Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
07-28-2004 Planning Commission Packet
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION 1~CTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Susie Nagpal, Isnda Rodgers, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Mohammad Garakani Absent: Commissioner Rodgers, Commissioner Uhl and Chair Garakani Staff: Planners livingstone &z Oosterhous, Director Sullivan and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of July 14, 2004. (APPROVED 4-0) 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 tahing action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staf f accordingly regardingOral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on July 22, 2004. 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. Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. APPLICATION #03-064 (517-22-024) MARTINO 15374 Madrone Hill Road -The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence. The project includes the demolition of an existing residence. The total floor area of the proposed residence and garage is 5,118 square feet. The floor area of the main floor is 3,541 square feet and the lower floor is 1,577 square feet. In addition, a 1,995 square foot basement is proposed. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 24 feet. The lot size is approximately 87,855 square feet and the site is zoned R-140,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) (APPROVED 4-0) 2. APPLICATION #04-012 (397-23-012) - FILICE, 20288 La Paloma Avenue; -Request Design Review Approval to demolish and rebuild a significant portion of the existing 1,900 square foot house and add a new second floor for a total floor area of 2,879 square feet. The proposed project will also include a 789 square foot basement. The height of the structure will not exceed 26 feet. The gross lot size is 7,321 square feet and zoned R-1-10,000. UoxN LIVINGSTONE) (APPROVED 4-0) DIRECTORS ITEM Remind Commissioners that the meeting on August 11, 2004 is cancelled. Reminder that a Study Session is planned for September 22, 2004 for a design review application at 14265 Burns Way. Currently we have perfect attendance for that study session. Please alert staff as soon as possible if you will be unable to attend the study session. COMMISSION ITEMS - None COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN - None ADJOURNMENT AT 8:00 PM TO THE NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, August 25, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Incompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerh at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerh@saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II). Certi f icate of Posting of Agenda: I, Kristin Borel, Office Specialist for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted on July 22, 2004 at the office of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.sarato ag <a.us If you would like to receive the Agenda's via e-mail, please send your a-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION • SITE VISIT AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 -12:00 noon PLACE: City Hall Parking Lot, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Site Visit Committee SITE VISITS WILL BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR WEDNESDAY, JULY 27, 2004 ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. Application #03-064 - MARTINO Item 1 15374 Madrone Hill Road 2. Application #04-012 - FILICE Item 2 20288 La Paloma Avenue ' SITE VISIT COMMITTEE The Site Visit 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 on the Tuesday preceding the Wednesday hearing, between 12:00 p.m. and 2:00 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 (5 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 AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Susie Nagpal, Linda Rodgers, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Mohammad Garakani PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of July 14, 2004. ORAL COMMUMCATIONS -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 tahing action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on July 22, 2004. 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. Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. 1. APPLICATION #03-064 (517-22-024) MARTINO 15374 Madrone Hill Road -The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence. The project includes the demolition of an existing residence. The total floor area of the proposed residence and garage is 5,118 square feet. The floor area of the main floor is 3,541 square feet and the lower floor is 1,577 square feet. In addition, a 1,995 square foot basement is proposed. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 24 feet. The lot size is approximately 87,855 square feet and the site is zoned R-1 40,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) 2. APPLICATION #04-012 (397-23-012) - FILICE, 20288 La Paloma Avenue; -Request Design Review Approval to demolish and rebuild a significant portion of the existing 1,900 square foot house and add a new second floor for a total floor area of 2,879 square feet. The proposed project will also include a 789 square foot basement. The height of the structure will not exceed 26 feet. The gross lot size is 7,321 square feet and zoned R-1-10,000. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) DIRECTORS ITEM - Remind Commissioners that the meeting on August 11, 2004 is cancelled. - Reminder that a Study Session is planned for September 22, 2004 for a design review application at 14265 Burns Way. Currently we have perfect attendance for that study session. Please alert staff as soon as possible if you will be unable to attend the study session. COMMISSION ITEMS - None COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN - None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, August 25, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Incompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerh@saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II). Certificateof Postingof Agenda: I, Kristin Borel, Office Specialist for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted on July 22, 2004 at the office of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.sarato ag ca.us ik to receive the A enda's via e-mail lease send our e-mail address to lannin @sarato a.ca.us • If you would l e g , p y p g g, 0 MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Garakani called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Hunter, Garakani, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi Absent: None Staff: Associate Planner John Livingstone, Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous and Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of June 23, 2004. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Rodgers, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of June 23, 2004, were adopted as submitted. (6-0-0-1; Commissioner Zutshi abstained) ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Associate Planner John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on July 8, 2004. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Associate Planner John Livingstone 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). :~. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 14, 2004 Page 2 *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #04-048 (517-13-027) PINN, 14960 Cuvilly Way (Lot 3): The applicant requests Design Review and Use Permit approvals to construct a 5,530 square foot two-story home with a basement on a vacant lot in the Les Chateaux de Notre Dame subdivision. The applicant is seeking a Use Permit pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15-12.100 because the proposed "French Country" style home will have a maximum height of 30 feet. The net lot size is 52,838 square feet and the property is zoned R-1-40,000. (I.ATA VASUDEVAN) Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review and Use Permit approvals to allow the construction of a 5,530 square foot two-story home that will have a maximum height of 30 feet. • Explained that the Municipal Code requires a Use Permit approval to exceed the 26-foot maximum height of a residence. • Stated that such a permit can only be granted after carefully assessing the architectural style and finding that a maximum 30-foot height is required to achieve architectural purity. • Said that there was not good discussion on the French Country style of architecture in the Field Guide to Architecture resource book. Therefore, staff asked the applicant to provide good examples of the proposed French Country architecture. • Said that the style incorporates old and new, formal and informal elements. Details include tall thin windows, often with shutters, steep slate or wood shake roofs, wide chimneys, stones with over- • wide grout and a mixture of materials giving it somewhat of a patchwork effect. • Informed that this application reflects the first Use Permit request to exceed the height limitation since this particular Municipal Code Section was adopted. • Said that the southeast property owner, Mr. John Sobrato, has no issues with this proposal. The other parcels in this subdivision'have yet to be developed. • Stated that additional screening trees to Lot 5 have been conditioned. • Said that staff had requesting a fencing plan, which requires Planning Commission approval as a condition of the subdivision approval. However, the fencing would be installed in the future rather than soon. • Pointed out that no homes can be viewed from this lot and that there are no significant impacts on views or privacy. Additionally, there are no windows on the side elevations. • Said that there are no heritage trees at risk. • Said that the perception of bulk and scale are reduced because the new home would be located far back on the site and is surrounded by mature trees. The facades are well articulated. • Reminded that only under strict circumstances can this 30-foot height be approved. • Said that the required findings are consistent and can be made as this proposed residence incorporates all of the architectural elements of a F~tench Country home. • Recommended approval of the Design Review and Use Permit for this proposal as well as the fencing plan. Commissioner Zutshi asked if the front yard fence is three-feet high and how far back this fence would be from the front property line. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 14, 2004 Page 3 Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that the fence is proposed on the property line. Commissioner Rodgers questioned the resource materials considered on the French Country architecture. Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan said that staff placed the burden on the applicant to provide research data on this style. She advised that she also did library research herself. Commissioner Rodgers said that she would like to see a list of sources provided in the future to allow the Planning Commission to also consult these materials. She asked if there would be a fireplace in the loggia. Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan replied yes, there would be a fireplace on the east side of the loggia. Commissioner Rodgers asked if this represents the fourth fireplace. Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan advised that a property could have as many fireplaces as they like . but that only one could be wood burning. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that one wood-burning fireplace was recently denied for a second dwelling unit because it was situated on a hillside property. Commissioner Rodgers asked staff if they had discussed with this applicant the potential for a future second dwelling unit or sports court. Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan replied no. Commissioner Schallop asked if there has been any other application for residential height above 26 feet. Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan replied no, this is the first. Commissioner Schallop asked if this Municipal Code Section was intended to apply only to residences. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied yes, for single-family dwellings. Commissioner Rodgers sought clarification that the Commission should be considering impacts on adjacent properties even if they are currently undeveloped and unoccupied. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied yes. Commissioner Nagpal asked what sort of specific restrictions the Planning Commission imposed on this subdivision when it was approved. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied the requirement for Planning Commission review of any proposed fencing, the requirement for additional screening between each property and compliance with current Zoning Ordinances. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 14, 2004 Page 4 Commissioner Nagpal stated that any time the Commission is dealing with an application such as this, she likes to see story poles and asked staff to take that request into advisement. Commissioner Uhl asked about the fencing request. Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan said that the Planning Commission put the requirement for Commission review into the conditions of approval for the Subdivision. Commissioner Uhl asked if this applicant is asking for fencing approval. Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that they might not actually install fencing for a few years. Commissioner Nagpal asked how the City would know it had been done and suggested establishing a schedule. Associate Planner John Livingstone pointed out that the entitlement would last for two years. If not installed, the approval lapses. Commissioner Uhl asked if the three-foot height of the fence at the front of the property meets Code. Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan replied yes. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out a discrepancy in the project application number on the staff report cover. Commissioner Schallop asked if this approval of a height of 30 feet would create a precedent. He asked for clarification between this provision of the Municipal Code as compared to a Variance. Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan: • Explained that Variances have different circumstances, which are basically some sort of hardship with the land. • Stated that staff believes that any proposal for this 30-foot height must be reviewed on a case-by- case basis and that any future requests would be evaluated as carefully as this one was based on architectural style requirements. Commissioner Rodgers asked staff what other styles of architecture might result in a need for height above 26 feet. Commissioner Hunter reported that nothing has been seen here in the last three years that she has served on the Planning Commission. Commissioner Schallop asked if this home represents the first of this style. Commissioner Hunter reminded that the house on Sobey Road that was discussed at the last meeting and continued was also of French-style architecture. The Planning Commission was not comfortable with the height in that case. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 14, 2004 Page 5 • Mr. Greg Pinn, Applicant and Property Owner, 20855 Sazatoga Hills Road, Sazatoga: • Thanked the Commission, Lata Vasudevan and Tom Sullivan for their consideration. • Said that he wanted to address comments made. • Stated that he and his wife came up with this French Country design and that if they had gone with a Tuscan design, which he is partial to, they would not need to be here. • Informed that there are six different French styles in the American Field Guide of Homes. The Tudor style and French eclectic styles aze the closest to their proposal, incorporating a steep pitch roof, heavy over-grouted stone, etc. • Said that staff had made it cleaz that excellence in design to an architectural style is required to exceed the 26-foot height. • Explained that one good reason to allow 30-foot height in this situation is that atwo-story home with eight-foot plate heights is ridiculous. • Added that while this application is the first fora 30-foot height in current day, other homes exist that aze that tall or taller but these aze older and historic homes. • Said that they will bring excellence back to design. • Assured that if other property owners come forwazd with a request for 30-foot height to accommodate architectural excellence, he will support them if they have met the same standazd of review and excellence in design that he has met. • Reminded that their home would be set back 65 feet from the street. • Pointed out that this is not a lazge footprint for this lot and that they had to go with atwo-story design on this lot due to geotechnical considerations. . • Explained that having any fencing plans approved by the Commission is a requirement of the subdivision approval but he did not intend to install any fencing unless he is required to do so. Instead they may limit fencing to enclose a pool if and when they decide to install one. Fencing would be high quality iron and stone. Commissioner Nagpal said that she would rather consider a pool now rather than later if one is planned for this site. Mr. Greg Pinn said that constructing this house is taking all of their attention right now. If things go well, a pool will be considered in the future. If so, it would be located where the lawn is depicted on the conceptual landscape plan. Added that there is not a lot of room on this lot and that they will be maxed out on allowable square footage so no other structures would be allowed. Commissioner Rodgers asked if any hard surfaces such as sports courts would be installed. Mr. Greg Pinn replied no, he has three girls, who are getting a ballet studio in the basement space. Commissioner Rodgers asked about the fireplace in the loggia. Mr. Greg Pinn said that the loggia is a covered patio. There will be an appliance there that keeps people warm but it is not a lazge fireplace. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Greg Pinn how many wood burning appliances there will be. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 14, 2004 Page 6 Mr. Greg Pinn said that the wood-burning fireplace would be located in the great room. However, they may actually elect to install gas instead due to convenience. He said they are not sure but if there is to • be wood burning fireplace, it would be just one as allowed. Commissioner Rodgers asked how much usable attic space there would be. Mr. Greg Pinn replied he is not sure. He added that most of the home would actually not exceed 26 feet. There would be very little attic space. Chair Garakani pointed out that there appears to be a nine-foot area of attic space. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Greg Pinn if they plan to use this space. Mr. Greg Pinn replied no. Commissioner Rodgers asked about the driveway material. Mr. Greg Pinn replied paver stone. As an alternative, they may go with decomposed granite. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out the Arborist does not want Tree #2 to have its roots cut into. Mr. Greg Pinn said that the driveway is five to seven feet away from the trunk. Protective fencing will be installed prior to construction. Agreed that this is a beautiful tree. Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan reminded that the final landscape plan would be reviewed and • approved by the City's Arborist. Commissioner Uhl asked Mr. Greg Pinn to explain the architectural basis to support the 30-foot height. Mr. Greg Pinn said that the typical height of houses in France is 40 to 50 feet. The reason for the height is to achieve nine-foot high ceilings inside. Added that his company has constructed approximately 30 homes in Saratoga. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Greg Pinn what regions of France have this proposed style of architecture. Mr. Greg Pinn said that this style is not from the South of France but rather more from the North. It is a French eclectic and Tudor style home. Added that practically all French countryside homes have these elements. Commissioner Rodgers disagreed. She advised that she lived in France for three years and had never seen anything like this. Asked Mr. Greg Pinn to describe the French eclectic architectural style. Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that the source says eclectic when architectural styles cross over from one to another. ' Commissioner Uhl asked if the roof pitch requirement is called out for this style. Saratoga Planning Conunission Minutes of July 14, 2004 Page 7 Mr. Greg Pinn replied yes, a tall, steeply pitched roof is the first requirement. Both Victorian and • French architecture have steep pitched roofs. Commissioner Uhl asked if it is possible to achieve this architectural style on a smaller footprint without requiring the 30-foot height but rather staying with a maximum height of 26 feet. Stated that this proposed home is both big and tall. Chair Garakani agreed and said that the maximum square footage allowed is 5,532 and this proposal is for 5,530. Commissioner Uhl again asked if the size and height could be shrunk. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that someone could build a French Country home that is smaller than this one. However, floor area is concerned with bulk. Reminded that the applicant has provided three versions of this house. This represents the purest design, the highest quality in materials in order to meet the Municipal Code requirements to support a 30-foot height. The Code allows this height under specific conditions. Chair Garakani said that where this is going to be built must be considered. The applicant could go with a less steep pitch to the roof. The problem is building on a hillside. Mr. Greg Pinn: • Reminded that there is no one located behind his property where Norton Road is located. Lot 5 is 10 to 12 feet higher than his property. • Said that by shrinking their footprint, they would have to take rooms planned for the first floor and place them on the second. This would also result in 8-foot ceilings, which is not what is wanted. • Pointed out that 800 square feet represents the garage. Commissioner Uhl said that pushing a project to the maximum on square footage and heights represents a dangerous road. Mr. Greg Pinn said that this is an exciting road. He reminded that they have set back their home 65 feet when 30 is required. Only a small portion of the second story is at 30 feet. The lot is one acre and in a French themed subdivision. Commissioner Uhl said that he does want to see architecturally strong homes built but he feels this is big and represents a dangerous road. Mr. Greg Pinn pointed out that this is such a massive and expansive area. Commissioner Uhl said that having the hill located behind this lot makes a special circumstance. Chair Garakani asked whether Mr. Greg Pinn would support a 30-foot high house on Lot 5 or across the street from him. Mr. Greg Pinn said that the lot across the street is approximately 10 feet lower than his and on a corner lot. Therefore, the house on that lot would likely consist of a side yard facing his property with the Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 14, 2004 Page 8 house facing the other street. Said that if the owner undergoes the same six-month process of review, he would support what is proposed. • Commissioner Hunter expressed concern about the materials of the fencing and potential danger to deer. Mr. Greg Pinn said that the wrought iron spikes would be capped off. Commissioner Uhl asked about fencing and said that since the area is full of deer he does not support lots of fencing in the area. Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan reminded that the subdivision approval requires any fencing to be approved by the Planning Commission. However, the applicant indicates that fencing may not be installed for years. Commissioner Hunter said that there is lots of deer in the area and that Mr. Sobrato was told he could only fence around his pool. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that this applicant is not really interested in fencing right now. Mr. Greg Pinn said that he would rather not have any fencing. If he does, it would be in the future. Said he is okay with only having pool enclosure fencing. Commissioner Rodgers asked if a materials board is available. • Mr. Greg Pinn pointed out that he has been told that the actual materials may not be exactly the same as there are some natural variations. Mr. Bob Thurman, 20634 Victory Lane, Saratoga: • Said that his home may be closer even than Mr. Sobrato's. • Said that similar screening being provided to one side may also be required between his property and this project site. • Advised that he is supportive of this proposal and is not concerned with the proposed 30-foot height, saying that scale and proportion are most important. • Stated that he understands what Mr. Pinn is trying to accomplish and this home would be in keeping with the entire area. This development is an enhancement. • Pointed out that he could see the two-story structure on this site from his property when the Sisters of Notre Dame were located on this property. • Requested that story poles be installed to better judge the visual impacts. Chair Garakani asked what concerns Mr. Thurman has about screening. Mr. Bob Thurman: • Said that he thought story poles were used to demonstrate impacts on an area. • Stated that he wants to protect privacy and views. • Said that this home has a wonderful design and looks good. He has no issue with the 30 foot height. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 14, 2004 Page 9 • Opined that as long as each site is taken on its own merits, approving this height would not be . establishing precedence. • Pointed out that there are lots of oak trees providing shielding. • Said he is supportive and wants the same screening as Sobrato is getting. • Stated that he does not want to see either a Ranch or Prairie style home in this area. Mr. Mike Haynes, 1069 Audrey Avenue, Campbell: • Confirmed that the French style house requires a high pitch, 9 and 12, roof. Mr. Jeff Currin: • Advised that architecture has changed and that no one builds eight-foot high ceilings today. • Suggested that even a 30-foot height is already restrictive. • Said that this process exists to exceed the 26 foot maximum height to 30 feet. It is site specific. • Pointed out that this is a French-style development with a hillside behind it. • Expressed support. • Stated that the FAR restrictions protect a site from being overbuilt. • Said that this home would fit well into this particular setting. Commissioner Rodgers told Mr. Jeff Currin that he appears to have some expertise on this subject and asked if he does. Mr. Jeff Currin replied no, he has just remodeled his own home. • Mr. Greg Pinn thanked his neighbors for their support. Pointed out that today is his birthday and it is somewhat appropriate that it is also Bastille Day. Commissioner Zutshi asked Mr. Greg Pinn if an arborist would be retained during construction. Mr. Greg Pinn replied absolutely. This is a condition of approval. Said that there are five at risk trees outlined in the Arborist's report that he is hoping to save and keep. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Zutshi: • Said that she is glad that the provision exists now to allow 30 foot heights in special circumstances. • Advised that she had to lower the height of her own Tudor style home when it was designed. • Said that with authentic materials and being true to this specific architectural design, this is going to be a beautiful house. Commissioner iJhl asked how tall the Sobrato home is. Commissioner Hunter replied 26 feet. She reminded the Commission that they did not support the French-style home discussed at the last meeting and that she is concerned about consistency in the review process. • Commissioner Nagpal stated that there were different issues with the last proposal. Sazatoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 14, 2004 Page 10 Chair Garakani agreed, saying that the previously reviewed proposal did not match the land. Commissioner Rodgers added that there is areee-covered hillside located behind this proposed home • site. Commissioner Uhl: • Said that this is a unique situation. This is a big lot that is adjacent to other lazge lots. This is a French-inspired subdivision. There is a hill located behind the proposed house site. • Stated that the proposed architecture is beautiful and that this proposal seems to fit. • Expressed his concern about fencing within fencing, as this is a deer populated azea. • Said that he wished he could see how big this home would be on the lot as could have been demonstrated by story poles. • Proposed a continuance. Chair Garakani pointed out that one of the neighbors had the same concern about story poles. Commissioner Uhl said that the Commission and neighbors should be able to see how high this , structure is going to be. Chair Garakani said that he tried to visualize the proposed height by comparing tree heights. Commissioner Rodgers said that the Commission has to consider the impacts on currently vacant lots that surround this one. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that Montalvo could not be constructed today and neither could other historic homes. Said that she has never reviewed a 30-foot high house in her three years on the Commission. Commissioner Nagpal explained that the adopted ordinance was intended to allow for architectural integrity. The Commission must determine if this house is what it would like to see. Commissioner Hunter said that it is a judgment on a values system. Commissioner Uhl asked Commissioner Hunter about her opinion on this particular house. Commissioner Hunter: • Replied that this is an absolutely beautiful home. • Stated, however, that this is a tough call. • Pointed out that this house would be fine and will always blend into the area since stone cannot someday be painted pink. The house would blend into the countryside. • Stated that she likes flexibility and hates to have things so definite. Commissioner Uhl questioned whether there is a need to continue so that story pole markers can be installed. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the house on Pierce Road is not yet posted. She pointed out that • more story poles used to be installed in the past. Now they are rarely seen. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 14, 2004 Page 11 Commissioner Nagpal said that story poles should be required more often, particularly in a case like this one where the height requires a Use Permit. Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan said that in this situation staff did not feel that story poles were required since there is the hillside as a backdrop. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that this house may actually be visible from her own property and pointed out that she was not noticed about this item while she was for the Sobrato home. Suggested that staff look into the story pole issue. Chair Garakani suggested to staff that when they have any doubts about the need for story poles, ask the Commission for its input. Commissioner Uhl said that if there is any question, the story poles should be required to let the neighbors know the impacts. Commissioner Rodgers said the Planning Commission needs to see them too. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the majority believes that a decision on this application cannot be reached without installation of story poles. Chair Garakani: • Said that there are reasons for height limits. • Stated that height and style should go hand in hand. • Said that he would be more comfortable if Mr. Greg Pinn could readily support a 30 foot height if proposed for next door to him. If so, he is okay with this. Commissioner Nagpal: • Pointed out that the Municipal Code Section was added to give flexibility to look at architectural design. • Said that a very high level of effort has been undertaken. • Stated that an architecturally attractive home has been proposed. • Reminded that each application is looked at on its own merits on a case by case basis. • Said that the other French style house evaluated at the last meeting had other issues including topographic, neighbor and trees. Commissioner Hunter agreed that flexibility is good but that the case has to be made to support the extra height. Commissioner Nagpal said that staff needs to document its supporting resource materials for the file. Commissioner Schallop: • Said that based upon the report and comments, he is generally supportive of this proposal. • Agreed that approving it would not set precedent and can be justified. • Supported the contention that the Commission must look out for the currently vacant sites that surround this one. • Suggested that requiring story poles is not an unreasonable request. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 14, 2004 Page 12 • Stated he is generally supportive. Chair Garakani pointed out that there are not many windows on the side of the house nearest to Lot 5 to • impact privacy there. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the screening solves any concerns there. Chair Garakani replied yes. He said that this is a good design. Commissioner Rodgers: • Stated that she is conflicted. She likes the house design but is concerned about exceptions to exceed the 26 foot height up to 30 feet based upon purity of architectural design. • Said that the Code requires the Commission to state specific resource materials used to make this determination in the record. Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan spent three weekends at Berkeley researching this matter. He assured that staff would increase its own library of resources as it is able. Commissioner Rodgers: • Pointed out that the Code requires that the Commission authorize specific source books used. • Agreed that it is their duty to represent the neighbors who are not yet there. • Pointed out that this house will establish the pattern for this new neighborhood. • Stated that the question is how to apply this provision in the Code in the future. • Said that she can support 30-foot height with a definition of resource material, with a provision that there be no wood burning appliance in the loggia, that there be no second dwelling unit on the property and that the Arborist's tree protection directions are carefully followed. • Stated that she too does not want to see lots of fencing out of consideration for the deer that inhabit the area. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that there is already a gated entrance to the subdivision. She added that this home might well ensure that all of the other houses in the subdivision are also of French-style architecture. Commissioner Nagpal said that she does not expect all of the homes to be of a French style in this cul de sac. Commissioner Hunter questioned whether Mediterranean style architecture requires 30 feet in height. Associate Planner John Livingstone agreed that a variety of architectural styles could be constructed in this neighborhood. Chair Garakani asked for a final decision on resource materials. Commissioner Rodgers said that the decision must be based upon resource materials the Planning Commission has seen. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 14, 2004 Page 13 Chair Garakani suggested that the resource materials be brought to the Commission and that story poles be installed. Commissioner Hunter questioned the need to continue at this stage. Commissioner Nagpal asked staff to provide the basis for support within the staff report in future. Chair Garakani advised those in attendance that the reason this item is taking so long this evening is that this is a test case for a new provision in the Municipal Code. This is the first time the Commission has worked with this particular Code. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that the Field Guide was used and that the applicant also incorporated resources on the plans. Said that making a decision this evening with those resources provided would be fine. Staff will provide more detailed lists of resource materials in the future. Commissioner Rodgers said that she is uncomfortable with the materials provided to prove architectural purity. Chair Garakani asked Commissioner Rodgers if she was comfortable with the house itself. Commissioner Rodgers said that the house is fine but that she does not like to approve the 30 foot height without the required resources. Commissioner Nagpal asked if there is support in the Field Guide. Commissioner Uhl said that the French Country architectural style is not called out specifically. Commissioner Nagpal said that she supports Commissioner Rodgers' points but that she hates to penalize Mr. Pinn for a procedural issue. She recommended approval with the information provided. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the staff planners have the education and knowledge to guide the Commission. Commissioner Nagpal advised that she had recommended the inclusion of other resource materials in the text of the Municipal Code to make sure that one resource was not solely depended upon. Commissioner Hunter suggested that this item proceed this evening. Commissioner Uhl restated that fences should be limited except around pools. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission approved a Design Review and Use Permit request to construct a new home that has a maximum height of 30 feet on property located at 15960 Cuvilly Way, with the following requirements: ^ That there be no wood burning fireplace or appliance in the loggia and ^ That no fencing be included, by the following roll call vote: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 14, 2004 Page 14 AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 APPLICATION #04-152 (397-28-061) - Appellant MARATHE, Site Location - 13997 Alta Vista Avenue: Appeal of an Administrative Decision to DENY a Tree Removal permit at 13997 Alta Vista Avenue to remove a large Coast Live Oak tree. The tree in question is a 35-inch diameter 25-foot tall mature Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) and has a canopy spread of 40 feet. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE FOR TOM SULLIVAN) Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the appellant is appealing an Administrative Decision to deny a Tree Removal permit. • Explained that the original request for a Tree Removal permit was evaluated by a building inspector and denied. The appeal comes to the Planning Commission. • Informed that once the appeal was filed, the City sent out its Arborist to evaluate the tree. The City Arborist found decay and stated that the tree is a danger to public safety and should be removed. • Said that as a result, staff is supporting the appeal and removal. • Advised that the applicant has provided a conceptual landscape plan. While there is a pool depicted, there is no application for a pool at this time. Chair Garakani asked why this item has come to the Commission if staff now supports removal of this tree. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that the appeal process brings the matter to the Commission for final action. Chair Garakani sought clarification that the reason the City Arborist was sent to evaluate this tree was the appeal process. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied yes. Commissioner Hunter questioned why remove the whole tree. Commissioner Nagpal asked if cost is the only reason that the City Arborist is not sent out before denying a Tree Removal permit. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that building inspectors initially look at Tree Removal requests and make the decision. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Vaishali Maranthe A ellant and Pro ert Owner, 13997 Alta Vista Avenue, Saratoga: Mr. pp P Y • Said that this tree is a hazard and distributed photographs of the diseased limbs. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 14, 2004 Page 15 • Commissioner Hunter advised Mr. Maranthe that swimming pools could interfere with oak trees. Mr. Vaishali Mazanthe said that he would work with the City when the time comes to consider the installation of a pool. Commissioner Hunter pointed out the letter from a neighbor on behalf of retaining the tree. She added that this particular tree is clearly not one of the more worthy oaks in this condition. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the tree has three trunks. Mr. Vaishali Mazanthe replied that it has two. There aze three trees in the azea and screening is not lost. Commissioner Zutshi asked how this tree would be removed. Would it be pulled from the roots or would the trunk be cut. Cautioned about potential impacts on the other trees nearby. Mr. Vaishali Maranthe assured that he would use a licensed contractor for this work. Ms. Nancy Sanquini: • Said that she had come this evening to plead for this tree but that if this tree is going to die, it should be taken out. • Recounted that the developer of this area was careful to invite surrounding neighbors to the property to assure that trees would be retained. However trees aze increasingly at risk and several have been lost. • Pointed out that this is a Riparian corridor and that it is important to keep the tree canopy. • Said that she was going to support retention tonight but if there is danger, the tree should be removed. Commissioner Hunter advised that when she went to visit the site she was not supportive but when she saw the condition of the tree she agreed it should be removed. Mr. Vaishali Mazanthe said that he loves the trees on his property and seeks to protect them. He does not want to cut this tree but it is leaning toward his house. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that if he is proposing to replace the tree with fruit trees he is required to plant a 48 inch box tree. Chair Gazakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Hunter thanked Mrs. Santori for her lovely letter. Commissioner Uhl pointed out that the City is strict with removal requests. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Rodgers, the Planning Commission granted an Appeal and overturned the Administrative • Decision (Application #04-152) to deny a Tree Removal Permit thereby allowing a 35-inch diameter Coast Live Oak tree to be removed from property located at 13997 Alta Vista Avenue, by the following roll call vote: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 14, 2004 Page 16 AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None • ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 APPLICATION #04-158 (392-21-006) - AT&T WIRELESS, 13000 Glen Brae Drive Request for modification of a Use Permit approval to install one two-foot diameter microwave dish at the top of existing utility lattice tower. Use Permit approval was granted in the fall of 2003 to install six panel antennas and an equipment enclosure at the location of an existing utility lattice tower near Congress Springs Park along the railroad tracks at Glen Brea Drive and Chardonnay Court. The panel antennas, equipment enclosure and landscaping have been installed. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking a modification to a previously approved Use Permit to allow one two-foot diameter microwave dish atop an existing utility lattice tower. • Explained that this original Use Permit was approved in the fall of 2003. Recommended that the Planning Commission modify the Use Permit. Chair Garakani asked that this request is just for the two-foot dish and nothing below. lied correct. • Associate Planner Chesty Oosterhous rep Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Eric Breedlove, AT&T Representative and Applicant: Said that this request is to modify the Use Permit to allow atwo-foot diameter dish at about the 130- foot level of an existing PG&E high voltage tower. Said that this dish would be located between two existing panel antennas. The supporting cabinet equipment room is existing and this site was originally approved in the fall of 2003. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Zutshi, seconded by Commissioner Uhl, the Planning Commission approved a modification of a Use Permit (Application #04- 158) to install one two-foot diameter microwave dish at the top of existing utility lattice tower on property located at 13000 Glen Brae Drive by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None **~ • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 14, 2004 Page 17 PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.4 • APPLICATION #04-106) - AT&T, 19491 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, CalTrans righht-of-way at the corner of Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and Fruitvale Avenue Request for Modification to an existing Use Permit approval to add fixtures to an existing wireless antenna system. The project is located in an $-1- 40,000 zoning district. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking a modification of a previously approved Use Permit to allow new equipment to be adding to an existing facility that was originally approved in 1995. • Said that the installation includes two new cabinets and a new GPS antenna. • Stated that two antennas would be replaced with two new slightly larger antennas. The old antennas were 28 by 11 feet and the new are 51 by 10 feet. • Informed that the proposal meets Use Permit findings and recommended approval. Commissioner Nagpal sought clarification that the Commission is not looking at exposure related issues. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied correct. Commissioner Uhl pointed out that two neighbors had concerns. Chair Garakani advised that the Commission cannot discuss health issues and exposure. • Associate Planner John Livingstone said that the applicant can explain these issues. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Mr. Eric Breedlove, the AT&T representative for the previous agenda item spoke on behalf of AT&T for this site: • Said that this antenna installation has low emissions and poses no health concerns. Home microwaves and computers emit more than this installation will. Commissioner Nagpal asked if Mr. Breedlove could speak to the issue of maintenance issues for this location. Mr. Eric Breedlove apologized and said no. He advised that he had not even been aware that this second AT&T site was on tonight's agenda but had stayed to represent his company when he saw it was. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission approved a modification of a Use Permit (Application #04- 106) to add fixtures to an existing wireless antenna system on property located at . 19491 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road (in the CalTrans right-of--way at the corner of Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and Fruitvale Avenue), with the following requirements: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 14, 2004 Page 18 ^ That the applicant maintain the structure and minimize pathway obstructions caused by the maintenance vehicle, • by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Apceal to Council Associate Planner John Livingstone advised the Commission that the Planning Commission's action on 15301 Peach Hill Road has been appealed to Council and would be considered at the August 4`~ Council meeting. Story Poles Associate Planner John Livingstone reminded that staff was directed not to make story poles an Ordinance requirement. He pointed out that an engineer must certify story poles and they can cost up to $10,000 to install. He advised that he would pass along the comments made this evening to Director Tom Sullivan. • COMMISSION ITEMS Chair Garakani and Commissioners Rodgers and Uhl advised that they would be absent from the July 28~' Commission meeting. Commissioner Hunter added that she would be coming in from New York late that day. While she plans to make the meeting, any delays in her travel times could cause her to miss. Commissioner Hunter advised that she attended the recent Heritage Commission meeting at which two items of interest were discussed. One was the remodel of the Corinthian building and the second was a review of an old historic house. COMMUNICATIONS Written City Council Minutes from Regular Meeting on June 16, 2004. AD TOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Uhl, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, Chair Garakani adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of July 28, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: • Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk Item 1 • • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 03-064/ 15374 Madrone Hill Road Type of Application: Design Review Owner: Roy and Leanne Martino, Property Owner Staff Planner: Christy Oosterhous AICP, Associate Planner Date: July 28, 2004 APN: 517-22-024 Department Head: ~ ~~ ~- __. , , .. ~,- ,. ~ ~, _ , 7/ Y i ~ ~ \ l "'_\ _._ i -` ~ ` - % ~ ~ _ _ j - _:_ -_ ~~ ~~ ~ ~;I I .h• : ~ i \j~ i . \` .. 1. .._ \ _ _.... ! C ~ t 1 \\ 'I ~ ~ _ ~~ Y ,': ,.. ~ {} ~ ' 500 (od &ffer ZDne ~ t ~ % ! ~~ ~ ~ ~ Ratect SRe ~_- ___.__ _ - ~- `i ~ ~ _ r . _~ F~rcels w iUlin 500 feel ! ~ 7 .' I , i ,~! Streets /I 1 ~ '~ `.~ ~. _~. F~9rce6 \ .. --._ ~ __ _..._ - __ ,_ , ' ( '. i~ 15374 Madrone Hill Road ~- F 0®~ V ®~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY: Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 02/ 19/03 05/17/04 07/22/04 07/07/04 07/14/04 The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence. The project includes the demolition of an existing residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 5,118 square feet. The floor area of the main floor is 3,541 square feet and the lower floor is 1,577 square feet. In addition, a 1,995 square foot basement is proposed. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 24 feet. The lot size is approximately 87,855 square feet and the site is zoned R-1 40,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the application for Design Review with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval. 2. Neighbor Notification templates. 3. Arborist Report, dated June 23, 2003. 4. Affidavit of Mailing Notices, Public Hearing Notice, Mailing labels for project notification. 5. