Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-24-2005 Planning Commission PacketCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Adult Day Care Room,19655 Allendale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Manny Cappello, Jill Hunter, Robert Kundtz, Isnda Rodgers, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, and Chair Susie Nagpal ABSENT : Commissioner Uhl STAFF: Planner Vasudevan PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of July 27, 2005. (APPROVED) 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 lawgenerally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral 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 August 18, 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 - None PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. ApplicantlAppellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. 1. APPLICATION #06-020 (389-OS-021) LOVOI, 19152 De Havilland Drive; -Appeal by aforesaid property owner of an Administrative decision denying the removal of a Canary Island Pine tree at the noted address. (LATA VASUDEVAN) (APPROVED 6-0, NO CHANGES TO CONDITIONS) 2. APPLICATION #04-177(386-35-069) NEXTEL, 19550 Prospect Avenue (12033 Miller Avenue - Church of the Ascension); - Nextel requests use permit approval to locate a wireless facility at the aforesaid address. The project consists of the installation and operation of concealed cellular antennas. Related equipment cabinets will be installed in a proposed enclosed area attached to one of the buildings on the property. (LATA VASUDEVAN) (APPROVED TO CONTINUE TO DATE UNCERTAIN, 5-0) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION 1TEM$ - None COMMUNICATIONS - NONE ADJOURNMENT AT 11:00 P.M. TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, September 14, 2005 in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerkC~saratoga. ca. us. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II). Cert~cate of Posting ofAgenda: I, Andrea Sandoval, Office Specialist for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission of the Ciry of Saratoga was posted on August 18, 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 If you would like to receive the Agenda's via a-mail, please send your a-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION SITE VISIT AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, August 23, 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 PIANIVING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 24, 2005 • Rou. CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. Application #06-020 - LOVOI 19152 De Havilland Drive Item 1 2. Application #04-177 NEXTEL Item 2 12033 Miller Avenue -Church of the Ascension 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 visits are generally short (5 to 10 minutes) because of time constraints. Any presentations and testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the Public Hearing. • . ~ ,~ ... ...--, ~,. .._ ;.., ;: 'rs mat;.;: r.~. ?,P LL. M.. , .., i ..CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNY~T~COMMISSION • STUDY SESSION AGENDA ' DATE: Wednesday, August. 24, 2005, 5:00 - 6:00 pm PtACE: ~ 19848 Prospect R~1, Saratoga, CA ROLL CAZ3. REPOR?OF P05TII~TG AGENDA Pursuant to Government Cede 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on August 1$, 2005. SIUDY SESSION AGENDA ~ ~ . L APPLICATION # OS-179 (38626-070 ~Ct 071) CI?Y OF SARATOGA;19848 Prospxt Road; -Planning Caaamission Study Session to review a roquest for a Tentative Map Subdivision, General plan Amendment from a,Qnasi Public Facdity to Medium Density - Residential, General Plan Conformity Detrrmfnaaon for Property Disposal, . -and Mftigated Negative Declaration, to_demolish the Busting church facility and replace it ' :~ with 9 single famil~~residential lots. 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 addmss their concerns prior to the hearing.. Also, the study sessiion 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 PIANr1ING COMMISSION i11LEETING Wednesday, August 24,. 2005, at 7:0o p,m. in the Adult Day Care Room, . ~ 19655 Allendale Avenue, Saratoga, CA ..~ ., _ .~ Y~ Study Session ,~ppneuian a os-i~ ~. OOfl001 t ~,_ . ` ~ , ~ ;~a ~ r ti: ~ " , ': i:q - - .i: y.. .. . ~ ~. ~sttwG ~OHIMISSION STUDY SESSION DISCIJ33ION ~~ . ~ Seaatew t1~e Planwtng Co~rrw~lssiou neat' arty dis~ass inns rtlatoaf to ?r qg . scat allow aey foriuat t~ or iaoMo~rs on t1~e propasdi ;~ ~` = ;,~ ~C Sdrdy Sew is a fact ;fig iws~atlwg wliene the ;, ~~ ,. _~ ~ i ~ _ ~ . ~ : tike laeia pwd ask gams frorw or' Heir ~ from ;,~ ~~ ~ ,c oAte~dl~eg tit Ae~wg. ~~, ~~ h ~. '., ~~ ~'~~ , ~.'" "'' ~~~L ~ t~E .S18~41OA t~C COI1~JMlSSIOrt Ri~C ~lNf~hi 3 ~ ~ - ~ ; < .-- bps corr~i NGotigh to tJit fonrrnl P 8' where iicHows w~ be , t ~ ;~; 4 ~ ~~1*~ k` s. ~+~ - ~,~i~~~Ii3MMARY ~.. ` ~?~ 14 ~'; tticrn filed: S/13/OS ~-~ ooraplete: N/A - .t < ~ 8/1D/OS ~~~ aaenptzted: 8/5/05 ' completed: i 8/18/05 , I~RQ!~CTBBCRilTION project requires a Tentative Subdivision Map, and a General Plan ' ,~ ,~ : .;~ieE to the Isud use designation of the site from Qum Public Facility to `~ tY Residential. No zoning change is required, Since. the City is selling the ~, ~ ; fir, , ~-' ~ ~ieaa'al Plan conformity Determination -for Property Disposal is also ~~bd. '~~Pr'oP~'~ project will also require a Mitigated Negative Declaration: q. - died per: snbwidae the site of the former Crrace Lutheran Church. The site is a-o' parcel's totaling 2.6 arses.. The area is zoned R 110,000 and the . a will range ficrm 10,000 square feat to 12,100 sq~ feat. The prapoaed s ~+~piist wild create nine lots with road frontage on a public cul-de sac. BTAF~' ANfALYSIS ZON1tMG: R 1,10,000 District Gat~tAl. Pf,AN btLRIGNATION: PF Public Facilities . , Pltp!(~Q GBI~RAL PLAN DESIGI~IATION: M-10 -Medium Density Residential 1~ASZ~RZd .G: NOt aDDUcAbk P~RCtL Suess 2.63. acres gross AvattAGS STrg SLt~: Average slope of the parcel is approximately 2% ~sos.~» 0~~~0~ z. R-1, 10,000 DISTRICT PROPOSED CODE REQUIREMENTS • • LOT AREA FRONT SIDE REAR NUMBER OF LOTS CUL-DE-SAC LOT DEPTH LOT WIDTH ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA INCLUDES A TWO CAR GARAGE PROJECT DISCUSSION 10,002 sF. TO 11,356 SF. 10,000 SF. (INTERIOR LOTS (INTERIOR LOTS 12,005 SF. AND 12,119 SF. 12,000 SF. (CORNER LOTS (CORNER LOTS 25 FEET 25 FEET 10 FEET 10 FEET 2S FEET 25 FEET 9 LOTS 9 LOTS PUBLIC STREET 40 FT 115 FT. To 127 FT. 8$ FT. TO 105 FT. PUBLIC STREET WITH 40 FT. 115 FT. 85 FT. INTERIOR LOTS 100 FT. CORNER LOTS 3,200 SQUARE FEET FOR A 10,000 sF. LOT, UP TO 3,710 FOR THE 12,119 sF. LOT TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP 3,200 SQUARE FEET FOR A 10,000 sF. LOT, UP TO 3,710 FOR THE 12,119 SF. LOT The applicant requests Tentative Subdivision Map approval to subdivide two parcels into nine single family residential parcels, each of which would include a new building site. The proposed nine-parcel subdivision complies with the standards of the subdivision and zoning ordinances. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT The site currently has a General Plan designation of Public Facilities. The proposed project requires changing the designation to Medium Density Residential which would be consistent with the surrounding uses. The previous use as a church was a Conditionally Permitted Use. In order for the land to be built on with single-family residences the general plan designation must be changed to a residential designation. The proposed designation of Medium Density Residential is consistent with the current residential zoning on the property. Application # OS-179 3. ~~~~~~. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The proposed project consisting of subdivision of two parcels into nine parcels is subject to environmental review under CEQA. An Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration are being prepared. COMMUNITY INPUT Neighborhood Meeting The City conducted a neighborhood meeting at the North Campus on June 2, 2005. There were approximately 15 participants. The nine-lot site plan was shown to the attendees and there appeared to be general acceptance of the design. The majority of issues raised by the participants are discussed in the attached letters and e-mails. Since the neighborhood meeting staff has increased the number of trees being maintained on the site as discussed in the attached Arbor Report. CITY ARBORIST The City Arborist inspected this property and the attached report addresses tree protection measures required in the course of development of this property. Staff is recommending that trees listed in the Arborist Report as being a potential risk to public safety be removed. ATTACHMENTS 1. Arborist Report 2. Proposed Tentative Subdivision Map 3. Correspondence from neighbors 4. City of Saratoga Notice, Noticing Affidavit, and Noticing Labels C7 Application # OS-179 ~ilt,OOO(~ q, lJllll • • Attachment 1 • • • ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED NINE LOT SUBDIVISION AT 19848 PROSPECT ROAD SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA PROPERTY OWNER: CITY OF SARATOGA SITE NAME: NORTH CAMPUS APN'S #: 386-26-070 & 386-26-071 Submitted to: Public Works Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Certified Arborist #WE-4001A July 12, 2005 P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 Email: arborresources@comcast.net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.240.0777 • Licensed Contractor #796763 C~ aaaoa~ • • • David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist July 12, 2005 INTRODUCTION The City of Saratoga Public Works Department has requested I review the potential tree impacts associated with the proposed nine lot subdivision of the property owned by the City of Saratoga at 19848 Prospect Road, Saratoga (named the "North Campus"). This report presents my findings and recommendations. The plan reviewed for this report includes the Tentative Map prepared by the City of Saratoga, dated July 5, 2005. The trees' locations and numbers are presented on an attached copy. For identification purposes, round, metallic tags containing engraved numbers corresponding to trees within this report were attached to each accessible trunk. FINDINGS • Tree Count and Composition Fifty-eight trees of Ordinance-size ~ were inventoried for this report. They comprise a total of 14 species and their name, numbers, counts and total percentages are presented below. Please note specific data compiled for each tree is presented on the attached table. pERC~NT: COMMON NAME TREE .NUMBERS C43UI~T ~ T ' American Sweetgum California Pepper Tree Camphor Tree Chinese Pistache Coast Redwood Italian Stone Pine Mexican Fan Palm Monterey Cypress Monterey Pine Olive Tree Prunus sp. Silver-Dollar Gum Willow-Leafed Peppermint White Alder 6-8 32 5, 9, 14, 16-18, 20, 23, 25, 28, 29, 53-55, 57 26, 27, 36, 56, 58 3, 4, 19, 30, 31 47 24 10, 48 15, 38, 42, 43, 45 2, 11-13, 49, 50 52 35, 40, 41 1, 33-35, 37, 39-41, 44, 46 51 TOTAL 3 5% 1 2% 17 29% 5 5 1 1 2 5 6 1 3 7 1 58 9% 9% 2% 2% 3% 9% 10% 2% 5% 12% 2% 100% ~ Trees presented in this report have trunk diameters large enough to be regulated by the City per the Tree Ordinance as well as the Subdivision Ordinance. City of Saratoga Property (North Campus), 19848 Prospect Road, Saratoga Page 1 of S City of Saratoga Public Works Department 000007' . • • David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist July 12, 2005 Overall Tree Conditions The trees presented in this report been assigned an overall condition rating that considers both their physiological health and structural integrity. The table below summarizes the ratings assigned to each tree and reveals that the trees appear in mostly fair to good condition. ,, ~~ ~ ~~, r ~` r: Sw F ~ ~' Tree # 3, 10, 13, 16-22, 24, 28, 30, 36, 50, 53, 54, 56, 58 4-9, 11, 12, 14, 23, 25-27, 29, 31, 32, 40, 43, 47-49, 52, 55, 57 1, 2, 15, 33-35, 37-39, 41, 42, 44-46, 51 Total 19 of Total 33% 24 41% 15 26% Tree Locations There are forty-three trees located on the subject site and include #1-4, 10-14, 16-29, 33- 37, 39-41, 44, 46 and 49-58. There are nine trees situated on neighboring properties and include #30-32, 38, 42, 43, 45, 47 and 48. There are six trees situated within the public right-of--way along Prospect Road and include #5-9 and 1S. Plan Review and Site Observations The proposed Tentative Map identifies the removal of the following 13 trees that, to my understanding, are situated in direct conflict with the proposed road or building envelopes: #2, 6-8, 12, 14, 16, 21-23 and 49-51. Replacements are suggested to mitigate the loss of any tree approved for removal. My review of the recent Tentative Map reveals that a home could possibly be constructed on lot 9 in a manner that allows the retention and protection of tree #16, a 21.5-inch diameter Camphor in overall good condition. If possible, I recommend this occurs due to its size, condition and relative contribution to the site. In doing so, I suggest a minimum setback of 12 feet from its trunk. Please note the tree protection bond amount and replacement tree value consider the retention of this tree. My observations of the 10 Eucalyptus trees on site (#1, 33-35, 37, 39-41, 44 and 46) reveal they are in overall poor structural condition due to being repeatedly being pruned at severe levels for clearance from the overhead, high-voltage electrical lines. Consequently, their branches are predisposed to failure and present a significant and potentially imminent risk to public safety. The only foreseeable way to potentially minimize this risk is to radically prune each tree at least once or twice a year and continue doing so throughout their life. City of Saratoga Property (North Campus), 19848 Prospect Road, Saratoga Page 2 of S City of Saratoga Public Works Department • • • V~~~~~ • David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist July 11, 2005 However, by doing so, branches originating from the cut areas can increasingly grow at more rapid rates each time cuts are made (thus increasing maintenance requirements). Based on the above information, I find the Eucalyptus trees on site are highly inappropriate and unsuitable for being located near homes on residential properties. As such, I anticipate their removal will be requested by the owners of the future lots. Tree Protection Bond Based on the proposed Tentative Map, the tree protection bond amount required for this project is determined to be $143,815. This amount represents the combined, appraised values of trees anticipated for retention2 throughout the subdivision phase of development and is calculated in accordance with the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9`~ Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture, 2000. RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations presented below are intended to serve as guidelines for mitigating the foreseeable impacts to inventoried trees. They are intended to aid in the planning process and function as a blueprint for establishing more specific measures as the project progresses. Should plans be revised, the recommendations may require modification. Design Guidelines 1. The numbers of 55 thru 58 should be assigned to the trees presented on the plan. 2. All site development plans, whether for the subdivision or development of individual lots, should be reviewed by the City for tree impacts. Recommendations should be provided to protect trees planned for retention. 3. All grading and trenching (such as for drainage, utilities and services) should be designed outside from beneath the canopies of retained trees. I should be consulted in the event this is not possible. 4. The following additional recommendations should be incorporated into the landscape design: a. Any trenching for irrigation or lighting beneath the trees' canopies should be designed in a radial direction to the trunks and established no closer than five times the diameter of the nearest trunk. b. Irrigation should not spray within five feet from the trees' trunks. c. Stones, mulch or other landscape features should be at least one-foot from the trunks of retained trees and not be in contact with the trunks of new trees. d. Tilling beneath the canopies should be avoided. e. Bender board or other edging material proposed beneath the trees' canopies must be placed on top of existing soil grade (vertical stakes can be used to achieve this). 2 Trees identified on the plan to remain include #1, 3-5, 9-11, 13, 15-20, 24-48 and 52-58. City of Saratoga Property (North Campus), 19848 Prospect Road, Saratoga Page 3 of S City of Saratoga Public Works Department oauoo9 • David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist July 12, 2005 Tree Protection Measures during Site Development 5. Tree protective fencing shall be installed as shown on the attached map and established prior to the demolition and clearing phases. The fencing shall consist of six-foot high chain link mounted on two-inch diameter, eight-foot tall steel posts driven two feet into the ground every 10 to 12 feet. Once established, the fence should remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction process. Please note the precise location for fencing will be specified during the pre-construction meeting (see the second line item below). 6. Unless otherwise approved, all development activities must be conducted outside the designated fenced areas and off of unpaved soil beneath the trees' canopies. These activities include, but are not limited to, the following: demolition, grading, surface scraping, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 7. Before commencing the site demolition and clearing phases, apre-construction meeting shall be held on site with the Project Manager, Project Superintendent and I. The intent is to specify tree protective fencing locations, limits of grading, staging areas, routes of access, trees approved for removal and other items regarding tree impacts and protection measures. 8. The removal of any brick, hardscape or foundations beneath the canopies of retained trees, including outside the designated fenced areas, must be performed as follows: the surface of the features should be first broken into small pieces with a jackhammer and manually lifted onto a loader that must remain on undisturbed hardscape and off exposed roots. Base rock covering exposed roots should remain intact and used as the new material. Within one hour, place six inches of coarse wood chips over the newly exposed area and apply water to keep moist for atwo-week period. 9. Temporary or permanent drainage features must be designed so water is not discharged towards the trunks of retained trees. 10. Any existing and unused underground pipes and utilities beneath the canopies of retained trees shall be abandoned. 11. Any trenching or grading approved beneath the trees' canopies shall be manually performed using shovels. 12. Any existing plants, groundcover, trees or shrubs being removed beneath the trees' canopies shall be manually cut to grade and the roots left below ground. The stumps can either be axed away or ground to below grade. 13. Great care must be taken by all personnel and equipment operators to avoid damaging the canopies of retained trees. • City of Saratoga Property (North Campus), 19848 Prospect Road, Saratoga Page 4 of S City ojSaratoga Public Works Department 00~~10 ~~ David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist July 12, 2005 • • • 14. Herbicides and pesticides should not be applied beneath the trees' canopies. Where used on site, they must be labeled for safe use near trees. 15. Every three to four weeks throughout site development, supplemental water should be supplied to each tree on the subject site during the months of May thru October. I suggest an application rate of 10 gallons of water per every inch of trunk diameter. For the Coast Redwoods, I recommend the same amount of water is supplied to them beyond the site being developed, during the aforementioned months and time intervals. 16. Prior to demolition, asix-inch layer of coarse wood chips from a tree company should be manually spread on unpaved soil beneath the canopies of the Coast Redwoods. The wood chips should not be in contact with the trees' trunks. 17. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited beneath canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath canopies. In addition, fuel should not be stored nor shall any refueling or maintenance of equipment occur within 100 feet of the trees' trunks (unless on the street). 18. Any tree pruning or removal must be performed under supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist and according to ISA standards. Information regarding Certified Arborists in the area can be obtained at http://www.isa- arbor. com. 19. Mitigation for the loss of trees approved for removal shall include the installation of new trees equal to their combined, appraised value. Based on proposed Tentative Map, this amount equals $29,770. Given the size of the property and amount of retained trees, I recommend the replacements consist of the following trees: four of 48-inch box size and seven of 36-inch box size. Acceptable replacement species include Quercus agrifolia, Quercus lobata, Quercus kelloggii, Quercus douglasii, Quercus dumosa, Acer macrophyllum, Aesculus californica, Pseudotsuga menziesii and Sequoia sempervirens. The proposed location and sizes of new trees should be shown on the landscape plans and be at least 15 feet apart and 15 feet outside from the canopy edges of retained trees. They must be installed prior to final inspection and, as necessary for support, be double-staked with rubber tree ties. Automatic irrigation must be supplied to each tree and be a drip or soaker hose system placed on the soil surface and not in a sleeve. Attachments: Tree Inventory Table Site Map (copy of the Tentative Map) City of Saratoga Property (North Campus), 19848 Prospect Road, Saratoga City of Saratoga Public Works Department Page S of S 0o®b~l • TREE INVENTORY TABLE Willow-Leafed Peppermint 1 (Euca/ tus nicholii 33 25 40 50% 25% Poor X - - $1,870 Olive Tree 2 (Oleo euro aea) 13 25 20 25% SO% Poor - X - $480 Coast Redwood 3 (Se uoiasem ervirens 25 70 35 75% 75% Good X - - $7,100 Coast Redwood 4 (Se uola sem rvirens) 25.5 85 35 50% 75% Fair X - - $4,720 Camphor Tree 5 (Cinnamomum cam Nora) 13 25 25 50% 50% Fair X - - X $1,460 American Sweetgum (Li uidambar s raci ua) 9.5 25 20 75% 25% Fair - X X X American Sweetgum (Li uidambarstyraci ua) 10 25 25 75% 25% Fair - X X X $67 American Sweetgum 8 (Li uidambar s raci ua) 11 25 25 75% 25% Fair - X X X $810 Camphor Tree 9 (Cinnamomum cam Nora) 11 20 25 100% 50% Fair X - - X S 1,570 Monterey Cypress 10 (Cu ressus macroca a 22.5 45 25 75% 75% Good X - - $7,700 Olive Tree I1 (Oleo euro aea 9.5 20 20 75% 25% Fair X - - $370 Olive Tree 12 (Oleo euro aea) 12 20 25 75% 50% Fair - X X $700 Olive Tree 13 (Oleo euro aea) 17 25 25 100% 50% Good X - - $2,040 Camphor Tree 14 (Cinnamomum cam Nora) 13 25 30 75% 50% Fair - X - $2,180 Monterey Pine 15 (Pinus radiata) 19 25 35 50% 25% Poor X - - X $270 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 15-gallon - S 120 24-inch box -5420 36-inch box = S 1,320 48-inch box = 55,000 52-inch box - S7,000 72-inch box = S 15,000 Site: 198!8 Prospect Road, Saratoga Prepared jor: City ojSaratoga Community Development Depart Prepared by: David L. Bobby, RCA 1 oj4 • 7/12/2005 OOOOi2 Camphor Tree 16 (Cinnamomum cam Nora) 21.5 30 30 100% 75% Good X - - $8,900 Camphor Tree 17 (Cinnamomum cam horn) 12 35 30 75% 75% Good X - - $2,490 Camphor Tree 18 (Cinnamomum cam Nora) 10 35 25 100% 50% Good X - - $1,420 Coast Redwood 19 Se uoia sem rvirens) 49.5 115 70 50% 100% Good X - - $27,800 Camphor Tree 20 Cinnamomum cam Nora) 22 40 40 100% 50% Good X - - $7,700 Camphor Tree Cinnamomum cam hora) 24 45 40 100% 50% Good - X - $! Camphor Tree 22 (Cinnamomum cam hora) 22 45 50 100% 50% Good - X - S' Camphor Tree 23 (Cinnamomum cam hora) 18.5 40 55 75% 50% Fav - X - $4,380 Mexican Fan Palm 24 (Washin tonic robusta 19 25 10 100% 100% Good X - - $525 Camphor Tree 25 (Cinnamomum cam hora) 11.5 30 30 75% 50% Fair X - - $1,600 Chinese Pistache 26 (Pistacia chinensis 10.5 30 30 75% 50% Fair X - - $1,340 Chinese Pistache 27 (Pistacia chinensis) 12.5 35 35 75% 50% Fair X - - $1,890 Camphor Tree 28 (Cinnamomum cam hora) 12.5 35 35 75% 75% Good X - - $2,360 Camphor Tree 29 (Cinnamomum cam hora) 21.5 35 40 75% 50% Fair X - - $5,500 Coast Redwood 30 (Se uoia sem ervirens) 19 75 25 100% 75% Good X - - X $4,000 • REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 1 S- allon - S 120 24-inch box -5420 36-inch box = S 1,320 48-inch box = 55,000 52-inch box = 57,000 72-inch box - S 15,000 Site: 19818 Prospect Road, Saratoga Prepared jor: City ojSaratoga Community Development Depart Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA T oj4 7/IT11005 00003 California Pepper Tree 32 (Schinus molle) 22, 15 20 30 75% 25% Fair X - - X 53,150 Willow-Leafed Peppermint 33 (Eucaly tus nicholii 27 40 35 50% 25% Poor X - - 51.280 Willow-Leafed Peppermint 28, 22, 34 (Fuca! tus nicholii 20, 16, 9 40 50 50% 25% Poor X - - 53,020 Silver-Dollar Gum 35 (Eucaly tus l anthemos) 17.5 20 30 50% 25% Poor X - - 5760 Chinese Pistache (Pistacia chinensis) 10.5 25 35 100% 75% Good X - - 5; Willow-Leafed Peppermint (Fuca! tus nicholii) 28 45 35 50% 25% Poor X - - 51,381 Monterey Pine 3g (Pinus radiata) 14 40 30 50% 25% Poor X - - X 5150 Willow-Leafed Peppermint 39 (Fuca! tus nicholii) 20.5 20 35 50% 25% Poor X _ _ 5740 Silver-Dollar Gum 40 (Fuca! tus 1 anthemos) 25 50 35 75% 25% Fair X - - 53.800 Silver-Dollar Gum 4l (Fuca! tus lyanthemos) 16 20 20 50% 25% Poor X - - 5640 Monterey Pine 42 (Pinus radiata) 11.5 25 20 50% 25% Poor X _ _ X 5100 Monterey Pine 43 (Pinus radiata) 13 40 35 75% 25% Fair X - - X 5180 Willow-Leafed Peppermint 44 (Eucaly tus nicholii) 21.5 20 40 50% 25% Poor X - - 5820 Monterey Pine qg (Pinus radiata) 15 35 35 50% 25% Poor X - - X 5240 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES I S- allon = S 120 24-inch box = 5420 36-inch box = S 1,320 48-inch box = 55,000 52-inch box = 57,000 72-inch box = S 15,000 Site: 79848 Prospect Road, Saratoga Prepared jot. City ojSaratoga Community Development Depart Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA 3 oj4 7/72/!005 o000~4, ;~ TREE INVENTORY TABLE Willow-Leafed Peppermint f1Zu~n/vntuc nichnlii 1 25 20 25 50% 25% Poor X - - 51,100 Italian Stone Pine 47 (Pinus inea 32 35 40 75% 25% Fair X - - X 54,040 Monterey Cypress 48 (Cu ressus macroca a 22 30 35 75% 25% Fair X - - X 53,190 Olive Tree 49 (Oleo euro aea) 17 25 35 50% 75% Fav - X - 51 380 Olive Tree 50 (Oleaeuro aea) 14.5 30 35 75% 75% Good - X - 51,500 White Alder (Alnus rhombi olio) 15 25 35 25% 75% Poor - X - Z Prunus s . 