Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-09-2005 Planning Commission PacketCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, March 9, 2005 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civ=ic Theater,13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL C<%1LL: Commissioners Jill Hunter, Susie \'agpal, Linda Rodgers, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Mohammad Garakani ~ ABSENT: Commissioner Zutshi " ~ STAFF: Planners Oosterhous, Vasudevan and Welsh, Interim Director Livingstone and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGI4NCE 1~~IINUTES: Draft'_vlinutesfmm Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 23, 2005. (APPROVED 6-0) ORAL Co1vt~-tUNICATIONTs -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or-taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instn{ct staf f accordingly regarding Oral Communicatioru under Planning Commission direction to Staf f. ORAL COI\4IvIL'NICATIONS- PUNNING COMMISSION DIRECTIO\' TO STAFF Instruction to staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on March 3, 2005. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk =ithin fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPLICATION #04-133 (503-23-006) BURGOS/POLLARD -14265 Burns Way; - At a public hearing held on February 23, 2005 the Planning Commission, on a 5-2 vote, directed staff to prepare a conditional resolution of approval for Design Review The applicant requested design re~~iew approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence and secondary dwelling unit. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed tvt=o-story residence and garage is 3,943 square feet. The floor area of the main floor is 2,608 square feet and the upper floor is 1,335 square feet. In addition, a 1,506 square foot basement is proposed. A 1,018 square foot second dwelling unit is also proposed. The maximum height of the proposed t~vo-story residence is 26 feet. The lot size is 29,025 square feet and the site is zoned R-1 15,000. The resolution is attached for adoption. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOLS) (APPROVED 4-2, HUNTER Est UHL OPPOSED) :- 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. 2. APPLICATION # 04-339 (386-10-056 and 041) -Westgate Church, 18510 Prospect Road; - Request for Design Review to expand the existing parking lot from 9 spaces to 48 spaces to support the proposed expansion of the church on the adjacent parcel located in the City of San Jose. Uox~T LIVI~GSTO?vE) (APPROVED 6-0) 3. APPLICATION # 04-347 (397-10-025) - JOSHI, 19327 Monte Vista Drive; -Request for Design Review Approval to demolish the existing home and construct aone-story 6,054 square foot home with a 2,239 square foot basement. The maximum height of the home will be approximately 24.5 feet. The lot size is 43,645 square feet net and the site is zoned R-1-40,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) (APPROVED 6-0) 4. APPLICATION # 04-376 (397-07-002) - YEN, 15040 El Quito Way; - Request for Modification of Building Plans and Development Conditions to the pre~~iously approved Design Re~~iew Application. The modifications include changes to the floor plan and design. The proposed project will add approximately 1,784 square feet to the existing 4,232 square foot single story house for a total floor area of 6,016 square feet. The gross lot size is 57,115 square feet and zoned R-1-40,000. The maximum height of the residence will be approximately 24 feet. Uox~~ LIVI~GSronTE) (APPROVED 6-0) DIRECTORS ITEM Brown Act and Due Process at Public Hearings training May 11, 2005, 5:00 p.m. with Richard Taylor COMMISSION ITEMS - None COMMUNICATIONS - None ADJOURNMENT AT 8:35 P.M. TO THE NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, March 23, 2005 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 ctclerhOsaratoga.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). Certificate 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 March 3, 2005 at the of fice of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fr-uitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at wtivw.saratoga.ca.us CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION .SITE VISIT AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 3:30 p.m. 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, MARCH 9, 2005 • ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. Application #04-376 - YEN Item 4 15040 El Quito Way 2. Application #04-347 - JOSHI Item 3 19327 Monte Vista Drive 3. Application #04-339 - Westgate Church Item 2 18510 Prospect Road 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 3:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. It is encouraged for the applicant and/or owner to be present to answer any questions which may arise. Site ~~isits 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 . STUDY SESSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, March 9, 2005, 5:30 p.m. PLACE: Planning Conference Room,13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on March 3, 2005. STUDY SESSION AGENDA 1. APPLICATION #03-272 (503-80-O1), SHANKAR, 22461 Mount Eden Road; -The Planning Commission requested a study session to review the design changes made to the proposed two-story house, which abuts the City boundary and is proposed for annexation. The Hillside Residential lot contains 1.89 acres and has a 28% slope. The house contains 5,188 square feet with a 2,560 square foot garage basement, a 533 square foot second dwelling unit and conversion of the barn into a 592 square foot cabana. The height of the house is 25 feet 10 inches as measured from natural grade. The study session is an information meeting for the Planning Commission to get their questions about the project answered and for the Planning Commission to express any issues or concerns that they may have regarding the proposal so that the applicant can revise the plans and address their concerns prior to the hearing. Also, the study session will allow the applicant to have feedback from the Commission prior to finalizing their proposal. No decision will be made at this meeting. ADJOURNMENT TO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - Wednesday, March 9, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, March 9, 2005 - 7:00 p.m. PIACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater,13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Jill Hunter, 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 February 23, 2005. 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. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF Instruction to staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on March 3, 2005. 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 1. APPLICATION #04-133 (503-23-006) BURGOS/POLLARD -14265 Burns Way; - At a public hearing held on February 23, 2005 the Planning Commission, on a 5-2 vote, directed staff to prepare a conditional resolution of approval for Design Review The applicant requested design review approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence and secondary dwelling unit. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,943 square feet. The floor area of the main floor is 2,608 square feet and the upper floor is 1,335 square feet. In addition, a 1,506 square foot basement is proposed. A 1,018 square foot second dwelling unit is also proposed. The maximum height of the proposed two-story residence is 26 feet. The lot size is 29,025 square feet and the site is zoned R-115,000. The resolution is attached for adoption. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) 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. 86-10-056 and 041 -West ate Church, 18510 Pros ect Road; - 2. APPLICATION # 04-339 (3 ) g P Request for Design Review to expand the existing parking lot from 9 spaces to 48 spaces to support the proposed expansion of the church on the adjacent parcel located in the City of San Jose. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) 3. APPLICATION # 04-347 (397-10-025) - JOSHI, 19327 Monte Vista Drive; -Request for Design Review Approval to demolish the existing home and construct aone-story 6,054 square foot home with a 2,239 square foot basement. The maximum height of the home will be approximately 24.5 feet. The lot size is 43,645 square feet net and the site is zoned R-1-40,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) 4. APPLICATION # 04-376 (397-07-002) - YEN, 15040 El Quito Way; - Request for Modification of Building Plans and Development Conditions to the previously approved Design Review Application. The modifications include changes to the floor plan and design. The proposed project will add approximately 1,784 square feet to the existing 4,232 square foot single story house for a total floor area of 6,016 square feet. The gross lot size is 57,115 square feet and zoned R-1-40,000. The maximum height of the residence will be approximately 24 feet. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) DIRECTORS ITEM - Brown Act and Due Process at Public Hearings training May 11, 2005, 5:00 p.m. with Richard Taylor COMMISSION ITEMS - None COMMUNICATIONS - None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, March 23, 2005 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 Ciry to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II). Certificate of 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 March 3, 2005 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~a.ca.us If you would hke to receive the Agenda's via a-mail, please send your a-mail address to planning@saratoQa.ca.us o ~o MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 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 Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi Absent: None Staff: Associate Planner John Livingstone and Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of February 9, 2005. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of February 9, 2005, were adopted with corrections to pages 3 and 6. (5-0-0-2; Commissioners Schallop and Zutshi abstained) ORAL COMMUNICATION Mr. James Christensen, 14055 Palomino Way, Saratoga: • Reminded that he had been before the Commission on January 12, 2005, to appeal an outdoor kitchen on his neighbor's property, which the Commission determined could not be considered an ornamental, unenclosed garden structure. • Asked that Commission to attend the pending Council meeting. • Reported that John Livingstone says that this meets Code and that the structure can remain without the window. • Added that he believes the Commission had attempted to deny this structure. • Stated that attendance by the Commissioners was vitally important. The community needs your help. We need your help. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that the Commission was advised not to speak on this issue since one of the possible actions by Council might be to refer this matter back to the Commission for further consideration. • Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Page 2 Associate Planner John Livingstone agreed that it is one option of the Council to return this item back to the Commission. However, the Commissioners are still allowed to speak to the issue as they see fit. Commissioner Hunter expressed regret that she may have made a motion that was confusing. Associate Planner John Livingstone reiterated that the Commissioners are welcome to attend the Council meeting and explain any confusion. Chair Garakani reminding those in attendance that the Commission is, under State law, precluded from discussing Oral Request Items in much detail. Commissioner Nagpal sought clarification as to whether the Commission should address this issue as one through the chair or as individuals. 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 February 17, 2005. 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 -ITEM NO.1 APPLICATION #SD-99-006 (389-06-002 STURLA, Saratoga Creek Drive: Resolution No. SD99-006 was adopted on May 10, 2000 approving a Vesting Tentative Map to divide an existing 1.3-acre parcel into two parcels. The site is located in the Professional Administrative zoning district. Staff is requesting the Planning Commission to revisit this application as a consent item because of condition of approval #5 in Resolution No. SD-99-006. This condition of approval requires that the- Planning Commission approve an Exhibit B identifying on a site plan a creek protection easement. (LATA VASUDEVAN) Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Reminded that the Consent Calendar is usually used more as an administrative item. • Added that the Commission can elect to discuss this issue at length or simply approve it. • Explained that the project plan did not depict a required easement and the Planning Commission wanted it-shown and conditioned that action. • Advised that the applicant has now included this easement on the plan. • Stated that the Commission can make a motion to accept this change. Commissioner Nagpal clarified that the previous Commission that considered this application wanted to make sure it came back for this issue to be finalized. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied yes. Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Page 3 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Rodgers, the Planning Commission approved Exhibit B, identifying a creek protection easement on a site plan for the Vesting Tentative Map (SD-99-006) for Saratoga Creek Drive per the requirement under Condition of Approval #5 of Planning Commission Resolution No. SD-99-006, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN• None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 APPLICATION #04-297 (397-21-004) SHARMA, 14600 Westcott Drive: The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,702 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. A 1,053 square foot basement is proposed. The gross lot size is 14,250 square feet and the site is zoned R-1- 10,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant seeks Design Review Approval to allow the construction of a new two- . story single-family residence, consisting of a total of 3,702 square feet with a 1,053 square foot basement. The maximum height would be 26 feet. • Said that the existing one-story single-family house on this property would be demolished. • Described the proposed materials as consisting of grey stucco and clay the roof. The new home would be no closer to adjacent residences than the current home is. • Reported that changes were made to reduce the front entry by two feet in height and to eliminate a second story balcony. • Informed that the concerns raised by an adjacent neighbor have been addressed. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Hunter asked about the address being on Westcott when the house, located on a corner lot, did not actually-front on Westcott. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous reported that the house does not currently front on Westcott. However, addressing for corner lots is flexible. There are no issues regarding relocating the front facade to face Westcott Drive. Associate Planner John Livingstone added that it is at the discretion of the Building Official, together with the Fire Official, to determine addresses. The chief concern is the ability to locate a property for emergency response. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the front, side and rear setbacks are the same as existing. Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Herbert Varda, Project Designer: • Said that he was the designer. • Requested approval and said he would be available for any questions from the Commission. Commissioner Hunter asked whether both the stucco and roof tiles would be grey. Mr. Herbert Varda replied yes. Page 4 Commissioner Rodgers asked about underground water flow and pointed out that staff is recommending retaining the services of an expert during construction and afterwards. Mr. Herbert Varda said that the drainage plan would show how water would drain. These concerns would be addressed. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Varda if he knows where the ground water is located. Mr. Herbert Varda replied no, not yet. Commissioner Uhl asked how the Commission could ensure that this issue is properly addressed. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that the Building Department's plan checker would review the drainage plan at which time he considers the imposed Conditions of Approval very carefully. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that generally a drainage plan is required early in the review process. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous agreed that is the case. Ms. Mary Smith, 14566 Westcott Drive, Saratoga: • Said that she has no problem with this neighbor. • -Said that there is a drainage issue and that -the previous neighbor on this property had water problems. • Pointed out that this property can be connected to the big drain located in the area to drain water from the site. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that Saratoga has a lot of underground water. Ms. Mary Smith agreed and said that most houses have a sump pump, as there is a lot of.water. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous assured that engineers would look at that issue. Mr. Peter B. Smith, 14566 Westcott Drive, Saratoga: • Expressed his support of the Sharma's request. • • Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Page 5 • Said that he and his wife have resided in this neighborhood for 30 years. • Agreed that there are a lot of underground springs and lots of sump pumps. • Advised that -his property is located downhill and that there is no water under their property and therefore no need for a sump pump. • Assured that this house can be built to deal with the water. • Recounted how when he first met the Sharmas, they asked him about the neighborhood. • Stated that the Sharmas brought their plans for their home for his review. • Opined that this would be a nice addition to the area and that the existing house on the property had gotten run down through the years. • Reiterated his support for this application. Commissioner Nagpal thanked Mr. Peter Smith for coming this evening. Commissioner Rodgers thanked the Smiths for being good neighbors. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Uhl stated that this is a great project with a beautiful home that he fully supports. Commissioner Hunter agreed. Commissioner Nagpal agreed that the water issue would be worked out. Chair Garakani said that he was happy to see the balcony modified to protect the neighbor's pnvacy. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Uhl, the Planning .Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #04-297) to allow the construction of a new two-story, single-family residence with basement on property located at 14600 Westcott Drive, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Mr. Sharma expressed his appreciation to the members of the Commission, Christy Oosterhous and to his neighbors for their assistance with this process. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 APPLICATION #04-133 (503-23-006) BURGOS/POLLARD - 14265 Burns Wad The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence and secondary dwelling unit. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,943 square feet. The floor area of the main floor is 2,608 square feet and the upper floor is 1,335 square feet. In addition, a 1,506 square foot basement is proposed. A 1,018 square foot second dwelling unit is also proposed. The maximum Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Page 6 height of the proposed two-story residence is 26 feet. The lot size is 29,025 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-15,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to allow the construction of a new two-story single-family residence as well as a secondary dwelling unit. The total-floor area is 3,943 square feet with an approximate 1,506 square foot basement. The second unit would consist of 1,018 square feet. The maximum height would be 26 feet for the house and 17 feet, 4 inches for the second unit. • Described the proposed house as a Craftsman style incorporating shingles and horizontal siding. • Reported that two prior Design Review applications were denied due to neighborhood opposition. • Reminded -that the Commission held a Study Session for this submittal. Resulting revisions included athree-foot reduction in height and an increased setback. • Informed that the neighbors to the north have concerns and they are here tonight. • Stated that there is no geotechnical clearance for this project as of yet. The applicant is requesting Design Review action prior to going to the expense of obtaining geotechnical review. • .Recommended deferring action on this proposal until this geotechnical clearance is issued by the City Engineer. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that the recommendation in the staff report is to defer action. She asked if Design Review consideration would occur this evening. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous advised that staff could -bring back a Resolution if the Commission decides to take action this evening. Commissioner Uhl said that the decision could be made to go forward or not .after this evening's hearing. Associate Planner John Livingstone pointed out that the typical choices of action by the. Commission range from approving with conditions, denying outright or continuing to another date for. further consideration. Commissioner Rogers asked for the difference between this project and the previous one as it relates to geotechnical clearance: Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous explained that the difference lies in the history of the previous applications for this site. The other project did not have that history. Commissioner Nagpal said that the Commission could elect to condition this project so that it would have to be brought back before the Commission if any geotechnical issues are raised. Commissioner Zutshi asked if basic geotechnical review has been done. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous advised that the process has started. The study has been submitted but not finalized or approved. More documents are needed. Commissioner Zutshi asked if there is any initial feedback on the geotechnical information. Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Page 7 Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that she is not sure at this point. There are unique features on this site. Commissioner Uhl asked if this would come back to the Commission. Commissioner. Rogers asked if the project has been modified. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes. Commissioner Rodgers asked about the lowering of the height by three feet. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous advised that the previous plans were 26 feet in height as seen from the street. Now 26 feet is the average height and the house would appear to be 23 feet in height as seen from the street. Chair Garakani restated- that the previous average height was more than 26 feet and now the average height is 23 feet. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out the area that is enclosed on two sides and asked if that is counted as square footage. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that this area is not counted as square footage as the Code requires three or more sides to be enclosed to count as square footage and this is but two sides. Commissioner Hunter questioned how this review could move forward without geotechnical clearance and given that the adjacent neighbors don't want it to be located where it is proposed to be placed? How can the Commission approve this tonight if the house may have to be moved? Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that this is the position that staff is also taking. Commissioner Uhl stated that if the house must be moved, it would need to come back to the Commission. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that all technical data is not there yet and agreed that this project may -have to be changed. If there were any major change, this item would be returned to the Commission. Commissioner Nagpal compared square footage between the original and current proposal and pointed out that the original house may have been reduced by a small amount but the second unit is now larger than originally proposed. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous said this is correct. The second unit is now located closer to the north property line and is larger by approximately 33 square feet. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out another modification- since the -Study Session in that the chimney flue has been widened. Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Page 8 Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous explained that the chimney has been made thicker so as to obstruct any view impacts onto the property to the north. . Commissioner Nagpal questioned the required findings regarding impacts to views and privacy. She asked whether impacts on any rooms are taken into consideration? Is it bedrooms, living spaces, etc. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that there is some discretion. The main living areas are what are mentioned in the design handbook. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the concerns over fire hazards as raised in neighbor correspondence. She asked if these issues have been resolved. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes. Commissioner Nagpal asked if there is any follow. up on that issue. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that there is no new information and that the Fire Department believes that this project can be adequately- conditioned. She added that there. are some concerns regarding water flow. Commissioner Nagpal asked staff to confirm that Tree #26 would be retained. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that this tree appears to be in the path of the deck. The applicant wants to preserve the tree but it may not be feasible. More revisions may be required. Commissioner Nagpal asked staff for the lot sizes for two houses on Marion Road. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous advised that this subject parcel is twice the size of the zoning district in which it is located. Commissioner Nagpal asked for the size homes on those two Marion Road properties. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous said that she did not have that data but that they look smaller. Commissioner Uhl sought clarification between the previous maximum heights of 26 feet versus 23 feet. Was the house 26 feet as seen from the street before this recent reduction? Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes. Commissioner Uhl asked if this didn't exceed Code previously. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied correct. That's why it was reduced in height. Commissioner Uhl said that it would have been 29 feet maximum if it had been approved as originally proposed. Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Page 9 Commissioner Rodgers expressed concern about the lack of parking-for the second unit. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous advised that the requirement for parking could be waived as a means to encourage secondary dwelling units. Commissioner Zutshi asked if this lot could be subdivided. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that it was likely close but not quite large enough to split. