",and their successors ire iatert~s '~~~ T~ sap1~~ r#~hts aid rFSpo~sibil~ties to";the'a3ea fi~~ret~.~~~e~ r~s~r~e~',fc~Y~?~~,~;~er;df "Lpt 8":.and' ,'':X , ~::: ~ ~ .+ %-~_ . .' "~ , x . '`' • ~ i ~ .~ .:. - tiS1.~~~~.' ` s"~1. ' 3 I '. V.. J .. ;~ ~ :.~ i WHEREAS, th@ parties` have prepared the "Plat" of ~h~~~sub~ect landscape a~~ea, • . , , ,. f which. is attached heretro :as ~ Exhibi4' D, ".and r~hlch de,1 ireates:~ to -the:~bes' of . ~. ; their, ~ab111ty ;tt~e location`. of the ma~ar improve~r~erits thereon• and designates ,. .; and delinPates'as~ portion thereof as :r"het C LANDSCAPE AREA" and a..partion as ~~ "LOT 8 LANDSCAPE AREA"; a~%d now ~~ Y ~,~ ", ~ , "~, s e THEREFORE, the parties hereby•agree:.that.the area; delineated and-. designated. on . said ,"Fiat° as. "LOT..B:LAN05GAPEeAREA", and th'e area dQSlsnated as,. "ingress - . .. . ~:. ~ 1 {:. ,,~ :.: .. , egress" Znd the areas desig~atgC as "oft, non panting-area" ease~ent are for` r _ • the ~enef.it ofj"l.ot 6", erd Lh~t the°ri~hts andsresponslbilitie~ thereto rest ;. t with i,~he current owner of :"lot ~~=or:~hfs 3ucc~t'sows in ownersfiip; -and ~ - ~. .w~ w ~Gy R { 4 ~ ° ~, ^y., M ~ . m:- t,7,°C iyw.:<r. ~ 4 . a - ' ,> ~ -C-_ x~ 7~ -~ _Y k~~l ~ .a ~ +, a !t~ t.{1~ 6 :.: f h ,v~ 4 ~ r: ~ ~ bn. ,.~,.,a+,y~ ° A+k 7 .. ~ r• S ~ d ti.: ALSd~ ;HERE~ORE rtheparties°`he~e~b"~~gre~irt~a~.t;~,e,~ a~~a rie~ tne~ted and ~r ~ ~`; •~ desl~natedlas `"'COT C-LANOSC~PE A~tEA"~~[s for a be~eF'i~of "Lot C," and that ~ "{ it 4 P .the rights and resAonsiaillti~~; t.~,ez~eto r~s# w~,tti ~~e c~:rrent cwners~ of said tt i + tot • C" or their successo~s~~ri interest;y`a 4= yak s; n.: .. ' . ~ _ - ~ ~' ; tie " ~r,r. .;'~ f~" ~ 4 Rt+~t ~ ti w ~ + r f r ~, ' w ( rT ' :' THAT, a1T parties agree t~a'~4re.~trict tPieitr landsca 1n a~d~,~n(t'~ress and e(~ress ; .. ~ w '4=":: v ..;' y"'~a:- '+Y~' fl~A7'.. i.ii~, k`_ ~~ ~'..:4 i ,~Y.u4e 1 ~~,. .~ 4 - 1.,a r ~.,, 3: 4r~~ .:. ,.1 .}. J: ,M. t to the areas desi9e~ated therefore, and to-•raai3~tain their respective areas in a. ~ ,_ ,.,~ t-~ : + .. _ rK' ~.4,.r .v3 ~R.- swt ,:J t r ~y ,h, . C ~ ' 7. a .. . responsible;fashion Viand ttiai""nott~ir~g c©ntaine~ ,i~ '~1sr agre~nt is intended ~ r to ~~dist'urb the?ownersl~~ip'.-rirhts~to t~t~ ~mproYe~toent5 lOC3Lga~`i~n .sa1d area~~ as • excepted fro~i` the original'deed. ° r ~ ~ ;4 Y ~' r' _ ~' T' .. • , - "'{. 4 ' ~ x..., - r ~~ a i. y ~ TAG ~Y ~z d~ r IN ~JITNESS THEREOF we hereto affix our signatu~essfi `'° .. y.~ ~ w t '. i ) / a S r:~a •~ ~~, rr~:. .. .. V •~. ~ +R' ... // ~ 1 T 1 R' Cate ~ ~ ~ ; ~pavid= krcai~get• T. x S !-_ ~. ,.. . , Date - y Jed att ~~ arson n e Pet • .,, g~~ ~y .r .. -G ~ r ,* ,. .. ~ ~ ~ _ 3 ~ - ''S . ;- ~~ Date ~~ ~~'~` f ~~ +, ,~,~ ~;` P~~`rvin~9~rs#all ..,.~ h F .,. ,~ • ,+. r ` • ~ ~ ~ be. u ;t~ tit ~''~'~ ~-~~~ r ~.RR ~..~ :CAL ~SeY~' ~+"i~~ •n~,A ~ R+ / F' ,. .. Cate . Ado h J. ' S .r• ~' er R :. . ` :.:.. ~ .. •~ ~ ~p .. •~. . ... - .. _ - ~ r-: 1 R n . w.2 ~~~9 • • ,.s ~. .. .. ~. .. .. .. s; .. ...: . .:: ~(~ -. _.__ __. __._ _ _ - _ - -..-_._...._._.._...._...c.3 _ _. _ .. , . _ .... _. _ ... .. . EXHIBIT A H~s Pd5E~s3 Lot B, as recorded upon that certain Parcel Map filed July 19, 1579, in Book 446 of Maps at pages 6 and 7 1n the Office of the Recorder of Santa Clara County, California. EXHIBIT B LOT C, as shown on the certain Map entltled, "PARCEL MAP", Which Map was filed for record in the office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California on July 19, 1979 in Book 446 of Maps, ~t page(s) 6 and 7. EXHIBIT C BEGINNING at the most Southerly corner of Lot C as shown on that Parcei Map recorded in Book 446 of Maps, at pages 6 and 7, Santa Clara County Records: o ~ " thence along the Southwesterly boundary of said Parcel N. 43 33 13 W., 149.22 feet to the Southeasterly boundary of an easement for Ingress, egress, public service, and sanitary sewers; thence along said easement boundary N. 56° 44' 00"E., 15.70 feet tt, a point of curvature; thence along a curve to the right with a radius of 25.00 feet, an internal angle of 56° 38' 38", and a length of 15.99 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence along a curve to the left with a radius of 32.00 feet, an internal angle ~f 470 23' 05", and a length of 26.46 feet to a point of cusp, said point bears S. 440 00' 27" E., 32.00 feet radially from the center. of the ',ast mentioned curve; thence S. 450 43' 38" E., 128.83 feet to the Southeasterly boundary of the above mentioned Lot C; thence along said boundary S. 460 26' 28" W., 57.76 feet to the Point of Begining. • N636 P~cE 362 I, I; (ioas.iatta) STATE OF C.IUFORNIA ~ ~ COUNTY OF San Op June 8 1983 l:tore me. tlse taders4tte~. a Not~7 Y~btsa b i°d !er ~ ~~ ~~~ apyei,.~ David Arcangle, Jeanette Peterson and Adolph J. ~ Schrager, w}» proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence, to be the perwn $_ s S are C to the iowameo{t and a _ ~ _ - - ~~~ LINE. J. i~1~H Name ('lypd er Pri.ad) (iodiridual) STATE OF CAL,IFOANIA ~ COUNTY OF~ ~ __ Juen 1 t 83 belan tL asdrrslped. a I~iot~ P~LIk b ~i Ior ~ ~~},, ~~ Marshall who roved to il>e on the basis ~o~ satisl;ac~ evidence *~~**f~**~**s***~~x*~**~,~*t~,~***,~~*~*~o** r,w,~~1*~f+l~*,~:*~,r*rr*o***********~*~~r~****r-**~I~r~l~l*~1***~***~1**~***o**;.**rr to Le tM _...- C to tee i from od • __-- I esecu OF1'ICA.L SEAL i ~ .f"..~:~. ,.~~ ,~,~ CAROLINE !. WAISH, ;W.~'•' ~~GJ"' NOTARY PUlLIGCALIFORNIA Sj~= J H `. '%~`-~%~~ PRINCIPAL QfFICE .'N THE ?~!:;:.: COUNTY OF '~NTA GIAM My Commhslor Eapiro. Jul. 2, 19P6 Name (T~ped oT Printed) ------ - - - -- - --- -- vOlll.lia~?~ ,_, OFFICAL S1rAL _ ~ CAROLINE 1. WAI-SH `!~ NOTARY PUILI!:-CALIFORNIA • ~•A . ~ PRINOIPAL OFFICE IN THE '° COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA My, Commission Eapiret Jul. 2. 1986 ___--- ~l ~ - • • ~.,..M..•r ...... w...-' ~F ....P---- I q ~taraaNaaw MMt Fro~~ • . a ttesr LatE a toF ~ I ` t • ~ ~ `« • V`r ((( ~~~ ~~ +1 ~ • 9011Lf LANOS a' utl.tttw.alw a tlotl.lt ~, ~~ ,•~ ~ CO{tONLAN ., r~ ~~ou~,tat PLAT u-- t ~ ~ ~\ ~ j ~ r~ t if ~ '~ ` ,,.. r ~r tr a tan sotltwonl ttlua Atr aatutta \ / arrcw-~ta a ® w'pR pF ` ~ ~ 1AU,,l,`~N.(J1~ ~ ' ~• Mai wao ort v>Jle~ f~ • \ IES ' ~~ ~ \ Y/~' ! '-~~ _ ~ ~ ~,~-_ ~~ ~ i ~~ tt~t seT nuns nvc a` 4 ~ ratarossL PARR /1.~E \ ~ ~ ~ri~~ ItaM ~[ 1111E LaST ~0 t LlT h `I,~ ~ rwor •wow towwtw ~> A ; r ( ..~n ~ Q1AR (LACE ~~ ~ ~ LOT C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~~ F11ryATt p \ ~ ~ LANO6 OF . ~ ~ / CAIRREII• ` ~• ~ M 1«ba`sa-~a0a ~ ~•74.~ t `~\ ~ ~ . EJIISTING _ •wla orlw~ R• 7200 •-o• ee a a 1 RIDG i f st r r•tnass r•a '. .'8. l• 4410 a. t ~a a1.: ;~ a a ~ a. •\ .°'. oaaws wM salia ,T' A•9d78 7B'~- , \ ~ as ' a '. \ • ~ MRN) ~ i o tt ratt rwor -110- ; • R•4S 00 ~ e.... i[ COwwaw r1~11y w LAN06pF ~ l• 13 99 -wwoatwrt o«na+a rw-a •••• ~ ~ JEFFEIIY •' waaw 4 ~ I _ ~ 1 ~ - ® i ~ LANDS Of ~ / t~tEtta Ito rt[ awo tf[ M VANVALRENAUwGN ~~ Na/'M•M'Eail : ~ LOT 0 ~ ~'~ • ,, SoL / ~~ I ~ ~ /® ficCONEII \ fiC II~~ ~ R ~~ ~ i ' ~ 1 ..._.. i i 1 Recording Req~~ested by: MILLER, MORTON, CAILLAT & NEVIS When Recorded, Return to: AEC FEE MILLER, MORTON, CAILLAT & NEVIS 777 North First Street, Suite 500 AMF San Jose, CA 95112 MICflO Attention: DAVID L. NEVIS, Esq. LIEN No SMPF ~~'~33~'7U i FISH'=~ ~; ~~'.i~i'Jf~ JuN 1~ 1 ~~o ~t'1"i 1985 . R~ nr n~ ~ ' ~ ~ 1~rAGE1~~~ AMENDMENT TO LANDSCAPE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this z,~ day of _~ , 1985, by and between A. J. SCHRAGER, also. known as ADO H JACK SCHRAGER, (hereinafter referred to as "SCHRAGER")f and GREG R. RODHAUS and BETTY GRODAAUS, (hereinafter referred to as "GRODHAU3"); and is made with reference to the following facts and objectives: R E C I T A L S: • • A. SCHRAGER is the owner of that certain real property referred to as LOT Bas more particularly described in that certain Landscaping Agreement dated June 8, 1983, by and between DAVID ARCANGEL, JEANETTE PETERSON, MARVIN MARSHALL;' and ADOLPH J. SCHRAGER, recorded June 15, 1983,. in Book H636 of Official Records, pages 360 through; 364, affecting the real property described as followss _.~ ... PARCEL ONES ~' :.. ., ... LOT B, as shown on that certain Map.entitled,°"PARCEL MAP", which Map was filed.for-.re'cord in the..office of the .; Recordsr of the county of'Santa Clara, State:of;California on July 19,.1979 in Book 446 of'Maps,..'at page(s) 6 and 7. . ~ ~.... . - M PARCEL TWO: ~. .. .. _ ~: EASEMENTS for ingress and egress, public service,` sanitary sewers and private storm drainage over that portion of the premises lying within the bounds of that certain easement shown on said Map as "Ingress-Egress and Public Service Easement and Sanitary Sewer Easement and Storm Drainage Easement" as reserved in the Deed from A J. Schrager to David Arcangel, et al, recorded ~.ugust 8, 1980 in Book F494 of Cfficial Records, .page 8:.. '.: 1. .. -. ~ .. ~-.::~ . r. ~0~~~3 `: ~: . : ~~,,,,,,, .. J 964PaGf 22 ~. ,--, ~ ~ ... 9 ~~ • r ~, .. ~~ ~ K ~ N ~ ; 30'7309 ~~s: r ~!R~ .,. ~ o ~ 1: c c -- . ~ 0 1? ~ `, `, ~ ~ S ~ "`~ 'S'am =' ~ ~, 3. ,.~ pEC Fl E ~ /9 6 O ~~. ,~. l~ I ~-.,.~ I << <~ AT RtQUl~ p 9 RI F c, .~ h AMENDMENT TO LANDSCAPE AG REEMENT$ 1~~6 1" ~~1 i~a ~ ~1 SEC ~ ~ 4 i 1 PN 'ss L i.iEN aoT p~~' OF PICAL RECCRp$~ ,r ~ S'BrF iAN7A CLARA COUh~y ~:~ PCOR ~ LAURIE K/Wi~ --, ,{ Ji -) This Agreement is an amendment. to the landscape agreeme~'rORaEA ~} :~,k,;, ~: x previously executed between the parties and/or their predecessors in ous Landsca a Agreements [dated June 8, 1983 ~' interest. These previ P ~~:.:;~: 4. ~-; by and between David Arcangel, .Teanette Peterson, Marvin Marshall I and Adolph J. Schrager, recorded June 15, 1983 in Book 8636 of Official Records, i,agrs 360 through ?64 and dated February 7, 198, recorded June 14, 1985 in Book J373 of Officials Records, .page 1230 -~~?;~ et seq. are incorporated herein by this reference and remain in i full force and effect except as modified by the terms of this i Agreement. This Agreement is intended to modify the dimensions of the Lot B landscape area set forth in the previous agreements. This Agreement is also intended to modify the parties' legal interest in and rights to the Lot B landscape area. rea in order he Lot B landscape a The parties wish to so modify t to resolve a dispute which exists over the rights of the Youngs to fence in the Lot B landscape area and to have their two dogs occupy the same. All parties recognize that these issues are disruted and the parties choose to resolve '~-pis dispute by way of an adjustment in the dimensions of and legal interest in and rights to the Lot B landscape area. WHEREFORE, the parties have installed, at their mutual expense,. . _ ~ /+ i s0~~~~ yw•or.wr~.t7l. ~~.~.. i Gr.- .yyaYF^'f ~S ~. ~r.~~T ~. ~~rea'9. .. .~-.~w ~,.'V4.^y,>.'9".~O(a~l~'i!~?i'Y' . ... ..~~`Y~ i. ~i J/ •': ~ 1 ~ ~ J9b4PAGE `~3U a chain link fence (hereinafter "fence") which disec*_s the Lot B landscape area. This ,fence spans the width of the Lot B landsca Pe area and its approximate location is depicted on the plat which is ',~ attached to this Agreement as Exhibit "A". The fence is intended to ; now delineate the boundary of the Lot B landscape area fron- that ~~'' '' . j. boundary set forth in the previous agreements. ~~"~,;~, `~°;, ... All ro ~ :~~ p perty and fixtures, both real aad personal, formerly .x,~., . .._;,. situated within the Lot B landscape area as it was previously ~~~ ~ ti., . described and whicr now fall on the Grodhaus side of the fencE are no longer a part of or fall within the Lot B landscape area and are no longer subject to the landscape easement for that :.rea. The Youngs, pursuant to this agreement, agree to abandon and relinquish any and all right, title or interest in the property or fixtures, real or personal, formerly situated within the Lot B landscape area and now situated on the Grodhaus side of the fence and further agree to abandon and relinquish any right, title or :nteresic to that portion of the Lot B landscape area formerly situated on the Grodhaus side of the fence. Upon abandonment of that portion of the Lot B landscape area now situa±ed on the Grodhaus side cf the fence, it is understood that the •loungs, their successors in interest and assigns, shall have no right, title, or interest in the property or fixtures, :eel or personal, formerly a part of the Lot B landscape area and now situated on the Grodhaus side of the fence. The parties ac;sr._wleda_e that this Agreement shall be considered an amend^+ent to the landscape agreements previously executed between the parties and/or their predecessors in interest. The landscape easement set forth in those previous agreements - 2- ~~~~ ~ /~ ti~~~J~355 L ,__•. ....r ...... f:... .~ ^:YR`'~.. -~T"~~"r,;~, :~;~~F•":?'yyp. ~~.r;..~_*sx ~lR''~°~MC'~:~c~",vs: .. .-r.-.. . ~ ... .,~. .. '- +_+C..aaa ~ s:r `4~ ...t... .. ~.:. +,.. ~, ~ ~I 964Pa~E 23' • for--that portion of the Lot B landscape area now remains in effect situated on the Young side of the fence subject to the following ~~ conditions as well as those terms and conditions contained is the 2 $,. • e kY 4d•`-tii^ previous landscape agreements: ~~'' A) .the Youngs can physically conr.Pct the fence Bisecting the Lot a landscape area with those fences they have installed along the perimeter sides of their property; ~~ B) the Youngs may rave no more than ~C~ da3s occupy the. ~ area now situated on the toung s' side ,portion of the Lot B landscape of the fence; C) the installation of the fence, any physical connection of the fence with fencing along the perimeter or sides of the Young property, and the continued right c~ the Youngs to occupy and use .the Lot B landscape area, aG it is now defined, including the Youngs' right to have no more than~~ of their bugs occupy that (area, is done with the permission and consent of Grodhaus; D) the parties do not int:.nd, by this agreement, to provide for any greater use of the Lot B landscape area than that szt forth in the previous landscape agreements, nor is any such greater use to ~e implied by virtue of this Agreer.~ent. Thr onlye~x~tion to this j provision is that the Youngs may have no more than' dogs occupy. the :,ot B landscape area as it is now defined; ~,) no rights, prescriptive or otherwise, are to be acquired or implied by virtue of the installation of the fence, by any physical connection of the fence with fencing along the perimeter or-sides of the Youngs' pr~.perty, or by any continued use by the Youngs of the Lot 9 landscape area; F) the parties do not intend, by this Agreement, to change or ,~e • • ~yQ®~3~6 ~•-',t'. ".'r`: ~ v • J9~4PaGE 2`' • k ,~ ,~; ,'~ k: , r ,: modify the property or lot lines between the respective lots, and :+ is ~~~ the Youngs acknowledge that Grodhaus remains the owner of all ' ' ~~~ ,~~ ., property falling within the Lot B la.~dscape area as it is now ~~~ j, =: defined as well as all property on h a side of the fence; G) . G) Grodhaus shall have aright of access to the Lot B , landscape area as it is now defined; ~: <, H) the fence called. for in item ;i) of the February 7, 1985 ~,, ; ~~~'. '~~ •: ~~. . ~~ Agreement need no longer be installed by Grodhaus. In all other respects, the landscapin3 agreements .referred to in the first paragraph of this Agreement shall remain unmodified and `;~: unaffected by this Agreeme~it. 1 '~>~', Both parties agree to sign any further documents needed to finalize this transaction. The same may be recorded. I ~ ,f either party fails or refuses to execute the appropriate documents necessary to consummate this Agreement, tl~e other parties shall be entitled to injunctive relief or other equitable relief as necessary and, in addition thereto, shall be entitled to any other attorney's fees and costs or damages by breach of this Agreement. This Agreement shall be binding on the successors and assigns of the pat pies. The parties acknowledge that each of them have consulted ~~ith an attorney of *_heir choice and that this .agreement is executed after the consultation with that attorney. The parties are not relying upon any representations made by any other party to this Agreement and the Agreement is not entered into on the basis of any representation, expressed or implied, other than such as may be contained herein. This Agreement s;~all be recorded with the County Recorder ir. ,,~~ -4- /~ y~0~5`7 ~ '' ,: ~ ~ . the Official Book of Records. Executed ~~~~~ d ~° _ ~ California. FARLE OU D ~~~ EDN YO NG LYNN BELANGER ~i~ De:hz AMEND/GROD.1 Rev31086DH/mpj J 964Pa~t 1986 at San Jose, BETTY GR DHAIIS CAPUTO, LICCARDO, ROSSI, STURGES 6 McNEIL ~~L~ -S- C • ,,s~®~~8 23~ ..,, . j. :: <'>:. `~~' ~•i .•~ ~ . • ~ ' ~ ~•i ` _ ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ~~64PAGE 23~ ~ ss. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARa On ~ , 1986, before the undersigned, Notary Public for th State of Cal'_fo nia, person lly appeared an ho~• D~ , ~~~ persona~/ly known to mP ~_~}--droved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be T~ _the person(s) whose name(s) (is)~are) subscribed to the- Within instrument, and acknowledged that executed it. WITNESS my hand and official sea ~ , ' / 0 RY PUSLI or the State of California ^unurrctrrour.rrYlrn.::,r:u:rrrr•-rrrr~rr*rr+>Fr~ /// _,. OFFICIAL SEAL = '"+';-' . SHERI DAYIDSOPJ _r~ _.a:l ~ Nouar vueuc =i~" r 3 COUNTY Of SANTA CUaA Cantu, F, p. April 10, 1987 . ~UrItUplUlgil/1N101t11p11prrlpprprltl1111111r~ • .:S ~H s ~. ~• .~964PAGE 23~ :y ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) M:. ss. COUNTY C4 SANTA CLARA ) -` On 5Ul)J~, IL , 1956, before the undersigned, Notary ,~; Public for the State of California, personally appeared ~' ~ Q • ~~ rod~rtic~u~s ~ .1fa-. ~.~ ~ ~~.-~...~.. ~: ~~ personally known to me ', !_~ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence tc be ;;. the person(s) whose na^~e(s) (is)(are) subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that executed '~I it. WITNESS my hand and official al. / oFF1CL,L SEAL. NOTARY PUBLIC for the St e ROBERT R. VARO, iR. NOTARYPUP~C • CAUFOPN~A of Cal i forn i a SA/:TA CLA9A CCL71`.~ My Co+m. Erpae. May 1. 1 :27 //I -~- ~ooas~ . ~...-..- ~~r M ri1 11 MO~~M . ;~ . • •~ • ~. ~ . w J w~ wry ~ G ~~. :; ~ ~ • E:~ ~ r' ~• ~~ 1 4,,:: ® ~ ,~ • ~~~~ ~ e / Z W Q . ~ W IwM ~1 0 . z ~' ~ YAM /ray ~ ~~ I ~• ~>~t~ ti~ ~ p ~ a a ~ Iwo ~~1 iAr^1 • ~ " ~ ac S o r~ ~~ ® ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ¢ y ~ i c~ " (~ ~ • ~__ L Q ~. ~ • ~I ~ ~ ~ `A • ~ 1` ~ ~ • ~, z~ =; f M~~ .~l~s to ~ ~ C~l~YUtO f` ~~ IM t ~+~r ~N1~ f ~ 4A~N r: `,~ wrr ! ~~ R 4 P O ~ ~- R ~. ~ J . ~ ~ L d. ,. ~ptS GTL~ISCdEfr~s lDT 0 ~: ... ' ~ j . / L~..~.•. •Q -. aAr~A A~'*^L 1s-i fit i ~I~K~-~~ ~5(~XQ111L• ~t~:~.C\l~C, ~_\rrC of fo~ME0.L1•,O'.\.f>1~(; :\l+L-1S l~ir~. . r tFrS ~ Mt. = 2L •S r CaL~ qd/HI lL' 3 ~ ,1 X t u ~r'PwwnRr< cF/3-. ~ t24~ dXP- `1 QPO,J: 3i.'1' 116. 5' . Ttct_: vy ., ~ ~~ ~ ~,,.,1 = =~ crli : ~ , vo . ~~~ (STS AOS c (~ ~ F /T= . ~: ~ e r~,~ = \~y ~ r tt'. )D ~ 3' • f•f5 C.T"RXu1nn~ tCG! , • _'<'^ • F~-x~ . a~•5 crn : z4' ~'4 = 5.S' >>RtY~[:R ~a:o 1CAD LOT 8 f1Cf[lr[ ,NAP ~'1!A' +~4i PAGf G 6 7 n . ~~ , ~ !~ x-: ~! r ,, ' ~; ~~. 1 1 V ` ~ ~. !v ~ "~ Q. ~~1 b~ i,. - `. 1 CN~FE~yI ~ • 1 AO •, Y /~~ _ , , r ~ ~ ~~ s~ °~ r- ...~~ . s='0'~. . ~~~ ~ 0~.~ rd sty 44 ,.N~.O~ ~,t~.ry ~•. ~ N,yI•~'O=~w ~` 7 ~. 1 N t/• 07's7'W 1 ~.• L OTC ygRCl~l ,MAP ~,,,,,~ ~i iA6E G 17 3 i~ 1 ~ 1 C ' ! ~ •.. MI . ~V 3s' II'~6 . .. a 1 f.m' , ~ ' S, 3 1 ~x3 ~ ''t ~ . . 1 :; 1 ....arro,.r~ ~rvE aFrir-Ef~v UA(Rf131~.fP154 ~ A,1~lA,1L~S/fi~' 1 Affil ~".IS CQV,ZQ/Nf0 ,61' T/~Qt'd~!`A? ;. 1 ".IMfH01lENl70l.~WQl~Y~A~,~AR~f.~ffiY7" ~ ,@~9 :~/Ne~Nt',T.llj /9V4E I?.~O .~iKJ9l ` ~4DS l)f l,1A'TA CY~i~l1 CtxWTX min 1 Z 1 ~~~ ~ pr!' N~•I~~ Q,fi~ PLAN ~O ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCR~P~'It~~il FIAT Of LAIVOSCAPE AREA C~vR &G VEER i:.URVEYORS~INC: A~l/D fENC'E LOC'AT/D/V ~ ;~~},,..»~~...~ e„~w~~~~u F0~4 EDNA 1 F.Q,PIEY Y/UN6 I LiW ~ L~~. "aldwnu Y~OS• 7vaMs DATE,i Z 4 scA~E~„. ZD' Dfi.BYB. -~esie ~ v ~ .s. / OF • i~ .~0~~~2 • C ATTACHMENT 5 PUBLIC HEARING MAILING CABLES AND AFFIDAVID OF MAILING X00063 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) SS. I, 1'1 Y i 5~" 1n ~D y'~ l ,being duly sworn; deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the 2 ~ day of hl~l G 2003, that I deposited in the United States Post Office within Santa Clara County, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to-wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing pursuant to Section 15-45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property to be affected by the application; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. /L7`j''~ Signed • • ?~~~~~ RAZI MASHKOURI OR CURRENT OWNER 146 0 WESCOTT DR S TOGA CA95070 MAR][ANNE MARDESICH OR CURRENT OWNER 14571 WESCOTT DR SARATOGA CA95070 ORRIN J & MARIAN BLATTNER OR CURRENT OWNER PO BOX 3411 SARATOGA CA95070 FRED & MARY SCHUMACHER OR CURRENT OWNER 14561 WESCOTT DR SARATOGA CA95070 SOWALLA OR CURRENT OWNER 14496 OAK PL SARATOGA CA95070 N RMAN B JEFFERY OR CURRENT OWNER PO BOX 453 SARATOGA CA95071 HEAL J & MARGARET SMITH OR CURRENT OWNER 14474 OAK PL SARATOGA CA95070 BRIAN & DENISE STYSLINGER OR CURRENT OWNER 20375 PARK PL SARATOGA CA95070 JEROME A SMITH OR CURRENT OWNER PO BOX 3093 SARATOGA CA95070 H & TERRI SINGER CURRENT OWNER 20320 ORCHARD RD SARATOGA CA95070 • PETER B & MARY SMITH OR CURRENT OWNER 14566 WESCOTT DR SARATOGA CA95070 CLAUDIA A DENISON PEABODY OR CURRENT OWNER 1096 HARLAN DR SAN JOSE CA95129 WILLIAM C & VIRGII~IA PERRY OR CURRENT OWNER 14529 WESCOTT DR SARATOGA CA95070 MODI OR CURRENT OWNER 20345 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA95070 SERMONS OR CURRENT OWNER 14494 OAK PL SARATOGA CA95070 VIRGIL H & JOHN CAMPBELL OR CURRENT OWNER 8750 MCCARTY RANCH DR SAN JOSE CA95135 RICHARD B SINGLETARY OR CURRENT OWNER 20363 PARK PL SARATOGA CA95070 PROCTOR OR CURRENT OWNER 2715 ALVIN AVE SAN JOSE CA95121 DARRELL E & ANGELIN DUKES OR CURRENT OWNER 1156 N 4TH ST SAN JOSE CA95112 WALTON & JENNIFER SHORT OR CURRENT OWNER 20312 ORCHARD RD SARATOGA CA95070 • DOLORES P SMITH OR CURRENT OWNER 14560 WESCOTT DR SARATOGA CA95070 JOHN E & ET MATHIAS OR CURRENT OWNER 14527 WESCOTT DR SARATOGA CA95070 TERI L LEE OR CURRENT OWNER 14531 WESCOTT DR SARATOGA CA95070 GOLDHAM OR CURRENT OWNER 20360 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA95070 BRADFORD J & KAREN BOSTON OR CURRENT OWNER 14490 OAK PL SARATOGA CA95070 THOMAS W & C DAMES OR CURRENT OWNER 14478 OAK PL SARATOGA CA95070 GALVIN & BROWN OR CURRENT OWNER 20369 PARK PL SARATOGA CA95070 GREGORY A & ET DENARI OR CURRENT OWNER 20300 ORCHARD RD SARATOGA CA95070 SARATOGA FEDERATED CHURCH OR CURRENT OWNER 14370 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA95070 BRECK OR CURRENT OWNER 20375 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA95070 X300©~5 FRANK & LETHA MATAS ~ MITCH & TRACEY CUTLER • PETER PALMER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 20385 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD 20379 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD 14473 OAK PL SARATOGA CA95070 SARATOGA CA95070 SARATOGA CA95070 MARTIAGE ALAN V & ET KING JAMES J & SCHILLER ABRAMS OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 14475 OAK PL 14472 OAK PL 14470 OAK PL SARATOGA CA95070 SARATOGA CA95070 SARATOGA CA95070 MICHAEL E & CASSANDRA WALTER & JEANINE SEAGRAVES DAVID M & MARGARITA HUSTON OR CURRENT OWNER SOLOMON OR CURRENT OWNER 14458 OAK PL 190 OR CURRENT OWNER 14466 OAK PL SARATOGA CA95070 PO BOX 3028 SARATOGA CA95070 SARATOGA CA95070 DENNIS M CRANE JOSEPH M DONOHOE MOEL L & ELISE JOHNSON OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 20379 PARK PL 14441 OAK PL 14586 ALOHA AVE SARATOGA CA95070 SARATOGA CA95070 SARATOGA CA95070 PAUL F ROGAN MARCIA F & MATTHEW DAMS THOMAS F & JANET GREENLEAF OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER PO BOX 1687 20301 ORCHARD RD 20315 ORCHARD RD CRYSTAL BAY NV 89402 SARATOGA CA95070 SARATOGA CA95070 JACK M & LOIS PARAVAGAN~ _ JANE EVANS RYAN N B & SHEILA HEID WARRE OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 20260 LA PALOMA AVE 20250 LA PALOMA AVE 14452 OAK PL SARATOGA CA95070 SARATOGA CA95070 SARATOGA CA95070 CHRISTOPHER K & SUZANNE ANTHONY & CATHERINE WALIA BOBBY E & CHARLOTTE K1I~TN OR CURRENT OWNER BRAMLETT OR CURRENT OWNER 20220 LA PALOMA AVE OR CURRENT OWNER 20230 LA PALOMA AVE SARATOGA CA95070 14440 OAK PL SARATOGA CA95070 SARATOGA CA95070 NARENDRANATH & RAYNA JEFFREY & KUHOO EDSON GALVIN & BROWN pRp,BpN OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 20210 LA PALOMA AVE 20200 LA PALOMA AVE 14434 OAK PL SARATOGA CA95070 SARATOGA CA95070 SARATOGA CA95070 TERRENCE J & TRUDY ROSE JEFFREY C & MARLENE KALB MARC & KATHLEEN VAN DEN OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER BERG 14595 CARNELIAN GLEN CT 14617 CARNELIAN GLEN CT OR CURRENT OWNER SARATOGA CA95070 SARATOGA CA95070 14631 CARNELIAN GLEN CT SARATOGA CA95070 LESTER H & HELEN LEE MARY M & JOHN TTTUS ATLAS PROPERTIES LLC OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 14653 CARNELIAN GLEN CT 14570 ALOHA AVE 48 ATLAS AVE SAN JOSE CA95126 SARATOGA CA95070 SARATOGA CA95070 +i~~®Q~~ } 1 ~ DOMINICAN SISTERS OF THE CONGREG OR CURRENT OWNER SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD TOGA CA95070 NOELS & BERNICE KANE OR CURRENT OWNER 14611 ALOHA AVE SARATOGA CA95070 MATHILDA C & MICHAEL MAHONEY OR CURRENT OWNER 14601 ALOHA AVE SARATOGA CA95070 RAYMOND D & TERRI SISCO OR CURRENT OWNER 20330 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA95070 • BARBARA B HOOVER OR CURRENT OWNER 14607 ALOHA AVE SARATOGA CA95070 MALCOLM C & SHEILA WILSON OR CURRENT OWNER 20318 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA95070 JEFFREY L BECKER OR CURRENT OWNER 14615 ALOHA AVE SARATOGA CA95070 HORACIO & LILIAN FUKUDA OR CURRENT OWNER 14585 ALOHA AVE SARATOGA CA95070 ~Q~(36'7 • • ATTACHMENT 6 PLAN SET • ~.a~®68 LOT 8 ' ~' ~ ..>vti.. ,.. ~...z,~ LOT h I ~, ~`~. a • • ~ ~ ~ 1 ~j j t ,` '~IV~ - ~~..- i ~ ~ "yam ; s -{-'_ t ."„,,,. ^.~t~~~ POHLE i % w~,~~ ~ - 9 r, f,° G ~ ~~ I ; j a e . ~, o~ ~; y ......,..~` ~ t fs ~ \` ~ t , /' ` ..,. .... ~.. ~t~~-, ` -~ t.' ~ ° `, ~ COP' ~. I! 56 foot ~ence a+ ~ron Set back to be raj5~ to 6 feeth9h. K ~ e~xi r.w • y sue, t-~ r~ ec~r ~Y °G /atw. ie ~cw. ,S wr.cs a ~ ~ .