11 30 25 75% 50% Fair X - - Camphor Tree 53 (Cinnamomum cam Nora 23 35 60 100% 50% Good X - - 58,400 Camphor Tree 54 (Cinnamomum cam Nora) 14.5 35 50 100% 50% Good X - - 53,380 Camphor Tree 55 (Cinnamomum cam Nora) 11 25 25 50% 50% Fair X - - 5960 Chinese Pistache 56 (Pistacia chinensis 12 25 30 100% 50% Good X - - 52,180 Camphor Tree 57 (Cinnamomum cam Nora 11 25 30 75% 50% Fair X - - 51,470 Chinese Pistache 58 (Pistacia chinensis) 11.5 25 35 100% 75% Good X - - 52,270 • REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES I S- Ilon = S 120 24inch box - 5420 36-inch box = S 1,320 48-inch box = 55,000 52-inch box = 57,000 72-inch box = S ] 5,000 Site: 19848 Prospect Road, Saratoga Prepared jor: City ojSarotoga Community Development Depart. Prepared by: David G Bobby, RCA 4 oj4 7/1112005 00001 • Attachment 2 • t~a~~~.6 ~r ~\ `~ ~~ ~~d to ~ ~ _~ ~- i ~ _ ------- - _ _ 0 _ F-~-~ --I~- 25'0' -- ------ - -_ _, _ _.: ,~ 1 ~ ~ _ tr FROPFF _ ._ _. ~ . ~ ~ = F. = 115- ~a~ : ---- J - _ - - 2 -~ - - _ 'i . 1 ~ I ' 12y x: - ~,~ _ I - t 1 -- - --- --- -,- 1 r _ -. ~, ;._ - _ k . ~ . --- -- _.._~; LOT 1 - . ---1- I _ __. . - ~ 1 . ~- O r _P 12.119 SF J _ . -~_ R Q~ - ~ J 1 -- ~ ~ - `- I ~~~ 116 ._••_ _ I i _ _ __ y . - „ ,r..,-~- ~ g W __ - - •-- _ t ! ~ 1 I - -----° ~; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . 10 a ; - = i -r-~-_ ~ - --1- -~ -_ _ r - ~- - __ ~_ o ~-. ~ - ^ _ I J -I - - _ - _ ~ 11;3 o i - -._ '': OL ~ F~UE-, , -_ --- 16 , _ ~ ~. ar'. ~ 7 1:-~ 1 I ~ f~ ~. 4Y, p 4 1 1 1 a~ ~ 2 I ' 10.013 SF ~ ~ '. yi O i I 10~6~6` SF J I o I ~ - ~- ~, , •~ 3. I ~''~. ~ ' - I 53 ,, ~;,--et2 ,-'"1 ~ 'I I co ~ i '~,, S1 Fes, p-- ~~ ~I 55 ~ 'I r ~ ~ ~ - - ,I ~~~ s ~~ v; 3 OF CURB 11, ~ - --- .I SR~ =~-; s, •, r • _/ J ~.. , - ~*~ ~'` -~ LET 3 °~ ~57 ~~z' o -LOT '~ - - - - - - - - !-~' I 10 350 SF ~ 1 = ~ ~ a+ ~ 10,506 SF I 3 N •o ' J --~,.~ - i ,'~ ~+"--• fir:. ` `~`-1.3 ~ y ~ ~ ~~jh~i' / I ~ ~ rte,-' _ __ -~~ w' ~ 1 ~ `~ R' i 1 a ~~ -- ~:" _ ; I F ;-0 1 p, ~ • • LOT 6 00 ` :N:~ LOT4 ~ ~ ;LOTS ~ \; ~ ~ ; ~- ? M I` I 11,298', SE ~ _ 1 ~ h^ 1 10;002- SE ir) ; ~"' i 11,356- SF i ~ - ,. - -- • ~ r~ __ - _ ~81. - - _ ,t_s --___- __ __ ~ _ 106.64'. ` Attachment 3 • 00008 • • ~• John Livingstone ~ July 7, 2005 City of Saratoga John, Regarding the North Campus sale and development, the following are some of our concerns: In as much as the three eucalyptus trees bordering our property are scheduled to be removed, we certainly hope that other screening which borders our fence line will be retained. Although three Camphor trees, 22 inches in circumference, eleven English Laurel, a Dodonaea, and Privets, do not appear on the tree inventory list or proposed map, it is our hope that they will be retained. This will give us and the new residents a privacy screen, as well as a continuation of an aesthetic feature and bird sanctuary to which we have become accustomed. Starting at the South West corner of the project and extending northward, our property borders the western aspect of the North Campus for 140 feet. Enclosed is a map of same with the locations of the above mentioned trees and shrubs. We also like the fence which was installed by the city two years ago, and we hope it will remain. Our other concern is the increased grade elevation of the North Campus, in contrast to surrounding properties. As any two story design would be an intrusion to our privacy, we hope that single story construction will be required. One would hope that 3,200 sq. ft. single story homes, on 10,000 + to 11,000 + sq.foot lots, with a basement option up to the same dimension would be more than adequate. Si cer y, i liam and orma Ford 19905 Viewridge Drive • Saratoga, CA ph 252-3017 0000.9 7 ice..!. .~.........•...r...-....~.;~«....... ~.~...-..r 'f• ; 'i ~~'~..' - ..1.. ..O - J _.•}'.:;4i :'•r:71 1 : ice, .. ~~ t - - f ; . f.'~i _ . 7 .... ~' _... .' ~• .. iT ? ~''. .. •.i '*L. ter. ~ ';~ ~. "•+~,.....~.. _ ' - R ct ~. :rte. '.. .i~r..,...... ..~,. ....,,.Y.A•~...1.~~.;;`.. - :~ ~~ ~~ ,r.' _i. If'E~: J ~j'Y.'_. ~. •~• °,:~r'k'"',y-;;r.:~ra •9- ~~ 6'aQ$• ~~ t,.'~~! i'-;• ~Y.7.9~` "~'.'. ,",,.ds.,,,,. -..,,v. ,..,*7....-. ..._ .._.....;~: ^•.c• .,,, .~n _,. •..~..~'•...c''r W~=i1~~iY1P~iW~ii}-'o .. .. • •:. 7 ~•t~, 1' :. `~• i . -4 - y,~ 'S al i5~' r - ?Ri~ugrM~'*l~~•t~"!'a' ~ ` r'•r+.nw.dEor~uV~Y+'~ 4, r L y9 tS E ~SdS s ''. .,/'Kr r ~awu.rl,~j'~emwr°.rnyf+.W,i+vr~m',`wa.w~nry~r .y ~ .i r 7.._• ~{ s',.1 et 'lam' -.$' -~ ~ ~ '_,J'. _ nt~^•,i~_ ~i '~11~~ otiy-;~3 ~s~ ~'•:f ~,j~''~Y~' •u` N ``.a•_i.; •..' i'c~ v'7t ~ `t'i A' t.i4, .~~~',f+ Ly, -~~"i• ~~ ' ......_ ••~ `.'!3 .y ~ d° ~ :~ ..~ `7 ~~.~~.} I.1 ~ ( ,t w.• ,~5 t 'S ~~': •,; ~ i'fii .!T'.¢,~w~~lt~a~~t ~: i~..Er i] 'i•..•l ".St'r .._..-... - . ~: ~ .~ ~F""'.4 •~Criq~Y ~". '.;. ~ `t ..~s _ • ~l 'ZY,~~.+~~+_ 'N 1....~~~~~,~t~~Z.+1++ y .: r'.sif. r .{.'~' i.l x,4•. .J:~!.. ? 1 ti 'w / [JI•' l v+~.. ~ yRY 1 •.13'_";.+i~i ~•1~ ~ L• •Y. Y" - _~.< ~`~ , ~ .~~ / ~ log ~ ~ •~•~ .. _._..__..._.-'--- ~~ 1 910 ~ , ~:.`-:~;-... _ :o[ ., ~.• :~ 1~ ~.• ,w~. :~~-.~~• -~~.. ._ . ,.•ai ~ Y 1 :~•4'Q •~~:-~~:- .'r.i ,~•2•,iir.,i ~/ •/ ~IyP-. ti ,";M.. . ~ i 1 - •:,.~ :. Vr ;r`. `~ ..t ~.M r' a:5 < >i =NIA }jh.` :•1~:'~•:j 65 •Cr!'':iia 'fi 1 1'' .,1s1s y. = , s,•., - -..:r 1 ~ ~ `'~ 11~ 7i1 .. . 1, ~ ~~ - ' 1 s'' ;1' ,.rs-:; ,s ~ s list=a r ~ it S~ (€a.a :...i«....r.. ---- ^..,•..1 : ~ . - = = -: ,,' t r % :a lr i ,. 7 ~ ~,~ »*: it V ..,., ; • 1~` _ '- 1 ~°•'' ~ ~~ '~ ~• ;~,:+: ~ .•~,}. A < / •.~f / ~ .. •~ sit : fi , • f1r4,.r..~\\ r~ ! C~('~,i•Q •'; , `'~`~~, •'":~ dl L 7;.~/ ~ ~~ ~~;: i ~` 7 , ' :J. ` ....: t f 17 ' '•l~ ~ ! '~+./~ .,Q ~11ti i. r .. ~ ~ k r I~. ~• i 1 .... .Ti 1 ~, i~. ~ , ..[~~.~ 3 \` S;~ ~I +, * I i V ~ Owl ,i~ ice,{ .~ '•`: ~! ~ytj ~ ~~ ~: } i{~ a I rl '1 .i -t I 1 \\ ~ r \-•t 1r ~ S„yt`• .3" ~ ~ S" ~,~;''~ i 71.^~~411~'J... ,....•~~. •/ `tir~° ~ // .~~' ~ Y ' ......, ... ~......- .......- 'y~ ~ f...._.aq •7I' ~ ! ~ 1 w.: ~~ 1 .Y i-•i : ~ ~ _l _l i.i 1° .•j `.' N r; f `~ '.:~ '. 1 ~ ~T 90S`0[ .~~ ~~ ..~. ~ '~7 ? 'ti,} ~' ~ •~ [~+S '0~4'Oj •,.i.`~~'`ti,. ^ 1 N~~ _. _ r .... . -... r y ! J ..~ ~ 'Y ~~li> n ~V • ~lT ~... • ` l j `~ M~~ •i .~'f..,°~t ~.,;'7~ ' : ~.~ .y `,/~ %;tr~ i C.-.........._~_. ~. ~~ ..tQ=.~~ '~ ~ J, ~'.~ -'~ ... i • ~1 ~., ~ i ' ~./'sr 1 , ~~ 1 ~ ( r~ai°~ r'+fi"r~ 1 ~~+.~' +.,: ..... 1 .... ... + i`~'~11L ~~~ +:.....:y~ y ~1ry ~i ~ .g~ r; ~ y ~ r ~ ~~` = ~ ; yy; I.'` 4' - :; .,. ~n ~~,,,~s„ ~ '• - same ~o ~ ~ ~= ' ~ ~ • ,.ar=,~a ' :~ • June 18, 2005 Honorable City of Saratoga Council Members Honorable City of Saratoga Planning Commissioners Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Council Members and Planning Commissioners: Re: Prospect Avenue North Campus ~~~-- - ~~: ~v-~~ ~u~ ~~ ~J We spent Sunday afternoon, 6/11/05, at the City of Saratoga property on Prospect Avenue presently called "North Campus". We stayed several hours in awe and wonder at this marvelous purchase our City made a few years ago for our community. We believe strongly that selling this valuable property, acquired with vision, would be a great loss for our town and the people of Saratoga. We understand that the Saratoga City Council recently voted 3-2 to sell this property to land developers who will build new housing. A number of concerned citizens pleaded to the City Council to reconsider the vote. We understand athree-month delay was granted, beginning in May, 2005. The citizens' challenge was to present a feasible plan to the City Council to keep it for community use. Regazding this 3-month period of "stay", this is the very poorest time in the year. Schools aze finishing, and people are traveling on vacations. That seems unfair. We need time to tell all the people of our neighborhoods and town about the issue. And we need fair time to develop a presentation of alternative possibilities. We expect our City Council to understand this and grant more of an extension. Many of us, who care very much, at times pay too little attention to the hard issues the City Council faces. We expect they deal with matters in our behalf, intending all their conclusions to be in our best interest. Honorable City Councilmenbers, we're paying attention now! Truly, we hadn't realized until the day spent looking at the buildings on the North Saratoga property, the paved parking, the beautiful trees, spacious grounds, sounds of music and people, what good use there will be here. We expect there are • possiblities which can be found to KEEP this property...for now and for time to come. X0002 ', ~ • Page 2 The established buildings need some remodeling and new construction. It may be possible to be done more economically that the City of Saratoga has projected. If properly marketed, it is thought that North Campus can pay for itself while it is used as a unique resource area -- an extension beyond our present community center. By doing this, we should never have to sacrifice another part of our cherished heritage orchard. We've lived in Saratoga since 1960, long enough to have seen and been a part of groups that had the chance to purchase - or to keep-adjoining or enhancing land or properties who turned down such offers, thinking them too expensive. Later, of course, to our deep regret, we knew that we'd made poor, irreversible decisions. ff we could have done it over, we'd somehow have stretched and managed to seize the chance or hold our position. We realize our City needs a lot of additional money to operate. However, since many people in the community are still unaware of your proceedings and plans, we plea for and urge your reconsideration. At this point, the planned transaction can be halted. In this near future of brief months, we expect others, like us, will extend themselves and to tell friends and neighbors of this critical situation. We believe selling the Prospect Ave. property would be a great loss of something with potential for great good in community outreach and enrichment. We will also help the group of people who have started this movement of conservation by donating whatever time, energy and other resources we can to help this group grow. In doing this, we expect to help our City Council and Commissioners to help us to keep this valuable city asset. This is a plea to us all: Please don't be indifferent about this property nor willing to lose it at this time. It sounds like such a lot of money, but it can go so quickly. Please proceed very slowly. Please don: let this property go. ~, ~I p ~~~ '~y~,~ ~ti ~' ~,/® ~~ Very truly yours, William E. and Mary L. Dutro-Hotaling 7 " 19305 Ranfre Lane, Saratoga, CA 95070 408.867-0903 ~ ~~~ ~ ,~ r. 00002 . , 1 ~ ~ • • June 15 2005 • John The following items are concerns that we have for the proposed Grace Subdivision Retaining wall is inadequate. Starting at the southerly end of Lot # 6 (19827 Colby Ct) the ground is approximately 20 inches lower then the existing grade of the property behind us (new lots 8 & 9). The grade is currently being held back by a wooden retaining wall at the base of the existing fence. In its present condition, this wall is not sturdy enough to withstand any grading or new construction activity. Recommendation: Install new appropriate retaining wall and along the property line behind existing Lot # 6. 2. Construction of two (2) story homes on lots 8 & 9 will destroy any privacy in ow home and yard. The back of our home is very close to the proposed rear property lines of lots8&9. Additionally the grade of ow lot is from 0 to 24" lower that the cwrent grade of proposed lots 8 & 9. Recommendation: • Permit construction of only one (1) story homes on Lots 8 & 9. 3. The existing fence, per the tentative map, is in ow yard by more than 12" at the northerly end tapering closer to the property line on the south . Recommendation: Construct a new fence on the property line of at least equivalent quality. Thank you for considering ow concerns: Dave and Bernie Wyandt cc: John Cherbone aG0~323 ~ + 1 , ~ • John Livingstone From: Roger Piazza [rogerpiazza@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 10:40 PM To• John Livingstone Cc: johnc@saratoga.ca.us Subject: North Campus Mr.. John Livingstone and Mr.. John Cherbone Gentleman, My name is Roger Piazza and live at 19828 Colby Ct. Saratoga, Ca.-- 408 257 5646 Unfortually we were out of town when you gentlemen had a meeting on the North Campus with the neighbors. We were informed that you would be interested on our thoughts on what we as neighbors would like to see at the North Campus community. ... First a sound wall would be better than the traditional would fence. ...One story homes would be preferable but if there are a few two story homes they should be on lots which would provide enough space in order that our privacy would be respected. ...Homes should not be too close to property line and existing fences. ...The North Campus is approximately a foot higher, so good drainage should be extablished in order to protect lower property ...And I known you will protect as many trees as possible. Thank you for your assistance, Roger and Joann Piazza 1 000;4 • Attachment 4 • ~~~~5 City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408-868-1222 NOTICE OF STUDY SESSION The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following study session on Wednesday, the 24th day of August 2005, from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. The Study Session will be at 19848 Prospect Road, 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 Wednesday. City Hall is closed every other Friday. Please check the City web site at www.saratoga.ca.us for the Cit~s work schedule. APPLICATION # 05-179 (386-26-070 & 071) CITY OF SARATOGA, 19848 Prospect Road; -Planning Commission Study Session to review a request for a Tentative Map Subdivision, General Plan Amendment from a Quasi Public Facility to Medium Density Residential, General Plan Conformity Determination for Property Disposal, and Mitigated Negative Declaration, to demolish the existing church facility and replace it with 9 single family residential lots. This is a study session to provide information regarding the project to the Planning Commission and interested members of the public. Members of the public will also have an opportunity to address the Planning Commission regarding the project. A public hearing on the project will be held at a later time prior to formal consideration of the project. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place and at the subsequent public hearing. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised before the Planning Commission. 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. O(~0~2'6 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. ]:n 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 Community Development Director ,~: 19848 Prospect Road • E~ oQOOZ~ AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, Andrea Sandoval, 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 5th day of August, 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 19848 Prospect Road; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses s wn above. ndrea Sandoval Assistant to the Community Development Director • OQD®~~ Impression antibourrage et a sethage rapine www.ava~r.~..~~~ 1~ MYCRT `~' ~ ~a+~ UtlBsez le gabarit 5160® 1-800-GO-AVERY J szoooo 9S8£-6ZIS6 d~ `~f ~S jQ P~^~~P~' £69 i 3y 3n8dnaap 6£0 £I £L£ 9S8£-6Z[S6 d~ `asof ~S 1Q P~^~~Pid 6L9 [ ld lasdnaap 8£0 £[ £L£ iQ PoonnuaPld £L91 3d 3usdn~£ L£0~4 9S8£-6ZIS6 d~ `~of ~S =Q P~"~~P~v' S99I 3d lasdnoop 9£0 £I £L£ 8£8£-6ZIS6 d~ `mot ~S a'I ti-I 6bS9 ' 3d 3uednaop 8S0 Zi £L£ L£8£-6ZiS6 d~ `~of ~S II'I ~I bZS9 3d 3nBdnoop SSO ZI £L£ L£8£-6ZIS6 dp `~of ~S B'I ~I Z9S9 id la~dnoop ZSO ZI £L£ ib8£-6ZIS6 d~ `~of ~S PSI 3~~d SbS9 3d 3aednaop 6b0 Zi £L£ Ob8£-6ZiS6 d~ `~of ~S PSI laads~d £6b9 3d 3asdnoop Sb0 ZI £L£ 006£-6ZIS6 dp `~~f ~S II'I ~I OLb9 ld 3~dnaop L£0 Zi £L£ I08£-6ZiS6 dp `~~f ~S aAy Ia9t4i 0£S9 3d lasdnaop LIO Zi £L£ b08£-6ZiS6 d~ `~nf ~S II'I inds~i~ 8b9 i 3d 3~dnaop £00 Zi £L£ 8£8£-6ZiS6 d~ `asof ~S a'I ~^I SLS9 id 3asdnoop 090 ZI £L£ 8£8£-6ZIS6 d~ `~of ~S II'I ~^I L£S9 3d iaednoop LSO ZI £L£ L£8£-6ZIS6 d~ `oaf ~S II'I ~I 8£S9 3d lmdnaap bS0 ZI £L£ L£8£-6ZIS6 d~ `asof ~S aZ ~^I bLS9 3d iasdnoop iS0 ZI £L£ Ib8£-6ZIS6 d~ `~of ~S P2I 3oadsazd L£S9 id 3usdnaap 8b0 Zi £L£ Ob8£-6ZIS6 ~'~ `~of ~S P2I3~~d ILb9 ld 3uednoop ' bb0 ZI £L£ 006£-6ZIS6 d~ `~of ~S II'I ~^I Z6b9 3d 3aednoop 9£0 Zi £L£ I08£-6ZIS6 d~ `~nf ~S any Ia9443 9bS9 ld luednoop SIO ZI £L£ L£8£-6ZIS6 d~ `~of ~S uZ ~^I 0659 3d 3asdnaap Z00 ZI £L£ 8£8£-6ZiS6 d~ `~of ~~ a'I ~^I £9SS 3d 3asdnaaC 6S0 ZI £LE 8£8£-6ZiS6 dp `~~f ~S (ITSL~I orI) a-I ~I SZS9 ld 3asdnoop 9S0 ZI £L£ L£8£-6ZIS6 dp `~~f ~S a'I ~I 8bS9 3d 3~dnoop £SO Zi £L£ ib8£-6ZIS6 d~ `~~f ~S P?I l~~d L9S9 ly 3~dnaa0 OSO Zi £L£ Ib8£-6ZIS6 dp `~~S p~ i~s~d S I S9 id 3asdnoop Lb0 Zi £L£ Ob8£-6ZIS6 dp `~~f ~S pg 3oads~d 6bb9 ld 3usdn~p £b0 ZI £L£ I08£-6ZIS6 dp `~~f ~S and [xi~43 b[S9 3d 3mdn~0 OZO ZI £L£ bp8£-6ZIS6 dp `~~f ~S II'I ~~i~ip Ob9 i 3d 3asdn~p b00 ZI £L£ Ib8£-6ZiS6 dp `~ pg 3oadsol 9 3d 3asdnoop i00 ZI £6£ JW3AV-09-008-L ~. ®095 91,1I'1dW31 ~eAV ash ~09~5 ®A~13/~V Q woatiane~nnnsnn ~ 6ulwl~d ~J ~P~wS Pue wQf Jam and Smudge Free Pritlting ~ www.averycom Use Avery®TEMPiATE 5160® 1-800-GO-AVERY 373 13 040 373 13 041 Occupant At Occupant At 1678 Ardenwood Dr 1672 Ardenwood Dr San Jose, CA 95129-3855 San Jose, CA 95129-3855 373 13 043 373 13 044 Occupant At Occupant At 1652 Ardenwood Dr 1644 Ardenwood Dr Saa Jose, CA 95129-3855 San Jose, CA 95129-3855 373 13 068 373 13 069 Occupant At Occupant At 1639 Daphne Dr 1649 Daphne Dr San Jose, CA 95129-3813 San Jose, CA 95129-3813 373 13 071 373 13 072 Occupant At Occupant At 5670 Ivy Ln 6650 Ivy Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3839 'San Jose, CA 95129-3839 373 13 074 .373 13 075 Occupant At .Occupant At 5610 Ivy Ln 1669 Clarlcspw Ln pan Jose, CA 95129-3839 San Jose, CA 95129-3805 373 13 077 373 13 078 Jccupant At Occupant At 1645 Prospect Rd 6661 Prospect Rd ian Jose, CA 95129-3842 San Jose, CA 95129-3842 373 13 080 373 13 081 occupant At Occupant At i691 Prospxt Rd 6695 Prospect Rd San Jose, CA 95129-3842 San Jose, CA 95129-3842 f73 14 001 373 14 002 )ccupant At Occupant At 1638 Daphne Dr l 628 Daphne Dr ian Jose, CA 95129-3812 San Jose, CA 95129-3812 X73 14 054 386 26 001 )ccupant At Occupant At .647 Clarlcspw Ln 12011 Saraglen Dr .an Jose, CA 95129-3805 Saratoga, CA 95070-3218 86 26 003 386 26 004 )ccupant At Occupant At 2045 Saraglen Dr 12061 Saraglen Dr .aratoga, CA 95070-3218 Saratoga, CA 95070-3218 ~~ ~aanv-o~-oos-~ ~~ ..AOI.C ~a 1119AM 1`~N 1 ~~~~+~•~IOAp•MMM ~ a AVERY®s~6o® 373 13 042 Occupant At 1664 Ardenwood Dr San Jose, CA 95129-3855 373 13 067 Occupant At 1629 Daphne Dr San Jose, CA 95129-3813 373 13 070 Occupant At 6690 Ivy Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3839 373 13 073 Occupant At 6630 Ivy Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3839 373 13 076 Occupant At 6631 Prospect Rd San Jose, CA 95129-3842 373 13 079 Occupant At 6675 Prospect Rd San Jose, CA 95129-3842 373 13 082 Occupant At 6697 Prospect Rd San Jose, CA 95129-3842 373 14 053 Occupant At 1639 Clarlcspur Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3805 386 26 002 Occupant At 12031 Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3218 386 26 005 Occupant At l 2075 Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3218 000030 ®o9~s ~+~e6 ei =~lian i-DldlJ e6EtpQS ~ 38 e6eJJnOQ~~Ue UO1SSe1dW1 Impression antibourrage et ~ s~chage rapids ~ www.averycom o AVEIYY® 5160 Utilisez le gabarit 5160® ~~ 1-800-GO-AVERY 386 26 006 386 26007 386 26 008 Occupant At Occupant At Occupant At Saraglen Dr 12105 Saraglen Dr (No Mail) 12121 Saraglen Dr ga, CA 95070-3218 Sazatoga, CA 95070.3220 Saratoga, CA 95070.3220 386 26 009 386 26 010 386 26 031 Occupant At Occupant At Occupant At 12135 Saraglen Dr 12151 Saraglen Dr 12180 Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070.3220 Saratoga, CA 95070-3220 Saratoga, CA 95070.3221 386 26 032 386 26 033 386 26 034 ' Occupant At Occupant At Occupant At 12150 Saraglen Dr 12140 Saraglen Dr 12120 Saraglen Dr (No Mail ) Saratoga, CA 95070-3221 Saratoga, CA 95070-3221 Saratoga, CA 95070.3221 386 26 035 386 26 036 386 26 037 Occupant At Occupant At Occupant At 12100 Saraglen Dr 19920 Viewridge Dr 19910 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3221 Saratoga, CA 95070-3238 Saratoga, CA 95070-3238 386 26 038 386 26 039 386 26 040 Occupant At Occupant At Occupant At 12121 Viewoak Dr 12141 Viewoak Dr 12161 Viewoak Dr S ga, CA 95070-3232 Saratoga, CA 95070-3232 Saratoga, CA 95070-3232 386 26 041 386 26042 386 26 048 Occupant At Occupant At Occupant At 12201 Viewoak Dr 12221 Viewoak Dr 19840 Oakhaven Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3234 Saratoga, CA 95070-3234 Saratoga, CA 95070-3214 386 26 049 386 26 050 386 26 051 Occupant At Occupant At Occupant At 19830 Oalchaven Dr 19831 Oalchaven Dr 19845 Oalchaven Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3214 Saratoga, CA 95070-3213 Saratoga, CA 95070.3213 386 26 052 386 26 053 386 26 054 Occupant At Occupant At Occupant At 12150 Viewoak Dr 12120 Viewoak Dr 19840 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3233 Sazatoga, CA 95070-3233 Saratoga, CA 95070-3205 386 26 055 386 26 056 386 26 057 Occupant At Occupant At Occupant At (9830 Viewridge Dr 19831 Viewridge Dr 19845 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3205 Saratoga, CA 95070-3236 Sazatoga, CA 95070-3236 1 058 386 26 059 386 26 060 kcupant At Occupant At Occupant At 19861 Viewridge Dr 19905 Viewridge Dr 19911 Viewridge Dr >aratoga, CA 95070-3236 Saratoga, CA 95070-3237 Sazatoga, CA 95070-3237 0~0~33~. n Jla3AV-O~-008-1 ~ ®09L5 31V7dW31 ® aaV ~f1 ®091.5 ®AZ1~~/ IAN, wog ~(.iane•nnnnnn ~ 6u1;u~ aa~~ a6pnws pue wed Impression antibourrage et ~ s~chage rapids ~ voww.averycom a AVERY® 51606 tJtilisez le gabarit 5160 1-800-GO-AVERY 386 26 061 386 26 062 386 26 063 Occupant At Occupant At Occupant At 19921 Viewridge Dr 12070 Sazaglen Dr 12044 Saraglen Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-3237 Sazatoga, CA 95070-3226 • Saratoga, CA 95070-3217 386 26 064 386 26 065 386 26 066 Occupant At Occupant At Occupant At 19920 Saraglen Ct 19910 Saraglen Ct 19900 Saraglen Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-3217 Sazatoga, CA 95070-3217 Saratoga, CA 95070.3217 386 26 067 386 26 068 386 26 069 Occupant At Occupant At Occupant At 19911 Saraglen Ct 19921 Saraglen Ct 12010 Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3217 Saratoga, CA 95070-3217 Saratoga, CA 95070.3219 386 26 070 386 37 001 386 37 002 Occupant At Occupant At Occupant At 198481'rospect Rd 19771 Colby Ct 19783 Colby Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-3229 Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 386 37 003 386 37 004 386 37 005 Occupant At Occupant At Occupant At , 19795 Colby Ct 19807 Colby Ct 19819 Colby Ct , Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 Saratoga, CA 95070.3202 386 37 006 386 37 007 386 37 008 occupant At Occupant At Occupant At 19827 Colby Ct 19828 Colby Ct 19816 Colby Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 Sazatoga, CA 95070-3202 Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 386 37 009 386 37 O10 386 37 011 occupant At Occupant At Occupant At 19804 Colby Ct 19798 Colby Ct 19786 Colby Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 Sazatoga, CA 95070-3202 386 37 012 386 37 013 386 37 014 occupant At Occupant At Occupant At 19774 Colby Ct 19773 Viewridge Dr 19785 Viewridge Ih iaratoga, CA 95070-3202 Saratoga, CA 95070-3236 Saratoga, CA 95070-3236 386 37 015 386 37 016 386 37 017 occupant At Occupant At Occupant At 19797 Viewridge Dr 19809 Viewridge Dr 19815 Viewridge Dr iaratoga, CA 95070-3236 Sazatoga, CA 95070-3236 Saratoga, CA 95070-3236 .86 37 018 386 37 019 386 37 020 )ccupant At Occupant At Occupant At 9823 Viewridge Dr ] 9824 Viewridge Dr 19816 Viewridge Dr ~azatoga, CA 95070-3236 Saratoga, CA 95070-3205 Saratoga, CA 95070-3205 ~ _ Q~~Qa~rG Al13Ab-O~-008-L ~~ ®09L5 31V1dW31 ®tieAbr esn ~,ngts r~,11?IaAM 1~//1 wo~•tiawevu-N-en ~~ 6upu~ eai~ a6pnws pue wed Impression antibourrage et it s~chage rapids ~ www.avery.com a AVERY® 5160 Utilisez le gabarit 5160® 1-800-GO-AVERY 386 37 021 .386 37 022 386 37 023 Occupant At Occupant At Occupant At 1 Viewridge Ih 19796 Viewridge Dr 19784 Viewridge Dr ~ga, CA 95070-3205 Saratoga, CA 95070-3205 Saratoga, CA 95070-3205 386 37 024 386 37 025 386 37 026 Occupant At Occupant At Occupant At 19772 Viewridge lh 19775 Oakhaven lh 19787 Oalchaven Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3205 Saratoga, CA 95070-3213 Saratoga, CA 95070-3213 386 37 027 386 37 028 386 37 029 Occupant At Occupant At Occupant At 19799 Oakhaven Dr 19805 Oakhaven Dr 19817 Oakhaven Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3213 Saratoga, CA 95070-3213 Saratoga, CA 95070-3213 386 37 030 386 37 031 386 37 032 Occupaat At Occupant At Occupant At 19825 Oalchaven Dr (No Mail) 19826 Oalchaven Dr 19814 Oalchaven Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3213 Saratoga, CA 95070-3214 Saratoga, CA 95070-3214 386 37 033 386 37 034 386 37 035 Occupant At Occupant At Occupant At 19808 Oakhaven Dr 19796 Oakhaven Dr 19784 Oalchaven Dr S toga, CA 95070-3214 Saratoga, CA 95070-3214 Saratoga, CA 95070-3214 386 48 021 Occupant At *no Site Address* ,CA • d®®033 Jl2l3AV-O~-008-L ~^~ ~ ®09L5 31V1dW31®tieA1~ ~f1 ~n0915 c~A?J3AM 1~1 wortiane•niuu-nn ~ ~ 6ulw!'ad ~+d 86pnw5 pus wed Impression antibourrage et it s~chage rapide ~ vaww.averycom a AVERY® 51606 Utilisez le gabark 5160® ~~ 1.800-GO-AVERY 373 12 001 Charles 8c Paige Simpson 1027 Jacqueline Way San Jose, CA 95129-2826 373 12002 Kathryn Kay 5092 Durban Ct San Jose, CA 95138-2100 373 12 003 Michael & Hsiao Lei Lee 1648 Clarkspur Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3804 ~. 