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. George Wittman, Project Architect: • Thanked staff for its efforts to create a better community. • Distributed new north and west rendered elevations and advised that larger boards were available also. • Explained that there are two north elevations provided, one with the retention of the Oak tree and the second with its removal. • Reminded that there have been extensive meetings with staff, neighbors as well as a Study Session with the Planning Commission. • Assured that this design would be an asset to this neighborhood and is in compliance with all regulations. • Pointed out that there were a number of constraints to deal with. This site has a history and features a ravine across the project that splits the lot back and front with a footbridge connection. • Said that his clients have four children. This is a growing family; with extended family and a live in. • Described this existing home as a 40s era house that is in sorry disrepair. • Argued that the concerns of the neighbors to the north have already derailed two previous submittals. • Pointed out that there is an 85-foot setback to the garage and a 109-foot distance between this house and the neighbor to the north. They have set back the house as much as possible and designed this house around the ravine. Engaging the ravine equals substantial added cost but gives them the opportunity to work with existing features of this property. • Said that this home would have the Craftsman aesthetic. • Reported that the project was revised- since the Study Session to meet all issues that were raised at that meeting. Massing and bulk has been addressed with this design. Light, view and privacy to the neighbors to the north have been respected and nothing would disrupt their view. • Said that the building's side yard setback has been accommodated to the north side. • Stated that this project is compatible with this neighborhood and that there are a number of two- story homes, including historic ones, in the area. • Said that they have done a reasonable job to break down scale and bulk and this is a winning design for the neighborhood and his clients. • Expressed confidence that any structural alterations that might be required under geotechnical review can be taken into consideration by using deeper footings and/or piles. • Said that the guesthouse was redesigned as it was previously skewed slightly. With the redesign, it has been pushed back and would have no impact to the neighbors to-the north. • Said that a deed restriction would dedicate the second unit as an affordable-unit. Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Page 10 • Advised that they had wanted athree-car garage but it was not a desirable feature as seen from the street. There is a long access drive, which equals opportunity for parallel parking on site. Use of a two-car garage was an aesthetic issue and it was felt that the site has adequate parking. • Stated he was available for questions. Commissioner Zutshi asked about changes since the last time. Mr. George Wittman: • Advised that the main residence was moved to the south by 1 foot,- 10 inches from the- north property line. • Added that the roof slope went from 4.25 per. foot to 3.5. The roof over the closet was changed to a lower slope shed roof. • Stated that a trellis was added to the closet wall to enhance that elevation as seen by the north property. • Said that the chimney flue was widened to obstruct views into the neighbor's yard to the north. • Said that the second floor was lowered by 1-foot, 2 inches. The finish floor-was lowered 26 inches and went down an extra 14 inches. • Said that the second unit was redesigned and relocated. Commissioner Zutshi asked about the trellis. Mr. George Wittman said that there is no window there. The trellis is decorative. Added that they tried to minimize windows on that facade. The trellis is intended to soften that facade and break it up. Commissioner Nagpal asked if there would be plants on the trellis. Mr. George Wittman replied no. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that the two drawings, with and without the Oak, do not depict other nearby trees. She asked if this screening landscaping is not included because the intent is to-show the elevation. She pointed out that the bridge as depicted is not covered. Mr. George Wittman said that they would like a covered bridge to access the second unit because it would provide. a covered connection from the main structure to that back unit. However, they took the roof off and left it as an open structure with a bench on it to minimize its bulk. Commissioner Uhl asked if this bridge would be covered or uncovered. Mr. George Wittman said that they want. a covered bridge but the drawing shows uncovered. Commissioner Zutshi asked for the distance between this house and the neighbor's. Chair Garakani asked how far the neighbor to the north's house is from the street and how far- this proposed home would be from the street. his house would be 109.2 feet from the front ro ert line. Mr. George Wittman replied that t P P Y Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Page 11 Commissioner Nagpal pointed to an increase in the north. setback by 3 feet, 10 inches for the first story and by one foot, 10 inches for the second floor. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous reported that this is a legal non-conforming north side setback. Commissioner Hunter pointed out the letters that question the need for eight bedrooms. Mr. George Wittman said the one bedroom is located on the first floor for guests, three bedrooms are on the second floor and there are two bedrooms in the basement. Additionally, there is the guesthouse. Commissioner Nagpal asked why the guesthouse size was increased when reducing it had been discussed. Mr. George Wittman said that the design changed and it is now more inefficient as it is now layed out. The increase was only about 40 square feet. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the elevation renderings accurately represent the height differences between this house and the neighboring house. Mr. George Wittman said it is an approximation based upon photographs and aerial photographs. Commissioner Rodgers thanked Mr. George Wittman for his efforts since the Study Session. Chair Garakani asked if the second unit gets counted. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes, this unit would be counted toward the City's regional housing needs. Commissioner Hunter said that this house has lots of bedrooms and that in the past the Commission has considered the amount of parking. She asked how many parking spaces are provided for this project. Mr. George Wittman replied that there is one parking space located off the driveway that can be used without obstructing the driveway. There is the two-car garage and any number of vehicles cari be parking along the driveway in tandem. Chair Garakani asked how long is the driveway. Mr. George Wittman replied it is 85 feet long and that each car needs about 20 feet. Chair Garakani said that this means that four more cars can be parked in tandem on the driveway. Mr. George Wittman added that a circular driveway is possible up front but they have tried to minimize the driveway to keep the site more countrified. He added that the two bedrooms in the basement might not be finished out at this time. They may be used for exercise or as a playroom. Mr. Kurt Voester, 14251 Burns Way, Saratoga: • Identified himself as the neighbor to the north. Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Page 12 • Mentioned a recent editorial from the San Jose Mercury News. • Stated that the applicant's design may be beautiful but still may not be nice for the neighborhood. • Said that he has lived here for 37 years and during that time-never felt the presence of his neighbors' homes. • Reminded that at the Study Session, five Commissioners asked for reductions in size. While some progress has been made, he suggested a further increase in the separation between this house and his. He suggested moving the garage forward by seven and a half feet and moving the house eight feet to the south. This would result in less of a feeling of being overwhelmed. by this house and an English walnut tree could be saved. • Stated that with a spirit of cooperation, this could be achieved. • Added that if this project were to be approved, he would request that the glass in the windows over the staircase be frosted, as it would look directly. into their bedroom: • Asked-that no thumbs up be given.to this current proposal. • Pointed out that at 5,145 square feet, this would be the largest house in the neighborhood. • Suggested that the Commission weigh the issues carefully. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that Mr. Voester's recommendation to .move the garage and house might save the Walnut but would instead impact other Coast Redwood trees. Mr. Kurt Voester said that the applicant- has told him that these trees are unstable and are coming down. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous reported that trees#5 and #8 are to be removed. Commissioner Nagpal said that it appears Tree #5 would be damaged in construction. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Kurt Voester if he prefers the Walnut to Redwoods. Mr. Kurt Voester replied yes, it is a larger tree. Commissioner Uhl asked Mr. Kurt Voester where he came up with the 5,400 square feet. Mr. Kurt Voester said that this includes the basement. Commissioner Uhl said that with the basement and second unit the total is actually 6,400 square feet: Commissioner Nagpal said that the main house is 3,900 square feet. Ms. Barbara Voester, 14257 Burns Way, Saratoga: • Said that she resides next to the project site. • Questioned the City's need for guesthouses. Chair Garakani report that secondary dwelling units are desired as-they can be counted as affordable housing units. Ms. Barbara Voester: Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Page 13 • Stated that she is not in support of this proposal as it will overpower her own property and would set a precedent for two-story. homes on Burns Way. • Said that this new home stretches 180 feet along her property line, which equals half a football field. This 180 feet worth of building includes the house, bridge and second unit. • Said that their ambience would be gone and they will appear to be walled in. • Advised that she moved in her home in 1968. In 1968 she petitioned to Council to create the Heritage Preservation Commission. She served on the HPC from 1982 to 1989. • Agreed that things change over time. Many people in the area have remodeled. Most have lived here for years. • Said that she feels very lucky to reside in this area where two streets dead-end. There are few cars and people look out for each other. They enjoy orchards and vistas. • Stated that this is area is something special and deserves to be preserved. • Asked that the Commission not allow this project to impact her husband and her. • Declared that this is very important to them. Commissioner Nagpal asked Ms. Barbara Voester about her preference between atwo-story versus single-story since atwo-story would have a smaller footprint on a parcel and lesser impact. Ms. Barbara Voester agreed that atwo-story is the way to go but not so large as this. Chair Garakani asked Ms. Barbara Voester whether she believes that 3,000 square feet is enough house. Ms. Barbara Voester said that 3,000 would be fine. Commissioner Rodgers asked Ms. Barbara Voester if she agrees that the existing house cannot be preserved. Ms. Barbara Voester replied that she absolutely agrees with that. She added that she is happy to have a new house on this property. Commissioner Rodgers asked Ms. Barbara Voester if she likes the design. Ms. Barbara Voester stated that this is a beautiful design but this might not be the appropriate spot for it. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that from the street, view of this home is set back. Ms. Barbara Voester stated that doing so is a good idea to position the house further back on the parcel but that this project also affects the back of her property. This represents a big change for them. Commissioner Hunter reminded that there were two denials for two-story homes on this property in the early 1990s. Ms. Barbara Voester said that they were not as big as this house. Commissioner IJhI asked if those applications were denied due to size and bulk. Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Page 14 Ms. Barbara Voester replied yes, those proposals did not fit into the neighborhood. Commissioner Uhl asked if these new owners were informed of these previous denials. Ms. Barbara Voester replied yes. She added that when she realized the property was on the market she called the realtor and suggested they tell potential clients of the history of this property. She added that she too told the new neighbors of the history. Commissioner Rodgers mentioned that during the site visit she had asked how high the water had risen in the ravine in the-last 37 years. Ms. Barbara Voester said that the creek has dropped down due to erosion and the highest amount of water was eight feet. The ravine is a torrent .when it rains. Chair Garakani reminded that the applicant would spend money to .correct this situation. Ms. Barbara Voester said that. the ravine has eroded by two feet since the new .neighbors moved in and removed the debris that had been dumped there in the ravine over the years, including old cars. Commissioner Nagpal .said that she has difficulty talking about square footage and reminded that basement square footage is not counted. This is a 3,500 square foot house on a lot that is much bigger than its zoning designation. Asked Ms. Barbara Voester if this fact has any impact on her consideration. Ms. Barbara Voester replied, of course. She expressed concern that the ravine/creek is considered as part of a buildable lot. Commissioner Nagpal reminded that. the house could be moved closer to the front of the lot and therefore have a larger impact. Commissioner Uhl pointed out that the floor area allowance is 4,969 square feet and asked staff how this is tied to lot size. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous advised that lot size determines allowable floor area. She reported that 4,500 square feet is permitted for this property plus a 10 percent bonus with the deed restriction for the second dwelling unit, which totals 4,900 square feet. The ravine is counted since it is not an easement. If it were an easement, it would not be counted. Associate Planner John Livingstone reminded that lots with slope get FAR reductions. A creek counts as slope and equals a reduction. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous said that the reduction was 18 percent Commissioner Uhl said that this means that a 6,000 square foot structure would have been allowed. Ms. Dorothy Stamper, 20562 Marion Road, Saratoga: . Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Page 15 • Informed the Commission that she has resided in the neighborhood for 50 years, has two other homes on this road and 2.5 acres of orchard at Burns and Marion. Therefore she has a significant interest in the area. • Stated that most of the homes are single-story homes and most remodels done supported the character of the neighborhood and were supported by the neighborhood. • Reminded that the two previous large .homes proposed for this property were opposed and turned down and not built. This is an even larger proposal. • Stated the importance of considering the impacts on neighbors. Ms. Anne Brazil-Kois, 20570 Marion Road, Saratoga: • Said that she is a 20-year tenant of Ms. Stamper. • Reported that what is now called a ravine was formerly called a ditch that was four feet deep at its deepest point. • Said that the previous applicants included little in setbacks for large homes, causing them to be close on property lines. • Applauded these new neighbors' plans to move the house back on their parcel. • Stated that atwo-story is tough to buy, as the bulk and size are not part of the neighborhood. • Said that while her house is large, it is not obvious. Mr. Jim Renolds, 20640 Marion Road, Saratoga: • Said that he, his wife and two daughters reside in this neighborhood. • Thanked the Burgos/Pollard family for their graciousness in sharing their plans for their home. • Said he is a long-time resident of the neighborhood, 15 years, and lives two house to the right of the project site. • Expressed his disagreement with the comments of the Seattle-based Architect. Neighbors did not derail the two previous designs. • Stated his support for the rights of these owners to improve their home but objects to the current proposal for two reasons. One is that two-stories are out of place in this neighborhood. Secondly privacy, views and sunlight could be impacted if all homes in this neighborhood were to become two-story homes. This project is precedent setting. • Said that he wants to preserve this area, which has a unique feel to it. • Said that there is a beautiful orchard, thanks to Mrs. Dorothy Stamper. One can see deer in the area. • Reported that there have been from seven to ten turnovers in homeowners during the last 15 years. • Declared that the proposed size of this house does not fit within this neighborhood where homes average 2,000 to 3,000 square feet. This one is twice as large. • Said that he accepts and embraces the new neighbors and understands the importance to them to build their dream house but it must fit within its neighborhood. They can achieve their house but a two-story home is not desired by this neighborhood. • Stated that Saratoga's past can be found in this community. Chair Garakani reported that he saw a lot of older homes and saw several two-story homes. Mr. Jim Renolds said any two-story was built 15 to 20 years ago. There have been no additional ones M built since that time. Chair Garakani asked if the concern is the amount of living space or height. Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 -Page 16 Mr. Jim Renolds said that this structure is 26 feet high. It is hard to separate the size and the height. However, the notion of a second unit is outstanding. Chair Garakani reminded that aone-story house could still be 26 feet tall and spread out further on this lot. Mr. Jim Renolds said that his house is 15 to 17 feet high and could be used as a bellwether. Chair Garakani said that Code does not limit to a 15 to 17 feet maximum height. The maximum height allowed under Code is 26 feet. Houses 18 feet or lower can be approved without Planning Commission review and those 18 feet and higher come to the Commission for approval. Commissioner Nagpal inquired whether aSingle-Story Overlay has been considered for this area. She asked if Mr. Jim Renolds has seen this house plan. Mr. Jim Renolds said not as currently proposed but he has seen the story poles on the site. Commissioner Nagpal reminded that the neighbors to the north, the Voesters, prefer atwo-story to a single-story: Mr. Jim Renolds said that prefer is too strong a word. Rather, it is a compromise they are willing to accept. Homes consisting of two-stories run counter to this neighborhood. Commissioner Uhl asked who imposes aSingle-Story Overlay. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that he would prefer to see the Commission stick to the issues before it tonight. Mr. Jim Renolds said that he does not believe that the Single-Story Overlay designation has been raised before for this neighborhood. Mr. Jim Payne, 20631 Marion Road, Saratoga: • S-aid that he has seen the plans for his neighbors' home and thinks they have done a wonderful job. • Said his one concern is that a plan for aSingle-story home was never developed to compare. this to. • Stated that it may be warranted to investigate aSingle-Story Overlay. • Said that single-story homes with an 18-foot height limit are what fit into this neighborhood. A single-story is the best way to approach this issue. Mr. Sonny Ng, 20650 Marion Road, Saratoga: • Stated that he lives to the west of this site. Said his major concern is having atwo-story overlooking his backyard and master bedroom: Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Sonny Ng if he submitted any letters regarding this project. Mr. Sonn N re lied no. Y g P Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Page 17 Ms. Marcy Loth, 20636 Marion Road, Saratoga: • Said that it is clear that having a second story is the major concern. • Said it would be difficult if all the neighbors went up with a second story.- • Added that this is a unique property at the end of a street. It is a wooded lot. • Pointed out that the footprint for this home is less on this property that the house across the street that was just built. • Added that aone-story home would have a greater impact that what is being proposed. • Reported that her neighbor recently added to their home and now their new family room looks into her bedroom. • Said that this project would be unobtrusive to its neighbors. • Said that the issue of two-story versus one-story must be considered in context. Mr. John R. Kahle, 20601 Brookwood Lane, Saratoga: • Said his is a two-story home that was built in 1916. • Stated that this owner took great care to come to him with his proposed plans. Great effort was made to adhere to the needs of the neighbors. • Said that these neighbors in this neighborhood are very good friends of his. • Stated that he is not impacted but feels it is only fair to let these neighbors know the care being put in by these new owners to fit into this neighborhood. • Stated that he understands the objections but this new owner has come to this area to make his home and has tried to meet the demands of his neighbors. • Said he has no objection and supports this project. • Said that the issue of a Single-Story Overlay doesn't impact him as he already has atwo-story. • Reminded that he does not reside on Burns or Marion. • Restated his belief that these applicants have tried to be honest and fair and have tried in every way possible to meet any objections. Mr. Mehdi Shahbazi, 14231 Burns Way, Saratoga: • Said he, his wife and three children reside in the neighborhood and have done aremodel-addition to their home. • Stated his support of his neighbor's request. • Declared it was time to stop talking and let this house be built. It has been 13 years of talking about it. • Stated that we have two doctors here in our neighborhood that want to raise their family here, including four children and a caretaker. • Reiterated that it is time to move on and get this house built. Dr. Angela Pollard, Applicant and Property Owner, 14265 Burns Way, Saratoga: • Reported that this has been athree-year process and it feels as if they are slaves to two masters in having to meet the demands of their neighbors and the City. • Stated that the previous plans were not denied due to size or to being two-story. The Commission denied them because they needed work but the applicant at that time wanted a decision, which was for denial. • Said that some people feel. strongly against two-story homes while others do not. There are two- . story homes in this area. Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Page 18 • Said that theirs is an isolated lot that is part of three neighborhoods. It is two times lazger than most lots in the area. • Said that they have worked hard to process their application and have taken their neighbors' needs into consideration. • Reported that their neighbor's windows look into their bathroom right now. A single-story home on their property would simply duplicate that situation. • Assured that this house would not impact the neighbor. • Pointed out that they followed the points made at the Study Session and that they are looking for an approval pending the geotechnical report. Dr. Burgos, Applicant and Property Owner, 14265 Burns Way, Sazatoga: . • Said that they have done everything possible to accommodate the concerns of their neighbors and have been considerate. They have taken impacts into account. However, the neighbors have not been considerate: • Stated that he does not think that anything they can do will make Barbara and Kurt Voester happy. They are simply dealing- with changes in their neighborhood. Chair Garakani asked Dr. Burgos if they aze willing to retain the large Walnut tree. Dr. Burgos said definitely. He is not here to cut down trees. If they can keep any trees, they are up for it. If they have to take any tree down, they are happy to plant another tree. Commissioner Rodgers asked IDr. Pollard about her roots in this neighborhood: Dr.-Angela Pollazd said that her family has been in the azea for more than six generations. She has cousins on Canyon View. Commissioner Nagpal asked Dr. Pollazd for her impressions on the suggestions to move the placement of the house and garage, retain the Walnut tree and use frosted glass on the staircase window. Dr. Angela Pollard said that no one could see out of that window as it is located very high up in the stairwell. Mr. William Wittman said that they would have no problem addressing the glass but reminded that the landing is set back from the window by six to eight feet. The stairs are located below this window. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the suggestion to move the garage forward and move the second unit. Dr. Burgos reported that the second unit is located in-the middle of the back lot. If it were moved, the pool would be too close to the bank of the creek. He added that they moved the house so it is located neaz a triangle of property on the Voester property that they do not use. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the garage placement. Dr. Bur os said that- they have gone through many changes with discussion after discussion. One g solution was moving the house forwazd. Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Page 19 Commissioner Nagpal asked if it would require a significant redesign to change the placement. Dr. Burgos replied yes. It would still not satisfy the Voesters, who would still be unhappy. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Associate Planner John Livingstone reminded that the height is based on an average from the front and rear of the house. Slopes penalize the maximum height allowed. If the house were moved forward on this lot, it would raise the allowable height. Chair Garakani: . • Reminded that the applicant has the option to go with asingle-story home that could still be as high as 26 feet. • Pointed out that this lot is located back at the end of a street and would not have much of an impact on its neighbors. • Said that this applicant has tried to bring the house back on its lot and will go to a lot of expense to -make sure this house does not end up in the ravinelditch/creek. • Stated that this applicant is trying to be neighborly and has changed design several times already. They have already done a lot to make sure this design meets the needs of the neighbors. • Said that this design looks good and the lot located at the end of a street looks like a court. • Stated that there are so many two-story homes around, how can this owner be asked not to have a two-story home. We cannot say no. • Said that the applicant has tried to mitigate as much as possible. • Reminded that only a 30-foot setback is required, which they have exceeded considerably. • Stated that they are providing something beautiful here. Once it is built, the sensitivity concerns will go away. Commissioner Hunter: • Stated that Marion Road is an extraordinary area. Burns is a unique historical area from back in the 1930s and 1940s. • Said that she has a lot of sympathy for these applicants who have a young family. • Agreed that this is a perfect place to raise children. • Opined that the sacrifice has to be the two-story component. • Pointed out that there are 27 single-story homes and three two-story homes in the immediate area. • Stated that this house is too big. It is a huge house for this neighborhood. • Advised that she raised four children in a 3,000 square foot house. • Expressed concerns about the fact that there is no accessible parking for the second unit, which she finds disturbing. • Stated that this house has athree-story appearance from the back and that this is a peculiar piece of property with its ravine. • -Said that while the applicants are to be commended for their efforts thus far, this house has still got to come down further in size. • Pointed out that this is an established historical neighborhood. If a house is approved at 6,000 square feet this time, next time the request might be for an 8,000 square foot house. • Stated that she cannot support this application. Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Page 20 Commissioner Nagpal: • Agreed that this is a difficult project and reported that she spent a lot of time reviewing the materials, including three hours today that she did while staying at the hospital with her father who had surgery. • Said she has empathy for the applicants in this case. This is a difficult process to go through with a lot of time and money expended. • Said that the applicants have demonstrated respect for their neighbors. • Said that when considering the issue of single-story versus two-story homes, she believes that a two-story home is the right configuration for this lot. This house will go with this lot. A single- . story home would have a huge impact on the Voesters. • Reminded that this lot is twice the size of others in the area. • Stated that this two-story minimizes the perception of bulk and has a compatible bulk and height. • Suggested that it is difficult to judge the square footage needs of a family. • Added that it appears that the main residence of this home is 3,900 square- feet. There is another 3,900 square foot house nearby that is on a lot half this-size. • Said that there is no Single Story Overlay in this neighborhood -and that no precedent is set here with this two-story home. • Reminded that approvals are specific to lot size and a whole bunch of other considerations; including neighborhood. • Said that a lot of people have indicated a preference for single-story homes. However, when considering the seven neighbors on Burns, two are not supportive of this request, .three are supportive and one is neutral. • Reiterated that atwo-story design is better for the Voesters. • Suggested that a compromise might be in the size of the second unit. • Added that she wished that the suggestion offered by the Voesters regarding garage placement had been presented during the Study Session. It's a bit late to be presenting that alternative now but at that time, the applicant could have considered whether that proposal was realistic or not. • Said that this is a difficult decision- and agreed that this is a special neighborhood. • Stated that this is a nicely designed Craftsman style home that is mitigated by its location at the end of a street. Commissioner Schallop stated his complete agreement with the comments of Commissioner Nagpal. Commissioner Rodgers: • Stated that she too also agrees with Commissioner Nagpal. • Said that this is an incredible neighborhood with nice houses and gardens. It is a fantastic pocket in this City. The area is charming and has incredible character. • Suggested that the house currently located on this site is not a part of that charm. It detracts rather than enhances the area. • Stated that these owners are entitled to build something on their property. This design with atwo- story is as good as it is going to get. • Suggested. that despite concerns about compatibility with the neighborhood, the fact that the new house would be located back away from the street, and therefore would not be imposing from the street, shows sensitivity to the neighborhood and does not take away from the character of the neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Page 21 • Reminded that this is a large and unique lot and that the architect has designed a house that will be historic 100 years from now. • Opined that this proposal is sensitive to the Voesters regarding light, air and setbacks. • Reported that the last design considered by Council in 1998 was atwo-story. They did not preclude having atwo-story on this lot. • Reminded that since 1998, this area has had the option available to designate their area with a Single-Story Overlay. That has never been done. • Said that features have been incorporated to lower and move this house back on the lot. It is not a hillside property. The house is discrete and she will support it. • Commended the project architect. • Agreed that she has some concern about having no dedicated parking for the second unit. If it were ever to be rented out as aloes-income unit, there would be no available parking to serve it. • Asked staff for clarification as to why they recommend approval without dedicated parking for this second unit. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous reported that the City encourages deed restrictions for second units and offers a waiver for parking to encourage construction of these second units. Commissioner Nagpal said she has a similar concern about the lack of parking for the second unit. Commissioner Zutshi reminded that there is parking available on the side of the. driveway. Additionally, in the future, a circular driveway could always be a possibility. Commissioner Rodgers said that she would always support greenery versus parking. In this case she chooses greenery and still encourages the second unit. She suggested approval of this project with conditions, including the condition that if the geotechnical report requires any changes to this project that it be brought back before the Commission. She also supported going with the Arborist's recommendations. Commissioner Nagpal commented that the covered bridge does increase the perception of bulk. Corrunissioner Zutshi said that there is certain functionality with the covered bridge. Chair Garakani questioned who would be impact if the bridge were covered. Commissioner Zutshi said that a covered bridge offers more character than bulk. Commissioner Rodgers said that the issue of the bridge could be discussed further. Either way, it looks fine to her. Pointed out that there are lots of covered bridges in Oregon. Chair Garakani said that the covered bridge prevents leaves from piling up on it and offers protection from rain. Commissioner Zutshi: • Stated that the applicant has worked hard to accommodate their neighbors. • Said that a lot of effort went into moving the house further back onto the lot. Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Page 22 • Reminded that the second story element is only half of the first story footprint. If the home were to be a one-story house, it would require a footprint that is one and a half times larger than currently proposed. • Stated that this design looks beautiful. • Reminded that if there were any geotechnical problems, this project would come back to the Commission. • Stated that this project should be allowed to move forward. It needs to move forward. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that no front elevation of any substantial size has been provided. Associate Planner.Christy Oosterhous reminded that the first submittal has front elevation details. Commissioner-Uhl: • Said that this is a very tough case. • Stated that this is beautiful design but the issue is size. • Reminded that both Design Review findings and Code requirements must be considered in reaching a decision. While the project may be within Code requirements, it must also comply with the seven Design Review findings. Without opposition, it is easier to approve. Findings to consider include views and privacy impacts, preservation of natural landscape, preservation of trees, minimizing bulk and compatibility of bulk and height. • Said that this house, even without the second-story, would be a huge home. Chair Garakani reminded that this applicant was given direction at previous Planning Commission meetings and at a recent Study Session. Those directions cannot keep changing. Commissioner Uhl said he agrees and that he regrets that he had been unable to make the Study Session. Added that he is not saying that this project cannot go forward, just that it is a big house for this neighborhood. A 5,000 square foot house -would be more compatible. Chair Garakani said that they have every right to go up with a second story. Commissioner Uhl said that one issue is the neighborhood opposition. Said that while he feels sympathy for the applicants, there is more that can be done to alleviate concerns. He added that he is not convinced that the second-story is required. Commissioner Nagpal reminded that Code says not to look at the basement level. Commissioner Hunter -said that this particular basement would feel like a big open room because of the slope that allows for big. open windows in that space. Said that consistency must be considered and the proposal must fit into its neighborhood. Other proposals have been sent back because they were deemed to be incompatible with their proposed neighborhoods. Commissioner Rodgers reminded that those were located on a Hillside property and this is not. Commissioner Uhl reiterated that both-Code and required-Design Review findings must be considered. He reminded that the second. unit has created a loophole that allows extra square footage on this site. Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Page 23 Commissioner Nagpal suggested that in the future the Planning Commission should look at issues in the Design Review findings regarding square footage. Commissioner Schallop reminded that the issues to consider per these findings are bulk and not square footage. . Commissioner Uhl said that more could be done to make this house smaller. He said that he feels this house will impact its neighborhood and could be shrunk down. Chair Garakani reminded that this would require a total redesign. Commissioner Nagpal said that there is an opportunity to shrink the size of the second dwelling unit. Commissioner Uhl said he has no problem with that. Commissioner Nagpal clarified that the 3,943. square foot footprint, minus the garage space, equals 3,400 square feet. A similar sized house has been constructed on a lot half this size. Reiterated that this lot is not precedent setting as it is twice the size of other lots in this area. Commissioner Uhl stated that a great job has been done as seen from the street side. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that it will be much more costly to construct a building at the rear of this lot. Commissioner Rodgers said that the applicant has mitigated bulk and impacts by placing the buildings at the far back of the site. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that the Voesters have a small front setback. Commissioner Schallop: • Said that it is difficult to plan a house simply based upon the guidelines. There needs to be consistency by the Planning Commission regarding requirements. • Said that whether. an applicant has supporters or opponents make a difference. However, the Commissioners visit the site and analyze impacts. Decisions are made using Code and Design Review findings. Previous denials are not relevant. Commissioner Nagpal: • Outlined a list of items that appears to be of chief concern. • Stated that one issue is the geotechnical report and soils stability. Any issues raised by these. studies that result in the need for a design change must come back to the Commission. . • Said that the parking waiver for the second unit might need to be explored further. • Said that Fire requirements have been met. • Stated that one issue still to be determined is whether the bridge should be covered or uncovered. • Pointed out that the revised drawings preserve more trees. Trees 5 (Redwood), 8 (Black Walnut) and 26 (Walnut) are proposed for removal. • Recommended that Trees 5 and 26 be retained and Tree 8 be removed. Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Page 24 • Said that the issue of square footage for the second unit has no clear consensus. • Said that use of frosted glass for the stairway window is an option. Commissioner Uhl suggested that the final landscape plan be reviewed with the Voesters. Chair Garakani reminded that those in the house couldn't access the stairway window. Commissioner Zutshi suggested that the glass to be used in that window be decided once the window is framed in place. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #04-133) to allow the construction of a .new two-story, single-family residence and secondary dwelling unit on property located at 14265 Burns Way, with the following added conditions: • That if the geotechnicaVsoils report results in the need for design changes, this project. comes back to the Commission; • That the bridge be uncovered; • That the landscaping between this property and the property to the north be reviewed with the northern property owners; • That Tree 5 and Tree 26 be retained to the City Arborist's recommendations and include all other recommendations of the Arborist; and • That frosted glass be used on the stairway window if requested by the neighbor once that window is framed; by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Zutshi NOES: Hunter and Uhl. ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Nagpal expressed her hope that this neighborhood comes together. ~** DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Associate Planner John Livingstone made the following announcements: • Design Review Focus: Stated that Design Review focus should be on size versus square footage and/or one and two-story design. This is a delicate issue. • Overly District: Reported that the Single-Story Overlay has been used once before for a large area of the City that had a consistent single-story pattern. For areas with pre-existing two-story homes such an overlay is not a good land use decision or tool. • Commissioner Zutshi's last meeting: Announced that this is Commissioner Zushi's final meeting. Commissioner Zutshi said that she would be out of town in March and miss the last two meetings of her term. She added that she and her husband would be moving to Shanghai in July for one to two. years. Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Page 25 Associate Planner John Livingstone thanked Commissioner Zutshi for her service on the Commission. Commissioner Nagpal offered to host a farewell party. Commissioner Zutshi stated that she learned a lot about Saratoga from Jill Hunter and extended her thanks to all of the Commissioners. Associate Planner John Livingstone continued: • Update on Appeal: Said that a mediation meeting has been set for February 24t1i to attempt to work out the issues on the appealed item. If the matter is worked out, this item may be pulled from the upcoming Council agenda. Commissioner Rodgers said that the City Attorney instructed the Commissioners not to discuss this issue with either side. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that the matter -could come back to the Commission and cautioned the Commissioners to stay in Planning Commission mode. He added the importance of conformance with Brown Act requirements. Commissioner Uhl suggested that staff advise if and how the Commission members should participate. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Nagpal asked about the meeting next week. Chair Garakani said that this is an Ad Hoc Committee. It was determined that Chair Garakani and Commissioners Nagpal and Rodgers would attend this 5 p.m. meeting. Commissioner Rodgers pointed- out that this Ad Hoc Meeting is a public meeting. Commissioner Schallop asked if the next site visit would continue to occur at 3:30 p.m. Chair Garakani replied yes. COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications Items. AD,TOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Zutshi, seconded by Commissioner. Schallop, Chair Garakani adjourned the meeting at 10:55 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of March 9, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBNIITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk Page 26 • • Item 1 City of Saratoga MEMORANDUM DATE: March 9, 2005 TO: Planning Commission n~, ~~/ FROM: Christy Oosterhous ACIP, Associate Planner<..~-' SUBJECT: Resolution of Approval for Adoption DR 04-133/14265 Burns Way At a public hearing held on February 23, 2005 the Planning Commission, on a 5-2 vote, directed staff to prepare a conditional resolution of approval for Design Review Application #04-133. The requested resolution is attached for your adoption. • • ~~~®ai APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION N0.05-007 Application No. 04-133 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Burgos/Pollard; 14265 Burns Way WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review to construct atwo-story single-family residence and secondary dwelling unit. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,943 square feet. In addition, a 1,506 square foot basement is proposed. A 1,018 square foot second dwelling unit is also proposed; and WHEREAS, the project has not obtained geotechnical clearance. In the last fifteen years, two prior design review applications on this property failed to receive design review approval primarily due to neighbor opposition. Prior to incurring the expenses related to geotechnical clearance the applicant requested a formal action from the Planning Commission regarding the proposed design; 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 additions to a 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 a single 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. Setbacks have been increased for privacy along the front and side property lines. The residence has been located far from Burns Way to increase visual distance between residences. This location avoids a direct line of sight to neighboring residences and avoids a direct alignment with the main living areas. Structural features were used to limit view angles to long rather than short distant views. Views from the upper master bedroom deck are obstructed to the North by a chimney. Second story windows are minimized on the North Elevation. • ~~Q1~~%~ (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. As conditioned, the proposed residence will be surrounded by existing trees. The use of stone, woodshingles, and horizontal hardiplank siding in earth tone colors will blend with the natural environment. In addition, natural colors and materials are proposed for the foundation and lower portions of the house. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The project site and surrounding properties are heavily wooded. Many Oaks, Bays, Maples, Pines, Walnuts, and Redwood trees are located on the site. The project shall be revised to preserve all trees on site with the exception of tree #8, a California Black Walnut, which is in conflict with the proposed design. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. Large attic spaces are avoided. Areas of maximum height are minimized. Avery low roof pitch is proposed. Large expanses of single materials are avoided. A combination of vertical and horizontal articulations are incorporated into the design. (e) Compatible bulk and height. -The residence has been located far from Burns Way to increase compatible bulk and height with the existing streetscape. Second story building lines are stepped back from the first floor building lines. A front porch further breaks up the mass of the two-story home as it is presented to the street. The height of the main residence is 23 feet from the street elevation, which is 3 feet less than the maximum. (~ Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposal will conform to the City's current grading and erosion control standards. 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. The applicant or his designated representative shall apply for and secure a grading permit as applicable. (g) Design policies and techniques. The building has been merged into the slope of the property. Building floor levels are terraced. Elevations have been soften by using different materials. Materials are proposed that create horizontal proportions. Architectural style is compatible with existing pattern in the neighborhood: Rooflines are varied through changes in height and form. Long single ridge rooflines are avoided. All structures on the site are united by a single architectural theme or design. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, application number 04-133 for Design Review Approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: ~~~®®~ SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1. Any design change required during geotechnical review will require a public hearing and approval by the planning commission as a modification to the approved plans. 2. The footbridge connecting the main residence and second dwelling unit shall not be covered. 3. The following trees shall be preserved: 5, 26, 10, 12, 13, 14, and 20. Revised plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Arborist prior to building plan check submittal. -Tree 8 is located in the footprint of the residence and is permitted for removal. Trees 3, 23, 27 are permitted for removal due to their condition and risk to public safety. Design revisions necessary for tree preservation may require Planning Commission approval. 4. Landscape screening shall be planted along the North property line if requested by the Voesters. Prior to building permit issuance, the Voesters shall provide a written request or decline for landscape screening. 5. Frosted or stained glass shall be required in the stairway landing if requested by the Voesters. Prior to building permit issuance, the Voesters shall provide a written request or decline for permanent window treatment for the windows in the stairway. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6. Front yard landscaping shall be installed prior to final occupancy inspection. 7. -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. Design changes to the approved plans are subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. Additional fees will be required for processing. 8. 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. 9. The applicant or his designated representative shall .apply for and secure a grading permit if applicable. 10. 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 ~~Q~®~~ exterior changes to approved plans will require filing an additional application and fees for review by the planning commission as a modification to approved plans. 11. Applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit for any work in the public right-of- way. 12. A deed restriction shall be recorded with the County of Santa Clara which restricts rental of the second unit to only households that qualify as lower, very-low, or extremely- low income households as those terms are defined in the most recent Santa Clara County Housing and Urban Development Program Income Limits. If rent is charged, the rent level for the second unit shall not exceed that established by the Section 8 Program of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) or its successor for lower, very- low, or extremely low-income households. A copy of the recorded deed shall be on file with the City of Saratoga prior to final occupancy. CITY ARBORIST 13. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the Arborist Reports dated May 25, 2004, June 17, 2004, October 4, 2004 and December 18, 2004, as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division for building plan check after geotechnical clearance and any necessary planning commission approval is granted. 14. The following trees shall be preserved: 5, 26, 10, 12, 13, 14, and 20. Revised plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Arborist prior to building plan check submittal. Tree 8 is located in the footprint of the residence and is permitted for removal. Trees 3, 23, 27 are permitted for removal due to their condition and risk to public safety. Design revisions necessary for tree preservation may require Planning Commission approval. 15. The grading and drainage plan shall incorporate all Arborist Report recommendations, and shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist prior to issuance of City Permits. 16. A final landscape, irrigation and utility plan shall be submitted for Staff and City Arborist review and approval prior to issuance of City Permits. The final landscape plans shall show screening trees if desired by the Voesters. The utility plan shall show locations of air conditioning units. Any proposed undergrounding of utilities shall take into account potential damage to roots of protected trees. 17. All recommendations contained in the Arborist Reports shall be followed. 18. Tree protective fencing, as stated in the Arborist Report, shall be installed and inspected by Planning Staff prior to issuance of City Permits. • +~~~~®S 19. Prior to issuance of City Permits, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount required by the City Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. 20. Prior to Final Building Inspection approval, the Arborist shall inspect .the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. The bond shall be released after the planting of any required replacement trees, a favorable site inspection by the Arborist, and payment of any outstanding Arborist fees. WEST VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT 21. No structures shall be permitted in any sanitation district easement. The applicant shall obtain permits from the West Valley Sanitation District. FIRE DISTRICT 22. Applicant shall comply with all Saratoga Fire District conditions. The Fire Department shall review the revised uncovered footbridge. Note: the following comments are based on a covered footbridge proposal. 23. Roof covering shall be fire retardant and comply with the standards established for Class A roofing. Replacement less than 10% total roof area shall be exempt. (City of Saratoga Code 16-15.080) 24. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to Saratoga Fire District for approval. (City of Saratoga Code 16-60) 25. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed for the new dwelling including any garage, workshop, storage areas and basement and the 985 sq ft secondary dwelling. An NFPA 13R sprinkler system with a single 2.5" Fire Department Connection (FDC) and minimum 2 head calculation is required. The proposed wooden foot bridge to access the secondary dwelling across the ravine shall also be sprinklered including the exposed underside of the structure. Alternatively, the foot bridge can be constructed of either a one hour rated construction or non combustible materials. There-shall also be required a single 2.5 inch outlet- wharf hydrant supplied by the FDC and sprinkler system, to be located near the main house entrance to the foot bridge. The 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. Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to Saratoga Fire District for approval. The sprinkler system and underground water supply must be installed by a licensed contractor. (City of Saratoga Code 16-20.165 for designated Hazardous Fire Area, all new buildings except accessory structures #500 sq ft) • ~'~Q~®®~ 26. Access to the foot bridge from the driveway area shall be around the outside of the house, to be clear of obstructions and accomodate a medical gurney and personnel. A minimum of 44 inches is required for width. The surface shall be compacted and capable of withstanding erosion from weathering (a hard surface but not necessarily asphalt or concrete). 27. Premises Identification: 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. (CFC 901.4.4) 28. No wood burning fireplaces be allowed in the secondary dwelling. GEOTECHNICAL CLEARANCE 29. Updated Topographic survey, updated Grading Plan and Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluation and Design Criteria shall be submitted per recommended action No. 1,2 and 3 of the review letter dated February 3, 2005 from the City Geotechnical Consultant. Please submit two copies of all documents for further review. 