~ xli0 ~r-yyryfy- R eJ°i~~ ~r°ci.R 6-PS~f J~Flre3 1~=~ ~ a t i.,i ,r-rnu GT5' of SAl1ATOG4 , ~ ~>.~ ~muww^• r m _ ~wa~r~san EIYf N R •- .gam, ~w ~~a-.m m.,. -..~..~,.®...._ ......~,R.,..,..-._.._..m...,... ,~~~ ^.~~ M~ .p ...... ~ ...._ .................. .. m " ,n ~ . wry ,,.~, - ~- .,__.._ ~..... . ° ~I ~g,~/ 0 Oak TaEE ~~ ~~, 5 a c ~ uwr ~au.sn a0^~~wmm ~ Mn, ~ .~w~u s,~ mu~ue -~" ~~ °« ~~ ^~~° wn ~ ~ ~. ~°`° °` ~; ~ ~~ ~ °'" ~ ono -. ~ ~ ~.. ~ ~ ,Q ~ i ~~ ~~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ _ ~~ , ~ ~~ -- ~~~. ~ xowm:rreti~.~ltao~i oox . .._ °.a~ aieo® ~ex o r ~ ~ ~' o-za;3e'a7^ L=23.67 ~ ~'~ R-55.0 ,\ ."\\ ~'~ / ,, ::~°° 9~ ` F € ~' ~6~'Q ~'` A ~ d~•~~~ ~'~'~ ~~4` F/~ 2 \ O\S t /~~~ ('~ . V W a ~ U U sg ~ ~ E' ~~ ~ cc ~ oEe ~, ~ H Ejrr ~ zom ~.,,a,_ I'PSeD ~7 ((6~~I1Y0 ^~ ~'~1'D2 _ ~o-~~.-ro.-- MEMORANDUM m: xmLw®sc~n»~ varnc xsm~,co®~nw.~o~ RCiE: pa~prmxm Qdufu d9/0!/O3 pl R~dmIMr.QWdsd7°eabma ~,lwnm dmyl °ap®q~ortd h°m rM Bi 4p°pml. lLc O~'mued °=u semwJ ~^~~ga}~mlIS1/01 ISZ1mArdVam~. AdAitiowlFi.~ pem%wu usrE wdry^mlmma2xinP~~ AmN°Bmth CuMiC®1 dApp~ •mV~s Wp~ll. di[m Pos n°mbc dm0m9mamE '. (n P~m°°°vu®whe®W OWas~nmml'somi8 mtth® mmr wzdmsua,ltiewr<~hs ~s®oiornd a ma m~ I .~ oo ~ ~ m mti w~ ayat4+m amum. L.L. G i Plan° ~sq ~Omnisiun C~1y G°"wJ0 t 4~ED ~ gfeS(i ago of la • ,o oa ~ ~~ ~ f ^r ~ f~ ~ / // /! I ~ o ndJ x>+ r/Q ~~ SS p R:~ ~ 7 j ~ ~ Q$ } e 3 ~ N 43°33'13"W X176.98 ITEM 2 ~J • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 02-238;13235 McDole Street Applicant/Owner: Yeffi Van Atta / Staff Planner: Lata Vasudevan, Assistant Planner ~~V Date: February 12, 2003 APN: 389-15-069 Department Head: ~ ~ , o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a u~ .. _, 5 ~~ }° ~ w ~, ` ' `.31: f .Y ~ ~ . - ~ is ` i ~ ~ ~` 00 ! ;. I • r 2 ~ a._ r~~ i~ ~J`l ~ ~~ y C L I ~* - -~ 8'~ j 4 s C _ `NY r t,,. ~ _ _ _ _'~7 ~. ~ ' ~' I c ^ i { Inc 1.0Y ~ ~~ , Q _~ °.. ~~~ . ~- ~ryop ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~:~~ I . _` 0~~ 75 150 225 300 37511 ~~' l• rM I .L 1' \'`v / _.R i, ~YI~ Ave. ® 73235 McDole St. 500 ft. buffer Roperties v~thin SOOft. Y Y U •~ m 13235 McDole Street s,- 000~4~ Application No. 02-238; 13235 McDole Street • Proposed Code Requirements Lot Coverage: Maximum Allowable: 59.8 % 60% Buildingsl: 2,713 sq. ft. Walkways, Driveways, and Pool: 3,274 sq. ft. TOTAL: (Impervious Surface) 5,987 sq. ft. Slope: o less than 1 /o No adin ro osed ( ~ g P P ) Floor Area: Maximum Allowable: First Floor 2,305 sq. ft. Second Floor 389 sq. ft. Detached Garage2 408 sq. ft. TOTAL 3,102 sq. ft. 3,104 sq. ft. Setbacks: Minimum Requirement: Front 28 ft.-10 in. 25 ft. Rear First Floor 43 ft.-11 in. 25 ft. SeCOrid F1o0r (from main bldg. line) 62 ft.-4 in. 35 ft. Side3 First Floor South 12 ft. 8 ft. First Floor North 8 ft.-7 in. 8 ft. Second Floor South 24 ft.-9 in. 13 ft. Second Floor I~TOrth 17 ft.-11 in. 13 ft. Height: Maximum Allowable: Residence 20 ft. 26 ft. 1 Since most of the walls of the existing 2,120 square foot existing home will be demolished as shown on Exhibit "A° Sheet A2.1, the proposal will be considered a new home. 2 Applicant proposes to demolish a 312 square foot. portion of the existing 720 squ are foot detached garage. ~ The subject lot is 80 feet in width, where the minimum standard for width of lot s in the R-1-10,000 is 85 ft. Therefore, Municipal Code Section 15-65.160(a) applies to this lot. ~iaQ~~~ Application No. 02-238; 13235 McDole Street • • Mc ~=..] X 2 story ®,6z66M:oa.si ... p 606 n. ewl« 1; Raprttle~ r 6hF 60011 Two Story Residences in the Immediate Neighborhood PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence with a maximum height of 20 feet. The project includes the substantial demolition of an existing 2,120 square foot one-story residence. The floor area of the f>rst floor will be 2,305 square feet and the second floor will be 389 square feet. The lot size is 10,000 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-10,000. Architectural styles in the neighborhood are primarily California Ranch homes interspersed with newer contemporary style homes. The home adjacent to the subject property at the corner of McDole Street and Dundee Avenue is a recently remodeled 18 feet high contemporary style home. Most of the residences in the neighborhood are single story, with two two-story homes across the street from the subject property and another on Martha Avenue, facing McDole Street. The subject site is neither in the single-story overlay zone of Saratoga Woods nor in the proposed single story zone of the Brookview neighborhood The small map below shows-the locations of the two story properties in the vicinity of the subject site, based on a site visit by Staff. The proposed residence will be in a contemporary style with beige stucco siding, off-white trim and s-tile terra cotta color roofing. A color and material board will be brought to the public hearing. In the incomplete letter to the applicant, Staff commented that the proposed windows in various shapes do not contribute. towards a cohesive appearance. In particular, the two rectangular windows are not compatible with the other windows on the front facade. The applicant has responded to this comment by saying that she likes the design as it is and prefers no changes. A copy of Staff's comments as well as the applicant's response letter are attached to this report. Aside from the window styles, Staff feels that the applicant has done well in minimizing the perception of bulk of the proposed two-story home, as will. be discussed below. ~QQ~`0:~ Application No. 02-238; 13235 McDole Street This project also involves the demolition of a 312 square foot portion of the 720 square foot • existing detached garage situated on the rear, corner property lines. Many properties in the vicinity of the subject property also have detached garages that are situated at or very close to the rear and side property lines. The applicant does not propose to change the height of this structure. Removal of a portion of the nonconforming garage is uz compliance with Municipal Code Section 15-65.070 in that the applicant is not altering the structure so as to increase the discrepancy between existing conditions and the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to remove a 15 inch diameter almond tree to accommodate the proposed swimrrung pool. No other trees are proposed for removal. The Arborist Report prepared for this application indicates that it is wise to remove this tree considering its poor condition. Replacement trees as well as a bond for the preservation of the two other trees on the property are required The applicant has indicated to Staff that the existing driveway will remain thereby causing no impact to the row of Italian Cypress trees on the neighboring property. A condition of approval cor~firrning that the existing driveway will be retained has been added to the attached Resolution. Below is a discussion of how this project implements the following Residential Design Policies: Policy #1: Minimize Perception of Bulk While most of the homes in the neighborhood are single story, the proposed two-story home with a maximum height of 20 feet will not overwhelm the surrounding residences due to several reasons. The proposed home is similar in footprint to the existing home. Since the new second story (consisting of only a master bedroom and bath) is modest in size, the proposal greatly minimizes the areas of maximum height. Moreover, the second-story building line is significantly recessed along the front, side and rear elevations. The proposed will not appear to be much taller than the neighboring newly remodeled 18 feet high home. Elements which further reduce bulk and break up the mass of the proposed residence include multiple low-pitched roof lines in varying heights, and windows of various sizes at different planes of the front facade. Policy #2: Integrate Structures with the Environment The proposed limited number of materials and earth tone colors will blend with the natural environment and existing residences. Only one tree that is in poor condition is proposed for removal. The applicant will be required to plant replacement trees. Policy #3: Avoid Interference with Privacy and Views The applicant has submitted a petition signed by adjacent and surrounding neighbors, which indicates the plans were circulated to the adjacent and surrounding properties for review. The petition is attached for your reference. The neighbor at 18859 Dundee Avenue does not support this project. The location of the neighbor's property in relation to the subject site is shown below. C ~~0~~~ Application No. 02-238; 13235 McDole Street • Based on Staff's conversation with this neighbor, the two concerns are: (1) That the proposal will have an adverse impact on the neighbor's privacy, and (2) That approval of this project may facilitate approval of future proposals for two-story structures in the primarily single story neighborhood In response to the first concern regarding privacy, Staff visited the neighbor's property, which is also flat in grade, but approximately two feet higher in elevation than the subject property. From the rear yard of the neighboring property, one can see the roof of the existing home on the subject site. Since the subject site is lower in elevation, the neighboring home is barely visible from the rear yard. If the proposed home were built, the neighbor would see the second story of the south elevation which has no windows, and the second story of the rear elevation at an angle. Staff finds that the proposed rear balcony is inconsistent with Technique #1 of this design policy and is recommending that it be removed, and the balcony doors be replaced with a 4' x 4' window opening. This would leave a bedroom window and a window directly above the bathtub that maybe viewed at an angle approximately 85-90 feet from the rear facade of the property at 18859 Dundee. The design review finding contained in MCS 15-45.080(a) states, "Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy:' Given that the two windows are situated at an angle at a sufficient distance from the rear facade of the property at 18859 Dundee and that the subject property is slightly lower in elevation, Staff finds that the proposal will not unreasonably interfere with the privacy of the neighbor. In response to the second concern, Staff explained to the neighbor that future proposals for two story structures in the neighborhood will be reviewed on a case by case basis by evaluating compliance with the design review findings. Policy #4: Preserve Views-and Access to Views The project site is located in the flat, northeast portion of Saratoga. The proposed 20 feet tall structure will not have any impacts on access to views. Policy #5: Design for Energy Efficiency The proposed residence shall have new insulation, which exceeds State requirements. The new windows will be low emissive glass. ooo~os Application No. 02-238; 13235 McDole Street Conclusion • The Commission shall carefully weigh the concerns of the neighbor at 18859 Dundee Avenue with Staffs analysis of compliance with the design review findings. Staff feels that the project does well in balancing the applicant's personal reasons for wanting atwo-story home and the need to maintain the `low profile' character of the homes in the neighborhood. The proposed project supports the findings required for design review as detailed in the staff report, with the condition that the second story balcony at the rear elevation be removed STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission conditionally approve design review application 02-238 by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution for application number 02-238. 2. Fire Department comments, dated November 12, 2002. 3. Arborist Report, received January 21, 2003. 4. Staffs Incomplete Letter and Applicant's Response Letter 5. Petition signed by neighbors indicating they have reviewed a copy of the plans for review. 6. List of property owners who were sent notices regarding the public hearing for this application. 7. Reduced plans, Exhibit "A". • ~~~~~s • Attachment 1 • ~oooo~ APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. _ CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Ms. Yeffi Van Atta;13235 McDole Street WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review for the construction of a two-story single-family residence with a maximum height of 20 feet. The project includes the substantial demolition of an existing 2,120 square foot one-story residence. The floor area of the first floor will be 2,305 square feet and the second floor will be 389 square feet. This project also involves the demolition of a 312 square foot portion of the 720 square foot existing detached garage; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the project, which proposes to construct a new small single family home, is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 3 exemption applies to construction of a single family home in an urbanized area; and WHEREAS, the applicant has rnet the burden of proof required to support said application for design review approval, and the following findings specified in Municipal Code Section 15-45.080 and the City's Residential Design Handbook have been determined: Policy #1: Minimize Perception of Bulk V~hile most of the homes in the neighborhood are single story, the proposed two story home with a maximum height of 20 feet will not overwhelm the surrounding residences due to several reasons. The proposed home is similar in footprint to the existing home. Since the new second story (consisting of only a master bedroom and bath) is modest in size, the proposal greatly m;n;m_-'~es the areas of maximum height. Moreover, the second- story building line is significantly recessed along the front, side and rear elevations. The proposed will not appear to be much taller than the next door newly remodeled 18 feet high home. Elements which further reduce bulk and break up the mass of the proposed residence include multiple low-pitched roof lines in varying heights, grid windows of various sizes at different planes of the front facade. Policy #2: Integrate Structures with the Environment The proposed limited number of materials and earth tone colors will blend with the natural environment and existing residences. Only one tree that is in poor condition is proposed for removal. Policy #3: Avoid Interference with Privacy and Views The design review finding contained in MCS 15-45.080(a) states, "Avoid unreasonable. interference with views and privacy" Staff finds that the proposal will not unreasonably 4.~00~08 interfere with privacy, with the condition that the second floor bedroom balcony be removed Policy #4: Preserve Views and Access to Views The project site is located in the flat, northeast portion of Saratoga. The proposed 20 feet tall structure will not have any impacts on access to views.- Policy #5: Design for Energy Efficiency The proposed residence shall have new insulation, which exceeds State requirements. The new windows will be low emissive glass. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, application #02-238 for Design Review Approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" incorporated by reference, with the exception that second floor bedroom balcony be removed and the doors be replaced with a 4' x 4' window opening. 2. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the Arborist Report received January 21, 2003 as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division. 3. The site survey shall be stamped and signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor. 4. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans" 5. A grading and drainage plan combined with a storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices, shall be submitted along with the complete construction drawings. 6. A final landscape and irrigation plan showing the required replacement trees shall be submitted for Staff review prior to issuance of City Permits. 7. All landscaping shall be installed prior to final building inspection approval. • ~OO~c09 CITY ARBORIST 8. All recommendations contained in the Arborist Report received January 21, 2003 shall be followed. 9. The existing driveway shall be retained 10. Tree protective fencing as shown on the Arborist Report received January 21, 2002, shall be installed and inspected by Planning Staff prior to issuance of City Permits. 11. Prior to issuance of City Permits, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount of $1,118 to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. 12. Prior to Final Building Inspection. approval, the Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. The bond shall be released after a favorable site inspection by the Arborist, the planting of any required replacement trees, and payment of any outstanding Arborist fees. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 13. All Garage Fire Sprinkler System Required: An approved, automatic fire sprinkler designed per I~'ational Fire Protection Association Standard #13D and local ordinances, shall be provided for the garage. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth flat, horizontal ceiling. A State of California licensed fire protection contractor shall submit plans, calculations, a completed permit application and appropriate fees to the Fire District for review and approval prior to issuance of City Permits. CITY ATTORNEY 14. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City of held to be liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project: Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen days from the date of adoption . • ~~ooo~o i~ i• Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Ylannulg commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. i~ PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission. State of California, the 12th day of February 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date ~Q0~1~ s Attachment 2 • ~00~1~ ,~; ~, . ~~P pT.ARA °°G ~~ ~ FIRE '~ COURTESY ~ SEPVICF CODE/SEC. FC ppendix -A .~C ~-15.110 SHEET FIRS DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY ;~ . t+.AN REVIEW NUMBER o2 2464 BLDG PERMR NUMBER 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • vrww.sccfd.org CONTROL NUMBER FILE NUMBER X2'238 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS NO. ~ REQUIREMENT Review of a proposed 574 square foot addition to an existing single family residence with a new detached 408 square foot garage. The new total floor area for the house will become approximately 2,692 square feet . Required Fire Flow: The fire flow for this project is 1,000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure. The required fire flow is available from area water mains and fire hydrant(s) which are spaced at the required spacing. Garage Fire Sprinkler System Required: An approved, automatic fire sprinkler system designed per National Fire Protection Association Standard #13D and local ordinances, shall be provided for the garage. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. A State of ` California licensed fire protection contractor shall submit plans, calculations, a completed permit application and appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior to beginning their work. City PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST. TYPE ApplicanlNallt! DATE PAGE TG ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ TD BUILDING DESIGN 11/12/2002 1 of 1 :CJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION BY Residential Development Hokanson, Wayne >)>!OF PROJECT LOCATION SF~Z- VANATTA 13235 Mcdole St Organized as the Santa Clara County Centra] Fire Protection District Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hitls, Los Gatos, Monte Serena, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga ~oO~g~ Attachment 3 ~OO~i4 BARRI E D. CtJATE and ASSOCIATES Hdrticutural Consultants 23535 Summit Roed Los Gatos, CA 95033 ~408~353-1052 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE VANATTA PROPERTY 13235 MCDOLE STREET SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Kristin Borel Community Planning Dept. City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist December 31, 2002 Job# 12-02-244 ~ ~~~o~~ ~ JAN 2 12003 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT n ~~0~15 01/20!03 09:57am P. 002 TREE.S'i1]t!~'Y.•~N!)YRESERf~fIT10NRECOA•1rl1ENL).9TIO~ti:S'ATTHF.1!dN~ITfAPROYER?'Y, J3135A~CnOLESTRF.E7' S.1R.9TUCi:1 . Assignment S At the request of the Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of Saratoga, this report evaluates the risks to the existing trees by the proposed construction at the Vanatta Property, 13235 McDole Street, Saratoga. This .report rates the condition of the trees on site that are protected by City of Saratoga ordinance. Recommendations are included to mitigate damage to these trees during construction Summary There are at least 14 trees that could suffer some level of risk by proposed construction. An almond tree in marginal condition is proposed to be removed. Another may be considered for removal due to its poor condition. Replacement trees, which equal the values of the trees removed, are suggested. Procedures are suggested to mitigate the damage that would be expected to the retained trees. A bond equal to 100% of the value of the trees that would be retained is recommended to assure their protection. Observations There are 3 trees on this site and at least l l large trees on the adjoining property toward the south that maybe adversely affected by this project. The attached map shows the location of these trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. None of these are indigenous species. The 14 trees are classified as follows: Tree # 1-Common Almond (Prunus dulcis) Trees # 2, 3 -Modesto ash (Fraxinus velutina glabra) Trees # 4 -Italian cypress (Cupressus sempervirens) 1 l trees The particulars regarding these trees (species, trunk diameter, height, spread, health, and structure) aze provided in the attachments that follow this text. The health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (Excellent -Extremely Poor) on the data sheets that follow this text. The combination of health and structure ratings for the 14 trees are converted to descriptive ratings as follows: Exceptional S ecimens Fine S ecimens Fair Specimens Marginal S ecimens Poor S ~ecimens 234 1 Eair specimens are worth retaining but again without major design revisions. Mitigation must prevent further decline. PREPaRLD Br: AdICHfIEL L. RF.NCN. ('QA~5TI7.77~VC3:IRBORIST I)ECEAa13ER 31. 20~? ~~Q0+.1"36 01/20/03 08:57am P. 003 TREC.tiURT~YAND PRESTRiAT10NRECO.7v1fLfE1VDAT10N.SATTNE I~ANATT.=1 PROI'LR7Y. 13235~1CDOLESTItF_lc1' 7 . S~1R970C~,4 Marginal specimens are typically worth retaining but could be removed if necessary to facilitate construction Mitigations recommended here are intended to prevent significant decline. There are l 6 (possibly l 8) Italian Cypress trees in a row adjacent to the property boundary on the neighbor's property toward the south. However, some of these are small and in very poor condition. Eleven of these trees are large and are in relatively good health. These 11 trees have been poorly pruned and abused in the past. Despite the fact that the surviving canopy growth is healthy, the overall canopies of these trees are relatively sparse. For this reason, I rate these 11 trees in only Fair condition It maybe useful to note the adjacent property, on which the 16 Italian Cypress exist, was redeveloped approximately 1 year ago. The majority of the procedures, which I recommended at that time, were either not carried out or were poorly done. In my opinion, the existing sparse canopies of these Italian Cypress trees is a result of damage to tree roots caused by the construction practices used during the recent redevelopment of the site. I qualify this statement somewhat because 1 recall that these Italian cypress trees were not in ideal condition at the onset of construction on that site. Trees #2 and 3 are Modesto ash (Fraxinus ~~elutina ~labra) street trees that were likely planted at the time of the development of this area, because this species is a common street tree in this immediate portion of Saratoga. Trees #2 and 3 have been topped several times in the past. Tree #3 has developed several decay sites at the locations of the old wounds. The topping procedure produces new fast growing branches (called watersprouts) that are very poorly attached and are highly prone to breaking out and falling. This risk increases as these watersprouts mature, such as those seen on these two trees. The decay at the old stub-cut wounds multiplies this risk tremendously. I consider several of the limbs of tree #3 to be extremely hazardous. This tree must be pruned immediately to remove the visible decay sites. This will effectively stub-cut the old limbs, which will restart the development of weak watersprouts-and possible decay locations into larger wood. Unfortunately this will disfigure this tree and is only a temporary solution. In order to make both trees #2 and 3 • relatively safe, alI of the un-decayed branches must be pruned to reduce the end weight. If this all sounds complicated, it is, which is why we recommend that pruning be done only by a certified arborist. In order to keep these two trees reasonably safe, they must be thoroughly pruned every 3-5 years for the rest of their life. Replacement of tree #3 is a viable option, in my opinion. Risks to Trees by Proposed Construction Removal of tree #1 is proposed. Considering this tree's condition, I suggest that is wise provided that it is replaced by another specimen of equal value somewhere on site, not necessarily at the same location. The 11 Italian cypress trees (represented by # 4 only) located on the adjacent property should not • be significantly affected by the proposed construction, unless the new concrete and stone driveway on the south side of the house would be redone again. The plans do not make this clear and for this reason, I have included them in this evaluation. If the existing driveway were to be PRI'P.aRED BY: A~IICHALI. L.13ENCIi, CONSL%LTLNG ARBORbST UF.C. EA•f8L•'R 31.1002 00~`~ I. 01/20/03 08:57am P. 004 TREE SIIRi~'F.Y~LVD PRFSERl;4T10N REC~~fA/B~M.