373 12004 373 12 015 Chih--Ming Chang Ryszard & Stephanie Janowski 1640 Clarkspur Ln 6546 Bibel Ave San Jose, CA 95129-3804 San Jose, CA 95129-3801 373 12 020 373 12 036 Bhupinder & Chetoa Ahuja Glenn Lai 6514 Bibel Ave 6492 Ivy Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3801 San Jose, CA 95129-3900 373 12 043 373 12 044 Sanjay & Nagavarapu Usha Pujare Jianhua Huang 6449 Prospect Rd 6471 Prospect Rd San Jose, CA 95129-3840 San Jose, CA 95129-3840 373 12 047 373 12048 Ching-Lung LoJeff Norma Buford 6515 Prospect R.d 6537 Prospect Rd San Jose, CA 95129-3841 San Jose, CA 95129-3841 373 12 050 373 12 051 Stephen S K & Malinda Chan Zong 8c Sun Qi Ling 6567 Prospect R.d 6574 Ivy Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3841 San Jose, CA 95129-3837 373 1~ 053 373 12 054 Avraham 8c Dahlia Perahia Sam Lang 6548 Ivy Ln 6538 Ivy Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3837 San Jose, CA 95129-3837 373 12 056 373 12 057 Jiangxu & Sun Xian Xiang Hui-Chen Kuo 6525 Ivy Ln 6537 Ivy Ln San Jose, CA 95129 San Jose, CA 95129-3838 373 12 059 373 12 060 Visvanathan Ganapathy Li-Hwa Lin 6563 Ivy Ln 6575 Ivy Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3838 San Jose, CA 95129-3838 373 13 037 373 13 038 Gary & Sandra Schoenfeld Cheng Hu 1673 Ardenwood Dr 1519 Noriega St San Jose, CA 95129-3856 San Francisco, CA 94122-4433 ~~ A213AV-09-008-L ~ A,09L5 Rn1?J~A1o/ 191 wo~•tiawp•~u-N-nn 373 12 017 Ellen Oleary 6530 Bibel Ave San Jose, CA 95129-3801 373 12 037 Joseph & Young Park 6470 Ivy Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3900 373 12 045 Ralph 8c Elaine Chambers 6493 Prospect Rd San Jose, CA 95129-3840 373 12 049 Charles 8c Margaret Ting 6545 Prospect Rd San Jose, CA 95129-3841 373 12 052 Min-Chun Tsai 6562 Ivy Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3837 373 12 055 Mansop Hahn 12904 SE 45th Ln Bellevue, WA 98006-2038 373 12 058 Hueichian & Chen Nanning Huang 6549 Ivy Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3838 373 13 036 Hung-Lin Hsu 1665 Ardenwood Dr San Jose, CA 95129-3856 • 373 13 039 William & Christine Munson 1693 Ardenwood Dr San Jose, CA 95129-3856 ~~®oa~~ ®095 31V~dW31®tieAV es~ 6upupd ~~ ebpnws pus ws~ impression antibourrage et ~ s~chage rapids ~ vwvw.averycom o AVER'lf® 5160e Utilisez le gabarit 5160® 1-800-GO-AVERY 373 13 040 Linda Hart 210 La Agua Ct ~an Hill, CA 95037-5634 373 13 043 Kerning Wang 1652 Ardenwood Dr San Jose, CA 95129-38SS 373 13 068 Nancy Anderson 13561 Lomond Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-5414 373 13 071 ' William Kahn 6670 Ivy Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3839 373 13 074 John Tolvanen 6610 Ivy Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3839 3 13 077 William 8c Lynn Rothwein 6645 Prospect Rd San Jose, CA 95129-3842 373 13 080 Hongbo & Wang Xiaorui Tang 6691 Prospect Rd San Jose, CA 95129-3842 373 14001 Margaret Scardigli 1638 Daphne Dr San Jose, CA 95129-3812 373 14 OS4 Whan Soo 8c Eun Sim Kang 1647 Clarkspur Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3805 ~6 003 a & Sandra Eovino ]2045 Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3218 ~,n9t5 rsnJl?IaA1o/ 1~//1 373 13 041 Jim Wang 7S 10 De Fce Dr Cupertino, CA 95014-4307 373 13 044 Wilhelm &c Marianne Grotheer 1644 Ardenwood Dr San Jose, CA 9S 129-38SS 373 13 069 William & Sonja Watson Jr. 1649 Daphne Dr San Jose, CA 95129-3813 373 13 072 Andrew Hsiang 6650 Ivy Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3839 373 13 075 Kui Yau 1669 Claricspur Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3805 373 13 078 Venu & Smitha Varma 6661 Prospect Rd San Jose, CA 95129-3842 373 13 042 James Dozier 180 2nd St Los Altos, CA 94022-2821 373 13 067 Sze Ming Lum 1629 Daphne Dr San Jose, CA 95129-3813 373 13 070 Li-Jen 8t Chun-Juan Tseng 6690 Ivy Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3839 37313 073 Richard dt Helen Bailey 6630 Ivy Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3839 373 13 076 Dennis Rust 6631 Prospect Rd San Jose, CA 95129-3842 373 13 079 Ranjit John 6675 Prospect Rd San Jose, CA 95129-3842 373 13 O81 373 13 082 Miranda Amitava Choudhuri 206 Thomas Dr 6697 Prospect Rd Los Gatos, CA 95032-4038 San Jose, CA 95129-3842 373 14002 Brian do Amanda Aberg 1628 Daphne Dr San Jose, CA 95129-3812 373 14 OS3 Simon & Tsai Hwie Chen 1639 Clarkspur Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3805 386 26 001 Glenford Dennee Jr. 2265 EI Camino Real #3 Santa Clara, CA 95050-4064 386 26 004 Louis Tseng 12061 Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3218 Ali3AV-09-008-1 .~ woriGane•nnnnnn ~~ 386 26 002 Kelvin 8t Susan Kiew 12031 Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3218 386 26 OOS John & Jia-Ning Chen 12075 Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3218 ~IJO~a~.r.~ ®0915 31d1dW31 ~a~V X11 6ul;ul~d aaid a6pnws pus wed Impression antibourrage et 3 s~chage rapide ~ vwvw.averycom ~ A~/ERY® 5160° tltilisez le gaisarit 5160® 1-800-GO-AVERY 386 26 006 Blane & Barbara Eisenberg 12091 Saraglea Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3218 386 26 009 Ahmed & Asna Masood 12135 Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3220 386 26 032 Robert Guowei & Wang Xiuzhen Xu 12150 Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3221 386 26 035 Stan 8c Barbara Stewart 12100 Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3221 386 26 038 Jui-Nang 8c Ma I-Kuang Wang 12121 Viewoak Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3232 386 26 041 Eugene & Junc Levitre 12201 Viewoak Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3234 386 26 049 Jonathan & Suzanne Owens 19830 Oakhaven Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3214 386 26 052 Anthony Hei Leung Huang 12150 Viewoak Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3233 386 26 055 Ira & Susan Kaye 19830 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3205 386 26 058 Lars Majlof 19861 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3236 386 26 007 Harry & Phyllis Combleet 12105 Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070 386 26 010 Richard & Sonya D'Sa 12151 Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3220 386 26 033 Nansen D'Sa 12149 Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3220 386 26 036 Steve B Pratt 19920 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3238 386 26 039 Y R dt Lillian Koda 12141 Viewoak Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3232 386 26 042 Stephen & Rose Horvath 259 Belvue Dr Los Gatos, CA 95032-5003 386 26 050 Richard & Elizabeth Machado 19831 Oakhaven Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3213 386 26 053 Willis & Liliana McCarthy 12120 Viewoak Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3233 386 26 056 Hsien-Jywan & Hwu Der-Fen Ko 19831 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3236 386 26 059 William & Norma Ford 19905 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3237 386 26 008 Sugimoto Jones 12121 Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3220 386 26 031 Sungsun & Diane Choi 12180 Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3221 386 26 034 Richard & Domthy Dorsay 12120 Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070 386 26 037 Peter Leeb 19910 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3238 386 26 040 Girardot 12161 Viewoak Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3232 386 26 048 Javad Khabfiaz 19840 Oakhaven Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3214 386 26 051 Shao Kang Tan 19845 Oakhaven Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3213 386 26 054 Marvin & Susan Cohn 19840 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3205 386 26 057 Graham Mostyn 19845 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3236 • • 386 26 060 Maria Continillo 19911 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3 ®Q®O~~ ~~ A>93/1b~-O9-008-L ~~ ®09L5 31\11dW31 ~aaV asn _nol G ww 11~~JAM 1~!/1 •••w~•[~~wn•wwwwww 6UI1UIJd aBJa 86DnWC QUe Wef hnpression antibourrage et ~ s~chage rapids ~ www.ayerycom ~ AVERY® 5160 Utilisez le gabarft 5160® ~~ 1-800-GO-AVERY 386 26 061 Konstantinos & Serraiocco Gina Haritos 1 1 Viewridge Dr ~ga, CA 95070-3237 386 26 062 Gary & Drummond Dee Carlson 12070 Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3226 386 26 063 John & Kathleen Haleblian 12044 Saraglea Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-3217 386 26 064 Sam & Muffie Ochi 19920 Saraglen Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-3217 386 26 067 Dennis Lyden 19911 Saraglen Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-3217 386 26 070 CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fniitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070-5151 386 37 003 Janice Hayward 19795 Colby Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 386 37006 David & Bernadette Wyandt 19827 Colby Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 386 37009 Lily & Pascal Chen 3 Ling-yi St 4f Lane 8 Taipei, 386 37 012 Louis & Bernice Degive 19774 Colby Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 386 37 015 Thomas & Katherine Maier 19797 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3236 018 Thomas 8c Dianna Saari 19823 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3236 ~.nq~s m,1?la/-M 1`~1 386 26 065 Ram Bapu 19910 Saraglen Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-3217 386 26 068 Bernard & Eliabeth Sievers 19921 Saraglen Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-3217 386 37001 Yao Chang 19771 Colby Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 386 37 004 Khoo 19807 Colby Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 386 37 007 Roger & Mary Piazza 19828 Colby Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 386 37 010 C L & Helen Lott 19825 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3236 386 37 013 Griffith & Lois Brown 19773 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3236 386 37 016 Robert & Bonnie Lind 19809 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3236 386 37 019 Helen Lott 19824 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3205 Jlb3AV-O'~-008-L ~~ IIIA]'~JaAB'MMM ~ 386 26 066 Chandrasekha & Sujatha Bodapati 19900 Saraglen Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-3217 386 26 069 Raymond Tankersley 12010 Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3219 386 37002 James & Marsha Patterson 19783 Colby Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 386 37005 Lung Wen & Siu Lan Wang 19819 Colby Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 386 37008 Alton & Carmen Anderson 19816 Colby Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 386 37 011 Lingadong & Ding Yurg Shao 19786 Colby Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 386 37 014 Klein Kao 19785 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3236 386 37 017 Chung-Ho & Chen-Huii Fan 19815 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3236 386 37 020 Brian & Hang Scei-Shin Shung 19816 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3205 00403' ®09L5 31V1dW31®i(.~enV eSf'1 6u~lu~d aai~ e6pnws pus wed impression antibourrage et ~ s~chage rapids tlttlisez le gabarit 5160® 386 37 021 Warren Uchimoto 19808 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3205 386 37 024 Kuang-Yu Wang 19772 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3205 386 37 027 Dean & Lucille Antonelli 19799 Oakhaven Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3213 386 37 030 Pamela Parker 19825 Oakhaven Dr Saratoga, CA 95070 386 37 033 Ju &. Janet Shen 14638 Aloha Ave Saratoga, CA 95070-6004 ~ www.averycom 1-800-GO-AVERY 386 37 022 Chung C T & Mel-Ping Luau 19796 Yewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3205 386 37 025 Wen Chung Liou 19775 Oakhaven Dr . Saratoga, CA 95070-3213 386 37 028 Guy & Nancy Robby 19805 Oakhaven Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3213 a AVERY®5tt~ . 386 37 023 Norma Montgomery Rayl ' 19784 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3205 386 37 026 Alfred & Marlene Kass 19787 Oakhaven Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3213 386 37 029 Durga & Raj Agarwal 19817 Oakhaven Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3213 386 37 031 386 37 032 Terry Teruo & Yoko Linda Matsumoto Gary Kramp 19826 Oakhaven Dr Psc 4S #764 Saratoga, CA 95070-3214 Apo, AE 09468-0764 386 37 034 Susan Lofelmaker 19796 Oakhaven Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3214 386 37 035 George & Francs Scuffos 19784 Oakhaven Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3214 • 386 48 021 SCVWD Saratoga, CA 95070 • ~09L5 ®A?I3At/ 1~ 1 Aa3AV-O'~-008-L wow iGane•nnnnnn Q'®D~a~s ~~ ®09L5 31~f1dW31 ®tieAV ~f1 ~ 6u1;u~ aar~ 86pnws pus wed ;,~ ~se~ Lane Corina Del Pozzo 1650 Lafayette Street Santa Clara, CA 95050 Scott Sheldon 1300 Oliver Road, Suite 300 Fairfield, CA ,94534 Terence Szewczyk 1776 Technology Drive San Jose, CA 95110 Andrew Barnes 14377 Oldwood Road S toga, CA 95070 Scott McDonald 475 El Camino Real, Suite 100 Santa Clara, CA 95050 nn.~ ins »o~~ima~ acn William Bean 21388 Sazahills Road Saratoga, CA 95070 Lea Ann Hernandez 12029 Sazatoga-Sunnyvale Sazatoga, CA 95070 Reberta Savage 515 N. Santa Cruz Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95030 Salim Sagazchi 495 E. Browkaw Road, #F San Jose, CA 95112 Tim Nieuwsma 900 E. Hamilton, Suite 100. Campbell, CA 95008 slage~ ssa~PP1l ®Jl?J3A~l Q~ Meir Levi PO Box 3748 Sazatoga, CA 95070 Leona Fong 19466 Burgundy Way Sazatoga, CA 95070 Backer Navid 20480 Blauer Drive, Suite A Sazatoga, CA 95070 .~ Charles Butterfield 2470 Winchester Blvd, Suite A Campbell, CA 95008 Randy Price 1777 Sazatoga Avenue, Suite 112 San Jose, CA 95129 . ~> .. W~slaaUS Paa~ yaoow5 Impression antibourrage et ~ s~chage rapids ~ www.averycom Q Ada Utilisez le gabarit 5160 ~~ 1-800-GO-AVERY Santa Clara Valley Transportation Santa Clara County Fire Dept. Authority California Dept. of Transporta. 14700 Winchester Blvd. 3331 North First Street P.O. Box 23660 Los Gatos, CA 95030 San Jose, CA 95134-1906 Oakland, CA 94623-0660 _ ATTN: Julie Render ~ ~- SCC Dept. of Environmental Health Pacific Gas and Electric West Valley Sanitation District P.O. Box 26070 San Jose Land Rights Office 100 East Sunnyvale Avenue San Jose, CA 95159-6070 111 Almaden Blvd., Room 814 Campbell, CA 95008 ATTN: Kurt Fisher, REHS San Jose, CA 95115 Santa Clara Valley Water District San Jose Water Company Cupertino Union School District 5750 Almaden Expressway 1221 South Bascom Avenue 10301 Vista Drive San Jose, CA 95118 San Jose, CA 95128 Cupertino, CA 95014 • • ~~U04C~ ~- A213AV-O~-008-L ~~ ®0915 31V1dW31 ~eAV asfl Rn0915 c9~A?J3AM I~A1 wortiane•nnnnnn .~ 6ui~u~ ae.~~ e6pnw5 pus wed Impression antibourrage t ~ s~~aag rap~de IpE1113~il98 ~~~~ 9e Utilisr- ~•i.eA.it 5t Clare McBride 4 E. Brokaw Rd., #F ose, CA 95113 Dave & Beinie Wyandt 19827 Colby Ct. Saratoga, CA 95070 Terry Martin ' 45 E. Main St., #B Los Gatos, CA 95030 Bill & Norma Ford 19905 Viewridge Dr. Saratoga, CA 95070 Matt Lavender 1650 Lafayette St. S a Clara, CA 95050 • ..AQI.C ~rn1~17AM~F~/1 r+N aver • ~~ Louis Plegive 19774 Colby Ct. Saratoga, CA 95070 Fran Colletti 12185 Terrence Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Gene Golobic 12336 Terrence Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Bill Sheridan 19766 Elisa Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Joann & Roger Piazza Colby Ct. Saratoga, CA 95070 Kaustuv Basu 245 Almendra Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95030 Norman & Marlene Siegler 20743 Seaton Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Pam Khoo , 19807 Colby Ct. Saratoga, CA 95070 Jack Tolvanen 6610 Ivy Ln. San Jose, CA 95129 Barry Wilbanks 800 El Camino Real, 3`~ Floor Menlo Park, CA 94025 U(~~04~. •i. C11Y OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMAIISSION AGENDA =^~r ~~ : D~-~rs: wedntsday, August 24, Zoos - 7:00 pm. Pty Adult Day Care Room,19655 Allendale Avenue; Saratoga, CA ' ~: Regular Mating Rost CAi~: Commissfoners Manny Cappello, .Jill Hunter, Robot Kundtz, Linda. Rodgers, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, and Chair Susie Nagpal PLEDGEOFALLEGIANCE MINUTES: ~ Draft Minutes fn~n Regular Planning Comniissiom Mooting oaf July27, 2005. ORAL. COMIulUNtcATIONS - Any member cif the Public will be ~Ilvwead ro sddrrss the ~ Cammissicaz fear up t+v t~memiautes an matters nac on tfua ~gmd~ Tbelaw8rne~a111yPrahib3tS the Plaanft~ C4mmia~ ham c~isrua~g asr " t a~etdaa ctn; such items Howrvr.~; the Planain~g Cammissa?n ; maY t ~` &pY ~~~ Oral Car~ttutrnicxrtiana rraderPlannir~JgCaduai.~sian ~toctican to S EI~tAL!COI~QVIUNICATIONS- PLANNING ICOIufMISS10N DIRECTION TO STAFF mare to Staff regarding actions an curnent Oral Communications. G -t'1'~ Po6TII~tG AGENDA to G~o~-az}ment Codc 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on August 18, 2005. Il'~PORT OFAPPEAL RIGHTS if ~ wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may. ffle aa` "Appeal-Application"with the City Clerk within fifteen (1S) calendar days of the date of the decision pursuant to;Munfcipal Code 15-90.050 (b). ' CONSENT CALENDAR None.. , PI~BLIC HEARINGS All persons may appear anti br heard. at the above time and place. App~licantelAppolants sad their t+ep~entatfvea have a total of .tm minuoea ma~dmum far opining statanmta. Members of the Public may on any item for up to'three minutes.. Appllcsat/Aps sad theiar i+epeeeeatativra have a total of five mid maadmnm far cloe3ng eass. . I. APPLICATION #Ob020 (389-05-021) LOVOI,191S2 De Havilland Drive; - APPeaI by aforesaid property owner of an Administaative decision denying the removal, of a Canary Island Pine tree at the Wooed address. (LATA VABUDEVAN) 2. APPLICATION #04-1T1(385.35.069): TfEXTFL, 19550.Pmspoct Avraue (]2033 Mflla Avenue - Church of the AseeneiaSz~.- Nextd requests use permit appmval to locate a wirdcss facility at the aforesaid address. The pm)ect consists of the installation and operation 'of ~conceakd cellular antennas. Related equip~t cabinets will be installed in a proposed enclosed area attached to one of the buildings o~n the property. (LATA VASUDEVAN) . `` ` ~~ In .~~ with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), ifyou need spe~oial assistance to participate Jn ' Ibis caa7tact thtCity C1etk at (408) 868-IZ69 ar ctclerk~sat7rtoga.ca.u~ Noti&cation 48hours Pte' the me+~g. will enable the City m make neaswnahk arraAgemeats to ensr~rr accessibility to this ~~28R .It)2 35.104ADA Titkll). de ~t for the City afSaratogR derlane that the hurgair,~g agenda for the meeur~g afthe City c~Saratoga was pasted on Angustl~ 200Sat the a85ce of the City of ~~rnt~ ,Saratgga, GA 95070 and, was available far public nwicw at that location. tole an the City's websitc at wwwsarato~a.c~. uses r • i .a~ ~ A®cnda'a vJa amsil, ~ ywr amail m 4' ' ,. i -~~F,~. . ,, s-y . t 5:.•r5_rds ~nn.i~lJ~Rt~'.. .,¢..~~aY~z-: , .s. : ~~x. '. ~ ... .. • MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Nagpal called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 0 D ROLL CALL ~t U Present: Commissioners Cappello, Kundtz, Nagpal and Uhl Absent: Commissioners Hunter, Rodgers and Schallop Staff: Director John Livingstone, Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan, Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous and Contract Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of July 13, 2005. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Cappello, seconded by Commissioner . Kundtz, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of July 13, 2005, were adopted as submitted. (4-0-3; Commissioners Hunter, Rodgers and Schallop were absent) ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no Oral Communication items. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on July 21, 2005. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Nagpal announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b). CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. • Planning Commission Minutes for July 27, 2005 Page 2 *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #05-087 (517-13-0311 YAKOTA 16155 Cuvilly Way -The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct asingle-story, single-family residence with one attached and one detached garage on a vacant lot. The total floor area of the proposed residence and garages is 5,887 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 25 feet. The lot size is approximately 43,995 square feet and the site is zoned R-1 40,000. (DEBORAH UNGO-MCCORMICK) Contract Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval for the construction of a new single-story single-family residence with both attached and detached garages for a total of 5,887 square feet. The architectural style is contemporary French Chateaux. The project also includes a swimming pool. • Said that the maximum height is 25 feet and the project meets setbacks and zoning requirements. • Described the property as being a part of a Sobrato Subdivision on a private street. The backyard faces onto a public street. , • Said that the slope of the site helps minimize the perception of mass and bulk. • • Stated that the trees on site would be preserved. There are 10 ordinance-sized trees, located at the rear of the site. Two Redwood trees may be affected by construction and • the Arborist has recommended that one be relocated to the rear of the property. It is looking stressed by may be able to be saved. • Reported that geotechnical clearance has been issued. • Said that staff feels that the required findings for approval can be made. • Recommended approval. Chair Nagpal asked Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick whether every house constructed in this subdivision requires Design Review Approval. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied yes. This was a Condition of Approval for the Subdivision Map. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Terry Martin, Project Architect: • Thanked staff for a great report. • Advised that they have been working on this project for the last six to eight months. • Said that they looked at the surrounding neighborhood and area and their proposed mass and height compares to what exists in the area. • Stated that he would be available for any questions. Commissioner Kundtz asked Mr. Terry Martin for clarification as to where the freestanding • garage would be located as it was unclear to him during the site visitation. Planning Commission Minutes for July 27, 2005 Page 3 • Mr. Terry Martin said that the detached garage would not be visible from the front right-of-way as it is to be located at the back corner of the property. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Uhl said that the project looks good, is preserving trees, has no neighborhood concerns and is of great design. Commissioner Cappello said while concerns were raised early in the process, these issues have been addressed. Said that he likes this design and that it fits into this area. Commissioner Kundtz said that this is a great project and design. He suggested that the distressed tree be given some love to preserve it. Chair Nagpal said that she appreciates the efforts taken with this proposal. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Uhl, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #05-087) to allow the construction of a new single-story, single-family residence with one attached and one detached garage on property located at 16155 Cuvilly Way, by the following roll call vote: • AYES: Cappello, Kundtz, Nagpal and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: Hunter, Rodgers and Schallop ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 APPLICATION #06-018 (517-09-018, 044, 043) STARBUCKS COFFEE (tenant and applicant); ALOGA, LLC - HEIKALI (owner), 14410 Big Basin Way, Unit D -Applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to locate a Starbucks Coffee shop in one of the tenant spaces. The proposed coffee shop will have indoor and outdoor seating. (LATA VASUDEVAN) Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that interior improvements have been made to the Corinthian Corners building and that Starbucks is seeking approval of a Use Permit to allow the establishment of a coffee shop on the ground floor at the center of this commercial building, using 1,334 square feet of space and including both interior and exterior seating. No facade or parking modifications are proposed. • Said that the business at this location would have 20 employees with four working during each shift. • Explained that per Code, a restaurant is a permitted use at this location with the granting of a Use Permit by the Planning Commission. The Use Permit process allows the Planning Commission Minutes for July 27, 2005 Page 4 Commission to impose Conditions of Approval that ensure that use's compatibility with surrounding uses. • Reported that a parking exception is needed. A space that consists of 1,334 square feet equals a parking requirement of 18 spaces' plus seven additional spaces for seasonal outdoor seating. Variations to the parking requirement can be granted through the Use Permit process. Six parking spaces are provided for this tenant space. • Reminded that on April 20, 2005, Council directed the Planning Commission to review alterations to the parking requirements for the Village as a way to stimulate activity in the Village. • Said that while more traffic would result from this use, it is not a substantial increase. The peak operational hours for Starbucks would be between 7:30 and 8:30 a.m. weekdays and between 9 and 11 a.m. on weekends. The weekday hours are prior to most shops in the Village being opened. This location is not within a Parking District. • Said that the parking demand equals 20 vehicles where six on-site spaces are provided. Other uses in the immediate area do not create a parking demand during Starbuck's peak hours. • Stated that the Transportation Consultant has determined that the parking and traffic impacts would be minimal. • Said that Mr. Frank Burrell had made some recommendations to alleviate these types of impacts by prohibiting on-site parking by Starbucks employees and by placing signs at both entrances to the parking area advising patrons where other additional parking can be found. He also suggested having signs within the Starbucks tenant space identifying additional parking options for its patrons. • Advised that there has been some difficulty in the Village for attracting viable commercial uses. • Stated that staff is proposing that the Starbucks sign consist of individual letters with interior lighting. The logo is proposed as wood with exterior low wattage illumination. Informed that the required findings for approval can be made in the affirmative. Recommended approval and reminded that the Planning Commission maintains continuing oversight jurisdiction over Conditional Use Permits. • Reminded that the appeal period for any decision of the Commission this evening is 15 calendar days. • Reported that representatives from Starbucks are available this evening. Commissioner Uhl asked Planner Lata Vasudevan for an overview of the required findings. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that they include finding that the proposal meets the objective of the zoning district and would promote a viable environment for the downtown. Director John Livingstone pointed out the three bullet points on Page 7 of the report. Planner Lata Vasudevan pointed out that the Municipal Code calls out the purposes of establishing the C-1 Zoning District. Chair Nagpal said that she could make the required findings except for the issue of parking but that variations to parking can be allowed under a Conditional Use Permit. Planning Commission Minutes for July 27, 2005 Page 5 Planner Lata Vasudevan replied correct. The Commission can grant variations to the parking requirements if findings can be made to support them. Chair Nagpal pointed out that summary on Page 29 that compares parking requirements for other local downtown communities. In Los Gatos, the requirement is for one space for every four seats. She asked how many seats are proposed here. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied approximately 25 seats. Chair Nagpal said that using the Los Gatos requirement, 25 seats would result in a requirement for seven spaces. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Zeden Jones, Construction Manager and Representative for Starbucks: • Said that they are excited about this location and assured that they .have the ability to adjust to each location. • Said that Starbucks is a convenience stop and that most patrons had other destinations in mind. • Assured that no increase in traffic was found in other similar locations and reminded that their use peaks by 9 a.m. Ms. Amber Reed, Real Estate Manager for Starbucks: • Said that the Argonaut store has been open for eight years now. • Said that this new Starbucks in the Village would create another reason to stop in the Village and would help increase other business. • Assured that independent coffee shops tend to thrive when located near a Starbucks. Starbucks has a limited menu compared to the independent coffee shops. • Said that she is honored to be here and hopes to be able to serve .the community in the Village. Mr. Jason Pappy, Manager, Starbucks at Argonaut Shopping Center, Saratoga: • Stated that he is proud of his location and has been manager since August 2004. • Reported that his store collected 450 toys for needy children during the holidays and an additional 250 toys after that. • Said that Starbucks has a tradition of giving back to the community. They gave 10 gallons of coffee to the Saratoga Swim Team Meet for three weeks in a row. They give to local PTA groups. They always say yes when asked. They are proud to be a part of the Saratoga community. They also raised fund for Tsunami relief. • Said that he has a letter of support to turn in to the Commission and has three Starbucks partners who are available to speak in support of this request. • Said that Starbucks has a different clientele than other coffee shops and that Starbucks enriches lives. • Thanked the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes for July 27, 2005 Page 6 Mr. Zeden Jones said that they would be hiring local residents and paying local taxes as well as participating in the community. Starbucks would not be detrimental to the independent coffee businesses. Commissioner Cappello asked if Stabucks has guidelines on how close it establishes its locations from one another given the fact that there is already a Starbucks located at Argonaut Shopping Center. Mr. Zeden Jones said that their objective is convenience to local customers. They want to be located close to where people are. Commissioner Cappello asked for clarification about peak versus non-peak hours since he sees people there all day long. He asked for the average flow during non-peak hours. Mr. Zeden Jones said that in addition to the morning hour, there is a rush in the afternoon and evening but that represents a fraction of the morning hour business. The morning hour represents about 55 percent of their business. Commissioner Uhl asked how this use would help to preserve the small-scale pedestrian flavor of the Village. Mr. Zeden Jones said that each Starbucks location is unique. This one is a 1,350 square foot tenant space. It is small scale and will be different from other larger locations. Using new' finishes helps make it special. Commissioner Uhl asked how many Starbuck locations are currently in small downtowns such as Saratoga's with a small town feel. Mr. Zeden Jones said that there are 7,000 Starbucks locations. About 10 percent of them are in small downtowns, including downtown San Bruno and downtown South San Francisco. Ms. Amber Reed also mentioned the downtowns of Menlo Park, Palo Alto, Los Altos and Willow Glen. Chair Nagpal asked about a post traffic study. Mr. Zeden Jones said that one was required when establishing in downtown Burlingame. Chair Nagpal asked if the report was presented to the Planning Commission there. Mr. Zeden Jones replied that it was given to staff. Chair Nagpal asked Mr. Zeden Jones if they are willing to have one done here. Mr. Zeden Jones replied yes, if necessary. • Mr. Jason Pappy: Planning Commission Minutes for July 27, 2005 Page 7 • Reported that the peak hour at his store of 8:30 to 9:30 a.m. resulted in 87 transactions per half hour. The range per half hour during off-peak hours is between 17 to 24 transactions per half hour. • Added that this new Village location would take some business away from his location at Argonaut. • Assured that about 22 percent of the Starbucks ,patrons would walk the Village. • Added that during the school year the afternoon traffic drops. Commissioner Cappello said that this means that about 78 percent take their coffee and leave the area and 22 percent stick around and walk the avenue per this study. Mr. Klaus Pache, 14555 Big Basin Way, Saratoga: • Said that he is the owner of the Plumed Horse and a resident since 1993. • Expressed support for this application. • Said that this Starbucks would be the beginning of the rejuvenation of the Village and would not take away from the existing coffee businesses in the Village. • Said that this is in the interest of the community. Mr. John D. Teter, 19931 Durham Court, Saratoga: • Identified himself as a 15-year resident of Saratoga. • Said that a subjective objection to having a Starbucks can be found in the recent article from the San Jose Mercury News, "Help, We're Surrounded by Starbucks. " • Stated that Starbucks is not compatible with the small scale and pedestrian character of the Village and will increase traffic and parking problems. • Pointed out that there are traffic jams on Big Basin Way in the mornings already. • Added that there are two coffee shops in the Village already, the International Coffee Exchange and the Blue Rock Shoot. These businesses well serve the community. • Stated that Starbucks does not add to the character of the Village and could attract other similar businesses therefore changing the character of the Village. Ms. Jeanette Ryan-Hathaway, 14672 Stoneridge Drive, Saratoga: • Announced that she is representing 600 Saratoga residents and merchants. • Said that when she heard of the plans for a Starbucks in the Village, she began collected data. • Said that there is much fear and concern. • Said that there is a paradigm shift with Council. • Asked why no earlier meetings were held to evaluate the impact of a Starbucks on the Village and its current businesses. • Asked when Starbucks made an appearance before the Commission. • Said that 600 people have concerns and a lot of fear. This Starbucks may or may not be beneficial to the Village. • Said that everyone needs to band together and make decisions together. The community is not happy and several businesses' fate is at risk here. • Reminded that the Vice Mayor assured everyone in May that no fourth coffee house would be here in the Village. Planning Commission Minutes for July 27, 2005 Page 8 • Asked the Commission to please consider the needs of existing businesses and allow them the opportunity to present their information. Consider our merchants first. Mr. David Lou, 14471 Big Basin Way, Saratoga: • Said he was the co-owner of the International Coffee Exchange and that he agrees with the previous speakers. • Said that this is a case of big corporations versus small business. • Reminded that the 7 to 9 a.m. peak time frame for Starbucks also represents their main business. • Said that this is a very small and unique town and a Starbucks would dilute that uniqueness. Mr. Mike Fitzsimmons, 14611 Brig Basin Way, Unit B, Saratoga: • Stated that he previously owned the Corinthian Corners building and sold it about a year and a half ago. • Said that he can speak highly of the current owners. • Lamented the lack of foot traffic in the Village. • Said that if approved this Starbucks location would encourage foot traffic and benefit businesses at this end of the Village. • Said that he owns property in another state that has Starbucks as a tenant. They are a first-rate tenant and corporation. Their employees are outstanding. • Assured that Saratoga will not fall off the map with the addition of a Starbucks in the Village. • Added that both Los Gatos and Los Altos have good tax bases. • Encouraged approval, as this business would be good for Saratoga. Mr. Francisco Morin, 14505 Oak Street, Saratoga: • Said that he is a 23-year resident and lives on Oak Street and is a restaurant owner. • Said that he is concerned about the Village, as it is not flourishing. • Expressed support for this Starbucks location as the Village needs something new to rejuvenate it. Ms. Carole Atkin, 13680 Rossmere Court, Saratoga: • Said that she is a resident of Saratoga and a patron of Big Basin Way businesses and a fan of the Village. • Said that there is a lot of potential with the Village but she is not sure that Starbucks will help increase foot traffic, which is the issue for the whole Village. • Reported that visitors often comment on the charm and ambiance of the Village and that should be built upon and enhanced. • Cautioned that this Starbucks might result in the closure of other businesses. • Stated that thoughtful planning is required here. Mr. Mike Hochleutner, 20617 Brookwood Lane, Saratoga: • Said he is a three-year resident and is neither a shop owner nor a Starbucks employee. Furthermore, no family member works there. Planning Commission Minutes for July 27, 2005 Page 9 • • Said that he tends to visit other cities on the weekends instead of Saratoga's Village. He is looking for more people, for more life. • Stated that Starbucks would bring people and life to downtown Saratoga. • Said that he understands that there are three coffee shops in the Village already. • Questioned why a chain coffee shop would not be desirable. This is not a Wal-Mart but rather one of the best businesses in America for its employees. • Said he looks forward to the addition of a Starbucks to the Village. Mr. Bob Cancellieri, 14860 Cody Lane, Saratoga: • Said that he owns buildings and that Starbucks is an icon with phenomenal growth. • Said that Starbucks would bring much needed traffic into Saratoga's Village and give customers choices. • Stated that the customer is king. • Recounted how he was in the bakery business for 45 years. At one point a new bakery established right across the street from his. By operating a good business, he was able to beat this competition. • Stated that he is glad for competition, as competition is good. There are no bad businesses, just bad management. • Suggested that Starbucks be allowed at this location. Mr. Bob Shepherd, 20491 Forrest Hills Drive, Saratoga: • Thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak. • Said that it is great to have Starbucks in Saratoga. • Said that he goes downtown weekly and that it struck him a few years ago that the vibrancy and energy was missing. This is created with people. • Said that this Starbucks offers an opportunity to create vibrancy and energy within our city. • Pointed out that you find a lot of people in communities with Starbucks. This is our opportunity to create energy and vibrancy and bring people into the Village. • Suggested that we open that door and let Starbucks come in. Ms. Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, City of Saratoga: • Said that she is the Assistant City Manager and on the Economic Development Staff. • Praised the excellent report provided by staff. • Reported that a meeting was held this morning regarding Village parking. • Said that this Starbucks would be consistent with the economic development goals and would create another reason for patrons to stop in the Village thereby creating foot traffic for other businesses. • Stated that parking capacity to support this use exists. At peak lunch and dinner times, parking is available. • Said that in an April 2005 report to Council, the Commission was asked to consider changes to the parking requirements. • Said that the Economic Development staff met today with approximately 20 to 25 Village representatives, business and property owners. • Mr. Robert Davis for Mrs. Elizabeth Klear, 14420-14422 Big Basin Way, Saratoga: • Reported that business is down in the community. Planning Commission Minutes for July 27, 2005 Page 10 • Said that while they initially had parking concerns, they support this application. • Mr. Cliff Nichols, 21221 Canyon View Drive, Saratoga: • Said that he has been living in Saratoga since January 2005. • Reported that he had worked for Starbucks in Baltimore and can assure that they take care of their employees. • Advised that he now works at the Argonaut Starbucks. Ms. Rebecca Fingerhood, 21221 Canyon View Drive, Saratoga: • Said that she too worked for Starbucks in Baltimore in a community similar to Saratoga. • Advised that she now works at a San Jose Starbucks after transferring across country following her mom's death and return home to her family. • Stated that having a Starbucks would draw her to downtown Saratoga and feels it is a great idea to have one there. Ms. Valerie Farnum, 20295 La Paloma Avenue, Saratoga: • Said that she is a resident of Saratoga since she was eight years old. She is now a sophomore at New York University home for the summer. • Advised that she has been working at the Argonaut Starbucks for about a month now. Deborah Cunnington, Blue Rock Shoot, 14523 Big Basin Way, Saratoga: • Said that she has an open mind and heart. • Said that some residents are not interested in the development of the downtown. • Said that she wants the City to become vibrant and everyone wants to expand the tax base. • Expressed concern over the lack of communication between Council and the Planning Commission and business owners and residents of Saratoga. • Stated that no hearing noticing was provided to the existing coffee businesses. • Said that this noticing must be inclusive of all people. • Said that she wants to expand the downtown area and pointed out that 98 percent of the businesses in the downtown are sole proprietorships. • Cautioned that the City is not considering the impacts on them. • Agreed on the need to increase the vibrancy of the Village and bring it into the 21St Century. • Suggested that this decision is already a "fait accompli" and that whatever they may say tonight won't matter. • Stated that foot traffic would not increase in the Village with Starbucks. Ms. Sarah Yip, International Coffee Exchange: • Said that she is speaking on behalf of her childhood friend, the owner of the International Coffee Exchange. • Explained that her friend's husband died a few years ago, leaving behind a wife and four children. Two years ago, her friend put her life savings into this business and it is all that they have. • • Asked that this Starbucks not be approved to allow existing businesses to continue to make a living. Planning Commission Minutes for July 27, 2005 Page 11 • Mr. I.D. Allan, 14426 Black Walnut Court, Saratoga: • Questioned the determination that this use would not have parking or traffic impacts. • Said he has no position on this application one way or the other but he wants the data to support whatever decision is made. • Added that he is uncomfortable with a decision being made without studying the effects of a Starbucks on the existing businesses. Ms. Mary-Lynne Bernald, 14398 Evans Lane, Saratoga: ' • Stated that she is a 26-year resident and previously worked in the Village. • Said that she is aware of the importance of foot traffic. • Advised that she is also a former Planning Commissioner and was on the Commission when Starbucks previously came before it in 1996 at which time it was voted down. Since that time, she has heard what a shame it was that it had not been approved. It was denied due to parking and traffic issues. • Asked the Commission to please look at the traffic situation there today. . • Said that she has been to Starbucks and it is busy all the time. • Said that traffic and parking issues remain a concern today. Ms. Rebecca Clarke, 14543 Oak Street, Saratoga: • Said she is a resident of Saratoga who has lived near the Village since 1999. • Said that the main consideration should be the rejuvenation of the town. • Said that she has nothing against Starbucks but feels that the Commission and Chamber of Commerce are letting the Village down. She does not feel that the Village is being well represented here. • Cautioned that Starbucks is not the catalyst for redevelopment of the Village. • Added that the Planning Commission has not done its homework. Ms. Shirley Cancellieri, 14860 Cody Lane, Saratoga: • Expressed her opposition to this Starbucks. • Said that there are enough coffee shops in the Village and that she is concerned about the traffic in this corner. • Said that outdoor seating would look sloppy here. This is the wrong place. ' • Reported that she has only gone to Starbucks once or twice only to use their bathroom. • Said that she is upset. We don't need another place where kids can hang out late. • Stated that she is totally against this request. We don't need another Starbucks. We've got one already. • Suggested that all residents of Saratoga support its downtown by going there at least once a month. • Asked the Commission to do its job here and support the community. Mr. Ken Schulz, 15001 Springer Avenue, Saratoga: • Said he is neutral on Starbucks but is concerned about the data on traffic and parking. . • Reminded that the peak traffic for Starbucks is 87 transactions per half hour. • Asked that the parking study be looked at further. • Encouraged the Commission to ensure that the sign approved is tasteful. Planning Commission Minutes for July 27, 2005 Page 12 Mr. Nasser Hiekal, 14410 Big Basin Way, Saratoga: • • Said he is proud of his project, taking an old gas station and doing a fabulous job with it. • Said that he tried to capture the essence of the Village. • Stated that he loves Saratoga and is a former Los Gatos resident. • Said that this is a unique location for a Starbucks, which is one of the best-run companies in the United States. • Said that he knows the Codes, issues and community. The outdoor seating would be within a garden area. He proposes pavers for the parking lot to make it even more attractive. • Said that many local businesses have indicated support for Starbucks, which will be a great asset for the Village, helping to bring more business. • Said that he needs a good anchor tenant to draw new business to his center. Commissioner Uhl told Mr. Nasser Hiekal that he did an outstanding job on the building. It looks outstanding as the entrance to the Village. He asked why it is hard to get an anchor tenant. Mr. Nasser Hiekal replied that the demographics don't support it. Commissioner Uhl asked Mr. Nasser Hiekal what other opportunities he has pursued. Mr. Nasser Hiekal said there is potential for a bookstore, gallery, fast food and/or ice cream • shop. Mr. Bill Cooper, 14503 Big Basin Way, Saratoga: • Said he is the owner of Bella Saratoga. • Assured that he too allows the public to use the restrooms at his business. • Said that one needs to think outside of the box on how to improve the Village. • Stated that competition is not bad nor is a destination-based business bad. • Said that he likes an old-fashioned Village and does not like a large chain to be the marker at the entrance of the downtown. • Suggested placing a Starbucks inside the Village and not at its entrance. • Said that petitions have been circulated and he is delivering them to the Commission this evening. • Said that this is an important decision and he does not understand why it is being made when three Commissioners are absent. • Said he took an informal survey at Kirkwood Shopping Center in Campbell. Other businesses saw no increase in business as a result of the addition of a Starbucks there. Mr. Alex Garcia, 20845 Fourth Street, Saratoga: • Said that he is a problem solver and the issue here is creating business for other businesses. • Stated that traffic is continually increasing and that nothing is being done to ensure the • safety of pedestrians. • Asked that the Commission do some research on this. Planning Commission Minutes for July 27, 2005 Page 13 • Mr. Eugene Zambetti, 14639 Big Basin Way, Saratoga: • Said that he is a commercial property owner in the Village and a resident of Oak Street. • Said that the issue here is parking. • Said that he hopes that if this were approved, there would be a 12-month review. • Said that he does not support restraining trade. All will survive if they take care of their customers. • Expressed support for the establishment of Parking District #5. Commissioner Uhl asked Mr. Bill Cooper where the petitions were circulated and when. Mr. Bill Cooper said the signatures were collected during the last few days. Chair Nagpal asked how they were collected. Ms. Jeanette Ryan-Hathaway advised that the petitions were left on the counter for patrons to sign voluntarily. Mr. Francisco Morin said that there are more signed petition sheets available. Ms. Deborah Cunnington said that they were left on the counter at her business as well at other merchants' establishments. ' • Miss. Andra Chao, daughter of owner, International Coffee Exchange: • Said that on behalf of her mother, she is asking that this request be denied. Mr. Zeden Jones: • Said that this evening's response is overwhelming. • Expressed support for the conduction of a pedestrian traffic study both before and following the establishment of Starbucks at this location. • Said they are willing to participate. • Said that when attempting to identify another downtown like Saratoga, he cannot. Saratoga is unique. • Pointed out that Argonaut is a high volume store. • Said that Starbucks has brand recognition and does act as a catalyst to create foot traffic. • Reminded that Starbucks is just another choice. It has a limited menu. • Said that he thinks that the existing businesses would continue to do well. Chair Nagpal sought clarification on the 87 peak transactions. Mr. Zeden Jones advised that this represents the number of transactions within a half hour at peak times. • Chair Nagpal asked Mr. Zeden Jones if he is open to a condition that requires a 12 months review of the parking. Planning Commission Minutes for July 27, 2005 Page 14 Mr. Zeden Jones replied yes. He said that it sounds like it is warranted. He also supports the . concept of a pedestrian traffic study. Commissioner Kundtz asked Mr. Zeden Jones hdw long the lease is for. Mr. Zeden Jones replied that it is a 10-year lease with five-year renewal options. He said that they would mitigate issues raised after one year, if necessary. Director John Livingstone reminded that the Commission retains jurisdiction over Use Permits and can require the applicant to come back before it with additional survey information. Commissioner Uhl asked if this is an on-going right for the Commission. Director John Livingstone replied absolutely. Ms. Deborah Cunnington said that the city should do the studies and not the applicant. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Chair Nagpal advised that a 3-1 vote or better is required to pass this item. A tie vote would equal a denial. Director John Livingstone said that if the project were denied, staff would bring back a revised resolution with findings for denial to be heard under Consent at the next meeting unless the ., Commission's denial is appealed to Council. Commissioner Uhl asked staff to clarify a lack of "conspiracy theory" in regards to noticing. Director John Livingstone advised that the noticing is done off County Assessor's rolls based on property owners. Owners within 500 feet are notified by mail. Commissioner Cappello said that this reaches owners but not necessarily their tenants. Director John Livingstone replied that this is true. Commissioner Cappello said that it is up to the owners to pass along the information to their tenants. Director John Livingstone replied correct. Commissioner Uhl asked if the noticing met the typical time frame. Director John Livingstone said that as indicated in the staff report, 10 day noticing is required. In this case, the noticing went out several days in advance of that and was mailed on July 14, 2005. Additionally, there was some media coverage of this item. . Planning Commission Minutes for July 27, 2005 Page 15 • Chair Nagpal pointed out that the competition issue is not a required finding. Issues include finding an application meets the zoning objectives and is not detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community. Director John Livingstone agreed that cities do not generally regulate business competition. He pointed out that lots of uses don't require a Use Permit. Commissioner Cappello: • Advised that he does not personally drink coffee, making him a rare individual. • Said that he has no favoritism for Starbucks. • Said that compatibility with the surrounding area is of concern and whether this is an appropriate location for a Starbucks. • Questions whether Starbucks would help attract foot traffic to the Village and what the impacts of a Starbucks might be on other business downtown. • Said that he prefers a Starbucks be located further within the Village. • Said that a good comment was made about interior foot traffic not reaching this area of the Village. • Said that no concrete data has been provided on the benefits or impacts of a Starbucks. It could help business in the area or may be detrimental to the other coffee shops, at least initially. • Recounted a family experience with an ice cream shop his parents owned. Competition arrived but it ended up working out over time as new business was drawn to the area. • • Said that he tends to be in favor of this application and likes the condition to require a study of impacts in six months' time either by the. applicant or a third party. Commissioner Uhl asked what happens six months down the road if traffic increases or if there is no positive pedestrian increases in the Village. Director John Livingstone said that it would be up to the Commission. Chair Nagpal said that there is the issue of whether additional conditions can be imposed if a traffic study validates traffic impacts. Director John Livingstone said that it would be possible to revoke the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Kundtz reminded that they are entering into a 10-year lease. Chair Nagpal said that additional conditions could be imposed to resolve any problems that arise. Commissioner Kundtz: • Thanked everyone for participating this evening. • Said that strong feelings have been expressed. • Explained that he is a 20-year resident of Saratoga and a new member of the Planning • Commission. • Added that he sees the rejuvenation of downtown Saratoga as very important. Planning Commission Minutes for July 27, 2005 Page 16 • Said that his two sons go to St. Andrews school and he is well aware of the traffic patterns . in this area. • Expressed his respect for individual proprietorships but feels that competition is a good thing in that it brings out the best in everyone be it in business or in sports. • Said that other types of chains may be proposed in the future that compete with other existing businesses. • Said that he is going to vote against this application for the reasons of public safety and not due to competition concerns. Since there is no direct access from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, there is a potential for problems accessing this location during high traffic times. • Encouraged Starbucks to consider locating further up the street in the Village. • Said it would be a mistake to approve this use here and have to revoke that approval after a year. Commissioner Uhl: • Said that this is not an easy decision by any means. • Said that he had talked to a number of people about it. • Said that Saratoga is a unique and special place but there is not enough life in the Village, it is going out of business. • Said that life must be brought to the Village. • Pointed out that a majority live here due to the small scale of the Village which should be preserved and enhanced. This use does not do that. It is not a pedestrian driven business but rather a drive through business proposed for a high traffic corner. • Said he cannot support his request although he wants this remodeled building to be • successful. Chair Nagpal: • Said that this is a difficult decision. • Reported that she has gone down to the Village daily since receiving her Planning Commission packet for this meeting. • Said that of the three required findings, the issue of parking is the most difficult. • Said that she must leave the traffic issue to the experts. Fehr & Peers is awell-respected traffic-consulting firm. • Said that she can make the finding that this retail use is consistent with the zoning. • Said that she can make the finding that this use is not detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community. Downtowns are crowded and should be. • Pointed out that there are provisions to allow variations in parking requirements. Older downtowns often have parking issues. She said she could make the necessary finding on parking. • Said that the Commission is not in a position to limit competition. • Assured that she will support the International Coffee Exchange with her business in the future and found the letter from the owner to be very moving. • Reported that she visited a Starbucks in Monterey that is similar to what is proposed here. Commissioner Uhl questioned whether this use preserves the character of the small town. Commissioner Cappello said that it serves as a gathering spot. Planning Commission Minutes for July 27, 2005 Page 17 Commissioner Kundtz pointed out that sitting at a table does not equal pedestrian traffic. Per Starbucks, they are a convenience stop. Chair Nagpal: • Said that two types of customers come to Starbucks. Those who grab their coffee and leave and those who linger and sit there. • Said that nothing tells the Commission what other use might be right for this location. • Added that what we have here is a specific application for this location. ' Commissioner Uhl pointed out that the Village is very different from Argonaut and there are traffic impacts. Chair Nagpal: • Pointed out that revitalizing the Village will automatically equal more traffic. • Said that the City will have to look at parking. Today, parking will be okay. • Expressed appreciation for all who came this evening. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Uhl, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, the Planning Commission DENIED a Conditional Use Permit (Application #06-018) to locate a Starbucks Coffee shop with indoor and outdoor seating in an existing tenant space on property located at 14410 Big Basin Way, Unit D, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Kundtz and Uhl NOES: Cappello and Nagpal ABSENT: Hunter, Rodgers and Schallop ABSTAIN: None Director John Livingstone advised that a revised resolution for denial would be handled under the Consent Calendar at the next meeting. Chair Nagpal called for a break at 10 p.m. Chair Nagpal reconvened the meeting at 10:07 p.m. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 3 APPLICATION # 04-164 (397-09-020) - SARUP, 19140 Panorama Drive; -The applicant requests Design Review Approval to demolish the structures on the property and construct a new single story home with a maximum height of 26 feet. The size of the home including the garage will be 5,900 square feet with a 3,720 square foot basement. The net lot size is 43,592 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-40,000. (LATA VASUDEVAN) Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: Planning Commission Minutes for July 27, 2005 Page 18 • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to demolish an existing single family resident and construct a new 5,900 square foot single-story residence with a 3,720 square foot basement and a maximum height of 26 feet. A pool will be added in the rear yard. • Described the area as consisting of one and two-story homes, some of which have a Mediterranean architectural style. The lots are generally one acre or larger. • Said that the proposal is compatible with the ambiance of the neighborhood and that no negative correspondence has been received to date. • Reported that several Arborist reports had been prepared. There are 36 Ordinance protected trees, nine of which are slated for removal with replacements required. • Stated that the required Design Review findings can be made in the affirmative. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Uhl asked for clarification that no negative comments have been received up to tonight. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied none so far. Chair Nagpal pointed out that just two of the trees are located within the proposed building envelope. She asked if the Arborist recommends the rest for removal due to their ratings Planner Lata Vasudevan replied correct. Specifically, there are safety implications for one large tree. Retaining it would jeopardize safety. Commissioner Uhl asked staff when the new staff Arborist would begin. Director John Livingstone replied that the City is still working on hiring a permanent Human Resources Manager. It will be about four to five months before the Arborist is hired. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. B. Sarup, Project Representative: • Stated that this would be a good fit for the neighborhood and land with minimum grading required. • Said that this house would incorporate an old world type of ambiance with a veranda across the front of the house. • Said that there are similar homes in the area and that the neighbors are delighted with the design. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Cappello: • Agreed that this is a good design for this neighborhood and lot. • Said that no objections have been raised. • Expressed concern about a couple of trees but said that the Commission has to trust the Arborist report regarding the need to remove them. Planning Commission Minutes for July 27, 2005 Page 19 Chair Nagpal asked if the Arborist concentrates his review to trees located within the proposed building footprint. Director John Livingstone replied that any trees that could be impacted by a project are evaluated. If necessary, tree protection requirements are established. Commissioner Uhl said that this is a beautiful design. A great job has been done. There are no negative comments. Congratulated the applicant for a great project. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Cappello, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #04-164) to construct a new single-story home with basement on property located at 19140 Panorama Drive, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Kundtz, Nagpal and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: Hunter, Rodgers and Schallop ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 4 APPLICATION # 05-103 (510-01-030) - SILVERSTEIN, 19896 Park Drive; -The applicant requests Design Review Approval to demolish the existing home and construct a new single- story home with a maximum height of 23.3 feet. The size of the home including the garage will be 4,828 square feet. The net lot size is 25,000 square feet and the site is zoned R-1- 20,000. (LATA VASUDEVAN) Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to allow the demolition of an existing single-family residence and the construction of a new single-story residence. • Said that this development consists of ranch style homes and was established in the 1940s. Several homes in this neighborhood have been rebuilt and/or remodeled. • Said that the new home would be located closer to the front property line. • Reported that the applicant has shown the plans to the neighbors and positive comments were received by all and have been attached to the staff report. No negative comments were received. • Said that there are seven Ordinance protected trees on site. Only one, a Cedar, is proposed for removal per the City Arborist. • Advised that the findings can be made to support this application. The renderings for this house are beautiful. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Mr. Silverstein, Project Architect: Planning Commission Minutes for July 27, 2005 Page 20 • Said that this project is within the boundaries of the other houses in this neighborhood. • Stated that the low frontage would be compatible with other nearby houses. • Reported that the current house on this property would be disassembled and recycled. • Added that solar energy would be incorporated in the new residence. • Reiterated that the project would be compatible with the existing surroundings. Chair Nagpal stated that this house has a beautiful design. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Commissioner Uhl: • Said that he loves this one. It is a model property and is beautifully designed and well aligned with this neighborhood. • Said that this home would add to the community. • Added that this is a great property and a great job was done. • Stated he was fully supportive. Motion: Upon motion of Chair Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #05- 103) to construct a new single-story home on property located at 19896 Park Drive, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Kundtz, Nagpal and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: Hunter, Rodgers and Schallop ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 5 APPLICATION # 05-068 (503-28-075) -TANG, 20851 Canyon View Drive; -The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence. The project includes the demolition of an existing two-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence is 2,880 square feet. A 1,104 square foot basement is' proposed. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 23.2 feet. The gross lot size is 18,373 square feet and the site is zoned R-1 40,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to construct atwo-story single-family residence and demolish the existing two-story residence. The new home is proposed at 2,880 square feet with a 1,104 square foot basement. The maximum height is proposed at 23.2 feet. The lot size is 18,373 square feet gross and the zoning is R-1- 40,000. • Described the proposed materials as including grey concrete the roof with horizontal siding. Planning Commission Minutes for July 27, 2005 • Explained that the project was revised to preserve removed. • Said that neighbors' views are currently unobstructed their roof to preserve their neighbors' views. • Recommended approval. Page 21 12 more trees. Six trees would be The applicant lowered the slope of Commissioner Cappello questioned the color boards provided and sought clarification that roof tiles are now sought instead of the composition roofing depicted on the color boards. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes. Commissioner Uhl questioned the placement of retaining walls. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that the proposed retaining walls are less than five feet in height and would be located between the house and roadway but tucked in by the residence. Commissioner Uhl said that they would be tucked in behind existing bushes and landscaping. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5. Mr. Steve Yen, Project Architect: • Said he was available for any questions. . • Pointed out that the existing house on this property is in poor shape. • Assured that none of the retaining wall, depicted on the C-1 plan sheet, would be visible from street level. They would be very low. • Added that they will preserve as much of the existing landscaping as possible. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5. Chair Nagpal sought clarification that geotechnical reports occur after approval. Planner Christy Oosterhous said that the geotechnical report is completed already and conditions have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. Director John Livingstone added that the geotechnical reports are required up front and in advance. Commissioner Cappello: • Said it was commendable to redesign the project in order to preserve more trees and must not have been easy. • Stated that they have done a great job. • Added that the project does not interfere with views. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Uhl, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #05-068) to allow the construction of a new two-story single-family Planning Commission Minutes for July 27, 2005 Page 22 residence with basement on property located at 20851 Canyon View Drive, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Kundtz, Nagpal and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: Hunter, Rodgers and Schallop ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 6 APPLICATION #04-379 (503-26-009) TRAN, 20840 Fourth Street; -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 is 2,559.4 square feet. A 1,496.66 square foot basement is proposed. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 24 feet. The gross lot size is 5,177 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 is seeking Design Review Approval to allow the construction of a new two-story single-family residence with 2,559 square feet and 1,496 square fioot basement and the demolition of an existing single-story residence. The maximum height of the new residence would be 24 feet. The lot size is 4,177 square feet and the zoning is' • R-1-10,000. • Said that a juniper is proposed for removal. • Described the building materials as including composition shingle roofing and cultured stone accents. • Said that comments in opposition were received from two neighbors due to hillside view impacts and privacy impacts. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Kundtz asked about the neighbor issues and concerns, specifically Ms. Esparanza Garcia's. He asked if there are unreasonable view impacts. Planner Christy Oosterhous said that the Garza's views are not impacted from the front porch or residence but there are serious view impacts from a picnic table in the yard. Commissioner Cappello asked about the setback requirements for this lot. Planner Christy Oosterhous reported that there are not a lot of smaller lots such as this 50- foot wide lot. The side yard setback is 10 percent of the lot width or 6 feet, whichever is greater. There is an additional five-foot setback required for the second story. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 6. Ms. Rachael Frame, Project Representative: • Advised that she is here to represent the property owner. Planning Commission Minutes for July 27, 2005 Page 23 • Pointed out that a lot of homes in this neighborhood have been increased into two-story homes and that this lot is unusually shaped and small. • Stated that the architect has made the most of the house on this lot but that it is not a very big house. It is reasonable for a family of four. • Said that Planner Christy Oosterhous has addressed everything and the owner is here too. • Added that she would like to hear what the opposition has to say and then have an opportunity to rebut. Commissioner Kundtz asked if there are intentions to mitigate privacy impacts for the adjacent single-story residence. Ms. Rachael Frame said that some windows were raised and/or obscured. Chair Nagpal asked if all seven windows on that elevation are raised or obscured. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied except for one larger picture window. Mr. Alex Garcia, 20845 Fourth Street, Saratoga: • Expressed his disagreement with the front facade of this house saying that it does not do justice to the aesthetics of the area at all. ' • Said his family has lived here for 35 years and that they have nothing against improvements on their neighbors' home. ' . Said that he does not understand why this house has to be built so high. • Suggested that perhaps a bigger basement could accommodate the required square footage. • Disagreed that there would be no view obstruction. • Pointed out that this lot is small and every setback is being used up. • Suggested an alternate plan as his family cannot agree with the loss of mountain views. • Said that this home should not be able to look into his front living room window. Mr. Albert Buzo, 37 E. Hedding Street, San Jose: • Said he was the representative for Ms. Esparanza Garcia. • Said that they have concerns that include privacy issues, view impacts/obstructions and the size of proposed home. • Pointed out that Mrs. Garcia has lived in the area for a long time. • Said that having a 2,500 square foot home on a 5,000 square foot lot is of concern. This proposed house represents half the size of the entire lot. • Said that a home of this size would be fine on a lot that is 7,500 to 10,000 square feet but it is a large home fora 5,000 square foot lot. It is simply too big and will not fit in with the homes in the area. • Pointed out that although the staff report compares and references nearby condos, this is neither a condo feel nor a condo neighborhood. • Said it looks like someone took Code parameters and took them to the limit. This is not a good precedent for this City and community to set. Mr. Ken Schulz, 15001 Springer Avenue, Saratoga: Planning Commission Minutes for July 27, 2005 Page 24 • Said that he lives at the back of this property. • Stated that this project represents the poster child for monster homes. It is a huge home on a small lot. • Disagreed with the report's conclusion that there are minimal privacy impacts or concerns. • Said that from his rear window he currently sees trees. He would see a home now and envisions a time when he might see a wall of two-story houses behind him in the future. • Pointed out that these owners purchased asingle-story house. • Expressed fear that this is a slippery slope and that this proposal is not within the spirit of the area. • Asked that this project not be allowed to max out every possible square inch. • Reminded that this is an incredibly small lot and questioned if a 4,100 square foot house is required for a family of four. Eric and Sherry Kraule, 20850 Fourth Street, Saratoga: • Said that they live next door and have asingle-story home. • Pointed out that a large two-story was constructed next door to them impacting their privacy. Their bathroom and children's' bedroom windows are visible by their neighbors. This new home would impact the master bedroom. • Reminded that not all homes in this neighborhood are two-story. More are single-story including their own. • Said that when they remodeled their home they tried to fit their home within this neighborhood. • Stated that they are not leaving. They will be here forever and will be impacted with whatever is done here. • Assured that they don't want to be nasty neighbors but that they want their neighbors to fit in with the existing neighborhood. Commissioner Kundtz asked the Kraules if they ever would envision atwo-story home for themselves on their property. Ms. Sherry Kraule replied never, adding that she's the type to fall down stairs. Their family is two adults and three kids. Chair Nagpal asked Ms. Sherry Kraule how large their lot is. Ms. Sherry Kraule replied that it is about twice the size of this parcel at approximately 10,000 square feet. It is way bigger. Director John Livingstone told the Commission that they could compare lot sizes by looking at the map on the cover of the staff report. Mr. Kiet Tran, Applicant and Property Owner, 20840 Fourth Street, Saratoga: • Said that he felt that his neighbors' concerns had been addressed. • Clarified that there are no plans for a bay window on the second floor only on the first floor. Planning Commission Minutes for July 27, 2005 Page 25 Ms. Rachael Frame said that privacy impacts are more important when it concerns bedrooms rather than when it means seeing into a living room. Mr. Kiet Tran: • Said that he is remodeling his home, nothing different than what neighbors have done in the area. • Said that he showed his plans early on to his neighbors and obscured or raised windows as well as adding screening trees. There is but one picture window at the back. • Stated that his small irregular lot is a challenge and that he has met the setbacks' and zoning requirements of the City with his proposal. • Pointed out that while 26 feet is the maximum height allowed, he initially proposed 25 feet and reduced that to 24 feet to ,address concerns raised by neighbors. Chair Nagpal asked for the height of the flat area of the room. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied 22 feet and that it drops lower to the back. Mr. Kiet Tran said that he chose the Craftsman style to match the area and reiterated that many additional trees are planned for this property. Chair Nagpal sought clarification that all rear second floor windows are obscured or raised except for one. • Mr. Kiet Tran agreed, saying except for the window at the center of the back second story elevation. Chair Nagpal asked whether three of the rear elevation windows are obscured. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes. Chair Nagpal asked about the planting proposed. Planner Christy Oosterhous said that the proposed species need to be revised per input from a neighbor. Commissioner Uhl asked if the Arborist looks at landscape. Director John Livingstone replied not the species planned but the efforts to preserve existing trees. Mr. Kiet Tran pointed out that the Arborist recommends the trees proposed. Director John Livingstone said that the trees proposed are medium sized trees and would be planted as 24-inch box specimens. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 6. Planning Commission Minutes for July 27, 2005 Page 26 Commissioner Cappello: • Said that he has no issue with atwo-story since there are others in this neighborhood. • Stated that this is a neighborhood in transition. • Added that he has no issue with the fact that this project is maxed out as it does not violate any Ordinance. • Said that the issue is privacy and bulk. • Stated that other things can be done to further minimize the impact on neighbors. • Said that it is inevitable that atwo-story will be constructed at this location. It would have to be in order to warrant rebuilding here at all. • Said that he is not in favor of this project as it is proposed today since findings on a lack of view impacts cannot be made. Commissioner Uhl said that he respects the time spent by this applicant but that he has problems with the three required findings including views impact, minimization of bulk and compatibility. He said that while he feels for the applicant he couldn'f support this project at this point. Chair Nagpal asked for specific suggestions for this applicant. Director John Livingstone pointed out the heights of other homes reviewed and approved on this evening's agenda. They included 23, 25 and 26-foot high single-story homes. Commissioner Uhl said he does not believe that this has to be a two-story. • Chair Nagpal reminded that the maximum lot coverage is 2,560 square feet. Commissioner Uhl said that it would be 3,200 square feet with the basement. Chair Nagpal pointed out that basement space is not counted. Commissioner Uhl said that if the house were a two story, the minimization of bulk and heights would be reduced with greater setbacks. This proposal is too towering and too close to its neighbors. Commissioner Kundtz said he echoes the comments made. A lot of work has been done but reconsideration must still be done. Chair Nagpal: • Suggested asking the applicant if he prefers a denial tonight or a continuance. • Pointed out that it does not look like there is sufficient support today for approval as the project stands. • Said that if the project is voted upon and denied, the applicant would have the option to appeal that action to Council. If the item is continued, revisions can be made to the proposal. Ms. Rachael Frame asked for suggestions on how to make the house more private for the neighbors and reminded that the Kraules have a two story behind them. Planning Commission Minutes for July 27, 2005 Page 27 Chair Nagpal asked whether the applicant prefers a denial or continuance. Mr. Kiet Tran said that specific suggestions would be helpful as there is not a lot of space to move on this property. Chair Nagpal asked Mr. Kiet Tran if his preference is a continuance or he could appeal a denial to Council Mr. Kiet Tran said that he would like to take suggestions from the Commission and work on his project for the next meeting. Commissioner Cappello: • Said that he has no issue with the height and bulk and that this is a neighborhood in transition and that the neighbors will have to give a little bit. • Said he has no issue with atwo-story but that little more can be done to minimize views and privacy. Commissioner Uhl: • Said that Findings A, D and E cannot be made. There is interference with views and privacy. • Said that the second story would need to be minimized and made much smaller. The bulk • and height would have to be minimized. • Added that the project must not maximize all limits. It needs to be shrunk down. Commissioner Kundtz said that smaller is better and perhaps astory-and-a-half design could be considered. Chair Nagpal: • Said that she thought this was a decent looking project although it is the smallest lot in the immediate area. • Reminded that there do exist two-story homes in the neighborhood although on larger lots. • Said that this project interferes with views and privacy and give a perception of bulk. • Asked staff if they have enough to work on with these comments. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes. Director John Livingstone suggested that the Commission make a motion to continue this item to a date uncertain. The neighbors will be re-noticed. Motion: Upon motion of Chair Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission CONTINUED TO A DATE UNCERTAIN consideration of Application #04-379 to allow the construction of a new two-story, single- family residence with basement on property located at 20840 Fourth Street, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Kundtz, Nagpal and Uhl NOES: None Planning Commission Minutes for July 27, 2005 Page 28 ABSENT: Hunter, Rodgers and Schallop ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Cappello reiterated that it is inevitable that atwo-story will be built on this location and suggested that all parties work together to find a solution that is a compromise that works for all sides as best as possible. *** DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Reminder of Cancellation of August 10, 2005 Meeting: Director John Livingstone reminded the Commission that there would be no meeting held on August 10, 2005. Thanks for Handling this Large Agenda: Director John Livingstone thanked the Commissioners for dealing with tonight's larger agenda. He said that staff does not usually pack an agenda like this. Thanks to Staff: Director John Livingstone commended Planners Christy Oosterhous and Lata Vasudevan for the extra duty they have been pulling over the last couple of months. He advised that two new staff planners are just starting. Chair Nagpal thanked all Commissioners for their attendance today. ' • COMMISSION ITEMS Story Poles/Arborist at Meetings: Commissioner Uhl said that the use of story poles is hugely helpful and extended kudos on that. Said that having an Arborist at meetings would be nice. Director John Livingstone cautioned that applicants would have to pay the cost of that attendance. Study Session -August 24, 2005 Director John Livingstone reminded that the Study Session has been rescheduled to August 24, 2005. COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING • Planning Commission Minutes for July 27, 2005 Page 29 . Upon motion of Commissioner Uhl, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, Chair Nagpal adjourned the meeting at 11:40 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of August 24, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • • 4 , k - .. 'h F .' {. ~~ ~"~.~w !~ ' ' ` ~ i~aari~an No. 06-020;. '191 S2 De Havilland Drw~e T{ c f ,. . G'f-HF..4CRIPTION ;~ . ' 3'he applie~at is Proposing an addrtio~i to a y home that will require a mirristerial ', ~~ ~ ~.~ by Flaiming Staff. The plena were rou~ad fear Gity Arborist review when '`~ _ ~ " ~ ~~ Acted treea ntay be ~ a result of the pr++opasmd Go®stn~ction. The ,F :. {~ ' , ~ ~.: phu'is did not show the `location. c>f a CsmerY laland l that would require ~* ~ , , : "~ tp~~d if the ~lition ware apprroved. The City Atbo~iat c1ed that this Canary laland a -' ~ . ~' wCl~1~t~ C-ing and ,that the remodeling proposal shall be rCVised o pttsmve this ,, ~ ,'. Camper D~e~rrt:.~'' :~ with t3~+~ty. Arbarist and made an ~~ :.' wee decision ~ tie pt+e~ervatic~n of the Canaty Island Pine. The owner they ftbd an. of this deciaon ~ Municipal Code Sedionl5-90.010. ~ttd inforava that is e~losod inchuks the City Arbosat Report dated Msy ~, #~nd the submitted by tna pznperty owner. The City A~orist i~ a map slowing the home and the p~pca~ed addition which ape shaded. Purst~t ~ i~icl Code: section 15-50.0$0 the following criteria sha11 .be used in vvhather a true removal is pernnitted: {1) The coSditi~a of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger..of falling, pra~cimty to dristm~ car pc+oposed stru~ctures,:and imerftraacewith utility atrvices. ' {2} The tj- to t~sma-ve the: tree because of physical damage or tamed damage to i~nv or.imparvious surfaces ~ the property. {3) The ttipogray of #ha lid ,and the effect of liar tree n~moval upon ea+nsion, .soil reeS and the divetsivn or increased flow of surface wales, Pa~~#ictilarly on steep. slvpcat• (4) The ~~'~ species, .size and -location of existing trees in the arts and the effect the ,roa~va wou~ have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, ply values, {~'} Tbe;aga ata~,number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good catryp~ras {6~ V~r or Sot there are any alternatives .that would allow for retairring or not ` ana+g arl the protected tree. ` {~ W the :approval of the roquest would be contrary to or in con$iet with the and intent ofthisArticle j15-50]. {8} - oft information relevaact to the public health,. safety ~ general welfare and purps of this o~.as set forth in section 15 50.010. {9) Tise amity to rer~ve the tree for economic or other enjoyment of ~ the property vvbidn t~+e is no other feasible alternative to removal. STAN' R~C~fNDATIUN I< iat rdcxnnrttnc~nded that the Planning .Commission ; conduct the public hearing .and take ae~ii. . , J • • • 00002 ATTACHMENTS 1. Arborist Report, dated May 23, 2005. 2. Letter stating the administrative decision. 3. Appellant statement from property owner Lovoi. 4. Noticing Affidavit, Public Hearing Notice and mailing list for notification of appeal. • C7 ~~~~Q~ f ARBOR RESOURCES " Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED ADDITION AND REMODEL AT 19152 DE HAVILLAND DRIVE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME: Lavoi APPLICATION #: 05-169 APN #: 389-05-021 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 May 23, 2005 • P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources@earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.654.3352 • Licensed Contractor #796763 00©00~ David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist May 23, 2005 . INTRODUCTION The City of Saratoga Community Development Department has requested I review the potential tree impacts associated with the proposed addition and remodel at 19152 DeHavilland Drive, Saratoga. This report presents my findings and recommendations. Plans reviewed for this report includes Sheets A2 and AS by Brian David Peters, AIA, dated 4/05, and a Topography map by Clements and Associates, dated 6/7/04. The trees' locations, numbers and approximate canopy dimensions are presented on an attached copy of Sheet AS (Proposed Site Plan). Tree #3 is not shown on the architectural drawings and must be added. Its approximate location is shown on the attached map and should not be construed as being surveyed. FINDINGS The proposed project will impose potential impacts on four, trees regulated by City Ordinance. They include two Coast Redwoods (#1 and 2), one Coast Live Oak (#4) and one Canary Island Pine (#3). Specific data compiled for each is presented on the attached table. Tree #3 is a fairly large Canary Island Pine that appears in overall good condition and will likely continue doing so for years to come. The proposed northern addition and walkway will require a soil cut within approximately one-foot from its trunk. Consequently, the tree's stability and survival would be severely compromised and the tree would be considered a loss whether retained or removed. My review of the Ordinance does not demonstrate factors supporting tree #3's loss and, as a result, revisions to the design are suggested. These include [ 1 ] maintaining a minimum 11-foot setback from the tree's trunk for all construction related activities (except the walkway) and [2] revising the proposed walkway to be at least five feet from its trunk and established entirely on top of existing soil grade. There are additional trees of Ordinance-size within the backyard of the subject property and include two Oaks and one Redwood. Although they were not inventoried for this report, protection measures also pertain to them. There is also a dead tree along the home's south side. I recommend it be removed regardless of the proposed project. All Ordinance-sized trees on the property, whether inventoried or not, are expected to be adequately protected provided the recommendations presented in the next section are carefully followed and incorporated into construction plans. • Lavoi Property, 19152 De Havilland Drive, Saratoga Page 1 of 4 City of Saratoga Community Development Department O~€~oa5 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist May 23, 2005 Per City Code, the tree protection bond amount required for achieving the protection of • retained trees and adherence to the below recommendations is $41,530.' RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations presented below presume the retention of each Ordinance-sized tree and serve as measures to achieve a reasonable assurance of their survival. If plans become revised, the recommendations may require modification. Design Guidelines 1. The northern addition requires revision to maintain the stability and vigor of tree #3. In doing so, I recommend an 11-foot setback for the addition and afive-foot setback for the walkway. The section of walkway within 15 feet of the tree's trunk should also be established entirely on top of existing soil grade and not require soil excavation (i.e. a no-dig design). 2. Tree #3's location must be shown on Sheets A2 and A5. Additionally, the canopy dimensions of each tree (inventoried or not) must be shown on Sheet AS as well. 3. The following shall remain in place throughout construction: the existing landscaping throughout the site; the existing hardscape, stone walkway and fence beneath the canopies of trees #1 and 2; and the trampoline currently situated at the property's southeast corner. 4. The drainage design for the project, including downspouts, must not require water being discharged beneath the canopies or towards the trunks of retained trees. 5. All new underground utilities and services must be situated outside from beneath the trees' canopies. Where this presents a conflict, I should be consulted to provide alternative installation methods. 6. Any unused, existing pipes or lines below ground and beneath the canopies of retained trees should remain buried and be abandoned. Protection Measures before and during Demolition and Construction 7. Tree protective fencing must be established for tree #3 and installed prior to any demolition, surface scraping or heavy equipment arriving on site. It should be established against the walkway edge closest to the trunk, extend along the walkway towards the east and west directions until the canopy's outer perimeter is reached, then the east and west sides should continue towards the northern property boundary. The fence shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link mounted on eight-foot tall, two- inch diameter steel posts that are driven 18 inches into the ground and spaced no more ~ This amount represents the trees' combined, appraised value and was calculated in accordance with the • Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9'~ Edition, published by the ISA, 2000. Lavoi Property, 19152 De Havilland Drive, Saratoga Page 2 of 4 City ojSaratoga Community Development Department O®®OOs David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist May 23, 2005 than 10 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout construction until final inspection. 8. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the fenced area (even after fencing is removed) and outside from beneath the canopies of trees inventoried and not inventoried for this report. These activities include, but are not limited to, the following: demolition, grading, stripping of topsoil, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling/dumping of materials, and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 9. The portion of existing walkway within 10 feet of tree #3's trunk should remain intact throughout construction and removed only immediately prior to the new one being installed. Its removal within 15 feet of the trunk should be manually performed by first being broken into small pieces using a jackhammer. The pieces should be hand-lifted onto a loader and the exposed area covered within one-hour by the overlaying materials. 10. Prior to construction, asix-inch layer of coarse wood chips ('/z- to 3/e-inch in size) must be manually spread on the exposed soil surface beneath tree #2's canopy and remain in place throughout construction. 11. All traffic beneath the canopies of trees #1 and 2 shall be by foot and wheelbarrow only. All construction activity shall only occur beyond 20 feet from the trunks of trees in the backyard (this includes tree #4, the two Oaks and the Redwood). Though not being required, I encourage the owner place protective fencing, such as chain link or orange plastic, to help the contractor(s) abide by this requirement. 12. Any soil excavated within 20 feet of tree #3's trunk shall be manually performed using shovels. All roots encountered during the process shall be cleanly severed at the soil cut line and immediately covered with soil. The ends of roots with diameters of two inches and greater should be cleanly severed at the soil cut line and coated with a latex paint. Great care should be taken to avoid excavating beyond the foundation by more than 12 inches. 13. The staging area must be only be established on the driveway and not encroach within the unpaved areas beneath the trees' canopies. 14. Any approved activities beneath the canopies of retained trees shall be performed manually and not require the travel or operation ofmotorized-wheeled equipment. 15. Throughout construction during the months of May thru October, 200 gallons of supplemental water must be supplied every three weeks to tree #3. I suggest it be applied using soaker hoses placed on the soil surface at its mid- to outer-canopy. 16. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited beneath canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath canopies. In Lavoi Property, 191 S2 De Havilland Drive, Saratoga Page 3 oj4 City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~~~ 00~ David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist May 23, 2005 addition, fuel should not be stored nor shall any refueling or maintenance of equipment occur within 50 feet of the trees' trunks (unless on the street). 17. Herbicides should not be applied beneath the trees' canopies. Where used on site, they must be labeled for safe use near trees. 18. Any tree pruning must be performed under supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist (not by construction personnel) and according to ISA standards. Information regarding Certified Arborists in the area can be obtained at http: //www. isa-arbor. com. Attachments: Tree Inventory Table Site Map (copy of Sheet AS) C7 • Lavoi Property, 19152 De Havilland Drive, Saratoga Page 4 oj4 City ojSaratoga Community Development Department d~~~L • Coast Redwood 1 (Se uoiasem rvirens) 31.5 SS 35 100% 100% Good Hi h 3 - X $13,800 Coast Redwood 22.5, 19, 2 (Se uoiasem ervirens) 17.5, 17 85 30 100% 25% Good Moderate 3 - X $10,500 Canary Island Pine 3 (Pinus canariensis) 22 80 30 100% 75% Good High - X $6,330 Coast Live Oak 4 ( ercus a ri olia) 21.5 45 55 100% 75% Good Hi h 5 - $10,900 TREE INVENTORY TABLE ~ ~ °` . ,.~~ ,v~ _ b ;r ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •~ o •~ ~ d o o '~ O p' S ~ it '^ 8 ~ ~ 'v"' ~ ~ ~ :o .: c .r ' ~ ~ o ~C TREE a '9 .. .'~ ~ b ~ g ,~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ .~ c '8 a NO. TREE NAME E~ c7 ~ t3 ~ :. :. v~ .p :, ~ E-~ • REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 1 S-gallon = S 120 24inch box = S420 36-inch box = S 1,320 48-inch box = 55,000 52-inch box = 57,000 72-inch box = S 15,000 Sia: 19152 De Havil/and Drive, Saratoga Prepared jar: City ojSaratoga Comm. Dtv. Dept. Prepared by: David L Bobby, RCA May 23, 2005 OQ+D~+05 ~Y~~_ COX AVENUE 563 ~6' Q? W 11A716 ~ ~ ~~ I~ I 3 •~ I --------------- g ---------t-- i i ~` ~ I 1 ~ _ _ L_ _..-~- . --•----• •--°-----•----_----.-g e~ sr ~iio.ao _ I j I ~ I j I I ~, i I I j • 4 ° o OCR '~'~` ')'~- i ~, '~,"' ~ + ~ ,,~ zs ~`-.; +. %~?, [. )' _)~;.Nil~ Sr50iU + (:405 j 868-121),) t ; ri i~~ i X11..5•; i• ,~\[" SAI~,.,..1. lncotporatxci (1ct.uh~t~ 7L, F +' ~o June 7, 2005 Paul and Lenore Lovoi 19152 DeHavilland Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Application No. 05-169 -City Arborist Review of proposed addition Dear Mr. and Mrs. Lovoi, CI~L~;iCIL 1~11;;~4LE12S: Aileen i<ao FCathlaen King Norman Kline Nick Streit Anr, tNaltcnsmiih Your request to remove tree #3 (Canary Island Pine) as referenced in the City Arborist Report dated May 23, 2005, was presented to the Community Development Director on June 6, 2005. After reviewing the submitted photographs and the content of the City • Arborist Report, the Community Development Director has decided to deny your request to remove tree #3. If you wish to appeal this administrative decision to the Planning Commission, please complete the attached application and appeals form and submit these along with an appeal fee of $250 to the Planning counter. • Sincerely, Lata Vasudevan, AICP Associate Planner Attachments OQ~QI~.~ • • Appeal to the Decision to Deny Our Request for the Removal. of a Canary Island Pine at19152 De Havilland Drive • We are long term residents at the above address having moved in during the spring of 1977. We planted the two, now substantial, coast redwoods that are shown on the front yard view and are trees #1 and #2 on the azborist's report (attached). These trees were planted in 1978 during front yard landscaping. The two oaks in the north east comer of the backyard, not inventoried by the azborist, were there when we moved in. The medium sized oak in the center of the backyard was planted by us in 1980, tree #4 on the azborist's report. The coast redwood in the southeast corner of the backyard was present when we moved in. This tree is part of a grove of eight redwoods on our reaz neighbor's, our side neighbor's and our property. Our redwood nearly died (totally brown) during the drought but survived after we dug basins at the drip line and provided as much water as we could spare from our allotment. Tree #3, a Canary Island pine and the one we wish to remove, went down in the storm of 1981. We cabled the tree to the house to stabilize it and it reestablished itself. In addition to the trees detailed above we have three additional native trees and one shade tree along our wall on Cox. These are added to the survey included with the azborist report. ' We aze constrained on the west and south side by setbacks and have plans to remodel the kitchen and office on the one side with space to build. These plans would require the removal of the Canary Island pine. To mitigate the loss of this non-native pine, we propose to plant a lazge boxed native tree, the size, type and location to be suggested by the commission. We have ten heritage size trees on the property. ' We have demonstrated our love of native trees by planting and caring for them over the last quarter century. We also would wish to enjoy our property by expanding our kitchen • so we can also enjoy our love of cooking as well. We made our original request for the removal of the subject tree to the Community Development Director. The "Director has decided to deny your request..." letter was received June 7, 2005, letter enclosed. Our reasons for removing the tree aze consistent with the Saratoga City Codes 15-50.010 and 15-50.080 as detailed between each of the Code sections below. The City Council finds that the City is primarily a residential community; that the economics of property values is inseparably connected with the rural attractiveness of the area, much of which is attributable to the wooded hillsides and the native and ornamental trees scattered throughout the City; that the preservation of such trees is necessary for the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City in order to preserve scenic beauty, prevent erosion of topsoil, protect against flood hazards and the risk of landslides, counteract pollutants in the air, maintain the climatic balance and decrease wind velocities. It is the intent of this Article to establish regulations for the installation, maintenance, preservation and removal of trees within the City, consistent with the reasonable use of private property. We submit that our removal of Tree #3 is "consistent with the reasonable use of private property" (a) Criteria. Each application for a tree removal permit shall be reviewed and determined on the basis of the following criteria. (1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services. Our tree #3 will be, as indicated in the azborist's report, too close to a proposed structure for survival of the tree. NN2005 12:07 AM C:~Afy poyo,~cb~}lOme~~modelingWropwal ro Ranove Cwry lalurd Pine at 191 S2 De tl.vil]md Drive R2.doc 000012 Y (2) The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property. Our property will increase in value by nearly $400,000 based on the remodeling • which is without a doubt an economic enjoyment of the property. Both my wife and I are serious cooks and we have wished to remodel the kitchen for over a decade and now we are in a position to do so. This certainly constitutes an enjoyment of the property. (3) The topography of the land and the effect of the tree removal upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters. As the location of Tree #3 is on flat well drained soil the removal of Tree #3 will not effect erosion, soil retention or the diversion or increase of surface water flow. (4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values and any established standards of the area. The property has six additional protected trees as described above. In addition there are seven redwoods in a grove on our backyard and side yard neighbor's property forming a grove with our redwood. Our side yard, along Cox Avenue, contains additional trees including redwoods. Most of our yard is shaded by large trees and the removal of Tree #3 will not affect shade outside our property. Tree #3 is a poorly formed pine with short branches that provide no privacy from Cox (or anywhere else). Many of the pine trees in the neighborhood have died over the last twenty years and have been removed. Trees adjoining our property are mainly redwoods and oaks and across Cox there are almost no protected trees within a block of our properly. • (5) The number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. (b) Additional recommendations. The Planning Director may refer the application to another department, commission or person for a report and recommendation. The Director may also require the applicant to furnish a written report fnxn an independent tree expert acceptable to the Director, such report to be obtained at the expense of the applicant We had a report prepared by Barrie Coate, the former city arborist, which was included with the original application along with the report by the current city arborist, David L. Bobby, also included. (c) Derision by Director. The Planning Director shall render his decision within thirty days after the filing of the application for a permit. The Director may grant or deny the application or grant the same with conditions, inducting, but not limited to, the condition that one or more replacement trees be planted of a species and size and at locations as designated by the Director. Any such replacement trees shall be obtained and planted at the expense of the applicant. We have proposed that removal of Tree #3, anon-native Canary Island pine, be mitigated by planting of a native species tree of comparable value as allowed by this section. The native tree will have a lifetime many times that of the Canary Island pine and therefore have a significant positive impact on the community over the long run. Lenore and Paul Lovoi • 19152 De I-Iavilland Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 230-6396 d~n~s ~z:~,~ c:W+y p~,mms~Hame~xanodeGn~lP,opasd a xanme Gnary lsbnd tine a 191 s2 De w~llend Drive R2doc ~~®0~~ AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES • STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, ,being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga 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. ~~ C7 O®001 • 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 24te day of August 2005, at 7:00 p.m. The public hearing will be held at the Adult Day Care Room 19655 Allendale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. The public hearing agenda item is stated below. Details of this item are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Please consult the City website at www.saratosa.ca.us regarding Friday office closures. APPLICATION/ADDRESS: #06-020 -19152 De Havilland Drive APPELLANT: Lovoi (property owner) APN: 389-OS-021 DESCRIPTION: Appeal by property owner of an Administrative decision denying the removal of a Canary Island Pine tree at the noted address. 