30. Permits from the Department of Fish and Game and Regional Water Quality Control Board might be required. 31. Geotechnical clearance shall be obtained. Clearance shall be obtained prior to submitting for building permit plan check. CITY ATTORNEY 32. 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. 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 9th day of March 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~®®~ Item 2 • • • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Type of Application: Date: APN: App # 04-339/ 18510 Prospect Road Westgate Church John F. Livingstone, AICP Interim Community Development Director Design Review for a new parking lot March 9, 2005 386-10-056, 386-10-041 Department Head: ~~ Buffer cones around Westgate Chtveh 500' Westgate gwrchJ Condorriniuns Merged_Parcels Street_Labels ~~--~ sd 300 sa soi_300bu_sa_f __ ~ ° ^_-i - -T noi2aio•_ _ ~ \ - it. rt. p ~ ~ ` -i~_ ~~i ~~ t~ '. J J' 4 ~" ~`t ixc~ ` ~ Fyi .K .,` { rY4'~a... Yom` '=i ~tC~ . ~~~ I .Se,=ao.~a . y f ~'c'x r ~:~ t ~ j~' ._ N w:wa u~ ~: ~A~'~W~CJti 1( '; / .. _. ~ . i f~ h +. .~ ~~~- n } ~ ; i ~ TL 71P--___~ j CIF ~~~ J ~ta}~~F~,1 }'S ~" f nolusr+Y_~ ~ ~LJ.yf4~ S1tr~+lt Yef f. ~~.~ ,. ~^ f1~. ~~~ J - ~~~~ y 1 F" t . { .. 'S- -~ .M y. ~ ~ ~. 1 z ~;, ~ , ~ ,,, ~ y y ~' ~ ~ '~} { t .~~ y ~ .\. h r, x. ~ r,.~??t _ ` i j t.oo yaµ~n ~ w.~eau \ ._ _.i ~' ~ •• ~\ . ••~ ; ~ '0 150 300 450 600 750 h ~\ bra. ~ ~? ~~ ~:,. a~~ Y ,' 18510 Prospect Road ~~®t~~i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 10/28/04 01/28/05 02/28/05 02/17/05 03/03/05 Request Design Review Approval to expand the existing parking lot from 9 spaces to 48 spaces to support the proposed expansion of the church on the adjacent parcel located in the City of San Jose. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve the application for Design Review with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution with conditions 2. City Arborist Report 3. Fire Department Plan Review Comments 4. Ciry of Saratoga Notice, Noticing Affidavit, and Noticing Labels 5. Applicant's Plans, Exhibit "A" • • • ~®®~~~ File No. 04-339;18510 Prospect Road/Westgate Church STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: CN (I~Teighborhood Commercial) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CR (Commercial Retail) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 30,680 square feet AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: None GRADING REQUIRED: The applicant is proposing minimal grading. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposal is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15311, "Accessory Structures", Class 11 (b) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of small parking lots. PROJECT DISCUSSION Design Review The applicant is requesting Design Review Approval to expand the existing parking lot from 9 spaces to 48 spaces to support the proposed expansion of the church on the adjacent parcel located in the City of San Jose. City Code Section 15-46.20(5) requires that any parking lot in an R-M, P-A or C district covering an area of one thousand square feet or greater receive Design Review Approval by the Planning Commission. Design Review Findings The proposed project is consistent with all the following Design Review criteria stated in MCS 15-46.040: (a) Where more than one building or structure will be constructed, the architectural features and landscaping thereof shall- be harmonious. Such features include height, elevations, roofs, material, color and appurtenances. The project meets the above criteria in that the proposed parking lot expansion will be harmonious with the existing office building and landscaping. (b) Where more than one sign will be erected or displayed on the site, the signs shall have a common or compatible design and locational positions and shall be harmonious in appearance. The applicant is not proposing any new- signs on this property therefore meeting these • criteria in the affirmative. ~~~~3 File No. 04-339;18510 Prospect Road/GVestgate Church (c) Landscaping shall integrate and accommodate existing trees and vegetation to be preserved; it shall make use of water-conserving plants, materials apd irrigation systems to the maximum extent feasible; and, to the maximum extent feasible, it shall be clustered in natural appearing groups, as opposed to being placed in rows or regularly spaced. The project meets the above criteria in that the proposed landscape plan accommodates existing trees and replaces trees identified as in poor health by the Ciry Arborist with 36" box native Oak Trees. The proposed landscape plan also uses water conserving plants and irrigation systems. (d) Colors .of wall and roofing materials shall blend with the natural landscape- and be nonreflective. The existing office building will not be altered therefore the proposed project meets the above criteria. (e) Roofing materials shall be wood shingles, wood shakes, tile, or other materials such as composition as approved by the Planning Commission. No mechanical equipment shall be located upon a roof unless it is appropriately screened. The existing office building will not be altered therefore the proposed- project meets the above criteria. (f) The proposed development shall be compatible in terms of height, bulk and design with other structures in the immediate area. The proposed project meets the above criteria in that the new parking lot area will be compatible is design to the surrounding buildings and parking areas. Parking The Saratoga City Code requires one parking space per 200 square feet of floor area for a commercial office building. The existing office building is 2,000 square feet therefore it requires 10 parking spaces. The existing parking lot provides 9 spaces. The applicant is proposing to increase the parking by 39 spaces for a total of 48 spaces. The additional spaces will be used to accommodate the parking for the church's development of the adjacent site, which includes a new worship center. This project is currently pending with the City of San Jose. Staff has added a condition of approval requiring that a conveyance for parking rights be granted over the smaller parcel located in the City of San Jose to the benefit of the larger church parcel. Trees The applicant is proposing to remove 4 trees identified by the City Arborist as in poor condition and replace them with five 36" Oak trees that exceed the required replacement ~Q'~®~'~ ~. File No. 04-339;18510 Prospect Road/Westgate Church value. The project has been reviewed by the City Arborist and all recommendations in the report have been made a condition of project approval. Correspondence No negative correspondence was received on this application at the date that the staff report was distributed to the Planning Commission. The applicant has shown the proposed plans to the adjacent neighbors as documented by the applicant. 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 N0.05 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Westgate Church; 18510 Prospect Road WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga- Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval to expand the existing parking lot from 9 spaces to 48 spaces to support the proposed expansion of the church on the adjacent parcel located in the City of San Jose. 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 is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15311, "Accessory Structures", Class 11 (b) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of small parking lots; 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) Where more than one building or structure will be constructed, the architectural features and landscaping thereof shall be harmonious. Such features include height, elevations, roofs, material, color and appurtenances. The project meets the above criteria in that the proposed parking lot expansion will be harmonious with the existing office building and landscaping. (b) Where more than one sign will be erected or displayed on the site, the signs shall have a common or compatible design and locational positions and shall be harmonious in appearance. The applicant is not proposing any new signs on this property therefore meeting these criteria in the affirmative. (c) Landscaping shall integrate and accommodate existing trees and vegetation to be preserved; it shall make use of water-conserving plants, materials and irrigation systems to the maximum extent feasible; and, to the maximum extent feasible, it shall be clustered in natural appearing groups, as opposed to being placed in rows or regularly spaced. The project meets the above criteria in that the proposed landscape plan accommodates existing trees and replaces trees identified as in poor health by the City Arborist with 36" box native Oak Trees. The proposed landscape plan also uses water conserving plants and irrigation systems. (d) Colors of wall and roofing materials shall blend with the natural landscape and be nonreflective. ~~Q~~~~~ The existing office building will not be altered therefore the proposed project meets the above criteria. (e) Roofing materials shall be wood shingles, wood shakes, tile, or other materials such as composition as approved by the Planning Commission. No mechanical equipment shall be located upon a roof unless it is appropriately screened. The existing office building will not be altered therefore the proposed project meets the above criteria. (f) The proposed development shall be compatible in terms of height, bulk and design with other structures in the immediate area. The proposed project meets the above criteria in that the new parking lot area will be compatible is design to the surrounding buildings and parking areas. 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" incorporated by reference. All changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes .and are subject to the Community Development Director's approval. 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. 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.. 4. 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. ~~!'~~~~ S. Landscape plan shall be designed with efficient irrigation to reduce runoff, promote surface infiltration and minim~e use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to water pollution. 6. 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. 7. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. 8. 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. 9. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. 10. Proper maintenance of landscaping, with minimal pesticide use, shall be the responsibility of the property owner. 11. The final desi of the ro osed arkin lot h hts shall be subject to the review and ~ P P P g g J approval of the Community Development Director. 12. The final design of the proposed trash- enclosure shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. 13. The applicant shall provide conveyance, or other appropriate documentation, for parking rights to be granted over the smaller parcel located in the City of San Jose to the benefit of the larger church parcel subject to the Community Development Director. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 14. The applicant shall comply with all attached comments made by the Santa Clara County Fire Department. ARBORIST COMMENTS 15. All recommendations in the Ciry Arborist's Reports dated January 7, 2005 shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. This includes, but is not limited to: a. The Arborist Reports shall be incorporated, as a separate plan page, to the construction plan set and the grading plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plans. ~Q~~~ 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. 16. 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. PUBLIC WORKS 17. All drainage plans for the adjacent parcel in San Jose where the church expansion is taking place that impact the City of Saratoga.shall be approved by the Ciry of Saratoga prior to the City of San Jose issuing any permits for construction or demolition. 18. The owner (applicant) is responsible for all damages to curb, gutter and public street caused during the project construction by project construction vehicles at the Prospect Road property frontage. Public Works. Inspector will determine if any repair is required -prior to final project approval. 19. Encroachment Permit shall be required for all work in the public right-of-way including demolition of existing driveway approach, new driveway approach construction and curb, gutter and street repair, if needed. 20. The applicant shall comply with requirements of Provision C.3 of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for Santa Clara Basin. The Final Grading Plan shall incorporate the use and maintenance of Best Management Practices for site design and storm water treatment designed per approved numeric sizing criteria. Owner shall be required to certify on-going operation and maintenance. 21. The owner (applicant) shall file a Notice of .Intent (NOI) with the Regional Water Quality Control Board to obtain coverage under the State General Construction Activity NPDES Permit. Satisfactory evidence of the filing of the NOI shall be furnished to the City of Saratoga as well as the City of San Jose. The applicant shall comply with -all provisions and conditions of the State Permit, including preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Copies of the SWPPP shall. be submitted to both cities prior to permit issuance and maintained on site at all .times during construction. 22. Prior to final project approval, storm drainage easement shall be dedicated and recorded for the storm water system, if any, draining storm water from one parcel to the adjacent parcel. A copy of recorded easement document shall be submitted to the City of Saratoga. 23. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices as adopted by the Ciry for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. s~®~~~ CITY ATTORNEY 24. Applicant. agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 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. 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 (1S) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 9th day of March 2005 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 ~~®®~~ • • . =y$ ARB~'R RESOURCES ~ Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED NEW PARKING LOT AT 18510 PROSPECT ROAD SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME: Westgate Church APPLICATION #: 04-339 APNS #: 386-10-056 ~ 386-10-041 leasement) 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 7, 2005 P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402- Email: arborresources@earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.654.3352 • Licensed Contractor #796763 ,,~~~~~~ • • David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist January 7, 2005 INTRODUCTION The City of Saratoga Community Development Department has requested I review the potential tree impacts associated with the proposed modification of the existing parking lot at 18510 Prospect Road, Saratoga. This report presents my findings-and recommendations. Plans reviewed for this report include Sheets P-1 and P-2 (by NAI), Sheets C1 and C2 (by Carroll Engineering), and Sheets L 1 and L2 (by Gregory Lewis Landscape Architect). The locations, numbers and canopy dimensions of each inventoried tree are identified on the attached copy of Sheet C2 (Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan). FINDINGS There are 10 trees regulated by City Ordinance that would be impacted at varying degrees. They are all Eucalyptus trees (Silver Dollar Gum, Eucalyptus polyanthemos) that are. sequentially numbered from 1 thru 10. Specific information regarding each is presented on the attached table.l The trees were reduced in height ("topped") some- time ago -and the upper half of their canopies are comprised of weakly attached branches vulnerable to failure. As a result, they require frequent and severe pruning to minimize the. risk of one or more large branches failing. The proposed plans indicate each tree will remain. By implementing the proposed design, I find trees #5 thru 10 would be impacted at tolerable levels. Trees #1 thru 4, however, would sustain severe root loss that would contribute to their potential decline -and stability. becoming compromised. If these trees were expected to survive and remain stable with a reasonable assurance, major design revisions would be necessary, such as [1] abandoning the 15 parking spaces north of the existing building from the design, or [2] establishing the 15 spaces and curb on top of existing soil grade (a no-dig design). Given their poor structural condition, I find their removal and replacement with a more structurally stable tree would better benefit the. site, neighborhood and general public safety over the long-term. Per City Ordinance, the tree protection bond for-this project shall equal 100% of the appraised valueZ of trees planned for retention (#5 thru 10), which is $8,630. ' The trunk diameters of trees #7-10 aze estimates as they could not be accurately measured due to the thick ivy along their trunks. 2 The appraised tree values shown on the attached Tree Inventory Table are calculated in accordance with the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9`~' Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture, 2000. Westgate Church Property, 18510 Prospect Road Saratoga I'a8e 1 of3 City of Saratoga Community Development Department v ~~®~ ' f: • David L. Arborist 7, 2005 RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations presented below consider [1] the. loss and replacement of trees #1 thru 4, and [2] the retention and. protection of trees #5 thru 10. Each recommendation should be cazefully followed and incorporated into construction plans. 1. Tree protective fencing must be installed precisely as shown on the attached map and established prior to any demolition, grading, surface scraping, construction or heavy equipment arriving on site. It must be comprised of six-foot high chain link mounted on eight-foot tall, two-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven two feet into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction process; the relocation or dismantling of fencing must be directly approved by the City before doing so. 2. All construction activities must be conducted outside the fenced areas (even after. fencing is removed) as well as outside from beneath the canopies of Ordinance-sized trees inventoried and not inventoried for this report. These activities include, but. aze not limited to, the following: demolition, grading, surface scraping, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling/dumping materials, and equipment/vehicle operation and pazking. 3. Any unused, existing underground utilities or pipes located beneath the trees' canopies should remain buried and be cut off at existing soil grade. 4. Soil excavated for the walkway and pazking lot within 15 feet from the trunks of trees #7 thru 10 shall be manually performed using hand tools only. -Any roots encountered during the process with diameters of one-inch and greater shall be cleanly severed neaz the soil cut line. The freshly cut root ends shall be immediately covered with a plastic sandwich bag that is tightly sealed using a rubber band or electrical tape. 5. Any approved trenching beneath the canopies of retained trees must be manually performed using hand tools. Any roots encountered having diameters of two inches and greater shall remain intact. 6. The removal of any plants, shrubs or groundcover beneath the canopies of retained trees must also be manually performed. Great care should be taken to avoid excavating soil during the process. The ivy shall be removed and remain two. feet away from the trunks of trees #6 thru 10. 7. Throughout construction and continuing for at least one yeaz, water shall be supplied to trees #5 thru 10 during the months of May thru October. I recommend a rate of 10 gallons of water per inch of trunk diameter applied every four weeks. The water can be effectively supplied by placing soaker hoses on the soil surface beneath the trees' outer-canopy. • Westgate Church Property, 18510 Prospect Road, Saratoga City of Saratoga Community Development Department Page 2 of 3 ~~~~~ ~RB(~ RESOURCES ~ ~. Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care • TREE EWENTORY TABLE I b ~b ~ o A ~ ~ ~ : a . ~ ~ A oa ~ y ~ ,, ~w ~b ~ 'gym ~ ~~ v ~'~ ~ ~ ~,~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ a a TREE ME ~ ~ ~ ~ '°' c ~ °oo x ° °oc ' ~ ~ }~ ~ ~ v x . " U S o o ~ NO: TREE NA .C ,v O v A ..a H Silver Dollar Gum 1 (Eucalyptus polycmthetnos) 20.5 40 35 50% 25% -Poor Low 1 - $2,060 2 Silver Dollar Gum (Eucalyptus polyanthemos) 14.5 30 25 50% 25% Poor Low 1 - $1,040 3 Silver Dollar Gum (Eucalyptus polyanthemos) 16.5 30 30 50% 25% Poor Low 1 - $1,340 4 Silver Dollar Gum (Eucalyptus potyanthemos) 19 35 30 50% 25% Poor Low 1 - $1,770 5 Silver Dollar Gum (Eucalyptus polyantheneos) 11.5, 9, 7, 6.5 30 25 50% 25% Poor Low 4 - $1,420 Silver Dollar Gum 6 (Eucalyptus polyanthr»tos) 19 45 25 50% 25% Poor Low 4 - $1, 7 Silver Dollar Gum (Eucalyptus potytmthtanos) 19 40 35 50% 25% Poor Low 3 - $1,770 8 Silver Dollar Gum (Eucalyptus polyanthtmtos) 18 40 15 50% 25% Poor Low 3 - $1,590 9 Silver Dollar Gum (Eucalyptus polyanthemos) 14, 2 50 30 50% 25% Poor Low 3 - $970 ~n Silver. Dollar Gum rTi*.rnlvntuc nnlvanihemos 1 15 40 20 50% 25% Poor Low 3 - $1,110 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 15- lion = 5120 24-inch box =5420. 36-inch box = 51,320 48-inch box = 55,000 52-inch box = 57,000 72-inch box = 515,000 Site: 18510 Prospect Road, Saratoga Prepared for: City of Saratoga Community Development Department Prepared by: David L Babby, RCA ~~ January 7, 29A5 .,~, ti~~~~ • • • I ~•p asn eee its--- _ Ie3.2 _ .,~.''+' ! ~ LN9! ~, P1~0-S-P-SGT---1~0A-I~ G ~' i Ad 18510 Pros s°-~; ss ss ~ pact Road, Saratoga •• STORM ' --1 .(4t: Ci otSerato Comm ---:-~-- •,• 1 b ~ ~' Development Depmtmmt ~~ -~- - -- ss r -----ss ,~ ~: Map idm 'pl'ies 10 trees of Ordinance size. ~ 's`r' ,,,,~. ,, Ma Aas ^ ' _ _ e ~ P bem reduced in size and is aot to state. a~ .. w Canopy dimensims arc epproaislah. ;t,a" ; ~p. `.;, 1 ~: ]alluafy 7.2005 ~i^n; I N ~"w•~,~i~.%, ~ 1 ` TC 250J ! 'Pas ~ d''; { • i ... o ass zs. '.. _~ x• • •.= -250.5 - - -- -'-- ~ mow:. •;M1' ~ / `~r STOR z11 DRA a.is ~1~1yyr249 9' . ~ ~~ - ,; a rszc . - D O aegis asia ae!.e asiz .. • - •zsu . A, PROTECTIV i as!.a tea. I•~ ~~ ~ I ~E:__/-~~r' a.v .- E FENCING --- •zw. „ h - ~;~ r' i o° as!z_ ~s `~ ' '• I ~i • o vs:_ ;r. • r• ~' . IY. ~ -- j :'.}7.125D52 TC 25],6 a! s ,fir ~~~r~,L, ---~^~~ - o=~::~~:~~~ _- - .zsi. yr• .fr„ j ~!~,Z916 s 25.8 1G`,i''.351.G• •°d STORM-r++:'~ ,~. '~ a.a+ g 4N;i •.ai!e 251.0 ~ d '. k' ~ ' c 1 pN.- Y+` •.,~ ' :ors:.s Prepared By: a~ •, ' ~ 252s `.~~: ARBOR RESOURCES ~' ' ~" ~' zs2.6 1 O ` Projerriortal Arbor/cvl/vral Conrvlzing & Tree Cart I• ~ ~ P.O. Boa 25295 • San Memo. CA 94402 • i :• ~~~~""N - ~`:. ~ : ~` ;:'~". PMne: (650) 654-3351 . Email: ad,orteaou •: . -:.nis.. ':~ T ~cs(4eatthlink.~rct a1~i.:s .. TC 2522 .25. P. `25X•'4: _ naRR,l 251.7 . • Attachment 3 • ~~~a ,~e.c~'A °o~ FIR~EPARTMENT ~~ SANTA CLARA COUNTY ~ FIRE "~ 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos. CA 95032-1818 COUNTESY85EPVICE (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • unuw.sccfd.org PLAN REVIEW No. ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ 7 BLDG PERMIT No. CONTROL No, PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS CODE/SEC. SHEET NO. REQUIREMENT Review of plans for a proposed increase on the number of parking spaces for the Westgate Church on its existing office building site. P-z i NOTE This plan review is based on telephone conversation on 1/18/05 with Mr. Jack A. Ross, from NAI, phone (530)621-2490, in which it was indicated that the space left to the new proposed trash enclosure, noted on sheet P-2 as "(E) Commercial Wheel Works", is a parking lot. Plans are approved, subject to the above comment. OK to issue Bldg. Dept. permit. i i City PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST. TYPE AppllcantName DATE PAGE STG ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Westgate Church 1/18/2005 1 1 QF SECJFLOOR AREA LOAD I DESCRIPTION gY Commercial Construction O'brien, Gilery L WESTGATE CHURCH LV VMIIVIY 18510 Prospect Rd Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, 4~ ; Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos. Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga ~'~~~+~ • • ~~~~~~ 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 9`h day of March 2005, 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, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 12:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. City Hall is closed every other Friday. Please check the City web site at ~v~vti~-.saratoga.ca.us for the City's work schedule. APPLICATION # 04-339 (386-10-056 and 041) -Westgate Church, 18510 Prospect -Road; - Request for Design Review to expand the existing parking lot from 9 spaces to 48 spaces to support the proposed expansion of the church on the adjacent parcel located in the City of San Jose. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above tune and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you maybe 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. Please provide any comments or concerns in writing to the Planning Department to the attention of the staff planner indicated below. 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. John F. Livingstone, AICP Interim Community Development Director 408.868.1231 • ~~'®~~.