~1 TTON.SAT THE I%AN.4TTA PROPERTY, !3133 AdCDOLE STREET' 3 S4RaT(X,i.~ replaced, the Malian cypress trees may have significant quantities of roots under this driveway that would be at risk during the demolition, removal, and replacement. It appears that ail of the retained trees would likely be at risk of damage by construction activity and construction procedures that are typical at most construction sites. These procedwes may include the dumping or the stockpiling of materials over the root systems, may include the trenching across root zones for drainage, for new utilities, or for landscape irrigation, and may include constant construction traffic, including foot traffic, across the roof systems resulting in soil compaction. If any underground utilities must be replaced or upt,~raded, it will be essential that the trenches must be planned pxior to construction and that the trenches are located exactly as planned. This must not be left up to contractors or to the utility providers. Recommendations 1. I recommend construction period protective fence be install to protect trees #2 and 3 (if retained). Protective fencing must be located as shown the attached map. Fencing must be of chainlink, a minimum height of 5 feet, mounted on steel posts driven 2 feet (minimum) into the ground. The fence must be in place prior to the arrival of any other materials or equipment and must remain in place until all construction is completed and given final approval. The protective fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. The contractor(s) and the owner must be made aware that refund of tree protection bonds are based on the correct location and dedicated maintenance of these fences. 2. Tf the driveway would be replaced, I recommend that it be done in the following manner for the protection of the 11 neighboring Italian cypress trees (#4): a. Retain the existing driveway throughout the entire reconstruction of the residence and any landscape hndscape. Remove and replace the driveway as the last item of construction. b. Demolish of the driveway by hand or if a tractor or skid steer loader is used, it must stay on the undisturbed pavement at all times. c. Start on the west side working toward McDole Street, break the pavement into small manageable pieces. Load into the bucket by hand The soil directly beneath the pavement must not be driven on or disturbed. Again the loader must stay on the undisturbed pavement at all times. d Immediately (within an hour) cover the exposed soil with 3 inches of coarse wood chips. It is preferred to cover the new exposed soil with the wood chips as each~small section of the pavement is removed. e. Wet down the area covered by wood chips thoroughly. Keep wet for Z weeks. 3. There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping inside the driplines of retained trees (either before or after the construction period fencing is installed or removed). Where this may conflict with drainage or other requirements, the city arborist must be consulted. • PRF_'P.dRED liF:1~17CHAF_L L. F3T_NCH. CON57JLTIN(;.~9W30RLST DrcEa.~~cR ~~. z~a ~~00~3.8 01/20/09 08:57am P. 005 TREE SURVE}'AND PRESERI:ATlONRECOd1MLNA~1770N.S.4T THE 7:4NATTA PROPERTY, 13135 AfCDOLE SI'RF.E!' 4 S.4IL97~9 4. Trenches for any utilities {gas, elecfic~ty, water, sewer, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be located outside the driplines of retained trees. For any tree where this cannot be achieved, I suggest that the city arborist be consulted. 5. Any old irrigation. lines, sewer lines, drain lines, etc., under the canopies of the existing trees, if unused, must be cut off at grade and left in the ground. 6. Trees #2 and 3 must be irrigated throughout the construction period. Either the existing irrigation system must remain functional and continue to be used during construction or irrigation must be provided to the trees during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1 inch of rainfall). Irrigate with 10 gallons for each 1-inch of trunk diameter every 2 weeks throughout the construction period. One alternative may be the use of a simple soaker hose, which must be located near the dripline for the entire canopy circumference. 7. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped (even temporarily) under the canopies of trees. 8. Trenches for a drainage system must be located outside the driplines of retained trees. For any tree where this cannot be achieved, the city arborist must be consulted prior to trenching. 9. i recommend that trees #2 and 3 be pruned by thinning to reduce the endweight. The decay sites of tree #3 must be removed immediately. Any pruning must be done by an ISA certified arborist and according to ISA, Western Chapter Standards, 1998. ] 0. ndsca a athwa s and other hardsca a constructed under the canopies of trees rraust be La p p y P done completely on grade without excavation and without the severing of roots. 1.1. Landscape irrigation trenches (or any other excavations), inside the driplines of trees, must be no closer than I S times the trunk diameter, if the trenching direction is across the root zone. However, radial trenches (i.e., like the spokes of a wheel) maybe done closer if the trenches reach no closer than 5 times the trunk diameter to the tree's trunk, and if the spokes are at feast 10 feet apart at the perimeter. 12.5prinkler irrigation must be designed not to strike the trunks of trees. l3. If there are any oak trees used as replacements, I suggest that the species of plants used in the root zones of oak trees be compatible with the environmental and cuhural requirements of the oak species indigenous to this area. A publication about plants compatible with California native oaks can be obtained from the Califomia Oak Foundation, 1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland 94612. l4. Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bark, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be installed directly in contact with the bark of trees because of the risk of serious disease infection.- - 15. Materials or equipment must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped inside the driplines of trees, or buried on site. Any excess materials including mortar, concrete, paint products, etc.) must be removed from site. PREPARED 13Y': b17CH.9EL 1.. DENCH. CON.SUI,TTNG ~1RADRISI' DECEMBER 31. 20f73 ~O ~i.!` ~.~. 01120/03 08:57am P. 006 TREE S(/RT'EY AND PRESER~:-iTION REC'U~FQIdEND:~T10!~~ AT Tlils TfANA77:a PROPERTY. 13235 A•lCDO1.E STRF.&7' S S:-iR97~(;~ • Valve Assessment The values of the trees are addressed according to 1SA standards, Seventh Edition. Tree #1 has a value of $558, which is equivalent to ]-24 inch boxed and 1-15 gallon native specimens. Replacements are suggested. If tree #3 were to be removed, I recommend that it be replaced. It has a value of $753, which is equivalent to 2 - 24 inch boxed native specimens. Normally the neighboring Italian. cypress trees would each have a va]ue of about $5,000 minimum per tree. However, the 11 trees are in only fair condition. For that reason, I believe that each of these 11 trees is minimally equivalent to 1-24 inch boxed specimen, which has a planted value of $420 each. Thus, the 11 Italian cypress trees have a minimal value of $4,620. If the existing driveway would be replaced, I recommend that these be included in the bond requirement. If the existing driveway would not be replaced, no bond is recommended to asswe their protection. If trees #2 and 3 are retained, I recommend a bond equal to l00% ($1,118) of their total value be retained to assure their protection. In the event that the driveway is replaced, I recommend that the bond be increased by total value of the Italian cypress trees. Acceptable native tree replacements are: Coast live oak -Quercus agrifolia Valley oak -Quercus lohata Big leaf maple -Ater n~acrophyllum California buckeye - Aesculus californica Coast Redwood -Sequoia sempervirenc Respectfully submitte~ ~^-- ; ' Mic ae encfi`,1~ eef~ ee cam, . ~ ~~-a Ba e D. Coate, Principal M1,B~s1.. Enclosures: Glossary of Terms Tree Data Accumulation Charts Tree Protection Before, During and Afler Construction Protective Fencing Radial Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies Map PRF.PAR>;Z) RY: >vI1C'N.1 F.L I HENCIL CONSUL77NG dRBOR1ST DEi'F~i•lAER 31. 2A02 Job Title• Vanatta Job Address:13235 McDole St. Job #12-OZ-244 • Dec. 31, 2002 I ~ BARRIE D. COATS ~ ~ ~ w ~ a "_ v cu Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° and ASSOCIATfS ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~, g ~' o ~ ~ ~, ~ g ~ '? ~ ~ o ~ ~ a Z 14 081 353 1 0 52 ' uw. F- U z z O z d w o o ~ i ~ ~ ~ n O tSS3SlaaaiRmd ~ h ~ '? ~ z ¢ ~ Z w a w ~ ~ p O, w ~ ~ ~ LL wg IsCalq,G 96010 } ~ O ~ U ~ ~ o: w u1 z uJ ~ ~ ~ U U ~ o O O ~ ~ rii rS W ~ U ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m Z ~ w a ~ 8 O w w ~V ~ 1~ 1 m I m l Q w a w 3~ O ~ e= m ~ w a ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ K Z Z ac o2 <ey # Rant Name o ~ 0 D 0 2 rn x re U U U ~ U ~ U a -- ~ ~ 1 Almond 12.0 x 12112 9\11~1511~ 20 40 3 3 ~ 6 Prunus a alas ~ 13 . In 306 X $271sq. In. _ $ 8,262 X ap. class 30°~ = 4i2~479 X cond. 45% _ $ _..1.115 X loc. 50% * $ 558 Total Value 2 Modesto Ash 21.0 ~ ' 20 40 l 35 1 4 5 1 x x ; 1 Fraxlnus velutlne labs I = In 346 X $27Isq. In. = 5 9,347 X sp. class 10% = 3935 X cond. 60% = S 561 X loc. 65°~ $ 365 Total Value 3 Modesto.Ash 27.0 i 30 40 45 1 3 4 x 2 ' In 572 X $27/sq. In. ~ ~ $ '15,451 X so. class 10°.6 = 51.545 X cond. 75% _ $ 1,1.59 X loc. 65°h = 8 ' 753 Total Value q 'Italian ress 10.01 I 12 35 8 1 3 4 1 11 Trees 11x420 . Cu essussem Mrens = . in 78.5 X $27/sq. in. _ ~ 2,120 X sP• class = $0 X cond. $ X loa $ 4 620 Trial Value aach tree equal to 24-Inch boxed free ~~ f.~: O O REpLpC1EMENT TREE VALUES ~ ` . 5-gal ~ S36 IS-gal ~ 5120 ~ 24"box a $420 36"box ~ $1320 48"bauc ~ $5,000 S2"box ~ 57.000 7ybax ~ 515.000 1=BEST, 5 ~ WORST Pase 1 of 1 0 r N B t 0 (U l9 O) . N v Or 3 B l9 v 01/20/03 09:97am P. 008 - Tree Survey and Preservation Recommendations at the . BARRIE D. COATS and A$$OCIATES . vanatta Property, 13235 McDole Street woelxsg~o~t 19595ruenB Teti Prepared for. In Ctla, G 95W0 City of Saratoga, Planning Departrnent HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANT Date: Dec. 31, 2002 CONSULTING ARBORIST Job #i 12-02-244 Tree numbers correspond to evaluation charts. All dimensions and tree locations are approximau. • • ~~~~ .o ~ ~~ • • Attachment 4 QU~2~ .,. • ~ ~'~ ~~ ~~ o ~i _~~~ _ ~ o ° ° O~° o `~O `~~ O~ ~ C~~ `^~ 13777 FR.UITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (40S) 868-1200 Incorporated October 22.1956 November 5, 2002 NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION Yeffi Van Atta 13235 McDole Street Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: 13235 McDole Street; Application No. 02-238 -Design Review Dear Ms. Van Atta: It is has been determined that the above described project application is incomplete. In order to accept the application as complete, the following revisions and materials must be submitted to the Planning Department: 1. If more than 50% of the existing structure is removed, then staff views the proposal as a . total demolition. Please revise the project description on Sheet AO.1 to say `New Two- Story Home` to reflect the true scope of your submitted proposal. 2. The existing detached garage is a nonconforming structure in terms of height and setback requirements. Your proposal to modify this structure is in compliance with the Municipal Code provided that you do not increase the degree of nonconformity. However, staff sees another option for }'our proposal. Since the main structure is being demolished, staff would like you to explore the possibility of remo~~ing the nonconforming detached garage and incorporating the two car garage into the main dwelling. If this route is taken, careful consideration must be given to the preservation of the two large street trees in your front yard. If, instead, you still wish to pursue your current proposal, provide a cogent written explanation as to why your submitted proposal to keep the nonconforming structure is the better option. 3. Please ensure and note on the drawings that you have an interior width of at least 19 feet to accommodate 2 parking spaces within the detached garage. Also be aware that the walls shall meet current fire code requirements. COtiNCIL MED'iBERS: Evar, Bakei Stan Eogosian John Mehafley Nick Streit Ann V1'aitonsmith • ~00~24 S • . .~ 4. A $1,000 Arborist review fee shall be submitted, to staff since a protected tree is proposed for removal, and two front yard trees maybe affected by construction. Be advised that the Arborist may require a revised location for the swimming pool tf the tree is determined to be of significant value. 5. Provide a letter indicating proof that the adjacent property owner~have reviewed your plans acid have no concerns. 6. Provide the correct APN on Sheet AO.1: 7. The required 2"a floor rear setback shall say 37 feet instead of 27 feet. 8. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a licensed land surveyor. 9. Provide an 8.5"x11" material and color board. 10. Provide a conceptual landscape plan. 11. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section [MCS] 15-06.280, any space that is enclosed by three or more walls and a solid roof shall be included in the total floor area calculation. ' Also pursuant to MCS 15-45.030(a), any space with an interior height of 15 feet or greater shall count as double the floor area. Based on these requirements, your submitted . proposal (with the front porch and tall living room area) would exceed the allowable floor area limit. Accurately calculate the total proposed floor area as submitted and revise the proposal so that it is with the allowable limit. 12. Provide a written description of how your proposal complies with each of the design review findings contained in MCS 15-45.080. 13. Staff feels that while the proposal is fine in terms of bulk and height, the proposed windows in varying shapes (on the front elevation) do not contribute towards a cohesive, single architectural style for the home. Staff recommends adhering to one architectural style and revising the shape and style of the windows.. If you have-any questions, please feel free to give me a call at 868-1235. Sincerely, Lata Vasudevan Assistant Planner • ~00~25 November ] 6, 2002 Lata Vasudevan Assistant Planner City of Saratoga RE: 13235 McDole Street Application No. 02-238 Design Review Dear Ms. Vasudevan: DEC 1 7 2002 U CITY OF SARATOGA ""~"h411NlTY i1F\rFi nn*er- This letter is intended to address the issues raised in your letter of November 5, 2002 (attached). 1. Sheet A0.1 has been updated to say New Two Story Home rather than Residence Addition. 2. We would h'ke to keep the existing 2 car garage rather than incorporate a new garage into the main structure for 2 reasons. By keeping the existing detached garage, we will save money on the overall project cost. In addition, by keeping the existing detatched garage at the rear of the property, we avoid placing the garage entry at the front of the house, which is generally less attractive when viewed from the street.. 3. The drawings have been updated to note that the interior garage width satisfies the 19 foot minimum requirement, and that the walls satisfy current fire code requirements. 4. A check for $1000 has been submitted as deposit for the city's arborist. While we understand that the arborist must make is own determination, please know that the tree in question is in very poor health, many limbs are dead, and it is not a significant neighborhood asset. 5: A letter has been signed by the adjacent property owners indicating their support for our projecK. 6. The Assessor's Parcel Number has been corrected on sheet A0.1. 7. The 2°a floor rear setback requirement has been corrected on the drawings. 8. Done. See drawings. 9: A material and color board had already been provided with the original application, and per our conversation, was located by your office. 10. A conceptual landscape plan is attached. 11. The area calculation has been updated to account for the enclosed front porch. Some slight revisions were made to the floorplan to bring the total square footage within the allowable limit. The drawings have been updated to incorporate these changes and to correct the area calculation The living room ceiling has been modified so that it is well below 15 feet. Only the staircase is 2 stories tall. A section drawing has been added showing the ceiling detail. 12. See attached response to MCS 15-45.080 13. We asked our architect to propose a revised front elevation, which uses the same style windows throughout. We prefer the original design. Best regards, Yeffi Vanatta and Philip Manela r~ • ;;0026 Attachment 5 ~oo~z~ SENT.BY: HP LASERJET 3150; 4346099; DEC-19-02 1:30PM;. Dear Neighbo*, As part of the punning department review of our home remodel, I'd h'lcc to review our drawings with you and solicit your approval fo co m We h~a~~a 1~'g a~~~ $~~e bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, an office and a family a to enable tis to in the back yard. Our proposed plans would reduced the detached garag add 2 bedrooms to house my soon to be adapted new t'amily, we are targeting to shut building in the Iv[ay timefrarne and will be. going through the Saratoga Planning department for the approval of a second story addition. Your support is most glacially appreciated. Regards, YePfi PAGE 212 Name 31.A KE NoMA N Address 18td ?3 p~~DE~ A/~ Si tore ~ ~~ / Gas Date !/ ie fOZ SuNy P~f~ ~ 33.a6 K~yin ~ i A /i /~Dltl ~R~~ /3 7.d6 M`,l~vc:f 5t ~~-~- -~~~_ i~ f ro~v~ L ~!r`~l 3 ~ t~~e S~ l~~lol U lJ ~ _ ~. 1~ 1 i <. •. • • 1 • Attachment 6 ~~00~~29 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) SS. ~A- 1~A5 vD~ v~ N I, ~' ,being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga ~ 2003, that I Planning Commission on the 7i?i day of , deposited in the United States Post Office within Santa Clara County, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to-wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing pursuant to Section 15-45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property to be affected by the application; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. Signed • • • .<• ~~:~®~t.~i0. . ~ `~`~ ,ALA C & SUSIE GRANT -R CURRENT OWNER 3HEATH ST OGA CA 95070-4611 JOSEPH L & ANN CEFALU OR CURRENT OWNER 13180 HEATH ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4611 RANK L & MARCELLINE )LIVERA )R CURRENT OWNER .3152 HEATH ST ~ARATOGA CA 95070-4611 ~UNICE PORTW OOD ~R CURRENT OWNER 18803 MARTHA AVE 3ARATOGA CA 95070-4641 RODMAN M CORNELL OR CURRENT OWNER 18845 MARTHA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4641 GREGG R & IRENE WILLIAMS OR CURRENT OWNER 13153 KEVIN ST TOGA CA 95070-4612 PAULA & CHRISTINE BETTENCOURT OR CURRENT OWNER 13211 KEVIN ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4612 SUNG H & JUDY PAIK OR CURRENT OWNER 13206 KEVIN ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4613 EN-TANG & JUI-LI KUAN OR CURRENT OWNER 13164 KEVIN ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4613 W OMACK OR CURRENT OWNER 18808 MARTHA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4642 ~TDERS OR CURRENT OWNER 13179 MCDOLE ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4620 MARK R WEISLER OR CURRENT OWNER 13138 HEATH ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4611 RALPHINE A & WEATHERS IPPOLITI OR CURRENT OWNER 18817 MARTHA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4641 DAVID H & MARY LONGANECKER OR CURRENT OWNER 13166 HEATH ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4611 LEON L CARRARA OR CURRENT OWNER 1521 ROXBURY LN LOS GATOS CA 95030 JOSEPH B WATERHOUSE OR CURRENT OWNER 18831 MARTHA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4641 JESSE SAVAGE SARDAR HADDAD OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 1306 FAIRWAY ENTRANCE DR 13139 KEVIN. ST SAN JOSE CA 95131-3010 SARATOGA CA ` 95070-4612 ROGER T WANG OR CURRENT OWNER 13167 KEVIN ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4612 DANIEL C & SCIINEIDER OKONKWO OR CURRENT OWNER 18859 DUNDEE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4645 HAMID & MANSOUREH GHAHRAMANI OR CURRENT OWNER 13192 KEVIN ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4613 MOHAMMAD R & ASADIPOU GARAKANI OR CURRENT OWNER 13150 KEVIN ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4613 ADELA SEGURA OR CURRENT OWNER 13151 MCDOLE ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4620 WILBUR & JEAN CATABAY OR CURRENT OWNER 13199 MCDOLE ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4620 LIMA T HOLLOWAY OR CURRENT OWNER 13191 KEVIN ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4612 BLAKE & JESSICA HOMAN OR CURRENT OWNER 18873 DUNDEE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4645 JUNG-HO T PAK OR CURRENT OWNER PO BOX 3448 SARATOGA CA 95070-1448 MAJID L & SHIRAZY TAFRESHI OR CURRENT OWNER 18822 MARTHA AVE . SARATOGA CA 95070-4642 DANIEL B & PATSY SMITH OR CURRENT OWNER 13165 MCDOLE ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4620 CHI K LAU OR CURRENT OWNER PO BOX 33123 LOS GATOS CA 95031-3123 ~00~31 ~EFFI VAN ATTA )R CURRENT OWNER .3235 MCDOLE ST iARATOGA CA 95070-4620 ~OMINIC & DOMENIC ~~~ vIASTRANGIOLI ~R CURRENT OWNER 13234 MCDOLE ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4621 LAPIDOUS ~ OR CURRENT OWNER 13192 MCDOLE ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4621 . JACQUELINE M CORLEY OR CURRENT OWNER 13150 MCDOLE ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4621 SHARON W BARNARD OR CURRENT OWNER 13151 PASEO PRESADA SARATOGA CA 95070-4630 MARGARET E WII.LIAMSON OR CURRENT OWNER 13193 PASEO PRESADA SARATOGA CA 95070-4630 RHODA A VERNER OR CURRENT OWNER 13235 PASEO PRESADA SARATOGA CA 95070-4630 BRUCE A CAMERON OR CURRENT OWNER 119 WENDOVER CIR OAK RIDGE TN 37830-8239 LANG OR CURRENT OWNER 1047 NOEL DR 2 MENLO PARK CA 94025-3328 HUNG V & TRUONG TRAN OR CURRENT OWNER 18843 DUNDEE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4645 TEHSHIH & PENNY CHIEN OR CURRENT OWNER 13220 MCDOLE ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4621 RENZ J HOPPE OR CURRENT OWNER 13178 MCDOLE ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4621 HEBON J & JEAN DUCOTE OR CURRENT OWNER 18768 MARTHA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4643 W SCHWADERER OR CURRENT OWNER 13165 PASEO PRESADA SARATOGA CA 95070-4630 CHARLOTTE S WONG OR CURRENT OWNER 13207 PASEO PRESADA SARATOGA CA 95070-4630 MELANIE EARHART OR CURRENT OWNER 13249 PASEO PRESADA SARATOGA CA 95070-4630 TR BOLDT OR CURRENT OWNER 13173 HEATH ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4610 DOLORES BREWER OR CURRENT OWNER 13211 HEATH ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4610 MANUEL & DORA GUERRERO HOSACK OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 13251 KEVIN ST 13265 KEVIN ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4650 SARATOGA CA 95070-4650 FELICIDAD GO MAUS OR CURRENT OWNER ` 18803 DUNDEE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4648 RONNY K & ANNA GREEN OR CURRENT OWNER 13206 MCDOLE ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4621 RODNEY & CYNTHIA TWAMURA OR CURRENT OWNER 13165 MCDOLE ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4621 WILLIAM H & TERESA BUTLER OR CURRENT OWNER 18754 MARTHA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4643 JULIA M & JONATHAN MORN OR CURRENT OWNER 13179 PASEO PRESADA SARATOGA CA 95070-4630 ADELE P HIItOSE OR CURRENT OWNER 13221 PASEO PRESADA SARATOGA CA 95070-4630 E L STAFFORD OR CURRENT OWNER 1052 N MANOR DR TULARE CA 93274-2169 VICKY K GREEN OR CURRENT OWNER 13187 HEATH ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4610 RICHARD M DAHLHAUSER OR CURRENT OWNER 13221 HEATH ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4610 GEORGE M & KHATOUN • SASKO OR CURRENT OWNER 18915 AFTON AVE SARATOGA CA. 95070-4602 ~O~Y & IRA DASGUPTA ~R CURRENT OWNER l AFTON AVE 3TOGA CA 95070-4602 LARRY H & PATRICIA MCAVOY OR CURRENT OWNER 18854 AFTON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4653 BEDDING OR CURRENT OWNER 13239 CARRICK ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4604 ELIZABETH S STEPANEK OR CURRENT. OWNER 13238 PASEO PRESADA SARATOGA CA 95070-4631 VICTORIA S & PHILIP GARCIA OR CURRENT OWNER 20330 BLAUER DR ~ATOGA CA 95070-4350 GEORGE T & MAR1E BEUSELINCK OR CURRENT OWNER 18830 DUNDEE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4609 NEZIR MEDIC OR CURRENT OWNER 18788 DUNDEE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4609 GARY L POST OR CURRENT OWNER 18746 DUNDEE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4609 ADAM I & MARILEE WALB OR CURRENT OWNER 18761 AFTON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4601 ~THERINE A FARNHAM . OR CURRENT OWNER 18803 AFTON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4601 CECII.IA G FRIZELL OR CURRENT OWNER 18878 AFTON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4653 DANIEL R & BETH ELLIOTT OR CURRENT OWNER. 