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, August 16, 2005. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. Tie 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 ~Q®~1.J Q APN OWNER 38615006 ORLANDO ELAINE 38615007 SMITH STEVEN E & LORRIE M 38615008 GREEN MURIEL J 38615009 SIMON EDWIN E 38621030 YAMAGUCHI FRANK M 8 KIMI TRUSTEE 38621031 REITER DAVID D & LUCILLE H 38621032 MALECHEK LEE V TRUSTEE ETAL 38621040 S C V W D 38621041 S C V W D 38621042 SMITH ALAN K & YLVA M G 38622001 S C V W D 38622010 SCOTT LOIS M TRUSTEE ETAL 38643033 ALEXANDER THOMAS B & ANASTASIA M 38643039 SARATOGA CITY OF 38647021 LYNCH MILTON T & KATHERINE M 38647022 PAI SHENG-YUEH & WEI-WAN TRUSTEE 38647023 MUROTSUNE SACHIKO 38647024 FEDELI NICHOLAS C JR & KATHLEEN H 38647025 HWANG YUAN I & YU H 38647026 TAM SAMUEL & FRANCES H 38647027 PECKA KAROLINE S & WILBUR J TRUSTEE 38647028 CHEN DAVID K & KATHARINE L TRUSTEE 38647029 ANDERSON DAVID & DEIRDRE TRUSTEE 38647030 SUN JINGSITYH JASON 8 TERESA 38647031 CHIAO PING & ROSITA L TRUSTEE 38647032 KELIHER TIMOTHY J & LINDA M 38647033 MYERS CHARLES F & BEVERLY A TRUSTEE STREET 737 BELLEROSE DR 12780 SARATOGA CREEK DR 12766 SARATOGA CREEK DR 12752 SARATOGA CREEK DR 12727 SARATOGA CREEK DR 12743 SARATOGA CREEK DR 12759 SARATOGA CREEK DR 12775 SARATOGA CREEK DR COX AV 19125 COX AV 12712 BROOKGLEN CT BROOKGLEN CT 12779 HOMES DR 12781 HOMES DR 12793 HOMES DR 12790 HOMES DR 12788 HOMES DR 12776 HOMES DR 12764 HOMES DR 12752 HOMES DR 19194 BROCKTON LN 19172 BROCKTON LN 12743 BROOKGLEN CT 12765 BROOKGLEN CT 12787 BROOKGLEN CT 38647034 PEARSON LOTS J TRUSTEE 12799 BROOKGLEN CT 38647035 COX WILLIAM E ETAL 4412 VENICE WY 38904008 RIEGEL CHRISTOPHER A & BETTINA A TRUSTEI 19261 SHUBERT DR 38904009 CHEN PETER H & MING HUI 19253 SHUBERT DR 38904010 JONES PAUL M & SANDRA P 19245 SHUBERT DR 38904011 HINMAN JEFFREY R & DEBORA D 19223 SHUBERT DR 38904012 AFRA DONNA W 19201 SHUBERT DR 38904013 BINEN LLOYD ETAL 19200 SHUBERT DR 38904014 VAN DEN HOED RUUT & JOHANNA G TRUSTEE 19175 DEHAVILLAND DR CITY SAN JOSE SARATOGA SARATOGA SARATOGA SARATOGA SARATOGA SARATOGA SARATOGA SARATOGA SARATOGA SARATOGA SARATOGA SARATOGA SARATOGA SARATOGA SARATOGA SARATOGA SARATOGA SARATOGA SARATOGA SARATOGA SARATOGA SARATOGA SARATOGA SARATOGA SARATOGA SARATOGA SARATOGA SAN JOSE SARATOGA SARATOGA SARATOGA SARATOGA SARATOGA SARATOGA SARATOGA ST CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA ZIP 95128 95070-3541 95070-3541 95070-3541 95070-3540 95070-3540 95070-3540 95070-0000 95070-0000 95070-3540 95070-0000 95070-4134 95070-4012 95070-0000 95070-4016 95070-4016 95070-4016 95070-4051 95070-4051 _ 95070-4051 95070-4051 95070-4051 95070-4006 95070-4006 95070-4012 95070-4012 95070-4012 95070-4012 95129-3334 95070-4045 95070-4045 95070-4045 95070-4045 95070-4045 95070-4046 95070-4049 • • • i • 38904015 FRIEDRICH RENE & GERTRUD TRUSTEE 19187 DEHAVILLAND DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4049 38904016 MCCARTHY CLIVE TRUSTEE 19199 DEHAVILLAND DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4049 38904041 HORNIG THERESE M TRUSTEE 19286 COLUMBINE CT SARATOGA CA 95070-4039 38904042 DENMAN ROY E 8 LYNNE G TRUSTEE 19300 COLUMBINE CT SARATOGA CA 95070-4039 38904044 OWEN ELIZABETH A & ROBERT E 19348 COLUMBINE CT SARATOGA CA 95070-4039 38904045 CURRIER RICHARD E & SUSAN R 19236 COLUMBINE CT SARATOGA CA 95070-4039 38904046 CARRILLO CAROL TRUSTEE 19224 COLUMBINE CT SARATOGA CA 95070-4039 38904047 STONE MYRON L & BONITA M TRUSTEE 19212 SHUBERT DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4046 38905015 FU JOHN W 8 TESS M 19186 DEHAVILLAND DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4041 38905016 CHANG KUO-TSUN & ROSE F TRUSTEE 19174 DEHAVILLAND DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4041 38905017 SCHLOMANN KENNETH C & VIRGINIA S TRUSTE 19172 DEHAVILLAND DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4041 38905018 ROHRER RONALD A & CATHERINE 19168 DEHAVILLAND DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4041 38905019 WANG KANG H & SHIU F 19166 DEHAVILLAND DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4041 38905020 NG SAMUEL CHUN-WA & YVONNE 19154 DEHAVILLAND DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4041 38905021 LOVOI PAULA & JANICE M TRUSTEE 19152 DEHAVILLAND DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4041 38905022 GRABAR ROBERT P & CAROL F 19120 COX AV SARATOGA CA 95070-4170 38905023 S C V W D COX AV SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 38906002 STURLA WARREN A ~ PO BOX 1234 SARATOGA CA 95071-1234 38906003 GEORGE WILLIAM P & JAN M 19040 COX AV SARATOGA CA 95070-6601 38906017 ISAAC N ABRAMS PO BOX 2067 SARATOGA CA 95070 38906019 STURLA BETTYE & WARREN A P O BOX 1234 SARATOGA CA 95071-1234 4 • ~1 R. T t q ;'.. - ,,. ~ ~,, y . ~ ~. ~, ,. ~tl: . ~ ._ + _ ~'f ,. f ~:; , 4 t- :.~ , ' ; EXECLITN~ SUMMARY ~~-H~i'OI~Y Aplalication flied: 6/03!04 AFplzcarion ccm~plete: 8/011OS , Nnticc published 8/10/04 t ~ completed: 8/OS/Og r Pbst4ng completed: S/1U05 ~' a` puc fearing 8~4/OS a . . ,,T . ..,., ~~ ~ . ~ HF..SCRIPTIOiV . F ~ Nextel, requests Use Permit a}ovat to construct a wireless site adjacent to . * ~~~ building located at' the ~ 'off the Ascension. TY~ proposal is td place a St? ~vt l~ig~,;, arti~eial redwood tree wh~h would screen and disguise twelve personal ~cd~aa system antennas, and const~vct an $' high enclosure m encompass a 21' - 6° ; - by ~' ~- 2"' area'which will h©use ec~ipmeat cabinets and relai~ed equipment. The ate is kacatcd in the R-i=10,000 coning disuicG In 1996 the city Council at3ppted an . ice which establisl~ed.ca~amunicatian anzeana facilities as conditionally permitted inn all zoning di~ic~ within the: City ~ Suatoga. The proposed use is conditionally penufi~tedas mated in M~ cock s~ecctinon 1~-12.03o(mj. STl4~F R~COMMEI~ATION . Grant' the Conditional Use Permit.. to Nexrel ~appmyng the artificial tree. pole and , eq~aipme~-eurlosure with conditions by ac~pting the attached resolution. 1 Application No. 04-177, 19550 Prospect Avenue STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-10,000 GENERAL PLAN: QPF (Quasi-Public Facility) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: Approximately 7 acres AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Not applicable GRADING REQUIRED: None MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The artificial tree is designed to resemble a Coast Redwood. A tree sample will be brought to the Planning Commission site visit and public hearing. The 8' tall enclosure will. match the split face masonry of the exterior of the existing attached structure (multi-purpose building). ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project which includes installation. of equipment cabinets anal antennas concealed within. an artificial tree 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 new construction of limited small new facilities; installation of small, new equipment and facilities in small structures. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY: Conservation Element Polio Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The proposed cellular site is consistent with the above General Plan policy in that the artificial tree pole will be designed to blend with the existing natural trees that are further in the background. It is expected that the proposed artificial tree pole would not detract from the attractive treescape of Saratoga. Land Use Element Policy 4.2 Non-residential development shall be confined to sites presently designated on the General Plan for non- residentialuses. The General Plan designates this parcel as Quasi-Public Facility, which is consistent with the nature of the proposed PUC regulated use. • D~~~o3 Application No. 04-177, 19550 Prospect Avenue PROJECT DISCUSSION Nextel requests Use Permit approval to locate a wireless facility at the Church of the Ascension site on Prospect Avenue. The 262 square foot Nextel lease space with equipment cabinets will be enclosed within an 8' masonxy wall attached to the multi-purpose building. A gps unit and a generator receptacle will also be located within this enclosure. The multi- purpose building is adjacent to Prospect Avenue. An 80 square foot lease space is proposed on a landscaped island approximately 60 feet ro the south of the equipment cabinet enclosure. This lease space will accommodate 12 panel antennas that will be screened within the foliage of an artificial 50 foot high redwood tree; commonlyreferred to as a Ynonopine.' Shrubs are proposed around the base of the monopine. Since the initial submittal of this application, Staff has worked with Nextel on several revisions to its proposal. Staff eventually decided that a monopine might be appropriate in this area since there is a backdrop of additional trees on the church property that would blend with the appearance of the proposed artificial tree. The Planning Commission approved a monopine for Cingular Wireless at the Prince of. Peace Church at 12770 Saratoga Avenue on October 27, 2004. That monopine has been installed and Staff finds that it is satisfactory in color but additional foliage in between the existing `branches' and near the bottom of the tree would greatly improve its appearance. Other municipalities, such as Palo Alto have approved monopines, and photographs of a monopine at a fire station in Palo Alto is included in this report as reference. In staff's opinion, the appearance of installed monopines in the Bay Area varies, with some looking more natural than others. The monopine in Palo Alto, referenced above, has more foliage than the one installed at the Prince of Peace Church in Saratoga. It seems that because of aesthetic demands, companies that manufacture monopines are continually striving to improve their appearance. Since monopines are a relatively recent option for screening cellular antennas, the long term effects of wear and tear are significant concerns. For that reason, Staff requested the applicant to propose an alternative option of housing the within a flag pole, since a flagpole already exists near the lease area. The flag pole antenna for Metro PCS approved by the Planning Commission at the Saratoga Library had dimensions that were similar to a normal flag pole, which is typically 7 inches in diameter. Metro PCS proposed only one antenna within that flag pole. However, for this subject application, Nextel is proposing 12 antennas that are needed to provide needed coverage for Nextel customers in Saratoga. Hence, a, proposed flagpole as shown on Exhibit B would be an unrealistic 24 inches in diameter to accommodate the antennas. Staff then felt a monopine would be the more appropriate option, but concerns regarding its maintenance still persist. Monopines are proposed and approved in various jurisdictions. Staff participates in a listserve where planning questions are posed for gathering responses from other planning departments in cities within California. Recently, the City of Citrus Heights requested responses from other jurisdictions inquiring about conditions of approval that are placed on the appearance and maintenance of monopines. The responses that were received from various jurisdictions contained conditions of approval that address these concerns. These conditions have been included in the attached resolution. Furthermore, the Planning a~~~~~ Application No. 04-177, 19550 Prospect Avenue Commission retains continuing jurisdiction over each Use permit and may impose additional conditions in the event that the monopine deteriorates in appearance. FCCRequirements Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC has exclusive jurisdiction over RF emissions from personal wireless antenna facilities. Pursuant to its authority under federal law, the FCC has established rules to regulate the safety of emissions from these facilities. The applicant has provided a cumulative RF exposure report, which concludes that the RF energy is well below the Maximum Permissible Exposure limit established by the FCC. Since the applicant has documented compliance with federal exposure limits, under the Telecommunication Act, the City can evaluate and regulate only the aesthetic aspects of wireless installations. Any concerns regarding health or safety aspects of the wireless sites are not within the purview of the Planning Commission. Surrounding Land Uses Surrounding land uses include residential neighborhoods in San Jose to the north, another religious institution to the west and residential neighborhoods in Saratoga to the south and east. Neighborhood Review Earlier tlus month, Mr. Jerry Streb, on behalf of the Church of the Ascension, showed the plans to numerous neighbors and had them complete Staff neighborhood review forms. The forms are attached to this report, as well as letters that were received as of the writing of this staff report. Two neighbors who have been the most vocal in opposing this application reside at 19537 >~ric Drive and at 19518 Eric Drive. Their property locations are indicated with a black dot on the map below. The proposed enclosure and the monopine are not in direct view from these homes. The top of the monopine would be visible from these homes above an existing church accessory building that is in the line of sight between the monopine and these homes. Both of these neighbors requested that the monopine be placed immediately to west of the multi-purpose building. Staff does not find this location to be better from the proposed location since this would place the monopine in view from Prospect Avenue and the driveway entrance to the church, whereas the proposed location is further back and located within a smaller parking area. At the earlier stages of the project, Staff requested the applicant to place the monopine further back within the grove of existing trees. The applicant's response was that the surrounding trees would cause too much interference for cellular transmission, unless the monopine was over 100 feet in height. Given these considerations, Staff finds that the proposed location of the monopine is optimal. • 4UO~E? Application No. 04-177, 19550 Prospect Avenue Parking The number of parking spaces will remain the same. However, Nextel is proposing to re-stripe the parking spaces next to the proposed equipment enclosure, such that two spots -~- °- ~ -- ~' ^ -~ become compact parking spaces to ,. . ~ o ` ~~ ~soo ~ - - ~.; accommodate the width of the enclosure. ,~ - ~~~' ~ , _~ ._ ~ _ .~ ~ ~ ~ Municipal Code Section 15-35.020 (i) places a '`~ ~ -' ' `' '°" ; % '"~~% ~ ~ ' ~~ - limit of no more than 25% of its required spaces that may be compact spaces for structures in the C, P-A, R-M or MU-PD districts. This site is located in R-1-10,000 district which is not restricted to the limitation indicated in the aforesaid code section. Nevertheless, the proposed modifications would not result in the number of compact parking spaces that would exceed the 25% limit for the church site. Therefore, Staff. finds that this modification is not inconsistent with the parking requirements stated in the Municipal Code. Arborist Review The City Arborist has re~~iewed the proposed project and revisions have been made to the proposed plans according to the recommendations stated in the May 29, 2005 report. Conditional Use Pernut Findings The Planning Commission may grant a Use Permit as applied for, or in modified form, if the Commission makes all of the following findings (Section 15-55.070). a. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the ~'oning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The proposed project is conditionally permitted in the Residential R-1 District. In addition, the General Plan designates this parcel as Quasi-Public Facility, which is consistent with the nature of the proposed use which is regulated by the Public Utilities Commission. b. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed wireless carrier has submitted a report which concludes that the proposed site will comply with the FCC's current standard for ]uniting exposure to RF energy. Since the FCC has jurisdiction on the health aspects of wireless sites that are demonstrated to comply with FCC guidelines for emissions, the proposal is assumed to not be detrimental to the public health and welfare. • C7 o~~~Q~ Application No. 04-177, 19550 Prospect Avenue In addition, since the wireless site is located on Quasi-Public property there is a public benefit in that income generated by the use flows to anon-profit, religious use rather than to a private individual. c. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicableprovisions of this chapter in that the location, height, size and use proposed is conditionally permitted in this zoning district. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15-12.030 (m), the proposed location, height, size and use of the cellular facility is conditionally permitted at the Church of the Ascension site. Conclusion Although the proposed artificial tree cell site is a relatively new type of structure within the City, ,the Zoning Ordinance can be interpreted to accommodate this type of structure. The level of screening provided by the artificial branches and trunk serve to minimize the impact of the height and blend the tower into the horizon. The health and safety aspects of the installation are not an issue due to FCC regulations. For these reasons, Staff concludes that the findings for granting a Use Permit for this structure can be met provided the conditions stated in the attached resolution. are met. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Use Permit application number 04- 177 by adopting the attached. resolution of approval. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution for application #04-177 2. City Arborist Report of March 29, 2005 3. Radio Frequency Analysis 4. Maps of Existing and Proposed Site Coverage for Nextel 5. Project Description from Tetratech Communication Services 2/12/05 6. Photo simulations of site with and without proposed monopine 7. Responses from neighbors 8. Affidavit of Mailing, Public Hearing Notice and mailing list 9. Photos of Existing Monopine - 2675 Hanover Street, Palo Alto 10. Photos of Existing Monopine -12770 Saratoga Ave., Saratoga 11. Exhibits A and B • ~®~dd~ • Attachment 1 • ~~~~~~ Application No. 04-177, 19550 Prospect Avenue RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 04-177 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Nexte1;19550 Prospect Avenue (Church of the Ascension) WHEREAS, the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Use Permit approval to construct a wireless site in the rear of the property located at the above noted address. The proposal is to construct on a 203 square foot lease area within a group of redwoods, a 50 foot high artificial redwood tree which would screen and disguise 12 personal communication system antennas. The site would also contain an 8' high enclosure attached to the multi-purpose structure to encompass a 262 square foot lease area which will house equipment cabinets and other related equipment; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the project, is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 3 exemption applies to installation of small new equipment and facilities; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for use permit approval, and the following findings specified in Municipal Code Section 15-55.070: a. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the ~'oning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located The proposed project is conditionally permitted in the Residential R-1 District. In addition, the General Plan designates this parcel as Quasi-Public Facility, which is consistent with the nature of the proposed use which is regulated by the Public Utilities Commission. b. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed wireless carrier has submitted a report which concludes that the proposed site will comply with the FCC's current standard for limiting exposure to RF energy. Since the FCC has jurisdiction on the health aspects of wireless sites that are demonstrated to comply with FCC guidelines for emissions, the proposal is assumed to not be detrimental to the public health and welfare. • ~~Q~~~ Application No. 04-177, 19550 Prospect Avenue In addition, since the wireless site is located on Quasi-Public property there is a public benefit in that income generated by the use flows to anon-profit, religious use rather than to a private individual. c. That theproposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicableprovisions of this chapter in that the location, height, size and use proposed is conditionally permitted in this zoning district. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section IS-12.030 (m), the proposed location, height, size and use of the cellular facility is conditionally permitted at the Church of the Ascension site. 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 04-052 for Use Permit approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. The proposed artificial tree, antennas and equipment shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit A. 2. The applicant shall certify that the tree pole will be designed and constructed in accordance with current national standards for steel towers, including Structural ' Standards for Steel Antenna Towers and Antenna Support Structures published by the Electrical Industry Association. 3. It is essential that the artificial tree resemble a natural Coast Redwood. To ensure proper appearance and maintenance of the tree pole, the applicant shall comply with all of the following conditions: (a) The tree shall have enough branches of foliage as needed to cover all sets of antennas. (b) The branches shall begin at a maximum height of 20 feet from ground level. (c) The tree trunk will be designed to look like bark. (d) The color of the tree branches and foliage shall blend in with the surrounding tree environment. (e) The tree branches shall be angled and shall have adequate foliage for a natural appearance. (f) The tree shall be maintained to appear "healthy" at all times. Any deteriorating branches, foliage or trunk portions shall be replaced immediately. QQ~~.~~ Application No. 04-177, 19550 Prospect Avenue 4. If the tower remains unused for a period of 12 months, the owner or operator shall dismantle and removed the tower within six months of the expiration of that 12-month period. 5. The communications antennas shall not cause radio frequency interference with other communication facilities located within the City of Saratoga. 6. The applicant shall submit a copy of its current Federal Communications Commission license, the name, address -and- emergency telephone number for the operator of the communication tower and a certificate of insurance evidencing general liability coverage in the minimum amount of 1,000,000 per occurrence and property damage coverage in the minimum amount of 1,000,000 per occurrence covering the communication tower and the communication antenna. 7. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the City Arborist Report of March 29, 2005 as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the $uilding Department for City Permits. The complete construction plans shall include a site plan. stamped by a licensed land surveyor. 8. The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Use Permit and ' may, at any time modify, delete or impose any new conditions of the permit to preserve the public health, safety and welfare. 9. 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. 10. The applicant shall comply with all City Arborist requirements specified in the March 29, 2005 Arborist Report. 11. The combined value of inventoried trees is $14,820. In accordance with the City Ordinance, a bond equivalent to 100% of this value is required to promote their protection prior to issuance of City Permits 12. Prior to issuance of City Permits, all required tree protection fencing shall be installed. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. • ~~~~ Application No. 04-177, 19550 Prospect Avenue 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 24th day of August 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 Planning Commission.. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • • • ~~~~1~~ • Attachment 2 • ~~~~~+~ ~~~:: A~sOr~ RESOURCES 1'rr~je~.sic~7arr~ ~4t•1ir~r~icrrZtur•uI C;c~ngultin~ c~: 1'~~ec~ ~.'ra~°c A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED NEXTEL RADIO FACILITY AT 19550 PROSPECT AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME: Roman Catholic Bishop of San Jose APPLICATION #: 04-177 SITE #: CA2146-G Submitted to: Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Certifted Arborist #WE-4flD1A ,~'~ ~' ..