~ • • 18510 Prospect Road • ~~®~~ • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, Kristin Borel, 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 ~ ~ day of February, 2005, 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 18510 Prospect Road; that on said day there was regular communication by United States. Mail to the addresses shown above. ~~ ~ Kristin Borel ~~~~~~ DAVID C. ~ HELEN L. CLARK SUNRISE PENGUIN SARATOGA A T C BUILDING CO 18906 CABERNET DR LTD P 1320 EL PASEO DE SARATOGA SARATOGA CA 95070-3566 1316 EL PASEO DE SARATOGA SAN JOSE CA 95130-1632 SAN JOSE CA 95130-1632 ANIL ~ GITA DESAI TIK-FAI ~ TERESA M. CHO JOHN T. &z DORIS F. AGES 12324 LOLLY DR 12336 LOLLY DR 12348 LOLLY DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3515 SARATOGA CA 95070-3515 SARATOGA CA 95070-3515 GREAT WESTERN SAVINGS &r WEST VALLEY SHOPPING CTR INC JOHN B. Est REVA A. SEGALL LOAN A 5245 PROSPECT RD 18480 PROSPECT RD 5220 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE CA 95129 SARATOGA CA 95070-3645 SAN JOSE CA 95129-5018 PATRICK TRUST DAMICO TIRE SERVICE INC LEONARD J. VELLA 18506 PROSPECT RD 18522 PROSPECT RD 18560 PROSPECT RD SARATOGA CA 95070-3651 SARATOGA CA 95070-3651 SARATOGA CA 95070-3651 RAY A. RUSSO - PAUL G. HEELER STEPHEN GAZZERA 18578 PROSPECT RD 5220 PROSPECT RD 5210 PROSPECT RD SARATOGA CA 95070-3646 SAN JOSE CA 95129-5018 SARATOGA CA 95070 CUPERTINO PARTNERS VI CUPERTINO PARTNERS VI CUPERTINO PARTNERS VI 5385 PROSPECT RD 5293 PROSPECT RD 5295 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE CA 95129 SAN JOSE CA 95129-5027 SAN JOSE CA 95129-5027 CUPERTINO PARTNERS VI OWNER OWNER 5285 PROSPECT RD 5285 PROSPECT RD 5285 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE CA 95129-5026 SAN JOSE CA 95129-5026 SAN JOSE CA 95129-5026 OWNER HAE CHON HO ROBERT C. 6x MARY L. MATISON 5285 PROSPECT RD 18651 SAN PALO CT 18668 SAN PALO CT SAN JOSE CA 95129-5026 SARATOGA CA 95070-3531 SARATOGA CA 95070-3531 ROGER L. ~ JEAN C. CROSS HOLLOWAY TRUST ALBAN &z ANGELA YEE 18670 SAN PALO CT 18675 SAN PALO CT 18687 SAN PALO CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3531 SARATOGA CA 95070-3531. SARATOGA CA 95070-3531 DARYL V. BECKER MOHSSEN RASTEGAR-PANAH STEVEN M. PHILLIPS 18699 SAN PALO CT 18663 SAN PALO CT 18656 SAN PALO CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3531 SARATOGA CA 95070-3531 SARATOGA CA 95070-3531 ®®®ib'~ -DUANE E. LOOS 18711 SAN PALO CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3531 BROTHERS Esc HENRY KATO 1741 SARATOGA AVE SAN JOSE CA 95129-5204 RAY A. Esc JR RUSSO 1807 SARATOGA AVE SAN JOSE CA 95129 FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF QUITOPARK 1735 SARATOGA AVE SAN JOSE CA 95129-5203 BROTHERS &z HENRY KATO 1745 SARATOGA AVE SAN JOSE CA 95129-5201 WESTGATE MALL LLC FR 1690 SARATOGA AVE SA1~T JOSE CA 95129-5110 YASUTO ~ DOROTHY ~ HENRY &z CLOYD C. SMITH MAY U. KATO 1704 SARATOGA AVE 1777 SARATOGA AVE SAN JOSE CA 95129 SAN JOSE CA 95129-5205 BROTHERS ~sz HENRY Y. KATO OWNER 1757 SARATOGA AVE 1695 SARATOGA AVE SAN JOSE CA 95129-5200 SAN JOSE CA 95129-5111 ~NER 1695 SARATOGA AVE SAN JOSE CA 95129-5111 OWNER 1757 SARATOGA AVE SAN JOSE CA 95129-5200 • SALINAS VALLEY SAVINGS Esc LOAN 1725 SARATOGA AVE SAN JOSE CA 95129-5203 BROTHERS KATO 1777 SARATOGA AVE SAN JOSE CA 95129-5205 WESTGATE MALL LLC FR 1690 SARATOGA AVE SAN JOSE CA 95129-5110 WEST VALLEY SHOPPING CTR INC 1695 SARATOGA AVE SAN JOSE CA 95129-5111 OWNER 1757 SARATOGA AVE SAN JOSE CA 95129-5200 GAZZERA STEPHEN III TRUST 5210 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE CA 95129-5018 ®~iGr~ OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1824 SARATOGA AVE 1877 QUITO RD 1888 SARATOGA AVE STE 100 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SARATOGA, CA 95070 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1888 SARATOGA AVE STE 101 -1888 SARATOGA AVE STE 102 1888 SARATOGA AVE STE 103 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1888 SARATOGA AVE STE 105 1888 SARATOGA AVE STE 104 1820 SAR.ATOGA AVE SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1818 SARATOGA AVE 1804 SAR.ATOGA AVE 1741 SAR.ATOGA AVE STE 101 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1725 SARATOGA AVE 1735 SARATOGA AVE 1741 SARATOGA AVE STE 105 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE; CA 95129 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1741 SARATOGA AVE STE 109 1741 SARATOGA AVE STE 111 1741 SARATOGA AVE STE 106 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1741 SARATOGA AVE STE 104 1741 SARATOGA AVE STE 102 1741 SARATOGA AVE STE 211 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1741 SARATOGA AVE STE 201 1741 SARATOGA AVE STE 205 1741 SARATOGA AVE STE 207 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1741 SARATOGA AVE STE 204 1741 SARATOGA AVE STE-206- 1741 SARATOGA AVE STE 210 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1741 SARATOGA AVE STE 213 1745 SARATOGA AVE STE A 1745 SARATOGA AVE STE C SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 ~~~ _OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1745 SARATOGA AVE STE D 1745 SARATOGA AVE STE 2A 1745 SARATOGA AVE STE 206 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1745 SARATOGA AVE STE 212 1745 SARATOGA AVE STE 209 1745 SARATOGA AVE STE 208 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1777 SARATOGA AVE STE 114 1777 SARATOGA AVE STE 112 1777 SARATOGA AVE STE 110 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1777 SARATOGA AVE STE 106 1777 SARATOGA AVE STE 104 1777 SARATOGA AVE STE 102 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1777 SARATOGA AVE STE 100 1777 SARATOGA AVE STE 115 1777 SARATOGA AVE STE 125 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 ~CUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1777 SARATOGA AVE STE 130 1777 SARATOGA AVE STE 205 1777 SARATOGA AVE STE 209 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1730 SARATOGA AVE 5205 PROSPECT RD STE 110 5205 PROSPECT RD STE 120 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5205 PROSPECT RD STE 130 5205 PROSPECT RD STE 135 5205 PROSPECT RD STE 140 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5205 PROSPECT RD STE 150 5220 PROSPECT RD 5210 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 UPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPAl~?T ~SARATOGA AVE 1694 SARATOGA AVE 1640 SARATOGA AVE SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 ~~~~~ OCCUPAI~TT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18578 PROSPECT RD 18576 PROSPECT RD 18574 PROSPECT RD SARATOGA, CA 95070 SARATOGA, CA 95070 SARATOGA, CA 95070 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18572 PROSPECT RD STE B .18572 PROSPECT RD STE A 18570 PROSPECT RD STE B SARATOGA, CA 95070 SARATOGA, CA 95070 SARATOGA, CA 95070 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18570 PROSPECT RD STE A 18568 PROSPECT RD 18566 PROSPECT RD SARATOGA, CA 95070 SARATOGA, CA 95070 SARATOGA, CA 95070 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18562 PROSPECT RD 18562 PROSPECT RD STE A 18560 PROSPECT RD SARATOGA, CA 95070 SARATOGA, CA 95070 SARATOGA, CA 95070 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18522 PROSPECT RD 18510 PROSPECT RD 18506 PROSPECT RD SARATOGA, CA 95070 SARATOGA, CA 95070 SARATOGA, CA 95070 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18486 PROSPECT RD 18482 PROSPECT RD 18488 PROSPECT RD STE 2 SARATOGA, CA 95070 SARATOGA, CA 95070 SARATOGA, CA 95070 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18488 PROSPECT RD STE 9 18488 PROSPECT RD STE 6 18488 PROSPECT RD STE 5 SARATOGA, CA 95070 SARATOGA, CA 95070 SARATOGA, CA 95070 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18488 PROSPECT RD STE 4 18488 PROSPECT RD STE 15 18488 PROSPECT RD STE 14 SARATOGA, CA 95070 SARATOGA, CA 95070 SARATOGA, CA 95070 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18488 PROSPECT RD STE 10 18488 PROSPECT RD STE 3 18488 PROSPECT RD STE 11 SARATOGA, CA 95070 SARATOGA, CA 95070 SARATOGA, CA 95070 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18488 PROSPECT RD STE 1 18488 PROSPECT RD STE 7 18480 PROSPECT RD SARATOGA, CA 95070 SARATOGA, CA 95070 SARATOGA, CA 95070 ~~~~~~ ;OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18478 PROSPECT RD STE A 18478 PROSPECT RD 18476 PROSPECT RD SARATOGA, CA 95070 SARATOGA, CA 95070 SARATOGA, CA 95070 OCCUPAI~TT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18474 PROSPECT RD 18472 PROSPECT RD STE B 18472 PROSPECT RD STE A SARATOGA, CA 95070 SARATOGA, CA 95070 SARATOGA, CA 95070 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18470 PROSPECT RD 5377 PROSPECT RD 5333 PROSPECT RD SARATOGA, CA 95070 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5329 PROSPECT RD 5245 PROSPECT RD 5339 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5337 PROSPECT RD 5343 PROSPECT RD 5305 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 ~UPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5309 PROSPECT RD 5313 PROSPECT RD 5317 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5325 PROSPECT RD 5389 PROSPECT RD 5379 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5391 PROSPECT RD 5395 PROSPECT RD 5399 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5295 PROSPECT RD 5293 PROSPECT RD STE A 5293 PROSPECT RD STE B SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 UPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT PROSPECT RD STE C 5293 PROSPECT RD STE D 5291 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE, CA 95129 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 -SAN JOSE, CA 95129 ~~~®~~ OCCUPANT 5365 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 5347 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 5289 PROSPECT RD STE D SAN JOSE, CA -95129 OCCUPANT 5287 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 5285 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 5277 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 5265 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 5259 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 1755 SARATOGA AVE SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 5357 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 5289 PROSPECT RD STE A SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 5289 PROSPECT RD STE E SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 5285 PROSPECT RD STE F SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 5281 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 5275 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 5263 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 5257 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 1751 SARATOGA AVE SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 5353 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 5289 PROSPECT RD STE C SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 5289 PROSPECT RD STE F SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 5285 PROSPECT RD STE A SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 5279 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 5269 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 5261 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 5253 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 1749 SARATOGA AVE SAN JOSE, CA 95129 • • • ~~~~~ {OCCUPANT 5365 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 5347 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 5289 PROSPECT RD STE D SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 5287 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 5285 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE, CA 95129 ~UPANT 5277 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 5265 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 5259 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 1755 SARATOGA AVE SAN JOSE, CA 95129 • OCCUPANT 5357 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 5289 PROSPECT RD STE A SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 5289 PROSPECT RD STE E SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 5285 PROSPECT RD STE F SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 5281 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 5275 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 5263 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 5257 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 1751 SARATOGA AVE SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 5353 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 5289 PROSPECT RD STE C SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 5289 PROSPECT RD STE F SAN JOSE, CA .95129 OCCUPANT 5285 PROSPECT RD STE A SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 5279 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 5269 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 5261 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 5253 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE, CA 95129 OCCUPANT 1749 SARATOGA AVE SAN JOSE, CA 95129 ~'~~~~j. STEPHEN GAZZERA WESTGATE MALL LLC FR AV BAPTIST CHURCH SARATOGA 1134 W EL CAMINO REAL 1626 E JEFFERSON ST 1735 SARATOGA AVE MOUNTAIN VIEW CA 94040-2518 ROCKVILLE MD 20852-4041 SAN-JOSE CA 95129-5203 BROTHERS &~ HENRY Y. KATO 1777 SARATOGA AVE SAN JOSE CA 95129-5205 ALBAN &z ANGELA YEE 19746 VIA GRANDE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4467 SUNRISE PENGUIN SARATOGA LTD P 200 W MADISON ST FL 37TH CHICAGO IL 60606-3414 WEST VALLEY SHOPPING CTR INC 2277 ALUM ROCK AVE SAN JOSE CA 95116-2018 RAY A. RUSSO 4010 MOORPARK AVE STE 111 SAN JOSE CA 95117-1804 CUPERTINO PARTNERS VI 4675 STEVENS CREEK BLVD STE 230 SANTA CLARA CA 95051-6767 RAY A. ~St JR RUSSO PO BOX 41057 SAN JOSE CA 95160-1057 DAMICO TIRE SERVICE INC PO BOX 969 SAN JOSE CA 95108-0969 LEONARD J. VELLA 231 HOURET DR MILPITAS CA 95035-6801 JOHN B. &r REVA A. SEGALL 456 CORNELL AVE SAN MATEO CA 94402-2204 WEST VALLEY SHOPPING CTR INC 5205 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE CA 95129-5000 A T C BUILDING CO PO BOX 63931 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94163 PAUL G. HEELER 2808 ADELINE ST # 2 BERKELEY CA 94703-2224 CUPERTINO PARTNERS VI 4675 STEVENS CREEK BLVD SANTA CLARA CA 95051-6759 PATRICK TRUST 5660 PICKERING AVE WHITTIER CA 90601-2414 SALINAS VALLEY SAVINGS &~ LOAN PO BOX 7788 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92658-7788 • ~ ~~Da~~ • • • , o ~ m x ~ ~ tm ~ ~ n on ~ Z ~. ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~. ~; y y ~ ~ frl » m R Q° m 4 ~ ° ~ D ~ Z 0 ~///i, ,~~'/ 190.00 Ft. on PL /, r g8 a DOc ~ O Q 4 a 'E' ~ (1 O - - - I i ~~_=_. - \~= ~ t~'\ e, F . /\v ~__ / ` ~(~~ n . J~,_- Z_ ~ , _-_ =--- - (. -J~- £ ~ , -~ ~ ~~ D ~N N ~~ `~ :. ~~~ ~Q 'O O A 1 O v I ~ ._ I I I I - - -- I Ir Z' - ~ - I -- I I I O ~i . ~ ^ ~ a ~ i - - ; ~ - ; I I I - ; N > s I -- - I - h ~o ~I - b _ __ ~ ~ ~ I __ _ _ I I ~n I ~. N ~ N ~ a ' I _ ~I ~; _ t _ ~ h i I I _ __ I_ _ ~ I I _ i _ i _ r-~ I I ' P o N ! N m - I I I - - - _ ~ I I ~ _ J i ~ - ~ --I ~ _ - ~;D I I .. I•- - -- - -- -- -- - -- - I-- --I - ---~ - --~ -- _ 1 -- -- - . ~ .._ - - - - - _. - _ a L _ _ ~ I ~ - - ~ ~ ~ i - ~ - - - ~ _ - - -- - - -- - - - - - ---, ---- - -- -- - - -- - - - - - -- - - ,, - - ,- - - N - - -- - ~-- nn a • • ~~ n~ ~- Z Q ~r -- -- -~ °~- o --- ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ o ~~ ~ ~S _~_ -_ -t ~ -_.-` I -_- I ~ - I ~ ,-. k+ -~ 1 - -~.__ - I - I --~ ' I n m ' I 6 I ~ ° _ 1 - ~ I I I - -. - -._ ~ -- - ~- I I I I -I i I - iv_ -. ~ ni J, J - ~- ~ -I r ~ - _ - - - -I -_ - I - -~ ~'. _ - - - - m - ~ I r-~ ~ ~ I - ~ I tee, n I a~ -. -~- - In ! _-_ ~ -_ 1 I I N iv ! I I ~ I ~ - I i ~ I D ~ ~ A. N N ~. ~ I ~ _ ~-,- i ~ r r ~ ~~ ~J I I -J ~ ~ ~ J~ ~ - ;~ i -I _ i - --~ -- _, ~ T -- - ~ - - -I1 _ J- _;~ - _ 0 ~ 0 ~ J ~ - ~ ~ ' ~~ ~ i j - ~ ~ ~ m ~ o - ~ I I `~a .i ~~ I ~ I-'~-~ I ~ ~ - ~ ' I ~ ~ i ~ - J I~ J~ - i I I I I I I I - I i i I ~ I I ~ ! I I I I o ~ ~ ~ i >Z ~ 8 Y ~ 1 ~ § ~§.v ~~ ~~ I, / ~ ~ Iv - - - - - - - - - - v 320. Ft. on PL d ~mv ~ _° r I ,, ~/ yDb D D S m nN y p y N 'p ~.,y ~~ ~m~ ~~ fmn fnT y Of S ~a y ~ O C 2 n ~ ~a ~! ~m o g~ mo Om ~0 16<g~ _~ b' 0 3 q '~ ~ 3 $ 3 a y u m'c. 3 ? '~~~ m° ~3m ~' 9 m ~ ~ mg °aE '~am m a a='a ~ L~L~L~L~ ~ z z m6 ~ Efm _ z~ -e- ~-~a m~~ ~~ am~~-tz:a~~-~moe ;sg - Bp I - - - -- -__ _- I S eCCC ~ s ~ ~~-.~ ~" ~ ~a z ~ S ~ ~i ~ ° ;: gs~~ 'sgm ~-. n m° ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~^s pp,, ~+ o cZ ~ $~m g6~m ~a3 •'' ppmt .gO'~ c'Q I Y 3~'~ ~ao~ ?a~ ~ n n ~ u ° ~ $ m ~ tom ~ ~ a2.m $30 ill 3~a$°' ~ - m uL~$ °~ '? SA~'c`E Y m N. ~ o+ 3i= om 3~°0 3'm ~.~ ~~gn'c ~0 3'0 O zo mzZ ~ b~ ~ PW ~T 33'8 ~~''na E6S g ~a ~~ ~g~g a ~p III ~N m o ~ $g ~~ "~~ ~~~ ~~$N s 'a &.~;g~8m m~ ~. _ o_N r -_ ~~s~ ~< ~- 8§6~' ~~' mom 8 ~ r ~ $ mm mZ mw 'mo c~m~ sm:~'BE~~a~S ~i I. mmmm ° - ~ a m~ 'og ids ~'~~ ~'aasm. ° non uuum~- ~i ~ ~ ~u. ~m ~py ~~~~ m og ~$ , m ~Ye~x c u^ am S~ ~'oo ~`~'u~~ y y ~Q m~m F~ Om°m ~ m ~p1~ r T ~ m°$ m~~" gMA ~N ~/ {t} 190.00 Ft. on PL T ..'~ '~~~~ v v 4 \ ~ ~ / ~~ ~ F I I. ~ . ~ ~ x , ~ ~ / T-6' t-t ~ o ~ ~ w ~w w k w w w w w ~g ~ m..e . mho ~ X~ ~ (E) °~Sv !/ ~ 8 0 '~ ~. / Q z k ~ ` 8 m I / s y r I ~ ~~ 130.00 Ft. on PL T- - - ,~~ I SEn3hCK ' - S R ~ H , I / gq ~ ~~~i w w w w w w w w s w ~w w w w wl w k Iw w w w w w w w w w n w % r~ ~Ij ~m~~~e I a .o A Q. +~ . a s = • . • - / ~ -- ~ ... i i -~ T ~ ~ \\ _ `~--- I ~ o ~~ ~ <r~ I _ {i ~ ~ 1- ~ v ~ ~ ~ --~' \ ,~ r- `, `\ "~ ~ ` \ ~ . ~ b, _ . _ .. ~ \ ~ ~~ ~ .~ ,~ O ~-- ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I __~__ _ ~ _~_--o-__ ~, ~ I ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ I I ~ 1 ~ _ ' ~~ I ~ I I ~ ~T , ~, 'I '' ~~ • • • ~' ~ ~ I .a ~,, fo , ~.` 0, O I I r~ Ili, ' -*~. ~~ I L /~,N I I I '~:.~ + ~ m dC~ ~-• . ~ Z 'i' is I I ,~ : ion :mow:' ~•'o ;"~i - I- r\~9iy ''rya ~.`+o~. .u~~ l _ - 66 I I q I e'$'b G ~w'r ..' ,J: ~~ry.Y • +~ - ° ~4 'dam y\ y'b,• + ~° ~=TN _ 4~ ~ ~ I \ :i~ ~.N j/ ..NM.•~°N .. 9!!1 '~' ~,^~'' tin' N' l ~ ~~~..~...~..~ ~B: t•' I ° _• O s.. N ~R~I~~N~'r.~ _.006'~k,~ '~°' 3 °°s W$ If = u „ °I 1 Y m ,I \\l\~ ` A• ~ N ~ : bU' ~ ~,, g C.' ~ i+~. ~; ^.a + `•,5 \Q~~"• \ a~\ ~~'' 1\: r ~- ~ I~~~•~: +' ~ ~ u r.:~ I , ~ ~~ ~p 9 A F rv F~ L . : ;~.' - •F+ 9,5:5 3t •.y TRASH N ~ . ji I' '•~ :N... ,•i-. I, ~, I ' 9 ~ NCLOSUR - !~ ~ ',^3"e ~ s tc ~ ~°+ ~ V ~.., .w~ - 4, :•S"ne~. A Ha ~2 .+ +I,' fJ'o i X012., eb ~~ J~ ;'S' N :~ '~T .i I /%///J Aii '092 •-i .:0.0211 N. wLa d:. .cl• ~ '4t ;:~ %~' ~" ~• 4~ m a°I o - ~'e , Nu ~ - O : ~`'•. ,'~~: . r,. - a:: kr I yyII -\ f ~~ 4 / n+ +a .1:• ,y •Y ;'~i f Q•' •S ~ - +-a... .~ ,•. "0:12~I' s :I '.'3. 0. ' 0-012...' ~ ,, .~ rn ^~. ' 0!008'.' : 4 n . ~: j 2+ .~ S- " sY ~~~.. < - 0: .008 Q1 a `+~ wyf .. ..A .~'~ ~ _ 0.03 ~.~'. , a .?~ _ • ~+ I O _ ~.~ • ~~ ~. . r~ . ~• _ I ~ .O •N.~ ' ~.~ .~`.. ~ p \' : N •'T) ..e - ,~,: :~ .o N I N ~ ~~(rt• !a . •:G' •~ _ 0 ry ~~.++ o' - N' .~ ,~.• `~T ~~ Iced ..r ••~° IM R•... TTi••• A l ~`Yi '' ! 4' i' ~~ yj ~w" Ir4 ~'~'~. ^`4 ~'~ .C . g ~~ 7o m .:. r ;ST~ •R ~ }' 'N S. ~ Sm t ~ _ •4 b' ~~ .:~~:.: E ' `' a •i~ 5 ~'Yg 'v Qa-. „US'~.~~NAT26~..` s., :.0.008' ~;` il.. I ^ "~ ~~ n~• "i : x'~+ .~"~.•. ,' _ - .' . • - •~ : ':. •.. _ +~'. _ .0.084.8 .d N yNn .~~,a ~y+2~ .r-. ~s~ ~_~~ mph :lr l # \ S ~,•. -\._, ~\\~~:a c~"\ \\ ~' •` •\\ ~\\,•g~\ N .\~ ~. v.s_ e° .~ ~~ ; =I N ~p~ U r0P4 .° bT ,N ~,•,~~, J+~ ~~~N N I \:\_ \v \\\ \~ \.\~ \\~ :. `\\ \\\ \\\ -\\ `~~\ \\ \\ \~1 \\ m °_Yt ~ o in ~ / °mYgt+ i7FO•~G, ~+Z L~a(J,•,~~N VN ~e rn ~ Fv ~~ \ \ +\ \~. A,\ \~. `~~~ \\\ \\' \\\ \\ \\\ \\~ \\ ~.\ '._.~\ ,\\ IL i .. I.~'~.AIG~::. 4 I }~~ I 4+t +~' ~iir'~. ~~~~~..~ °° `I C7 I ~- - ZZ ~f Z ~ ~°s ~ ib I i b±N~ pip4 e ~'s~ O " ~I~ -- ~zsmN~ZfWm_m-~~ _ _°° r ~I "~ I iDm ~ L ~ O _ -___ ~ G W m N 1 V ~' ~I l ~~ L µ ~ ~ Z O V1 A o~ ' = i -- ?~~C I m-W--- + I I D ~~ z ov~in° os as ~ ~ ~'~ v~ om~05 II NI m D ~: __ ~~~ ~NCrn i ~~ n ..~ N~ Op I v ( + - ~ Fy ~ ODZ=Z I ~ V ~$ _ 200 ~ Vl - Cs • _ _ y ~ yy es° _I `V ~ Z Z m 65 '•~ myr jZD I I ~s c$ )~ ~ NRj~.~Q~ Z 4~ +•T F. ~ VyN1 ~ ~ ~*~+ ~ I I I ~ m m~ I -t~ - -f-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- _ ssl w. a ~~ T ~o w~ - ~ ~ " J ~' <I ra ~ 8 ° ~ ~ ~ ~ b" ~ m ~ ~ '~' cl F ~ ~ " I I y I ^ I _ I_. y N' i ~ , t _._ - _- _- _ __ __- - -~ _ -__ - ~ _'~--~_ ~ z_ ~ .TM. -~...A _Qi. _c, -~; <_o -z $ N E 2 Fi F I y~ --pia I - -~ m ~-~ C - A q _~ - '_ _ I ~ __ __ __- __ _ -_ qua - ---- _ }~c' m ~ ~ ~ Q '^ z ~ ~ ~ I I . ~ _ ' ~ ~p i- - v ~~// ~ , ° 1 m ~ m ~ ~ g ~ g I I - II' ,~'-_ ~ CITY OF SARATOGA $ I I ~~ III _ ~~ ~ I ~,\j ,' --ll ~ CITY OF SAN JOSE I I c 1~ I I • • Z ~ ----=~ :e` ~ g=--s 1111-1111=1111= 2 '~as=""Rai=oa~Rm m ~ 3ao~°~'~~o3so~g l~, ~. 's c 3 ° ~ 4i - I~ 8e €°e - gs o o m e z n§ 0'89830 8°.s° v ="e ~ °Q°-$ N '.~8 ~~ uN g ^~ - ~° oso o~ g°2 ~ °~ '~'- - s 3 °a ~"~ 9g x- °s~ao A~e ~~_ 8,m a _ 4~g~ ~ o ~3 ~~~~ ~ 3 R g ~f ~° D O a 9 A ~='~ ~ o 0 a, 7 ~'1 33~ o ;oxa ~;~8 o "° ~~~~ E ~ ~ a "3~; °a >~~°g ° ~ ,Q$ ° :a ono. _ i ~s'~~ao~~a~~_QOx.~~~a4- m IFS ~v °o g~°~ ~~mo°~~ , °g v 7 >° ~°o~e 1~'0 g~~o~im Eo~ v y gmQ~O 3?vi~ ~~.7 ~o '`~S ~u°$ 0 o:°°°s ~ '' '$;~e~~' ~ eQOO N ca o - e~ °.~-£~s- 1 :2Q93~?" ~~o~o°'~ z a ~5 saoo~ \e 'e ~~_°~ i n»~o /'~. nom. 'o • o~ao ~ . ~~ o' ao'e~ v°~°°^e'ox o ~° R - iv°~3eu~ ~i ~ 03~ ~e' °e.ee OOe °~~° e °o 03, -a-^ i8~°oooe$ '~O'v'h o5'~ ~~ ° s ~° 9no =moo ov~~a~og 7 ° m v '~ ~ D ~~ '~ Z O 0 0 ~3e.c u,suNmrnrnmVJ ''e A+: ~~~x,~ °~2v• ~Qw-m '~ 7.o mm mm pr-<N s.,3 ~~G~~~rnr.41 ° a ; mss ~ g 7 O mBv3 .~o>ae ~ ~ 3' E~ a (D ~ N NN N N N± ~ ~ /A VNNa4ra--pm V~P ~VN pmm~N~D V/ yoomu~:p ~'o m!~w'.wrim So.o+Q~f~li~ a~~~s~2i2~mmc °c~io~~°=° g'e~ae €^+cgrng8e ~Tm~ 3 e o~v °a ^c.Fo °~2. 2._oo a_oo 22c >~~O~e°ov°-3 ,0000^O°~°° O° ' Y~ ~ ~ E~ _ ° ~ o 4. ~G^~ogov:~~~~N=-p niu~o ~ oma°~ i a~>>°e~m~ ° 6O- a.R Q ~~(lv_ a_3 "~'r i ~ ~mo a°O '-a~.i°e gg Qg ~ °~0~ °~ z °Z~i E.oa o~° O roo a°c ~'~ 4 2.3 oar a"~8~=u _S~o>> ~°pO-a°2 'S-"~ -oa.a °^-',-gam $~~oea. °v3 'o _ a ° ° ~ ~ i o' Ego o':e~p~ ~we'eP° ^xB~~R~e ~'~"ome ~;~~ax9 ~Na'a s °~ ow+ p °~O' VG° ~A~]° 3°°-~ °p~ ° R°o -~$ ao ~ a ~ ^ ~ ° -_ n m e0 m° ~ ° 3 K e9 u o0 ° _~ NUN M 3 p P m N rr ° ~a 020 ~" r cow ~ ~o c'OT ~~ ~.9 mm~° >Q Q ~ ° 3> °oao ^ n ~~ - -~~~ s e ~ n 3. e ~' z °- ~ _~ aia s m ° ° 8 ; 3 _'m ° Q pn d u ~ O F c n ~ ~ c ° ; '^ x ~ ' ° o; A % x ~ 3 0 -. z o °3 n o ~ D O L O O 6^ S T d ° i 3 _ _T GgfD ~§. u~O P,_.S fee ^....3 cg om'~ ~a~ra"'~~>vQ~$,q~,~°$~' -_ 1111=1~~~ tq N 8'oo°°'Rc~R~'°;9go,g° g~~3$ON3 g 8 F ~~~~_~~~~ ~~ snQg^o~~se8~&4~os.5N~o __ ~~ &~II§S RQ~s°'3 :93~g4 _o~IIII III~I~II~~I ~C ~~ ~~~ .g ggg~8 a . 3.~° vo s ~a e. co o =F"3a 0 m Ana °v oP8 ^_°~ s ~ 4. war'' c g °s.~' JN ~.~.$ aoq~a g e n~nN sn ,~ n • s ± Q sue; z a. 9 ~~OY°e , B. S_T . cS H~,~3 r ° e a Q ~ ~ e °~ o° g g ~. F =~4~ - a:~ o' ~~S -° use a o a c a aFa ~~ ~ 9 a g• s' g. ~: a` ^ ~;~' 8 II g g 9 - °_m e • • ~ OE~O mm m °~~`~ `O~Op o~~~aQmxoa: g d ° ~~g m~` ~ pdp~onm?~$".$6~n`~~,`~`9` =3E5a~~moauc~saa~:NS~`EE`~ °aQO p a =3$~~°OC~ ~e:g$m~$~Qa°~ ~ S~'g5 R °~o T ~~aR °<~a'~ °a -o~ v~ Ab~~o `4` ~ 4 22 i R~~= i 3 $b~ac+=c~ o sn~E~ etd~R ~6 `~'m ° ~~ ~dg£~ R°-°Oe~d ~ td ds g'n:~~' ~'o~%og~r ~~ :2°~ 'Z ug i i~==~ ° ~~•~~~Qo ~^°~• "~oo~'~gR~$~$q~a~'v~a; b~$q$s~"$4 u~o~yuog~° os.a;m~~s~a~"-~ am=~-~~ ~ a~d~Lo' ~ sm' a s °a;9 E < s; $ ~ ~o~ g a=-`- $r. ~ ~Q• m' $ q m q~ a- ° n 5 a..a $q ° Rc ~ gm~do' °a S ~Rc$e q .d -'; ~ ~ ° ~AO9s n6~og s~ ° ~ v da- °R $- o - a ° v~ $ao ~ dd cyDO ~~8mo S~ r.~ W "s ~Q ~ :~~ ~e s a~ o';z ~°~oo$~~-logo" ~°oA_Nm~~b°; ~„~ ~ °g$DS'~ Qq$ $_D~rn E: ~ $on"~+mgD e~~.~~~ o°~°a ~" Sda~$eoo-p•~$°$b°~`~ ~ v Ana.-o~°ag -$'`~~a~'m3e ~~ ~ peg°6~Ss'T~~. oaa0sgo~ °i;Xg~+°s - ~~ ~*s~$gEO'SnE~~ Pea s°'- ~~oAn~Z~~ ~"~ ~ "a8q~$ °$~ Q"~~og`as8°s~~ ~ ~n~o~ q<$$$:,~;;`a °~~ ° ~=8~3~oa°~s~~e~e~SE ~aem o -$o~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ gjo~@a"~°..-p~~~~T e-h ~~oS~g~~-e ~_sS $ R ~ ~ g m$ '°°~ ~9 i~me ~ga`"~ ~doE~ R' °w3 ~ o'g 0 90 °a, td 1° ~$o~g4?.3= o ~~~ a }'o ~;~s8 b°~'f c =~u~°'~z°O$dgoo s Z ~~ggg`qq fry °.`gg~~- :°oSetii ~ ~ $ESQ~~o~''a3m~~ ~ sag a Q$g'~mm~uk'eQGePSa~$~o$ 9s'E~-~' qy <.vn^'Y 3 _o$~ egogsSg ~ ~g~~. _ Abu ~ iog ~ ° ~$$~o<<_o$gq~°q.2 ~ og•Pi~o~'~gE° ~ $p9 ^°p-~s °~ e~m •o9~0 a~ ~n~Si~°_ C a g~e`°v8~,<m' S Gov g s ~_• mm SS =5 ~'~' ~cfl 0- ~ E d a S~ a0 _o p.. °-a p~~ ~ ~ g0 o°eooEO 1-`°e° E m n• E ° /~ _ ~~_ . aa!•p-E ° a m - ~_V '¢j~o a 'o -o °c. n_ o~~ 03~~~~ ~pn8~i.-~ $ ~\/V~ 'c~ •' O ~FT 39q= ~~Sgd.~~ ~ g0~ o~g ~gllr E_ ~ ~T~ F 5~~~~eo°~0° &SEn ~oO L'°~~(Z C_n n~IT'`~a ; V/ p y a ~y a E~ ~~-u'S'?p~ $'~$q mm Eyyrd_275 m Y 5]~~nCsE O IO~_Y s' gs C~e y R~~3 ~$~g a U 'QE ~ AmZ°a g3 o ~ ^~~~ Ds SoS Us. R ~;ald g mN- S _ S °S .-~d~paoPg~ o' `~oBa~ m~~ge§ S _I: a Y00 °~~ m o~ 19 Q~ EQO4g ~ o °9 E 1 0 ° p~~W • °s~4~~c 9~R6~5, ~4 q e< y - m'a~-~$ ~. $QO `fAV ;~_S ~:a °a~ ~~ ~ o~Ee ~ ~~ga,g ~g~Q3axaa!a ~o °Q°a~~ZB ~°'-4` 0 a°cq~ tCSo iQ_ V~ a$~~ o_° aQ~~ ~ $ _ ~'^g~T b,oov$<_~ t S$~~m o.~ n v °oy~,-~ S ° 8 • n g -a " _g~a. 8 _-° td° d x~ m~e ~a~d~~ •.' Ifl a ~ ~~ ~~~ q!0 ~R QS'O ~~ q.3~ ~ Id h E d s S~ ~ ~ ~ o4x~~ ~ E p°p d(O{P ~~=L~~¢ 1e~ d Y $3~ ~ a- ~ a° afr Ilo Es_D9 ° ~ n a ~ ~ aA °~i mrij s.. ,'oR ~'m_ E ''oq ;a° '~m'~a $ 9 ~ g^~a>;q ~ s,<, v_; ~ °g ca s~ ~R~~o""N d .~ ~ R' ° ov ~~ °~$~' ~ $ ,g o ° tgq 5 "~ ~ m° Erb s~y~t"'~o $°r 6 a- ~aW -~~ ~ ~ Q 7~ ° ~a9 ~s $ b °o° : as ~m n~s~e <vo~ d ~ g~n ~ d 'F S mg ~ _ o ~ 4'~ a ~o d o 4. ~y p.. ~ ~ a 'a '~~ "~~o ~~ 3_.~6 b id ~ 3 n' gdg S ~+: a "b ~~ ~oi~~"e~~ ° Q 0 s m ~joE d.S 4 N D ~ ~~ I ~ (~ fJ °3~~~ ~ ~ ~ q A F~ ~ ~ ~;~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cam. e ~• e r i I s~ '"'s; sA s~ o~ I I R (n~ W ~ gg 6~ O O a 8~ S~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ 11 V T ~ n G ] 4I p~*N+ ~4I 9 O U Q ~~~ W>t i I b > ~ r ~~ I D 6 6 ~ ~ SyP ~~N ~°a tF lM1 s ~s8 ~~v ° ~~ '- ~y~y~ ~yy~~ ~ ~~ ~ g N a g N ~ - '---- - - - --- --- --- -- -- -- - -- ~ --.... ____ -- ~- -~- - 56C 3 "; - ~a L"-nW- - __Ryp a_ _ ~d~_~dg_ S ~,a_.o _ c c v ~ - - - S Ax ~ ~lR S <.C ~~SQ a~~ 4 3 4. _A\ €a g~' ~ sW g ~ag S ~G ~ ~ v- v ~ $ fi £ -6 fi ~ ~ ~ g ~a~ 3~G ~~, s~ $ ~ sue; o s~Ro <~ B8~e8~ ~s `ss ss s s ~ Q ~ °~~ ~R~ s $s g ~ ~ ~e ~ "a ~~ ~Q ~~ a ~< < e a ~ a ~ ~e ~ g ~ a ~ a a s ~ s~~ ~ 8a ga g ~ ~ a~g S ~o~ ~~ ~ ~' s e ~ ~ <~ g~ ~ ~ Z ~v ~ °~A €_a e ,j }s s .a 9' ~Re a w o r m a S c q 8< 7 _g ~ ~ m s & m 8' ° ° 6 ~ W E i ~ D 3c~ S ~ W <P ~~~ ~ s e a a a~ o o - ° ! s F bE u i A ~ T V~ ~ E O i A W u- v W m i ° ~ nBb~W ~ ~ ,0~4 ~' _ ~~gg~~WNGcBa ~ Z ~^ $ ~~n'°'"$ QN ~v ~d26" ~~~~;~G sA°~ ° s~,c~~a~ IV'o g°0° a~ °< O ~g Ooo7 ~g0s ° S 0 ~~ 555 ~ ~ ~~ R ~u ~ ~ =a ~ a ~ cD Y d~ ~0. -v m ~$~~ 7~ QV -+ 56~~ a ~0 ~ ^°~ao ~~ ~. _ o ~~o ~g ~ ~ ~" ~~~ 9'mN 3 ~~~v~ sa ^' ''pp E 9 "° p Q iL 3 - ~` 30 s a°~ 3~ c S~ ~ C~°g~ II° c ~ F ° ~ Z ~D ;ate ,~ ~ w ~ CD psi S o ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ o_ C ~ ~ a ~ o ~~ n O~ ~ r F ~ _ a, ~ _ . La® ~°a ' s ~~ N a a i N ° a o O o '' n °~, P'i ~ ~ ~i ~ ~ ~ i ° ~ m m ~ I ~'~ ~ u A rJ A v, N i ~ ° O O 9 ~~~ ~ ~ Beg° D A u .8-t U B ,° N g ~. ~' ~ ~ to 0 G- . - o I ' . r, n I, 1 mo . ,~I ~8a e A g9a ° A o N ~ N ~I~ I ) ° - ' d ° ~ 'Il ; ° 'i. ~ ~~~ .aN I l~ _ _ J II H I t N a= 4 A C7 ~ ~a a N ~ 1 qg ~ I ~~ O I I I • • g>r R,- _3g ~ >' $st -'cR r ° t - A i as'='9 $ 8 RsBt ~a g e st ~'$ t~ _ n g tm N : r-y 8~0 >r R'. u R^ssm sBa>r 9.m ~c .8_B?i ~ 3`- a: ~ - K' ~ c n''3 ~ ~ _S~ue^: R _8;9 „ ''~ ec o~i °S 3e 8;'R_- 8 8€ '~ °c 3 _ s 5 ~ 5 i _3$ ~ - n s.S^.y a -'3 °8 n ~ ~ a a `.. ° ?S;, _ ° : _ 3i a a~ a 8 $ S w n _ 5"_. ' -z f - 3 so = o °•'°so C°z a =3R g - c e SN phi m 3 , 4^ :8 ,~es~= ° ~ R F e: 3`3° -vil R R n ~ @ - m S'" °o os' ~n :8~ ~ q~°' 7 '. uri °'3> ~30.Sv °a iQ 8: ~ . ov 5~ g8 ~ e9 sa -¢°~ m sv: $ao .x °3e S - s_ ~ o3e ~i=- ~ tz° '3 n,s ~_YF e~ ~ ~ g f S s > ' s~ °Q as4ee -Y ° ~ ~ 8'e;9 :off - R ~~°_m ~-_30 °a° o•a~ ~.°8°0 ;° ~=S°¢ 5 °~ a= ~ -': a=S e:s° s <R =€:s ssg s^=°~ 3a=__ °am e~~ `e^ _ "~ ~3R- c~° sag Y€ ~° $s ae~~° &€ - '_~R~a~~_Y3~ =ate:.g i~:~4 ~$S $ ~ °_~ s F~ --y 5°a - _ _ w $ c a R 3 R° G e ~ $ 9 5 L a S ''- a n y 3 5~ 5 x L 8 8 e~ '° R u a ° Z 3 w o 8° ° °'= P-° 0 3 - °T o° c'3s3 ~ e t °R ~ =3c'~'8 P = aR z:=__ ~- - sees ~s~ o = e s ° 3 ~~ - S - ~ R ° ~ o v " S 8 ~ ~ _ " ® 5 ~ s ° 3~ € " _ ~ ~ o'_ F ~ r ' S e £ o e ~ n q ° a s S ~~ _ ° ° # ° m ~ g ~ - °a . ~ < Q ~ 'y"` _ _ c e 3 8 - 3 m° 0 5 $ E - - b ° - R ; ~ ° 4 e ' S ° o' ~a -a _ ~~~ `"-°' °•3~ .:aaQQ$ s:e - a s ° q yR R 8 R _ L:, _e 8= ;°°s u8 ~~8°° 8 °8 P's°3a3$ s< °Q S$~~ ~$ rR £ t°"e 's3 3~; $ ~ _~=~ ~ _~ s s; 3£so ?. a° - a;L ~; :" __. 3. a °_ ° -~ °~° o' ~ °R° ° ~ XS° =a gS r& 4 8 wS oa °:-s a 8 ~ g s ' . ; _ - ` < ° 0 3 - A ? §- o $ = s:' a ° s 8 = ~ = § R s : $ .~ ~ ° ' ~ s` ° < g 9 S~ 8' ~ g°, ~.c °o ~ 88 ,8§$c a9°9 $~8 _ !'3 ''` e _ ~e' g 9 i g °$' o S,s °' e x 8 =~3 _$ '8"0 ~~g ~ 3 e `s_ ac'g'n og L $ ~ '3 s~ ~'- 3, g o ~ s § _ a R`gzg ° 3 ~' : ~ P sse ~.o s 3 A ~'~ a °; - 5 $ °s' 'o 3~ - e o~ Sg8y,~= s~ _ ..~5- 'e=8 .R°__ -~ S 3 PQ a~,$~ 3' 8 ° ' a, s" e ~ v '°i ° s : ~ _ 3 ° 5 5 5 ~ a_ 9 S s _ ° e ' o s5i °= L3 n°,mir~ # 5' ~° E >4 6'Bt _ °a e C ° 6 - re~° os~=~~n nm$ n >w ~B -° nn o PiE ">N t V ° - -- _.a_,°-v. ~ q i. ,e ~R La 9 R = ~° P _ _ _..sF3 -, _ S ~i °~~ 3 3 ° _ _ R -3a caY ~ 3 c~ 4 ,.~lR e't~ _ p StN P ai"a :~~ ° t; . _ - _ n ~ - m $ S _ ~ 8 a ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ e c' ? ~ 8 S ~ ~' s 3 ~ _ ~ ~ ~ 3 ° , o dc_ s.a _. s ~ ° 3 4"~° ; o c ° ° S 8 N ° ~ ~ Y~ s o _ __ e p o q R 3 : - °-~°'m ° _ ~ a~ ^ o_ o °i ~ - a ° R a : R y = °S € ~ - R ,~°-.: 3 8 3 a° R ~ S ~ 3 • ' S > ° P ~ r i 5_ ~ z.-~ S R a c `cd s' ~.35 ° E ~ 3 ~ 3 g ~ - g`eg: ~R ~~8 ~ $3,R.~os~bF 8'E~ 8g 9'8ega-s3~°'¢gB83s'a'~.e~R~ °°r~_aS°°: g'°<,g~~3~ ^S's'~' ~^ 8tc 74~c'~ H~~885.083~s^: 3 s~'~ 8~e_a$a _ sg3:gR 88 ~ 'FPS o ; yds. o ~'~ s9 ~sgo338'~8' ~~~°€ 0 4ae ~~~ ~~r=°$ 8 Si~' € ^ax~ _a .,,~ °_a8 ~ga 8 a>'° N'~°.~. ~ ° ° ° 8 -'8 ° u F ° 3 g e i 3 0 ° s 8 a ~ g ° _ - 5 - 6 ~ ~ ~~ " - " $ 3 ' ' 8 ' ° ' = ° - 8 3 ~ g g ; H g R 8 R _ : s ~ ° a a s~' e _ p S"= __ _< v Qqb° a 3 R R~~ $° 0 3 P 3~ $ g g R i S: 3 n -°; ~ ~` °~ 8 a S~_~ Y g s s 4 s a 3£;° o Q~ m a e~ 3' ° a ~~~ °~ c F n S E ~'^. ~ n g S r ~ '°m. 2 c e 3~~" 3 3 3$ 5 g' ' ~.$ 3 0 ~. 