18842 AFTON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4653 DEAN Q WANG OR CURRENT OWNER 18731 DUNDEE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4608 WILLARD L & ROSE SIEVERT OR CURRENT OWNER 18866 AFTON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4653 JANET L NACE OR CURRENT OWNER 13215 CARRICK ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4604 BII.LY G & CLEOTA WOOLMAN OR CURRENT OWNER 18745 DUNDEE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4608 SCOTT A & LILIAN KLEINBERG DONALD DEON OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 13214 PASEO PRESADA 18724 MCCOY AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4631 SARATOGA CA 95070-4639 PU C HSU OR CURRENT OWNER 20745 CANYON VIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5807 JEAN H WILLIAMS OR CURRENT OWNER 18844 DUNDEE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4609 RICHARD LONDON OR CURRENT OWNER PO BOX 1795 DANVILLE CA 94526-6795 ALAN & LEE WILLIAMS OR CURRENT OWNER 18774 DUNDEE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4609 JOSEPH B & MARION RUSH OR CURRENT OWNER 18732 DUNDEE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4609 JAMES P ROENSCH OR CURRENT OWNER 18775 AFTON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4601 BASII. KASNAKIS OR CURRENT OWNER 18817 AFTON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4601 MARYAIVI IMAM OR CURRENT OWNER 18802 DUNDEE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4609 JUDD OR CURRENT OWNER 18760 DUNDEE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4609 KENNETH D MII.LS OR CURRENT OWNER 18747 AFTON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4601 JAMES G & CAROI.YN WELLS OR CURRENT OWNER 18789 AFTON AVE SARATOGA CA .95070-4601 THOMAS E & TONYA ~VILLIAMS OR CURRENT OWNER 18831 AFTON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4601 ~~U~~~ ~ADOON J AL [t CURRENT OWNER X845 AFTON AVE ~RATOGA CA 95070-4601 )HN K & DOROTHY EARWOOD ' R CURRENT OWNER 3887 AFTON AVE ARATOGA CA 95070-4601 VICTOR & JEANNIE CHUA OR CURRENT OWNER 18859 AFTON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4601 ay • ~ ~~- NORMAN R & KAREN FEYLING ., OR CURRENT OWNER 18873 AFTON AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-4601 ~~ - •... V - • • ~00~3~ ~ ~~ V `+) • GRAPHIC LEGENDS• IN SECTION _ - - EARTH ~'~. ~'>' ROLK FILL ~` LONLRETE // ~ .~~ MA6pM2Y 9ANDMORTAW PLASTER ® ~ ~DD6~ O WOOD FINISHED ~ PLYWOOD ' '~' BYP9UM Y{ALLBOARD INw.AnoN, BAIT ~---- WDRK POINT, . talnsO, fOMTOR DATA PoINt BDILDIW aE WALL SELTION DxTk1X 4'.tMIWUnpI DClT NGIS 4DibN ID OR4,N p ELLNATION `, ( - A ,- CLNAnON IODInfICAnON I \ J Y Dn'T NNR EEL]ICN IF OItI.V1Y DETAIL DCTNL IpD1nfKAtlGll - DIET YFEP[DCTAE 1900.4p ' INTERIOR ELEVATIONS 2 DtvAnaN IDDmrlcAnoN ARww Ixlcnrte eEVATw6 vIFW I !1lCTYIERE EtPJATION IS DPAYN 4 1iE~lslcTl aLDO Mctw RVIFIdI REwDON RMeers GENERAL NOTES: I. IN CAS[ OP 019LREPANLT LOIK.ERNiN! DIHEWION9, fA1AMITIE9, AIO LEGATION ra CONiR.VTOR !JA/OR TIE APPLICABLE •A9 LONTRKTOR 9N4L, W YRITIW, GALL TO THE A1TEInION OF l1E'ARLNTELT ANY D19LRNANLIES EETWEBI- ' SPELIFIEATION9, PLAN5, pETAILS, OR'dJ2LAE9. TIE ARlAI11ELT WILL HEN Ird9RM ra LONiRALTOR ND/OR TN: APPLILABLE'JIB CONTRALiOR IN YNTIN6, WITCH COUREttf TAKES PRCLEDeNLE t1EF! SHALL ~ ND AOJU51MENi TO iNE COST OF iHe WORK RL-'>VLTIN6 FROM SKH CLARIFICATION OF DISLREPAHLIC9. 7. PAI4AFE TO RCPptT A LON4IGT M 11! CONTRACT DOGIA~ITS 5H44L BE p1RED NIOENLE.111AT THE LONiRAETOR ANb/00. n+L. APPLILAELE '' SALONTRKTOR XA9 FLEL]ED TO PROCEED IN ra MpRE EaPQJ51VE MANNtR. ' B. THE C011fRALTOR ANO/OR THE MP ILABLE JJBLOMRALiOR SXALL INVPSneATE, VERIFY ANJ & RE9PON:5IBL[ FOR Nl CONOInON4 AND DxtEN510NG d' M PM.ELT ANO 9NNL NOTFY THE ARGNIIELT ABDR LONDITId9 REpNRINe MODiFILATION9 BEFORE PROLEEDINe THE WORK. i, DIMENSIONS: A. n SHAH BE TIE GONnVLiORS A!D/OR 1IE AFPLILAELE S.ECONIRAGTORB RES•g19161LItY TO VERIFY ALL DIN~EIONS 9NDW8 ON 7NE ARLHITELMAL DRAWIN64 WITH RELATED RPCUIREhEN19 a 111E STRICP.RAL, MECHNBGK, PILNDIN6, ELFLTRLPL, AIO LAND9LMEpRAW WB NOTIFY AMXITEQT~OF ANY DISCREPANCIES DMORE rRDCe[pRb WITN ra rLDm., B. USE DIHEN910N5 SHpIN RATHER SLN.IN6 DRAYIIN69. C. ALL DIyE1610N3 9NOfN HE FA.S. PKE OF SPA) LTRSBS A CBTTERLNE ILIN[ INIERRWIEO HU1H OIE DOT) OR NOTED (t 15 SNOWL , p, ALL DIMENSILNS ARE T01iE ROL15l1 L'N.E59 OnERIT15E °..1O/41. i EEILMO Klellt 01MENS10HG ARE FROM LNFINSIEp FLOOR TO FINISNFD_FACC OF CEILING. r. ALL.DIwl11SI09D SNALL ~ VERIFIED IN TIE FIELD EEPORE PPOL®IN6 NTN nE WDRK, DIMENSIOND dl DIMDCIDN rOINT N 10 EINnR LINF D D(F'FS A`O WN%M'q _._ DeeroloN roIM ro ro rAa Or 37LD, IrO97 AT WALLS O DQDR TYPE O WINDOW TYPE n..._ WALL TYPE L~-.. KEY Note 5. PRpVIOE ALL IP.LEY AAY AtYADRbE BLOCKING, BALKINb AND PRAMOK IIOT IELESSARLT LIMITED TO ra INSTFL.ATION OF LI611T flX1URE8, AND TOILET ACCE9SORIp AND BR/.EKE19. 6. ' ALL oodRSNOTwcAreD m DIMEN910N ox PLAN oR ceruL sHAU BE s• ,. 0'IV! INLIE91 fROM FACE OF 511A TO PKE OP 1EA1tEST DOOPBLGK 0R .. CENTERED ON MOM. _ ]. DOOR 5QE4 INDKATED EN ORIWIN69 ARE OPCNINb DIMENSION} ~' ALLOWANLe9 FER nRCSOL04, eTL. 911ALL CE TAKCN FCR NCi DOOR SIZED D. OEtAILS HARKED TTPILAL (1YP) SNALL APRY IN All LASES Ur6.ESS SPECIFICALLY INpILA1ED OTIEtiW15E, 9, W2RE NO •RLIFIL DETAILIS SIIOWL 112 FPAMIN6 OR COI6TPIKTION SHALL BE IDENTICAL OR SIMILAR TO TIMT Mp1CA1ED FOR LIKE EASES OF ca6rRULnoN DN ells PRO,ELr, 10 PRCNIDE 30.1D d.OGKIW BENIIID ALL MTNROOM ALCE990RIE8 LOLAnON3. I II. p~RtgSp 9L7MTTAL9 (ORIJ9N69 ANCILR CRLSI WILL EE RP/IEFED BY 79E AREIRTEGT A7O/OR ENSIt~R BeFORE HET APE 91®NITIED POR ' APPROVAL BI TIE CUILDIN6 pEPA0.Tx2NT AS RNIDNED BY SELnON 1063.4] LBL. ONTRRED {R,BMI1fAL4INAlA7E, BUr ARE NOT LINIIED 10: Floffi ANO ROLf IRIISSES, AND ROHOVABLC CABIxETS. D PRE 5AF[TY DJRBN LLNSTRWil0/1: ARnELP D10P ra L.FL. REpIIRg CERTNN 9ARTY PROL®URE9 BE FOLLOYED RRINb NEW fANS1RUCnCN. TIE PIRC PREVENTION B.RENI WILL ~ INSPCLTIN6 TIE STE IN ALCORDrsNCE WITH TNIS ARTIEI.e. A, FINAL APPRP/K 9 D[PBO[NI LPON PIELD INSPECTONS ANp/OR ANY rcxEnsARr KcEPrANCe TezT9. A s BBREV AIO IA Ee. TIONS cOREI DJARD : CNI. ls94NST XM. HOLLOW M-RAL R MTE eiv. STAIOA1rD }~ ANeLG . G.I. LAT FION CR. FIPAIDICN MWx IGT VNTR IlIdCR PLAM M1M11L WfiNAR eTL0. 6TOR+D! • . AT GNDD . OWLKDOARD CN9. CNw)eOl XR. M0.R rFr.el. rCRnAlD LQ61i GTR lTNLiDCAI ' 9 GDnps LOE L.l EONIR0. JOIM tM. [A'IOUOR l MS1Dt 6RG(D DDr. 9rWBOCD . . [ PRaraTV ur2 m. celLlw rs. rlRe exmauDER 10. IIAA. R9DDC DIAH i4a IxE1lAnDN PNi. rt. PM rrnxr erM. e'D+eTwcAL - I D . DNN21Dl OR ROnO (.OL. CQNN PD. WNCX GRADE 9R: RIfDtlOR P.TD. rArD1 Tq'n DIYTlDB• i nCID y WSTrd01GLNS LLMO , taMDPCN Fx WR MYDIL4R PLyD. RYWWC iB. TOWS GAR 1y~ ~. ~~,[ FXO. FD2 XOSC LAdNR aT .Der r.vE reLY wNa cMDROe rD. ra a wTe {[7 CRenIN tart. CpIfINAD rIN. WNSN L4l ~ L4IIMAR R RISBI TOG. TCP a taLIQSE MI ~ Dr. DRIIKM raurWN M1. ftDOR LAY, IAVATGRY RD, RrraRelx Id. tpBNOK ~~ DCIAIL rLEN, RAFMIrD Li. LIeM RD. ROOF pWN TD.6. TOP p GRAD[ AD. uEW'M ~] DIR. DIN2TDe FOL. TALC OF talC11E1[ LV0. LtN'LT RS. RlFR69AiOR 110.1 nRDDSIlOlO ~. ADD,,E olle, DIAe0W1 ror FACEa WxIFX ~ A "Firs. Renrazc® T.I. TI9lNR IHPROVPNOR ~ AyN, Axxu.r AIR CCNRn01MW DM. DhONLN . PDS. fAL[ Q 6np MAK KT M NHTM xliK R[DD, RWVII~ T~6 tONr31C s 6POO2 ~, A DNr. ~. R OnMe . MR ~ MLFKTMFR RIX. Rplllprt LOllli rAPCR PFwCN.U' e ADl ACMI pD ApADT AeeR[sAn: ~ D0. MN DfMIt C•D9NS eA ewee MN MNMM Re. Rr.H, IDOFIW ROLT MAttM N. M. TrLDJbION TYPICIL Ai A19NItM y,L ADMNW ~ OLplt eILV sKVNtlDE) ~ MBC MNrD1A12OJe RFRR RY[SYl FNR COOINCN ARCM. AIIpD. AVM2LnRA1 ANODD9 ~. ~~~ eel: e.l. 60P/1 6KVRII1m IRQI ~ MO. x14. NVOIRV OPBRNb ~ NorW taRRALT ~ R0. ROOM ROItlM pPDdN! UDN, V.T. :A9De6OnE40SC NDiPo vlmL HIE ~ pOARp orw oRlrxFe ~ ~ . Nis. Nor rc scuD en Rer AW retE var. v9aneu. CLW. DALCINf e Ib. NAR9DF SL. Sao CORE Vb. 4DlTIfI1 sRAIN °~ ewcK PA. eACx GYP. eYPRM .oc. ai cBireR s0, FoAP OBrD!Pl wx ~.qMt DW. SaLK6M ~ el orA»lox .Olxr su. eYFxM WULDOARO CD. 0.+FlIDC DIAI$RR CELT. DSCnW N Wnl ~. CVN CLCL. 6ECAIL TOIL NFADDe AI, p,TyRAD W[LV. D8VM1 WL. YNTLR LICIT DpF DOITOX GN. 0.D/ATNM XD. IUSC GBD Ole. ~ OrDNM Slf. SIl?r y0. WdOD v. eLxnuc run xL. HaLax cpRe ore. Durslx rAa aF siw eM. xMUAR wD ruixart LID. LADIRT tarn Ta ca+2F DD. VAIAL "q°. Muml'LTDD er. eTROnRIa RTwbo rs. IwnarRCanw cc. CDC-. . GD~T Gas. mnFMDn MDVZ. MwuzoNTAL N. WTYR an. eim IM W!ATEl enmw MEW TWO-STORY HOME Ms. YEFFI VANATTA 13235 McDOLE STREET Saratoga, California 95070 ~ P~~' ~I1iTW1!.TIOPU p(1 PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~ DESIbN REVIEW SUBMITTAL ~ &IILDIN6 DEPARTMENT ~ PLAN GHELK SUBMITTAL II ~ APPROVED FOR LONS7RL'GTION CONSULTANT M$. YEFFI VANATTA 19295 MLDOLE STREET SARATO6A, GA 95070 TEL. (4081 974-4150 roNb DESIGN ' 8619 AUBREY LT. ELK GROVE," CA 95624 TEL. (9161662-5580 FAX. (0161 600-9009 BRYAN TRAM DO .- .. .. CIVIL @I6INEEOZ 5MP COMPANY ' 1211 PARK AVENUE, 5J]TE'208 SAN 105E LA, 95126 TEL. (408) 4723062 FA%, (408) 287-0690. . E-MAIL: SMPENbINEER90YAHO0,GOM DRAWING INDEX AO.I COVER 5HEE7 ' A0.2 AREA OALGULATION T-I CIVIL PLAN ' LI PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN ALI SITE PLAN5 ' ' A1.1 (EI !DEMOLITION FLOOR PLAN / GARAGE PLAN A22 PROP05ED FIRST FLOOR PLAN : A2.9 PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN / GARAGE PLAN A2.4 ROOF PLAN ~A4,1 BUILDINb ELEVATIONS ' . A4.2 BI)ILOIN6 ELEVATIONS I , ~A4.8 BUILD1N65EGTIONS ,,,,_ ~, CONSTRUCTION DATA• APN: ZONING: F TYPE OF Ot7N5TRUGTION: 1 ~' LtOi SIZE: 1 LOT SLOPES l PROPOSED BLDG. HT. MAX. FAR (18' HTJ, MAX FAR (20' MJ, LOT COVERAGE: FIRE SPRINKLERS NO, EX. USE: 0 STORY RFD 9 • I OFFICE / 3 BATH PROPOSED.IJ5E, T STORY 5FD -IS-060 000 ~S ~ R I ~ 6 : 0 S F "" S ~~j+ . . EC 1 71D02 THAN I% 471'1. ' "e'NPN n~H11q;X U I SF. (32%) 5F, (REDUCE 3%) 7 5F. (60%) TD BUILDING DESIGN 8611 ANbsey Coup Elk Gmvq CA 956te Td: 9166666580 Fu: 916689-3099 ~? the use of t nse draw nqs and •pe<Il:c•t a+• sFall he reetrNled to the sPMillc slle toi which They xe,e prepared and pubfiwllon thereol sboll be eeDrlssly limited to such Re-use, ,eprnNCtion D:~ioimmim by ony m!moa in whDle w pail Is Drallibl!ed, 1i11e to tM1ese pions and epedrlpopDax :Hall rwmam vith 70 BaBaing Design withal Drefutllcs. and wasual canlacl with th een<sao cDnst~m~ce orin~e~ e l <e Ieeo-mnDnx ®tp a:oalng pe•Ign. Conrvltonl Remeroro ev / 9-I/2 BATH s B I SET BAOK I~ PF9yJ2E2 1ST FLOOR: FRONT, 25'-0' 2B'-10" REAR 25'-0' 49-II"(E), RIGHT, 8'-0' @'-0' (El LE 8'-0' 8'-7" 2ND FLOOR: FRONL ;,,ZY"~' 90:_8• REAR: 9Y-0" 62'•4'r ~q~aYaU. PL^1. 90 . RIGHT: 10'-0' 24'-9"1 `~ ~ IT, 10'-O' 17'_11" . 21 AREA LALLLLATIONS (REFER TO SHEET A0 EXI$TIN6~ 111 . Key PIDn IE1 HOUSE: 2120 SF. fE7 GARAGE: I 720 SF. ADDITION: 1ST FLOOR: ~ 105 SF. 2ND FLOOR: 989 5F. TOTAL ADDIT ON: 574 5F. PROPOSED NEW: 1 1ST FLOOR: ;i 2905 SF. 2ND FLOOR: 989 SF. VICINITY MAP (tU 6ARAbE FRONT POF REAR PATI 2ND FLR,B !W 5WIMMIN DRIVEWAY: WALKWAY: FAR, 2694 ~ 408 LOT LOVERA6E:2 408 SF. {; 26 5F. °AD, 227 5F. .EOM': 97 5F. POOL: 480 SF. 1990 5F. 1,159 5F. 5,102 SF. < 9)04 SF Prajecl 86'11W0$TORY 1101,! Me. YEFFII VANATfA 13295 McDOLE ST. $ARATObA, LA 95070 .408.26P2271480e1998N1,149 • APN: 989 - I9 -060 5F. •59.8 % < 60% prowiny PROJE{T ADDRESS: I 19295 MLDOLE STREET LOVER SHEET SARAT05A, GA 95070 APPLICABLE GODES• SCOPE OF WORK: ~ App A SE[G]O FLOOR iD AN EXISTI Pro~_NO_ 02056 01E 910RT IYME. LJT .°rOHE OF AR!P. OP DPI CALIFORNIA BUILDING LDpE 0001 CALIFORNIA NELNANILAL LODE Drawn BTD AN CKISTINe DETACH 6ARAGC TO MAMAIN REWIRED PAR. AL50 REARRAN6C 1001 CALVdRNIA PLMEINe LODE pate 12.09.02 E INIEIRIOR UYCVT AND ADO ONE ~GROO9 AID A BAtIWOM Lp5TAl0. K[EP E%YERIOR 1COI LALIPORNIA ELeGiRIL CODE DLDI LALIPORNIA FIRE (ROE Scole NT$ Q ARLNITEGIVRAL STYLE AHp COLOR 1 Opel CALIFORNIA 12IJ.1N 1 SAFETY $heel d.ENDIN6 TO rE16HBOR4 AS MULX A,q PossIBLE Br USING tots of xlPS A!D LaW 1001 TInE 34 ENERSY PITGN RWF, PJ%USING FIN?WCOO ~I O DETAILS 9LLN A9 ExrO[ED WDDD R~ierts ~~~~~~~ c 9hee1 Nd. of iDlal Sheeb I ~ + 1 Y~ ~; TO 9E ,, t5 3 W M N LEG N 29°469D" E 80.00' 9RICK wu-e'telF*T ~ III i'"II'I~ it -°- - III ~I I I ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~'~~~ ~ ~ I.{,~ ° ! llLl~~i E%1571N65TW1GNFE TO REMAIN ~ I I ~~~ I ~ I~ I~;~ ~ _ ~~ 5~r~~ TDBUILUINaDE810N I I u ~~~ ~ ~~ 1 ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ( n ° - d ~/;/75~~` ~ B671 Aubrtry Cum ~ I I I. III d' _ 4 SX~l~ EXISTIN59TIL1GMtE TO 6E REMOVED FJk Grarc~CA 9S6U I I ~ I +~ Te1.: 916fi62-5580 I I ij ~ I I n ~ / ~ t,. Pa: 9166847099 ~,I I ~ ~ ,~ ~~I I'll II ~i~'~ Ali I ~ N SWIMMIN PO L ° ~~~ 1~:~'~7 n~wADDInDNEn~.rnmE ~~j ~~I ICI ;iii Iii ~~~ ~ ,-0 9'-I_ °5'-0" 32'-O'x15' _ 4'-09 - -~--j- -~~~~~ I~_g~ I I~I ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~~IJ~ ~ 66 " me °ee m mesa mowin9e ae - df L~ ~ COMC. DRIVEWAY, WALKWAY svscigcpibns shall he restricted t° e d a lne sp title site la which they ee __ _ _ _ ~ i prepare one pummalla tnaeor f e m°u 6e ew,eeely limited to e~cn se, Re-use. ieprpductlan a ' n ~ -- -- . -- ~ -~-- - 4 a f ~ ~ publkwtlon by eeY method M whMe a e d ° 'd° ' ° a pcn le pronmuea. me m tneee d' ~ I e plans and epeclficptbns shall remain A ° ° ° ~ nl with i0 BuildNg Design wllhoul preNdlw, and viwal contact with ~ 4 ~ ° ~ ~ , t I ~ 'Naa«°ull`acepi'e°p'I l°tn~~s` . ° ~ °. n d ~ I eesirlctbns.Q ID 0a8ding Oeelgn. el I ~ S~IIaM ~' ° LAYN °~ ~ ., ~ I ~4 d ~ ° lo'-0' ,,n a. ,~-_ ° 111 II, I ~I ~ N ~ ~~ II ,~ O1Ri_~ ~ ~~I~ l III I ~ ~ fEl 12' ~ ~ ( I -; . I' - ~ I ~ ~ I I IC I ( ppppp 3 I I I ~ I I ~~ ~~ I I l~ ,. I ~~ pdo III { III ~/ CANC. PAD ~ I L ~ c,~ ~ ,I ~ ~ __ ~ 'l ~I I I ~I ~ ~~ _ I Ii I I I. -Rll 2ND p ~. ~ FLOOR LINE W I III ~ ~ I 11'•11° Z ° ~° ~ ~ ~ Iii ~ II ~ ~ {~ ~ I ~~ ~~li III ~ ~~~ I - -- ° ~ I I~~l. I~ ~~ ~ ~i~j I~I~'~'ll~i Ill~~i~~l'~l ~ I 24'~' III ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~I I ~ r~ ~~ f~ ,~~~; ~ Ill I I ~~Il III ~ ~ '~Ii ~! , ~II~I I~%/~!j" _~,6,~ ~ I ~~" ~ ~ I I ~ I ~ i i l l ~ I I~ti~%! '~ I~' ~ Atl aecrnlc ~¢ ~- I ~ ~ ~~ I j I ~ ~ ~ I tii/~ - ~'^" h~ I ;ICI) ~ ~ ~ ~/~ ~/,~~ ~%ij --¢-- 6' M. Y41 FLRYE ~ ~ 6' HT. W.I PEN:k 1 GATE RU LOCATION ~._ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ _ __ _ __ - _ J RU LOCATION d LN^N _ - ~ ~ _,\ Y I ~ C U • ~ eoo0 ~. R ~I I ~ ~ n ry LAWN LAWN hW I. ~ g I e II° f I 1 e S 29°4690" W BO.DO' n 0 d TREE IT' PP °.°. ~ n ~ IFJ TREE m 27 O 11J m fr-O ~ n DRIP yi' ° DRIP AD' Wld Remewwe Nay Plan -_ -__ ° __- 0 __ ~ 'I ProFct _VA4EY 6UtTER ~ 16'17Y11?4TORY FION! Ma. YEFPII VANATTA - ;I 13295 McDOLE 5T, 9ARAT06A, GA 950T0 MG DOLE aV (60' WIDE) APrL 989 • 15 -069 i Orhwinq (FJ SITE PLAN CENTERLit$ /. \ _ - _ ~ PROP. 511E PLAN ~/ 1 pro. rvp. O20% Drown BTD I Date 12.0902 4 1 5wie I/4"wl'-0' ~~ PROP. 51T'~ PLAN 1/8,,,;,_o,,,,~ 56eM ~' ~ ` ~ ~ . ` ~ ! Sheet No. 01 iald Sheets •. NEY Bokaul Name Common Neme Tt 'Melus "Pink Weepef Weepllp Creaapple i2 laperslroemu I Palle EmAds" DnaA Crepe MyNe T3 Pruius S. Nee~alidem; NiBan' Douge Weeq~Cherry 71 gprkot T5 ReAwood TB CAMas Chant' TT %~ TS ~ CAkase Mape 91 ABepanlhus'Rencho WAiie' Lilly al the Nile S2 q[atea 9.J'Mlulon 9MIS' 0.rklae S6 CameAia S. "9hishi Gnshre' CBmelia 97 CamaWe S, "YUletlke' Cemelle 58 Hememcelhs'Eaerpreen Pink' Dry Lilly SB Heurhere'9enle Am CarineP Coal BeIN SI1 Laropeklum C.'RenkDere' NW 312 Phomqum "MemllSunASa' Nybq Flex 917 StXAV9ell 914 Row'HyMk lee' Roses 816 GBNenie J.'Vdlchl' GeNenle 317 Welgale F. Netlepala' 918 Zemetleshle AeNiopka Ceke Lllty 9/B Camellia fink S20 DamNha Rcy 921 RhoEoAenOron S32 We9leila ~ ~ HlblsriJs S24 Purple princes S25 RespberAes 01 Vince Minor'AIDe" wnrt WAite Periwinkle . . ~t ~~ S'I~ ~'~~ f / 'C. ~~~~ i'.. o0 I r'~°-- l ~_ II~ ~ II~ I ~ I I ~~ I ~~ III ;'` I ~.-_ i ~l ~ III I;I lil ~ l I ~ ~~ +~~ ) ~ ~ i Ili: I ~ i.~ll ~ ~ ~.; ~l ,, `~~~, UjI,~IIII~I I~1~ ~~' I ;, IIi . l ~. ~~ I;~ ~~ r I ~{I ~, I i ~I I'I III I I~ Ii~III ~lil~il ~,.I I _ _ - .IL. I;~._ ~_~ _~_ . Y I I l ~ I I ,I I _. .. .... ~. • I :.. I i - r ~,i 1 1 I ~ ~~' I ;I,; I, ~ ~ ~ ~ II ~ 11 I ~ I t ~ I ~) ~ '~ _ _..~._._ ~._ I~II~~~I ~I~,il a° ~~ ~.~ I ~ ~ II,' I II I ~ i, I~I ;I ~ Ii ~ (~ ~_ I I,I ~~,~~ I ~~lil'~~,~I ,~ Ii~t ill ~~ iill ~~~ ~~ j~~~j ~I I I I I i I III II I \I ~ ~ ;" I I III ~ ~I I~ ~~I ~I~ I I I I I~ ~~ ~ _ ` III it ~ I~, ~~ I ~ I I I 1 ~~ ~ ~ i I ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ I''I, I II ~ '~ II I ~ ~I~~~II „ ~ I ryl I~ I I I I I I I I i ~~li~ ii ~ i If I I I I II ~ I I I~ ~ I 11,I, I I f i l ~I~~ I ., "..:. I ~ J I ~ ~, I. I ~ I I III II I }III 'I il'II I III // ~~-` I ~ I + i I I' ~ ~I ; ~ I~I'~C" I ~; I F ~ ~ ~ ~ ~r I~a I f IJII YI ~ ~~ ~ I~I~ ,: .. . I I I f I - ~ ' ~ fI f~ .lei f I I I I ~ ~f f f I ~r~ II ~ I I IIII, ~ I~ ; ; r/,~ ~, ' I_ I I. I~ i ~ IiIlIl ~ i~ II'I ';;%~ I ~ ~ Y L ~I ~~ ~ ~' ~'%~ ~i' /%%' %%i;' I ~~ , %, ~ , ~,, ,r, ~ i ~~: s6~ ~~ ~ sll ~ ~ n.. it °II '~I~ rl - ,.. Isiq . 11 _ ~ S2 ;~', L.~ ~ ~ I ~ ~~ ,,, ..~ i u~s~r.l ~I ~ ~ : .. ~ ~;' ~~L_ r; I ~- ; `, 7 ~ ~ `~')~ ~ 1 , : r ~L r.. ~ - - - 18R o0 ~ , r~ c, ~ _ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~'j I t _ ..~ I ~l ~~ ~, - 'I:.. __ :_ ~_ ._. ~ , i- ., v 4 `~ ~ 7 I~ McDOLE STREET I, H N If 5 a n,. p,~ I,~~ ~,,, spa seo yer~' I i~. rn .I: ~..~ I F.Vl xt, ~"Y 4 p~n'Ir .A ~~~~ Pndrlm~x ray I,e„ ojecl 9V TWD-BTgK HOM[ s. YEFFII VANATTA Z88 McDOLI` 5T. kRAT06A, GA 88070 'N~ 989 - IS -069 No----- -_ db.f,Q,- -._ ..._ LI 4r I Ist FLOOR AREA: 2nd FLODR AREA:- GARA6E_' I•I 2429 5F. 2-I 190.9 SF. 6-I 406A 5F. 1-2 925.0 5F. 2-2 IILI 5F. b2 LO 5F. TD BUI[.DINf. DESIGN Id 320.65F. 2-3 2B45F. 6-9 IA SF, ~,IDb~Ggp~ EOr Gmre, G 95621 I-4 22.4 5F. 2-4 462 5F. bARA6E TOTAL:40B SF. Td:916fi6b5580 Pa:916689-7099 I-6 10.0 51`. 2-6 12.0 $F, I.6 -17,5 SF. 2nd TOTAL: 388.0 SF. yr, `~- I ~ ~ me vea m maae erawm9s o•a 280.6 5F. - 909 ~~ ave:u'~cnrlme enrol De reemded to Ue spednc Bite for •hlcn they .are I-0 prevaree and vaDrrtolian Ine.eol 926.3 SF. ehoil De aurae4y tmuee ro ewDh Reuse, rryroductlpn Dr 14 pubf dllan Dy any melhoa 'in whda 499.0 5F. or port .e promb~taa. role to mace plans antl spxllicptlone MMI remain I-10 187.3 5F. wllh 111 BDllamq Oeslgn wllnal praNdlca, and vlsuol contact wllh them Mall cpnsllWle primp laic I II Igq 5F I eddmDe m aeemt w of these rasldctlpn•. ®rD Bu9ding Design. I Conaultwt 2nd TOTAL, 2,904.6 5F. = 2,905 5F. 3 6ARA6E FLOOR AREAS 1~4'=I'-0• ~.~ \~__-~ I -- _ -~ w ` - I' 3 rI ~~- -- f I I 1. l I 2-I 13'-'~' x 14'-6' • 190A $P.' ~~ I I I I I I I ~ _ _ _.~ I > - T- =I V-,\-] - I ~ I ,. ~ i u (I - '~il ~_ 2 ~~ ~ ~1 IOj~7` x 10'-6' •IILI 5F. i __®_L /~ _.___ 2A -- 9'-4' x 5'-3' • 28.4 SF 2-4 9'-4' x B'-B' • 483 5F. ^_I _.... ~ AND FLODR AREA ..,"•I'~~~ ~„~ I-D . 19.q 5F. I. I I I I I I I I I I II I II , I I i I I Il " - !' _ ;;' ;% __.. ~" =- ` ~ ' _ __.___ _ . _ .-..______._._ . .__.._- II I II I I I I-8 I ii II ! I ' I I I 14,'±10"x22'-0" ll I II •386.9 5F. II - ~ I-lo ----1 J ~ I ' II I II II i 9 SF II' 10' • IDT I 10" ~ ~ r ~ ~; - ' , . , x - S- \ l ~ i ~ '~ 1 II~ I ~ ~~ _ I ~ 1 __ _ -- ~, f ~ I ~ ~ I .__ ._.__ . I „ I - ------- ~ I ~ of I~,~~ I I - ---- - - ~ -----~-- - ' I ~~o~ ~I -~ IA I I 99'-0' x 14'•2" •499.8 5F. I I I I-6 i . -I I ( I ~ I T-6" x 10'-4' . 77.9 SF. I ~ t~ _ I >>o° x I b-8 2eos sF 1 I ~y May Rlc~ I ~~~ ~I I I ~ ~. - R i ~ ~ - ~ ~ , _ - --- - F/~ I t ~1 ~ - ~ _ r I Iwl ~ ~ L -- --~ I ---.~ ~~ ~~~ t I II ~ ~i l '~ _. rl I I~ ~~ ~. _ ~#_~~ -- - - -- ~ ~ I _ I-~ ( . ~,.~ 1 ~_ _._ 1_ ___ __I ~.__. ., " -"~' z i ~ ~ 5F 3.6` x b'~5" = 22 ~ " ~ _ 1 ___ -_. - . . I ~ ~ .. __ _ ... _.. _ -- I I I I I 1.2 - ~ - -~ ~} I j , , .... I I 19'4" x IT'-0" = 929.0 SF. - Rmpm J I ~~ 9 NBV TWO-STOM F101~ ` I I I I .i ~ I-9 ~ 9'-2' x 5'-2" • 10.0 SF. Me. YEFFII VANATTA 15295 FkDOLE 5T. SARAT05A, GA 95070 12'-4• z 19'-B' • 2425 SF. 24'•B° x 13' i • 920b 5F. I _ I ~ ~~, ~ APN: 3B9 - IS -069 _ L ~ AREA OALOVLATION L_.__._ _ . - .._ _ .. _ ___ ._-_ - _____ - t ~ ._.. __ _.... .L... I I / ... __.. ..__ ..__.___ { v.o' Ka 02056 ~ ~-~° ~ I adwa BYO ` Dole 12.09A2 3 157 FLOOR AREA ~ 14",,'.~" , e 1,4'.I'-0' 1 ~~ .~ ~~ A0.2 Sheet ND. p1 IoIM Sneeh LEGENn_5_ E%15TIN6 WALL TO REMAIN . ~ ~^~~~~~,r.c• exlsnrrawiLroREMO.~O r . , _ _. .. _ ..... ~_ _ - _ FIMLRES TO OE REMOVED 15'-10' 49'-10' la'-10' II I I II I it II I ll Ir~~~l II I 11 __ r,~.~'Qa[E., v.T,^ct.~ ~ ..c~°asy ~^~t I I I 1 ,~ ~~' l m.>• 'I~ II I 11 6 I~ Q ~ II ~ II "1 .~ I II I II III II I II III ~..--'--'- _ II I II II I I'I ~r~ I II --~' I~ ~ ~._. ~ kSlf I ~) ~ --- I 1' ~ fi r-- N ~~, l ~ I ~ ~ I ~ • L -~ X14, ,m-rgc~~ _.~z,~ 'I ~ ~ Iwo-.~' Q~ FAMILY R40M Vl I ~-- 1J ~ ~ - _i ~~_-;~ n II , ; ,~ ~~_~~ L_ ' ~--L- ..-_.~ ,~"[+W _ I I (a~y I ~e1 I I1 I - ---1---1 ~11 ~'~%aa^.,~~, r y^~. f _ r- r fi, _ _. _ _. ~ F. ~ 'I II I I_`~yl I I I I ~~- II ] r,~~l K N I ~ ~ II L~:-1~1~~--~ L -~ I.~ _:~I~ b o ,_ _, --'. 4 III ~ ~a W IIIl''~l~ t1 I r ~ I - I WR I- ~ III ~ Q I L ~Ti~~r~T h. LIVINb ROOM L-;~1,. I OFPIGL" I~ '~ ~ I Its r~l I l "-~ III ' ~- --. _ L e-~_.l_ J I I BA ~3 r-- ~ I~ 1 LI I ----~----- li ~~ ~~, X44 C; II ih I / I III ____ L III ~'~`,~____-a'¢2'F _~=_=_=s_e=_=_av~ '~'~__'_ -=-r~~:~:~.3~;:3~-'--._I__ III ~ I- ~ ~~ I III DINING I ~b II I 111 I ~ 1 I I I 1° I d I I I .ffia~ --------4------0 --- Q ~V i n ~ i _~ __,_-__~' -- r TD BUILDING DESIGN BfillAubrey Coun ' LOc Crorc, CA 9%2/ Teo: 91fi66L9580 yyFm 97fifiB9-7099 '~7r~.. m< ~ al mee! dmwmq! ova epecin<pnme mau De ~meicted to the speci9c site for which they were prepared and pualicotlon !boreal shad be avgn:slY IImI1M to wch se. Re-art, reprodacllon or pualcafbn Dy any method ~ wM1ae or port Is proh%blted. illle to these plws wd speclllcationf sndl remain wllh N @aldinq Deelgn vllhaul p.epeme. aaa .ieaa <omad wan Inern shoo conshlole prMO facie evidence of aecept nc< pl Ih!rt rnhictions. Q 10 Bwldinq Design. Caneullan! Revisions Key Plan . nopa NDY TY10~STORY 1101[ Me. TEFFII VANATTA 13233 MtDOLE 5T, SARAT06A, GA 951Y10. Iz-a' ~ T-6' ~ Ir-o' ro' u'-O' _~ 49'-10' ~y~ZO ~. AFNr 909 - IS -069 ' Orawerp EXISTINb /DEMOLITION FLOOR PLANS pro No. 02056 Draw. BTD _ Dal. 12.09.02 sae va•.ro• sn.et AA l~~.l sneer 90. al rota! sh<et: i LEGENDS: ~9.7P1'~^'TS.%'Fv.^.§Z ^~' FXI4T7119 PULL TO REMAIN IEW 7xb 3TNJ WALL i 1ffYV 3x6 PLIR61N6 YULL 7D BUILDING DESIGN 8617 Avbrcy Corm ' Gi4 Grovc, CA 95624 ' Te1.: 91666Y5580 __ __ _ _ 59'-4" 3 Pax: Y16fi893099 the use el Ihesa drawings and specil Mims anon be seatricled to ' me opuum ana ror xnicn they .ere prepared and publication thaeof ' shnll De e.prrssly Ilmiletl to such se. Re-use, reproductlm or publimllon Dy any melnotl In while .. ..___. ._ .- --. _ -__---. « yore is prambnee. nn< to rhea. :_. _._ _..._ plops and ape~aiootlona mall ,emam I I! wan tN avatlm9 Naalgn witna,t ' I v,epdma, one ~a~d <mmd wun I mem anent conanD~te puma milt avltlence al paeplpnce al Iheae 1 I i raMcllone. Q 10 Bvildleg Deaigo Consullpnl Q I! I fi _.. \ ~ IrJ Leo II I ll II I I> II I !I II I ll UU NOOK COND. PAD I'~ I i 0 i IS'-7'x10'-B" II %`.I 11 't. ~.\ _ ~ I-_ 4 ~p~ -' ate. t~ - ~_ ----- I ----..._- _ - I" ~~ ~I 1 _' ~ ,~ l I KI GHEN -- - -- - -- CS) BA 3 i ~ i Is-rxm-0• -- -- ~f P ~ ..: l i ~ ` ~I~~ ~ I~. e II 'r ~ U QO (B) FAMILY ROOM I I -~ - w'-rxu'-1o• n - II ' II ~ q T~ (BJ BED 21, ~ `\ - ----- \ I h@DIA .. -- ~ v i ~ of i @~f v ,f ~ ~ ~ _ p I ~ ~ I w~ ~`~~~ _ _ --, n I I M7 H . 9 V.~ D HAS I --------- r I ~. I I (gj LIVING ROOM ` Kay elan ~ I Ib'-b•xls-o' ------ I I BNTRY ~ ~ I. . 0 (E) DINING ' ~. i m II'-B'x184' \~ I . h. Ml BEd' B D 4 t 17 -0 MIO-0' ~ I I 17'-0'x10'-0' - I ` b I , j I r i Y __ _.___ I _- ___ -_ ___ _._-___ r P1opc1 / L NB9 7Y1}3TORY HOP! Ms. YEFFII VANATTA 43 19793 McDOLE 9T. SARATO6A, GA 93070 IPJ IY-4' __ _ Iq'-7' __ _ I7'4' _ I7'-b' 3'-7' APN~ 9BA - 13 -069 _.--- __ ~-4__-_ ---____._ ora.ing PROP. let FLOOR. PLAN I I PROP. Igt FLOOR PLAN 1,4"=I'-oa,~~ ~ pro Na o~36 I oro«n BiD Z~ ~~ Nate 17.O9A7 scale I/4'x1'-0' ,Heel ~~.~ ' ~ ~ Sneel No. of Totol Sheela t • d 1 ~~ TYPICAL ROOF NOTES I. ROOF 5LOPE5: 4:17 (TYP.1 11.0 N 7. ROOF MATERIAL: 5 TILE I EAGLE Westa Del Sol Blero Bill !I IOEO APPROVAL NO.. ER-4660 lANGRCIE TILE ROOFS SNALL NDT BE INSTALLEC ON A ROOF TD BUILDING DESIf.N NAVIN6 A SLOPE LE56 THAN 317 PER SEOTION 1508 4 AND TA9LE tl613 Aubrey Coup I ISD-I 1594 IIBO. Elk Gawe, CA 95674 °. ALL EAVES AND RAKES TeL 916b625550 SHALL BE 74" 0 M. N.O.NJ Fss:916b59~3099 ~ 4. PROVIDE 26 SA. b.I. VALLEY -_-~~ FLA5HIN6 AT AL! ROOF VALLEYS. / 3. PROVIDE SADDLE AND FLASHING _ Ar OHASE, TYPIOAL E. WOOD BLRN CHIMNEY PROVIDE APFRO`/EO SPARK ARRESTORS the use al loose drawings antl 7. LINE OF ROOF OYERHANS speclllcatlons alioll [•e restrlctetl to the speofic silo la nhlch they here B. LINE OF STRUOTIRE prepared ontl publkotlon thereat 9. b.l. bVffER shall be expressly limited to such sa. Re-use rnproducfen or 10. DOWN SPglTS publicnoon by any metnotl In whole II. 22"w4T' FIXED 5KYLISN7 apart 'u prohibited. title to these VELU% F5106 Dlans and specifcpllons aholl remain IGBO APPROVAL Np.; NER 716 with TD Bu~tling ~esig, w1MOU1 gejsdlce, and rwd conlp<I witM1 !7. 16' D1A. NBULAR SKYLIGHT Ihem shall conalllule prima lode endence al occnplanne of these restric6ms. ®N Bulldioq Eefign. Consultant Redsiow key Plnn Prppcl !B'1 NG~4TORY llOh! Ne.TEFFn vANArra ~ 13235 McDOLE 5T. I SARAT06A, OA 950'10 I I .. ~ I APNr 309 - 19 -069 - mowing ROOF PLAN [ROOF PLAN 1~4•=I~-o•N~~ J! [ pro'. No. 02056 l Orown BiD ' Oate ~ 12,O9A2 E state I/4'wl'-0' 5nee1 /Ay /~/ ~\`.~ I, I Shed Ho, of iolel Sheets ~..... I I I I )~ 1 L. - ~, H r ( 1 I a I I. e I P V Z REAR/WEST ELEVATION 1~4''=I'-OI' it ELEVATION NOTES: I. 3 LOAT$'I/B' STILCA 2. STULOO SCREED ?. PROVIDE APPROx'ED SPARK ARRESTORS 4. 6.1. SADDLE AND FLA5NIN6 5. b.I. LHIMIffY GAP b. 6.1. FLA5HIN5 AT ROOF TO WALL ~. ROOF MATERIAL -SEE RODE RAN B. 51ULCA LORBEL 9 ATTIL VENT REf-ER TO ATTIL VENT LALLS. 5EE A42 10. 4' x IA' FOI,NDATION '![Ni REf[R TO FOUDATICN VENT GALLS, 5FE SNEET A2.1 lI. RE/5 2x4 O/ 2xB FASCIA OR BARGE BOARD 12. STULLO 0/ FOAM TRIM 13. STULLO KEY Ia, WD, 6L'ARDRAIL 6 Bb" NT. I5. NOOD g17L00KER Ib ALL WINDOWS ARE WOOL G! AD WAL-PANE, LOW-E GLA% I1. LMERRY S.L. FRpHT D00R 18 22'xsT' FI%ED EKYL15!IT la. Ib" DIA T,QIILAR SKYLISNT _EXT. COLOR SCHEME: I. 5nKL0 WALL, DS.: KELLY-MOORS PANT KI-F.Bi-L TAPAS 2. RCOF. 5-TILE "EASES" Pvesta Del Sol Bend BTII 3. PLL TRIMS, bL E , FASCIA, W,I. fiAILS. GARAGE DOOR. KELLY-MOORS PAINT 23 5W755 COFFE 4 WINDOWS 6 SLIDE DOOR: WD. GLAD FRAME, DVAL-PANE, CLEAR. LOWS GLASS 5. FRONT DOOR, DARK BROWN CHERRY TD BUILDING DESIGN 8613 AnNny Coon Elk Gnrve, CA 9667A Te1.:916fi62.6680 Pu:916-68A.'1099 . ~,~~. The uee of Iheae dmwin9f ma fpn<Ihrollonn (hall ba resl~icled to the epecifk aile far Mich Uey Here prepmed and Dvbllcotion Ihereot shop be expressly limited to such se. Re-vsa, ~ap~oAUCtlon or publicolion by ~^Y method In whale n port le prphibllea. illle to these dpDa a^a apecq:~none moll re with N Bullaing Omlpn without m p<epmce, ma w.ml cp^tpa .nn Ihem ~hpll <msllNte Drimn loeie evitlnee of aceepto^ce of these +eetrictlpm. ®ID Balding ~eaign, con,wmnl ftevislans Ney Plpn ' I ~ I I I I I I I In I i. rn I 1 Q ~ 0 , PP 3 RIGHT SOUTH ELEVATION 1~4°=~'-0" Prppct NM TYIOwSTORY HONk Me. YEFFII VANATTA 13195 NkDOLE ST, SARATObA, LA 99010 APN~ 9B9 - IS -069 ~raemq BVILDINS ELEVATIONS Pro'. No. 020% Bra.