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A." • • • 0~0®®2 Application No. 03-064;15374 Madrone Hill Road r~ u STAFF ANALYSIS 7.ONING: R-1-40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD (Residential Very Low Density) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 87,855 gross square feet, 76,868 net square feet SLOPE: 33% average site slope; 2% slope at building site GRADING REQUIRED: 591 cubic yards cut (basement); 81 cubic yards cut (site); 338 cubic yards fill ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project including the demolition of an existing single-family residence and the construction of a new single-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 S to three single-family residences. MATERIALS AND COLORS: Materials and colors include abrown-grey stucco exterior with a slate the roof in earth tone colors. Stone accents and a red door are also proposed. • Q~0~~3 Application No. 03-064;15374 Madrone Hill Road PROJECT DATA: Lot Coverage: Floor Area: Setbacks: Height: Main residence Driveway Patios, walks, and pools TOTAL Main Floor Lower level TOTAL (basement) Front *Rear Left Side Right Side Proposal Code Requirements Maximum Allowable 35% 4,292 sq. ft. 5,362 sq. ft. 3,986 sq. ft. 13,640 sq. ft. 3,541 sq. ft. 1,577 sq. ft. 5,118 sq. ft. 1,995 sq. ft. 100+ ft. n/a 60+ ft. 20 ft. 24 ft. 25,854 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable •i 5,220 sq. ft. • Min. Requirement 30 ft. n/a 20 ft. 20 ft. Maximum Allowable 26 ft. Lowest elevation pt. 641 Highest elevation pt. 650 Average 644.5 At the topmost point of 668.25 the structure * The property does not have a rear property line because the lot lines form a triangular shape. •i ~~~~®~~ Application No. 03-064;15374 Madrone Hill Road • PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant requests design review approval to construct a new two-story single-family residence. The project includes the demolition of an existing residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 5,118 square feet. The floor area of the main floor is 3,541 square feet and the lower floor is 1,577 square feet. In addition, a 1,995 square foot basement is proposed. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 24 feet. The lot size is approximately 87,855 square feet and the site is zoned R-1 40,000. The average slope of the property is 33%. The proposed residence presents itself as aone- story structure from the access driveway off Madrone Hill Road. The main level of the residence is located on the "upper floor." The garage and additional living space are located below the main level and comprise the "lower floor." The design of the proposed residence utilizes the slope of the lot to minimize mass and bulk The proposed residence is a modern approach to the French Eclectic style including towered elements, wood slat shutters, and stone accents. Identifying features of the proposed residence include gable rooflines over the arched windows along the front facade and a towered entry porch with arches and stone accents. The applicant declined staff's request for a color rendering. Architectural styles in the neighborhood vary. Lot sizes in the area are typically one acre or more. The footprint of the proposed two-story residence is located predominately in the footprint of the existing two-story. The design of the proposed residence incorporates the slope of the site and the footprint of the existing residence. The proposed residence is set back more than 100 feet from Madrone Hill Road and presents itself as aone-story from the closest property line. The property abuts Madrone Hill; however, an access driveway services the project site and two additional properties owned by Smith and Dix. The Smith property is located across the access driveway from the project site the Dix property is located upslope from the project site. Neighbor Correspondence The applicant has provided the City's neighbor notification templates for the adjacent properties. Staff received comments from Gregory and Marilyn Smith. The Smith's requested the following: 1) the General Contractor will keep the common driveway open at all times. In other words, no cars parking on the side, 2) The General Contractor will resurface the entire driveway if any damage occurs to the driveway due to their equipment; 3) That the contractor will repair any damage to the old wood fencing. 4) the contractor will not commence work prior to 7:30 am; and lastly that 5) the property owners will send a copy of this agreement to property owners Dix and Smith. The above request has been Q~®~QiJ~ Application No. 03-064;15374 Madrone Hill Road incorporated into the conditions of approval. attachment 2 of this report. All neighbor notification templates aze • Trees The project site is heavily wooded. Many Oaks, Bays, Pines, and Redwood trees aze located on the site. Four native trees are proposed for removal including three Redwood trees (#10,11,12) and one Oak tree (#5). The trees proposed for removal range from 13-16 inches in diameter. The Arborist report dated June 23, 2003 concludes that the removal of tree #5, a Coast Live Oak, would have minor affects to the overall landscape and the Arborist has no objections provided its appraise value is replaced. The Arborist also concluded that three redwood trees (#10, 11, 12) would be significantly impacted by construction and demolition of the residence. Replacement trees aze required. Over ten thousand dollars in replacement trees shall be planted. Geotechnical Clearance The application requires geotechnical review. Geotechnical Cleazance was granted with conditions, which have been incorporated in the attached Resolution. Design Review Findings The proposed project is consistent with all the following Design Review findings stated in MCS 15-45.080: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The footprint of the proposed two-story residence is located predominately in the footprint of the existing two-story; therefore, there is little change in the impacts to views and privacy in comparison to the existing conditions. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The proposed residence will be surrounded by existing trees. The use of brown-grey stucco and a slate the roofing in earth tone colors will blend with the natural environment. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The project site is heavily wooded. Many Oaks, Bays, Pines, and Redwood trees are located on the site. Four trees aze proposed for removal. Three Redwood trees (#10,11,12) and one Oak tree (#5). The Arborist report dated June 23, 2003 concludes that the removal of tree #5, a Coast Live Oak, would have minor affects to the overall landscape and the Arborist has no objections provided its appraise value is replaced. The Arborist also concluded that three redwood trees (#10, 11, 12) would be significantly impacted by construction and demolition of the residence. Replacement trees are required. Over ten thousand dollars in replacement trees shall be planted prior to final occupancy inspection. • •' ~~®~®6 Application No. 03-064;15374 Madrone Hill Road (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulb Architectural details such as conical rooflines, decorative gable rooflines over the windows, wood-slat shutters, cobble stone accents, arched windows and the arched entryway break up bulldmg fines, create architectural interest, and reduce mass and bulk. (e) Compatible bulk and height The design of the proposed residence incorporates the slope of the site and the footprint of the existing residence. The proposed residence is set back more than 100 feet from Madrone Hill Road and presents itself as aone- story from the closest property line. The proposed residence will be in keeping with the general appearance of the site and neighborhood. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposal would conform to the City's current grading and erosion control methods. (g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above and staff report. Conclusion Staff concludes that the Design Review findings can be supported. • STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the application for Design Review with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. • ~~~~~~ • Attachment 1 • ~~~~~~ APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 03-064 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Martino; 15374 Madrone Hill Road WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review to construct a new single-family residence; 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 single-family residence, 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 asingle-family home in an urbanized area; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met 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: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The footprint of the proposed two-story .residence is located predominately in the footprint of the existing two-story; therefore, there is little change in the impacts to views and privacy in comparison to the existing conditions. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The proposed residence will be surrounded by existing trees. The use of brown-grey stucco and a slate the roofing in earth tone colors will blend with the natural environment. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The project site is heavily wooded. Many Oaks, Bays, Pines, and Redwood trees are located on the site. Four trees are proposed for removal. Three redwood trees (#10,11,12) and one Oak tree (#5). The Arborist report dated June 23, 2003 concludes that the removal of tree #5, a Coast Live Oak, would have minor affects to the overall landscape and the Arborist has no objections provided its appraise value is replaced. The Arborist also concluded that three redwood trees (#10, 11, 12) would be significantly impacted by construction and demolition of the residence. Replacement trees are required. Over ten thousand dollars in replacement trees shall be planted prior to final occupancy inspection. ~?a'~~~~ (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. Architectural details such as conical rooflines, decorative gable rooflines over the windows, wood-slat shutters, cobble • stone accents, arched windows and the arched entryway break up building lines, create architectural interest, and reduce mass and bulk. (e) Compatible bulk and height. The design of the proposed residence incorporates the slope of the site and the footprint of the existing residence. The proposed residence is set back more than 100 feet from Madrone Hill Road and presents itself as a one-story from the closest property line. The proposed residence will be in keeping with the general appearance of the site and neighborhood. (~ Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposal would conform to the City's current grading and erosion control methods. (g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible .bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above and staff report. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, azchitectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, application number 03-064 for Design Review Approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The General Contractor will keep the common driveway open at all times. In other words, no cars parking on the side. 2. The General Contractor will resurface the entire driveway if any damage occurs to the driveway due to their equipment. 3. The contractor will repair any damage to the old wood fencing during construction. 4. The contractor will not commence work prior to 7:30 am. 5. The property owners will send a copy of an agreement which includes conditions #1-4 above to property owners Dix and Smith. 6. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" incorporated by reference. All changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Proposed changes Q`~'Q~~'9.0 to the approved plans are subject to the approval of the Community Development Director and may require review by the Planning Commission. 7. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the Arborist Report dated June 23, 2004 as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division. 8. 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." 9. 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. 10. The applicant or his designated representative shall apply for and secure a grading permit if deemed necessary. 11. No downgrading in the exterior appearance of the approved residence will be approved by staff. Downgrades may include but are not limited to garage doors, architectural detailing, stonework, columns, shutters, driveway materials, etc. Any exterior changes to approved plans may require filing an additional application and fees for review by the planning commission as a modification to approved plans. 12. The site shall be in compliance with impervious coverage regulations for the zone district prior to granting final occupancy. CITY ARBORIST 13. All recommendations contained in the Arborist Report dated June 23, 2004 shall be followed. 14. Prior to Final Building Inspection, 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. CITY ATTORNEY 15. 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 Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. ~Q®~~,1 Section 2. Construction must commence within 36 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 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission. State of California, the 28th day of July by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: 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 • • ~Q~~4~.2 • Attachment 2 • ~~~~~~ Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: ~ d PROJECT ADD SS: I J~3~`f ~~-Q- ~ ~~ ~' ~ ~-- Applicant Name: y`/ ~~~~y~ Application Number: 03 - 0 ~,~ The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Stajj'and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. My signature below certifies the follow' : I have reviewed the project plans; I u derstand the scone of work; and OT ave any concerns or issues which need o be add es~e aQpli~ nt "or o e i pyblic-hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): , Nei bor Name: ~~~ ~ ~~~LJ/Y `~ ~~ /~~ Sh Neighbor Address: Neighbor Phone #: `f' d a ~ a"~~~`~~~ Signature: Printed: • City of Saratoga Planning Department ®®~+~.4. • Martino's: This our thoughts on your forthcoming new construction project. - 1. Please demand in writing from the General Contractor that he will keep the common driveway open at all times. In other words no subs parking on the side. 2. Demand in writing that the General Contractor will resurface the entire driveway if damage occurs to the driveway due to his or his subs equipment. 3. Contractor will repair any damage done to the oki wooden fencing. 4. Contractor will not commence work prior to 7:30am. 5. Martino's will send a copy of the Contractor's agreement regarding the driveway and abq~re items to the Dix's and Smiths. Thanks, Greg 8 Marilyn • ~~~~~.~ Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: ~ ~ '1 ~ ' V3 PROJECT ADDRESS: s37 y'1,a.e~tiUX-Q. ~ G~ ~+A'L~' • Applicant Name: `E' ~ Application Number: 03' 0 0~ The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and-concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have sny concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion . with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: 7r9/~v 1~ ~%~.~`4~1-~~~~_~~/ ~ Neighbor Addre/ss~: ~Sb?Q Neighbor Phone #: ~~_~ 7 • ~9~ ~ Si ature: <~~ ~~~ City of Saratoga Printed: /~ , Planning Department ~~~~~'~ ' Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: lb ' ~ g - G 3 PROJECT ADDRESS: !~37 , d~ Applicant Name: ~- Application Number: ~ 3 ' 0 (~'~ The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Stajf and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. UMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns aze the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: W . es ? l ~° ~~ ~ a Neighbor Address: Signature: Neighbor Phone #: 3S`t " "C 139 Printed: 1. L~S~/L°. ~G~~ v Planning Departrp~~~~~r~ Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: ~ ~3 -' 43 PROJECT ADDRESS: l 537 Applicant Name: d- Application Number: ~ 3 " D („ cy The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Stafj''and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. LJMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concel~as are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: ~~~'~~ i~ ~~ Neighbor Address: Signature: City of Saratoga Neighbor Phone #: ~~a ~~ ~ a~~ Pri ted: Planning Department • • Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications • Date: ~ ` I8 - 6 3 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1537-7 ~~~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~- -._ Applicant Name: ~ ~ r ~~'r~ ~a Application Number: C? 3 ' d ~ The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to addressissues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns aze the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: a ,~~~. ~ Neighbor Phone #: C1Q1'1 Sif11TA• / i Printed: ~ ~~ City of Saratoga ~1.~ ~ ~ `~e~~U,'s~ f~~,~ >~,~ . E ~~ ~ c~ ; S~~ Planning Departm~~~~g~ • Attachment 3 • ®~~20 '~~;b. ARBOR RESOURCES :~ p p p p /~ ~40 fLb3iOlt[tL OgiDOtiGLLL~U.iQL C.:O-LSU.CEin9 & ~taa Bata AN ARBORICULTURAL SURVEY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE AT THE MARTINO RESIDENCE 15374 MADRONE HILL ROAD SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME: MARTINO APPLICATION #: 03-064 APN: 517-22-024 Submitted to: Community Development Department, Planning Division City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Certified Arborist #WE-4001A Site Inspected: June 20, 2003 Report Submitted: June 23, 2003 P.O. Box 2529>, San Mateo. California 94402 ~ Email: arborresources@earthlink.net Prone: 6>0.654. ~~ ~ 1 E Fay;: C~~0.6~4.352 ~ Licensed Contractor #796763 O®®~D21 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 23, 2003 SUMMARY Twenty-one Ordinance-sized trees were inventoried and evaluated for this report. If trees # 10, 11 and 12 are expected to survive, no soil excavation for the basement shall occur beneath and five feet from their canopies. If excavation is necessary, these trees shall be considered a loss, and mitigated with replacement trees. I suggest retaining the existing asphalt surface located beneath tree canopies. Where asphalt must be removed, I suggest no soil cuts are made, and roots of two inches and greater in diameter, which are protruding above or within base course material, are retained. Tree protection fencing locations are shown on the attached plan. To ensure protection of trees planned for retention, I recommend a 15-percent bond. When available, the utility, grading, drainage and landscaping plans should be reviewed for tree impacts. ASSIGNMENT • This report has been prepared at the request of the City of Saratoga's Community Development Department to review the proposed demolition of an existing residence, and construction of a new one at 15374 Madrone Hill Road, Saratoga. , This report includes information regarding the effects the proposed project will have on Ordinance-sized trees exposed to potential impacts from construction activities; identifies each tree's condition, species, and size; establishes an appraisal value for each tree; provides recommended bond values; and presents recommendations for mitigating trees being impacted. A summary of my findings is presented on the Tree Inventory Spreadsheet attached to this report. Each tree's location, number and canopy dimensions, as well as recommended tree protection fencing locations, are shown on an attached copy of the Site Plan prepared by Cornerstone Limited, stamped as received by the City on March 14, 2003. For identification purposes, numbered metal tags were attached to the trunks of all accessible inventoried trees. • Martino Residence, 15374 Madrone Hill Road, Saratoga Page 1 of S City of Saratoga Community Development Department, Planning Division n Q~~Q~~ David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 23, 2003 OBSERVATIONS AND REVIEW OF PLANS The 21 trees inventoried and evaluated for this report appear in overall good condition, and include 3 California Black Oaks (Quercus kelloggii), 8 Coast Live Oaks (Quercus agrifolia), 8 Coast Redwoods (Sequoia sempervirens), and 2 Valley Oaks (Quercus lobata). Other trees located in proximity to the proposed construction are smaller than Ordinance size, such as the Coast Redwood adjacent and south of tree #12. The location of the existing basement was not observed on the plans. It should be shown in relation to the existing and future home to properly determine impacts to trees #10, 11, and 12. If the proposed basement and light wells will require soil excavation beneath or five feet from their canopies, I anticipate they will be severely impacted and their stability compromised. The plans do not indicate a new driveway surface will be installed. However, if this is planned, I suggest retaining as much of the existing driveway surface beneath their canopies as possible. Where the driveway must be removed, I suggest no soil cuts are required, and roots within and protruding above existing base course material are retained. During my inspection, I met with Mrs. Martino. Though not shown on the Site Plan reviewed, she indicated the driveway will be expanded towazds the direction of tree #5, and thus requiring its removal. I believe this would have minor affects to the overall tree . landscape, and have no objections to this occurring, provided its appraised value is replaced. I also suggest the driveway is planned outside from canopies of trees #4 and 6, and the new retaining wall constructed using a pier and beam design with no soil excavation required between piers. RECOMMENDATIONS All recommendations presented below are based on plans reviewed and are intended to mitigate foreseeable damage. If revisions to plans occur, recommendations will require modification. Tree Protection Fencing 1. Tree protection fencing must be installed prior to demolition and arrival of heavy equipment. It shall be located as shown on the attached plan, and placed no further than four feet from the proposed home's footprint, and one-foot from the existing driveway, patio, deck and retaining walls. It must be comprised of five to six feet high chain link mounted on two-inch diameter steel posts, driven two feet into the ground and spaced no more than 12 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and in place throughout the construction process and until the project receives final approval. All development activities must be conducted outside the fenced areas. These activities include, but are not limited to, the storage of materials and equipment, vehicle parking, and dumping of concrete or other construction materials. Martino Residence, 15374 Madrone Hill Road, Saratoga Page 2 of S City of Saratoga Community Development Department, Planning Division ~®O~~ra~ David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 23, 2003 2. Though not drawn on the attached plan, fencing in front of the home will need to be initially established to allow removal of the walkway between trees #10 and 11. I recommend the fence is placed no further than one-foot from the walkway, and established as shown on the attached plan immediately after the walkway is removed 3. I believe the existing wooden fence and rock wall located along the road and driveway adequately serves to protect trees from construction activities. Should either be removed before construction is complete, protection fencing must be installed in its place. Note there is an opening in the fence neaz tree #1 that must be closed of~prior to the demolition phase. 4. The wooden fence adjacent to tree #19's trunk must remain intact throughout the construction process, or protection fencing established in its. place. Basement 5. Should the basement, including light wells, require soil excavation beneath or five from canopies of trees # 10, 11 and 12, I recommend these trees be considered a loss and their combined appraised value replaced with new trees of equivalent value. Hardscape and Root Zone Protection 6. I suggest the existing asphalt driveway surface located beneath canopies of retained trees remains intact. If removal is necessary, roots of two-inches and greater in diameter located within and protruding above existing base course material should be • retained, and the base course material used as the new material. 7. The removal of hardscape, including the front brick walkway and patio, ,located beneath canopies of retained trees, shall be removed by first breaking the hazdscape into manageable pieces, then hand loading the pieces onto a loader. The loader must remain on hazdscape at' all times and not travel over or pazk on unpaved azeas. Immediately (within a few hours) after the hazdscape is removed, cover the newly exposed azea with four inches of coarse wood chips and keep moist for a period of two weeks. 8. A root zone buffer must be installed, as shown on the attached plan, on exposed soil beneath canopies of trees #11 and 12, between protection fencing and the home's footprint. This must occur after the demolition phase and before construction commences. It shall consist of a four-inch layer of coazse wood chips covered by one- inch thick plywood. The plywood can be securely fastened to enable a sturdy walking surface. 9. A three-inch layer of coarse wood chips shall be spread over the exposed soil beneath tree # 19's canopy, between the existing wood fence and bottom of the staircase. 10. If the driveway is expanded, it must not encroach within canopies of trees #4 and 6. The retaining wall supporting the driveway must be constructed using a pier and beam Martino Residence, 15374 Madrone Hill Road, Saratoga Page 3 of 5 City of Saratoga Community Development Department, Planning Division David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 23, 2003 type design, without excavation required between piers. Note the removal of tree #5 must be mitigated with replacement trees. Utilities and Grading 11. Underground pipes, utilities and old irrigation lines beneath canopies of retained trees should be abandoned and cut at existing soil grade. 12. Plans for installing utilities and drainage should be reviewed by me before installation occurs. The features must be iristalled outside from beneath tree canopies, or tunneled (bored) a minimum of four feet below existing grade. 13. No grading or surface scraping shall occur within fenced areas. 