3 S r o~ 0 9 y •' ° S ~' ° ~ °o° : 3 0 's_.E ~ g° i" ~ m° 5~°- _ °- _ ^ a8 ' s~ R ~ ~.m o~ N R ~_ a x 5 s, o c u S °~ 8 S ° 3 S - x °"~ e. = e 5s;~;_e~ _~Re£ egogo as~•~°3<,~mg°~~ Rg° -: _ =: °~a'^sgo~~a~ a°a?';°~ ~^_"°s~ _,~$ ~~ ;P= aa~> - 3:- ~~oR, oa' - ~s2°tl•s° -' ~ ~ ~ 3 s -,€ Go3,• ~S g sa g~ 3 R Rf ~,e - 3t9 °.'88° vgY• m a•', e° ° 8 '3Sai°, s a9>o"`r a °.y,gSR~~ ~ v a °S ~og3 s"°_~~oa e3 0 "8>°°C °g 5° x - s P 8 3~ e 3 a~ ° g° ~' S 8 0 8 e i o 8 o a;^~°. ~ 0 9 g^g o Y : 4 a T= 5 a~. ,. °s e 5 o g a ~ g-$ 3 g „s ~' r S 8~° 4= z~ ° a x ~~ g s R ~ e p Q g 3 ~, ~ y~ _ '_ e' *~ L ~° L 5 e e 5 E 8 -• e 3° 8 3 R° n° - i m e' S- r < a = 8' , P R a 3 ° Sa: R°e 6 ~8 ~.- R R eRS o3.8a_eR °- Q" ^Se _,-8< ~ •°° 3r a_.°°~o os ~ 3R S~ a$. S's ,8 u.° S3 _ R 3: ~'`8 ~ `° S R 3 o f:~@c 34'~ ' 93 °' a °^=3 os gei~~° 3on5_vE ~<- R °c_ -'e R:°r 20-Q 5~ a a°$ -g3; - •a °e _ Qa$ Vie; ~a°0~' xgg; ° £ ~- -gst~.~_Q..3 o sNPw ^~ $ := _¢_~_ 6~g- °g ~Sg o'§°8e°g: s a„s °g-e~~e $ES'a°°i 9 SSa. 3-.. o.r~ 3- _55 ~o° c€ -9 _'~ ~~~Pam3` 5°'-_~ ° ¢ 3 , ° v s 5. > ,°, ' 6 0 ^_ ^ 3 , ° 3 0 _ i 5 a °_ °° _ v : a R 4 ° R ~ ~ ~_ ° _ 5 0 " 3' S _ s R . 'e. g 8 ~ S ~ ~~ ° g " - g $ a' ' g° o e 4 ~ m _s - " - ~ _ ° R ° 4 ° 8 : a g ~ •6~ ' _ x 8 a ° a g° ,>e ' ' ° ° ~ o 0 d 5' e a. ~! g _. 3 q S s' 4_ ~ a 6a S. r- 8_ ' P 3 t c~` a a n~ 4 3_ m_ E o c^ ° R' _f~ °~ c g '~ ~ c S$ m Rsa-$.- 8 _e3ge° t m~' £°s° ° 3,_ ° °- _ ea°'$a°' _°05 8g _8 gar ~e~S> eh8`'a5 - , -ter o. o~ s o _ ~ =gB ,a o5~ _ mS ~ a ~eS -a ra o ° °s_Q- sg `': °= o - r xg =$ _ _ R'~. ° r'.s. _= a 5' ° 8~"u a §aga ve °^° °rRLou ; S,iY r ° _ ° °' ° _ ° ° m - - 'GPs ~s° 5' ° „des, °@ se ~3 s5~~a .~R~°= Y~_°;,~°Q ,v ao ~~ R~ €$ ~ a:.a~ ~o~~ ;so. 8 s_'3Y _ e" °a S°s - _ ° or ;S - °a !.R `q y $°~g$ =: '" _ = ~ ' s v w a . a g~ R. i S ,t :, X ! 3 Y S N _ R $ 8 - P 5 ° ' L ' ' o « « w $ ° « ' - ° o _ 3Sg c=S.R: ~~_ _s~e ~•°.,z>v~-= eQo a HQa 3a=i ~± °a ~ °'- R g > t°. ~`-oR >a~3 9> go°° ~$ _ ° i°i.>6c>u ~;^ ---~ °o"'o -o ~' ~X5 >~. g ° - _ °- ~" ~ ~ ~ _ 3 S _ 3 8 a ~ ~' n ° c e F e 8 ° ° _ -_ g 7 , ~_ E g 4 s _ ° g 3 • ~ _ e ° S $ , a & m' $ _ ' ~ g ° 8 8 ° ~ v a ° - u e a ° ~ a ° 0 ° a °s;sRS~_°s: _3`3E°g°-3°i~ qt ~5 °~ 83~ g_ ^F a ~ ~ g.3a _g'a'° 's o ~gs!~ 3 ~ s ~°e.s°s'geR_o 5Fr'-N 'E - ° -~ x,s,~ ~ma ~ ~ 54- ,~ mss °~~ z -e Pa- 8s$ °g° rR..°s=5 S e3°e SaR °g:e - °a~'3 a o~'~d~R'%';$:~ °Sg- °p°s_ _ e' _> °~ ~ 0 5e - a ~ .a_ "vE R~.96;a s'<xb° g '~ ~q.8x x~~85_ ~7~ S. ^~'gs,s°' L' e~g$~°° A- ~- s m ~ ~3 $: o <~~°z g m s -- = 6a~ =B,R;Ee_ ' _ eL' ~ ~~sSa~°3oo8. c88°,~ a °eSe4~~sr:°~-~fi~ $Sog F g °'~$e$a Sod °>3~~_:°ast sa'e~4 °gP~~s~ 'ws°a' - neo9. ..£s4 -_ :R v° :35 Rya*. "s s_ -' £Ls3• °se"' ~ •i~as - Rs ° -- 5 g a a° ~ S 8 ~ 8~<- ~ S :~_ . -_ 8 ~ s '~ ~ R -~ a^ r o a r R g ° 8 s o °, 8g$ a ~ 2 5gg s o$ Y~ Y o ~' ~. c' g~ R a.a~cm3S03~Q^e•~$_~QgBo' ~ °i=§'e$ °~ ayL~~ sa,F~ os ~ PaS°g8-aYs~ e85~g3E~e$'sFs~ 3o~ai€oe°"Leas$ `_s7° .?! ~°-a.~ a S'a °°_8_iOS% °'€ c r gB° o.P -° ° «$ °8 3Y ~ L , s°.a ~ =9 S.aR° _ s?; 9<_ ° ~ _SP ~ •' °:5E "' $ 8 3 ~' g r s & - ~ ~ g M .°-°- 8 °.- ° 5 i ~ S 8 8 ° .°'• a % $ c @ ~ ~ 8 3 ' a ' _ 5 9 °~ 8 0 R 3 q ° ~ m 5 0 ~ _ ; ~ 5 P ~ : ° : > a ° - '~ $ L s '»S -e~SLeQ3.o ~~ 4°83 E Se3.ag. -°"e ~' ,; cR _e~ 3 ~ e.. -'$° 4,',? - _o -~e 5og ggII= 0'3_~ es=_- ge^gL€s= $S~a:~B ssyR"aq:x,~ £ "s was R$g~x33y ao: <`"se$a° `e?°e'R'a~ ;~~ s; _~< 3' £;.8:5 3.:'''Ss°°~ a3;3o°s °s3°~'s=;~; -'£ o ~ ~~_ is~g s~'~es~°~~~~ a=,a':ai`a se$~° g't £~~'F", °_ R g'.$": ~ •~~ ~ o3es°e°°$ ° s 9'° s4'R ~°;' aa~'aa"aP°% °;<_; ~•~ss°_ L "q°u. =R°•.s,?~3=Y a gSg -sH~ $~~x~ ;~~~'° eso ~o~ -fig $Qa_'~3~ nmesg oqa~..- -SF3,~ssxg"g'P$s ^o a°' ~ °8e53om 3 F ueao u= $^o °•@S3o.n 8R° e$ ~3~~3°.~9 sce-~3 9~~•:e ~Eer^~~e °o sw:° < sg~aS__o3q ~ <:i ,a:S°s o3,9°,a3Q=,~8 __ °BY ~~ ~ .g es9~s3p8 e..8 asga~U~e8yH'e_"R p 8 0~ o o E L~ .° '^ -`~ c g 8 S° Y: rz o 3 a 9- ~ o m o 2' ¢ S S o° 3 0 ° 3 S S a u°¢ V L 8 a v 4 P •° 8n 8 3 p C ~- o aa ~, •5n ~ ~ Ro ,3 ~=c. ~3 3 ~- ~ F 3'^R a g S ° R ~3 o P~ g:..~e SR ° m R 8, 9:8 R°-s A t R a8 ?g tSg ~ 8 ~g R o =s8 '° ~ ns Q^~ 4 a; a..g~e_£R i',g~ae S_.°'_sQ ° e~! g e•~: we g; n c 9 g Q e ~ ~ S s ER = ~ S.o g g 4 `'S° 8 @',• ° ~ L ° - _ 9 =5 e'' tt'~•" ~.k L'e '' 3 g a' e 3 u. a °a ° °F sp 88sg ~e ~P~ ae3 ?. P„s~a$$ ~xa FPBe - eeg ~o ~2 Seas S"~~$~83eger- gg~~°gS&8$g;~R'y-°,o50 S o'° 8¢~ 3 ~ S _ g„s 3 -o~:s8 dc- P L~~ r#' ~ Rs. .a _s S°. ~ 83'° _S ~'~ a9 ~$ °3 p8 ag $3.05: ~°+'g$$t'-~ pQ 3° G S 3 m~ __ L 3 S a R _ Q - 6 R ° s . gq_ .a"Sgm~gt`= °r-0 otg o~tN m t~ rEo3> t» tN ot~ n^gP•BPYoPo PNWnro~tu cnt,N, t~ So°ta SoStU aa 't: S@ s;.: 1" 3 ~ ~•3 ~. ' ~u~°0 - s ~ ~..:' 3 "~' u° ~ 6 Sa a .X' c'"•"5 - z ~ §'o q'3 s o S ~e.ee .a es£ gessa~` ~ ~~ -~ =A -sa»~~ : as"s ?~~ ~- - °: ~aa"8;,.~c 3~°3¢ ess; ~~ __ ~~ e~ R~ =. $:€ _~€° ~_ - L~;A .'se~~ °_~ "sue ___•3°~ ~~ ~~ a8~ _s3:~sg~~~3 x`'3^mb3$ "5:~ 3Q "'°s ~n35g gaRe`$Ot~ °~app :~ sue'-;~~ Q :.sue 08-; Q a~-sF ~.~ ~. R g~°~_s xy~ ~~"_ r~ R~° ~ ga`.~~=~ 34oEs e6's°sg5~ m-~ S~ e_$ a ~, ~~ R° o ? 3 0 3 8 _ '__~ ~ ^' 8 8 A ~ .°. °' R g y~ p 4 ° ~ e~ °, 3 0~ Q~ i EX, °~ 3 m `~ :~ $ 6 9$ E g 3 g 8 ~ ". ' ~~ o. g x a g e F ~, S o m f.~~ ~ a's~8 8 S~ 3 aRF i o ~ng ~r° R c ~g '~ SF A N~9 a`s-' $.~ Yt~ a ~ -..e3.a'_ S.~YR 's ;,3° ..-~g80''_~'~§~.¢~ 9~~ gg~ ;4 03~;~ € v ~a~ FRB-y 4 g0,b ~~" ° S o=~ 3' ,.~5e=°' %y -- ~~ao.-Q `a R's.°"=~o°Sa='y rRo '~2 ~~ F 3e.18~p g a'4°c" a'°g~: °s ago ~Za $ a4 ~~E °y,.s.a~° 3>fl Oo:og84 $_ L~ a 8 0^-~ E >= 8 g o 8 3 °$ o R ,•- s a v, P °$ g 3° °~ o ~ 8' N o 8 °s 3 V$ ~ 3$~ g R a a ° e- °° g$_° asQ _ a'3 'g~ a _g • °=g °3 , a r= g Sg a°~, ~ S~ S <9 0 ~° apS °a 8 e.s8~-~ e: i Yoe R 3 ° R e e _ ; - °-. '' e° < R ° ;_ e a S' + - R. .. ~ ~ @ °~ _ ~ ° a : o , e S L S a ° °_ a g' b° 3 8 o a° b`a' `$ 3~ a =e e3 ze 3 _ !" '~ s.~ 8o°a' L E e = 8 s$~o ° ~ ?c a°'L i ~5~'3s ?;~ . 3 R. 84 L '-O-°4 S°a_e a i~A ~ g' o os':o ~~e ~os-o ;~:3L~a8 as3''4 ~ ~3 a; R °$a; ~ - $ 8~ S eg. VaV 8;53 9a,°Seoe 'eo3 Ste a og 88 ' ~a$~ ` g~, s ^_ g ~ : e ~' ag'$ es-'~ sRt o ~oo ec g _ 8~'-s~.~ e~ ~$„ ~ ag ° € ~.: 3~~%~ $g.$ ~q;3:8a - sus s ~_~ ti.£ _ s° ~- aA ° i~R ~588v °. y3. _ s29^S ~',°-.a 3'~ g 3 ~° a. s~ $ 583 _ss R°s e e p8 a ° -o g$°° c 9r a "__.R S ee °33 ,3 _ o_- °$s - eye a' F$ RP °-Lg.B s8 m,~ s a $ cy 5s _ 43 3ea8., e ~ S n e e $ z S$ _ E S '"a ~ 8g 5'L _ s - ~ aw - 4 n s S~ _ ~~.£ ° e' y~ a °~ s. 3s '"3 °~ _v a~ ;e ~.$ -R•$o a .. ; _g-' xis °-~a - - - e ~ ~ ,o ~ s~gstm ~gsgagEt'" s a s" ° -ea~o°°s ~~P Sqa" 3 33s' sa-mtY / 3 i S R >- ~ R $ 9 ° S a « ° ' ° 8 ~ ` ~ o ~ ~ s $ ~ 8 g. a a ' ° ~ : » R 3 ~ ' gd 3 ~~ ' ° Y R ^ _c. _ $ E ° ' 7 e_ g g A " n $ A ~ ~ ' ~ = ~ ~ ~ R 9 n 8 o g o e ~ a y _ 5 8 s ' 3 '" E q 8 ,+= v~ 3 : a °~ R e@ o ° ~ s a 3 0$~ r' S o c ° ~ R e = °~ ° a 9 ~ S V+ n E ~ 3 s g 8 ~ o a ,: e Q 3 ~ ~~ Q a Q o q~ s a R g s' ~ . m - S o g g 3 a v ° v e ~ . sae °~Bg ;*`°§ ,Ss 5a.0 ~=9 4o SogS~_B~' ' iii/ ° ~ 8 ' S $ _s c $ e 5 ° <"- 9 8 e ~ n ~ a ~ ~ $ $ ~ 3. 8°,fg 5°~5~ : s ° -Q° 3aSeg eg °c ° 3R°- s - 8 # a~ L a § a s 5 g e 5 < X~ X ~ R YY q oa ~-305 Sr~s8 , °g E g~a "o, , ° g o o ~8° Re ! - °r° 8,s, , ° - fn ~5:~ s°"o~ ~ e.e aca Lg 8.35 a~ 3r ~°:4 ~ ° s 8 g8 R a- °e S ' £ F ~^' s (/~~) a m ~ ° ~ ' ° ° R - ` I i ° So s a ~ ~ t ~ Q e ~ / ~ Y/ R ° ~ ~ R a ° 8 ° ~ R '. g b'_eg4n; . e ~ ~ F P v n ~ _ S ° 55n ~ Qg~yog~~ 3 ~ ^ 5 ° n e S,°'o e o R Lo~~g" o ^ S " ° 9 s~Lo;~ 'S'^ag p? s~ ~ ~ $ ° $°~~ `- g 8_ t U s° 8 R n:' ~ 3 m R t u -°84gEc ~B~~SA°5co~~~ g§ _~ S O P~ P i '~ S n D 4. R ge°5 eRa ~e R S iL _,o?yB9 0' co xRo~s=-3 rC 4e t c, y.e~- °° ~~ _'°^" °s '~ ~oc~3°-4So~ R s 8 o e~ '. 8 3 x t i Q a r E r . 8~; o g g 3 g g g o` a ° 5 3 .° 8 e e e e e E -a u o ~ a'o o g° i~ S' s8asa i-.~~~ o3s'~$e ~~9 _ 8S4„a a S'°° n g g% S L m S 8 e 9 R 8~ 9; R c~ S' S° t e S 8 g°-' 8° a°°~ .°'. o° p R 4 E 8 L ~ 8 5 3 ~ ° - ~ R e e F ~ °~ ^ ~ ~ '^ ~ gRP v'8~e s:$s-- goa ~g^~:n °"__ °"'4oR3 ~'~ -'Raffia°s° $2°<v~o ~ gn ° °, 930~o s°8$3o$°~'3_°5g~$ a~: 8 R 'w b° ° i o 3 w~ ~ A r euRa- a- vie; e~ a 3 i Q3Loe d -oReF~:g°8_a ' a c g° g' 8 8 o e ~ ° 3 < $ a S ~a' ~ ~ ° S8L 8:gqq<ga =~ =RS 5 ~ ' n 'm i _ _ F l - Y iO ° i ~ ~ • N N o° 3 ~ o 5'~R ~~~~ ~~a °oa ~ g= ~ k N _~~I ~ ~ a r r^~ [~V\/] I ~. a c c:+ '~ o~ ~ 3 _ '• ~• c ~ n '° o, R '~ a s' g ~ A ~ o ~ k=~. \1 ~~~~ O o 3 3 : E~c 9 ~ Q ~ P ~ S A$ a o€ W 'a 4 ~ m ~ ;sa ~I X d fD n o Illk m ~ I~ ~~ 4~~ m ,IIII-I_I o IIII-1111= ~ Il~f I I III ~~~ro m a3 ti a> ~~~ >s N' v $. R ~ m s CO76 E 2 ~ ~i ' ^ Q s~ Q~ +~~ o ~$ ~ > ~ $ e G $ o s. 5~ N a ~V ppm_ • E 1111= IIII 111 ~ ~. B _ 3 s ~ it m @ m 5. 9' 5' d III q=~ °°° 'D • o R~~ _ g~ -~ ~ ~ ~ o T w so s• E _ o ~' R s ° ~ a C v . . _.R n'%s ~ _. Q y ~~~ N _ $~'O r g ~ ~ and' ~ ~ 03 ^ c C d ro E ~ ~ - - c ~ ^ N N h a _. ~~ v = =3-0 ~ ~ ~gw ~ ~ ~ =~tige s 1111_1111-1111- : l1 3w"~~"as"~s4g o g ~ 7j '~ ~ ER ° DSO S- O ` ,. 4 . ~ -. T 3~ °o IIII• 7og ~ _ G.~o~~Qe a~ se8'wr ' e~ g~3 .IIII - ~ osc ~ wF s°P o ~ °-~ E vz g ~ b ~ ' ~ v S_g°-~- oQ 5 `- S9 og 4 ° ooYa ~ e o 3 e a ntl 8 g 2~'~ 4 ~N 3 =8 _g~ x ~ ~ N- ; ~'¢_ c. _ ~ ____ o 'OS Q~n e' n www~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~4 ca ~~ .g ao a' 'Q g= ~ - s ~9~° ~ ~ - t 1 w • e s R m R~g ~ og -~' ~ / . O o. a ~ m5. - ~~ 3 R ~ 8 4 .°~~ o s ~n R B z ~- $ Rg=: e ~ tea. \ m ~ I m 's ~' 0 ~ a 7 ': (I III II III~III 1111 1 1 II = I 1 111 .<<,:~ ''«<_::t:«' 1111 =~..:~:~.'•: ~' 11 11 <:a `'';<<<:;<:>>>?>< 1111=1 11 1 =I III III~II n via ., cog ~ s~~y ~T s o ~ ~ S.cn~.n o - 6° _ . 4x65 ~ ~ Fa 5 Z q .~ a~ ~ e B. X ~ a o ~ s _# o~ ~ ° - .. ° ~ g a ~ A ~~ ~ oW q~ ~ III ~ € IIII=111 °' ~ a Q° ~ II a F ~ ~~3~ Ms - ~Qafi v ~ ~3~ ~~ - IIII _ "-sc , ~ ~g, ~ m Y Il l '. • a i i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c _ O ~ l _ 3 ~ Q 1# : ~ 8 - cai°~ ! py ! ~~ ~ ~ k~ ~.g~ > =11 ~ ~w ~~ e ~,~~ a B a ~ wg II I g ~ ~ a$ ~ $ n' o a' c s , v o 5. 6 o ert 3 4. $ ~ ~ ~-8 ° i+.~ b' ~ 3' °x v ?3 ~n 4 ~ 4e ~ s~ 3- .5 ~.°~ ~ X ° q~ _$~ 171 S - Rx _ R o a $ ~ swpe~.Q~o__o~~~m~.~o ;o, _ ----1111=IIII - -_ - - - - - -- - a ~~~~3•u9N~~esa~RB~~^s ~I IIIIIIIIillllll M gQS 8 gQOCB~.o -e 3.w~_ - ~gc s g3~~3 og gaFt°:9 N' o __q~^ga o==IIII "no~~ "~e _ &cgo~ n~„3 £wa"~o~g .=11 s ~as gws "-o =^~ ~ 111111=~~ 1111 I . s. so ~$SO'n _4=-. $o O'^'~5~ ~ %33 ~ ; w ° R ~ ~~R~~g iO^~ e E~ ~el g± ~ ==a us ~ Y ° n o a~3 o^ 9 g - = ~ p ' 8e o~ _~g zo fio E ~' g _.P= 5~ s s'3 0 ~ n g sgo"~~ g a w P ~ ° ?. ~ e m'°R 8 ~' _ ~_ ~83a 3 w ~ ]~ n mr-7 ~ U E n 3 0 ., ~a°P ~- - _s mg~ 7'0 0 ~ ~ Q ws ~~ 3 ~ - ~.. a S.o ' ~Se ! oc^ °9 vain Q F2w ~ w o ,w e g ~ R _A ~O ° ~ ,~ O o • ~~E ~~~ ~sP~ C. aQ}' {[ t ~p 6 0. ~--1- N 0 °m ~I _ `~ ~ ~ e p ron [~J C O N~i • Yo~ e ~ F ~ r. ~ a y ~a ++ t~1 ' a o e~ ~ ~ a ~ ,~I I~ - - - ---'-AI+iYf. fii`Q..1~ ~_ ~ - - ~~~~ ~~ . _ - ~ ~. ~ g.~~ 4 0 1 ~ ~ L~ . -~~ ~~- ~ ~ ~~ i . ~I-... ~~ ~tl ~ Dp .. p . 9 . 2 9 ~, ~: ~ ~~ ~ . ~ a ~ ~ ~ N ~ VJ ~g ° QQ Si ~~~ ~ 05~~ « C U ~' ~ b ~e ~~~ ~ ~ ~~.~~~ ~~ 9 ~~ ~~ ~. ~ ~~~~~s ~~~ ~.~~ ~FQ ~6~ €~ g ~~ ~~~~~ ~~~ ~.~~ ~~~ ~ ~5 S 6~ ~~ ,~ p~s ~~ aS ~~ ~~ ~'~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ .~~ 56 • ~~ 011 ~' ~eC~ ~~~~ ~roMC~ ~O~L~ ~~s~ H "4 :~ ~~ 00 a n ~~ 00 e~ e'o y Y ~~ ~~ ~~ ~. s~~ ~~a ~~~~ ~~~ ~•~~e ~~~~ ~ =~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ }~~ 0 .~~ ~~ x ~ ~~ 5~ ~~. ~. ~~~ ~~ N ~~ g~ ~~' ~.~~ a ~~~g~S $ ~~~~~ g~ o~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~ .g~~~ ~ 8i~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ 6 ~•R ~~~ ~S ~ g~ ~ is ~ •~ 93~~,~~ ~ .. ~ u r ~ ~~~~g ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~6.~0 ~ ~'~ ` ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ 6 ~ ~. ~.~ _ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ s~~~ ~ ~ ~ Item 3 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 04-347/19327 Monte Vista Drive Type of Application: Design Review Applicant/Owner: Chandra and Rekha Joshi, owners Staff Planner: Lata Vasudevan, AICP, Associate Planner Date: March 9, 2005 /~ APN: 397-10-025 Department Head: ~}~- ~~ .........-...- t~EB~EOAZ! I .C,...._........._..._._ I \\ ~.\ .I "TN II 1~. ,%/ .`; LE AV ~' /i,. \ ~ i~ , ~ i ~ i . i ~ , i/ ~ .,~ I _..... YALE AV riJ .. 1~:~` /~~ ~ \ I ._.....-:_ / . / ~ I .___.-_ DEL CAMII~O SENDA -- 1 ~, - I .~ f / _ CAMINQ~jlitANDE ~ ~ ~ i% / EL -~\. ~" ~i-- ~ EL CAMNpO GRANDE-::: \ ;NU CO ASR` - ~~ \„_ ~ ~ MIND '~+RA GA{ GA\ ..~ E - - ~ _\ `_ EL CA NGE \~~~r ... f ``MON7E'1115~A.1M..,:...._ / ``~ __-YALLE V~fiTA.pfj~ }/~~ ~ OR, ~ ~ J ~ ~ / //// I ~~` ~:~ E \ \` / / f` - '~ IVALL~YISyA.PR \~ I ! ~ \ , ~ i.1 . I V __._ \ ~ _~ J~ _ ~\ r h 1 VA VI~1`A;`DR - ` ~ ~ r~ - %. VALL~' N$TA Dii : ~1 ~ ~ 1~ f ~ YIA ~,OR __ _.-. - _ ... .-.. i I ' -_.-._. - 5 _ MQNTE V16TA~DR~ . ~-`+ f ~~ \ f i/ \ w ~~ ~/ RUE DE ELEK UN~I~~ ~. Y1A CO INA CR i 1 - -_ -' .~ i i ~ ~ ~~. - i._._.._.__. ;'SARATOGA{a5.\OS fifl. -~ i ~~• • ,, - 't-....__., ..'~ ~~~ ~ \~: -) ,,`-,_, 0 150 300 450 600 ft...._._-._........ •- 19327 Monte Vista ` ~ \~~ ~~~ ~ i~ 1. : __ _ ., ~ ~~ ;<.\ ~-~ EL CAMIrlO RANDE \ I lots w ithin 500 feet ~ ;i i : ' ~~~ G ___._...._. I ~ :' _....._ SARATOGA{~GATOS`RD I`: it .. ~\ ~, ~ "~~ l ~ .: 19327 Monte Vista Drive ~®OO~r~, Application No. 04-347; 19327 Monte Vista Drive CASE HISTORY: Application filed: 10/27/04 Application complete: 02/04/05 Notice published: 02/23/05 Mailing completed: 02/18/05 Posting completed: 02/18/05 ZONING: R-1-40,000 (Single-Family Residential) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD (Residential -Very Low Density) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 43,645 sq. ft. (gross and net) AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 2.6% GRADING REQUIRED: Minimal grading is proposed; 1 foot of cut and fill proposed with total cut and fill being less than 40 cubic yards. The City Code does not count basements as grading. Therefore, the basement excavation is not factored into the proposed cut and fill amounts indicated above. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of 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 to three single-family residences. • ~~~~®~ Application No. 04-347; 19327 Monte Vista Drive • • PROJECT DATA: Lot Coverage: Main Building Carport, Porches ~ Lightwells: Driveway and other hardscape: TOTAL: (Impervious Coverage) Floor Area: (Existing Home - to be demolished) Main Floor: Garage: (Carport):1 (Basement): TOTAL: Setbacks:. Front: (from carport) Rear: (from lightwell) Side: (west/right) Side: (east/left) Height: Residence: Proposed Municipal Code Requirements Maximum Allowable: 34% 35% 6,054 sq. ft. 1,213 sq. ft. 7,572 sq. ft. 14,839 sq. ft. 15,276 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable: (2,532 sq. ft.) 5,249 sq. ft. 8os sq. ft. (320 sq. ft.) (2,329 sq. ft.) 6,054 sq. ft. 6,080 sq. ft. Minimum Requirement: 40 ft. -0 in. 30 ft. - 0 in. 75 ft. - 0 in. 50 ft. - 0 in. 20 ft. - 0 in. 20 ft. - 0 in. 20 ft. - 0 in. 20 ft. - 0 in. Maximum Allowable: 24 ft. - 6 in. 26 ft. - 0 in. ' Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15-06.280, the proposed carport does not count towards the floor area calculation because it is enclosed on only two sides. Application No. 04-347; 19327 Monte Vista Drive PROJECT DISCUSSION: The applicants request Design Review approval to demolish the existing home and construct a new single story 6,054 square foot home with a 2,329 square foot basement. The home will be in Mediterranean style with two-piece clay file roofing, beige stucco with brown trim and travertine-finish accents for the columns and lower part of the facade. The house has a front courtyard defined by a low wall and entrance gate, and its three-car garage is cleverly situated facing the side facade. The maximum height of the home will be 24.5 feet at the entry area. Pursuant to MCS 15-45.030, any space with an interior height of 15 feet or greater is counted as twice the floor area. The applicant has added a glass ceiling at the entry area indicated on cross section A of Sheet 6 to avoid the `double-counting' of this space. As seen on the elevations, the proposed home has rooflines of varying heights and only a small portion of the elevation extends to its maximum height. The basement has a fountain area with cooking facilities adjacent to the game room. This would be a second kitchen in -the home, and has been proposed for convenience. The applicant has not applied for a second unit permit and does not intend to use the basement in that manner. Moreover, the zoning regulations in the Municipal Code neither prohibit second kitchens nor require property owners to comply with second dwelling unit regulations when multiple kitchens are proposed. The detached carport is an accessory structure that is proposed at 16 feet in height. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15-12.100, no accessory structure shall exceed 15 feet in height; provided, however, the Planning Commission may approve of an accessory structure extending up to 20 feet in height if the Commission finds and determines that the additional height is necessary for compatibility with the main structure, and is compatible with the neighborhood. Staff finds that the proposed carport would be compatible with the scale of the home and would not detract from the character of the neighborhood. The site is located in a subdivision called Montecito Heights established in 1946. Most of the original homes in the subdivision were built in the early 1950's and are ranch style. However, this neighborhood .appears to be gradually changing as several original homes in .this subdivision have been replaced with mostly Mediterranean style homes, similar to what is proposed in this application. Overall, Staff finds that the proposed home is well articulated and would blend with the character of the newer homes in this subdivision. Neighbor Review The applicant has shown the proposed plans to neighbors as indicated in the attached letter. No negative comments have been received at the time of the writing of this Staff Report. Trees There are 15 protected trees on the site, of which 8 are proposed for removal. As the attached Arborist Report states, each tree proposed for removal appears appropriate given its species or poor overall condition. The applicants have included in Exhibit A, a Tree Preservation Plan. Trees #9,13 and. 16 would be endangered unless landscape- and drainage revisions are ~~~©®~ Application No. 04-347; 19327 Monte Vista Drive incorporated as recommended in the City Arborist Report. All recommendations in the City Arborist Report have been incorporated as conditions of approval in the attached Resolution. Geotechnical Clearance Since the applicant is proposing a basement, geotechnical peer review was required. Geotechnical Clearance 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 site is located in a relatively flat area of Saratoga in a neighborhood of many single-story ranch style homes. Although the maximum height of the proposed single-story home is 24.5 feet, the windows are situated at the lower portions of the facade. The side elevations have minimal window openings, and the home is situated a sufficient distance from the rear property line. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. Since the site is flat, minimal grading is proposed other than excavation for a basement. The site has 15 protected trees. Since the existing home and the proposed home differ greatly is size, the proposal does involve the removal- of 8 trees. However, given the condition of these trees in relation to the other retained trees, their removal has been determined appropriate. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. There are no heritage trees on the property. Of the 8 trees proposed for removal, only 1 tree is a native species. Again, given their condition in relation to the other trees on the site, their removal has been determined to be appropriate. (d) Minimize perception ofexcessive bulk. The residence is situated far back from the street and is well articulated with varying rooflines and facade details. The home is also set further back than the existing home, which also mitigates the perception of bulk. The use of stucco with travertine accents and clay the roofing in earth tone colors will blend with the natural environs. (e) Compatible bulk and height. Although the home at its maximum height is 24.5 feet, the varying rooflines would greatly minimise any impacts of the maximum height of the home, which would be only at the entry element. The use of different earth tone materials, accents on the facade, and garage doors facing the side property line also adequately minimise the scale of the proposed 6,054 square foot home, resulting in an attractive facade that would complement the neighborhood. (f) Currentgradingand 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 ~~~~~~ Application No. 04-347; 19327 Monte Vista Drive designed for energy efficiency by including upgraded insulation in floor, wall and ceiling and a hydronic heating system. Conclusion Staff finds that all of the Design Review findings can be made in the affirmative. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conditionally approve Design Review Application 04-019 by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. City Arborist Report, dated December 22, 2004. 3. Letter signed by neighbors indicating they have reviewed a copy of the proposed plans. 4. Affidavit of Mailing Notices, Public Hearing Notice and List of property owners who were sent notices regarding the public hearing for this application. 5. Reduced plans, Exhibit "A", date stamped March 1, 2005 • • ~~©®'~ • • Attachment 1 • {~~®©®;~ APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 04-347 CITY OF SAR.ATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Joshi;19327 Monte Vista Drive WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review to demolish the existing home and construct a 6,054 square foot one-story home with a basement at a maximum height of 24.5 feet; 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 home, is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 3 exemption applies to construction of a single family home in an urbanized area; and WHEREAS, the applicant has 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 have been made in the affirmative: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The site is located in a relatively flat area of Saratoga in a neighborhood of many single-story ranch style homes. Although the maximum height of the proposed single-story home is 24.5 feet, the windows are situated at the lower portions of the facade. The side elevations have minimal window openings, and the home is situated a sufficient distance from the rear property line. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. Since the site is flat, minimal grading is proposed other than excavation for a basement. The site has 15 protected trees. Since the existing home and the proposed home differ greatly is size, the proposal does involve the removal of 8 trees. However, given the condition of these trees m relation to the other retained trees, their removal has been determined appropriate. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. There are no heritage trees on the property. Of the 8 trees proposed for removal, only 1 tree is a native species. Again, given their condition in relation to the other trees on the site, their removal has been determined to be appropriate. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The residence is situated far back from the street and is well articulated with varying rooflines and facade details. The home is also set further back than the existing home, which also mitigates the perception of bulk. The use of stucco with travertine accents and clay file roofing in earth tone colors will blend with the natural environs. • '~~ ~~Y®~ (e) Compatible bulk and height. Although the home at its maximum height is 24.5 feet, the varying rooflines would greatly minimize any impacts of the maximum height of the home, which would be only at the entry element. The use of different earth tone materials, accents on the facade, and garage doors facing the side property line also adequately minimize the scale of the proposed 6,054 square foot home, resulting in an attractive facade that would complement the neighborhood. (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 by including upgraded insulation in floor, wall and ceiling and a hydronic heating system. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support the approval of the detached carport at 16 feet in height in that the findings stated in Municipal Code Section 15-12.100 have been made in the affirmative: 1. The additional height is necessary in order to establish architectural compatibility with the main structure on the site; and 2. The accessory structure will be compatible with the neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Comirussion of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, Application No. 04-347 for Design Review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" (incorporated by reference, date stamped February 24, 2005) and in compliance with the conditions stated in this Resolution. Any proposed changes, -including but not limited to facade design and materials - to the approved plans shall be submitted in writing with a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Proposed changes to the approved plans are subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. 2. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the Arborist Report dated December 22, 2004 as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division. 3. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor. ~~~~®~ 4. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 5. A grading and drainage plan stamped by a registered civil engineer 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. An explanatory note shall be provided if all storm water cannot be maintained on site. 6. The construction set shall include a final landscape, irrigation and utility plan. The final landscape plans shall show the required replacement trees. The utility plan shall show locations of air conditioning units. Any proposed undergrounding of utilities shall take into account potential damage to roots of protected trees. 7. Applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the City Public Works Department for any work in the public right-of-way. Subject to Public Works approval, low walls/columns are typically allowed within the right-of-way portion of the lot if they are situated at least 5 feet from the edge of the street pavement. CITY ARBORIST 8. All recommendations contained in the City Arborist Report dated December 22, 2004 shall be followed. 9. Tree protective fencing and other protective measures, as specified by the City Arborist in review of the final plans, shall be installed and inspected by Planning Staff prior to issuance of City Permits. 10. The submitted landscape and irrigation plan shall be consistent with the preservation recommendations stated in the Ciry Arborist Report . 11. Prior to issuance of City Permits, the applicant shall submit to the Ciry, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount of $24,500 to guarantee their maintenance and preservation. 12. Prior to Final Building Inspection approval, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify- compliance with tree protective measures. The bond shall be released after the planting of required replacement trees, a favorable site inspection by the City Arborist, and payment of any outstanding Arborist fees. GEOTECHNICAL CLEARANCE 17. The Project Geotechnical Consultant 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 the building foundation and driveway) to ~'1®~~~~ ensure that the plans, specifications and details accurately reflect the consultants' recommendations. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of permits. 18. The Project Geotechnical Consultant 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. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final project approval. 19. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to project Zone Clearance. 20. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. FIRE DISTRICT 21. Applicant shall comply with all Santa Clara County Fire Dept. conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 22. 