^ BTD Dafe IZ.09,07 ~ 0 Scale I/4'e'-0' ~ Sheet A4.1 sneer No. of Tmal sneele I ~RONT/EAST ELEVATION va°:I'-0" • II~ ELEVATION NOTES: !. 3 LOAT51/6' SNLLO - 1, STUGCA SLREED T l 3. PROVIDE APPROVED SPARK ARRESTORS ' 4. b I. SADDLE AND FLASHING ' II 5. b.l. LHIMNEI' GAP b. 6.1. FLASHING AT RpOF TO WALL j T, ROOF- MATERIAL -SEC ROOF' PLAN ~ B. B1ULG0 LORBEL . _--..-_-. _ 9. ATTIL VENT REFER To ------ ----- - ----------- ---- ATTIC VENT LALLS. SEE A4D 10. 4' X 14' FOUNDATION VENT 18 ~ ' ~ ~ -~ ~_ ~I EE ETF~4TION VENT LALLS. - ~ II. RE/5 3x4 O7 b:B FASLIA 4 OR BARGE BOARD Q 17. STKLO 0/ FOAM TRIM - ~ 13. 9NOL0 KEY 14. W0. GUARDRAIL 0 36" HT. ~ - ~ I5. WOOD OUTLOOKE4 ____ _. .._ _ .._ __ __. _. .. ~. - Ib. ALL YUNDOYS ARE WOOD GLAD _ TP_ WAL-PANE, LOW-E GLASS .- '. -I . - ...' _._ ___.- -_.-__ ..__. __-. ___ __-_ ___.. _ 1 LH[RRY SL FRONT D00 ~~~ --I ~~ ~ ~-.. L_J ..._ ~ _.__ IB. 73'v4T FIXED SKYLI6HTR f..., I-T _ '..-.. 1 lu. Ib" DIA. NBULAR SKYLIGHT LI I j P ~ ~ ~~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~'0~:.. 4 EXT COLOR SCHEME: I I _ .. ~ I .. J._ a _ _ I. snx.co WALL, Ds.: -~ KELLY MOORE PRIM ^ ~ - KM584-L TAPAS I a ~ __ 3. ROOF. STILE 'EAGLE' L - "~ _ FF ~ ~ FF p Westo Del 50l Blend 8TI1 ' ~ ~ { 9. ALL TRIMS, GUTTER, FASLIA, W.I. RAILS, GARAGE DOOR. KELLY-MOORS PAINT ]3 SWISS LOFFE 4. WINDOWS t SLIDE DOOR, - WD. GLAD FRAME, DJAL-PANE. I LEFT/NORTH ELEVATION 14"=,._oe LLEAR, LOW.E GLASS 5. Fl20N1 DAR: DARK BROWN LNCRRY _ ~ 1 4 Q ~ FRONT/EAST ELEVATION y4•:I'-0'r GARAGE (E) W0. BHAKE i TD BUR.DING DESIGN A6D Aubrty Coup Elk Gmee, CA 9561A TeL:91661i&5568 Fa•9166119~3099 m< a~mi«~eh,nan eew.uino ee 1p I~hecspxAk slle la whkh Ihay were Drepored and puMicotim Ihaeol shall De exgessly Ilmlled l0 sOm se. Ae-use, r<Droduclion or puWlCation DY OnY method In whoa a port b prohiDlted. fine to These TAOns Ond p I' 1' hall remOn wlh iD Bu'Id' q 0 yn thwl yreNdc 0 I loci wiU Them 9h II I'1 t p I IDCN ev' ence I pt • of them re tr ctlom, Q TC Bu Itlinq Des qn. ~awND~t RevSion9 Ney PiDn FrD,e~t rav tWO-sroRr xore N1e, YEFFII VANATTA 19]35 McDOLE 5T. SARATOGA, GA 95070 APN: 3B9 - 15 -069 Browmg BUILDINb ELEVATION bARA6E ELEVATIONS Pro Np. 0]056 GARAGE Nrpwn ~ GARAGE Uule I~~9.oz s sae I/4'•I'-0' Sheol ~ ~t4.~ _ I ' ~ ~ gheel No. of fatal Sheeb 21 97L1'.LO R) VENTb- 3 LEFT/NORTH ELEVATION I~4"=I'-0" GARAGE 4 REAR/YVEST ELEVATION Ira°=i'-o° 5 RIGHT/SOUTH ELEVATION v4°=r-0° r--cEl wo. s~wKE • i• ITEM 3 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: #02-121/ 14261 Springer Avenue Applicant/Owner: Paul Qian and Suying Yang Staff Planner: Ann Welsh, AICP -Assistant Planner Date: February 12, 2003 APN: 503-27-068 Department Head: tr. ~,~/ is o iaO" ono _ goo "2.aoo soo ^~ )I ~ V a ~ ~ ~ .~ `' ~~.. ~\~~, ~ r w e ~~ '~ _` - s Ir~ `~ .k k ~`\v j `~ v`~1l _ _ J/f// ill ~_ ~ _ ~~„~ ~ ~ ~~ ~' ~~ ~~ ~~~, ~ 3 / I~ ~I r/ ~ ~ t'• ~~ \' I 14261 Springer Avenue ~~00~ 01; • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 6/20/02 Application complete: 1/27/03 Notice published: U29/03 Mailing completed: 1/28/03 Posting completed: 1/29/03 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The site is located at 14261 Springer Avenue in the R-1, 10,000 zoning district and contains 7,500 square feet. The project involves demolishing the existing three residential structures on the site totaling 1,069 square feet and constructing a new two- story residence with basement. The height of the residence is 19 feet 11.25 inches. The proposed residence is to contain 2,824 square feet with a 1,349 square foot basement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Staff recommends approval of the Design Review application with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution for application # 02-121. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Draft Resolution for application 02-121 3. Arborist Report received December 26, 2002 4. Saratoga Fire District report dated June 28, 2002 5. Windshield Survey of one and two family residences 6. Neighbor Approval Sheet 7. Affidavit of Mailing Notices 8. List of Property Owner's Noticed 9. Plans, Exhibit 'A' date stamped February 5, 2003 • ~~~~~°~~ STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1,10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: M-10 -Medium Density Residential MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE:.172 acres gross AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Average Slope of the lot is less than 10%. GRADING REQUIRED: No grading of the site is proposed. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of asingle-family residence is Categorically Exempt from .the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The project site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The house is to be light gray stucco with charcoal gray roof tiles. • ~~0~(13 • PROPOSED CODE REQUIREMENTS LOT COVERAGE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE 58% OR 4,350 SQ. FI'. 60% oR 4,500 SQ. FI'. ~ Building Footprint 1,842 SQ.1~ I'„ ~ Walkways, Patio, and 2,508 SQ. FI. Driveway TOTAL 4,350 sQ. r r. FLOOR AREA MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE Main Floor 1,842 sQ. Fr. Second Floor 982 sQ. FT• (Basement) (1,349 SQ. Fr:) TOTAL 2,824 sQ. Fr'. 2,880 SQ. >~ r. SETBACKS MINIMUM REQUIREMENT Front 27 Fr. 251'~ I'. Rear 54 Fr. l~ FL - 25 Fr. 2ND ~:. 35 Fr. Side 7 Fr. ~`6 Fr. Height Residence 19.5 Ft. 26 FI. DEMOLITION 1,069 SQ. FI'. ~" This application was submitted prior to the recent setback amendments, which currently required a side yard setback of 11 feet for the second floor. *'~ This application was submitted prior to the recent basement revisions to the zoning ordinance, which currently require geotechnical clearance for basements. To ensure thorough review, as a compromise, geotechnical review of the application will to be conducted prior to issuance of building permit. ~I PROJECT DISCUSSION DESIGN REVIEW The applicant proposes to construct a two story, 2,824 square foot dwelling on a non- . conforming R-1, 10,000 square foot lot. The lot size is 7,500 square feet and is 50 feet wide and 150 feet deep. The R-1 10,000 zoning standards require an 85-foot lot width, thus the lot width is 35 feet less than typical R-110,000 zoning requires. The property is located on Springer Avenue in an older neighborhood of similarly nonconforming lots whose design character is not of a single theme but rather an eclectic mix of one and two story homes in a variety of architectural styles, facade textures, and colors. A study of the neighborhood in terms of single story and two story structures reveals that of the 13 lots that are on Springer Avenue from Wildwood Way to the end of the cul-de-sac, five are two story and eight are single story homes. In terms of adjacent neighbors the homes immediately abutting the parcel at issue are single story dwellings. The style of home is Modern/Mediterranean with a charcoal gray the roof and light gray stucco facade. The front elevation contains an arched recessed entry, atwo-car garage and bay window. The proposed two-story home is to contain a 1,349 square .foot basement with light wells to the rear and front of the structure. Recommended changes to the design of the proposed structure involve the facade and windows. The bulk should be minimized and horizontal element enhanced by anchoring the base of the structure with a stone foundation. The windows along the front elevation should be more symmetrical. The round and square windows along the front facade do not project a consistent design theme. The neighborhood contains a mixture of two- story and one- story structures. The height of the two-story home is 19 feet 11.25 inches as measured from the natural grade. Thus, the two- story structure maintains a relatively low profile. The plans show the height of the structure as measured from the finished floor. The height should be provided from the natural grade. In terms of natural features, the proposed development impacts trees to the north of the subject property. Excavation of the basement to the rear of the house would require soil cuts, which may be within five feet of the trunk of the trees on the north side of the property. If the applicant is to save the trees on the north side of the property the basement wall may have to be moved to increase the setback between the basement and the trunk of the tree in this area. This tree also provides screening between the two properties.. This existing natural screen is important in maintaining the privacy between these two structures. The design and placement of the house are discussed below and specific conditions of approval are outlined under Community Development concerns. 6~O~f ~5. ACTUAL FINDINGS DESIGN REVIEW The following findings have been made regarding the proposed new construction. (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed main or accessory structure, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views andprivacy: The proposed plan should not interfere with the privacy of adjacent homes. The difference in elevation between the abutting lots provides a natural screen between properties. Also the staggered setback of the property to the right (north) of the subject home minimises the impact of the new construction on the northern property. The windows facing the adjacent home to the north are very small and placed high along the wall so that they allow light but enhance privacy. In addition, only the front'ten feet of the adjacent home to the right (north) are parallel to the rear of the proposed home. In this way the privacy of the abutting neighbor to the north is maintained The home to the left (south) of the proposed house shares the same setback. However, this neighbor's elevation is about two feet higher than the subject home. The first story windows along the left side of the house would be screened by the two-foot difference in elevation plus asix-foot fence, which combines to screen eight feet of the structure thus enhancing first floor privacy. The privacy for the second story of the .structure is maintained by placement of very small windows high along the wall of the second story of the home. Privacy of neighbors east and west of the property is maintained by the existing redwood screen at the rear of the property and the deep setback and vegetation of the home across the street. For these reasons the proposed plan does not interfere unreasonably with privacy of the neighbors. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas. The proposed construction will preserve the natural grade of the lot however; excavation for the basement may severely impact the root system of an eleven inch oak tree that is located on the north side of the property to the rear of the proposed structure. A sixteen- inch European olive tree would also be impacted by construction in the vicinity of the proposed garage. ~~~O~w®6 The Arborist recommends moving the north wall of the basement approximately ten feet from the trunk of tree #7 in order to allow sufficient room for the basement to be excavated. The face cut in the soil for. a basement must be at least three feet from the proposed wall in order to drain the wall and provide moisture block. The basement wall should either be redesigned to ensure the survival of this oak tree or removal of the tree should be permitted in the course of construction. It should be noted however, that this tree also provides a visual screen between the rear portion of the proposed house and the front portion of the house to the north of the property. In terms of tree #6, since this tree does not lie in-the area of the proposed basement but rather in the area of the garage, which has a concrete slab foundation, the construction of the concrete slab could be redesigned to require pier and beam construction with completely on grade design. As the Arborist notes, the eighteen-inch European olive tree is more tolerant of root damage than is the oak tree on the north side of the property.. Therefore it appears that this tree could be retained with redesign of the garage foundation. In order to retain the roots of trees on the south side of the property the Arborist has recommended maintaining the retaining wall that currently exists along this boundary as well as installing all proposed pathways completely on grade with pervious paving material. If the recommendations of the Arborist are made conditions of approval then the existing natural features of the property will be retained as far as practicable. (c) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The proposed main or accessory structure in relation to structures on adjacent lots and to the surrounding region will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the environment: The proposed two-story structure retains a very low profile and calls for neutral colors and use of natural materials, which minimize the perception of excessive bulk. However, anchoring the structure with a stone base at the foundation could enhance the horizontal proportions of the structure. The structure contains varied roof elements and higher portions of the structure have greater setbacks from the property line. These design elements help to minimize the bulk of the proposed structure. (d) Compatible bulk and height. Theproposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (iii) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties to utilize solarenergy. A study of the neighborhood in terms of single story and two story structures reveals i that of the 13 lots that are on Springer Avenue from Wildwood Way to the end of the cul-de-sac, five are two story and eight are single story homes. In terms of adjacent ©®~ ~'7 neighbors the homes immediately abutting the subject parcel are single story dwellings. The home to the left of the subject parcel is at a slightly higher elevation than the home to the right of the parcel. Therefore the impact of the proposed 19' 11.25" home would be greater on the home to the right (north) of the property. The parcel to the right (north) of the subject lot is about four feet lower in elevation than the subject parcel. This difference in elevation makes the perceived height of the proposed structure from their perspective about four feet higher than the actual height. Since the neighbor's house to the right of the parcel is on the north side of the property, the proposed home would cast a shadow on the home to the right of the parcel. The impact of this shadowing would be minimized because the home to the right is not in direct line with the proposed home but is setback so that only the front ten feet of the home is directly parallel to the proposed house. Furthermore, the horizontal separation between the homes is 23 feet and this separation would serve to minimize the impact of the shadowing. of the abutting home. Since the Springer Avenue neighborhood is rather eclectic in terms of style and proportions, the proposed home would integrate into the environment and not constitute a substantial deviation from the overall character of the area. (e) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed site development plan incorporates currentgrading and crosion control standards used by the City. The applicant proposes no re-grading to the property. However, excavation for the proposed basement will require substantial removal of soil from the site. In terms of the City policy regarding excavation for basements, this application was submitted prior to the City's revised zoning provisions for basements so the recently enacted. subsurface investigation requirements were not imposed on the applicant. However, in order to ensure that the basement design is acceptable from a geotechnical, grading and drainage standpoint, the applicant will be required to submit an engineered grading and drainage plan as well as receive geotechnicaUsoils approval on the proposed basement prior to receiving final zoning clearance. (fl Design policies and techniques. The proposed addition conforms to the applicable design policies and techniques asset forth in the Residential Design Handbook. The proposed project will comply with Residential Design Handbook Policy #1 to minimize the perception of bulk through use of natural materials and colors as well as having a varied roofline. Anchoring the facade with a stone foundation is an architectural feature, which would further minimize the mass of the structure. The plan if revised to increase the setback for the north basement wall and provide pier and beam foundation to the garage north elevation may conform to Policy #2; integrate structures with the environment. These design revisions would retain the natural landscape and trees. Also the use of natural earth tones with stucco facade and concrete the roof helps blend the structure into the environment. With attached garage, all ~4~J~~~8 • structures are integrated into one building on the site, which miri;mizes the visual The proposed plan conforms to Policy #3; avoid interference with privacy. The location and size of windows and setback of the proposed structure retains privacy between surrounding neighbors. Policy #4, maximize views but avoid conflicts with privacy is addressed by retaining existing landscaping and maintaining sufficient setback to avoid encroaching on the view shed of surrounding homes.. Policy #5, design for energy efficiency, is addressed by locating the main living areas of the house along the southern exposure. Retaining existing tree canopy will control winter and summer exposure to the sun. Thus the above analysis concludes that if revisions to the site plan are. made as recommended above, the necessary findings required for granting design review approval can be met. The City Arborist and the Saratoga Fire District have reviewed this application. Their comments are included as conditions of approval. COMMUNITY INPUT In terms of community input, the neighbor south of the subject property viewed the. plans at the Planning Department and commented that he did not have any objections to the plan. The applicant has submitted a statement signed by neighbors to the south, east and west of the property stating that they support the project. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The plans should be revised to address the following conditions that were mentioned in the above discussion. 1. The design shall be revised to allow aten-foot basement wall setback from the trunk of tree #7. 2. The design shall be revised to allow on-grade pier and beam construction in the vicinity of tree #6. 3. The elevation of the structure should be revised to provide the height as measured from the natural grade. 4. The base of the proposed home should have a stone foundation in order to visually anchor the structure and create a horizontal element to the facade. Elevations of the impact on the environment. ~~ 0®~ ~9 structure should be revised to reflect this change. S. The proposed wallzway around the structure should be on grade pervious material in order to minimize the impact on adjacent trees. 6. The landscape plan shall be revised to comply with the arborist recommendation in terms of lawn area and compatible plantings. 7. A grading and drainage plan signed and sealed by a registered engineer shall be submitted with the finial construction documents and this plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist. 8. A geotechnicaUsoils report shall be reviewed by the C;ity geotechnical consultant in order to approve the basement design. 9. The front facade windows should project a unified design element. The circular window should be modified to reflect the design of the three adjacent windows. The above conditions of Community Development approval should be incorporated into the revised plans. CONCLUSION Thus the above analysis concludes that if revisions to the, site plan are made as recommended above; the necessary findings required for granting design review approval can be met. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that these plans be approved with the aforementioned conditions by adopting the Resolution for application #02-121. • 10 :~ U®~.n1.4 Attachment 2 ~oo~~l !~ i RESOLUTION N0.02 - APPLICATION NO.02-12I CITY OF SAR.ATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA QIAN/YANG: 14261 SPRINGER AVENUE WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review to construct a .2,824 square foot two story dwelling with a 1,349 square foot basement; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and • Whereas the project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "I~Tew Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and involves construction of a single family structure; and WHEREAS, the applicant meets the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: Policy 1, Minimize the perception of bulk The proposed project upon revision will minimize the perception of bulk through use of natural materials and colors. The design will provide a varied roofline and facade softened with different materials and textures creating horizontal proportions, which break up massing and minimize the perception of bulk. Policy 2, Integrate structures with the environment The plan conforms to the policy to integrate structures with the environment through use of natural earth tones with stucco/stone facade and concrete the roof. With attached garage, all structures are integrated into one building. Policy 3, Avoid interference with privacy If revised to ensure to retention of trees on the north side of the property,. the plan will retain the tree canopy along the northern property line and therefore avoid interference with privacy of the neighbor to the north. ll v'1I l.Y ~' ~/L Policy 4, Preserve views and access to views The proposed home will impact the view of the neighbor north of the property to some extent. However, maintaining the existing trees along their shared property line will minimize the impact on views to a reasonable level. Policy 5, Design for maximum benefit of sun and wind The policy to design for energy efficiency is addressed by locating the main living areas of the home along the southeast elevation and locating the garage area along the north elevation. Retaining trees helps control winter and summer exposure to the sun. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application by Paul Qian and Saying Yang for Design Review approval is granted subject to a number of conditions. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. Exhibit "A" date stamped February 5, 2002 shall be revised to reflect the conditions outlined in this report. 2. Prior to submittal for Building Permits, the following shall be submitted to the Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance. a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the Revised Arborist report and map received December 26, 2002 as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: 3. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the Ciry, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans:' 4. The design shall be revised to allow aten-foot basement wall setback from the trunk of tree #7. 5. The design shall be revised to allow on-grade pier and beam construction in the vicinity of tree #6. 6. The elevation of the structure should be revised to provide the height as measured from the natural grade. 7. The base of the proposed home should have a stone foundation in order to visually. anchor the structure and create a horizontal element to the facade. Elevations of the 1z ':..~ Q ~ til g a~ structure should be revised to reflect this. change. 8. The proposed walkway around the structure should be on grade pervious material in order to minimize the impact on adjacent trees. 9. The landscape plan shall be revised to comply with the arborist recommendation in terms of lawn area and compatible plantings. 10. Fireplaces: Only one wood-burning fireplace is permitted per dwelling unit. 11. A grading and drainage plan signed and sealed by a registered engineer shall be submitted with the final construction documents and this plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist. 12. A geotechnicaUsoils report shall be reviewed by the City geotechnical consultant in order to approve the basement design. 13. Soil and Erosion Control Plans -The applicant should submit a soil and erosion control plan which identifies the techniques for minimizing the impact. of disturbance on adjacent properties. 14. The front facade windows should project a unified design element. The circular window should be modified to reflect the design of the three adjacent windows. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The Saratoga Fire District reviewed this application on June 28, 2002 and made the following comments. 1. Water supply and access for fire protection are acceptable. 2. The property is in a designated hazardous fire area. 3. Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class A prepared or built up roofing. 4. Early Warning fire alarm system shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions, City of Saratoga Code Article 16-60. (Alternative requirements, sprinkler systems,16-60-E) 5. Early warning fire alarm system shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. 6. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in newly constructed attached/detached garages (2 heads per stall), workshops, or storage areas, which are not constructed as habitable space. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, 'the garage shall have a smooth, 13 flat horizontal ceiling. The designer/architect is to contact San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. CITY ARBORIST REPORT The City Arborist reviewed this plan and the report was received on December 26, 2002. The recommendations of the arborist are hereby made a condition of approval and incorporated into the revised plan. The main areas of concern are as follows. 