14. Soil must not be dumped or piled (even temporarily) on unpaved surfaces beneath canopies. Tree Pruning and Removals 15. All pruning must be performed under supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist and according to standazds established by the Western Chapter of the ISA. Information regazding Certified Arborists in the azea can be obtained by calling the Western Chapter ISA at 530/892-1118. 16. Any trees being removed must be performed in a manner that does damage trees planned for preservation. Stumps must also be ground, as opposed to being pulled or uprooted from the ground. Tree Replacements 17. The combined appraised value of trees #10, 11 and 12 is $7,640, which is equivalent to one 48-inch and two 36-inch box sized trees. The appraised value of tree #5 is $2,640, which is equivalent to two trees of 36-inch box size. 18.Other replacement combinations are available, and must be equal the appraised value of trees being removed. The replacement tree values and sizes aze as follows: $120 for a 15-gallon; $420 for 24-inch box; $1,320 fora 36-inch box; and $5,000 fora 48-inch box. 19. Acceptable tree replacements include Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia), Valley Oak (Quercus lobata), Big Leaf Maple (Ater macrophyllum), Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) and California Buckeye (Aesculus californica). Landscape Guidelines 20. Any landscape plans should be reviewed for tree impacts prior to installation. 21. Irrigation must not be sprayed beneath Oak canopies, and not strike or come within several feet from trunks of all other trees. Where irrigating beneath canopies of trees Martino Residence, 15374 Madrone Hill Road, Saratoga Page 4 of S City of Saratoga Community Development Department, Planning Division ~~'~~25 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 23, 2003 other than Oaks, the direction of spray shall be away from trunks, including areas where lawn is installed. 22. Lawn must not be installed beneath Oak canopies. Plant material proposed beneath canopies must be of low water use and comprise no more than 20-percent of the total ground azea. A publication of compatible plants can be obtained from the California Oak Foundation at 510/763-0282, or a-mail: oakstaff@californiaoaks.org. 23. Irrigation for plant material beneath canopies must be of drip or laser line. This can be placed on grade and covered with mulch. No imgation trenches shall be dug beneath canopies. 24. Stones, mulch or other landscape features/materials must at least two feet from trunks. 25. Installing edging material or rototilling beneath canopies must be avoided. 26. Pathways or other landscape items proposed beneath canopies must be permeable and not require soil compaction or cuts. TREE PROTECTION BOND The appraised tree values aze presented on the Tree Inventory Spreadsheet attached at the end of this report. The values were calculated in accordance to the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9`" Edition, using the Trunk Formula Method for Northern California, 1992, established by the Western Chapter of the ISA. The total appraised value of trees is $116,380. I suggest a 15-percent bond of all retained trees is applied to ensure their protection. Martino Residence, 15374 Madrone Hill Road, Saratoga Page 5 of S City of Saratoga Community Development Department, Planning Division ~0~~26 ARBOR RESOURCES • ~tofasslona~ d~t~oslautEutat eonsu~Eln9 S ~tac eatE TREE INVENTORY SPREADSHEET .. ~~ N ~ @J .. ~~ v1 :~ C~ ~ o a b o ~b a ~ `~ ~,a yy A ~ ~~ A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~b ~~ ~ ~b ~ 8~ ~ ~ ~ TREE .~ ~ .~ ~ :~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ a NO. TREE NAME .~ .~ ' ! , Valley Oak 1 ( ercus lobata) 16 - 35 40 75% 50'/o Fair 5 - 54,790 California Black Oak 2 ( e~rus kell 'i) 10 9 35 15 100% 50% (Mood 5 - 51,880 Coast Live Oak 3 ( uer+cus a 'olio) 22 20 40 35 75% •75% Good S - 56,100 Coast Redwood 4 (Se oia sem rvirens) 19 18 60 30 100% 100% Good 5 - 54,190 Coast Live Oak 5 ( encus a 'olio) 12 10 30 25 100% 100% Good 5 - 52,640 Coast Redwood 6 (Se oia sem rvirens) 18 l6 45 20 100'/0 100'/o Good 5 - 53,460 Coast Redwood 7 (Se oia sem rvirens) 40 36 70 50 75% 100% Good 3 - 518,700 Coast Redwood 8 (Se oia sem rvirens) 13 12 40 20 75% 100% Good 2 - 52,220 Coast Redwood 9 (Se oia sem rvirens) 14 13 50 20 75% 100% Good 3 - 52,480 Coast Redwood 0 (Se oia sem rvirens) 13 12 35 20 75% 100% Good 1 - 52,220 Coast Redwood 11 (Se oia sem rvirens) 16 l 3 50 20 75% 100% Good 1 - 52,480 Coast Redwood 12 (Se oia sempervirens) l6 14 40 25 75% 100% Good 1 - S2,760 Coast Live Oak 13 ( ereus a folio) l7 15 25 35 75% 50% Fair 5 - S3,280 Coast Live Oak 14 ( ercus agrijolia) 32 30 60 50 100% SO% Good 3 - 516,100 Sine: lS37I Mamie !!H Road, Sarau+aa Prep®d jor. CSey ojS®aroaa Pre~ad br: Da-id L Babbj, RCA 1 oj2 Jrwt 23, 2BY3 O~Q'~'2'7 ARBOR RESOURCES ' ~tOfasllonaL ~t~OiLaLLLEU.LIiL C.:OILSILtttn9 & sac eases TREE INVENTORY SPREADSHEET ,. ~(V .... ~ ~~ V'O .. v~ y~ ~ y~ ~'O ^ ~'. 3 I 3 1~' ( q 'c~~g~ P. O 7) ~P ~ ~ ~$ ~° 3 8a ~.. ~ ~ ~~ A ~ ~~ A ~ .. v~ ~ > a~ U I ^~ ~~ L I c U ~a ~ w NO °, ~ ~ ~ ~ ,,, ~ , Q, ~ b ~ 8 ~ fi~b,, ~ a ~ > o ~ ~ !~ o ~ ~ TREE NAME California Black Oak 15 ercus kell 'i) 24 22 45 40 75% 50% Fair 3 - S9,700 California Black Oak 16 ( ericus kel! 'i - 15, 13 40 45 50% 25% Fair 4 - S3,330 Coast Live Oak 17 ( et+cus a 'olio) 28 26 35 30 100% 75% Good 5 - 310,400 Coast Live Oak 18 er~cus a 'olio) 28 26 35 45 100% 75% Good 4 - 312,400 Valley Oak 19 ( ereus lobata) 13 10 35 30 100% 50% Good 4 - $2,350 Coast Live Oak 20 ( ercus a 'olio) 13 12 30 20 75% 25% Fair 5 - $1,590 Coast Live Oak 21 ( ereus a folio) 18 16 45 30 75% 50% Fair 5 - 33,310 1 oj2 Site 13371 Mahone Kdr Road Smarogo A'4maifK: CLtyoJSmawao H~meJby: Dari1L Bobby, RCA •i •i J(un~e 23, 2003 QQ Ei'~ `®~tiv 1 1 1< \O 4 N O~ 1 ~ O L'~ ~ y~ D 0 1.1 .~\ ~ ~ ~\ Jc \ - ~~q~ O ~d .. ~ ` R ~ - N ~ ~ a 00 o a\ N `p ~ ~~ • =~ o ~ 1 p ' ~ ~N ref ~ O 1 ~1 4 N `~ ~\ /~rr ~ F.I 4 Q 1 o TR ~. n ~ pS ~ 1 ~ 1 IN \ ~ ~ _ N Y Vl 1 0 N 1. ~ .~ "~ o ~ ~ P u ~ 1 1 . m ~ ~ N , ~ ~~ I ~ 1 r > ~. ` ~ ~ 11 - ~ p W ° ~ ~'id ~~~ ± NB ~d' F i ~ c p .. 1 ~ O y f ~ ~i ~ _ yy ~Q Is~ly ~ m I ~ a )C p p ~ 8 Z m ' b o Y ~p ~ ~ ~ I IJ eu n U G .~ ~ J ai .°~ ~ / ~ ~~ ~°. o ~ - `\ \ y > Vl Q ~ rn R ~ "' °•; ~ ~ 9 G~~ A eTi > ~ 1 ~~ ~~ c ~ gg A ~ J47. ~ ~ T. ` ~J • ~ ~~ S 1 O ~ "'7 ~ , ~ ~~ ~ ~ K ~ '~. ~ ', D ~. ~ R G, ~ 1 N w y~ ~ V ` Z Vie. p C ~i ~ f~° Q 'lc A~ w 4 ~ ~N ~ ~~~ I ~ w ~ i ,may s ~ ~ .n '~ ! ~ i 'y1y7 ` %Ipzl ~ ~nl l Q ~ V' w' O ~o ~ \. p ~ i~ p _ .. \ J c ~~ ~ im 1 nr'7. I N ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ Q~ ~ fr i N y /r I • : ~ I I ~ ~ m v O ~ c w~ L Q ~ Qo G ~ ~ m > > < m o m ~ Q fj ~ ~ N \ ~ I w O ~ ~ L . ~' ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~~r \ ~ ~~ w \ ~ YYYlll ~ ro ' J o ' Q S~ l ~ \\ / _N ~ ~ ~ ~ g 0 / ' I j ~~~ o ~ -~ • . . l 4 ~ y ~ l~ /~~ ~/yl ~ ~ ~ N b ~ ~ N ! w < ~ ~ N ~ ~o ~, ~- Ja - ~ Y ~ o ~ z ~.__ N I ~~ l_J ~- -~?' NI ~ z EA~~'o __ ql Q~ 2~ i x ___- ~N IN ~ .~' / l J FF ~ -_ ' N _ w = V ~ ml ~ ~ 4 ~ 1 LN ~ $qof _ _ _ _v Fi-~ ' ~~ to . ~.~ t^:. _ m u ~ ~ ~ XS PELIO LANE '~ (10' R/W) Or,r6'et N 54bvbZ N N 03'53'40' , Sft~~ M M + 6Z'bb µ 76. 12~ Q~~'Q~29 y yti ~• Ci Attachment 4 • Q®®©~0 . AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLAR.A ) I, Christy Oosterhous, 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 Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission on the 7th day of July, 2004, 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 Ciry 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. C- v Signed • ~~~~a~~ City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408-868-1222 NOTICE OF HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Wednesday, the 28`h day of July 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Details are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Thursday from 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. APPLICATION #03-064 (517-22-024) MARTINO 15374 Madrone Hill Road - The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story single- family residence. The project includes the demolition of an existing residence. The total floor area of the proposed residence and garage is 5,118 square feet. The floor area of the main floor is 3,541 square feet and the lower floor is 1,577 square feet. In addition, a 1,995 square foot basement is proposed. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 24 feet. The lot size is approximately 87,855 square feet and the site is zoned R-140,000. 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. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The Ciry uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor's office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of -date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. Christy Oosterhous, AICP Associate Planner • Q~~~32 MONTALVO ASSOCIATION POBOX158 SARATOGA CA 95071-0158 ~1 ROAN, YI-JANG & CHUEN MEI 15461 MADRONE HILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6401 DIX, LANAYA & GARY E 15404 MADRONE HILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6401 BERQUIST, HERBERT C & HELEN M 15240 PIEDMONT RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6403 DUKES, DARRELL E & ANGELIN M TRUSTEE 15329 PEACH HILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6402 ~KER, WM WAYNE & SARAH J TRUSTEE 15315 MADRONE HILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6401 ELFVING, WILLIAM J 15451 PEACH HILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6402 LAVEY, THOMAS C & JUDITH M 15375 PEACH HILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6402 PELIO, W L TRUSTEE 14573 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA CA 95070 • MONTALVO ASSOCIATION P O BOX 158 SARATOGA CA 95071-0158 MARTINO, RAYMOND A & LEE A 15374 MADRONE HILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6401 WANKA, FRIEDA W TRUSTEE 15486 MADRONE HILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6401 BROOKS, CHARLES J & ROMONA J 15355 PEACH HILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6402 GIANNANDREA, JOHN & CAROL A 15363 PEACH HILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6402 RINEHART, ROBERT M & JULIE M 15230 MADRONE HILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6401 MCGUIRE-CHAIDES, KATHLEEN 15305 MADRONE HILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6401 LUNDQUIST, GEORGE A & HARRIET C 15397 PEACH HILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6402 PELIO, W L TRUSTEE 14573 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA CA 95070 RYLEY, JAMES S & PATRICIA B TRUSTEE 15401 MADRONE HILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6401 SMITH, G GREGORY & MARILYN R TRUSTEE 15472 MADRONE HILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6401 KOOGLE, TIMOTHY A 15500 MADRONE HILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6401 MASSIF, TONY 15301 PEACH HILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6402 ANDRES, FREDERICK S & SHARON B TRUSTEE 15255 PEACH HILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6469 DALE, ROBERT L & PATRICIA J TRUSTEE 15419 PEACH HILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6402 CHIDLOW, CHRISTINE A TRUSTEE PO BOX 3096 SARATOGA CA 95070-1096 PELIO, W L TRUSTEE 14573 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA CA 95070 t~~4~33 • • • a-.-1 ~- m z x w ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M N ~~~1~ ~~ ~ ~rtr ~~~~~~~~s~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~~ ~I ~ ~ ;- ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ e e ~~~ n i `\y ~~~ 9 J~ r •. 9 ~~~ g W~~ul ~~~~ r x ~I R <K ri ~a~;~ ~ ; ~ e~ ~~~ ~ ~kkN :r ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ A~~M ~~~~ 7 ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~ N ~~ ~ ~ E ~ ~- ~ ~~ a~ m o~ T. ___ !~" '-~~ ~, .,~ f~ ~~ '. ~, ~v. ~~ u;~ ~~. e .~ i r ~ ~) 1b ~.., .,.......... ZI p1 ,~, - ,I~' ~ f~i 3•f.. _..... ...._. 4 ..H 1. }. _..~, ~ t~ S ... I _.,. ~~ ~'5~- .....~~ _ Fem.... g ~.~ +~ f 4'- a 'r4 .~~~ (n ~ i. ~~ z '`,,`~ ~. ~~yy..1~ YUIYu ~y ~4' { .~ l ~z ~/ ~,~ i N~ -~ ~e ~~ ~ `, ~ ~ ~~ . ~ ,. .~ ~;a ~~ -...~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~PJ/9l/L?~ NOI$SIWA11$ ONINN~7'1e~ I" W'i 1, ~ .mmw ~~~ ^,,.arwro •s. ~+r rrranNC o. xe~r nu-o~i ~~or~ ~~-~i ~oou ~+cc-ors ~~r~ cwrvcrcc~.rcuu n~s-~r:.~a srYna~~r ~ Q~in~IZ ~t~ois ~o~ ~ , ~w•~ww.w..Mr+p~1-M~+«A-.rw~^~«w.-.~wr-rrw•rrrr«.n«w..«r-r•-w1«r-«1.wT«w M~~11«w*«w1«.«-r w. r.w.~.ww•~~ • ~ ~ ~ • ~ +m-~av c*mr~ m~~ airvrori~ '~v~oirranre aaoa~ rtir~ atvoaio~w rLt~~ sON~Gl9s~ ONIlZl~D'W SHl x =o~ ~ao~arar ~ e «w.1-r•w~r ~w~ir.~.r+r.«~wti.«.r~wrw.r ~n.w..«r~w~w.'.+r+w.. w+rw~w.++«.•~. 11 11 I ~-Q~/9l/L?~ NOI$~aI W91'1~a ~1VI NNb'1d I" W'iSJ ~ .oo.. ~~~ '~rw.o •z. ten, nnwvQ a xw ass-o~: t~or~ aot-ens ~ow~ wcr-o~< <~or~ C1VNpGWJ~G1iN N~cT 9WI7~QOiJ7y ~ Q~ZIY~II'I ~i~IO.LS ~4~ a , M Mw+~~ww+.+~rw~w w~~+.~rr ~~r~w~~w.r.r~rrr ~~.~..,.~~w+ww~~~4r~rww~M-+w.w~.~w~w.~+w+~w1.•w.~Awrww•ww.~.~.w..r~.~rr.. w~r.~rw •..rr.~w~wti~++~.w owe m.wtirw-r• ~+m-LIO ~vmr~ mLm~i PIMiO~I~ 'v''DO10'il'P9 C'C'Oil 111M /NOiIOb'W fL~11 !ONlGIQl~k ONIlZIb"W !Ml x =o~ ~aoranal ~ a • • ~ , ~ • ~~ ~ A~4•~Ol1 Merl N~Mlr MIIN'i1r'0 "11~iW~MO ~G'i~1' MI1~11q ~ x~r ~u•ou cNri sus•oLe cows ++rs•ou <~or~ iv~caG ev~fy Q~ LINII'I 3i~IO LS ~ . . ~ ~ 1'w~-LM !~~) mLmN alrao~rl~ 'v~oiraw~ G'~'Oii ?11M fNOiIG7W 1'Lt~l soNSale~a oNl~a~w aHi x 'O~ ~^QOI,WI ~ ~ . • rw+w..•.+w+r w w+w wi• ~ w.. •rww.....rrr.. w.w~• w w•.~. w+....+. n r r. ~w r• r.. r w ti ~.rw rr ww sn rr... r.r w•.• i.. n• •.w++•w w x+9/91/LPG N01991W®t1~3 OiVINNb'~d • • ' • ~O/91/LZ N01991W®1'19 ~NfNN'4"id ~;~i NI*'dIT"O "19iY,11'O ~L'N'1' Nri1119 ~N Ntf f L I~• O Lr[ ( ON) ~O Lt flOh ) ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~~ TT ~~TttT • ~ ~ T ~ T r 1 Q~.LiI`i 1 ~1~LQ.i.s a~l~l ~,Ov ~ 'M IM11MC1'1RI~DOfl~ flLLON11 t~~-LM ffml') m{.~M O'IMIO~ITrJ ~Y'QGL~/all~'~ GY'O~I TIM ^VO11C1-W t~t~l !~NlG19lZi ONIlZI'D'W !Ml x bi vQOww ~ e wrr.ww.w.w~++.~n-~n.wwrwn~~..+wnw.r-.w•.~~n..~w...wr-wr.~.i.w.rwr.-w.. ~..w.. wrr~w..~w...www..r rtr.•.~r....wrr.~. r.r ~3~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ e ill i yaw ~~~ ~r~+~o ar. ~v -rnruo oa xvr.w•o~t ~Nri ~ Q~J.~~ ~l~t~./.J Q~1~1 a~~ ~ 'M ~~!<r011YIN~DOR~ MiION~' rNm-LM !f®-J mLmA aitV~lOdiTl'7 '1r~r~w Cv0~1 ~11M ~NOiIOr'W fLt~l soN'»clesa~ oNl~a~rw ^M~ x 'Ol VQOWNI ~ e .w..ww.•-.~~ww.ti+...wuwww~.w..+r,..:..~www~.w+..w~.•~~. ~..w rr..w.r.~...wwwww~r..~ w.^.rrrw..~w•+w+1+w.a r~ a u a e • ~ - 'r YO/9{/LPG N01991WA}19 ~1VINN'P1d a • ~ ~ • ~'O/9l/LPJ NOI$$IW9t1S ~NINN"9"ie~ i.. r'i i' ~ vow 'w~ ~r,..rrro erg ~Y ~n~ o. xvw nee-opt ~+o-~ c~oc-mss ~oou ~-®~t t~mr~ G7V/vIA'GW.ADic1 h~VC.7~ 9Nr1JGOiJ.TX ~ Q~ZINII'I ~i~IO.LS ~ M •w~.1~ww....~/.T~r1A~n..A-.r A~r.~w~~1 w.r~~~..rrl..nr.+.~..wi.11~w+A.11~w1~rFl.w~w~~wA. ti.l wl.wr A•r.w•.ww ~.~.~ ..Y.4~r.w-..r~w~f....~.r~rwti~1.MY 4.M~ M~.~w~Mr~ArV ~rs.ww ~.w+wr.1 tw~m-~~v ~~~ mLm9i b'INiiO~llb'J 'o'~DO~d~I'd9 O70i1 x'11 M ^NOi1Cf/W 1'LE~t !7NlGIQl~ ONIlZIt!'W !Ml x ~o~ ~tco~s~ ~ a • Item 2 • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Type of Application: Date: I APN: App # 04-012/ 20288 La Paloma Avenue Michael McKay/Michael Filice John F. Livingstone AICP, Associate Planner Design Review July 28, 2004 397-23-012 Department Head: ~~~ ~. ~ d" , ~, Q 500 ft radius around 20288 La Pabrra Avenue W . ~ \ '.~ ~rr~1+.w~ ,~ ~ •// ~ ~ ..-... ~ ~. ,\ ®20288 La Pabma Avenue -- ~ ~ ~"~T~ ~l~ ~~~~ ~ ~-~ ,; Q Percek w fNn 500It of 20288 Le Pobne AVenue •/ / ~"~ ~1 ~ ~ ~t ~~ ``. .. . I ''1~"~~ .~ .. .\ I ~' i ~ ~ CTS ~. SIAATO&aSyrmy~u; Ra , ~ \ -~ !• !_ ~~ _ _ ~a.~w~ oMs~v.~ no ~ ~~\ ~ _ -~ 1 ~~ -I i i- i ~ .-t " i ~ ~~ I I ao~•K ~ I GMTC2M - \ I. j` ~ M~jmta~~ nc ~~ -J jr \ \ ~\ ~`~~ ~.; v~ ~~ / >. , ,~ ,, ,, .. .~'' ~ =,yR~~ ~ I 1 ~ \. ` - ,.u~~E`~.,y, w~ - , , ~ .. .; ~,~~ yam. ~i .. It l i, < ., `\ede~w.` \\ v s~wiml~~og darytw0 1501 J00 450 ~._~p0 150R :1 'Y. i,~ ~ ,~` ~' 1 I I~ ~ 20288 La Paloma Avenue u 000001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 01/15/04 06/22/04 07/14/04 07/08/03 07/22/04 Request Design Review Approval to demolish and rebuild a significant portion of the existing 1,900 square foot house and add a new second floor for a total floor area of 2,879 square feet. The proposed project will also include a 789 square foot basement. The height of the structure will not exceed 26 feet. The gross lot size is 7,321 square feet and zoned R- 1-10,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve the application for Design Review with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution with conditions 2. Letter and exhibits from applicant 3. Letters from neighbors 4. Arborist Report January 23, 2004 5. State Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record Report 6. Historic Report by Dill Design Group May 3, 2004 7. City of Saratoga Notice, Noticing Affidavit, and Noticing Labels 8. Applicant's Plans, Exhibit "A" L_J 00~®02 File No. 04-012; 20288 La Paloma Avenue/Fzlice Property • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: M-10, Medium Density Residential 4.35 Du/Acre MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 7,321 square feet gross AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 3.4% GRADING REQUIRED: The applicant is proposing minimal grading. The basement is not counted toward the grading amount. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposal 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. Although the architecture of the existing house has been found to be historically significant the new addition meets the Secretary of Interior findings therefore allowing the addition to a historic resource to be categorically exempt per CEQA Section 15331. Proposal Code Requirements Lot Coverage: Maximum Allowable 55.3% 60% Building Footprint 1,800 sq. ft. Driveway 632 sq. ft. Walkways, Patios 1,580 sq. ft. Lightwell 37 sq. ft. TOTAL 4,049 sq. ft. 4,393 sq. ft. Floor Area: Maximum Allowable 789 sq. ft. First Floor 1,380 sq. ft. Basement is New Second Floor 1,079 sq. ft. not counted as Garage 420 sq. ft. floor area TOTAL 2,879 sq. ft. 2,880 sq. ft. Setbacks: Min. Requirement Front Existing 20 ft. 25 ft. Rear 60 ft. 25 ft. ls` floor, 35 ft.2na Left Side 6 ft. ls` floor, ll ft. 2na 6 ft. ls` floor,ll ft. 2na Right Side 6 ft.15` floor, ll ft. 2na 6 ft.15` floor, ll ft. 2nd Height: Maximum Allowable Residence 25 ft. 26 ft. • Detached Garages N/A 12 ft. C:~IvlyDocumenta~Dcsign Review 04U.a Paloma 20288 Staff Repo.doc ~ON7oo3 File No. 04-012; 20288 La Paloma A venue/Filice Property PROJECT DISCUSSION Heritage Preservation Commission During the initial phase of review the applicant contacted staff and was advised that the existing property may be historic. Although the existing house was not on the City's Heritage Resource List it was located in a predominately historic area of the City and was built in the 1920's. In order to proceed with the proposed project staff required that a qualified Historic Architect evaluate the existing house. The applicant hired a Historic Architect who prepared the initial report on the house and found it to be of local historic significance (see attached report by Dill Design Group). Knowing the house was historically significant, the applicant's Architect proceeded to work with the Historic Architect to prepare an addition that maintained the integrity of the existing house and met the Secretary of Interior standards. After several design modifications, a final proposed plan was prepared and a second report was written by the Historic Architect stating that the proposed project meets the Secretary of Interior standards. The Secretary of Interior Standards are guidelines created by the National Parks Service for the restoration, rehabilitation, preservation, and reconstruction of historic structures. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) refers to these standards for the treatment of historic structures. If the project can meet the standards it can be exempt from the CEQA requirements. If it does not meet the standards then an environmental study must be performed. On May 11, 2004 the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) reviewed the two reports . and proposed plans. After conducting a site visit and touring the neighborhood the HPC recommended that the Planning Commission approve the design. Design Review The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to demolish and rebuild a significant portion of the existing 1,900 square foot house and add a new second floor for a total floor area of 2,879 square feet. The proposed project will also include a 789 square foot basement. The height of the structure will not exceed 26 feet. The gross lot size is 7,321 square feet and zoned R-1-10,000. The homes in the area vary in age and design with no consistent design pattern. Most of the homes are over 50 years old. Two of the homes are on the City Heritage Resource Inventory. The street is lined with traditional style homes ranging form English Tudor, Craftsman, and Mediterranean. There are 11 existing two-story homes on La Paloma Avenue and the proposed house backs up to several more two-story homes on Orchard Road. The proposed exterior finish will be stucco to complement the existing residence. The stucco will be a light beige. The proposed stucco will be a smooth texture that will have a subtle contrast to the color and heavier texture of the original historic structure that will be maintained. The Secretary of Interior standards require that the proposed addition be • differentiated from the original structure. The roof on the addition will have clay tiles that C:Vvly[bcumcntsWcsign Review 04Ua Paloma 20288 Staff Repo.doc ~On~J'~~` File No. 04-012; 20288La PalomaAvenue/FiliceProperty will closely resemble the preserved original tiles. The design of the addition and materials used are required to meet the Secretary of the Interior standards and have been review by staff and the Historic Architect (see attached report). Color and material samples will be available at the public hearing. Design Review Findings The proposed project is consistent with all the following Design Review findings stated in MCS 15-45.080: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The proposed house is not in a view corridor and will not have an adverse affect on neighbors' views. The proposed second floor is stepped in from the first floor increasing privacy for the adjacent neighbors. The project architect has also worked with the adjacent neighbors and neighborhood architects implementing several design suggestions to reduce privacy impacts. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The majority of the existing landscaping will remain. Only one protected tree will be removed and replacement trees will be required as a condition of project approval. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The applicant is proposing to remove one protected Magnolia tree located in the center of the back yard. Replacement trees are required as part of the City Arborist Report. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk The proposed second floor addition has varying rooflines that will break up the facade. The second floor is also stepped back from the first floor exterior walls adding character and providing relief from two story high walls. The heavy clay file roof and the arched windows will also reduce the perception of bulk. (e) Compatible bulk and height. The project meets this policy in that the proposed house will not exceed 25 feet in height below the maximum 26 feet allowed. The majority of the existing landscaping that surrounds the site will be maintained as part of the project. The proposed house will also have varying rooflines that will break up the elevations of the building and add character and interest to the structure. The proposed second story will be compatible with the existing structure in both materials and design. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposal would conform to the City's current grading and erosion control standards. (g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views. The home is also designed for energy efficiency in that it will meet the State C:VvlyDocumcnu~Design Revicw 04Ua Paloma 20288 Staff Rcpo.doc oOO~o~ File No. 04-012; 20288 La Paloma A venUe/Fzlice Property Energy Guidelines through the use of wall insulation and high-energy efficiency heating and cooling appliances. Parking The Sazatoga City Code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking spaces within a garage. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing one car garage, which will increase the side setback to the neighboring property. The existing gazage will be replaced with a tandem two-car gazage. Section 15-35.040 allows tandem parking spaces to be permitted by the approving authority, or in this case the Planning Commission. No special findings are required. Trees The applicant is proposing to remove one protected tree. The tree is a 7" Magnolia located in the middle of the back yard lawn. The applicant is proposing to remove the tree to create a cleaz play azea. Correspondence The applicant has shown the plans to the adjacent neighbors (see attached letters from neighbors). There is one letter in support and one letter with specific concerns. The applicant has worked extensively with the one neighbor in an attempt to satisfy all of the concerns. Letters from the applicant and neighbor aze attached. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY Land Use Element Policy 5.0 The City shall use the design review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. The proposed house is consistent with the above General Plan Policy in that the proposed materials and colors will blend in with the existing house and be compatible with the adjacent surroundings. CONCLUSION The proposed project is designed to conform to the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook and to satisfy all of the findings required within Section 15- 45.080 of the City Code. The residence does not interfere with views or privacy, preserves the natural landscape to the extent feasible, and will minimize the perception of bulk so that it is compatible with the neighborhood. The proposal further satisfies all other zoning regulations in terms of allowable floor azea, setbacks, maximum height, and impervious coverage. C:UNyDocuments~Dcsign Rcview 04Ua Paloma 20288 Staff Repo.doc oOO®~~ File No. 04-012; 20288La PalomaAvenue/FiliceProperty STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the application for Design Review with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. • • C:\Mylbcuments\Dcsign Review 04Ua Paloma 20288 Staff Repo.doc O('t(~(1o~' J • Attachment 1 ~~~®~8 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Filice; 20288 La Paloma Avenue WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval to demolish and rebuild a significant portion of the existing 1,900 square foot house and add a new second floor for a total floor area of 2,879 square feet. The proposed project will also include a 789 square foot basement. The height of the structure will not exceed 26 feet. The gross lot size is 7,321 square feet and zoned R-1-10,000. ;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 proposed project consisting of an addition to an existing single-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. Although the architecture of the existing house has been found to be historically significant the new addition meets the Secretary of Interior findings therefore allowing the addition to a historic resource to be categorically exempt per CEQA Section 15331; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review Approval, and the following findings have been determined: ' (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The proposed house is not in a view corridor and will not have an adverse affect on neighbors' views. The proposed second floor is stepped in from the first floor increasing privacy for the adjacent neighbors. The project architect has also worked with the adjacent neighbors and neighborhood architects implementing several design suggestions to reduce privacy impacts. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The majority of the existing landscaping will remain. Only one protected tree will be removed and replacement trees will be required as a condition of project approval. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The applicant is proposing to remove one protected Magnolia tree located in the center of the back yard. Replacement trees are required as part of the City Arborist Report. r 1 LJ OOU009 (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The proposed second Iloor addition has varying rooflines that will break up the facade. The second Iloor is also stepped back from the first Iloor exterior walls adding character and providing relief from two story high walls. The heavy clay the roof and the arched windows will also reduce the perception of bulk. (e) Compatible bulk and height. The project meets this policy in that the proposed house will not exceed 25 feet in height below the maximum 26 feet allowed. The majority of the existing landscaping that surrounds the site will be maintained as part of the project. The proposed house will also have varying rooflines that will break up the elevations of the building and add character and interest to the structure. The proposed second story will be compatible with the existing structure in both materials and design. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposal would conform to the City's current grading and erosion control standards. (g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views. The home is also designed for energy efficiency in that it will meet the State Energy Guidelines through the use of wall insulation and high-energy efficiency heating and cooling appliances. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said • application for Design Review and is consistent with the following General Plan Policy: Land Use Element Policy 5.0 The City shall use the design review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. The proposed house is consistent with the above General Plan Policy in that the proposed materials and colors will blend in with the existing house and be compatible with the adjacent surroundings. 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 for Design Review has been approved and is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit 'A' date stamped July 19, 2004, incorporated by reference.. Any modifications of the approved plans are • subject to the review of the Community Development Director. Any modifications to the D00~10 approved plans shall be submitted in writing to the Planning Division with a proposed • set of plans .highlighting all changes with a cloud. Staff will approve no exterior downgrading in the appearance of the proposed residence. Downgrades may include, but are not limited to, garage doors, architectural detailing, stonework, columns, shutters, etc. Any exterior changes to approved plans may require filing an additional application and fees for review by the Planning Commission as a modification to approved plans. 2. The following shall be included on the plans submitted to the Building Division for the building and grading permit plan check review process: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: 3. No retaining wall shall exceed five feet in height. 4. FENCING REGULATIONS - No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no fence or wall located within any required front yard shall exceed three feet in height. Any existing fences or walls not meeting the zoning ordinance standards shall be removed prior to the project being final. S. 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. If all storm water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan. 6. Landscape plan shall be designed with efficient imgation to reduce runoff, promote surface infiltration and minimize use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute Xo water pollution. 7. Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolong exposure to water shall be specified. 8. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. 9. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. 10. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. • 11. Proper maintenance of landscaping, with minimal pesticide use, shall be the responsibility of the property owner. 000011 12. The height of the structure shall not exceed 25 feet as defined in Section 15-06.340 of the • City Zoning Code. 13. Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan with a note "to remain in place throughout construction.' The fencing shall be inspected by staff prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 14. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. 15. The applicant shall provide a letter from Dill Design Group that the applicant has met all requirements of the Secretary of Interior Standards as referenced in the Dill Design Group Report May 3, 2004. 16. All basement lightwells shall conform to Section 15.06.405 with a maximum width of four feet. CITY ARBORIST 17. All recommendations in the Ciry Arborist's Reports dated January 23, 2004 shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. This includes, but is not limited to: a. The Arborist Re orts shall be inco orated, as a se arate lan a e, to the • P rP P P P g construction plan set and the grading plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plans. ' b. Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan as recommended by the Arborist with a note 'to remain in place throughout construction." Staff prior to issuance of a Building Permit shall inspect the fencing. c. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 18. Roof coverings shall be fire retardant and comply with the standards established for Class A roofing. 19. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in newly constructed attached/detached garages including any workshop or storage areas within the garage which are not constructed as habitable space. An National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard #13D sprinkler system with 2 heads per car stall and 2 head calculation is required To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. The • 000012 • designer/architect is to contact the appropriate water company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. 20. 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. 21. Approved numbers or addresses shall be provided for all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. PUBLIC WORKS 22. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations) to ensure that the plans, specifications and details accurately reflect the consultants' recommendations. Proposed grading, drainage and foundation drawings shall be reviewed for consistency and conformance with the Project Geotechnical Engineer's drainage recommendations. The consultant shall verify that the location(s) of sump(s), pump(s) and subdrain pipes are satisfactorily depicted on the drawings. 23. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of permits. 24. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for fill keyways, and foundation construction, prior to placement of fill, steel and concrete. 25. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to Final Project Approval. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the Ciry Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to project Zone Clearance. CITY ATTORNEY 26. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the Ciry or held to be the liability of Ciry 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. Section 2. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 36 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or approval will expire. ©00013 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 (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 28th day of July 2004 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: 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 ~o~~~.'~ • • Attachment 2 • (~UU~1S ru.•9 a~oq og~~ <;~ . :, i~ n 4i O A~~C* Incidents of Two-Story Residences Surnounding 20288 La Paloma Terrace ~shacfed areas denotes two-story residences, based on visula inspection LUTHERI t APL SARATOGA ~I •i •i 000010 ~4' S ~s Q'9 ~ °~ ~ 9 °~G ~ i ~ ~ 5 3 ~ "6 U ~~ E ,~ o ~ G SPa ~ i' y 4 U~ ~ ~ X11 ~ i ~ ~~~~ E ~ 0 0 v N u~1 ~ O • ~~~~ m ~ > 3 m>~~ ~0~~ o°°~~ U c ~ N °' 0 N ~ ~ c i i i / i i i i L-- ~~~~ 0 ~~~ +~ ~ o t ~ ~ 6' c ~ s ,~ ~ N E O ~ O °3 ~ ~ W U Z ~..~ Q w •~' ~ n LL N ~ ~ O Q ~ ~ Q W ~' +g ~ V J O ~ O c O u ~~ ~~ z 0 E ~~ ~° m '~ W Z ~ LL F N O ir) / ` ~ O auil ~C~rado~d ae a~ua~ '~ '~1,- ~( LL. G +I O - ~ 4- ~ ~ ~ _ ~p cr') ~ ~ L u7 ~ N , ^ l~ V, Q _-~~ z ~ ~, ~ :;, N E- ~ „g-.9 ..9-.I~ ~~~ ~ N w0 ~ N oooo~.~ ~nnooa a:os:3 i rnn. M~K,y, ~ ~~~ ` . ~ ~~ ~ 1 _ s . O ~ ~ ~ ,n ~ u ~ _~. ~ ~ ~ .3 C ~ L~ G ~ ~ O s 0 ~ ~ V. ~. ~ U ~ :.N ~ c // 1 0 00 0 ° ° c 0 0 0 o o o o o ~ c o o ° o . °o . > ~ ~~ o~ ~. ..: ~~ .~ i • w U z 3 i~ 3 ~~ w o t m~ U O w u ~ O L L ~o 73 D z w (~ / o C_ ~ ~ ~ N ~ _ ~ O n ~ C l.L z w O ~ ~ Z ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ w O ~ O Y ~ C_ o~n3 ~ ~ T s ~ c 3 c ~ J._ ' ^ v , n l.1_. J O N ~-_ ~ Q N w O , ~ N • 000018 7!7/2004 4:05:06 PM. McRry~ ~ • Attachment 3 • OOU019 JUL 2 1 2004 CITY OF SARATOGA ," ", ~*'rTV nFVELOPMF'`'T August 21, 2004 Mr. John Livingstone City Planner City of Saratoga I reside at 20294 La Paloma Ave and am the neighbor to Mike Felice. I am supportive of his project to enlarge his home for his family. It is important to me that the architecture remains in the original style and the design compliments the historical presentation of the original house. Mr. Felice and I are on good terms as neighbors. He has negotiated with me to keep some of the landscape the same to protect my having to look at his garage directly out of my dining room window. He has also promised me a skylight for my kitchen since I will have absolutely no view of the sky in my kitchen ors ~ n~~ ~re space I am a senor citizen and I remember when I was a young for my family of six. I want to cooperate and appreciate the willingness of Mr. Felice to accommodate my needs in this process. I am assuming that I will continue to be a good neighbor to Mr. Felice aad him to me. R y, % i', vonne d • ~~~®i~i0 7/13/04 Mr. John Livingstone Planner City Of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear John, I am writing in support of the Filice project (application #04-012). I have reviewed the plans and discussed the project in depth with Mike Filice and believe the project should be approved. The project appears to fit well within the neighborhood, manages to retain the style and feel of the original home, and will add to the overall quality of the neighborhood. I look forward to the ultimate completion of the project and the Filices moving back in. Please feel free to pass this letter on the members of the planning commission if needed. Sincerely, ~_ • Bryan Rosevear 20283 La Paloma Avenue 650-444-0536 G~ • O®0021 July 2, 2004 Mr. John Livingston Associate Planner City Of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Filice Remodel /Addition -Application # 04-012 - "Neighbor & Neighborhood Communication" John: Per your request, below are dates of communication with my neighbors and Ms. Nora Mason.: - Jan 11th - I met with ALL adjacent neighbors per city request to review project plans and to sign the "Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications". ALL neighbors signed off AND approved stating "I do not have any concerns or issues which need to be addressed by applicant". The originals of all signed letters have been submitted to city and are on file. - Jan 11th -Again, above was completed with Ms. Mason, review and sign off. • - Mar 30th - I sent letter to John Livingston in response to Ms. Mason's letter to John Livingston letter dated Feb 10th discussing her new concerns with our plans. - Apr 3rd - I meet with Ms. Mason and reviewed plans AND went on my roof with story poles . with canvas attached to help her visualize the height of 2nd story walls, etc. - Apr 22nd - I sent letter to John Livingston as a follow-up to my letter to John dated Mar 30th, in regards to my meeting with Ms. Mason on Apr 3rd. Additionally, I attached a "Blue Sky" schematic which was copied to Ms. Mason. - May 6`~ -Mike McKay (architect) delivered first changed drawings to Ms. Mason showing master bedroom area roof changed from a gable to a hip and leaving the existing Japanese Maple in place on side area and the side yard area walking path changed, all per her request. -May 11 `s -Mike McKay met with Ms. Mason to discuss her further requested changes, which were all made. - May 27th - I sent letter to John Livingston as a follow-up to Ms Mason's letter to him dated May 14th in which she addressed issues of concern. My letter to John indicated that we addressed ALL of Ms Mason's concerns from her letter in which she stated "would make the plan acceptable to her". - June 6th -McKay sent letter to Ms. Mason and copied Filice & John L., indicating that we made ALL changes per Ms. Mason's request AND Warren Heid's recommendations. - Miscellaneous Dates -During the month of May and June, Mike McKay had several phone conversations with Ms. Mason regarding two subsequent iterations of changes, moving the • p0002~ master bath window, changing the roof gables of the kitchen and bedroom number 2 to hip roofs. I will be discussing project one more time with immediate neighbors before July 28~' review date. Please let me know if any other questions. Sincerely, Michael and Jennifer Filice 20288 La Paloma Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Ph 408-568-0742 Cc: Mike McKay • r~ ~J 00002 • Nora M. Mason 20282 La Paloma Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 408-867-1707 June 9, 2004 Mr. John Livingston City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Deaz Mr. Livingston: This letter is written to you and I ask that you also present it to the Planning Commission; I assume that you represent them. I have worked with Mr. Mackay, Mr. Filice's azchitect, to iron out as many problems as I can before the plan on La Paloma goes for approval. I've asked for some revisions, especially asking that the bathroom and master closet be "flipped" in the layout. Mr. Filice informs me that at this stage of the plan, those changes cannot be made. I will have no sky to look at from my kitchen table nor from my kitchen window. But all this has been said before in all the letters I've written previously. This letter is more to the point of the precedent that will be set with the construction of this building. The City of Saratoga takes pride in having a suburban feeling in the village of Saratoga. I am not referring to downtown, but to all of Saratoga. There aze no apartment houses, no dense housing projects, etc. So, for the most part, the planning has been working. Mr. Filice has a right to build because he is not breaking any codes that currently exist. However, La Paloma is not in the golden triangle; the lots aze quite small. And for a building of this size to be built on a street which by and large is made up of small bungalows will set a precedent that will change the neighborhood forever. Once this house goes up, the die will be cast and whatever neighborhood we have will be gone forever. We live where we live because of the uniqueness and the charm of the neighborhood. And we are an association, the Village Green Association. And we pay for this charm by living with neighborly noise, listening to each other's children cry and hearing the neighbor's phone ring. We are all that close in proximity to each other. To build a house next to an existing house where there is no space between the houses (no driveways or walkways) sets a standard where the neighbors could build an apartment house. There will be no difference. The density will be set; the privacy will be gone. 000024 • Letter, Nora M. Mason to John Li3i~i~ June 9, 2004 • I realize that Mr. Filice has a right to build. But please know that we, as residents, will begin losing a neighborhood. I know change is inevitable. But just because something is "within code" does not always mean that it's the correct thing to do. Several years ago Dr. and Mrs. Larsen, who lived next door, sold their property because the city planning commission would not allow them to create a second story adding 400 square feet. That addition would not have affected neighbors on either side because of existing driveways, nor would it have affected neighbors across the street. Mr. Filice's addition will affect neighbors on both sides as well as the people across the street. I have no option at this point but to agree to the inevitable because all is within building code. I am, however, writing and stating the obvious and want to make sure that this is understood in the final decision process. Respectfully yours, Nora M. Mas n 20282 La Paloma Avenue Saratoga, California • 000025 May 27, 2004 Mr. John Livingston Associate Planner City Of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Response to Ms. Mason Letter - 20288 La Paloma Ave -Application #04-012 This letter is afollow-up to Ms. Mason's letter dated May 14, 2004. We have read Ms. Mason's letter and as reasonable neighbors, have addressed her concerns. My architect, Mike McKay, has reworked the plans addressing the proposed changes in her letter that she stated would be acceptable as follows: 1 -Keeping the existing Japanese maple on side yard. This includes changing the paving in this area to more tree-friendly spaced stepping-stones instead of a concrete 2 -Rearranged the Master Bathroom, resulting in moving the wall 1' further away from her home allowing more view of the sky and moved location of tub away from her house to allow for more privacy in her kitchen. 3 -Modified the kitchen roof gable to a hip roof to lower height of stucco wall near her house. 4 - We earlier had modified the master bathroom roof from a gable to a hip roof to allow more view of the sky from her house. In regards to us not disclosing our plans, I apologize for any confusion, as I thought we went over the full plans at the two separate occasions (Jan 04 & Apr 04) when we met at Ms. Mason's home. Additionally, we have never planed to install a pool, but have always intended to replace the existing spa in its approximate location. Early versions of the plans that we showed to Ms. Mason showed the spa. If there are any questions, please contact me (408-615-3483) or Mike McKay (510-527- 5998). J1I1GG1G1y, ~n ,v `~ Mike Filice and Jennifer Jones 20288 La Paloma Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 408-741-5575 . Nora M. Mason 20282 La Paloma Ave. Sazatoga, CA 95070 408-867-1707 May 14, 2004 Mr. John Livingston City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Livingston: I am writing once again to express my increasing concerns about this potential construction project at 20276 La Paloma Avenue, planned by Mr. Filice. Mr. Filice wrote to you with his view of some of the issues in a letter dated Apri122. I was copied on the letter, and received a brief hand-written note. I have several new concerns: First, Mr. Filice has not fully disclosed his plans. I learned from speaking to a neighbor that he plans to install a pool, and also plans to remove several trees. In none of the material that he showed to me was a pool mentioned, and only one tree was mazked for removal. As for the pool, I have no objection. I am simply surprised that it was not disclosed. However, since these lots are very small, each and every tree of mature size provides some semblance of privacy. Mr. Filice's trees aze mature and add greatly to neighbors on both sides of his property, as faz as privacy walls aze concerned. Second, Mr. Filice has not been responsive to my request for minor modifications to his original plan. When I last wrote to you, I reported that Mr. Filice told me that he "would work with his azchitect to modify the house plans." The result of that work is in his letter to you, in which he says that the original design "already addresses" my request. If it did, I would not have made the request. What I have asked of Mr. Filice is fairly minor. I asked that he alter the layout of the upstairs master suite by "flipping" the layout, which would then return to me approximately 2 to 3 feet of my view of the sky, without taking away any of his squaze footage. With the current plan, I am facing a wall of cement from both windows facing his house. I believe that these changes that I recommended to him were not desirable to Mr. Filice. I do not find losing sky and light desirable. I do not find staring at a wall of cement desirable. I do not find complete disruption to my home business desirable (I teach piano). However, I do know that he has a right to build. I 000U2'7 • Letter, Nora M. Mason to John Livingston, May 14, 2004 Page 2 simply ask that he make some minor modifications to accommodate my needs, as his closest neighbor. Please note that all two-story homes on La Paloma have at least one driveway between the structures. Mr. Filice and I have none. Six feet on each side separate us. I will be living in a zero- lot line environment. Even though a structure or a proposed structure is within city-code guidelines does not always mean that it's the sensible thing to do. I have asked Warren Heid, a neighbor and an architect, to help me understand and work with Mr. Filice's plan. Mr. Heid has been most helpful. He's gone to the city and reviewed the plans. In addition, Mr. Heid made some excellent suggestions for changes, which have already been implemented in the plans, waiting for Mr. Filice's approval. As a result of Mr. Heid's work, Mr. McKay, Mr. Filice's architect, has met with me and we've worked on some solutions. The following are things that Mr. McKay and I discussed as possible changes to the plan, which would make it acceptable to me: 1 -The 20-foot Japanese maple tree remains. It will give me some privacy and will soften my view of Mr. Filice's cement walls. 2 -The design of the upstairs bedroom suite should be rearranged in a way that will give me some sky, as described above. 3 -Modify the roof of the second story (this proposal was as a result of Mr. Heid's recommendation and appears to be already done, according to the plans that I saw). 