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. 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. 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, the 9th day of March 2005 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 • ~'~~~~.~ Attachment 2 • - ~~. ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED NEW RESIDENCE AT 19327 MONTE VISTA DRIVE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA • OWNER'S NAME: Joshi APPLICATION #: 04-347 APN #: 397-10-025 Submitted to: I~ -DEC 2 3 2004 • Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA Registered ConsultingArborist #399 Certified Arborist #WE-4001A December 22, 2004 CITY OF SAKA~ ~.~:_ • P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California -94402 • Email: arborresources@earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.654:3352 • Licensed Contractor #796763 4~~®~~~ David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist December 22, 2004 • SUMMARY The proposed project exposes 15 trees regulated by City Ordinance to potential damage. They include six Coast Live Oaks (#10-14, 16), four Olive trees (#5-8), one Modesto Ash (#3), one American Sweetgum (#4), one Douglas-Fir (#9), one Coast Redwood (#15) and one Japanese Maple (#17). Specific information regarding each tree is presented on the attached table. Of the 15 trees, eight are proposed for removal (#3-8, 14 and 17) and three (#9, 13 and 16) would be endangered by implementing the proposed home and landscape design. Each tree proposed for removal appeazs appropriate given its species or overall poor condition. Replacements are recommended to mitigate the loss of trees #3, 4, 8, 14 and 17. Plan revisions are specified in the `Recommendations' section of this report for sustaining the longevity of trees #9, 13 and 16. I anticipate the all trees planned for retention will survive, provided the recommendations presented in this report aze carefully followed and incorporated into construction plans. As specified by City Ordinance, a bond equal to 100% of the appraised valuer of trees planned for retention is required, which equals $24,500. INTRODUCTION The City of Saratoga Community Development Department has requested I review the potential tree impacts associated with the demolition of an existing residence and construction of a new one at 19327 Monte Vista Drive, Sazatoga. This report presents my findings and recommendations. Plans reviewed for this report include Sheet 1 (by Oakley and Associates, dated 6/9/04), and Sheets 7 and 8 (by Koch & Associates, dated 10/26/04). The locations, numbers and canopy dimensions2 of inventoried trees and are identified on an attached copy of Sheet 1. Trees presented in this report are sequentially numbered from 3 to 17.3 They aze derived from a list of 17 trees presented in a previous report prepazed by me, dated 4/30/03, for the review of a different home design on the subject site. For identification purposes, round, metallic tags with number corresponding to trees presented in this report were attached to the trunks of all trees on the subject site. ' The appraised tree values shown on the attached Tree Inventory Table are calculated in accordance with the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9`h Edition, published by the International Society of Arboricultwe, 2000. z The actual canopy dimensions are larger for several of the trees than what is shown on the plans and aze more accurately depicted on the attached map. s Trees #1 and 2 are excluded from this report as they were removed from the site sometime after Apri12003. Joshi Property, 19327 Monte Yista Drive, Saratoga Page 1 of 3 r, ~,~ City of Saratoga Community Development Department '~"~~0~~ David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist December 22, 2004 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The portion of foundation proposed within 25 feet of tree #9's trunk must be established using a pier and above-grade beam foundation (i.e. a no-dig design except for the piers). The piers must be minimized in diameter and designed as far apart from the tree's trunk and another as possible. Where within the 25-foot distance, utilities shall be attached to the home's structure and not buried. 2. -The patio, walkway and any edging must be redesigned to be at least eight feet from tree # 16's trunk. 3. The rear lawn area must be redesigned to be at least 10 feet from tree #13's trunk and 15 feet from tree # 16's trunk. 4. The proposed drain lines should be redesigned to adhere to the following minimum distances: 18 feet south and 12 feet west of tree #9's trunk, and 9 feet in all directions from tree # 16's trunk. 5. Tree protective fencing must be installed precisely as shown on the attached map .and established prior to any demolition, grading, surface scraping, construction or heavy equipment arriving on site. It must be comprised of six-foot high chain link mounted on eight-foot tall, two-inch diameter galvanized posts; driven two feet into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction process; the relocation or dismantling of fencing must be directly approved by the City before doing so. Please note fencing differs on the attached map from that presented on the proposed Site Plan. 6. Unless specifically approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the fenced areas (even after fencing is removed). These activities include, but are not limited to, the following: demolition, grading, surface scraping, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling/dumping materials, and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 7. Prior to protective fencing being established, afour-inch layer of coarse wood chips from a tree company shall be manually spread within the fenced areas. The chips should also be manually spread outside the fenced area where within 25 feet of tree #9's trunk and beneath tree #10's canopy. 8. Equipment used to drill piers for the portion of foundation within 25 feet of tree #9's trunk must be comprised of a small tractor (such as a `Bobcat') operating on tracks and the layer of wood chips. 9. The portion of foundation within 18 feet of tree #10's trunk should be manually dug to the required depth using hand tools. Roots encountered that are one-inch and greater in diameter should be cleanly severed near the soil cut line. The freshly cut root ends should be immediately wrapped in a plastic sandwich and tightly secured with a rubber band or electrical tape. Where within the 18-foot distance, great care must be taken to avoid excavating beyond the home's footprint by more than six inches. Joshi Property, 19327 Monte Yista Drive, Saratoga Page 2 oj3 City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~ ~~~~.~ David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist December 22, 2004 10. Approved trenching and .grading beneath the trees' canopies must be manually performed using hand tools only. All roots two inches in greater in diameter should be retained during the process and buried in soil or wrapped in moistened burlap within 15 minutes of exposure. If burlap is used, it should remain continually moist and can be removed upon the trench being backfilled. 11. Any unused, existing underground utilities or pipes that are beneath the trees' canopies should remain buried and be cut off at existing soil grade. 12. Downspouts should be installed at least 15 feet to the sides and directed away from the trees' trunks. 13. Throughout construction during the months of May thru October, water shall be supplied to trees #9, 10 and 16. I recommend a rate of 10 gallons of water per inch of trunk diameter applied every two weeks. The water can be effectively supplied by placing soaker hoses on the soil surface beneath the trees' mid- to outer-canopy. 14. The pruning of trees must be performed under. supervision of an individual certified by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and according to ISA standards. 15. Herbicides should not be used beneath tree canopies. Where used on site, they should be labeled for safe use near trees. 16. Details regarding plant or mulch material beneath the canopies of retained trees should be shown on the landscape plans. Plants should comprise no more than 20-percent of the area beneath a tree's canopy and be drought-tolerant where beneath an Oak canopy. 17. Irrigation trenches should be designed to be outside from beneath the trees' canopies; where within this distance, they should be placed on top of existing soil grade. If trenches are necessary, they should be dug in a radial direction to the trunks and be no closer than five times the diameter of the nearest trunk. Irrigation should not spray beneath the Oak canopies or within five feet of the trunks of other trees. 18. Stones, mulch or other landscape features should not be in contact with the trees' trunks. Installing edging material or tilling beneath canopies should be avoided. 19. Replacements of native origin are recommended to mitigate the removal of trees #3, 4, 8, 14 and 17, which have a combined appraised value of $11,160. The size and amount of new trees should be equivalent in value to this amount and installed prior to final inspection. Replacement tree values are presented on the bottom of the attached table, and acceptable replacement species include Quercus agrifolia, Quercus lobata, Quercus kelloggii, Quercus douglasii, Quercus dumosa, Acer macrophyllum, Aesculus californica, Pseudotsuga menziesii and Sequoia sempervirens. S Attachments: Tree Inventory Table Site Map (Copy of Sheet 1) Joshi Property, 19327 Monte Vista Drive, Saratoga Page 3 of 3 City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~' ~~~~4~ .~ . ~....._ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~ 19327 MONTE VISTA DRIVE, SARATOGA \~ LOT 23 TRACT 373 I ~ _ ~ LOT 22 \\\ -PROTECTIVE FENCING w ~ TRACT 373 \~ EXISTING FENCE P (~ B U T I L I T (all phases) ~E,t~e '~' NOT N PROPERTY 12 59 f . zw.orr ~ \ t:NONRW ~~ x=::;15 Ns .~., --~ D/3PVRS6N6VT r~ r-+ RETbvTiON EM19/N gA3tN.fbtROOF Ft7tf RtltV DFFFROM WATER AND . ~ I ~ . 13~ , ~ ~ \. ~ AO~D/NINB pROPE ,(„~t= c:evNS. r # 3 ~~,.~a 14 m,~. r AND Ll6NT wGu -SEG-SHEET 8 Fp/R I .PLAN=iSJVD CETA/L5. ~ I I / ~ ~ _ t 5~ ink // I ` 1 ~ "° ~ ° X65 ~ iT ~ ;~ ~~ 10 ~„: ,~ ,,r .. a .- ~ ~ LOT 19 ~ ~ ~ " Fe. 9.ao' - ~ ~~ TRACT 373 - ~ ~ , ~! 16 ~` '~ ~ ~. ~ PROTECTIVE FENCING - olePuRSa+eNr ap (all phases) - _ ~ ~ ~ "t DAS/N AsRROOI~ - A7EI~ANO"-:-' - ~ , ~ 17 y is LOT 21 avtw~u:-p0!VNS, ' f..e.5p9 KeW ' l~esldentfe ~ ; ..~ I ~ 6'uW13'erNkr~rrae ~ , n ~°t(` ~ TRACT 373 TO ftfjNAlN lNAACE ~ _~ i / ~1 GON97RVGTlON ~ ~ 66'_. uaS PMASE, ~ .._-___._.._ ~ - - °' ~ PROTECTIVE FENCING . ~~ sotto c/ar_ -" •• (demolition phase) /ND/G7LS 7'RG'ES Q ~~ .. E)sr7i J .....,.Q- ,~ .rs ~v,"a4y"'-i _.._ i!~- ^r~' '7b,RlMA/Nt/N / ~ i ~~ ~t ~~~~-- -~ y _ N _ - 9ROKEIVZ~7€ ev. Tc'' ~ ~` INOII;ATE3 T'Rf~S - ~ ~ 1 / 1°"@ c,+ 1 ~ I S!'Ls SNf1T b' FOR' To De RDwwt:o ~ ai i ~_ # 3 I~1Q ~ ' Z ~ ~ p i /I ~ / DRAtNA6E PLAN I ~~_ ~d 4 sa~.co -~ a~ ~. 3, i ~ / 'AND DETAILS 6. !t'onl ~ ro -SEE sNEEr 7 roR ~ DRIVEWAY LOCATIt \._ ~' ~ ~i • t ^, ~1 3i ~ 6~4><r WPID - ~oooc W. M. r _ .__..... m... .:--- Prepared By: •._?~":^s Site Address: 19327 Monte Vista Chive, Saretoge zit ' '• ~~• ~+`~~•~''`: y,, •c~=a:~,',~~''~~~ ARBOR RESOURCES .._i'•;<:~r..,s:~,~<..~ ~' ~"- ~ Y.v.'..r:~.a .. iii ^v..;-::...tYr.,!'~3SE%`. ., --„~,. n, ~ ry OP ~P 7E'~ ~•~I~~ Pro stslonat Areormxlturaf Consxlun ~••Y•,. •xFc~'. ~".^+"~ c; Ci Of Sera a Commtmi Devel meet tutment -.Y'~irs,::.ci:aad, ! 8 d Trre Carr . ~......., ss- • r~:~. ~=',` ~~7`=.''?:+:•:ir. ~~~i `i P.O. Box 21295 . San Mateo. CA . 9M02 ~-•k~ - `k r -- ~{Qga: Map identifies lS trees of Ordinance siu. ~~~~':-~'~=':~~~~~'~~~^°=~'~ Phone: (650)654-3351 • Fmeil: uborRrourm(dmrddiok.net Map has bt:en reduced in size end is not to scale. emm Canopy dimensions arc approximate. _ w "' - t ate: December 22, 2004 ~ • u - ., .~ .~ • Attachment 3 • v ~~~T.~ Neighbor Notification 'T'emplate for. Development Applications Date: t/. /3 ZCX~f (/~~Q' ~~/~ PROJECT ADDRESS: X9327 ~1Q~fe a.~c.v A plicant Name:~h~Ar~~ ~ ~~r"'a Application Number: QJ~~- ~~ The Saratoga Planning Commission requires appl cants 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 it to the City of Saratoga. © y signature below certif es 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. I' the ro'ect lans; I ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed p ~ p understand the scone 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): ((~~' ~c~P.ol ~~s ~ Neighbor Namc: J'CC~ Neighbor Address: a c~eo~ ~l~ `~~ Neighbor Phone #: Signature: Printed: • • • ~~~~~~ City of Saratoga Planning Department .. Chandra and Rekha Joshi 19327 Monte Vista Drive Saratoga CA, 95070 Phone number: (408) 867-4998 November 13, 2004 Dear Neighbors, This letter is in regards to review of the preliminary plans that we have submitted for our project at 19327- Monte Vista Drive, Saratoga. Please sign as an acknowledgement that you have reviewed the plans. Sincerely, Chandra and Rekha Joshi Name & Address Signature Date " ~ ~~ l~i3ll ~~~ V~f~ ~A~fEs C~,e~ ~ ~,~ti r~ y,° ~'~~ ~c ~~f ~~ ~~~~~~~. Attachment 4 • ~~~~~ • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, ~ (,~~~~ ~ lit ~ ~ ~(.tAn~ ,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 day of 2005, that I deposited in the United States Post Office within Santa Clara County, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to-wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing pursuant to Section 15-45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property to be affected by the application; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. Signed • ~~~0~2~ 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 9th day of March 2005, 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 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. PROJECT LOCATION: 19327 Monte Vista Drive APN: 397-10-025; Joshi, property owner Applicant requests Design Review Approval to demolish the existing home and construct aone-story 6,054 square foot home with a 2,239 square foot basement. The maximum height of the home will be approximately 24.5 feet. The lot size is 43,645 square feet net and the site is zoned R-1-40,000. 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 maybe 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 Tuesday, March 1, 2005. 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. Lata Vasudevan, AICP Associate Planner 408-868-1235 S ~'~0~~~ ®095 aase~ GEE FRANKLIN & MARGARET TRUSTEE r Current Owner 64 MONTE VISTA DR TOGA, CA 95070-6218 COHEN SUSAN K & RICHARD TRUSTEE or Current Owner 19242 PANORAMA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-6225 LALLY BARTHOLOMEW C JR TRUSTEE ETAL or Current Owner 15200 VIA COLINA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-6250 DAS ESMARALDA TRUSTEE or Current Owner i 9351 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-6434 ANDRUS WALTER S & GERTRUDE B or Current Owner 19431 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS RD TOGA, CA 95070-6434 MICHAEL H & JOSEPHINE K or Current Owner 19396 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-6220 DU BOIS FRED E & DOLORES A TRUSTEE or Current Owner 19360 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-6220 COMISKEY HANNAH S or Current Owner 19324 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-6220 HUNTER ANITA L or Current Owner 19327 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-6219 ~ONNELL JO ANN J & OME F TRUSTEE or Current Owner 19360 VALLE VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-6246 ~(19IS ao1 aletdwal astl SMITH MARKS & DEBORAH R TRUSTEE or Current Owner 19231 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-6217 NIKFAR ARMIN TRUSTEE ETAL or Current Owner 19208 PANORAMA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-6225 BURNS MARY TRUSTEE ETAL or Current Owner 15335 VIA COLINA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-6249 DAS PAUL J TRUSTEE ETAL or Current Owner 19371 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-6434 DRESSLAR F H TRUSTEE or Current Owner 187 CASTILLON WY SAN JOSE, CA 95119-1502 HUANG MIN SIU & PI YU or Current Owner 19388 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-6220 ROBBINS CHARLES H & SARAH H or Current Owner 19348 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-6220 CHEN JERRY & JILL K TRUSTEE or Current Owner 19298 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 SULLIVAN JOHN J. & PATRICIA M TRUSTEE or Current Owner 19341 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-6219 MELEHAN JAMES S TRUSTEE ETAL or Current Owner 15175 VIA COLII~TA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-6248 s~agE~ ssaaPPd oA2l3A1d ~j/ WHARTON LOUISE TRUSTEE ETAL or Current Owner 19265 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-6217 LAZARES CYNTHIA L & DAVID L or Current Owner 19209 PANORAMA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-6224 MARVIN CLOYD. E & MARY K or Current Owner 15355 VIA COLINA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-6249 GIANNELLA GIOVANIVI P & JULIA B or Current Owner 19401 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA, CA -95070-6434 DAS CHANDER P & RAJIV P TRUSTEE ETAL or Current Owner 19884 BUCKHAVEN LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-5014 DORSA SHIRLEY A TRUSTEE or Current Owner 19372 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-6220 MELEHAN PATRICIA E TRUSTEE or Current Owner 19336 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-6220 CARRIGAN JAMES P & JENNIFER K TRUSTEE or Current Owner 19311 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-6219 RAO FRANK M & SOPHIE D TRUSTEE or Current Owner 19385 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-6219 CHABOYA RANCH or Current Owner 2150 MONTEREY RD SAN JOSE, CA 95 ~1~.~~~ wls}aays paa~ yloows Smooth Feed Sheetsr"' PERRUCCI JOSEPH P TRUSTEE ~ or Current Owner 15175 VIA COLINA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-6248 I ROWEN ARLINE TRUSTEE ETAL or Current Owner 19361 VALLE VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-6245 Chandra and Rekha Joshi 19641 Braemar Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 or Current Owner or Current Owner Use template for 5160® LENNON HUGH F & ROWENA R EPSTEIN LEWIS S & VICKIE A or Current Owner or Current Owner PO BOX 3315 19410 VALLE VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-1315 SARATOGA, CA 95070-6282 BROWN HANSEN AND MARTINEZ or Current Owner or Current Owner 19371 VALLE VISTA DR 19391 VALLE VISTA DR SARATOGA, CA 95070-6245 SARATOGA, CA 95070-6245 Martin Oakley-Oakley and Assoc. or Current Owner 19034 Bonnet Way Saratoga, CA 95070 or Current- Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner • or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner /~\ A\/C~9vCR. G~trfrnec E alzntc or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner or Current Owner i aenr • ~~®~~~ c ~ ~n® • ~~, N Y~~ Q~0 ~~~ j_ -: j ~ ~'~ •, --* -. ~. ~a ~ ,~~ ~ . - ,. y s~~ ~. v ~~ 1 ~i A m m N ~ ~ y:,y z z; ~ ° ~ °~~ z ~2~ ~ noZ ° ~ ~<~ N z "z~ w ~ mz o e W w °w 6g ~. :~ m ~6R a~~ m ~ ~ ~ ~~~ m n a ; g ~ ,r -+ ~_ ° ~ ~ N o m ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ 2 ~ _o ~ e^ s' 6 ~$ I/ ~ / i i -- - ~ i ii I I ~- .~ W ' a k _,; C ' ~: Z ~ `, DA, N ~~ a ~ ~O ~g$~ °-~ fj ~~9 ~~9p Ryl -7 y F2' a~ Tk ~S ~ i I} ' I e~Po¢ ~ !~~~~~~ ~ Ri?~S}fs~[hRp 7E°(pwa Ai •:~3Rfi °4 4. °~~~i'~~~~ , ~€ R $ ~a ~ t ~~ C~ s m m z 6 l ;~g~~~ ~~~R ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ !!!R OA AOr a {ni 7jme 7~Shp 77e~ ~Dm m~0 ~ @~P~ DAz~p~ ~ d A~2 ~r r7i Z. AP~4~ ~ -1 iz2~n ~~ ~ g> ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ;, ,. ;, / , - .~ ,` , ' / ' ~9~ ,;, `i o i ;v I `, -+ w ~ _. ~ rl ` N y nl 0 I c. ~ ~ r -Z~1 -, ~ ~ ° m ~ -I w w w ~ ~ ~ fi a rr~ _ .d s m z ilk y ~y ®. ~! ~~ - r` ~ ~ o E r ~\ .~, ~. N O ~ -, ~ N r N W n ~ O f ~ ~ a~Y ~xgJ 6 R'~vp ~~ r.~. yZ, ~ Da Ir r~Z O ; ym_yDN<Dr ~n 9 > ~ n ~ ~ R'~~ g~68g d~ ~-~~ 044 5~ --11 ONCtiN ~ZN o6jr~ ~ ~y~p p~^OZO ~Dm~ ~2m Z $~06 ~O ~^~m O~Lc ~f m ~ p~yn O a ~~ R` d$ 22 AO-+ ~ 41 ~ O FLl ~'~< iDi O' A N D ~~yy y yo OC.i ~ ~~~ '° 9_~a7 gR ~ s ~ ~¢ mT~?~mD~ m o~ ~~g mf =~ $(nv m~m~ Ai<~ ~'im~OC ~~ o~N~yo~~ N ~ N _2 ._bw ~/~ e~A ,j ~- $S s_ c~ Apy~ •-1 ~ ~Z_Z z y-Di ~~ yy~g m ~c ~c~ "'~~ ~4 TTpti qcm~ 0 ~ ~v - n~ ~/~ c~d ~ ~G~a a ~ Il ~ mlT m??ZD~~Dyy ~ ~m yN0 _9p 9 TNO ~DDy ~O Z[~ r1~ OrR N nj .. m A _ ~ yy gg® 90 a R. ~ff ~{SiUT ~T ~2 CA ]I ~00~ ~cC Dm m~ Dv~r ~ ~ A Y/~i~ J 6 ~ ~ 5 L 3 " ~ ~ g "~OYD A Z -O O~O< }_~ a~ ZyT OZ2y m(~' ~TPp>n -_ __ _.-~--~Q. ~~r~- ~-_~:R_~`.._r~~R ~-.~_-_ ~_~N1 z0 ~ D a<z 2a z c~_O ~(i C~ Am 2 m @ ~ ~--a 4 ~ .i3 'e 'c ~~ om~a~ 8 ~- ~~>_gi=z,-om~~o___gm<Iz-~B~~-~a~~-~-__o-- ~L"_.., ~~ a 5 R ~~ fi ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ zr ~Rp>ym ~fDi xz~ ~ 0w ADD ~~g C~ x `~ c R K di ~ G ~' =, a~ ~~~iiOO oo '.'I mo ~Zr~ ~~ ti c~ 9iiC~c ~~nn In -x+ p ~~~o -1r O O$ NytA ~p ~ A~ m44~ ~F~ ~ v g 01D O ONE O Z llBSt.- Zc>~~ '~^ ~ ~m m~~.. bo ~ ~b c~~~ c~y ~ ~N SC SC$~€u~y'~ ~"~ ~~ L pp ~ ir__~g~~~..~~~pgp~ m - n .. ~~PdBg~ Q(~1~$~ ~ ~ m is Zy "~ FR^ 2~`qm~ ~yo ~ ~~-~ ~~~}- ~~~$oAx$~y~Rzu ~ ~~~~'~° ~~~ ~C~~oRA' zOm~T Arr- m ~ O A ~V m.. ny ~~ ~mr ~T w. -f p ~ ~iip ~ o y y OT 8 pA w 0o O '° p m < '~; R@ ~ 1k ~~ ~~g~ ~"Op Q'g ~ ~ D c Tn r~i ~ON ' ~~ °~m ~ 5 R ~ a 6 m yy {~ i ~ ~Tg~ f 1g ~~fi~°~ ~, \ ~ ~ ~O ;R~~i ~~c~ YQ ~L m a€ `~ z ` [~ O s. 9 ~Y m~ ~ ~ s ii ~~~E~~ '~Oy ~ ~~ ~ a ~~~~6~ • a o O ~w ,~ y ;n ~ ~ m ~ ~, ~ >~ N ~ m 4 _~ p~ S OO ^Q l)IJ (~~~n' _ U O O L.J (Op (l ~. i I jN -~ i W i0 ~ I' I I i ;F -- j i I ~'--~ ' ~ l I W Cif i a o o ~~ !1 I.~ ~ ;~ ~ o ~' ~{ { _ti. j j i I' ~ T IV Iv_ I i .. .. ' ~_ i --~I I, ~ n ~ ~ i ' ~_ ~ o O ~ ~ -~E- - I I I !i ~N lO' W _ _ EAST 5/OE AiZOPERTY L/NE b~ w ~' y ~~~ 10 ' e~~ ~ ii e~ ep i ~~ ~ N ~ , ~ CB ~ . I i~l: o 1.,~ I I I ~J i 1`I '~'0 ~~ 'O i cIV ~ ~ i _ I i i ~ I I IO= ~ ~' , _ I O'~ I. ~ i ~. I I ~_I ~ I k- I t11 t__ i ~ f... i ~ ' ~. . ~ __~ -I .-_ _. __ _. - -_ ~ I ' .Np i ' . %~ O I 1 `y5 '` i ~ "~ ~ ' 1, -r~-r-r-rr-rr ~ s`I i. ~ O~ WEST S/DE PROPERTY L/NE • • • Y 0 C 3 E U O ~J O D O O (~O L"J 0 .n 2 ~,~ c „ .0 n~(~ i ~ m ~ °n ~D ~n 3 °a w ~ Oz n ~ r~' x 0 £ m ' ~o _ °' o m ?o z = C T m m ``~~ II ~c ~ ~ 4~? n ~ . ~in" a ~~~ ~~[~' c ~ t t ~ c,'a cn ca~3~~ii . l , ~ :M ~~ ~ei A P i - ~y • Y a i ~m -n „ -~ ~~ =o --- ~~ m D "'i: ~ m m _~ ;~r -;~ ~ ,. ~ o g z ~~F ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J I ``ll~~ r-~ I \ • .. ,HIIti4 n ~.... 0 ° - o . .p Cp < r~~ ru-1' m . O= ~ ~ on P i i p°O °=z m - A - i m F f ~ v m m m o.o~3m-i -. ~-~ S1 0° 0 • - n ~ m ~ P_ ~ ~~ ~ o D =Z I • x k t I r.. O m r m m r r D Z O ~~ ,. ~ ~ ~ 0 o N .m o~ Z n _.~ ~. s,~ S ~ ~~ o ,a 8 o-~ ~~ ~~ ~ _m ~O Z D 24~--6" • •_ I 0 0 v6~tPA W N' m 70 vwin~cno~u!~ ,O moma;mommo O xxxxxx IA ° x x iD r~pQ~00616~~ Nin ~. ~: n n ro m rC b~ O O N A O O N A i ,~D+~ NNE ~ 0 F~ Z ~~DZ "• >: ` z O rm. n °D~'~l z ~ , nl o n, ~! Z ~ ~ o ' ~z~ ~ ~ a mom D ., ' '_ rN Z ~ i IN' i _- - _. _ -_. _ - _- __- - _. _ _. r_ _ I .. ~ L_ .. m - - A A m -~ r Q N m ~ ~ _ '_, D _ Z N ~O; ~ \. G^ ~ i Iti r ~ N v rn i~ ZN a Iv . -~ o ~ I N m~ r .T n ~ _ ~ ? ° rn y ~ - (n 13~-0 .-- .~ y o ~, rn 2 = n _ I:I 0 '-I _ _ ' ~ O ~ a Z k K ,! ~; E 'F C -4;- ~- - A 2 rn ~? i'~ ~~ m i w A 1 ' I 1 ~ ~ ~N ~ i I. ~ m N I.~1' p f0 6 V S cn ~ W {N ' O .U' m ~l O~ lT A W N I a~tl~_'. .m',G'.N~cncn~~c'n,voy'~o.~~c.'a~? ~M ~q Qq 00000000ggq000 y~0 xxxrxN xxxx~x(~txx xx xxxxxx 'Qi O ~i, cn N VI 1n 6?p~p ITNC?Nm ytTw Vii. R~ ~ ogggqoqqq4q4°:4qo~:q4 ' n n n n u N n u u n n n n n n N n u n ~ fn I i b~ (~I~~-~~J ~NJ O O~ln ~ ~~1 N G~ 6~ ~ ~a N--1: ~~~100~01 NNNNONO ~ V roto n+~N-~ IN i I ~ (T N ~' 3.g i i 4~ O ~ ~P~ I nn~n ~~I. ti~ l~l~ 0 r 2 _ 1!~ ,., ~a~ ~ G n ~ \ ~ ~O+® ~ :~. m ~ a N> 3n A i ~ a - . ~ - - ~ A oz o; ox - a ~s° ~~ ~. ~® i "-A°Or-OP o== A 19327 MONTE V13TA DRIVE, SARATOGA m • ti~~ • I O a a ~ m ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ n e ~ o ' ~ 3: $ y' - 9 n 3 ' °u~ ° z 1 G I ~ ~ 5' l ! d 1 S vo ` O ~~ OO ~_ ~ ~ m~3, ~ 1jn g ~o~e , C - S ~ , - - _ ~ ~ - ~ i r - ~~~_ - ® - ~m 4 ~~r F 6 v 09~ n m Q g~a ~~ 1 1 ' ~ V~~ ~ ~ I. y'SlQQlf i ~ ~ QXX g~ a :~ } i 9 . . - _ __ T~i A ~ i: a~ 1 m _ bZ . ass' 40' ~ggf $g e ~ ^ s s m3~ ~ ~~ ~ " 4 2~ `I 4 3 ~ - 9 - - __- _~ ~ . _-_. _~ - _ __ __ a l I .. ' _ .. ~ ~ I r~ ~ ~ } ~ I i 5 ~" 1 _ ~ Q~Q 3 i 0• 215.00' 8 a LL S ~F ~a ~O+< a~ ~ =N-Y < a~R _ ~ ; ~ g3- ° ~~ . Y z ~ao 0 S a ~°' gJ; pg " ' 5 R ~ ~ S I - - - i - "_-` _ f ~ 3 -~--- Ilo 3 0 E o - u date:f0.26.04 drown by: _ ~ I - '' ~ ecoloa/16°~1'-O" ob no: Joehi ~ ~,n KOCH & ASSOCIATES m Preliminary The Joshi Residence ,~ °~~~ \D c rovieione: 1 r. c o x a o st A r E o 12.06.04 - move house ~ 6~ wloscAre AHCnnecrull~ a coNrnAt:nrlc ? v Landsca a Plan 19327 Monte Vista Drive s '~ ~ ~ 3330 o><q c~.~5s~6ne o P Saratoga;"California - § ,~ e F~mwv. U 9153-5601 - •.d 51019p.01W Wi6~pp~Arciiu¢1N673 O ~ • y~Slr 510.690.0566 FAX lAOdua~ ( /R003% - - ' .. ~" . . I ~ ~s sii ° L v a c ~ v - r C i i _.. i ,_... n~ n n` i • • I ° a $ 3 - ~ o ~~o ~ 'o ~$ _ S i ; ? N _ o° a ° ; 'o"g °f ~ o • 8 I ~ 9 i $ ~ ~ .~ a ~ _ ~ s _ a ~ 3 ~ ~ a i ~ ~ = v ° i , _ I _ ~ 5 S/ ~ _ ~~ ~ _ o . i ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~O F 1 ~ ~ ~~& ~; ~ ~ - / ~ - SO ~ i 'its Q }2 - t x ~ o ~ ~ : € ~ ~ $ :38° a ;~Y O s ~ ,F~ I a ~ I c; 3 o° I .~ _ - ~ -.~ ~ - P 3 Ili I $ N T ~ ~.I _ `~ r 1 l1 ~ ~ ~ 7 ~ ~ 9 1.. - \~ S ~ ~_ ~:~ k ~ , ~ ~~~~ ~.. ~1 ~ - ~ .'d m n ~ a mo- D> G ,$3 - ~__~ ~ _i {+ ~~ I o t - ~ + ' ~ -•-1 m - ~- Ali =Z~ ~ ~ . > ,<N~a s c I 1 i ~ ~ I _ L .~ I - - _ ~ ' ~ 9 I ~I `I Q 3 `1 t I ; a E I" ~ D D4A a _ ~ i= $'~E~$ I f t o Q~~' °~ ~ ~ r 9 7 " 8 S~o ~ ~ ~ E~ ~ !~g<' a z a_:~ oa4 I = ~ Z o off: ~' Y ~ ~ a~ a 3 ;~a I I .~~ i ~w 7 N m J N °3$ ;~s ~ a°~ n ~ ~ 3 • I o ~~ ~~ ~ I ~:~ I j grg 3 . I ~ ~" I I z i O ~\~ -~ i j $ ~' I o ~; ~ _.-,_ - _-.-~C ~3~ ~'gn~ 9 Y;;. i ~a~~3 y ~ r- ~ ~ N - N m N .~ /~ ~ I- i~ _I ; , I _ ~ ~ ~-- _ 1~ I '- - - - - - - - -- -- - -- - - - ~ '` , -1 - I o~ - y I 3 7 N p Q• II! _ llT I am I o Na I ~ ~ - ' ` ~ v m ~ ° Z I ~ ~ m ~ °' ° °m (] I;I - ~ vo 00 a r~ m ,O ~, NOO ~ I _I ~; _ J ~ Z 0 ~ 0 ~ I' ~ N ~ ~~ ~a ~ ~ amts : I-1 I -_ -I !~~ ~+ '-: ~I o o 'o T ~ a m a •c r m' p . . - _I i'-_I-I I C . :~ m ~ m -lil- I I o ° v ~ m ~ ~ o a 0 ~ ° ~_ a o =III ! z + - III !I•. - i < _ m a ~ ~ a o ~ v P 0 O NN N ~ ~ i _ ma ' Q ° ~ N _ 0 p] J NZ v 'v o ~a0 ON p a iN n' N O D Z U' ~ a o~ 0 0 ~. 3 ~ n , ,ii j n n O T io~v T N. ~ ~ O~ o ~ i ego ~i~ 0 v ~ m ~ a 0 ao m' o ~ a dote:10.26.04 drawn by: ~' 7 acale:t/16"mot'-0" 'ob no: Joshi m sp m revisions: a ~ 12.06.04 - move house 7 m 0 d • ~ Preliminary The Joshi Residence ,5>`~'S,~ KOCH &ASSOCIATES ~: I u C O R P O F A T E D P' ~ ~ ~ - LANDSCAPE APCryRECTUFE 8 CANiRACTING 19327 Monte Vista Drive js Drains ePlan -~ ~ ,~,o 5~a g Saratoga, California ~ ~ ,~ f.,,~°°a6u'' 915 3 9-5 60 1 SIOA9p0187 LvWape Artl6att w613 ~!1]3V~ 510.4900566 fAX tanau,P. Cmox,u. #500196 x ~~a ~ g~ ~ / ~ Q In ~~~_ G7 ~~ g ~!' . -~ -: ~ :. ~'. S ~~e H ~~ r - ~~~ ~, c, m D~~ L 2af` o ~ ~~~ T z mxm ~ c~ ~o~ r' 2 ~ ~ om 7CT ~ < A w z w A ~ ~ s ~ ~ Z ~6~ ~m ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ o m a ~ ~ R ~ I I y $ a g ~~ ~ ~_~ ~ g 'a~ m N a= • F ^a ` ~ ~ //^~ vJ ~a 6 6g I/ i ~ ~ ~ ~~li ~ a ~ Za ~~~~~ ~ ~ 2~ ~ ~ 2 ~9 ~ ~ 3 ~!}~. g~~ F ~ ~~~~~ O ~ 'p~ o m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ r gy '~ ~~R&g9 ~ R ~s ~ ~ e~ 9 i ~. a~.gy g~ES ~ ~."~;e~d ~ s ~6i~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~fr.-.~ gs,~aE~~.a ~~~F ~~~ ~~~~~.8;~ 9~~~ - ~~~~~~~a ?~ ~ r~~ ~ ~R. ~~~~~~~ 6 ~F~ ~.~t s~ a~~ ~ ~ ~~ r .R ~ R~~ 8 _ \ z nl a~~ ~ r~ ke 6rr~q~ ~ ~~ ti e rn ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~, I a y„ , `\~/ y w ~1 ~~st~~g~~a~~t~ 8~ da.7~T~ ~e"~ ` ~ ~,~~ 3~ . n S ~ ~F ~. ~ II ~t ~ ~~~;r~~ sv, ~. ~ ~ ~ g y~ ~ ~ r y y ~: ~~~ ~~'~~ ~g ~~~ ~ ~g ?