1. The north wall of the basement will interfere with the root system of trees #7 and #6. The face cut of the soil for the basement construction must be a minimum of seven feet from the trunk of both trees measured from the base of the tree on the south side of the trunk. The plans may be revised to allow ten feet from the base of these two trees and the wall of the basement in order to allow a minimum of three feet of backfill area around the basement walls. 2. The walkway proposed adjacent trees #6 and #7 is only feasible if it is installed completely on top of the existing grade without a soil cut and if the surface material is a pervious material. 3. A small retaining wall is located preserve Trees #1 and #2 a detaile change in grade is to be addressed. on the north side of trees #1 and #2. In order to d design should be provided to address how this 4. The demolition and removal of the deck adjacent tree #8 should be done by hand. 5. The demolition and removal of the existing detached bedroom and the existing detached garage be removed without heavy equipment being operated inside the driplines of Trees #8 through #11. 6. The landscape plan should be revised to include the following: a. A main irrigation line must be installed against the footing of the building at the time that the footing is backfilled. After the building foundation is constructed is will not be feasible to trench for a new irrigation line (or for any other purpose) without severe root damage to trees #1,2,5,6 and 7. b. Lawn must be a minimum of 12 feet from the, trunks of Trees #9 and #10 and a minimum of 8 feet from the trunks of trees #1 and 2. c. Plants planted inside the dripline of oak trees #1,2,7,9 and 10 must be compatible with the environmental and cultural requirements of the oak species. d. Irrigation inside the driplines of oak trees must be a drip type only. e. Sprinkler irrigation must not be designed to strike the trunk of any tree on the site. 14 'v ~ ®`~` 1a~ f. Landsca e irri ation trenches, inside the driplines of trees must be no closer than 15 P g times the trunk diameter, if the trenching direction is across the root zone. However radial trenches may be done closer if the trenches reach no closer than 5 times the trunk diameter to the tree trunk. ,and if the spokes are at least 10 feet apart at the perimeter. g. Landscape hardscape must be done completely on grade without excavation and without severing of roots. 7. The combined value of the trees is estimated to be $32,694. A bond equal to 50% of the value of the trees or $16,347 should be retained to assure their protection. 8. Construction period fencing must be provided and located as noted on the map, which accompanies the report. Fencing must be of chain link, a minimum height of 5 feet mounted on steel posts driven 2 feet into the ground. The fence must be in place immediately following demolition. The protection fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. 9. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped under the canopies of trees. Soils excavated from the basement must be removed from the site as it is excavated. 10. Any pruning must be done be an International Society of Arboriculture certified arborist and according to ISA Western Chapter Standards. 11. An ISA certified arborist should be required as the "Project Arborist" to be on site to supervise the demolition of the structures, including the existing driveway. 12. Apre-construction meeting shall be required prior to the demolition of the existing structures. The Project Arborist shall attend and shall give instructions to the contractors on how to prevent significant damage to Trees # 8-11. CITY ATTORNEY 1. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its. actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 2. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga Ciry Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 12`h-day of February 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. the undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent • Date • Attachment 3 • - BARRIE D. CO~E end ASSOCIATES Horticutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 408!353-1052 s ~i TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMI~~NDATIONS AT THE QIAN PROPERTY 14261 SPRINGER AVENUE SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Kristin Borel Community Planning Dept City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 • Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist November 27, 2002 Job # i0-99-247-02 i~ ~ ~ ~0 €~ 2 6 2002 ~it'1' dF SARATOGA i~ ~~00~!-~.9 . TREESURVE}'ANDPRESERVATIONRECOD~1fE1~701~SATTHEQIANPROPER77'14261 SPRINGERAI~ES4R.4TOGA Assignment At the request of the Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of Saratoga, this report reviews the proposal to demolish an existing residence, detached bedroom, and detached garage in order to construct a new residence in the context of potential damage to or the removal of existing trees. This report rates the condition of the trees on site that are protected by City of Saratoga ordinance. Recommendations are included to mitigate damage to these trees during construction The plans reviewed for this report are the construction plans dated September 24, 2002; Sheets Al-Att. The architect or designer is not identified on the plans provided Summary This proposal may expose 11 trees to some level of risk by construction. Tree #3 would be removed by implementation of this design. All of the other trees would survive in good condition provided all of the mitigation suggestions are adhered to. Replacement trees, which equal the values of the trees removed, are suggested. Procedures are suggested to mitigate the damage that would be expected to the retained trees. A bond equal to 50% of the, value of the trees that would be retained is recommended to asswe their protection. Observations 't 4 trees on the ad'acent properties; and ]tree whose ownership is in question. Tree There are 6 trees on th}s s} e, J #8 is a large multi-stern coast redwood tree that is located on the property boundary between this property and the property toward the north. All ] 1 trees may suffer some damage by proposed construction. The attached map shows the location of these trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. Each tree on this site has been tagged with a metallic label indicating its assigned number. The Trees #4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 11 were not shown on the plans provided and have been added Their locations on the plans are approximate. The 11 trees are classified as follows: Trees #1, 2, 7, 9,10 -Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Tree #3 -Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila) Tsee #4 -Big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) Trees #5, 6 -European olive (Olea europea) Tree #8 -Coast redwood {Sequoia sempervirens) Tree #I1- Chinese Pistache (Pistacia chinensis) The particulars regarding these trees (species, trunk diameter, height, spread, health, and structure) are provided in the attachments that follow ihi$ text. The health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (Excellent -Extremely Poor) on the data sheets that follow this text. The combination of health and structure ratings for the 11 trees are converted to descriptive ratings as follows: NOI~AIBER 27, 7002 PREPARED BY: r11CHAEL L. BENCH. COA'SUL77NG ARBORIST ONSAT THE OIAN PROPERTY 14?6I SPRINGER AV~ SAR.4TOGA Z TREE SURYEYAND PRESERyAT1ON RECOMMEI~ r~ L Fine specimens must be retained if possible but without majo ed horticultural standards Yin orde to prevent recommended here are intended to limit damage vv~thin accept decline. worth retainin but again without major design revisions. Mitigation must prevent further Fair specimens are g decline. r 'nil s linens are typically worth retaining but could be removed if necessary to facilitate construction Ma gr p~ Mitigations recommended here are intended to prevent significant decline. rees located on adjacent properties whose canopies (and roots) extend onto this property should be treated as T Exceptional regardless of their condition Risks to Trees by Proposed Constriction 's is a long narrow lot. It appears that this plan proposes to maximizhe romlal boundaries A basement is e north and south sides of the ne n~~ of the res deuce ex ept forthe garagepeC nstruction of the walls of a planned for virtually the entire footp basement typically require a cut 3-6 feet outside the location of ~ ~a S~~e~ ,~pm~ns hat the actual soil footprint would be backfilled after the basement walls are comp _ cut will be approximately 3-5 feet from the trunk of the neighboring °and 7 the#oot damage would be severe from the tnu-k of coast live oak Tree #7. In the case of both Trees #6 , although the olive would be considerably more tolerant of this root removal than the oak tree. ion of the canopies of Trees #2, 6, and 7 are in conflict with the new reside no - ffurvige the long term The A port removed and if more than l/3 of the canopies would be removed, these trees may, root loss from basement excavation and the canopy losses are not separate and unrelated. The total loss to both ,- trees would be severe. tan ro ses a new concrete walkway adjacent to the trunks of Trees #6 and 7 (presuming these trees Thep p Po would be retained). This pathway would only be feasible if it is ins a']ed completely on top of the existing gra e without a soil cut and if the surface material were a pernous maten wall a roximately 12-1 S inches in height) is seen on the north side of Tre 11{#laand la ~ A small retaining (PP plan does not describe how the difference in elevatio hese treese butno nnew retain ng wall s planned. The within approximately l8 -24 inches of the trunks of ro sed construction of the front door pathway does not appear feasible without causing severe root damage to P Po both Trees #1 and 2. • Tree #3 is in conflict with the footing of the new residence and would be removed. I recommend that Tree #3 be replaced. PREPARED BY: Nf1CNAEL L BENCH. CONSULTING.4RBORIST NOI~~'~~BER 27. 2002 ®~L:r~wi E SG'RVEYM'D PRESERVATION REC0,11ME1~10NSAT THE QIAN PROPERTY 14261 SPRINGER Al•~E SARATC)GA 3 THE An existing deck circles the trunk of Tree #8. This tree may be significantly injured if this deck is removed by heavy equipment. If the soil from excavation for the basement were piled over the root systems of trees or if a portion of this excavated soil were to be used to raise the soil grade where trees exist, the damage to the root systems may be severe. Consequently, it will be essential that the soil excavated from the basement musYbe removed from site; as it is excavated The Landscape Plan (Al) proposes to establish a new lawn within about 2 feet of th Xtrunk ~ se trees toroot Tree # 1, and around the root collars of coast live oak Trees #9 and 10. This would a po collar diseases. Also, the proposed turf over the root zones of Trees #1, 9 and 10 would expose these trees to the risk of watermold diseases. The Landscape Plan (Al) proposes to plant coast redwood trees under the canopies of coast live oak Trees # 9 and 10. When pyramidal trees grow up and through the dome-shaped canopies of oaks, the oaks are shaded out. These redwoods should be removed from beneath or near the oaks. The Landscape Plan (A1) proposes to plant an'Aristocrat' pear within about 3 feet of the trunk of Tree #8, the. large coast redwood. This is simply too close. The plans provided do not address drainage. I presume a drainage system would be planned for this residence. Trenching for drain lines would likely pose a significant risk to Trees #l, 2, 4, 5, and a severe risk to Trees #6 and 7. A drainage system may pose a moderate risk to Trees #8 and 11, but this is only an assumption in the absence of a proposed plan It appears that all of the trees would likely be at risk of damage by construction activity and construction procedures that are typical at most construction sites. These procedures may include the dumping or the stockpiling of materials over the root systems, may include the trenching across root zones for drainage, for new utilities, or for landscape irrigation, and may include constant construction traffic, including foot traffic, across the root systems resulting in soil compaction. If any underground utilities must be replaced or upgraded, it will be essential that the trench location must be planned prior to construction and that the trenches are located exactly as planned This must not be left up to contractors or to the utility providers. Recommendations 1. In order to preserve Trees #6 and 7, the following mitigation must be adhered to: a. The cut face of the soil cut for the basement construction must be a minimum of 7 feet from the trunk of both trees measured from the base of the tree on the south side of the trunk. This may require a redesign of the basement north wall. b. Any roots 2 inches or larger must be sealed immediately after the soil cut is made (See Recommendation # 18). c. If a drain line is required on the north side of the house, the new drain line must meet the requirement of la d. The new pathway must be installed completely on top of the existing soil grade without any soil cut. Fi~ material under the pathway may be used but the fill material must be thoroughly porous, such as clean NOI•'F1•fBER 27, 2002 PREPARED BY: MICH.9EL L. BENCH. CONSUL77NG ARBORIST _ TREE SUR ti EY AND PRESERVATION RECOMME~170NSAT THE QIAN PROPERTY 14261 SPRINGER A~E Sr1 RATOGA t~ gravel or sand. Base rock with granite fines is not adequately porous after compaction and may not be used. The fill- soil, if any, may be compacted to 80% maximum. e. The new pathway material must be porous such as interlocking pavers, but this installation would require that the manufactures specifications for stabilization of the soil may not be used, but instead meet the requirement here of 1 d. f. No trenching, including trenching for drainage or for landscape irrigation, may occur on the north side of the new building. g. The proposed strip of lawn adjacent to the building is not compatible with the cultural requirements of Trees #6 or 7. This strip of lawn must be replaced by a plant(s) that is compatible with a coast live oak tree culture (see 9c). h. Pruning must be limited. to 25 - 30°10 of the total canopies of both Trees #6 and 7. 2. In order to preserve the trees ai this site, I recommend that a Grading and Drainage Plan and an irrigation main line and lateral must be provided and reviewed by the City Arborist. 3. In order to preserve Trees # 1 and 2, I recommend that a detailed design be required to address the differences in grade on the north side of the trunks of these trees. This must be done without. significant root loss these two trees. I recommend that this detail design be reviewed by the City Arborist. 4. I recommend that Tree #3 be replaced. 5. I recommend that the demolition and removal of the deck adjacent to Tree #8 be done by hand. ~. I recommend that the demolition of the existing detached bedroom and the existing detached garage be removed without demolition equipment being operated inside the driplines of Trees #8-11. A backhoe may be used but the tractor must not enter the areas inside the driplines of these trees. 7, • I recommend that an ISA certified arborist be required as the "Project Arborist" to be on site to supervise the demolition of the structures, including the existing driveway, that exist inside the driplines of Trees #8- 11. Irecommend that the Project Arborist have the authority to supervise the demolition team in order to prevent significant damage to Trees #8-l 1. I further recommend that apre-construction meeting be required, and that the agenda include instructions to the contractors by the Project Arborist. 8. I recommend that construction period fencing be provided and located as noted on the attached map. Fencing must be of chainlink, a minimum height of 5 feet, mounted on steel posts driven 2 feet (minimum) into the ground. The fence must be in place prior to the amval of any other materials or equipment and must remain in place until all construction is completed and given final approval. The protective fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. The contractor(s) and the owner must be made aware that refund of tree protection bonds are based on the correct location and dedicated maintenance of these fences. 9. I recommend that the Landscape Plan be revised to include the following: a. Amain irrigation line must be installed against the footing of the building at the time that the footing is backfilled. After the building foundation is constructed, it will not be feasible to trench for a new irrigation line (or for any other purpose) without severe root damage to-Trees #l, 2, 5, 6, and 7. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BCNCN. CONSULTING ARBORIST NODEA~BER 27.100? :~QOtir~~ FSURYEY.9NDPRESERt%ATIONREC01-L~IE~~iI"IONSATTHEQIANPROPERTYId?61 SPRINGERA~~SARATOGA 5 THE b. Lawn must be a minimum of l2 feet from the trunks of Trees #9 and 10 and a minimiun of 8 feet from the trunks of Trees # 1 and 2. ' h the c. Plants planted inside the driplines of oak Trees #1, 2, 7, 9, and 10 must be compatible vv~t environmental and cultural requirements of the oak species indigenous to this area. A publication about plants compatible with California native oaks can be obtained from the California Oak Foundation, 1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland 94612. d. I recommend that imgation inside the driplines of oak trees must be a drip type only. e. Sprinkler irrigation must be designed not to strike the trunk of any tree on site. f. Landscape irrigation trenches (or any other excavations), inside the driplines of trees, must be no closer than 1 S times the trunk diameter, if the trenching direction is across the root zone. However, radial trenches (i.e., like the spokes of a wheel) maybe done closer if the trenches reach no closer than 5 times the trunk diameter to the tree's trunk,. and if the spokes are at least 10 feet apart at the perimeter. g. Landscape handscape constructed under the canopies of trees must be done completely on grade without excavation and without the severing of roots. h Bender board or similar edging material must not be used inside the driplines of existing trees, because its installation requires trenching of 4-6 inches, which may result in significant roof damage. i. Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bark, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be installed directly in contact with the bark of trees because of the risk of serious disease infection. 10. There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping inside the driplines of retained trees (either before or after the construction period fencing is installed or removed). Where this may conflict with drainage or other requirements, the city arbonst must be consulted Trenches for an utilities (gas, electricity, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be located outside the 11. y driplines of retained trees. For any tree where this cannot be achieved, I suggest that the city arbonst be consulted. 12. Any old imgation lines, sewer lines, drain lines, etc., under the canopies of the existing trees, if unused, must be cut off at grade and left in the ground 13. Supplemental irrigation must be provided to all retained trees during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1 inch of rainfall) during construction. Imgate with l0 gallons for each inch of trunk diameter every 2 weeks throughout the construction period. This can be achieved by the use of a simple soaker hose, which must be located near the dripline not wrapped around the trunk for the entire canopy circumference. 14. A fu114-inch layer of coarse of wood chips must be spread over the entire root zone of Tree #8, 9, and 10 immediately following demolition. Spreading of the chips must be done by hand 15. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped (even temporarily) under the canopies of trees. 16. Any pruning must be done by an ISA certified arbonst and according to ISA, Western Chapter Standards, 1998. 17. Materials or equipment must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped inside the driplines of trees, or buried on site. Any excess materials (including mortar, concrete, paint products, etc.) must be removed from site. ,~or~rrsER s~ ?ooi PREPARED BY: AI1CH.9EL L BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORISF ~~~'~~ ' 4261 SPRINGER Ati'ENUE S4RAT0GA 6 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMME,~7'IONS AT THE QIAN PROPERTt 1 6 and 7 ex sed by this excavation must be managed as follows: 3 inches in diameter or smaller may be severed, but they must be cut cleanly and seale to 18. Roots of Trees # p° int or by wrapping the cut a. Roots that are amtin the cut ends v~nth a l pa prevent drying out. This can be done by p g ends with plastic. Sealing must be done immediately following severing. is that are 4 inches or larger must not be severed In th de beam desf gn to d quately accommodate b. Roo a ier and on-gra on the North side must be constructed by p sion growth for many years. the large roots, which must include annual expan Value Assessment The values of the trees are addressed according to ISA standards, Seventh Edition value of $397, which is equivalent to one 24 inch boxed native specimen A replacement is Tree #3 has a suggested. the trees is $32,694. I suggest a bond equal to 50% ($16,347) of the total value of the The combined value of trees that will be retained to assure their protection Acceptable native tree replacements are: Coast live oak-Quercus agrifolia Valley oak -Quercus lobata Big leaf maple - Acer macrophyll um California buckeye -,gesculus californica Coast Redwood -Sequoia sempervirens MLB/sl.. Enclosures: Glossary of Terms Tree Data Accumulation Chartsand After Construction Tree Protection Before, During Protective Fencing ies Radial Trenching Beneath Tree Canop Platform Buffer Map PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH. CONSUL77NG ARBORIST Respectfully submitted, ~iit~' ~~ Ba oate, Princi NOVE~1dB):R 27, 2001 ~~~~~5 E D. CO~ AND ASSOCIATES • BARRI Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 GLOSSARY Co-dominant (stems, branches) equal in size and relative importance, usually associated with either the trunks or stems, or scaffold limbs (branches) in the crown. Crown -The portion of a tree above the trunk including the branches and foliage. Cultivar - A named plant selection from which identical or nearly identical plants can be produced, usually by vegetative propagation or cloning... Recurrent - A term used to describe a mature tree crown composed of branches lacking a central leader resulting in around-headed tree. Eecurrent - A term used to describe a tree crown in which ease n Tenn h upward fromethe base. the top of a tree with lateral branches that progressively d ~ Girdling root - A root that partially owardrmovement of phot°syntha~esr large buttress roots,- which could restrict growth and down Included bark -Bark which is entrapped in narrow-angled attachments of two or more stems, branches, or a stem and branch(es). Such attachments are weakly attached and subject to splitting out. bent and can cause plant instability Kinked root - A taproot or a major root(s) which is sharply and reduction of movement of water, nutrients, and photosynthates. Root collar -The flared, lower portion of the base of a tree where the roots and stem merge. Also referred to as the "root crown". Leader -The main stem or trunk that forms the apex of the tree. Stem -The axis (trunk of a central Leader tree) of a plant on which branches are attached. Temporary branches - A small branch on the trunk or b~hese bin ches are kept sm 11 and shade, nourish, and protect the trunk of small young trees. gradually removed as the trunk develops. Definition of Woody Parts Trunk -The main stem of a tree between the ground and the lowest scaffold branch. Scaffold branches - In decurrent trees, the branches that form the main structure of the crown. Limb - A major structural part. Branch - A smaller part, attached to a limb or scaffold branch. Brancblet- A small part, attached to a branch. ~~ 'Twig -Avery small-part attached to a branch]et. Leaf -The main photosynthetic organ of most. plants. ~~~~;~~s # 10-99-22 .. .' Job 61 S rin er Ave. 11.27.02 Job Title: Qian BA~RIE U. COATE and ASSOCIATES (4081353.1052 335355a~~RR"ad Iastile~,U !9030 Key f7 Pfartl Name 1 Coast Live Oak Ouercua a ritoGa 2 Coast Live Oak 3 Siberian Elm Ulmus ils 4 Bi Leal Ma Ie Ater mac lum 5 Euro an Olive Oise e Q Eu n Olive 7 Coast Live Oak `. (~_ N Job Address: 142 p g Condtuon - _ ~ j ~ Measurements I 1 ~ v> , l j I ~ I - I j _ ` j { j j j G j l j o j I I ~ i = _ --; j ~ w i N j E j j j s l I ~ } y j~ I j j f ~ j ~.~ I I z I I -- j I I ~' l~ ~a f i t m j = j j~ ~11' j j F j I C=7 Vi a= ~ s~ j~~ ~ j~ 0 j N~ 8 ~° i j i i F- ; I I i i Li b, (~ j qQ l~ l l~ 1 0 1 K S O j ~~ y j~ i~ ~' j~ i Q a °' l l j w j~ j F I O Z j z 1 0 I z ~ s j 'L I O_ F ''' i¢ I j ~ m f z n. > I ~ ~ w I j~ l ~ i F ~ Z_ j y~ in l d j w= ~ ~~~ j O l uvi j ~ j ~ ¢~ w~~ ~ .g ; j~ i r? 1 w z j ~ I w ~ I w i z ~ O it I~ l O l U l U y y f > I _ j I o! ~ I~ 1 0 1~ U j~ j~ 3 j ; y I z ~ j O j I Z i F j Fp- o W f ~ o j y i ~ j~ ~~~ i V 0 F l~ ~ j~ l~ j~ j 0 l ~ j Z w l w l o~~ j j 0 W w l w ~~ % j j w ~ j ~ f 7 Z O j~ l O j ~, ~ w j m¢ j a ? j jY ! O I~ f~ Z I z~ ' ~ m j~ m j m j~ _; N .~ ~~ i V f V{ V i O I U i ~' I V; i j j O O ~ ~ I I ~ i p ~ I I ~ j ~ j ' I 715. 1 1 2 1 3 f I j f I ~ ~ I 13.0 j 14 35 f I I ' I $ ° $ X loe. 60% 1 934 I ~ 3 224 I X cond. 9096 Total Value X 527/ ^. in• : $ 3.582 X sp. class 10096 53.582 -- ~ 133 ~ I , j ; _ ; I I I I ~ . ' 117~35j 25 1~ 2 j 3 i I j I j l 14.0 ~ I I I ~ X loc. 60% * $ 2 243 l ~ 9096 = $ 3'~ I X end - Total Value X 5271sq. in. _ $ 4.154 X s .class 10096 $4154 n 154 ; i f 1 I I!'? I l l! i ' ' I ' 26 I l l 60 j 1 1 4 j 5 I j I i i i 25.0 j ' ~ l I I I i ~ I * $ 397 l I j j ~ 795 X IOC. 5096 X cond. 60% 5 Total Value * 13,247 X sp class 1096 * $1.325 - in 491 X $271 s,"i• in• s ' ____ I I j j j ' 2 l a j I. _ ~ _ ~ I ~ I I j 2 j 8.0 i X j 7.0 , 11 ~ ~ ~ I ~ 75% i 419 X loc. 6096 ° $ 252 ' X ~• Total Value X 527Is:, to * S 1.863 X s .class 3096 * 5559 ,In. ~ ~ l = I ~ ~ j - ~ I I j ~ I j I j ~ ~ I ~ , 10.0; x 17.0 7.0= 15 i 30 ~ 20 1 .3 4 j I i I l j I _ X loc. 60% $ 1 279 ' X end, 7596 * S 2.132 ' 3.159. X sP class 9096 ~ i2.