4 -Modify the kitchen wall to minimize the hugeness of this wall, which is only eight feet from my kitchen window. Putting a top, round, window into the kitchen wall may be . the answer here. 5 - Mr. McKay suggested that trellises would soften and minimize the impact of the cement wall. I agree, and would like to see them added to the plan. I ask the Planning Commission to look at this project in its entirety, and not as an isolated two- story addition. I am, however, notifying the city that there are significant issues that have not been addressed to my satisfaction. Sincerely, ~. ora M. Mason cc: Warren Heid Michael McKay • ~~~J~2~ ~I • Apri122, 2004 Mr. John Livingston Associate Planner City Of Sazatoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 • RE: Follow-up, Adjacent Neighbor - 20288 La Paloma Ave -Application #04-012 Dear Mr. Livingston: This letter is afollow-up to my letter dated March 30, 2004, in regards to meeting with my neighbor Nora Mason. Nora and I met on Apri13, 2004 where at her request; I went up on the roof of my house and put up two 8' poles with fabric stapled between them. The purpose was to help her visualize how much light she would have in her kitchen and office. Her issue is about light and the view from those two rooms or line of site to `blue sky". She feels her view of "blue sky' will be limited from those two rooms of her home. She asked me to look into moving that portion of the 2°d story over more to the North side. My architect and I have again tried to find a solution, which would incorporate that move, but the current design already addresses that as the setback is 13' instead of the allowed 11'. Additionally, we needed to take my neighbor to the North into consideration. If moved any further, my neighbor to the North would then be further shaded due to the way the sun sets. The plan, which we have submitted, takes into account the following, which should limit the impact of the project to Nora: - Design includes a height limit of 23.9' instead of the allowed 26' - 2°d story side setback in the area of concern goes from the allowed 11' to 13' - Length of the house is shortened by approximately 14' allowing more open space and less mass - A lazge portion of the side roof gable is sloped towazd her house allowing her more light, view and less mass. I will provide Nora with a "line of sight" schematic (see attached) which illustrates that she will still have view of `blue sky" and light with the proposed plan. I have additionally offered to do a shading plan for her, if she requests. I will continue to discuss the plan with her and hopefully we will mutually resolve any further issues. Sincerely, ~.~~ Mike Filice and Jennifer Jones 20288 La Paloma Ave Sazatoga, CA 95070 408-741-5575 cc: Nora Mason Mike McKay, McKay Architecture O©U~329 W U z w O Qw ~~ Op ow z c!~ ~O z0 w~ z~ iv- OO ~Q O~ ~O =Q zg ON Q~ ~ N WO ~ N • • ©®030 , r • • • ~i ~i °o~ ~~ W U z w D Q~ w ~ ~ Oo ~w z cn. ti~ ~ O ~~ ~ ~, ~ z O ~ u ^ , o W ~ ~ L.L ~. v0 u ~ o ~, ~ ~L o~ Q ~~ mN O u O a- -~ V J Z~ ON ~~ N u~ O ~~ flL N z= ~~o s~~ 6~ s = ~ ~ 3 c ~ 00031 i • ~~u III II II ~ i • • Nora M. Mason 20282 La Paloma Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 408-867-1707 Apri112, 2004 Mr. John Livingston City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Livingston: ~~ ~ ~' _ S ~ ~~ fl ~~~S~s ~$ ~5 ~~ti I am writing again to you about the planned expansion/construction coming up at 20276 La Paloma Avenue that Mr. Filice plans to be doing. My concern has not changed, and I've expressed it to Mr. Filice, so nothing in this letter is or should be a surprise to him. I realize he has a right to build and I do know that there are other two-story homes on this street, but the situation is different in this construction plan. I want to address two issues; both deal with the size of the expansion in comparison to the size of the lot. First issue: Three or so years ago, my neighbors on the other side, the Dr. and Mrs. Larsen, wanted to add 400 sq. feet to an already existing 1910-foot house. The City declined and said they could only add 200 feet. Mr. and Mrs. Douglas sold their house and moved away. Mr. Filice is adding significantly more. Have there been changes to the size one is allowed to add, and if so, when did those changes occur? Second issue: There are only a few two-story homes on La Paloma. However, they are either on a 15,000 sq. foot lot (down the street), are on a corner, or have a double driveway between the two houses. The neighbor on the other side of Mr. Filice has a driveway on the edge of her property, matching the driveway on Mr. Filice's property, creating a great deal of space between her property and Mr. Filice's property. Between Mr. Filice's house and mine there is a 6-foot easement on both sides. No space, to speak of. Mr. Filice did try to accommodate me: he climbed on his roof with a panel so that I would get an idea of what I was to face. As a result, it is clear that I will have no light in my kitchen or my office. I am not as concerned about the privacy • issue since these are small lots and one can even hear children crying and 1 of 2 ~~~®`~2 • • Letter, Nora M. Mason to John Livingston, April 12, 2004 Page 2 • telephones ringing in the next property. His balcony will look over my pool, but that's life. However, with atwo-story addition within 12 feet of my house I will have no light. Mr. Filice's suggestion has been for me to put in skylights. That is not the same as seeing blue sky, which will no longer be possible. It is also an expense that I would have to assume in order to deal with the changes that he is making to his property, and despite that expenditure, I would end up with a less-satisfactory property. Mr. Filice informed me that he would work with his architect to modify the house plans, but I have not seen these modified plans. I am trying to be accommodating but I want everyone to know up front that this is an issue about which I have serious concerns. I would appreciate an early response describing the City of Saratoga's plans for dealing with these concerns. Sincerely, ~ ~ ` 1,/``~ rc ~ / ?C_G: %--~~~ Nora M. Mason r ~ • 000033 • • Mazch 30, 2004 Mr. John Livingston Associate Planner City Of Sazatoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Sazatoga, CA 95070 RE: Adjacent Neighbor - 20288 La Paloma Ave -Application #04-012 Deaz Mr. Livingston: This letter is in regazds to your letter dated March 22, 2004 to Michael McKay (item #3) and the letter dated February 10, 2004 from my adjacent neighbor Nora Mason. Nora and I have met about the plan before, but she is still having a hazd time visualizing, so we will be meeting again on April 3, 2004 to layout my proposed remodel. I will outline the first floor with tape and the 2°d floor with story poles, so she can see the footprint and view from her side. I have additionally offered to do a shading plan for her, if she requests. I will follow-up with a letter after our meeting. Sincerely, Mike Filice and Jennifer Jones 20288 La Paloma Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 408-741-5575 C7 d®U0~4 • • February 10, 2004 Mr. John F. Livingston Associate Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Livingston, I reside at 20282 La Paloma Avenue, in Sazatoga. My next-door neighbor is designing a two-story remodel that I believe is now before the City for approval. My neighbor and I spoke about his plans and overall I think he will do a fine job. He has been a good neighbor and is certainly entitled to design his home to his liking. His plan is to have atwo-story addition and my concern is that I'm having a difficult time visualizing the total impact on my home. I've measured the distance between current walls and "future" walls, and I know that the one-story house will become two-story. However, I still have a hard time imagining how much, if any, light I will have in my office and kitchen. These are the two rooms that would be impacted. ' I certainly want to cooperate, but I need some assistance in this process. I don't want to walk into my kitchen one morning and face twelve feet of concrete and no light. I would like to make an appointment with you and to bring a designer friend to our meeting to review the building plans. Marilyn Riding is a designer and has a much better sense of picturing a wall than I can. Please give me a call and let me know when Ms. Riding and I can review the plans with you. Regazds, ~~~~ Nora M. Mason 20282 La Paloma Avenue Sazatoga, CA 95070 408-867-1707 (home) 408-582-3629 0~~®a3S • Neighbor Notif cation Template for Development Applications Date: /-//-4'-/ _ PROJECT ADDRESS: ~ oZ$ 8 Lq f'q~ on<i~ qv~ Applicant Name: /~~ c ~ q E~- F~ ~ ~ ~ -r' ~e ^'"'~ rFrz T°^'Es Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to.the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunih~ to express any ~nncerns or issues then may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ` My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): ,- Neighbor Name: / I ~~~ ~ <~~- Neighbor Address: /~/~ li /'2Lv~,z C~_ Neighbor Phone #: ~ 7 ~ 7d Signature: Printed: ,f 000036 ~_ City of Saratoga Planning Department c: • • Date: ~- /~ ' ~ ~ PROJECT ADDRESS: Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications ~ o z 8 8 ~.a ~a ~ o ti,,~ q v~ Applicant Name: /~/ c N~ ~ ~- F~ ~ ~ ~c fi J ~ """~ ~~ ~ T~^'Cs Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to.the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate tt to the City of Saratoga. L`JMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: W ~ ~ l` ~~ K• ~ °"`~ Neighbor Address: • 5~.,.i-~ ~ ~ ~ S~1 o Neighbor Phone #: `+ ~~~~`f ~- ~ ~ 1 Signature: Printed: ~ ~.~,~ ~d 00003 City of Saratoga Planning Department • • Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: ~ -~ I - n ~/ PROJECT ADDRESS: Z oZ a ~ ~-.a ~q ~ °"^,~ q vc Applicant Name: ~"~! / G rrAe ~ Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any ~nncerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: ~o h'1 fi ~4-~l%'~ C`S~-F~~ ~"'~~ Neighbor Address: • Sign re: Neighbor Phone #: y ~ ~ -~~ ~ -`{ `~ ~ g Printed: ~.Q/ 000038 • City of Saratoga Planning Department • Date: /-/ l - o y PROJECT ADDRESS: Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications ~oZSB L:~ Pq~~ti~.-~ ~v~ • Applicant Name: /~~ c H~ ~ ~- Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this Yportunih~ to express any rnncerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right io amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. #~JMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, v<~hich after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: ~.,~''~ • ...,., ~ ° '~~"~ "''O~ Neighbor Address: ~ e ~ 4 ~ L f4 PAG~n~A A~~ Signature: C7 Neighbor Phone #: ~~ ~ ~ ~~-~ Printed: 0®®~2~9 City of Saratoga Planning Department • ~ • Date: ~ ' t ~ "°y PROJECT ADDRESS: Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications ~OZ$b L!~ P4t-oM~4 Ave /'/ / ~ r~At ~- f~ Li ~E t ~~cnr.virF2 T°Ncs Applicant Name: Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. StafJ'and the Planning Commission prefer that • ~.~,~ •~yn +l,;s opportunity to express any concerns or issues then may have directly ;~e~g,~~~rs ~,.,... ~ .. to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ~.My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: n ~ ~S~- Neighbor Address: ~~9-~ J~ Signature: Neighbor Phone #: ~~ ` ~(D~1 ~~ly Printed: I~ • • r~ . ~S ~ oun Planning Depart>~~0040 City of Saratoga • .' Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications . Date: ~- f / oy _ PROJECT ADDRESS: ~ G z~ ~ ~-•'~ -'~ ~ ~ "''~ fl vc Applicant Name: /~~ c ti~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ , ~ r ~- ~ ~ ,~.~ ; ~~ ~ ~o,~ _ s Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this yportunit?~ to exprecc any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. • ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: ~y~~ ~p~~y~~2, Neighbor Address: Neighbor Phone #:C~$-d~ y~yr 0 5~J (o C~ Signature: Printed: City of Saratoga 000041 Planning Department • Attachment 4 • ~~~®~l~r ~~ "- "'~41 ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricu/tural Consulting & Tree Care • A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED ADDITION AND REMODEL AT 20288 LA PALOMA AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME: FILICE APPLICATION #: 04-012 APN #: 397-23-012 Submitted to: • Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Certified Arborist #WE-4001A January 23, 2004 Y.O. Eioz 2~2~'~. Sa>> R•iatco. Californir: 94402 e i=mail: arborresourcesL;earthlink.net Phone: 6~O.f~~~.~ ~ Fay: t•50.6~=.=~~= f licensed Contractor #796763 00003 • David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist January 23, 2004 SUMMARY The proposed project exposes three trees regulated by City Ordinance to potential damage. Two trees (#1 and 2) are proposed for removal. Mitigation for both trees should include replacements equivalent to tree # 1's monetary value. To promote the protection of tree #3, a bond amount equal to tree #3's value ($670) is recommended. INTRODUCTION The City of Saratoga Community Development Department has requested I review the potential tree impacts associated with the proposed addition and remodel to an existing single-family residence at 20288 La Paloma Avenue, Saratoga. This report presents my findings; provides protection measures and mitigation; identifies each tree's condition, species, size and suitability for preservation; and presents tree appraisal values. Data compiled for each inventoried tree is presented on the table attached to this report. Plans reviewed for this report include Sheets 1 thru 7 prepared by McKay Architecture (Berkeley, CA) and dated 1/14/2004. The trees' locations, numbers and canopy perimeters are shown on an attached copy of the Landscaping Plan (Sheet 5). Tree #3 was not shown on the plans reviewed. Its location was added by me and should not be construed as being surveyed. FINDINGS The proposed project exposes three trees regulated by City Ordinance to development impacts. They include one Saucer Magnolia (Magnolia soulangiana) #1, one Japanese Maple (Ater palmatum) #2 and one Olive Tree (Olea europaea) #3. There are many additional trees on site not inventoried for this report as they are smaller than Ordinance size. Trees #1 and 2 are proposed for removal. Based on their species and overall size, I recommend this be approved. Mitigation for both trees is suggested to include replacements equivalent to tree #1's value. • Filice Property, 20288 La Paloma Avenue, Saratoga Page 1 of 2 City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~®~®Lt4 • David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist January 23, 2004 Tree #3 is located on the neighboring eastern property and was included in this report as its root zone and canopy aze exposed to construction impacts. Provided the existing shrubs beneath its canopy aze retained (as Sheet 5 indicates), I believe the tree will be impacted at only minor levels. RECOMII~NDATIONS `_...1 1. The existing shrubs beneath tree #3's canopy must be retained throughout the construction and landscaping process. All development activities must be conducted to the west side of these shrubs, and include, but are not limited to, the following: grading, surface scraping, clearing/grubbing, trenching (including for irrigation and drainage), storage and dumping of materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and pazking. 2. Replacements to mitigate the removal of trees #1 and 2 aze suggested. They should be equivalent to tree #1's value of $1,820, which is equivalent to either {1 }one tree of 36- inch box size and one tree of 24-inch box size or {2} four trees of 24-inch box size. Acceptable species include Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia), Valley Oak (Quercus lobata), Black Oak ' (Quercus kelloggii), Blue Oak (Quercus douglasii), Scrub Oak (Quercus dumosa), Big Leaf maple (Ater macrophyllum), California Buckeye (Aesculus californica), Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii~ and Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens). TREE PROTECTION BOND The appraised value of tree #3 is $670. In accordance to the newly adopted Ordinance, a bond equivalent to its entire value is required to promote its protection. The appraised tree values shown on the attached Tree Inventory Table are calculated in accordance with the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9`h Edition, International Society of Arboriculture, 2000. Attachments: Tree Inventory Table Copy of the Landscaping Plan (Sheet 5) Filice Property, 20288 La Paloma Avenue, Saratoga City of Saratoga Community Development Department Page 2 of 2 Q®O®~ C ARB~ RESOURCES i Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care TREE INVENTORY TABLE •i :. ., .. a ~ .. ~, b o 3°a p~, ~ ~, ~ > b ~ ~$ ~g' ' ~ w ~ , ah ~ ~ v^ Q `~ ~ ~ ~ 4~ ~ o U s~ U ~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o F„ NO A ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ' ^; TREE NAME Saucer Ma~olia 1 (Ma lia soulan ) 7 6, 4.5 25 20 100% 50% Good Low - X - - 51,820 Japanese Maple Z Acer lnatum) 4.5 4, 4, 4 15 15 75% 50% Fair Low - X - - 5660 Olive Tree 3 (Oleo euro ea 8 8, 7.5 25 25 100% 25% Good Hi 4 - X X 5670 • REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 15 allon = 5150 24inch box =5420 36-inch box = 51,320 48-inch box = 55,000 52-inch box = 57,000 72-inch box = 515,000 Job: 212dd U Pdoma Artauite, Smeroga Prepared jar: Glty ojSoratoga Comawmry Development Deparhnent Preporadby: DariJ4 Gabby, RCA .i '~©~s • • • w ar~ twee ~r a~ t a lnalr aerr~aea - earoate "" wr t x/ n.r sear r+P 1~ (nl tMa ~ nee --' (20.G •q.R.) l low pWwry beesl~ yaaes to b eetarear.e y Site Address: 20288 La Paloma Avenue, Saratoga g~[~: City of Saratoga Community Development peparunent Notes: Map identifies three trees of Ordinance siu. Canopy perimeters arc approximate. Map has ban reduced in siu and is not to scale. per: January 23, 2004 tr... w rtrr oypra te<.w.Me~ W asbm eypws ler saasry~ I C t•ab attrsead mrrcrsts sar rrd r ry.t rr. e+P ~~~ tt~a.o.r1.R.1 Wd~~ ~~ ~~~ LL ®< ~ W .~r,,.e.,r r b. ard.rd s e.eu.. dwawsY to M /wars set on brsrxl~ tsscw >,.~ for rt.ty tr.e. - gec+ss to M drarsare by Mdr+Pe dry/ A b /amen ~• • 1" .~ , `~. ~.~. • e rerrovsted ratrmy ars . .~: ~. ~. M) r,ia.d tms to be .y.. ~ rapltcad by mrorete coarrd snroco .ale 00.1 sq:R.l i .. ' Prepared By: ARBOR RESOURCES PLAN y Aofruione! ArAorirrr llurel Contrlring 6 Trcc Cars w•~~ P.O. Box 25295 Sur Mum, CA 94402 Pheoe: (650) 65JJ351 • Erril: srborremurcesQeaNJink.ner mekay • arehlteeture 801 Gtmdia Street Strits 8 Btalodey, CA 94710 Old 3103273998 Pty 310.3273999 rrvsrM.tntrkayateLitecOne.oem I Bet Rsvkw Bat X F1ao GLeok Bat Cooauaotioa Bat - ! V1 0 0 , Vl O ~ ("' U o W w C7 0, ,~ ~ A w U ~ A O a U ~ fw.~ N O N Date: 1/1/2004 Scale: AS NOTED Drawa: fiC File: LANDSCAPWO Job: FQ.ICB/JONB9 ~ShTJeet: V' ~~ ` jh0eta • Attachment 5 ©®~~~8 State of California -The Resources Ager-cy Primary # - `~ ~ - • . DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION. HRi #' = ~ ~ ~' PRIMARY RECORD Trin©mial ~ . '' x> ` ; . _~, NRHP Status Code Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date - _ ~ s~.- ~ - Page 1 of 11 'Resource Name or#: (nssignedbyracorder) 20268 La Paloma Street P1. Other Identifier: • •P2. Location: ^ Not for Publication ®Unrestricted a. County: Santa Clara and (P2b and Plc or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) b. USGS 7.5' Quad Cupertino Date Photorevised 1980 S 1 T 8S R 2W B.M. Mt. Diablo c. Address 20288 La Paloma Street City Saratoga Zip 95070 d. UTM: (Glue more than one ror large erW/or linear resources) Zone 10 5 8 6115 mE 412 9 012 2 mN @, Other LOCatiOnal Data: (e.g., parcel N, diracUons to resource, ekvatbn, e[c., as appropriate) Assessor's Parcel Number: 397-23-012 •P3a DesCrl ption: (Describe resource and its major ebmenta. InUude design, materials, wrWition, alteratioru, size, setting, and boundaries) This one-story, wood-framed building is an intact local example of early twentieth- century Mediterranean Style residential architecture in Saratoga. Set on a slight rise above the sidewalk and facing the sloping street, the stucco house is one of a number of houses in its neighborhood built around the same time, as part of a small, early suburban subdivision. The house is off-center on its lot; the original driveway is on the northwest, downhill, side, leading to a recent rear garage remodel and addition. The southeast side setback is modest, accessible at the front by an arched gateway through a stucco buttress that is an integral part of the front facade of the house. The house is raised slightly on an internally battered concrete foundation, and has an original painted concrete stoop and walkway at the front entrance. The front landscaping appears recent, and there is an ample rear yard with contemporary landscaping as well. The painted stucco has a thick dashed finish. (Section Pia, Description, continued on pg. 3) •P3b. Resource Attributes: (Listattributasandcodes) HP2 •P4 Resources Present: ®Building ^ Strucure ^ Object ^ Site ^ District ^ Element of District ^ Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (view, dau, .«.:sion •) Front of House, from northeast; photo by L. Dill, July 2003 •P5. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: ® Historic ^ Prehistoric ^ Both Circa 1924 •P7. Owner and Address: Michael Filice 20288 La Paloma Street Saratoga, CA 95070 •P13. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address) Leslie Dill, Architect Dill Design Group 110 N Santa Cruz Ave Los Gatos, CA 95030 April Halberstadt, Consulting Historian •P9. Date Recorded: July 21, 2003 •P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Intensive • 'Attachments: ^ NONE ^ Location Map ^ Sketch Map ®Continuation Sheet ®Building, Structure and Object Record ^ Archaeological Record ^ District Record ^ Linear Feature Record ^ Milling State Record ^ Rock Art Record ^ Artifact Record ^ Photograph Record ^ Other (List) DPR 523A (1/95) •It~~~ation •P11. Report Citation: (Site survey report and other sources or enter none) N /A 'State'of Galifomia -The' Resources Agency Primary .,:' r -F;- • ~ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # , .,, , BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD ~ '~ ~ ~'' Page 2 of 11 *NRHP Status Code s 20288 La Paloma Street "Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) B1. Historic Name: N/A B2. Common Name: B3. Original use: Single-family residence B4. Present Use: Single-family residence "B5. Architectural Style: Mediterranean Style 'BI). COnstrUCtlOn HIStOry: (Construction dale, atteretrans, and date of alterations) Constructed 1929; Recent addition to the rear of the house (unknown date circa 1981-1982) "B7. Moved? ®No ^ Yes ^ Unknown Date: N/A "68. Related Features: N/A Original Location: N/A B9a Architect: Unknown '610. Significance: Theme Architecture Period of Significance 1929 .~ w. t ~~~ b. Builder: Unknown Area Saratoga, Santa Clara County Property Type Residence Applicable Criteria N/A (Diswss importance in terms of historical or archtteelurel context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) EARLY HISTORY - QUITO RANCHO The first settlement in the vicinity of the property at 20288 La Paloma Terrace by non-indigenous people occurred during the 1840s. In 1841, a rancho of three square leagues (over 13,000 acres) was awarded to two soldiers from Monterey, Jose Zenon Fernandez and Jose Noreiga, by Mexican Governor Alvarado. (Arbuckle:23) In 1844, Jo Noriega traded all of his interest in his rancho to Ignacio Alviso. When Alviso died in 1898, the property was willed to his minor grandson, Manuel Alviso. 