~ moo a~~ y_ ,T$99~~ ~ ~p~gP Ras ~ ~ I~ ~~ " ~~~~'~ 11 S 9 ~r ~~ ~ ~~ XX~ ~ ~ $ ~ ~~b-Dim Fz gg3 3 ~6 C Y v8 ~p ~ ~ o. ~ PzF ~m Q o o_ b y2 a ~~,,°~I~ ~,- Z ~~~7~~' ~7~ 9 F~~lI ~ ~~~ ~F ~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ A~F~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ E ~~~ ~~~~g~~ ~~~4y ~F m ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~7~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~e ~e ~~ ~ im o m $? ~ 4~ ~~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ gg ~o.n~~~ ~~aa~ ~~ ~ ti ~ ~ J ~~~tt a t~~ ~~a~~s ~°~~ ~o ~: i ®®Po~ II i ~~~~ ~; Qs F b~ 4 x~ F E R? ~,•~~II~za•pYaR¢ ~~i~~~~~R~i ~ H ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~o o?~ iv ~ gf 3cZi ~'myvy N~ -i~r ~p y~ ~y0 ~o o~ ~~ ~~ ~~-m~~~ K~g~~°-sn~ ~p y~~r ~T ~ nD ~~N ~m ~ ~~ ~ `y~ ~ b yg~ ~D 6 ~ ~m io- zQ m Fr S S (S ~ ~^ D~ O O y y ~P ~ ~, F ~ ~o ~ ~ ~o ~£, ~ ~o ~ ~ F~ 1W S 2 O N /:• j ./ ,' i ~/~ ~m x oy ~ ~ -.. ~r ~~ i ~ ~ . / ` I ~ w n I V 3 ~ ~ ~ ~o O m ~ y ~ -~ ~ wW w ~ ~ ~ ~~ a "~ m r ~. ~` a ~° y ~ ~~ ~ ~ r ~ ~°~ ~ D ~~tF~ ~o ~ E P ~~\ „+ ~= -+: ~r ~~ ~ N ~ N w 9~CZ~ OAO ~ ~~ C A~OT~O~i' A Om ~~iill ~ - y N Um1 ~ '" z s~ Zg ~y~y~{~yyy~]]m ~RR~jj ZZ`_~`~ P ((nn ~~~~ D 9 S LI 0yf1~~f~141 L1 ni (~Op ~~~~ ~`~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~m~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~g ~ H~ ~p~ ~ x ~i,m iYi z ~~~. o =~q~ ofg ~_ g gg g ~ At~~Ro~p~] ~~`~ qR ~vw( 3C YB~~~~mQ~~~~~~~'3~ IT1 p R m Rl ~ ~ T D T T T ~ ~ Z~ ~ ~ LS _~ S ~ ~ P 4 R R 4 ~ $ 8 p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o < . JO m ~g~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~P ~~r y ~Il ~ g _~ ~ m ~~ y n ~ v e ~ m ~ Item 4 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: • • Type of Application: Date: APN: App # 04-376/ 15040 El Quito Way Ting-Pwu Yen John F. Livingstone, AICP Interim Community Development Director Modification of Building plans and Development Conditions March 9, 2005 397-07-002 Department Head: Z 15040 El Quito Way C~~OOUi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 12/02/04 02/OU05 02/28/05 02/17/05 03/03/05 Request Modification of Approved plans to add approximately 1,784 square feet to the first floor of the existing 4,232 square foot single story house for a total floor area of 6,016 square feet. The gross lot size is 57,115 square feet. and zoned R-1-40,000. The maximum height of the residence will be approximately 24 feet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve the application with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution with conditions 2. City of Saratoga Notice, Noticing Affidavit, and Noticing Labels 3. Fire Department Comments 4. Applicant's Plans, Exhibit "A" • • • ~®~~~~ File No. 04-376,• 19870 EI Qvito Way/Yen Property STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD (Residential Very Low Density) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 57,115 square feet gross AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 18.7% GRADING REQUIRED: The applicant is proposing minimal grading. 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. Proposal Code Requirements Lot Coverage: Maximum Allowable 25.6% 35% Building Footprint 5,113 sq. ft. Driveway, 5,099 sq. ft: Walkways and sheds 3,203 sq. ft. Pool 1,246 sq. ft. TOTAL 14,660 sq. ft. 19,990 sq. ft. Floor Area: Maximum Allowable Existing 4,232 sq. ft. New Addition 1,784 sq. ft. TOTAL 6,016 sq. ft. 6,020 sq. ft. Setbacks: Min. Requirement Front 60 ft. 30 ft. Rear 58 ft. 50 ft. Left Side 71 ft. 20 ft. Right Side 55 ft. 20 ft. Height: Maximum Allowable Residence 24 ft. 26 ft. Detached Garages N/A 15 ft. • ~~®oo~ File No. 04-376,• 19870 El Quito Way/Yen Property PROJECT DISCUSSION Design Review The applicant is requesting a Modification of the previously approved design review application to add approximately 1,784 square feet to the first Iloor of the existing 4,232 square foot single story house for a total floor area of 6,016 square feet. The gross lot size is 57,115 square feet and zoned R-1-40,000. The maximum height of the residence will be approximately 24 feet. Typically this addition would not require Administrative or a Planning Commission Design Review; it would simply be processed "over the counter". Due to the applicant's interior remodel and change to the existing roof line the project exceeds the 18-foot height limit, requiring Planning Commission approval: The applicant received approval of the original project from the Planning Commission September 22, 2004. The applicant has now modified the original design review approval increasing the proposed addition from the original 1,028 square feet. and significantly changing the design of the proposed remodel. The applicant has provided a separate page in the proposed plans illustrating the original approved design. The homes in the area vary in age and design with no consistent design pattern. The proposed exterior finish will be stucco. The exterior finish will be a gold color with white trim. The proposed roof color is a brown slate tile. 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 neighbor's views. The house will be a one-story house at approximately 24 feet in height. The existing mature trees that surround the site will be maintained. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The majority of the existing landscaping will remain and no trees will be removed. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. No trees will be removed. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The residence is situated in the center of a large lot and is surrounded by existing trees. The house will not exceed 24 feet in height. The project will have varying roof heights, with both hip and gable projections. The proposed attached garage is angled off the building line of -the existing house, which .reduces mass and adds interest and dimension to the proposed facade. ~~®®a4 File No. 04-376,• 19870 EI Quito Way/Yen Property (e) Compatible bulk and height. The project meets this policy in that the proposed house will be 24 feet in height well below the maximum 26 feet allowed. The existing mature trees that surround the site will be maintained as part of the project. The proposed house will also have varying rooflines that will break up the front elevation of the building and add character and interest to the structure. (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. Parking The Saratoga City Code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking. spaces within a garage. The applicant is proposing athree-car garage with open parking provided in the driveway. Trees No trees are being removed on the site and the existing landscaping and driveway area that surrounds the existing trees is being maintained. No arborist review was required. Correspondence No negative correspondence was received on this application at the date that the staff report was distributed to the Planning Commission. The applicant has shown the proposed plans to the adjacent neighbors as documented by the applicant. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY Conservation Element Polio Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. Land Use Element Policy 5.0 The Ciry 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: Policies in that no trees will be removed thus protecting the rural atmosphere of Saratoga. The proposed materials and ~~~©OJ File No. 04-376,• 19870 El Quito Way/Yen Property colors will blend the proposed house into the existing landscape-and be compatible with the adjacent surroundings. CONCLUSION The proposed project is designed to conform to the policies set forth in the Ciry's Residential Design Handbook and to satisfy all of the findings required within Section 15- 45.080 of the Ciry Code. The residence does not interfere with views or privacy, preserves the natural landscape to the extent feasible, and will minimize the perception of bullz so that it is compatible with the neighborhood. The proposal further satisfies all other zoning regulations in terms of allowable floor area, setbacks, maximum height, and impervious coverage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the application with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. • o~~~®~~ • • Attachment 1 • ~~®®~~ APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION N0.05- CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Yen; 15040 El Quito Way WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Modification of Building Plans and Development Conditions to add approximately 1,784 square feet to the first floor of the existing 4,232 square foot- single story house for a total floor area of 6,016 square feet. The gross lot size is 57,115 square feet and zoned R-1-40,000. The maximum height of the residence will be approximately 24 feet..; 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, "I~Tew Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences; 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 neighbor's views. The house will be a one-story house at approximately 24 feet in height. The existing mature trees that surround the site will be maintained. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The majority of the existing landscaping will remain and no trees will be removed. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. No trees will be removed. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The residence is situated in the center of a large lot and is surrounded by existing trees. The house will not exceed 24 feet in height. The project will have varying roof heights, with both hip and gable projections. The proposed attached garage is angled off the building line of the existing house which reduces mass and adds interest and dimension to the proposed facade. (e) Compatible bulk and height. The project meets this policy in that the proposed house will be 24 feet in height well below the maximum 26 feet allowed. The existing mature trees that surround the site will be maintained as part of the project. The proposed house ~~®®~~ will also have varying rooflines that will break up the front elevation of the building and add character and interest to the structure. (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. 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 Policies: Conservation Element Policy 6.0 Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering thevisual impact of new development. Land Lase Element Polio 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 Policies in that no trees will be removed thus protecting the rural atmosphere of Saratoga. The proposed materials and colors will blend the proposed house into the existing landscape 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 January 20, 2005, incorporated by reference. All changes to the- approved plans must be ®®®~~ submitted in writing with plans showing the changes and are subject to the Community Development Director's approval. 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: i. A maximum of one wood-burning fireplace is permitted and it shall be equipped with a gas starter. All other fireplaces shall be gas burning. 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. 5. 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 irrigation to reduce runoff, promote surface infiltration and minimise use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to 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 handscape 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.. ~~~®~~ 12. The height of the structure shall not exceed 24 feet as defined in Section 15-06.340 of the City Zoning Code. 13. 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 14. The applicant shall comply with all attached comments made by the Santa Clara County Fire Department. CITY ATTORNEY 15. Applicant agrees to hold Ciry harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City 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. 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 9`h day of March 2005 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission ~~®~.i 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 • • ~ ~®®1.~ Attachment 2 • .~~®®~.~ 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 9`h day of March 2005, 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, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 12:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Ciry Hall is closed every other Friday. Please check the Ciry web site at ~~~vwsaratoga.ca:us for the City's work schedule. APPLICATION # 04-376 (397-07-002) -YEN, 15040 El Quito Way; -Request -for Modification of Building Plans and Development Conditions to the previously approved Design Review Application. The modifications include changes to the floor plan and design. The proposed project will add approximately 1,784 square feet to the existing 4,232 square foot single story house for a total floor area of 6,016 square feet. The gross lot size is 57,115 square feet and zoned R-1-40,000. The maximum height of the .residence will be approximately 24 feet. All interested persons may appear and be Beard 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. Please provide any comments or concerns in writing to the Planning Department to the attention of the staff planner indicated below. 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 Interim Community Development Director 408.868.1231 • ~Q~~~.'~ • • -=- Street Labels - Q 500 ft line around B Quito Way 15040 t3 Quit Way 15040 Q D Quito Way 15040, parceB in 500 ft ._ _.___ ~ ~~_ ~, /~ _..._._-.___-- swv. . I WY 15040 El Quito Way CT ®~~~ AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES • STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, Kristin Borel, 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~day of February; 2005, 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 Ci 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 15040 El Quito Way; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. / ~ O Kristin Borel ~~~®~~. JOHNSON, JAMES P & LOLA P TRUSTEE APN 39704061 SOBEY RD TOGA CA 95070-6236 CHOWDARY, SUBHASH & UMA APN 39704094 14964 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6236 TO, ALLAN AN NGOC & ANGELA KIM-QUI DINH TR APN 39706022 14975 QUITO RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6263 MCCULLOUGH, NADINE B TRUSTEE APN 39706085 14985 QUITO RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6263 MCFARLANE, DENNIS L TRUSTEE APN 39706096 18600 RANCHO LAS CIMAS WY TOGA CA 95070-6256 SON, RICHARD A & NANCY O TRUSTEE APN 39706099 1853 AQUINO WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6204 YEN, TING P & VAN T TRUSTEE APN 39707002 15040 EL QUITO WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6209 PAIK, KI-BANG ETAL APN 39707008 18681 MAUDE AV SARATOGA CA 95070-6215 ROSZKOWSKI FAMILY REV TR AGMT TRUSTEE APN 39707028 15060 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6237 ERSEN, JAMES R & DIANE 39707064 15055 QUITO RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6263 POULIOT, RICHARD L & COLLEEN M TRUSTEE APN 39704089 14976 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6236 JEAN, JAMES & BETTINA APN 39704124 14906 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6236 ANDERSON, RICHARD F & DIANA M APN 39706023 14971 QUITO RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6263 FOX, SANFORD Z & BARBARA K TRUSTEE APN 39706094 18585 RANCHO LAS CIMAS WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6256 HACKWORTH, JOAN D ETAL APN 39706097 18586 RANCHO LAS CIMAS WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6256 CRUZ, GREGORY T & RACHAEL L TRUSTEE APN 39706100 18500 AQUINO WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6204 COWARD, JOHN H & DENISE E APN 39707005 15095 QUITO RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6296 HONG, INSIK & KYUNGSOO APN 39707009 15010 EL QUITO WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6209 LIMAYE, RAJIV V & KALA R APN 39707029- 15050 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6237 SCIMECA, GERALD R & COLLEEN M TRUSTEE APN 39707079 18661 MAUDE AV SARATOGA CA 95070-6215 SKOV, ANDREA RIIS APN 39704090 14970 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6236 JEAN, JAMES & BETTINA APN 39704125 14906 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6236 MCCULLOUGH, NADINE B TRUSTEE APN 39706051 14985 QUITO RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6263 MAGUIlZE, LAWRENCE A & ROSEMARY J APN 39706095 18601 RANCHO LAS CIMAS WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6256 MCCABE, R K & SUSAN B APN 39706098 18564 RANCHO LAS CIMAS WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6256 PESCHKE, ELIZABETH A TRUSTEE APN 39707001 15020 EL QUITO WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6209 STOTZER, SAMUEL W & MARJORIE N TRUSTEE APN 39707007 18671 MAUDE AV SARATOGA CA 95070-6215 MILLETT, LEOPOLD IAN A & URSULA A TRUSTEE APN 39707011 15131 EL QUITO WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6209 CUNNINGHAM, STEVE & ANNE APN 39707063 15001 QUITO RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6296 RAO, VALLURI R & RADHA V APN 39707088 15115 EL QUITO WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6209 ~~~®1.'~ CHOW, RAYMOND W B & ELLEN O L APN 39707089 15129 EL QUITO WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6209 LUND, LLOYD H & KAREN F TRUSTEE APN 39707104 18665 MAUDE SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 CASALE, FRANK & TERESA M APN 39707102 POBOX2311 SARATOGA CA 95070 WESENHAGEN, HUMPHREY E ETAL APN 41040017 P O BOX 2714 SARATOGA CA 95070 CHID, WEN H TRUSTEE ETAL APN 39707103 18615 MAUDE AV SARATOGA CA 95070-6215 HUYNH, PAUL H & HONG APN 41040018 15120 QUITO RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6229 • • ~~~®~~ • Attachment 3 • ~~®~1.~ CODE/SEC. UFc Appendix [II-A JFc 103.2 MC 6-15.070 REQUIREMENT Review of a proposed 1,774 square foot addition to an existing single family residence. The: new total area will become approximately 6006 square feet. Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access and water supply as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work the applicant shall make application to, and receive-from, the Building Department all applicable construction permits. ltecluired Fire Flow• The fire flow for this project is 2,000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure. The required fire flow is note' available from area water mains and fire hydrant(s) which are spaced at the required spacing. *-Hydrant(s) are too far from site: Required Fire Flow- Option (Single Family D~, wellings)• Provide an approved fire sprinkler system throughout all portions of the building, designed per National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard #13D and local ordinances. The fire sprinkler system supply valuing shall be installed per Fire Department Standard Detail & Specifications SP-6 (See attached). Garage Fire Sprinkler System Required: An approved, automatic fire sprinkler system designed per National Fire Protection Association Standard #13D and local ordinances, shall be provided for the garage. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling.- Cky PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST. TYPE ApplicantName DATE PAGE TG ^ ^ Q ^ ^ CHAPMAN DESIGN 12/10/2004 1 2 of ?CJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION gy TAME F Residential Development Rucker; Ryan • • 0 PROJECT LOCATION SFR- YEN 115040 El Quito Wy ~PC~°o~. FI~ DEPARTMENT ~NREVIEWNUMBER o4 3~2s ~~ SANTA CLARA COUNTY ~ -FIRE ~ BLDG PERMIT NUMBER 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 ~o~p,ESY.gEp~~~E (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • wunv.sccfd.org CONTROL NUMBER FILE NUMBER 0-377 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS SHEET NO. Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, ~~®~~`~ Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga CODE/SEC. IBC 902.2.4.1 UFC 902.2.2 uFc 902.2.4.1 • ~~'cL~a o0 G,~ ~ FIRE ~"~ COUNTESY 8 SEPVICE SHEET EIR~ DEP AF~TMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • wwwu,.sccfd.org REVIEW NUMBER 04 3126 BLDG PERMIT NUMBER CONTROL NUMBER FlLENUMBER O`~~377 .DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS ). REQUIREMENT Early Warning Fire Alarm Svstem ReauirPrl; Flre Alarm System throughout all portions of the t ucture,pinstal edE er CWarning Saratoga Standards. Prior to installation, a licensed C-10 contractor shall suby of the fire department, plans, specifications & listings, a completed permit appli ation, and applicable fee's for review and approval. Fire A aratus En ine Access Drivewa Re uired: Provide an access driveway with a paved all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 14 feet paved 2 feet unpaved, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turnip radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside, and a maximum slope of 15%. g Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet D-1. EmerRencv Gate/Access Gate Requirements Gate installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specification G-1 and, when open shall not obstruct any portion of the required width for emergency access roadways or driveways. Locks, if provided, shall be fire department approved prior to installation. TG ^ ^ ^ -~ - ^rv~~wncrvame DATE ^ ^ PAGE :CJFLOOR CHAPMAN DESIGN 12/10/2004 2 AREA LOAD (DESCRIPTION OF? BY Residential Development Rucker, R an F PROJECT y LOCATION SFR- YEN 15040 El Quito Wy Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga • • • d p p :41 -mm Q,E E_ RAL,�NQT E , ;PROPERTY D E 8 C R I PT oo o e! "C' INMf&O ALL", CAM( w ly ALL : rn H T m _Q: F21:.F�RK IF. -V)N :mm ❑ GRADING:. LKGI;t� 001 :IFY AL EUAEN E S flYo pl/._ .& 'TIE DRAINACE., LIL M Z,J a q 4HPWY'k?P�i PAQ j:...'71ONS:�RIPR OF -WORK; 'ADDRESS -jr aulT vp 6 t�� e.wA l__flA:Tor,11� - C. e� ETBACKS LLN gee' LL I '0 S FONS';� �j DU"NOSTI NCSALSE12L TAKE PRECEDENCE 0 OVER OGRAWI 4 I lo. Plf q FE V)(�st m r4 6, 9. Mi 6. --c— r- 541C,44 Mr_� SCALED DRAWINGS .... 1. .�_E 6F. MINOR .0 , i. -3 MN ISCREPANCIES BETWE64.6RAWINGS&! PARCEL T_ Ns p* IST I r- 5HF-D o a 6�i ... CRS Ai�HC 'A T6 c CONDITIONS AR 0 E EXPECTE FICATION SHALL CONDFTIONS'REOt j R,NG�C�j q :0. ❑ ATTENTION OF, C;DA. �,.BE. BROUGHT �M THE ATTI �.INIMEMATELT... ING cm q �ONSTRU&1716W 666U�E�TS: TO ,POST. JOB, COPY ,!VERIFY DOCUMENT DATE WITH �C,D.X' PRIOR. TO, START'OF.WORK:'. CON" .-PROJECT D IPT ESCR TRACTOR TO Doc UR PlT.HlAllTb`!ANYT6�ESVU"B'(C ON� I b UMENTS 5.ALL E.F TRACT0RS,..IMM GATELY.,. F-; T. 81TSPLM :NOTES : OCINITTY,MA -,i o. w zp Do e! El DRNEWAY ': ol JIM ld _Q: F21:.F�RK IF. :mm ❑ GRADING:. flYo pl/._ .& 'TIE DRAINACE., LIL M Z,J a q Q'. Wk 7 GAS ERVICE ELEC... RLM�, j ETBACKS gee' 90 TREES PWIZlqi^ 4 Plf q FE V)(�st m r4 6, Mi 6. --c— r- 541C,44 Mr_� L1 6J. 4c t I ��l p* Lu UE e! ld Z,J a Plf Mi 6. L1 6J. Lu :0. • • • r, r _~ cn NOTE L._~L_ ~I- " CHAPMAN : CLIENT DATA SHEET ~ ~~ E ~ u :~~ [ _~L_I _I - DESIGN _ pI~E o a- o o ~~~`~A9~`m tz.~, r wox ixc w~me~ rm °~~~~,~~~ ~~'~ m1-TMs vwxc s nm ~~ . L~ L_I - L. L- . ~ ASSOCIATES TINE F. YEN. & VAN T DQNG ` - - - JOB NQ : ~f 2442 .. . . a ~~~ ° ~ w mam M mrx¢ ox x iaw ~m on~~ mxwscs "~" ~`~PR""` "©m` - f ~ ~ ' ~ ~ 620 S. - EL . MONTE: AVENUE . ' 15040 EL QUITO WAY; SARATOGA CA.95070 _ DRAWN 8Y: OF SHEETS 'LOS AlTOS;.CA, 94022.:::-.(650).941-6890. PHONE NO.. CHECKED BY:." SIZE: `24 X..36 ,, • • ~: ,. I _ ....,.. _ .. .:.:.. I. . . ... .... . ... . .. . . ,:, i ... ^I: JOISTS FLOOR .' : .. .. . .. .. . '.., ., .. ..: ''.. '. i, .. .. L F100R' . . ..� . :� .JOISTS' ... .. _ : I . . . . . . . I . �: - - . . . '. : . �: ; , : . . . . . . . � : .. . �% . . . .. . - - � - 1 : � : 1 :: ! .. . � .. T .� , . , . . . . . . , . .. . . . . . . . . I . : . . � . ":. . :.� ".. . . . , . . . . . I . I . . , , : - - . . . , - , " i , ; . . ; � . . ., � , .: . . i . ::�i :; : . . : , ,: . . . GE ERAL NO ES . , . . m I .. _. .. K : . . . . _. : - .,:. ; . : - . ". .. .. . . . . :. ., ... .. .... .. .� .' . :... '. I . .. ..... . r: . , ... , .. .. ...... r . ..:...... .. . . . , :. .. . - ,. : ,. :. :' . r..D '��� I ".." . . . . MIN..SLOPE'FROM �MORIZ. -. 46 E GREES 'IF � w W ... .' .,. .• '.. .. ;. r..,...:. .. .. .. .. :'., .. ... I. .. ... '. •.. : � ... '.. ... .. ... .... .. ...., .�,. .'. ...: .. ::: ,.,. :. :.� �.: ��'. . 1. � D �. NT:: 2X LENGTH.OF'� '': PROVIDE MI SPAN -T 4 �� . ,. .. - ... .. ,.. ... .,. .. . . .. : ... ' ... .; ... .. . .... .... .. .. ., ..:..: � ;.., '� PROVIDES4XRdc BXR'POSTS O ENDS OF ALL �:'.�, 4X k 6 %. SEAMS. RESPECTIVELY... TM . ,.. N 1198 g e66 € g I. . .. :.... ... . .; .. - CITY PLAN CHECK , . .. :. . , ^; SE ION B B o CROSS CT o.. ., c .. sl N .. I y �4 . k, I s _ '. . .. ..': ' .:,.. ........ .. . , ': ', .. ....„ „ .. .' . '.,. ® W TALLER THAN '. I V P PROVIDE FIRESTOPS WALLS - 10 0' .,, . ,..... . :. , .. ..,.. ,.. '..' '. .. . .. :. .' .. .' .. .. ': '.. .' . ... ., ...: 22 . .. . L..,.O..T E , . � I"i�r .�,�/... ... ., . . . ❑IV am LESS TH4EN. tO18I0 OFGTHE AAREA OF .T}iE � ��� U. .' -� SOF :.. : '.. ,: ':..' :: .... .. :. .... : . . :. _. ..,. .. :. .. . .. .' .. ., • :.:.. :. .... _ . ... ' ice.. .. ../ i r \ __ :: PROVDE 1 S�Fi: NN :FO NOATIONC 2 .,VENIS:> . �.;:. VEMSPER'150SO..FT.O. U E F ND R' FLOOR ...' .AREA PER: SEC.'2306.7 CSC 2001. :'USE :,. ',.,,.� ❑ }} .m Z.'; .. .. ..' .. ,� ...... ���•' �> "�, �2 '.6X14 G.I..,SCREENS. Q ❑ QQ •' .. :. .' :... '. . .. .. . '. .. .. ,.. . .. '. .'.. .''.. •. •.: . '. :... ..'. I J 1 :.:'N .. _. i ..•. .." i:. 1L .�.... :: :' !i:.:. ai ., ., h... .. .. -\ '.. ... .. : % ... .. . m SEE SHEETS : FOR FOUNDATION DETAILS SEE .SHEETS ":FOR FRAMING DETAILS...,0..'.. Q ¢ W ..:. SEE •.SHEETS � � � FOR STRUCTURAL DETAILS' Q KS a -� 0 V '. :•.. .. _ ... ' ,: .. .. Tr rt - =. .. , ... . . . ..., ,y. I,': SE�TIO L>L a -o: �L I 101 %LT, a , 0 . .... , � . reL O P..: T . . . .. . 1 .. .:. - _ : r :.... :. I :.. .: id. .:. - . . '. '.: .. ': 1 .. , .. .. 2 VAULTED ❑ Ln ,. .. ..0 . ` ... ! - I . 3❑. CElLING..O $ .., 11 I . amc. . r. ,., /..,...:' ;�::.. '- -1— =x1s�. � I I .: ... �-Iti N� .�M ,... ..' , ... .,. :..,; . ..... _'. I'r�M I L. E?M `. ♦EXiEAIOR ❑ wru , � . E , . -I < ) — -- -- — ff _� ... ; . . . h .. . .' 4: ..... +: ... .. r .. .. , . .. , , I II: oz.o _ a..o.. - _ � '. . ..•'.. '. ;, : '. .. , .: ._ �: -- - - -- . .. - i .. INTERIOR' '1 .. .. i : ..' .I. ... .� W1J.L :: I' ... ., : ..'. �.,I (.. ... I .. .. .. 1 F 1._,. '.::. a is . . ' : ...: .. ' . ii �, . , ... .' _ J . 1 .' .. ( I .. 6❑ FLOOR'WI CEILING' .. I .� 4)r . O - _ ;.cLu2 , .: . . :.. ,. 1 7❑ FLOOR. ..: W CD... W . J . :. I � L f ,,� CROSS SECTION II AII_ A,I H .. .' I,. .. .9❑ INTERIOR sus �'� 0 1�4„ = 1' -0" y . , :,: , .. . . ..1 : , I "I .' i, ' . . . . ... . . I .' • . ..' I ., . '.. .. . . ' . .. °' . ' .. 1. SECTION NOTES . . , '.. .. . 'I B❑ NIP .. i 10 f"�� . ... .. . .. .. . . y �� RAFiFRS '� H� .....: :. .. .. . I. '. ...© PURIJNS > 1. . . . is ® PRACES. Z U � °' I'',. . .' . . . .. :o¶L O� I:' . 1 I . �o r .. .. i r ... . . . .. H❑ PLATES STUDS r 0 P .. . i . ., I: tOJ I . ..: .. . I.. . . . . . . . .... I.. ,.. ... I . . . . . . . . . . . I.. . .i . . : . . . . . . .. .. . . " I ..... . . t"MRAGm. . . . . . .. . . .. — . . I .. I. . . ,:, i ... ^I: JOISTS FLOOR .' : .. .. ''.. '. i, .. .. L F100R' . . ..� . :� .JOISTS' ... .. _ . I GIRDERS '. ,: . i ":.'.;. ` .' .. .. . .. . . -. �, : .. r.. : . :.,. ... : ... N UNDER- .I� ., �' 1:.. .. .. .. : ', . ... ... .., ..:❑. PINNING .' . 0 ... .. ., ... .. . .. .. . .. . . g 2, , S . ,. .. - I ..... ... .... ... I:. . .. . ,....... .,. , .. . ,., .. .:.. . � :. ... ... .. '.. ' .. . ,.. .�.::..... ... ,... ... ., .... .. REU SION I. �', S 1198 g e66 € g I. .: ... .. . ..... ...:.:. :.... ... . .; .. - CITY PLAN CHECK , . .. :. . , ^; SE ION B B o CROSS CT o.. ., c .. sl N .. I y �4 . k, I s _ p T� . ..., . ..... . I. 4 1 0. .... .... .:. .. s ..... ..� .,, . ,..... . :. , .. ..,.. ;: .. .. . . ., . .. ... .., .. .. % .