~ - Total Value .fl n 1~-~ Y t~7ise in * S l ~ ' i j } } ~ ~ j ' I 16.0 ~ j i 19 30 j 30 1 1 2 3 j ' j ~ , j ~ I ' . X toc. 6096 * 5 2637 X cond. 90% * 5 4 ~' 5,426 X sp class 9096 54.ea3 - Total Value q. in 201 X i27/sq. in. * S I I: I j I 25 1 j y j 3 j ~ l I f ' i 112 i ~ 1 11.0 ~ j I I ' I X loc. 7096 5 1 616 ' ~ X O°~ ~' ~ 5 2.~ Tolal Value X sp class 100% * 52.E - p. in 95 X S27Isq. in. * S 2.~5 REPL~-CEMENT TREE V ALUES 5-gal - S~- 15-gal - S12o _.~.. -- _ e+ ~eA • 1 ~ BEST, 5 - WOKS? Pale 1 o+f 2 Job Title: Qian Job Address: 14261 Sgringer Ave. job # 10-99-247-02 11.27.02 Condition I , , I = ; 3 Measurements ~ I i t , i , , 1 i i i ! , fn, , I i 0(~ ' ( J ~ i , , I , i i i ~ i W ; ~ ! a' ~ ~ I ' 7 ~ , , ~ ~. i$ ~ ! i ! i v ; ~ ~ `~ 1 BARRIE D. COATS ' ` _ ' ~ ` ' ` Z i il, _ i ~ i ~ i ( i ~ ~ ~ i a! s O _ i ~ o(o ~ ( i i F.. ( ( i O i~ (7 { O i l 1 t~ ~ ~ _ ' W ' , Z i Z I Z I~ 1 0' S i W'~ i p i~ i} K I ~ i~~ O a and ASSOCIATES ~ -- ! ~ j m ( ; ( 1 w ; ; ~ ( F ~ Z _ _ q 4 > , ' , i LL i , ~ i Z ~' Z { O! N!~ i W( ~ `r.' i~ p i U , j i j Q i K ~ W d O rn S f = V V N( N O O 13575 sos.i React i ' ' _ I ~ ~ ( 0 1 Z .. ! ~ tQ~ Y ' S F- O ' y l ( 2W' { ~ i I i~ ( i W i Z U i° i 0 Z 1~ W i p U tA6 Ciitlf,U ~ ~ ( Y. i i ( F t- I O ~ 1 (~ , O i ~ { ~ ' ! ~ I ~ , lb i ~ y ' W ; Q ' ~ ; g i g W i W ~ i~ l i ' W p i~ J' 7' Z i ° I~ i K i 2' i W i a i d Z i~; O i iY i R' i K Z i Z ; ~ i U ' ~ ' ~ ~ ; ~ ' O U Plant Neme O ~ , O . O f ~ _ ; rn = , ~ ; U U 1 U i U t ' ; Key, '25.0!21\1x 67 I ~ i 26.0 ; z ; ~ ' g ' Coast Redwood ( X loc. 70% = S 15 d01 { i { X coed; 90% _ S 22 001 uoie sem rvlr9ris X s .,class 90% ^ S24 446 Totei Value .in 1006 X 527/sq.in.= S 27,162 ~ ; I ( , I { ( ~ { i 15 ' 35 135 1 1 2 1 3 1 ( g Coast live Oak 12.0 ! ! ! ; ( 1 i ( i 2 747 X loc. 70% = S 1 923 I X cond• ~~D = Total Value X 527/sq in = Z 3,052 X s .class 100% ^ S3 ~`7 , ; .ln 113 ~ i ! ~ i I i , 1 i { i , ' { { ; 20 i 35 i 40 1 ( 2 ~ 3 ~ ' 10 t;,oest Live Oalc 19.0 ( ( ; ~ i ' ' ~ X toe. 70% = S 4 820 ' ~ , , X ~nd• ~~' ' S 6886 Total Value X i27fsq in. _ ; 7,651 X s .class. 100% S7 651 . in 263 I i ~ ( ! i ' 70 , i i ! 8~ 15 i 15 1 i 2 ( 3( ~ i ' I ; 841 X Ix. 70% 11 'Chinese Pislache { ~ i ~ ' s ~ X cond. 90% ° ; ToMI Value Pistacta chinensis X s .class 90% i~5 I . in 38.5 X >j27/ . in. _ . 1 ~ ~; , (~ REPLACEMENT'TREEVALUSS S.gal = 15-gal ~ $120 24»~ 36"box ~ $1,320 g8"box ^ ~ SZ"box' S7-~ • 1. BEST, 5 ~ WORST ~2of2 r f ~. ~- - t' ort I~AI2RIE 1). C:UA7'I: AND ASSOCIA"I'I?S 23535 Summit Rd I.os Gatos, Ca 95030 (408)353-1052 Horticultural Consultants Consulting Arborists Protective Fencing Con5lruclion period protection for Trees should be provided before grading or other equipment is allowed on the property. a ~ • ~. ~ •.` ~ t ~ -` . ~~ -~ _~~_ ~' ~=- .s i ' ~ ~`. Tov of fence hun¢ with fluorescent fla8gine tape t r t every 10 feet. r ~ t r- 6' chain link or welded wire t mesh ^ - ~ t 8' fence post of 2" diameter ~ ~ ~ GI pipe or T-ankle post ' .S ~ _ 1 Fence p?.aced at drip line ~~ r~t"~t or 50% greater than the tree r ~7`~~~- canopy radius c~t-ere possible, Foadway When construction is to take place beneath a tree canopy on one side, the fence should be sited 2-3 feet beyond that construction but between construction and the tree trunk. r•~nce/ 't si t inf. ~ ~~ y - ~~?~_ If construction or paving :is to take place throughout the area beneath the canopy and dripline fencing is not practical, snow fencing should be used to protect trunks from damage • Three layers of wire and lath snow fencin~\ ~ __ 1 to 8' above ground on ~I r,~ ~,r ~" trees where construction r'' i~r QQr will take place beneath ~ ~ p i~~ ~~~ the canopy ,,. ~, ,~_.__~, J.. W~ TES. BARRIE D. C~E AND ASSOCIA Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 TREE PROTECTION BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION These are general recommendations And may be superseded by site-specific instructions BEFORE Plan location of trenching to avoid all possible cuts beneath tree canopies. This includes trenches for utilities, imgatiori lines, cable TV and roof drains. Plan construction period fence locations which will prevent equipment travel or material storage beneath tree canopies. Install fences before any construction related equipment is allowed on site. This includes pickup trucks. Inform subcontractors in writing that they must read this document. Require return, of signed copies to demonstrate that they have read the document. Prune any tree parts, which conflict with construction between August and January. Except for pines which may be pruned betty used fo~his work. If li~mbl s a elm onfl~ with the~~ ~mg ISA pruning instructions maybe construction equipment before the certified arborist is on-site, carpenters may cut off offending parts of 6" diameter or less, leaving an 18"long stub, which should be re-cut later by the arbori'st. Under no circumstances may any party remove more than 30% of a trees foliage, or prune so that an unbalanced canopy is created. DURING Avoid use of any wheeled equipment beneath tree canopies. Maintain fences at original location in vertical, undamaged condition until all contractors and subcontractors, including painters are gone. Clear root col]ars of retained trees enough to leave 5-6 buttress roots bases visible at 12" from the trunk. ) PP Y Irrigate trees adjacent to construction activity during hot months (June-October . A 1 10 gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter (measured at 4 '/s') once per 2week-period by soaker hose. Apply water at the dripline, or adjacent to construction not around the trunk. Apply mulch to make a 3 deep layer in all areas beneath tree canopies and inside fences. Any organic material which is non toxic may be used. AFTER Irrigate monthly with 10 gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter with a soaker hose, placed just inside the dripline. Continue until 8" of rain has fallen. Avoid cutting imgation trenches beneath tree canopies: Avoid rbiotilling beneath tree canopies since that will destroy the small surface roots which absorb water. Avoid installation of turf or other frequently imgated plants beneath tree canopies. • Barrie D. Coate - ~..~ " Fr Associates "`~-'. ~ -.l~~'' D '- \ _ _ r~P Line _ . r (408) 353-1052 ~'.-_;__,~. ~~ ~ j ._ ._. ...~~ 23535.Summit Road The Do's and Don'ts of Irrigation /-.--~--'::..~.~~:=~',_s~- ~ J =`--~>-~ Los Gatos, CA 95033 ~ ~~~ 1=-='""- ~ .. •' _ - j.. - _ _ ~RTICl1LTURAL CONSULTANTS Certified Consulting Arborist ~~ =''` --.~.-;~ Shallow y~;=:-:J=_~""- ...~-~ absorbing = n Zone ~ ~f -~ ' j p ~ -~ root ti s .. - - Root Protectio :~ _ _ _ - ~---.. =-;:^ ::-~ 1'/~ times the Dripline ,,~ ,_._. :- ,, "~~~_~:~~"": =~-==~~-- ..,.,_r .,~,~__.:~ Diameter •_:: :.~. -,~-,~Y ~. ~",,..._.._-_ aih~~~~j-~ _- _ 5 times trunk diameter z-.....~. .-: ~~-~- ~- _ ,~ `~ . hopes ~ ._ ~ . _- ..- ~ ....,:~~.~ ~-:~~ - :~ _ kay aka ~~;~~•`. `~~".. _-~i_~_'.'`.^=-~::-;~. ~' hes deep Irrigation lateral lines may be installed (12-inches deep) in hand dug trenches in areas containing shallow absorbing roots if the trenches are at right angles to the trunk as opposed to cutting across the root mass area. Mainlines (18-inches deep) must be installed outside Of the root protection zone. In no case may sprinklers wet the area within 5 times the trunk diameter of the trunk. ~.;~ `_ C.3 . N Tre-lching Beneath Tree Canopies ~; _ _ --'~ -~~'_ - ~, ~,.,,,._,.. - "=~" s Lateral line 12--nc ," .• ;. r ' " . , . ;: .. 10 i ~-~ S ~ ~ ~~ I (10 & 1DR01 o H uyortDl i ~/~1~ ' Ilr- t ~ J' C I ~ ~NB~ ~ •I 1 u~ ~~ ~_, bb~~~ • I 1 1 I ----? t_~ 7 ~ ~® ___. ~ SPRINGER AVE. (q mG - EXISTING SITE PLAN OS Tree Survey and pre~c,.rvation Rccommendatio~u at the BARRIE D. COATS Q,anproperty, 14267Springer Ave. Saratoga v and ASSOCIATES ~~~J/j/d ,40813591054 Prepared for: ~`T q?l3lSmmi Wl a ~.u lsme City of Saratoga, Planning Department HORTlCl7LTURAL CONSULTANT Date: November 27 2002 rnratn.TING ARBOR]ST lob ~ ]0-99-247-02 1 1 1~ 1 M01/Y l 1 ~'. ~I~ • •i i. i• i• tN) SMµL SCE CIOVCaING iF tP.~.wf '1tr~u++r .rs ICALC ~ INRW Vµk V~+ VµkV~T ONt $PR1NO[R Pve • ~N[v c Tt orw + s .raw rn cn+ s).Nwau k).c Na Mpf[Cra k91Li: tU CDGC STQCCT r~v[N[N7 ~ E C E 1 Y E tktk[ fakt SWUD et luttx I(01 [0 c.tl tt t/FIN .n)w M dOrn ar s NOV f 5 2002 txarNC mtts ro xNw. S/IC( i-0' M. SWaGY+uNC I~AW bl 10 OP[Mit [IIUGU[Ifl d Sa)R 1111Y YYNIIA ~'Q'" "` `"°'N y`"" PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN 01 "'""~+""'~ Tree Survey and Preservation Recomrnendations at the BARRIE D. COATS QianProperty, 1~261Springer Ave..Sarato~ r and ASSOCIATES 1~ Natss~ta6t Prepared for: 33535 Sunni ctrl to Grid,u BS000 City of Saratoga,.Planning Department HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANT Date: November 27 2002 ---- 'v ~ ~./ r.J~ ~V • Attachment 4 • s0®~~~ • SARATOGA FIRE 408 867 2780 SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT REVIEW AND COM119ENTS FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT 06!28/02 12:27pm P. 002 • /A means NOT APPLICABLE #: 02-121 DATE: June 28, 2002 # OF LOTS: ONE QIAN/YANG LOCATION: 14261 SPRINGER AVENUE 1: Water supply and access for fire protection are acceptable. 2: Property is located in a designated hazardous fire area. 3: Plans checked for weed/brush abatement accessibility. 4: Roof covering shall be fue retardant, Uniform Building Code Class A prepared or built-up roofing. Re-roofing less than 10% shall be exempt. (Ref. Uniform Fire Code Appendix 3, City of Saratoga Code 16-20:210.) 5: Early Warning Fire Alarm System Sliall be installed and maintained in accordance.wi.th the provisions, city of Saratoga Code Article 16-b0. (Alternative requirements, sprinkler systems, 16-60-E.) • 6: Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. . 7: Automatic sprinklers shall. be installed in newly constructed attached/detached garages (2 heads per stall), workshops, or storage areas which are not constructed as habitable space. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. The designer/architect is to contact San Jose Water company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. (City of Saratoga Code 16-15.090 [I]) 8: All fire hydrants shall be located within 500' from the residence and deliver no less than 1000 gallons/minute of water for a sustained period of 2 hours. (City of Saratoga Code 14-30:040 [C]) 9: Automatic sprinklers are required for the new sq. ft. residential dwelling. A 4-head calculated 13R sprinkler system is required. Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. The sprinkler system must be installed by a licensed contractor. gian•14261 springer av.wpd `~;~0~ ~S SARATOGA FIRE 408 867 2780 • 2 -Building Site. Appxoval Check List #: 42-121 N/A 10: Fire hydrants: developer shall install flre hydrant(s) that meet the fire district's specifications. Hydrant(s) shall be installed and accepted. prior to construction of any building. N/A 11: Driveways: All driveways shall have a 14' minimum with plus 1' shoulders.. Secondary Access not required a A: Slopes from 0% to 11% shall use a double seal coat of 0 & S or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. B: Slopes from 11% to 15% shall be surfaced using 2.5" of A.C.. or better on a 6" aggregate . base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. C: Slopes from 15% to 17% shall be surfaced using a 4" PCC concrete rough surfaced on a 4" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling D: Curves: Driveway shall have a minimum inside radius of 21'. E: Turnouts; Construct a passing turnout 10' wide and 44' long as required by the fire district. Details shall be shown on building plans. N/A 12: Turn-arounds: construct aturn-around at the proposed dwelling site having a 33' outside radius. Other approved types must meet the requirements of the fire district. Details shall be shown on the building plans and approved by the fire district. N/A 13: p~~ng; provide a parking area for two emergency vehicles at the proposed dwelling site or as required by the fire district. Details shall be shown on building plans. N/A 14: Security Gate: Gate width shall not be less than 14'. Gate access shall be through a Medeco lock box purchased from the fire department. ,Details shall be shown on building plans. l~'/A 15: Bridges: All bridges and roadways s11all be designed to sustain 35,000 pounds dynamic loading. PROVED ~% /~'`~ ~ CE-~'2~ FC,ZA-cc,(~ r,r_ ~ _ r r. _.._ ,.,.+ V...,,,1 e 06!28!02 12:27pm P. 003 • • gian-14261 springer av.wQd R Attachment 5 • DR. Windshield Survey of One and Two Story Residences in the Project Vicinity Project Site 14261 Springer Ave ~• ~ ~~ / • ~ ~ y F ~ • :~ ~. `"~' s,A ~ ~~ ~ ~~' ~~~ w ~ z Legend ~ Existing One-Story Residences ~ Existing Two-Story Residences ~~ 10 0 10 00 et ~/ , w • Attachment 6 • THE HOME PLAN HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE NEIGHBORHOODS BELOW: cn~~ 0 ~~ . ~~ O NAME ADDRESS REMARKS ~~NwAa~ ~~ i~r.~~-~ ~'~~~~~~._. ' _ .--mac a `z~ ~-~ .. _ - - -- - -- - - -- . - - ~ --~~ ~R~ -- .. _~_ ._-._ . ~--- . Q~~~-~' ~--sue-- li ~ .ACM ~nr rat. _,J_~ I_Nl ~? ~? 5 a_ ~~~ ~ n,-~ ~_~__ . ~-tt~ - -- -- --._ ---- . --- -- ___ . ~ - - ~° _ _ - ----- - - -- ----- -- -- ---- _ _. __ ._... _ __ .. t ~ ~~ . _ _ .._ . I- -- . _._. --- ..- - - - - ~- -- -~------ -------.. --...._ _ _ _._ __ -- :_ ~~-:i • • • Attachment 7 • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES • STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) ~ S bein dul sworn de oses and sa s: that I am a I, ~ g Y ~ P Y citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the a~l~ ~ day of 2003, that I deposited in the United States Post Office within Santa Clara County, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to-wit: (Sec list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing pursuant to Section 15-45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the rnost recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property to be affected by the application; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. Signed • • • Attachment 8 r~ :~ ~ ®~. `3a.3 SHARON F HEDDEN Or Current Owner 20820 CANYON VIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070 YASHVANT J & VARSHA PATEL Or Current Owner 20685 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070 JOHN R & HELEN KAHLE Or Current Owner 20601 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 EVELYN A JOHNSTON Or Current Owner PO BOX 53 SARATOGA CA 95071 JAMES P & BACHTOLD RENALDS Or Current Owner 20640 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070 STANLEY F & SALLY PERRY MARTY & EMIL;IA CASSERLY Or Current Owner Or Current Owner 20810 CANYON VIEW DR 20800 CANYON VIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 GARY L CAMPBELL Or Current Owner 20731 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070 IVAN & ANGELA BURGOS Or Current Owner 14265 BURNS WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 JOHNSTON Or Current Owner 20611 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 LOGAN S & AMOS DEIMLER Or Current Owner 14320 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 SONNY C & HO NG Or Current Owner 20650 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070 MEHDI & FATEMEH SHAHBAZI JON M & DEMETRIA SCOTT Or Current Owner Or Current Owner 14231 BURNS WAY 14256 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARNA Or Current Owner 14224 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 BELSHAW Or Current Owner 14240 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 HOWARD F & CATHERINE EARHART Or Current Owner 20680 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner RODOLFO & GLORIA RUANO Or Current Owner 14370 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 DAVID S & SANDRA WILSON Or Current Owner 20678 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner CYNTHENY A KEMP Or Current Owner 14362 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 SAR.ANGAN & LAKSHMI RANGACHARI Or Current Owner 20613 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 DAVID H & ELIZABETH HORN Or Current Owner 20646 MARION, RD SARATOGA CA 95070 KURT & BARBARA VOESTER Or Current Owner 14251 BURNS WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 TMAN KET Or Current Owner 14250 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 MICHAEL & CAROL MAULDIN Or Current Owner 15345 BOHLMAN RD SARATOGA CA 95070 DAVID JOHNSTON Or Current Owner 20616 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 CLAUDETTE R FORD Or Current Owner 524 24TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94121 SARATOGA CITY OF Or Current Owner WILDWOOD WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 ~Q~~'~~ Or Current Owner • SHUN W & JANE QUON Or Current Owner 14330 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 MCBRIARTY-PINTO Or Current Owner 1340 S DE ANZA BLVD 201 SAN JOSE CA 95129 CAPPUCCI Or Current Owner 1764 WOODEN VALLEY RD NAPA CA 94558 GARY L CAMPBELL Or Current Owner 20731 MARION RD S TOGA CA 95070 L TA COOK Or Current Owner 14241 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 ROBERT W & KAREN KING Or Current Owner 14271 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 ARIC J & CLAIRE KAZARNOVSKY Or Current Owner 14301 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner CARTMELL Current Owner 14350 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 LLOYD G STEPHENS Or Current Owner 14350 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 CHESTER J STANARO Or Current Owner 14320 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 PRISCILLA F & DONALD POOLE Or Current Owner YIT-SUN A & TSANG WU Or Current Owner 14270 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 TERRY F & PAMELA MULLEN Or Current Owner 14240 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 NIKOLAJS & VIKTORS JANSONS Or Current Owner 123 NEW YORK AVE LOS GATOS CA 9503.0 MCCABE Or Current Owner 23 GLADEVIEW WAY SAN FRANCISCO CA 94131 TAT C & TINA CHOI Or Current Owner 14281 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 ROBERT & SHIRLEY CANCELLIERI Or Current Owner 14860 CODY LN SARATOGA CA 95070 JAMES J POLCYN Or Current Owner 14365 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 JOHN F & ANNE MEHAFFEY Or Current Owner 14340 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 14340 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 JAMES L HESTER Or Current Owner 14310 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 CARY J & JUNO LIN Or Current Owner 12062 JAMESTOWN CT SARATOGA CA 95070 ALEXANDER L IGNACIO Or Current Owner 14230 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 BARRIER & RAVI NOVAK Or Current Owner 14231 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 DAL S OH Or Current Owner 14261 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 AMIN R & NARJES GHAFOURI Or Current Owner 14291 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 BRUCE N & ROBERTA MARSHALL Or Current Owner 14341 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 ZHAOQING & MUZHI MA Or Current Owner 14360 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 GARY M NISHIMOTO Or Current Owner 14330 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 :.s~~~.>'~5 TIBOR & BIELSKI SZALAY EDWARD Y & TEHCHI CHIEN MARYANNE NOLA Or Current Owner Or Current Owner Or Current Owner 14328 PAUL AVE 14314 PAUL AVE 14300 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 TIBOR T SZALAY Or Current Owner 14290 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 JOSEPH L & MARIA KOVACS Or Current Owner 14280 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 DAVID & DELEEUW HUANG Or Current Owner. 1836 PORT STIRLING PL NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 MEI-SHIO LU Or Current Owner 14260 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 FELIX & ISABELLA MARKIiOV SKY Or Current Owner 14250 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 PAUL & PAMELA MCDONALD ANTHONY L & LINDA CLARK Or Current Owner Or Current Owner 14231 SPRINGER AVE PO BOX 81 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95071 HAO & YANG QIAN Or Current Owner 14261 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 SPARACINO Or Current Owner 14325 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 DONALD M & RUTH SCHWARTZ Or Current Owner 14271 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 SAMUEL T & AIDA SCOTT Or Current Owner 922 BICKNELL RD LOS GATOS CA 95030 RICHAD & SUZAN DEIGNAN Or Current Owner 14291 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 BAUER Or Current Owner 14288 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 TR KRAFT Or Current Owner 14299 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 POUTRE Or Current Owner 14360 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 JAMES F & ELAINE TENNYSON JIE & QING CHEN Or Current Owner Or Current Owner 14315 SPRINGER AVE 14230 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 BEVERL~i' A SLAVIN Or Current Owner 14305 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 TOOYSERKANI Or Current Owner ' 14315 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 PAUL & PAMELA MCDONALD Or Current Owner 14231 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 RONALD P & YOLANDA MARTIN Or Current Owner 14251 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 SPARACINO Or Current Owner 14325 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 ROBERT L WEINMANN Or Current Owner 14371 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 JAMES R & J ARENA Or Current Owner 14294 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 ST NICHOLAS RUSSIAN ORTHODOX GR Or Current Owner 14220 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 FRANK J FRIEDRICH Or Current Owner 14220 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner '~Q®~~f 4 (Q p16tR0 fOR td N Ir E ~„~- ~___ r__~ s ~I~ I O1tSt UE OIf 1171 A ii. I I ~ r-__~ I I R a 7BC1® I 0 1 $,`~ I ~ ~ -~-, I>~ o« I S6 ". I ? m ec 1R1oAe ,. I tr-u s r ra r a I I I h 0 ~'-3 I 11'-101/! mlC ~m i(7~. R 7E RYam O MIIW 011 • A E~ ~, T R '0 mat Q~et 0 maT OE ON (q txat4r ~ T a aln 0 1EOeo1's RIS ~~~ 0o roamo c 4TER ORAONOE PlAlI W O~Fg 4400[ 0 an c vo auu Plnvm4aG Oivul n 9(rcutlr v 00 SMALL ; EVFAGAQ4 ICI xt PEAII eAVnnn+ NT PEAR arllam s~ d 9 -ao coG VALKVAY E7oec a1E sluuu a tg71 nor m OOMO RE FN01 ZION PE OE711 6 ILL F7671C 11~$ W ROWL IpME 1'd k AROMA BwFN t IOr W 09RE 0111fl0 QI 310E YNWlS rAN OE O70N SARD O M 11F[. ~l ((~ V ~i I./~ y ~~ ~yc~ II /~ W 0 2 a a W EVEnCAE01 OAtA A:R:E11 ABIOS 0 0 m47IAE OW Oppt{~ Ot91 m4r On .p __'__ ~ ~ LOG vAI.KYAY (Q PA7RAIY F010: IOm ROEi RMO I ~ ~B f~r'~ [_ E 400+40 IE4' WPIE 1.. •.• ~ BC IFIf nY1E r~--r--~ tq wsa AIAa pOM1¢ .p Qn uvn p ~ d_•% -~ - _ "~~ .. , ~- cz, } ... u --~-~-- ~~ or s Is 77 r mtirmwrt ~ ~`:, _s 1a ~6' ~,^`-~ ~ OrntE ~rraAnt-"~..~rj- I L~ U ~ f bB ,. SPRINGER A~• Iq m¢ s71m PAA7Rrt pVE, i SPRINGER ~ ~OSNd1~OWASi1N0VA~ffi m EOff STREET PAVEMENT EAEO !Ot 01Y RYp ~. EXISTING SITE PLAN ~~ PROPOSED SITE PLAN ~~ PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN ~~ lc1L[ 1/f•t'-P !c[t[: t/f•t'-f !c1[[: t/f.t'-f ~~~ ~-1~~ FIRST FLOOR PLAN ~~ RPk sm-n-am o.,>z ,~ ~ ~. iu otoeoR xx m nt: ~ aP rRaRn wus a fOAFR uE a OVNC p~ a~ais ~ ter 56 Pr. utPS RortD anPSS PROPOSED Rt7RMO115 SIA6RCE iba 56 FT. f7Oi1N0 t Idl aRNE PAtk 3fl3 F#OF[1SFD P[Sf f1O0X i&s 50. FL PROPOSED SEDOID FlDOR ~_ 56 R. 14 t iMD FIDOA mGY: 7d1 56 ft. N0164D 8141~1f ~ ~ SO fT. BASEMENT FLOOR AREA = 1,349 S0. Fi. aDOR R-~ aim ~as '~' ~" nx aP mmRU~Rae ao~Pwcr y~,_ ~_____ mac otinsr: Ptif sPntRatR S131EY n-,. ,omA ~. BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN ~~ [[~[[~i/r•r-v Q 0~ w 0 z ~'~ ~ , ~' tam ice arc Rdp tlYMt6 ODL SFPI-RV-LIPQ i --- ~ ----- -, ~ ~ - I ~ I '~ I l1~ I ' ~ ~ I ~ I I i I I E I I I I ~ $ I ~ I r I ~ ~ h Ih11 i I I ~ k I I ~ ~ } I I 1 I Z . ~I ~ ra I -I I I I q~q m 9URA I I I _ __ ~~Q~ -_ ® 1 1/ I I I q q '- • i1 ~ j I I I ~ q' m [ [ ~ ~ < ~ I° I I I I I n I I I ~~~ o I I I IUI A6m I ° ~ I n [ b a ~ I 11 I .. 1 ~ _ I I ~ ~ q q b l 1 I I . ~ sx.q[mm 1 I L ~ ~Q ~ I t ~ ____ _________ ~ I '[ I T E ' I ~ ~ ~ I O ~. I ~ 4 ' OPBI ff101' b I 1 I ~' I q I I t q. - b I ~ -III I I M I ~ ~• I I I ?-91 ~ I ld ~ I I I ? _~ r I b .` ; ,~ ~' II ~ o ' ~ ~ l I I I I I - ~ I I NUFR t OOIN H I ~~~. 2 a ~, ([i M ~, FI :I W 0 Z a W ~~ ~~ i ROOF PLAN ~~ SECOND FLOOR PLAN ;' ~~ t[~~[ i I/P-P-r [[~[[ ~ i/a.n-C ORrNO CUE 4P1-241002 SECOND FLOOR AREA = 962 SO. FT. ' i i ~ ~ tlFMllE' 11E RJOfAG-iF1Al OW0. FlAAFD (]tJ10) (~IP019Ad19ME A6 AS UPI1d1VJ PMII® N1WY ^CG/ 51'1181 AIIX CEM 9A6 1'X 1'11105111Cil1 Tl6 MYI BICC SRC9-AYAfD "5Y65101E QTLY YOORE Wt-1) 6S AS ~IdYl RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION ~~ b L^~_I 1nnY ~! ~ . O Z ~ wx rn 1~ew REAR ELEVATION ~~ LEFT SITE ELEVATION ~~ ~- Itltt:~/Y•1'-C It Alf:1/1••p-d ~ ~~~ I c ~>1~ ~ ~u ~~~~~~~ ~• z P n1c sn>on ma °"'°"~,: ~~, ~~~~~ FRONT ELEVATION SOLAR STUDY ~~ a 71 1 i ra' KITCHEN ELEVATION CCllf ~ 1/p•1'-P 6d W '~ ~ _, f-~~._ J ~ / glpBl STAIRS /BALCONY ELEVATION ~~ .olu ii/p.r_p f-3 ~~ C ~~ I I LIVING ROOM ELEVATION ~~ ICAIt a i/C•I'-p ~~. n nU g Fzmu `.' U 0 z d mim Fce arc ~ oawis ~ sir-:tip MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 15, 2003 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Open Session in the Administrative Conference Room at 5:00 p.m. to interview applicants for the Finance Commission. The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Closed Session, Administrative Conference Room 13777 Fruitvale Avenue at 5:15 p.m. Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Gov't Code 54957) Title: City Attorney Conference with Legal Counsel -Threatened litigation (Gov't Code 54956.9(b): (1 potential case) Initiation of litigation (Gov't Code section 54956.9(c): (2 potential cases). Conference With Legal Counsel -Existing Litigation (2 cases) (Government Code section 54956.9(a)) Name of case: City of Saratoga v. West Valley-Mission Community College District (California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District No. H022365) Name of case: Gen-Con (United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 02-53885JRG) MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 p.m. Mayor Streit reported there was Council discussion but no action was taken. Mayor Streit noted that Vice Mayor Waltonsmith attended Closed Session, but went home ill. Mayor Streit called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. and lead the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Stan Bogosian, Kathleen King, Norman Kline, Mayor Nick Streit ABSENT: Vice Mayor Ann Waltonsmith ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Jesse Baloca, Administrative Services Director Steve Prosser, Community Service Officer REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR JANUARY 15 2003 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of January 15, 2003 was properly posted on January 10, 2003. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The following person requested to speak at tonight's meeting: Cheriel Jensen, 13737 Quito Road, pointed out a hazardous condition that exists on the property located at 13715 Quito Road. Ms. Jensen explained that the owner of the property has erected a fence that blocks her view when she exists her driveway. Ms. Jensen also noted that her neighbors on the south side are also impacted. Ms. Jensen noted that people trying to walk or bicycle on Quito Road are also being placed at risk by parking on the public path and bicycle lane and the loss of width of the path. COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF Councilmember Kline requested that the Council direct staff to investigate the situation that Ms. Jensen brought up and report back to Council. Consensus of the City Council to support Councilmember Kline's request. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Streit announced that the On February 9, 2003 the ]Heritage Preservation Commission is having their 2na Annual Mustard Walk. Mayor Streit added that this year's event would be co-sponsored by the Historical Society and the Arts Commission. CEREMONIAL ITEMS None SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS lA. LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES GRASSROOTS NETWORK COORDINATOR REBECCA ELLIOTT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Information only. Rebecca Elliott was unable to attend tonight's meeting. 2 1B. 211 IMPLEMENTATION AND REFERRAL PHONE NUMBER TO SERVE SANTA CLARA COUNTY RESIDENTS AND VISITORS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Information only. Nona Tobin, Loaned Executive/LTnited Way, explained what 2-1-1 was and the proposed purposes of the referral number. Ms. Tobin noted that 2-1-1 is a three-digit phone number designated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to be exclusively used for information & referral for health and humane services. Ms. Tobin noted that 2-1-1 is needed because it eliminates confusion in connecting people with the essential community and public services they need.. Ms. Tobin noted that 2-1-1 has the added benefit of reducing non-emergency call load experienced by 911. Ms. Tobin explained that SV 211 Steering Committee estimates that in Santa Clara County this service would cost $1.00 person, roughly $1.7 million per year operational cost fora 24/7 center once full call volume is reached in 2008. Ms. Tobin explained the role. cities in Santa Clara County play. Ms. Tobin noted that cities should participate in the design and operations process. The County and the 15 cities within it are invited to be the members of consortium and develop the finding strategy. Mayor Streit stated that the action item in regards to this issue was under the new business section of tonight's agenda . 1C. INTRODUCTION OF NEWLY APPOINTED LIEUTENANT FOR THE SANTA CLARA SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT -WEST VALLEY SUBSTATION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Information only. John Hirokawa, Captain/SCC Sheriff s Department, noted that was recently appointed the new West Valley Substation Captain and introduced John Damiano newly appointed Lieutenant. Lieutenant Damiano stated that he looks forward to working with the Council, City Manager, and City staff. The City Council congratulated Captain Hirokawa and welcomed Lieutenant Damiano. 3 City Attorney Taylor stated that this evening the League of California Cities requested that the City consider adopting a resolution by January 22, 2003 urging the California Legislature to reject the Governor's proposed shift of local VLF revenues and to honor the 1998 commitment to restore the VLF. Because of the time deadline staff is requesting that the City Council place this action item on tonight's agenda as an urgency item. BOGOSIAN/KLINE MOVED TO PLACE THE ACTION ITEM ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA AS AN URGENCY ITEM. MOTION PASSED 4-0-0-1 WITH WALTONSMITH ABSENT. CONSENT CALENDAR 2A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -NOVEMBER 6, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. Mayor Streit requested that Item 2A be removed form the Consent Calendar. Due to the fact that Vice Mayor Waltonsmith was absent, Mayor Streit noted that this item would have to be continued to the February 5, 2003 meeting. 2B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -DECEMBER 10, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. Mayor Streit requested that Item 2B be removed form the Consent Calendar. Due to the fact that Vice Mayor Waltonsmith was absent, Mayor Streit noted that this item would have to be continued to the February 5, 2003 meeting. 2C. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -DECEMBER 26, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. KLINEBOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE COUNCIL MINUTES OF DECEMBER 26, 2002. MOTION PASSED 4-0-0-1 WITH WALTONSMITH ABSENT. 2D. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve check register. KLINEBOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 4-0-0-1 WITH WALTONSMI'TH ABSENT. 4 S 2E. PLANNING ACTION MINUTES -JANUARY 8, 2003 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. KLINEBOGOSIAN MOVED TO NOTE AND FILE PLANNING ACTION MINUTES. MOTION PASSED 4-0-0-1 WITH WALTONSMITH ABSENT. 2F. ANNUAL APPROVAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA'S INVESTMENT POLICY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve policy. KLINEBOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE INVESTMENT POLICY. MOTION PASSED 4-0-0-1 WITH WALTONSMITH ABSENT. 2G. DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS INVENTORY/EQUIPMENT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve disposal of surplus obsolete and retired equipment. • KLINEBOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS, OBSOLETE AND RETIRED EQUIPMENT. MOTION PASSED 4-0-0-1 WITH WALTONSMITH ABSENT. 2H. CITY AND THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS, AUTHORS AND PUBLISHERS (ASCAP) FOR MUSIC PERFORMANCES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize City Manager to approve license agreement with ASCAP. KLINEBOGOSIAN MOVED TO AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH ASCAP. MOTION PASSED 4- 0-0-1 WITH WALTONSMITH ABSENT. 2I. COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORDS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Informational only. KLINEBOGOSIAN MOVED TO ACCEPT COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORDS. MOTION PASSED 4-0-0-1 WITH WALTONSMITH ABSENT. • 2J. APPROVAL OF LOCAL JURISDICTION REVISED NOTICE TO APPEAR CITATIONS FOR MUNICIPAL CODE VIOLATIONS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 03-001 RESOLUTION FO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING REVISIONS TO THE CITY OF SARATOGA NOTICE TO APPEAR CITATION KLINEBOGOSIAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING REVISIONS TO THE CITY OF SARATOGA NOTICE TO APPEAR CITATION. MOTION PASSED 4-0-0-1 WITH WALTONSMITH ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. RESOLUTION ORDERING THE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE BY REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS VEGETATION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Open public hearing; close public hearing; adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 03-002 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ORDERING ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE BY REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS VEGETATION Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, presented staff report. City Clerk Boyer noted that the attached resolution ,represents the second step in Saratoga's hazardous vegetation abatement prograrri administered by the County Fire Marshall. The County has sent owners of the parcels requiring weed abatement notices informing them that the weeds must be abated, either by the owners or by the County. The notice also informed them that they may present objections at tonight's public hearing. City Clerk Boyer noted that a representative from the County Fire Marshall's Office was present this evening to answer any questions Councilmembers may have on this topic. Mayor Streit opened the public hearing at 7:25 .p.m. Alex Tennant, 14565 Chester Avenue, noted that he asking the City Council to delete his property from the County weed abatement program. Mr. Tennant noted that he feels that the County is ripping off the City. Mr. Tennant stated that the program gives a deadline of March ls~ in which weeds must be abatement or suffer the consequences. • • 6 Mr. Tennant stated that date the County gives is ridiculous because of the varied weather in January and February. Mr. Tennant also pointed out that the letter that the County sends out does not mention the fact the 250% overhead would be added to the cost to the abatement if the County has to perform the work. Mr. Tennant asked why the one letter the County sends out is not honest when presenting charges. Mr. Tennant stated that in his case the contractor charge to the County was $332 and the County charged on his property taxes $806. Mr. Tennant encouraged the City Council to make the following changes to the program: • Change the deadline for abatement date to a target for abatement date to a target for abetment date and make it approximately the end of April • Require that the letter explaining the program be forthright rather that deceptive about County charges. Tell people that they will be charged 2.5% times the cost of the abatement if the County has to have it done. • Make a real deadline for abatement the date given in the notice sent in the spring with perhaps two or three weeks to comply Judy Saunders, Assistant County Fire Marshall, stated that the County urges residents to call them with any questions or problems before the April 1St deadline. If residents call the County, they are able to send an inspector to their property. Mayor Streit asked Assistant Fire Marshall Saunders if the Council could remove Mr. Tennant from the abatement list. Assistant Fire Marshall Saunders res onded that the Count is the City's p Y Contractor and it's within the Council's purview to remove Mr. Tennant from the County's abatement list. Councilmember King asked why that percentage was not included in the letter to homeowners. Assistant Fire Marshall stated that the County has never included the overhead charges in the letter but if the Council feels it is necessary they would include those charges. Councilmember Kline suggested that the charges be in red and underlined. Councilmember Kline asked why the deadline is April 1St Assistant Fire Marshall Saunders responded that the County has certain deadlines in order to comply with the tax roll deadlines at Assessor's Office. Mayor Streit closed the public hearing at 8:40 p.m. Councilmember Kline stated that he does not support removing any property owner from the County's list, but would rather see the problem fixed. Councilmember Kline suggested that the County send out two letters and also include the overhead charges. 7 Mayor Streit suggested that staff review the contract with the County. KLINE/KING MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION ORDERING ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE BY REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS VEGETATION. MOTION PASSED 4-0-0-1 WITH WALTONSMITH ABSENT. 4. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE ADOPTING AND AMENDING THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Open public hearing; close public hearing; wave second reading; adopt ordinance. TITLE OF ORDINANCE: 217 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2001 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE AND THE 2000 UNIFORM FIRE CODE WITH MODIFICATIONS FOR LOCAL CONDITIONS Richard Taylor, City Attorney, presented staff report. City Attorney Taylor explained that on December 18, 2002 the City Council introduced an ordinance adopting and amending the 2001 California Fire Code. City Attorney noted that the notice of public hearing was advertised in the Saratoga News for two successive weeks. City Attorney Taylor noted that ordinarily a second reading would be placed on the consent calendar. However, where the City Council proposed to adopt a code by reference, section 50022.3 of the Government Code requires the City to conduct a public hearing no earlier that two weeks after the ordinance is introduced. City Attorney Taylor noted that staff is recommending that the Council conduct the public hearing, approve the motion to waive the second reading and adopt the ordinance. Mayor Streit opened the public hearing at 8:45 p.m. Mayor Streit closed the public hearing at 8:46 p.m. BOGOSIAN/KLINE MOVED TO WAIVE THE SECOND READING AND ADOPT ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2001 FIRE CODE AND THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE WITH MODIFICATIONS FOR LOCAL CONDITIONS. MOTION PASSED 4-0-0-1 WITH WALTONSMITH ABSENT. • 8 OLD BUSINESS 5. SARATOGA LIBRARY PROJECT UPDATE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report. Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report. Assistant City Manager Tinfow reported that the substantial completion date continues to be February 28, 2003 and Gilbane and staff continue to review Thompson Pacific's requests for delay days. In regards to PG&E testing issues related to the conduit between the new transformer and the new library building, Assistant City Manger Tinfow explained that the conduit was installed as part of Phase I but when tested for clearance by PG&E in November, did not pass. The problems were addressed by digging up and replacing the conduit. Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained a second problem with conduit that runs under Saratoga avenue between the transformer and the street pole also failed PG&E's test. Staff does not necessarily agree with PG&E's assignment of responsibility but given the critical nature of getting permanent power to the buildings as soon as possible, but staff is recommending that the City proceed to correct the problem. Assistant City Manager Tinfow stated that the Public Works staff would arrange for the following: • Dig a hole in the street at the obstructed location to determine what is causing the blockage. Fix the problem and have PG&E retest the conduit. • A second partial disconnected conduit also exists and to provide a backup option, staff will trench from it (roughly 30 feet) to the pole to create a backup conduit for future needs. In regards to Gen-Con Inc. bankruptcy, Assistant City Manager Tinfow stated that staff and Gilbane have submitted an updated statement of Phase I correction or completion tasks and corresponding costs to the Surety. To date the costs total $154,860. The City holds $119,303 in unreleased Phase I funds. Councilmember Bogosian asked when the new siding would start to blend in with the original part of the library. Assistant City Manager Tinfow responded that the humidity in the air is having an affect on the stain. When the weather is warm and dry the color should fad. Councilmember Kline asked for a realistic substantial completion date. Assistant City Manager Tinfow stated realistically mid March. The City has paid for one month extra on the portables for the temporary library. 9 Councilmember King asked how long it would take to move into the new library. Assistant Cit Mana er Tinfow responded that it would take approximately 4-5 Y g weeks to move in. 6. Councilmember King asked if residents want to help with the grand opening celebration whom would they contact. Assistant City Manager Tinfow stated that anyone who wants to volunteer should call her. Councilmember Kline asked if there were any bricks left. Assistant City Manager Tinfow responded that there are bricks left at a cost of $250 per brick. Mayor Streit thanked Assistant City Manager Tinfow for her report. BENCHES AND TRASH RECEPTACLES FOR SARATOGA LIBRARY PROJECT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report. Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that six benches and two trash receptacles are included in the contract with Thompson pacific for the Saratoga Library project. Additional blenches were included in the furniture, fixtures and equipment budget (FF&E) that is separate from the bond funds. As the Library Expansion Committee Interiors Subcommittee reviewed the style selections for and numbers of each bench specified, they determined that some of the benches included in the budget were actually fixed and therefore eligible to be paid with bond funds. In additional, they discovered an alternate bench design that was preferred. The Subcommittee members brought their proposal for a total of 12 benches in the new style plus 2 matching trash receptacles to the Full Library Expansion Commission in July 2002 and to the City Council in September 2002. At that time the City Council asked that the request be revised closer to the end of the project to allow other needs to be identified. In addition Councilmembers raised questions about the installation and sturdiness of the new Arcata bench design. Staff has since learned that the preferred installation method is to attach the Arcata bench to concrete after the concrete is poured and cured. The manufacturer has also confirmed that the pedestal design is as sturdy and longwearing as a bench with four legs. 10 Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained four alternatives Council could consider: 1. Maintain the bench and trash receptacle choices as is 2. Allow six additional original style benches to be transferred to the bond budget at an additional cost of about $4385 plus shipping estimated at $500 3. Allow the new style to be substituted for the six already in the contract at an additional cost of about $6,420 plus shipping estimated at $1,000 4. Allow the substitution of the new bench style for a total of 12 benches with 2 matching trash receptacles at an additional cost of $19,777 Mayor Streit stated that the two styles of benches have no functional differences, except for aesthetics reasons. Assistant City Manager Tinfow agreed with Mayor Streit. Councilmember King asked where the benches were being placed. Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that a few benches were going to be placed in the cafe patio, in the community room, all along the landscaping, and at least two in the foyer. Councilmember Kline noted that he completely supports the new style of benches pointing out that the original style of the benches were not attractive. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he supports the new style benches and trash receptacles. Mayor Streit noted that he is not willing to spend the extra money to purchase the new style o0f benches for aesthetics reason only. KLINE/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE SUBSTITUTION OF THE NEW BENCH STYLE FOR A TOTAL OF 12 BENCHES WITH TWO MATCHING TRASH RECEPTACLES AT AN ADDITIONAL COST OF $19,777. MOTION PASSED 3-1-0-1 WITH STREIT OPPOSING AND WALTONSMITH ABSENT. NEW BUSINESS 7. 211 IMPLEMENTATION AND REFERRAL PHONE NUMBER TO SERVE SANTA CLARA COUNTY RESIDENTS AND VISITORS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 03-003 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL DECLARING SUPPORT OF CREATING A 2-1-1 INFORMATION AND REFERRAL PHONE NUMBER TO SERVE SANTA CLARA COUNTY RESIDENTS AND VISITORS 11 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, presented staff report. City Clerk Boyer noted that the Silicon Valley 2-1-1 Project is seeking the advice, cooperation and support of Santa Clara County and all 15 cities in the County, to bring this 2-1-1 project to all county residents. City Clerk Boyer noted that the citizens of Santa Clara County have organized a yearlong effort under the United Way Silicon Valley's leadership to plan and implement this program in Santa Clara County by January 1, 2004. City Clerk Boyer noted that 211 is the three-digit phone number designated by Federal Communication Commission (FCC) to be exclusively used for providing information & referral for health and human services. City Clerk Boyer noted that the Implementation Team is seeking a resolution of support from city and county governments. They believe that your "support in concept" of the project will be an important factor in building consensus. BOGOSIAN/KING MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE CREATION OF THE 2-1-1 PHONE SYSTEM. MOTION PASSED 4-0-0-1 WITH WALTONSMITH ABSENT. 8. FISCAL YEAR 2003-04 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT PROCESS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Informational only. Jesse Baloca, Administrative Services Director, presented staff report. Director Baloca explained the proposed calendar for the preparation of the 2003- 2004 Operating Budget. Under the proposed timeline, City Council would receive the final drab budget document for their May 7, 2003 meeting. Director Baloca noted that on May 7, 2003 the Council would review the following: • Format of the budget • The assumptions which were used to develop the budget • Summary information • Revenue sources • Draft SEA and MOU agreements and provide direction for future adoption and preparation of the final budget Director Baloca noted that the Council would conduct a second budget workshop on May 21, 2003 focusing on a detailed and thorough review of program expenditures. The public hearing and adoption of the final budget document is scheduled for June 4, 2003. Mayor Streit thanked Director Baloca for his report. 12 9. DATA TICKET SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize City Manager to sign the attached Amendment to our existing contract. Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report. Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that in 1997 the City entered into an agreement with Data Ticket for Code Enforcement ciation management services. The range of services did not include web-based payment and information access options nor collection and deposit funds. Currently, City accounting staff oversees collection and processing of citation payments, and residents do north have the option of paying online. Assistant Cit Manager Tinfow noted that staff was recommending that Council authorize the City Manager to sign and amendment to the existing contract with Data Ticket to add services at an additional cost of $50.00 per month plus banking fees. KLINE/KING MOVED TO AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN AMENDED CONTRACT. MOTION PASSED 4-0-0-1 WITH WALTONSMITH ABSENT. 10. VLF -RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT -URGENCY ITEM STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize Mayor to sign letter of support and adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 03-004 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL URGING THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE TO REJECT THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSED SHIFT OF LOCAL VLF REVENUES AND TO HONOR THE 1998 COMMITMENT TO RESTORE THE VLF City Manager Anderson explained that this afternoon the City received a message from the League of California Cities requesting the cities adopt the proposed resolution urging the California Legislature to reject the Governor's proposed shift of local VLF revenues and to honor the 1998 commitment to resort the VLF. City Manager Anderson noted that the League has requested that cities adopt the resolution no later than January 21, 2003. BOGOSIAN/KLINE MOVED TO AUTHORIZE MAYOR TO SIGN LETTER OF SUPPORT AND ADOPT RESOLUTION. MOTION PASSED 4-0-0-1 WITH WALTONSMITH ABSENT. 13 COMMISSION ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Mayor Streit reported the following information: Finance Commission -almost finished the new Matrix and are preparing to start on the 2003-2004 budget. Heritage Preservation Commission -preparing for the Mustard Walk on February 9, 2003. Councilmember King reported the following information: Public Safety Commission -noted that both County Fire and Saratoga Fire District were present. Youth Commission -noted that she was very impressed on how the Commission ran their meeting. Sister City -visitor from Muko, Japan would be arriving in Saratoga in the end of February. Councilmember Kline noted that there are four opening on the Planning Commission and if anyone was interested to contact the City Clerk. Councilmember Bogosian had no reportable information. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember Bogosian noted that in December 2002 the Council received a letter from Dr. Stutzman dealing with false alarms. Councilmember Bogosian requested that the costs associated with false alarms be placed on a future agenda for discussion. Consensus of the City Council to support Councilmember Bogosian's request. OTHER None CITY MANAGER'S REPORT City Manager Anderson noted that he received a notice from the Chamber of Commerce that they have relocated to a new home in the Village. ADJOURNMENT There be no further business Mayor Streit adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk 14