'In 1858, the property was acquired by Jose Ramon Arguello, his mother, Soledad Arguello and a business partner, S. M. Mezes. The Arguello family were real estate developers and sold many parcels to interested farmers and ranchers. , After California became a state in 1850, legitimate titles to Mexican land grants had to be verified (validated) by American courts. The claim to verify the title of the Quito Rancho was filed in United States District Court in 1860. (Book A of Maps: Page 112) (Section B10, continued on page 4) 611. Additional Resource Attributes: (I_isl annbutes and codes) "B12. References: Arbuckle, Clyde 1968 Santa Clara County Ranchos. San Jose: Rosicrucian Press For Location Map: See Continuation Sheet, Pag2 8 1986 Clyde Arbuckle's History of San Jose. San Jose: Memorabilia of San Jose (Section B12, References, Continued on pg. 7) 613. Remarks: Proposed for demolition '614. EV8luator: Leslie Dill "Date of Evaluation: July 21, 2003 DPR 5236 (1/95) 'Requiredninformation ~~~~~© 4, ~? State of California -The Resources Agency Primary ~- _"~ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #f ~ ~~ ~' '` CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ~ t~~~~~' - ~r,. ,.a< Page 3 Of 11 Resource Name Or#(nssignedbyRecorder) 202a8 La Paloma street ReCOfded By: L. Dill/A. Halberstadt Date: JUiy 21, zoos x Continuation _ Update (Section Pia, Description, continued from page 1) The footprint of the house is roughly "L" shaped in plan. The original, apparently one- bedroom, portion of the structure is approximately rectangular with some recesses and offsets that provide plan relief. A wing has been added recently across the rear and out at the west corner, including a master bedroom suite and attached garage. This addition incorporated at least part of an existing wood-clad outbuilding, and some of the previous siding and details are still visible on the side elevation. The front (northeast) portion of the house is protected by a moderately pitched, side- gabled roof with an asymmetrically placed front gable. The front of this roof area is clad with red Spanish the roofing. The the has a rough texture intended to make it appear hand-wrought. Behind the ridgeline, facing to the rear, is composition roofing. The rear two-thirds of the original house and the new addition have flat roofs with small, shed-roofed tiled insets, such as over the side entrances and the buttress. The sloped roof portions of the house have moderate eaves with exposed, shaped rafter tails with exposed v-groove sheathing. The flat-roof portions of the original house have only , plain painted metal coping at the parapet walls. The scuppers and downspouts are very simple. The front (northeast) elevation is comprised of three stepped vertical planes. The north • corner of the house is set back, and encloses the front-facing entrance with a painted wood ten-lite French door flanked by sidelights. A stucco segmented-arch relief tops the doorway unit. Stepping forward is an intermediate wall plane that features only a single casement window and a lower stepped roof section. This window is typical of the other original windows, with standard wood stucco molding and sills. The most forward portion of the front wall is centered under the gable end, and features a large arched picture window (single lite) and a decorative attic vent built of stacked Spanish tile. The picture window is inset with a built-out stucco sill. This wall plane extends to the southeast to create the flying buttress side yard entrance. The gate in this arched opening is curved, with decorative scroll corner details similar to the cut rafter tails. The northwest (driveway) side elevation features a pair of tall casement windows at the front (east) corner entry area, off-center under the side gable. A small double-hung window is in this wall as well, and the attic vent matches the front the detail. To the rear of this portion of the house is the bedroom wing with its flat roof. It projects slightly in plan, and at the corner of this wing and the front wing, there is a small lean-to with a front-facing, tiled shed roof encloses a utility closet and underfloor access. The bedroom wing has a pair of centered one-over-one double-hung wood windows. Behind this area is the continuation of the original residence, enclosing the bathroom, kitchen and laundry. Randomly placed double-hung windows of various sizes fenestrate this area, and a side entry is recessed off the driveway, and covered by an inset shed roof with Spanish the roofing. At the rear of this elevation is the more recent bedroom and garage addition. The new stucco is differentiated from the original with a skip trowel finish, and the overhead garage door is modern in appearance. The side elevation of this wing (northwest) is clad with horizontal wooden lap siding and has plain exposed rafter tails, but has scroll-cut rake boards that are similar to the original cut rafter tails. i The rear of the house is primar is stucco with wood French door stucco fascia trim. The visible been modified with the addition DPR 523E (1/95) ily taken up with the new bedroom/garage wing. This wing and casement windows, and has a flat roof with some flat portion of the rear of the original wing appears to have of an arched transom window over rear French doors. ~~~~~~ State of Califiomia -The Resources Agency ' Primary tc- DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION ' - ' HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 4 of ii Resource Name or# ~nssror,~abyR~orde~~ zozee La Paloma Street R2COrded By: L. Dill/A. Halberstadt Date: July 21, 2003 x Continuation _ Update The center of the southeast fagade of the house has a wide recessed side patio entry into the dining room. This area has an inset shed roof with cut rafter tails set onto a 9 x 6 beam. To the rear of this area, the kitchen wing has a flat roof with new casement windows under a new arched transom. The front, living room, portion of the house features tall casement windows flanking a battered clinker brick chimney centered in the gable end. The living room also has a window that opens onto the recessed porch. The interior of the house has many intact original elements, including light fixtures, an art the fireplace surround with bas-relief keystone and the hearth, original wood trim and built-in cabinets, inlaid hardwood floors, and some utilitarian features from the early twentieth century, such as a built-in ironing board and folding, pop-up telephone seat. This residence has remarkable integrity, considering its change in size over time. It clearly represents the development of the neighborhood in Saratoga, it has forms and features that present a distinctive Mediterranean Style appearance, and it has had few changes over the years that impact the main living space of the house. (Section H10, Significance continued from pg. 2) EARLY LAND OWNERSHIP The property on which the house is situated is associated with the early development Saratoga Village and is situated a short distance below the intersection known as the Saratoga Crossroads. Although much of the surrounding land was originally platted into 160-acre and 80-acre homestead lots, the properties along the Saratoga Road were platted into smaller 6- to 10-acre parcels beginning around the late 1870's. This was due in part to the rolling hillside terrain and also due to the financial benefits of fruit orchards. From the time of the Quito Rancho, the subject parcel was a portion of a homestead acreage that was sold several times, becoming the La Paloma Terrace Subdivision in 1915. The earliest owner in the 1850s seems to have been Levi Millard, Saratoga's first postmaster. A portion of his holdings was sold to R. Parker, who held property on both sides of Saratoga Avenue. By 1897, the subject lot was part of the estate settlement of Mary Parker, according to a map filed in August of that year. A portion of the estate was acquired by W. Kennedy in 1897 and the subject ten acre lot is noted as part of the Kennedy holdings. Kennedy is also shown as the owner on the 1903 Official County map. (MacMillan:1903) La Paloma Terrace is one of four small subdivisions in Saratoga, all clustered together at the northeastern corner of the Crossroads. They were developed between approximately 1908 and 1920, as the newly-built Peninsular Interurban Railway made suburban Saratoga more accessible to Santa Clara Valley residents who did not drive or yet own an automobile. The four subdivisions include Saratoga Park (1908) offered by developer David Bell; Orchard Place, which was sold by the Woods family; La Paloma Terrace (1915), developed by T. S. Montgomery; and Lutheria Way, offered by Luther Cunningham in the 1920s. These four subdivisions are some of the very few housing clusters in Santa C~ Valley that can be characterized as a "streetcar suburb". Although there are many examples of this type of development in eastern America, few other developments of this type appear in this area. DPR 523E (1/95) Q~~Q5j2 State of California -The Resources Agency Primary # ~. ~ 4', _ ~- -. • DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND,RECREATION HRI # "' ' ~-~~ ~=" :~ ~" CONTINUATION' SHEET Trinomial ~ ~3 ~ ~~~,~ ~ . ., • 20288 La Paloma Street ' Page 5 of 11 Resource Name or # cASS~9nea oY R~be~> Recorded By: L. Dill/A. xalbersteat Date: July 21, 2003 x Continuation _ Update In 1915, the subject parcel of 10 acres was subdivided and lots for new home sites were offered for sale by T. S. Montgomery. La Paloma Terrace was one of Saratoga's earliest residential subdivisions that was developed and marketed as a complete neighborhood. Until that time, orchard acreage had been offered for sale to buyers who could carve out a few acres and build their own homes. Developer T. S. Montgomery was an early leader in offering houses with all the urban amenities already in place. His Naglee Park subdivision in San Jose, developed in 1902, was the first modern subdivision in the Valley. Sidewalks, sewers and utilities were already in place waiting for the homebuyer. La Paloma Terrace was the first subdivision in Saratoga that followed that model. The La Paloma Terrace subdivision retains much of its original character. The subdivision was originally small with 35 lots. One lot was soon sacrificed to create Lutheria Way in 1929. Although a number of houses were built or rebuilt after World War II, the essential style of the early architecture is typical of the bungalows and Mediterranean-style houses that were popular around World War I. Several of the houses have had additions, but the setbacks have been respected and the additions are not overly! intrusive. In general, the homes below the crest of the hill, closer to Saratoga Avenue, show more modification. Homes along the remaining two-thirds of the street, toward Oak Place and Lutheria Way, retain their early style and character. HISTORY OF THE RESIDENCE The subject property was built in 1924 according to available records. Early property records describe it as Lot 5 in La Paloma Terrace (today it is numbered as lot 12 as early homes in Saratoga did not carry street addresses until well after 1950). La Paloma Terrace appears in an early newspaper advertisement listing John Rodoni as the builder/contractor. The house illustrated in the ad was owned by Mr. Ed Hooker, a plumbing contractor; the Hooker home is directly across the street from the subject property. Although it is generally known that Mr. Rodoni built a substantial number of homes and businesses in Saratoga, including the Hogg Building and the Saratoga National Bank, there are currently no available records that show him as the builder of the subject property. (Sawyer:1922) The subject property has had a number of residents over the last twenty years. Before that time, there were just a few owners. The residents of the longest duration appear to be James and Ann McCoy, who occupied the house for nearly 35 years, from about 1946 until 1980. Mr. McCoy died in 1960 and his widow remained at this address until 1980. The house then passed to her niece and nephew, Marian Floyd and Thomas Floyd who sold the property in 1983. SIGNIFICANCE This house on La Paloma is architecturally significant on a local level. It is a distinctive example of Mediterranean Style design, including both its form and detailing. The low proportions, the roof, arched picture window, the attic vent, and clinker brick chimney are character-defining features. The style is fairly common in Saratoga, and the house is compatible with its surrounding neighborhood that includes bungalows as well as other early twentieth-century styles. The interiors have not been altered to a great extent, and the majority of the house retains its integrity. The house appears eligible for the California Register according to Criterion 3, architectural significance, on a local level, and appears eligible for the Saratoga Heritage Resource Inventory under criterion c. Although distinctive, it does not appear eligible for the National Register. DPR 523E (1/95) h©~~~~ 'State of:Califomia -The Resources. Agency Primary DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #. ~ _ -CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ~ - ~ ~' Page 6 of it Resource Name or#(Aes5neaby Recorder) zo2aa La Paloma Street Recofded By: L. Dill/A. Halberstadt Date: July 2l, zoos x Continuation Update The people associated with the house did not make a contribution to the history of their community in such a way that would make the house significant historically based on their association. The La Paloma property is not associated with any significant events or patterns of historical development. Therefore, the property would not be additionally eligible for the National or California Registers based on its association with personages or events or patterns, Criteria A, B and 1, 2, respectively, and local significance is limited to its architectural value. (Section B12, References, continued from pg. 2) Baker, John 1994 American House Styles. New York: W. W. Norton & Company Brainard, H. A. (Civil Engineer) 1888 Map of Saratoga Census Records United States Federal Census, 1920 and 1930 City Directories 1870 to 1968 City of San Jose. Saratoga residents appear in a separate listin~ County of Santa Clara Deeds and Official Records Official Maps Probate Records - Superior Court Book of Wills School Tax Assessment Records - 1930 to 1960 Great Register of Voters Cunningham, Florence R. 1967 Saratoga's First Hundred Years. Fresno, California. Panorama West Publishing. Garrod, R. V. Saratoga Story. Published by the author, Saratoga California. MAPS The following Official Maps in the Santa Clara County recorder's office Mary Parker Homestead (August 1897) - Book F1 of Maps Page 11 Park Place (8-17-19) amended - Book 0 of Maps: Page 58 Oak Alley (8-16-16) - Book P of Maps: Page 3 La Paloma Terrace (8-2-15) Book O of Maps: Page 81 Lutheria Way (12-23-25) Book U of Maps: Page 31 Sawyer, Eugene T. 1922 History of Santa Clara County. Historic Record Company, Los Angeles. Thompson and West 1876 Atlas of Santa Clara County. Reprinted by Smith & McKay, 1976 . ~~.~ti~~~ DPR 523E (1/95) State of California -The Resources Agency Primary # ~ ~ _ ' DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ~R~~ ~'"~ cj "' . CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ~ ' ~ ~~~,~ "~',5.,. S.:,,r~ . ~. ~ 11 20268 „ . . La Paloma Street Resource Name or#cnse~r,eaeyRecorderl Page ~ of ReCOrded By: z. Dill/A. Halberstadt Date: July 21, zoo3 x Continuation _ Update • ~~ Pnnled fmx~ T'OPO! 024(lJ WtklfbvYi Pebdurboas (wwa~.topo x~oni; State of California -The Resources Agency. Primary DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ~ `" ~~ .1~ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ~ r 2~"" ` - ~-. Page a of 11 Resource Name or#~a::~r,~abyRecorder> 2ozae La Paloma Street Recorded By: z. Dill/A. xalberstaat Date: July 21, zoo3 x Continuation _ Update Detail of Front Entrance, from northeast; photo by L. Dill, July 2003. . Detail of Front Facade Buttress, from northeast; photo by L. Dill, July 2003. Q~(~~56 DPR 523E (1/95) State of California -The Resources Agency Primary #- °`""" ' • ~ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ` ~f_~ , . °~~ ~ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ~ '~~ • .,.; •< ..:. ~. Page 9 of 11 Resource Name or#~ns5gr,eabyRacoraeq 2o2aa La Paloma street ReCOfded By: L. Dill/A. Halberstadt Date: July zi, zoo3 x Continuation _ Update • Northwest Side of House, from west; photo by L. Dill, July 2003 • Northwest Side of House, from north; photo by L. Dill, July 2003 DPR 523E (1/95) ~~~®S~ State of California=The Resources Agency Primary #'T • DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND. RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ,~ Page 10 Of 11 Resource Name or# ~n:5~r,eabyRa~order> 20286 La Paloma Street Recorded By: L. Dill/A. xalberstaat Date: July zl, zoos x Continuation Garage Addition, from northeast; photo by L. Dill, July 2003. Rear of House, from southwest; photo by L. Dill, July 2003. Update ~: • DPR 523E (1/95) QO~` ~~~ State of California -The Resources Agency Primary - ;- ~ r • ~ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _ ~' `~ ~ - ~ ~: ' "' CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ` Page 11 of ii Resource Name or#cnesgr,eabyRecoroer~ 2o2aa La Faloma street Recorded By: z. Dill/A. xalberstadt Date: July 21, 2003 x Continuation _ Update • Detail of Southeast Side Porch Roof, from west; photo by L. Dill, July 2003. • DPR 523E (1/95) [.F~~(~~~ • Attachment 6 , 0©~~~~ • • SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S STANDARDS REVIEW FOR A PROPOSED REMODEL AND ADDITION PROJECT FOR AN HISTORIC RESIDENCE ON LA PALOMA, SARATOGA Michael Felice and Jennifer Jones Residence 20288 La Paloma Avenue Saratoga (Santa Clara County), California (Parcel Number 397-23-012) • For: Michael McKay, Architect 801 Camelia Street, Suite E Berkeley, CA 94710 Prepared by: DILL D1=SIGN GR.U'~P 455 LOS GATOS bOUL~VAKD >*2U8 LGS GATUS, CALIfOKNIA g5U52 (4Ud1 X58-5448 (4US1 .TSB-S44q FAX ddg@archistory.com Leslie A. G. Dill, Historic A~hitect May 3, 2004 ®®~~~~ r 2 INTRODUCTION • Project Summary . Dill Design Group was retained by the architect of this project, Michael McKay, to conduct a Historic Resource Design Review of a proposed residential remodel and addition project at the historic residence at 20288 La Paloma Avenue, Saratoga, California. Dill Design Group was asked to review the exterior elevations and site plan of the project to determine if the proposed project is in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation (Standards). The Standards are understood to be a common set of guidelines for the review of historic buildings and are used by many communities during the environmental review process to determine the potential impact of a project on an identified resource. Qualifications Leslie A. G. Dill, Principal of the firm Dill Design Group, has a Master of Architecture with a certificate in Historic Preservation from the University of Virginia. She is licensed in California as an architect. Ms. Dill is listed with the Northwest Information Center of the California State Office of Historic Preservation as meeting the requirements to perform identification, evaluation, registration, and treatment activities within the professions of Historic Architect and Architectural Historian in compliance with state and federal environmental laws. The Northwest Information Center utilizes the criteria of the National Park Service as outlined in 36 CFR Part 61. Review Methodology Leslie Dill of Dill Design Group conducted a field visit of the subject property in July, 2003 for the preparation of a State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Form 523 (DPR) that describes the existing design and historical significance of the property. During the field visit, the site and surrounding context were examined. Characteristic features of the existing building were noted. Later Ms. Dill met with the architect and reviewed early design concepts far the project with regard to the • Standards. Ms. Dill then evaluated a design submitted on progress prints from Michael McKay, dated February 25, 2004, according to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. This report iS a presentation of that analysis, intended for submittal to the City of Saratoga to assist them in their design review process. Disclaimers The design for this project is currently in the development phase, and the final construction documents should be reviewed for consistency with this initial review. This report addresses the project plans in terms of historically compatible design. The consultant has not undertaken and will not undertake an evaluation or report on the structural conditions or other related safety hazards that might or might not exist at the site and building, and will not review the proposed project for structural soundness or other safety concerns. The consultant has not undertaken analysis of the site to evaluate the potential for subsurface resources. The design review is generally limited to the exterior of the building. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Dill Design Group established the architectural significance of the historic property in a DPR form recorded in July 2003. The residence is described as "...significant on a local level. It is a distinctive example of Mediterranean Style design, including both its form and detailing. The low proportions, file roof, arched picture window, file attic vent, and clinker brick chimney are character-defining features. The style is fairly common in Saratoga, and the house is compatible with its surrounding neighborhood that includes bungalows as well as other early twentieth-century styles. The interiors have not been altered to a great extent, and the majority of the house retains its integrity. The house appears eligible for the California Register according to Criterion 3, architectural significance, on a local level, and appears . eligible for the Saratoga Heritage Resource Inventory under criterion c." D' L L D >=S' G N G KO's P ©~f.~f.~~•~: • 3 The proposed remodel and addition project, as presented in the current set of architectural drawings as noted above, includes the significant remodeling/replacement of an earlier one-story rear addition with a remodeled/new two-story wing, the addition of a second-story addition above the rear of the original house, and the preservation, repair, and replacement of existing deteriorated original elements. SECRETARY'S STANDARD'S REVIEW: The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, originally published am 1977 and revised in 1990, include ten standards that present a recommended approach to repair, while preserving those portions or features that convey a resource's historical, cultural, or architectural values. Following is a summary of the review with a list of the Standards and associated analysis for this project: Executive Summary The project as presented is in keeping with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. It is recommended that general conditions specific to historic preservation be added to the building permit set of drawings as per the Standard 6 analysis. Analysis 1. "A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships." Analysis: The use of this building and site do not change for this project. 2. "The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided:' Analysis: The current project is generally consistent with this Standard. The project shows the removal of historic building fabric, including the walls, roof, and windows associated with minor existing rooms, but the materials and features that specifically characterize the property will be preserved, and the spatial relationship of the property is reestablished with the addition. See also Standard 9 for related analysis of spatial relationships. 3. "Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken." Analysis: The notes on the proposed exterior elevation sheets adequately note that the new materials will be appropriately differentiated from the original in its form and materials, and the proposed new massing is differentiated from the original massing of the house by offsets and reveals (see Standard 9). No other changes are proposed that might be mistaken for original features. DELL D~S~GN GKC~'~P ~Q~,~~3. • • ' 4 4. "Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be • retained and preserved" Analysis: No changed portions of the building have been identified as having acquired historic significance in their own right. 5. "Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved:' Analysis: The features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the property are generally preserved in this proposal, Specifically, the wall finishes, roofline, roof materials, windows, forms, doors, and other character-defining features are proposed for preservation. 6. "Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence:' Analysis: The project plans do not specifically address the replacement of deteriorated features. Written • direction regarding deteriorated materials must be added to the plans before they conform to this Standard. Recommended wording would indicate that materials shall be: 1) preserved, 2) repaired when preservation is not possible, and 3) replaced in-kind only when absolutely necessary. An appropriate location for this note would be on the title sheet, within the Project Notes, bpt the architect can provide an alternate location. 7. "Chemical or physical 'treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used." Analysis: No chemical or physical treatments seem to be proposed in this project. 8. "Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken:' Analysis: Archeological resources aze not evaluated in this report. • • • D~l_L D1=5~GN GKO'~P 0~~~;~~' S 9. "New additions, exterior alterations or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment." Analysis: The two-story addition proposed at the reaz (southwest) of the existing building is compatible with the historic resource in size, massing and location. Although lazge, the second-story addition is designed with low plate heights, plan offsets, and roof setbacks that reduce its visual impact on the original residence and preserve the form of the original perimeter of the house. The essence of the original residence will remain as a representation of its period of significance. The materials aze proposed to be differentiated with texture and integral material color; the windows aze similaz but proportionately differentiated, and such important character-defining features as the azched front window are not copied outright, but echoed in the proposed arched reveal above the new window design. 10. "New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired." Analysis: Although there would be some loss of original building fabric as analyzed in Standard 2, the essential form and integrity of the character-defusing features of the historic property would be maintained in this project. u DELL D1=SIGN GKU'~P Q~~~~S • Attachment 7 • ®®~~~ • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLAR.A ) I, John F. Livingstone, 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 8th day of July, 2004, that I deposited in the mail room at the City of Saratoga, 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 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 20288 La Paloma Avenue; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. John F. Livingst e AICP Associate Planner • V ~~~r~ J City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408-868-1222 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Wednesday, the 28`~ day of July 2004, at 7:00 p.m. Located in the City theater at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Details are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. APPLICATION # 04-012 (397-23-012) - Filice, 20288 La Paloma Avenue; - Request Design Review Approval to demolish and rebuild a significant portion of the existing 1,900 square foot house and add a new second floor for a total floor area of 2,879 square feet. The proposed project will also include a 789 square foot basement. The height of the structure will not exceed 26 feet. The gross lot size is 7,321 square feet and zoned R-1-10,000. 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. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor's office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of -date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. John F. Livingstone, AICP Associate Planner 408.868.1231 • 0~4~~~~ • C7 20288 La Palorna Avenue 0~~~~9 c, BILLINGTON JULIE R TRUSTEE Or Current Owner APN 39739001 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 11 SARATOGA CA 95070-5942 HUBER KARL AND SHIRLEY J TRUSTEE Or Current Owner APN 39739004 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 14 SARATOGA CA 95070-5942 KRAMER ALYCE M TRUSTEE & ET AL Or Current Owner APN 39739007 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 17 SARATOGA CA 95070-5942 VICK GARY J AND PATRICIA A Or Current Owner APN 39739010 14137 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN SARATOGA CA 95070-5417 CRITCHFIELD RUTHANN TRUSTEE Or Current Owner APN 39739013 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 25 SARATOGA CA 95070-5943 LEVY RITA TRUSTEE Or Current Owner APN 39739016 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 28 SARATOGA CA 95070-5943 ABINGTON ROBERT B AND MARY R TRUSTEE Or Current Owner APN 39739019 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 33 SARATOGA CA 95070-5944 BRUCE KEVIN R AND PAULINE A Or Current Owner APN 39739022 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 36 SARATOGA CA 95070-5944 LONG JOSEPH P JR AND SUSAN D Or Current Owner APN 39733001 P O BOX 2095 SARATOGA CA 95070-0095 HUYNH M1NH Q AND BUI PHUONGKHANH VAN Or Current Owner APN 39733004 14349 SARATOGA AV UNIT A SARATOGA CA 95070-5949 • OSTERMAN JAMES W TRUSTEE & ET AL Or Current Owner APN 39739002 268 APTOS BEACH DR APTOS CA 95003-3027 SILVEIRA LUCILLE M TRUSTEE Or Current Owner APN 39739005 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 15 SARATOGA CA 95070-5942 CRAMER ADELE Or Current Owner APN 39739008 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 18 SARATOGA CA 95070-5942 PALAIMA MARK AND YOGI SHARON Or Current Owner APN 39739011 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 23 SARATOGA CA 95070-5943 SEIPEL ROBERT S AND JOAN V TRUSTEE Or Current Owner APN 39739014 14127 SQUIRREL HOLLOW SARATOGA CA 95070-5417 NATER CHARLES AND LEONORA Or Current Owner APN 39739017 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 31 SARATOGA CA 95070-5944 REED GLENN C Or Current Owner APN 39739020 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 34 SARATOGA CA 95070-5944 NADIMI BAHRAM R Or Current Owner APN 39739023 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 37 SARATOGA CA 95070-5944 KENT MARGARET E Or Current Owner APN 39733002 261 HARTZ AV DANVILLE CA 94526-3309 MATSUMOTO KAZUYO ET AL Or Current Owner APN 39733005 14349 SARATOGA AV UNIT B SARATOGA CA 95070-5949 • CHASE GERALDINE I Or Current Owner APN 39739003 ' 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 13 SARATOGA CA 95070-5942 CHUNG JOO H AND WON J Or Current Owner APN 39739006 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 16 SARATOGA CA 95070-5942 LAGERSTROM DONALD F TRUSTEE & ET AL Or Current Owner APN 39739009 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 21 SARATOGA CA 95070-5943 SMITH LANI R TRUSTEE Or Current Owner APN 39739012 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 24 SARATOGA CA 95070-5943 VON HELLENS C R Or Current Owner APN 39739015 2141 E HIGHLAND AV UNIT 155 PHOENIX AZ 85016 REES LEANNE Or Current Owner APN 39739018 8701 BELLWOOD RD BETHESDA MD 20817-3032 TAFARELLA PETER A ET AL Or Current Owner APN 39739021 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 35 SARATOGA CA 95070-5944 YOUNG PHIL Z AND JEAN L Or Current Owner APN 39739024 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 38 SARATOGA CA 95070-5,944 HSU GRACE S Or Current Owner APN 39733003 14347 SARATOGA AV UNIT B SARATOGA CA 95070-5945 LINDSAY NOEL P JR ET AL , Or Current Owner APN 39733 1270 S WINCHESTER BL SAN JOSE CA 95128-3911 0~~®`7~ j - (. CUSTODIO JAMES Or Current Owner APN 39733007 351 SARATOGA AV UNIT A TOGA CA 95070-5950 PENNELL AYLENE TRUSTEE Or Current Owner APN 39733010 14353 SARATOGA AV UNIT A SARATOGA CA 95070-5964 PONTIER LENA N TRUSTEE Or Current Owner APN 39733013 14353 SARATOGA AV UNIT C SARATOGA CA 95070-5965 CANNIZZARO ANTHONY J AND MARGARET Or Current Owner APN 39733016 19540 REDBERRY DR LOS GATOS CA 95030-2931 WARRINER HARWOOD TRUSTEE Or Current Owner APN 39733019 PO BOX 217 TOGA CA 95071-0217 CKERSON LAUREL Or Current Owner APN 39733022 14359 SARATOGA AV UNIT A SARATOGA CA 95070-5947 MCELWAIN DOUGLAS Or Current Owner APN 39738002 14333 SARATOGA AV UNIT 2 SARATOGA CA 95070-5939 ANDERSON JACQUELINE D TRUSTEE Or Current Owner APN 39738005 14333 SARATOGA AV UNIT 5 SARATOGA CA 95070-5939 CHRISTENSEN JOSEPHINE A Or Current Owner APN 39738008 14333 SARATOGA AV UNIT 8 SARATOGA CA 95070-5939 TER NORMA Current Owner APN 39738011 14333 SARATOGA AV UNIT 11 SARATOGA CA 95070-5940 • KING DENNIS W AND SHIULIEN KUO Or Current Owner APN 39733008 14351 SARATOGA AV UNIT B SARATOGA CA 95070-5950 KATHARY WANDA G TRUSTEE Or Current Owner APN 39733011 14353 SARATOGA AV UNIT D SARATOGA CA 95070-5965 MANN MORTON S AND GERALDINE E TRUSTEE Or Current Owner APN 39733014 19986 MALLORY CT SARATOGA CA 95070-4437 BURGNER KAREN E Or Current Owner APN 39733017 14355 SARATOGA AV UNIT C SARATOGA CA 95070-5951 LEY GERALD M AND DOLLIE S TRUSTEE Or Current Owner APN 39733020 1944 CHARTERS AV SARATOGA CA 95070 BUENROSTRO MARJORIE M TRUSTEE Or Current Owner APN 39733023 14359 SARATOGA AV UNIT B SARATOGA CA 95070-5947 CAMPBELL JAMES M JR Or Current Owner APN 39738003 1171 S DE ANZA BL SAN JOSE CA 95129 RAJU FAMILY 1999 REVOC TRUST Or Current Owner APN 39738006 19015 SPRING BROOK LN SARATOGA CA 95070 RAOKVANDKS Or Current Owner APN 39738009 14333 SARATOGA AV UNIT 9 SARATOGA CA 95070-5940 CLIFTON, CATHERINE ANN FAM TR Or Current Owner APN 39738012 14333 SARATOGA AV UNIT 12 SARATOGA CA 95070-5940 • BURGNER ROBERT T AND KAREN E Or Current Owner APN 39733009 14351 SARATOGA AV UNIT C SARATOGA CA 95070-5950 PIERCE ROBERT B TRUSTEE & ET AL Or Current Owner APN 39733012 23500 CRISTO REY DR UNIT SO1G BONNET GWBNDOLYN _ _ _ . TRUSTEE Or Current Owner APN 39733015 14355 SARATOGA AV UNIT D SARATOGA CA 95070-5951 PERSICO JOSEPHINE J Or Current Owner APN 39733018 14357 SARATOGA AV UNIT A SARATOGA CA 95070-5952 HENRY RUTH M TRUSTEE , Or Current Owner APN 39733021 P O BOX 798 SARATOGA CA 95070 TABARI K KAM AND DORIS M TRUSTEE Or Current Owner APN 39738001 16177 RIDGECREST AV MONTE SERENO CA 95030- SHAH YOGESH R AND JYOTSNA Y Or Current Owner APN 39738004 1171 S DE ANZA BL SAN JOSE CA 95129 YANG HUI-YING Or Current Owner APN 39738007 14333 SARATOGA AV UNIT 7 SARATOGA CA 95070-939 MACOY JANNA C TRUSTEE & ET AL Or Current Owner APN 39738010 6627 DARTMOOR WY SAN JOSE CA 95129-3817 POUR.ANI RASSOUL AND SIGHARIAN SHAHLA Or Current Owner APN 39738013 14333 SARATOGA AV UNIT 13 SARATOGA CA 95070-5940 o~;o~~i CHEN TOM TA-LIANG AND KUO GRACE LI-CHURN Or Current Owner APN 39738014 14333 SARATOGA AV UNIT 14 SARATOGA CA 95070-5940 BRIX HARRY G AND MARIANN TRUSTEE Or Current Owner APN 39738017 16127 GREENWOOD LN LOS GATOS CA 95033 WANG CHIN-HS1N AND MAYLING Or Current Owner APN 39738020 14333 SARATOGA AV UNIT 20 SARATOGA CA 95070-5941 JOHNSTON DORYNDA TRUSTEE Or Current Owner APN 39738023 13434 OLD OAK WY SARATOGA CA 95070-4207 Or Current Owner APN Or Current Owner APN Or Current Owner APN Or Current Owner APN Or Current Owner APN Or Current Owner APN LJ COOLURES CHRIS P AND PHYLLIS TRUSTEE Or Current Owner APN 39738015 485 DOE RUN RD SEQUIN WA 98382-3803 KIM WOO H AND BYUNG D Or Current Owner APN 39738018 14333 SARATOGA AV UNIT 18 SARATOGA CA 95070-5941 HOWARD MARGARET E Or Current Owner APN 39738021 14333 SARATOGA AV UNIT 21 SARATOGA CA 95070-5941 PERRY RICHARD L Or Current Owner APN 39738024 1172 SHORELINE DR SAN MATEO CA 94404-2007 Or Current Owner APN Or Current Owner APN Or Current Owner APN Or Current Owner APN Or Current Owner APN Or Current Owner APN LJ ZHENG PERRY T AND QI HUI FANG ' Or Current Owner APN 39738016 14333 SARATOGA AV UNIT 1~ SARATOGA CA 95070-5940 ZHONG ROGER YUEZHI AND LI LILY LI Or Current Owner APN 39738019 14333 SARATOGA AV UNIT 19 SARATOGA CA 95070-5941 SU CHIA F AND HUELLING Or Current Owner APN 39738022 14333 SARATOGA AV UNIT 22 SARATOGA CA 95070-5941 Or Current Owner APN Or Current Owner APN • Or Current Owner APN Or Current Owner APN Or Current Owner APN Or Current Owner APN Or Current Owner APN • o~®~~z 4' • • SMITH NEAL J & MARGARET Or Current Owner, APN 39722008 14474 OAK PL TOGA CA 95070-5929 GALVIN THOMAS A TRUSTEE ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 39722028 20369 PARK PL SARATOGA CA 95070-5936 ORCHARD ROAD PARTNERS Or Current Owner, APN 39722032 PO BOX 95 SARATOGA CA 95071-0095 SCHUPPERT RICHARD & MARY Or Current Owner, APN 39722035 20350 ORCHARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5937 DENARI GREGORY A TRUSTEE ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 39722039 20300 ORCHARD RD TOGA CA 95070-5937 !TOGA FEDERATED CHURCH Or Current Owner, APN 39722044 14370 SARATOGA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5953 PALMER PETER & ANASTASIA Or Current Owner, APN 39722052 14473 OAK PL SARATOGA CA 95070-5928 ABRAMS JAMES J & ANITA G TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39722056 14470 OAK PL SARATOGA CA 95070-5929 SOLOMON DAVID M & MARGARITA V Or Current Owner, APN 39722060 P.O. BOX 3028 SARATOGA CA 95070 ~OHOE JOE urrent Owner, APN 39723001 14441 OAK PL SARATOGA CA 95070-5969 SARATOGA FEDERATED CHURCH Or Current Owner, APN 39722023 20390 PARK PL SARATOGA CA 95070 STYSLINGER BRIAN & DENISE Or Current Owner, APN 39722029 20375 PARK PL SARATOGA CA 95070-5936 CHEMERIS PETER Or Current Owner, APN 39722033 20370 ORCHARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070 YOUNG RICHARD A & JEAN L Or Current Owner, APN 39722036 20340 ORCHARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5937 SMITH JEROME A Or Current Owner, APN 39722040 PO BOX 3093 SARATOGA CA 95070-1093 SINGER PAUL H & TERRI M TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39722047 20320 ORCHARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5937 MARTLAGE DALE E & CHERYL L TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39722053 14475 OAK PL SARATOGA CA 95070-5928 HUSTON MICHAEL E & CASSANDRA N Or Current Owner, APN 39722058 14466 OAK PLACE SARATOGA CA 95070-5929 GUN LEVENT & HEDIYE Or Current Owner, APN 39722061 20385 PARK PL SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 ROGAN PAUL F Or Current Owner, APN 39723002 PO BOX 1687 CRYSTAL BAY NV 89402 SINGLETARY RICHARD B TRUSTEE ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 39722027 20363 PARK PL SARATOGA CA 95070-5936 SARATOGA FOOTHILL CLUB Or Current Owner, APN 39722031 PO BOX 2233 SARATOGA CA 95070-0233 LYNCH DAVID J & KATHLEEN E Or Current Owner, APN 39722034 20360 ORCHARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5937 PROCTOR FRED J & AILEEN M TRUSTEE ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 39722037 20328 ORCHARD RD ' SARATOGA CA 95070-5937 DUKES DARRELL E & ANGELIN M TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39722041 1156 N FOURTH ST SAN JOSE CA 95112-4944 SHORT WALTON & JENNIFER K Or Current Owner, APN 39722048 20312 ORCHARD RD ' SARATOGA CA 95070-5937 KING ALAN V TRUSTEE ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 39722054, 14472 OAK PL SARATOGA CA 95070-5929 SEAGRAVES WALTER & JEANINE Or Current Owner, APN 39722059 14458 OAK PLACE ' SARATOGA CA 95070-5929 CRANE DENNIS M ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 39722062 20379 PARK PL SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 DAVIS MARCIA F & MATTHEW L Or Current Owner, APN 39723003 20301 ORCHARD RD SARATOGA CA 95q~'~V~D"~~ ~~~ GREENLEAF THOMAS F & JANET M Or Current Owner, APN 39723004 20315 ORCHARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5938 BIERACH KIRK B & KAREN J Or Current Owner, APN 39723007 20355 ORCHARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5938 SWAN CHARLES W & MARIANNE TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39723010 20300 LA PALOMA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5960 KIlZK GEORGE E & NANCY G TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39723014 20270 LA PALOMA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5960 HEID WARREN B & SHEILA S Or Current Owner, APN 39723017 20250 LA PALOMA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5960 BOND BARBARA F & WILLIAM K Or Current Owner, APN 39723021 20295 LA PALOMA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5959 FLOYD ANN K 2 & DAN W Or Current Owner, APN 39723027 14280 SARATOGA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5931 JOHNSON STEPHEN G & LINDA TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39723039 14307 LUTHERIA WY SARATOGA CA 95070-5914 FARAONE TEDD E TRUSTEE ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 39723042 14041 SARATOGA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5437 PATRICIA HARDT Or Current Owner, APN 39723045 14310 SARATOGA AV SARATOGA CA 95070 • RYAN ROBERT J IV & MELISSA B Or Current Owner, APN 39723005 20331 ORCHARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5938 TU JIMMY W ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 39723008 20314 LA PALOMA SARATOGA CA 95070-5960 HARWARD JAVONNE TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39723011 20294 LA PALOMA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5960 GARLAND JETTE TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39723015 20264 LA PALOMA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5960 KARDACH JAMES P & CATHARINE L Or Current Owner, APN 39723018 20271 LA PALOMA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5959 ZAMBETTI EUGENE L Or Current Owner, APN 39723022 PO BOX 34 SARATOGA CA 95071-0034 KATZ AARON L Or Current Owner, APN 39723028 PO BOX 116 SARATOGA CA 95071-0116 RUSCA CARMELA Or Current Owner, APN 39723040 14321 LUTHERIA WY SARATOGA CA 95070-5914 MC HUGH MARY E ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 39723043 6363 ESTATES DR OAKLAND CA 94611-3120 MASON NORA M Or Current Owner, APN 39723046 20282 LA PALOMA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5960 STEWARD PHILIP H & DOLORES K TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39723006 20345 ORCHARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5938 PHILLIPS JEFFREY & HAZEL Or Current Owner, APN 39723009 20306 LA PALOMA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5960 FILICE MICHAEL E JR Or Current Owner, APN 39723012 20288 LA PALOMA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5960 EVANS-RYAN JANE Or Current Owner, APN 39723016 20260 LA PALOMA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5960 BOSE JOAN B TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39723020 20289 LA PALOMA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5959 ALLEN JAY W • Or Current Owner, APN 39723023 20315 LA PALOMA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5959 MECWAN CYRIL B & JYOTI Or Current Owner, APN 39723029 14268 SARATOGA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5931 GUERICKE KEITH R TRUSTEE ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 39723041 14341 LUTHERIA WY SARATOGA CA 95070-5914 ROSEVEAR BRYAN & KATRINA Or Current Owner, APN 39723044 20283 LA PALOMA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5959 THANAWALA ASHISH A & SHEFALI Or Current Owner, APN 39723047 20276 LA PALOMA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5960 ~~~~~~. _~, ;~,, .' MARK HEATH ~Or Current Owner, APN 39723048 5339 PROSPECT RD 261 JOSE CA 95129-5033 WALIA ANTHONY & CATHERINE M Or Current Owner, APN 39724004 20220 LA PALOMA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5913 HOWMILLER JOHN R & CYNTHIA TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39724011 20247 LA PALOMA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5912 STIRM DENNIS M TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39724014 14366 LUTHERIA WY SARATOGA CA 95070-5915 SPARACINO MICHAEL G TRUSTEE ETAL Or Current Owner, APN 39724017 14325 SPRINGER AV TOGA CA 95070-5889 AICH SEKUL Or Current Owner, APN 39724079 20010 SPAICH CT SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 WILLSON MABEL M TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39731004 14301 SARATOGA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5930 Or Current Owner, APN Or Current Owner, APN Current Owner, APN PARAVAGANA JACK M & LOIS J Or Current Owner, APN 39724001 14452 OAK PL SARATOGA CA 95070-5929 EMERSON JAMES C & C S Or Current Owner, APN 39724008 20221 LA PALOMA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5912 KINK CHRISTOPHER K & SUZANNE Or Current Owner, APN 39724003 20230 LA PALOMA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5913 TELLEP DANIEL M & PATRICIA B TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39724009 20231 LA PALOMA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5912 MARKWITH JAMES W & SHELLY D Or Current Owner, APN 39724012 20253 LA PALOMA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5912 KRASSOWSKI WITOLD & E. THERESE TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39724015 14360 LUTHERIA WY SARATOGA CA 95070-5915 BRAMLETT BOBBY E & CHARLOTTE A TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39724040 14440 OAK PL SARATOGA CA 95070-5929 JUDI A. RUEHLE Or Current Owner, APN 39724102 20680 SEATON AV SARATOGA CA 95070 SEBAN SUZANA Or Current Owner, APN 39739025 172 CLIPPER ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 94114-3817 Or Current Owner, APN Or Current Owner, APN Or Current Owner, APN KAISER WILLIAM E & VICKY V Or Current Owner, APN 39724013 20261 LA PALOMA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5912 DAVIS ISHBEL & ANTHONY M TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39724016 21770 CONGRESS HALL LN SARATOGA CA 95070-9714 PRABHU NARENDRANATH & RAYNA Or Current Owner, APN 39724041 14434 OAK PL SARATOGA CA 95070-5929 BUCKMAN ROLLIN E & VIRGINIA D TRUSTEE Or Current Owner, APN 39731003 14285 SARATOGA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5930 Or Current Owner, APN Or Current Owner, APN Or Current Owner, APN Or Current Owner, APN Q~~~~S v F 4n • • ~f ~ ~~~ ~ E ~ ::~ ~',~ ~ ~ c s ~ ~~ c L ~ A ~ ~ u .~ U N ~ .. c ~? ~. Q ~ h ~ N ~ V ~ N A Y ~ E 0 ~ ~ ~ O ~ E :~ X ~ ~ ~ ~ .u m o_` ~ a 8 .~ E m~ 2 }~ E ~ off., U OLOS6 `H~ `~'JO.LH2IdS `~f1N~A~' ~'Y~IO'I~'d ~''I 88ZOZ ~~I'II3 2I~3II~II~I~f ~ 'I~~'H~IL~I ~2I03 I~IOI.LIQQ~ QN~' 'I~QOY~I~ H ~~~~~ e~ ~r ~' ~~ ~~ ~~ s ~o g o m xx xxx xxxxx xxxxxxx ~~ R "' r ni °~' o gs ~ ~ F o _ ~~'~ A A SAA ~ SCA ~ SCE ~' ~oQ,gnG g °Z; ~ 3~ °o u r r K O .N - - -- N - N-CQ N n Ae ° o~ ~ ° ~ " yY'~ ~ ~ V u ~' ~ ~ 2~2" ~ W ~~ ~ ;4 ~~ o ~g _ iN §~ ~ ~~ O:S i ~ O ~~ ~ k ~'S a'F U: 4 ~ ~ Q o P ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~a~~~E ~ ~~ R ~, ~~ ~~" ~~ `'~ A ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ $ a ~ ~ ~ o ui~ uJ ~~~~ o~ U °~j o o gu ~~~ ~~,~ ~F x ~ s H N 9{ ~'° ~ g~~ ~~~`'"I° ~~"yo9o^ uu~~ O Fu~~3Y~ ~ o~ ~ ~ 3'~~ ~x ~O ~, J 1 ~ Q N Q Q a LL~ d - ° I f 1 v- -m ~_ ~ z O~ w ~ O~ Q~ ~ N~~ ~~~ Q N N ~ Y Z ~ Z xx wl~~ ~ <~ pp3[[ 1~!!1 _kk r EF ~m=z~ ~~ $ ~~ ~~ ~z~ ~a~ as ~~~ .., .,. p 3 8 ° WN b ,~ m ~m o 'n~OVN~ _ .. ~a-- g "~ ~ 9 ~oQ~~~ ~o~ ~ ~ ~~ _. ~ ~~~ `~ ~ yF w m xpA :.. o l R~~ A~t41a< is UUUC \r9ix p~e~ ~ m O x91ac ti0ic iW+I A-.SZ y p.eA na. -0'.G2 ~ ~ w ~ L .l., _ (,EZ'9vi M„OO,OO.LbS) s ~~ SS ro in c ~ _~ b o°N° }} db y~~ ~~ W ZZen ~ OCW $ ~~. ~~ 5 _Y ry ~Y ,o Y -~ S S ,~ ,o W F- U w w Z O .~ v,S 'io ~_ a~ ~^ CJI _ p E~1 X. p Y oA ~S t,A v, q o~ ~~ ~~ YYYYYY YY Y.Y SA$7fA5$SS iF ~~.,~~.,ao~°., 0 v , <L Z O Z O - 'x nN Q .~ U F- r.~, _P ~~, w Q - ~ - ~ - ~ J I ~ YYYYYYY Y.YY Y .Y U ~g ~~ o~Nmoo.o-xm ~ n J ~~' ~'~ ~^~mm~~_mrv~ Q 3 S o~ ~, +++++++++ - Q, w vi Q w oC ~ Q 0 o J ~ ~ O H f) ~'~ i'`f ~ t ~ m =ro ~ J N~ N~ _~ :i IL U_ v e O F ~ z N U W >O ~ ~ o 1 < U U ~. o ii ~ e a u ~. .;; y ~ mm "-' N M ~~ ~~ m ~ m ~ ~D N N ~ ~ ~, o'o' ~~ m ~ N pp s ~ rg ?g c ~ ~ ~ c ~ l p '~ ~ S ~ ~ ~ >~ o ~; ~ _ ~ ~ ~QO ~ o ~ f~ ~ Q o ~ vt w ~u=~ m ~ ~ C C ~s~ ~ ~ t g N g~ ~, o Z ~ ~ ~ ~ _~ o ~o°o ~~~ U ~ y~~ ~ 7 rs d _ ~ ~ r F m u~`~~ u~ ~ gig ~ - J-1 ~> ~ ~ W ~6'lJ.., y H °~~ °v"U' 1st ~'~ Z.U ''^^ ,~snn ~ c = ~tJl w ~ ~N UI ~~Ul~ •gO~ ~N t~~ Z ~ ~ ~ N 7 7 w _ ~ L ~ ~ ~ m m ~ 3 U~mw~QQ O ~ ~~ Q ~ ~ V ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ o ='c~mvu~~nt~ ~~ ~ R ~ ~s ~s 1 ''~`]~ ~ Y. ' ~ ~1 S N 0 8 9 .-. 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~~o ~ ~Q Z m z~ ~a w Q o0 >I J d ~ ¢I 0 a Q a ~~ 6 o a ~~ _~~ ~~ 0 ~_ x V w ~- r~ LL..~ o_ Q Z U 0 II N O z • ~ ~rnzooa loaz:~~~Y u ~~ ~~ rv~ tii ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ VI P r f~ ~ L Aga ~~r U u ~ U C '~ F ~ T C vy ~vf A L ~ Y w E 0 , ~ , ~ y O E r ~* f h i x ~s`~~ ~~~~ E m~ ~~~ ~ OLOS6 `d~ `dJO.Ld?IdS `~I1N3Ad dL~iO'Idd d'I 88ZOZ ~~I'II3 2I~3II~ll~I~r ~ 'I~dH~IL~i ~2I03 l~IOI.LIQQd QI~Id "I~QOY~I~2I d auil .(Lado.d lcanylpu I ?,h-.a ?ip-w z.z , l ip Ij W I u ~ ~ FFla a ~ 3N~ I ~~~ Q ~~ $SF _ ~ _ - ~ h ., II I o s ~ 9 ~ ~ y ~ .. I I ~ mI I ~ C ~ r _ v q v ~ ` I~ 9 ~ ~ ~T I Ti~ ~ ~ I - ~ ~ 1Y I I I II z ~ II _ _ ~ ~ ~~ ~ II y II II II z~~. II o ©© 80 ©~©Z ~ ~___~ II o ~8~ II a o °i J ~o ~ ~ ~~ b ~ ~ II ~~~ y~ II ~ .~ _ ~ - ~ ~ `~ ~~ y r ~ ~~ ~ ~ Q 4 b _ _ `° LL N a~~~.cyado,d x.a~lroc A zp.~ ?~.e ?~ of zAi .fi n~ :.r.z. jai z.c,ri tai p q ~ ~ ?~J,r9 w F ~ ~ ~ ~ w 3 I I ::' r I~ I I ~_ ~ ~ ~ I - ____ = ~~~ I II II W8~ ~~~~__~ ~~ JL~w a ~ 1 - - - ~3I -1 b - - ~I" ~ ~ "' w ~ ~J ~ - ~_ ~ ~ I I ~ o w~ ~ 8 ~m ~' ° II ~ ~II ~ w o m~~~~ - _ _ _ ~ m I I _ 3 3 ~ «` I I a z Q OL J Z U w t!7 • ~ 7/7/2004 10:53:~McKay :~ ~ c q ~~ V ~ ~ 0 N ~o o ~Z '~ ~ U ~ o a ~. W .~ ti b i a 3 N ° ~ r °° e h ~ ri h t ~ R LL1 a u B V h N L pin v ~ T O ~ V1 d u V1 A ~~ ° w E 0 y 0 ~ 0 Ec O U E x ~.~~~ s ~e g e GS ~ u ~E m ~q ~ a O i U OLOS6 `~'~ `~'JO.Ld2I~S `~f1I~I~A~' ~L~iO'I~'d ~'"I 88ZOZ ~~I~II3 2I~3II~I~r ~ Z~~'H~IL~I 2IO3 NOI.LIQQ~' QI~I~ 'I~QOL~i~ ~' Q Z U w W (n OL W Z Q OL H 0 a N o ~ 0 a Z Q J OL O LJ 0 Z W W ~I ~ Q L c R _ v m g ~ `t /~ n o ai u ~ y o ~, o ~. u ti b 0 j\a J Q U N I~ Z U w N J Q Z C~ Z J b i a a U N • ~ 7!72004 10:53: ~cK~y w g ~ ~ ~~ vl ~ r `~! L t0 u.la e n ~ - ~U v i r oV? ~ ~ T ~ N ~ ~ ~ u U ~ ~ x C E o ° m EE y O 3 3 E 3 ~~ ~ °~ ,~~ ~k ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~y ~s~ __ I r, 9 g~ u .4~( II b~ >z~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~9~ n~~~! ~88y~ i 9a ~~ ~~ \ $g3 g ~~ Y sR 'u ,N 5 y ~ ~. ~ gg ~~ \y 0 x~ s `~ .e y m ~~~ 3 Z \ gg ~ 6 ?s ~'- Q ~ ~~ UJ J ~ gg ga ~^ Fn w O O \ ~ p3 yyE T~ ~ ¢ ~ ~~~ ~L~ ~rf ((~'~ V / 3r~ ~„ y bb~ -6 PO F y~ ,~ H ~~ ~ y ~ 73 ~ F~, ~l W g ~~ati ~~ I _ - ~ ~~ ~ Vy ~~ ~x~ W i3 ~T; i~~~A fP1 ~~ ~,~ s O ~~ ~~~ ~ OLOS6 `~'~ `F~JOZ~S `~~~~ ~'I~O'I~'d ~'I 88ZOZ ~~I'II3 2I~3I1~ll~I~r ~ 'I~~'H~IY~I ~2I03 I~IOI.LIQQ~' QI~I~' 'I~QOY~I~ ~' 0 II J ua~enalo oero-uvw a aeq A-•9Z k ~ s n~ ~~i c~ ~~~ ?s~ E €`r~~~ ~3~~ ~~~ ~'~ a^~ ~~ ~~ n d~ .~~ x ~~ ,?s ~~~ ~~a~ V **yyFF'uy 3k~Y ~~~~ .~ ~~ ~; ~~~~ ~~~ r ~~~~ ~s~ s ah a ~. 1- cJ~ - W C I z O O v ~-- Q = \ ~ > II Q W ~ W J a ~w~ X `Q O F U ~ o o e II ~; U ' ~ w J ti t~ • ~nizooa Ioaaa~~K,Y ~ o 3 ~ ~ ~ ~~~ y t` ~ L Aga V1Ns ~ u SU ovi u V N A O o ~ ~~ E Y m u E Q .~ a x ~ ~ ~ ~ •s Yuu O C OC Y V E ~~° 2 ~+ 6 ~ ~ U OLOS6 `~'~ `~'OO.L~S `~f1N~A~ ~'L~iO'IHd ~7 88ZOZ ~~I'II3 2I~3II~Il~I~r ~ 'I~`v'H~IL~I ~2I03 NOI.LIQQ~' QI~I~ "I~QOL~i~2I ~' 1~S y ~ u s '~ ~ ~' $g ~ ~ ,yg ~ 4T I IV ~ I ~'Y~s J~~A ~s~ ~ ~S~ x ~~ ~ ~xa~ ~~ ~ $ g g ~ ~9 a o RO NSF ~~, Ix 5 ~~ ~~ ~~ 19 ~ ~ °~ 0 Y~ A `~ N 01 ~- YJ, OC.U o Y r ~~ W. ~.Z ~ Y Y ?~ tlp " ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ^^^~aa^ ~~ab ~, ~~~ ~r ~8a ~a 4 o~y c° ~yX~~ O~ ~~~ ~~ ~if~_ ~ -- \_ ~~'FS ~,'u $ m ~; ~.~ _ ~~ r ^ ~~A ~~ ^Q ~~~ ~ ^° \ ^ ,. i % I ~ ~a ~ ~ ~ ~A a~ ~ ~ s s m ~ e s n ~ O z v, ' a Q q ~ ~ ~ ° a v e ~. A ~ yAy N Q v 4. a ~°i N a p~' i q'1 C ~a~ ~~ r~. ~~~ ~~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ d ;~ ~ k ~ n y ~ ~' W F- v ~w u ~_d 2 O u 0 u ~ ~ ~ J - R Z i ~ ~ Z ~ v ~ u ~ ~ W (L ``6g ~ ui ~y~ y u ~ u ~~ $ ~ g` ~ W Q ~ ° - F~~ ° n~~ ~ _ v U _, „r„ d E cg ~, ~ ~ u ° w Z ~~s~ ~~~ Q ~is~n ~~~ ~ ~ J ~ o ~ s ~Y c s ~~ e~ v ~ ~ o n ~ w ~~ F^ ^~ o ~ g~ ~f Z ~ ~ ~ ~' LL-I ~ y4 t o E { E ~' Q °a °= Z ~~ ~~ ;~ "":t ~ 9~ 3~ ~ N V Nt. n ~' L E 4 V E6° r u ~~v E $' ~o~ ~F~ ~~n €~° N u ~ ~v .s '~~' F rr '" 2 ; u ~x~a~~~~°~~ sy g~ 8~a~~~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ ~' 3 P r~ 3Tis~~~~g+ `"~ ~ ~ ^ d u ~ ,~ u ~ ~ uurV ~ ~ ~ ~ h a~ 0' ~ Q = 4 u u V c N V~ U D~ y_f ~ u o°~g;^~~°F F' ~~a 3~~~F~Ft~ ~,~ 2 ~ofr~ °~a ~ N 6 L ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ s N~3oA~~ ~k ~ FO ~ k ~~~~~~~~ SQK~O ~s^~~~ ~~~~~~~~ Z 0 4~ ~.Y .Y 4'.Y .Y .L', S'.Y Y ~i mcmmminm OOtn mmngr~~m~~~ ~ - ~ - N N U~ U Y > >~a~~a~~~~ ~ W ~~~o~~s~s~ W ;~3n~°u ~~~E > ~ d -U Z Q J z ~. Q U 0 z Q II a~ W U N H z lL Q W Q U Z glb ~ _, w- Q II > Z Q N • ~ 7/7/2004 I O: S S: ~cK~y ~ $ ~ o ~~ ~ ~ ' v ~~ I a ° p > >, 3 o ~ p ~ N V U r A t ~ E ~ m P Y O V E U ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ O O ~n O ^ O r~ z ~ °al ~ ~ O ~f ~~~ >. '~'I ~~ _ O ~x_{ L W N p t ~ V 2 ~,~ v ~ r ~ Z O Q W J W ___I Q Q W L Z Z i i- x ~.~~~ y ~~ m ~ 2 ~~~~ f \\ OLOS6 `d~ `dJO.Ld2IdS `~Ill~I~Ad dY~IO'Idd d"I 88ZOZ ~~I'II3 2I~3II~ll~I~r ~ 'I~dH~II~ ~2IO3 NOI,LIQQd QNd "I~QOL~T~ d u~ s~ s ~ C D O p Z \ _ V O ~ p} ~ ~ U ~ E N ~ ~ s d ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N s ~ _-~- ykV~ o ~' C1. L b II a ~~,m„ .so-.9 ~ Z O Q W J W F- J '(~ u , Q r(~ V 1 W O Z b ~LJ II _ Q N ~o N x V ~ O ~ ~ F O V N ~ ~ ~ L ~~ Z ~ O / ~ E ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ Z W J W J ~~~ m V / Q ~ ~( V / W O ' V I `. Q W s~ ~ Q I~ ° ~ m < ~ ~ .w\ r 0 ii ~ ti ;;pp rh pp 3 O v i:. $ "' u s w ~~ y o ~L x V ~ O ~ oft {'o°,~' Q N U `~. ~ ~ r d Z O \Q J W J I p.~ ,~ ~ ~ m ' V ~...~ I i~ V 1 I I I / \ ~I~ ' ~ ~ ~ I' Q W ~ ~ f ~_ I O OE 0 G O O Z II O ' I - ~ v ~ II ~° -* I w Q II )a tt) I 1 .. ~ «r~.;. ~ N ' • . • 7/7/2004 10:5 McKay