~ . lF:,: March 29, 2005 }'.C3. I~tt~ ?~2~5. `stun ~e-ta~~~ ~'~~~i~'c~rt~i~~ t?~=~4'~ ~ ~rr~i at•he~•resc~z;~-s:i~;`:e~~•tl~li=,~k.n~t ~7~tC111i': ~~~}.E7~..73.~~ ~ ~ 1`~?e: ~14~}.(?"~-~.:j.! "`~ ~ ..:1C:,',P's~fk ~;i'slE~i%~a.~(}?' '^* %~~17ti 3(~ ~~ gq .. 0~~~~°Z David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist March 29, 2005 INTRODUCTION The City of Saratoga Community Developmept Department has requested I review the potential tree impacts associated with the installation of a new radio facility by Nextel at 19550 Prospect Avenue, Saratoga. This report presents my findings and recommendations. Plans reviewed for this report include Sheet LS-1 (Initial Point, Inc., dated 9/10/04} and Sheets A-1 thru A-3 (by MSA Architecture & Planning, Inc., dated 11/15/04). The trees' locations, numbers and canopy dimensions are presented on an attached copy of Sheet LS- 1 (Site Plan). FINDINGS There are seven trees of Ordinance-size located in close proximity to the proposed project components. They include one Camphor (#1), one Sweet Bay (#2) three Southern Magnolias (#3-5) and two Eucalyptus trees (#8 and 9). Specific data compiled for each is presented on the attached table. The proposed location of the tree pole (monopole) is within tree #1's canopy and would adversely impact its structural form. To avoid this from occurring, I recommend the pole • be designed at least 25 feet from its trunk. I also advise the route of the Power/Telco trench be established beyond the tree's canopy. The location of the underground power line will significantly impact tree #4 and require the removal of #5. Both trees should be protected and as such, the proposed route should be revised to be at least 10 feet from the trunks of trees #4 and 5, and 17 feet from the trunks of trees #6 and 7. Additionally, the anticipated depth and width of all trenches should be shown on the plans. There are two, small Coast Live Oaks in proximity to the project. Both were planted as mitigation in connection with the construction project completed over one year ago. The one located near tree #2 has died and should be replaced.l The other between trees #6 and 7 should be protected. I recommend each is shown on the project plans. Trees #2 thru 5 are not shown on the project plans but must be added. Their approximate locations are presented on the attached map and should not be construed as being surveyed. Neither Sheets LS-1 nor A-1 accurately reflect the location of the westernmost utility pole along Prospect Avenue. In addition, Sheet LS-1 is not to scale. Plans should be revised accordingly. 'The new tree should not be installed within the lawn. Irrigation supplied to the tree should be in the form of a drip-type system connected. to the automatic irrigation system. Property of the Roman Catholic Bishop of San Jose, 19550 Prospect Road, Saratoga Page 1 of 3 City of Saratoga Community Development Department 0~00~.~ .David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist March 29, 2005 The existing utility pole that the power line will connect with is located on the west side of the parking lot entrance off Prospect Avenue. The plans should be revised to accurately show the utility pole and all existing features within 20 feet of its location, such as the parking lot entrance and curb, adjacent sidewalk and tree,2 and the light poles on each side of the entrance. The tree protection bond amount for this project is determined to be $14,820.3 RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations presented below aze intended to mitigate any foreseeable impacts to the trees on site. They should be carefully followed and incorporated into. project plans. Should plans be revised, the recommendations may require modif cation. Design Guidelines 1. The proposed tree pole should be redesigned to be at least 25 feet from tree #1's trunk. The route of the underground Power/Telco trench should be beyond tree # is canopy. 2. The proposed route of the underground power line should be established at least 10 feet from the trunks of tree's #4 and 5, and 17 feet from the trunks of trees #6 and 7. In ' addition, the route of the underground power line must be revised on Sheets LS-1 and A-1 to reflect actual. site conditions. 3. The depth and width of the proposed trenches should be shown on the plans. 4. The surveyed locations of trees #2-5 and the two small Oaks must be added to the project plans. In addition, the canopy sizes of trees should reflect the canopy sizes (`canopy spreads') presented on the attached table. 5. Plans should accurately show the westernmost utility pole and all existing features within 20 feet of its location. 6. Sheet LS-1 is not to scale and should be revised accordingly. Protection Measures during Construction/Installation 7. Tree protective fencing shall be installed precisely as shown on the attached map and established prior to any trenching, grading or heavy equipment arriving on site. It shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link mounted on eight-foot tall, two-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 18 inches 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 until final inspection. ` The tree adjacent to the utility pole is smaller than Ordinance-size. This amount represents the combined, appraised tree values shown on the attached table. The values are calculated in accordance with. the Cuide for Plant Appraisal, 9`" Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture, 2000. Property of the Roman Catholic Bishop of San Jose, 19550 Prospect Road, Saratoga Page 2 of 3 City of Saratoga Community Development Department 0000~.~ David L. Bobby, Registered Consulting Arborist March 29, 2005 8. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the designated fenced areas (even after fencing is removed) and outside from beneath the canopies of Ordinance-sized trees not inventoried for this report. These activities include, but are not limited to, the following: trenching, surface scraping, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 9. Any approved trenching beneath the trees' canopies shall be manually performed. All roots encountered during the process with diameters of one-and-a-half inch and greater should remain and tunneled beneath. 10. All staging activities should be performed on the existing pavement. 11. The removal of any juniper shrubs beneath the trees' canopies along Prospect Road must be manually performed. They must be cut to grade and the roots left below ground. The stumps can either be axed away or ground below grade. 12. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited beneath canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath canopies. In addition, fuel should not be stored nor shall any refueling or maintenance of equipment , occur within 50 feet of the trees' trunks (unless on the parking lot). 13. Herbicides should not be applied beneath the canopies of retained trees. Where used on site, they must be labeled for safe use near trees. 14. Any tree pruning must be performed under supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist (not by construction personnel) and according to ISA standards. Information regarding Certified Arborists in the area can be obtained at http: //www. isa-arhor. com. Attachments: Tree Inventory Table Site Map (a copy of Sheet LS-1) • Property of'the Roman Catholic Bishop of San .lose, 19550 Prospect Road, Saratoga Page 3 of 3 City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~~'~~~~ . ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care TREE INVENTORY TABLE : .. , , .~ ~ ~ b ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,., ... ~ o ~ c :^' b ~ ~ n '^ ~ ~ b^ ~ y w , ~ ~ ~, m a~ .r m o V o ~ ' ~. ~ ., o ~ ¢ ~ o ~ ~ A .~ U R~ Pa ~ ~, ~ . N ME as ~ o ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ o ~ :~ ~ ~ v o o J° $3 NtO. TREE A ~ . a Camphor ' 1 (Cinnamomum cam hors) 14.5 25 40 100% 759'o Good High 3 - $4,380 Sweet Bay 2 (Lourus nobilis) l0, 9(3) 30 35 75% 25% Fair High 4 - $3,550 Southern Magnolia 3 (Ma olia randiflora) 13 25 20 100% 75% Good Hi 3 - $2,040 Southern Magnolia 4 (Magnolia grand~ora) I 1 25 20 1(10% 75% Good High 1 - $1,480 Southern Magnolia 5 (Magnolia d flora) 12 25 20 100% 75% Good High - X $1,750 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 15-gallon = 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: 19550 ProspeczAvenue, Saratoga Prepared fot: City of Saratoga Community Development Depart Prepared by: Dm~id L. Babby, RCA March 19,1005 OOOO~~s -- f l ~ x+~ j ~" l ~~` __ ~~~ ~ • . 2 o.~.~~ ,. x~• I ~ OaK O ~c xsru. `~ CING ; ~"~'~~` ~'~ 2 T N Prepared By: ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care P.O. Box 25295 San Mateo, CA • 94402 Phone: (650) 654-3351 • Email: arborresources@earthlink.net v.~~- ~i ~ 00009 • PROSPECt ROAD o~ ..~,..~ - ~.... 5 ---r- 4~ ~~. ,,,,~ _.., . -- -__ _ ~_y __ +~ ` •~\ vwM- ~ { Vi i-7 ~- 6 ~~ ~~ ..~ , I x11~~1 __ ,3 ~~ ~ _~ __ t ~'`~~rt - -_ ___ ~~ ~ / ' \ ~ I ~°~"~ ~ ate. , _ PROTECTIVE F~ ur • ans~w~ r ~ ~ I \ ~R ~ ' s ~ ~IfM / ~ \ ' 'M~ ~ •!~M D,4lr ~`N .~ ~ .~0~ ~ _~ x~ Site Address: 19550 Prospect Avenue, Saratoga ~ ~ ~ ~, '' ~: Prepared for: City of Saratoga Community Development Department / ~, a Notes: Map identifies seven trees of Ordinance size. Canopy perimeters are approximate. ~ ,~„ ~ Map has been reduced in size and is not to scale. ~ Date: March 29, 2005 ~.,~ ~ ~ _ i • Attachment 3 • Q~®~~~. f Nextel SMR • Proposed Base Station (Site No. CA-2146G) 19550 Prospect Road • Saratoga, California Statement of Hammett ~ Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers The firm of Hammett & Edison, lnc., Consulting Engineers, has been retained on behalf of Nextel SMR, a personal wireless telecommunications carrier, to evaluate the base station (Site No. CA-2146G) proposed to be located at 19550 Prospect Road in Saratoga, California, for compliance with appropriate guidelines limiting human exposure to radio frequency ("RF") electromagnetic fields. Prevailing Exposure Standards The U.S. Congress requires that the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") evaluate its actions for possible significant impact on the environment. In Docket 93-62, effective October 15, 1997, the FCC adopted the human exposure limits for field strength and power density recommended in Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in 1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements ("NCRP"). Separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits generally five times more restrictive. The more recent Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ("IEEE") Standard C95.1-1999, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz," includes nearly identical exposure limits. A summary of the FCC's exposure limits is shown in Figure 1. These limits apply for continuous exposures and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. The most restrictive limit for exposures of unlimited duration to radio frequency energy for several personal wireless services are as follows: Personal Wireless Service Approx. Frequency Occupational Limit Public Limit Personal Communication ("PCS") 1,950 MHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2 Cellular Telephone 870 2.90 0.58 Specialized Mobile Radio 855 2.85 0.57 [most restrictive frequency range] 30-300 1.00 0.20 General Facility Requirements Base stations typically consist of two distinct parts: the electronic transceivers (also called "radios" or "cabinets") that are connected to the traditional wired telephone lines, and the passive antennas that send the wireless signals created by the radios out to be received by individual subscriber units. The transceivers are often located at ground level and are connected to the antennas by coaxial cables about l inch thick. Because of the short wavelength of the frequencies assigned by the FCC for wireless services, the antennas require line-of--sight paths for their signals to propagate well and so are HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. -~ mNSUr..TT~vc FNCnvFNxs NX2146596.1 '. snN r-enhcisco Page 1 of 3 a~~~;~ Nextel SMR • Proposed Base Station. (Site No. CA-2146G) 19550 Prospect Road • Saratoga, California installed at some height above ground. The antennas are designed to concentrate their energy toward the horizon, with very little energy wasted toward the sky or the ground. Along with the low power of such facilities, this means that it is generally not possible for exposure conditions to approach the maximum permissible exposure limits without being physically very near the antennas. Computer Modeling Method The FCC provides direction for determining compliance in its Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65, "Evaluating Compliance with FCC-Specified Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation," dated August 1997. Figure 2 attached describes the calculation methodologies, reflecting the facts that a directional antenna's radiation pattern is not fully formed at locations very close by (the "near-field" effect) and that the power level from an energy source decreases with the square of the distance from it (the "inverse square law"). The conservative nature of this method for evaluating exposure conditions has been verified by numerous field tests. Site and Facility Description Based upon information provided by Nextel, including zoning drawings by MSA Architecture & Planning, Inc., dated November 15, 2004, it is proposed to mount twelve Andrew Model 844G65VTZASX directional antennas on a new 50-foot steel pole, configured to resemble a pine tree, to be located at 19550 Prospect Road in Saratoga, on the grounds of the Ascension Catholic Church. The antennas would be mounted at an effective height of about 45 feet above ground and would be oriented in three groups of four toward 100°T, 180°T, and 270°T. The maximum effective radiated power in any direction would be 100 watts. There are reported no other wireless telecommunications base stations installed nearby. Study Results The maximum ambient RF level anywhere at ground due to the proposed. Nextel operation is calculated to be 0.00068 mWlcm2, which is 0.039% of the applicable public exposure limit. The maximum calculated level on the roof of the nearby church building' is 0.47% of the public exposure limit. It should be noted that these results include several "worst-case" assumptions and therefore are expected to overstate actual power density levels. No Recommended Mitigation Measures • Since they are to be mounted on a tall pole, the Nextel antennas are not accessible to the general public, and so no mitigation measures are necessary to comply with the FCC public exposure ' Located at least 25 feet away from the antennas, based on the drawings. HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. CONSUL7TJG F.NGINF.EIZS NX2146596.1 t-~~~ ~ snN FeaNClsco Page 2 of 3 oc~~~~ Nextel SMR. • Proposed Base Station (Site No. CA-2146G) 19550 Prospect Road • Saratoga, California guidelines. It is presumed that Nextel will, as an FCC' licensee, take adequate steps to ensure that its employees or contractors comply with FCC occupational exposure guidelines whenever work is required near the antennas themselves. Conclu$ion Based on the information and analysis above, it is the undersigned's professional opinion that the base station proposed by Nextel SMR at 1.9550 Prospect Road in Saratoga, California, will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy and, therefore, will not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. The highest calculated level in publicly accessible areas is much less than the prevailing standards allow for exposures of unlimited duration. This finding is consistent with measurements of actual exposure conditions taken at other operating base stations. Authorship The undersigned author of this statement is a qualified Professional Engineer, holding California Registration Nos. E-13026 and M-20676, which expire on June 30, 2005. This work has been carried out by him or under his direction, and all statements are true and correct of his own knowledge except, where noted, when data has been supplied by others, which data he believes to be correct. January 13, 2005 ........... HAMMETT & DISON, INC. coi`isur.'revc i:NCrNSExs NX2146596.1 snrv FRA~ascY~ Page 3 of 3 a~~c~ • .~ • FCC Radio Frequency Protection Guide The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"} to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to~ ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a significant impact on the environment. The FCC adopted the limits from Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in 1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, which are nearly identical to the more recent Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standard 095.1-1999, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz." These limits. apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. As shown in the table and chart below, separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits (in italics and/or dashed) up to five times more restrictive: Frequency Applicable Range (MHz) • 0.3 - 1.34 1.34 - 3.0 3.0 - 30 30 - 300 300 - 1,500 1,500 - 100,000 Electromagnetic Fields (f is freauencv of emission in MHz Electric Magnetic Equivalent Far-Field Field Strength Field Strength Power Density (V/m) (A/m) (mW/cmZ) 614 614 1.63 1.63 100 100 614 823.8/f 1.63 2.19/f 100 IS%J~ 1842/f 823.8/f 4.89/f 2.19/f 900/f 180/ 61.4 27.5 0.163 0.0729 1.0 0.2 3.54ff 1.59ff ff/106 ~f/238 f/300 f/1500 137 61.4 0.364 0.163 5.0 1.0 1000 100 3•~'~ 10 a ~3 Ca ~ 1 o.l • Occupational Exposure PCS ~ Cell ~ FM ~~ ~ ----~ ~- Public Exposure 0.1 1 10 100 103 104 105 Frequency (MHz) Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits, and higher levels also are allowed for exposures to small areas, such that the spatially averaged levels do not exceed the limits. However, neither of these allowances is incorporated in the conservative calculation formulas in the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) for projecting field levels. Hammett & Edison has built those formulas into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual radio sources. The program allows for the description of buildings and uneven terrain, if required to obtain more accurate projections. ~ ~' -- HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. _ ac CONSLU..'TiNG ENGINEERS r ._.. SAN fRANCI5C0 FCC Guidelines Figure 1 ()(~d~Ci r~ RFR.CALC rM Calculation Methodology Assessment ay Calculation of Compliance with FCC Exposure Guidelines The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission("FCC") to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a significant impact on the environment. The maximum permissible exposure limits adopted by the FCC (see Figure 1) apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits. Near Field. Prediction methods have been developed for the near field zone of panel (directional) and whip (omnidirectional) antennas, typical at wireless telecommunications cell sites. The near field zone is defined by the distance, D, from an antenna beyond which the manufacturer's published, far field antenna patterns will be fully formed; the near field may exist for increasing D until some or all of three conditions have been met: 2 1) D>~ 2) D> Sh 3) D> 1.6~. where h =aperture height of the antenna, in meters, and ~, =wavelength of the transmitted signal, in meters. The FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) gives this formula for calculating power density in the near field zone about an individual RF source: 0. l x P power density S = 1~ X rz x D xn h ~ in mW/cm2, where 6Bq, =half-power beamwidth of antenna, in degrees, and Pnet = net power input to the antenna, in watts. The factor of 0.1 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density. This formula has been built into a proprietary program that calculates distances to FCC public and occupational limits. Far Field. OET 65 gives this formula for calculating power density in the far field of an individual RF source: power density S = 2.56 x 1.64 x 100 x RFF2 x ERP ~ in mW/cm2, 4x tsx D2 where ERP =total ERP (all polarizations), in kilowatts, RFF =relative field factor at the direction to the actual point of calculation, and D =distance from the center of radiation to the point of calculation, in meters. The factor of 2.56 accounts for the increase in power density due to ground reflection, assuming a reflection coefficient of 1.6 (1.6 x 1.6 = 2.56). The factor of 1.64 is the gain of a half-wave dipole relative to an isotropic radiator. The factor of 100 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density. This formula has been built into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual radiation sources. The program also allows for the description of uneven terrain in the vicinity, to obtain more accurate projections. HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. CONSUl;17NG ENGINEERS s~v ~xA~cism Methodology Figure 2 ~~~~~~ • • Attachment 4 • Q(~~Qi~s ~ • • • ~ ~.;: ~° ,A ._~: . _. ~~~i ~~.. Attachment 5 • ~~?~~3~3 Tetra Tech Communication Services 1255 Treat Blvd. Suite 2(10 Walnut Creek, CA 9596 Phone (925} 383-1791 Fax (925)472-3550 February 31, 2005 Ms. Lata Vasudevan Planner MqR 1 6 2405 City of Saratoga 1 ~ 777 Fruitvale Ave. ~ CCY of SARA'1'OGA Saratoga, CA 95070 ^*9!v~(!h1TY I)EVELOPMBis'~ RE: 04-177 Request for additional materials 1. Project Description: Nextel Communications seeks approval of a Use Permit and all related permits to allo~i~ the construction of an unmanned communications facility adjacent to an existing l '/ story building. The btulding belongs to The Roman Catholic Bishop of San Jose. anon-profit corporation, AKA The Asencion Church. The Ne.Ktel plan calls for (12) new panel antennas; 3 sectors, 4 per sector (3 present and 1 future) and 2 gps. The antennas are to mounted to and '`ludden" by a faux tree or monopine. The existing building has na interior space for the ancillan- equipment; an equipment shelter for radio equipment will be mounted at ground level in an interior coum°ard and screened by an 8' cmu masonn ~~~all to match the building's etrterior. Nextel operations personnel are responsible for the maintenance of the site and ~;ill ~rork with the manufacturer should there be wear and tear on the tree Limbs and foliage. This site is part of a network. which will allow improved coverage for Nextel Customers nr the City- of Saratoga The site is to be an umnanned facility. with periodic access granted to Nextel for monitoring. The site will be operated ~~ithin all FCC standards, and constructed in compliance with all Federal. State, and County buildug codes and emiromnental standards. No public parking will he affected or required for the site, and no drainage patterns ~~-i11 be disturbed. Access to the base station will be gained through pertnission of die property- owner, and gill only- be gained by authorised Nextel contractors or employees. There are no hazardous materials used in conjunction «ith this faciliri~. 2. Tree Location and Design This tree is to match the Cingular tree in design and quality. Treescapes International is the preferred vendor. Pictures of other tree poles in the Nextel Network will not reflect this specific manufacturer's product. We have altered the design of the tree to be more conical and look mare like a coast redwood. A sample is provided, attached hereto. Antennas are now- designed to be within the faux foliage. 3. Vegetation Species Please advise Cih~ of Saratoga preferred species far vegetation in the area of the monapine. A check is attached far Cit< Arborist services, as requested, in the amount of 51.5(}t).p0. ~~~~~~ 4. Shelter Size Shelter size has been reduced.. wall size has been reduced. Parking has not been eliminated but one space is no«~ compact size at 8°. 5. Arborist fee is attached. 6. Revised RFR Study is attached (C`ONFIRM THIS- ~t~ITH: HAh~IMETT AND End} 7/8. Legend and map for existing and proposed coverage are attached 9. Alternative site analysis: The purpose of this site is to improve in building cap-erage and in car coverage along H~~y 8~ at Prospect Road and east on prospect to La«TCnce Express~va~. ~lternati~ a sites investigated. were: a. 1 ~-lU Deanza. San 3ose: Tlris site did not provide the desired coverage to Nextel Radio Frequenc~~ (RF} engineers. The site could not accommodate additional antennae. _ `~ ~~ s~ ~ Yb ~~ - ~~ ~~r u r< a ~~. b. Crown Castle monopole behind Kelh Moore Paint,DeAnz<Z at Sharon Drive: This site did not provide the desired coverage to Nextel Radio Frequency (RF) engineers. w 1.~~®~~~ • c. Camino Medical Group, Rainbo~+ Dm~e, San Jose: This site did not provide the desired coy-erage to Nextel. Radio Frequency (RF) engineers. d. Calabazas Pazk Sa<i Jose: City of San Jose does not accept required Nextel Lease Tenns --_... ~ jj ~1 ( f f'.1 ~~/ ~,,t ' ~ c x rt c .:- -. , ~~ ._'~.. _ a .. ~~ ..,."i ..E3 .. ... l._! e. Blanev Fire. San Jose: City of San Jose does not accept required Nextel Lease Terms. ,~,. 's. ~ - ~ ~t «~..~4;::~;r ~ '. kX _ s I~.~ F ~i .. r ,w<~'~~n,~ f Assencion Church Saratoga: Location ~~~tlun/behind redwood trees: Height of trees would block signal and require a 100'+ monopole structure. This was no( recommended by staff. • oooo~~ 10. Upon preliminar}~ staff approval of the revised plans and submittal materials, we will provide neighborhood notification documents. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. • • ~~~~~~R~ • Attachment 6 • ~~~~~~ g 4 ,: A,Y K secf ~; , proposed Nextel tree pole a. , . A ~• ~* ~~ ~ ~,~ proposed Nextel equipment area `_' I i ~~a~~~ • Existing ~~ 3h~V-~ o .~ 3 , ~ ~ ,~ xr ~~ ~. .~.~~; ' ~ y ~n ~"- ~ a ,i'. ~ ;~ ~ f "~.. ~ ~ O ~ -~~ b ~~~-•~,r, ~ ~ O 0.w i' :Y~ ~~'f yy~ ~' k ~. *~ ~ • ~ { ~_r1 ~Y 3 ~ ~°~ '~.~'~ ,~' P»y '1 t. Y^ ~ , ., ~.. at'~l zae-• ~rw'',~,ra~'pl~` •;,,~` ( r~;3dl a„~_ ~ '~~ ~ al ,a r ~-_... 'M (~ f•°°~'h-•~.. w ......_ .. ,uit: lr..:: wa ._. ram*-a.. s:~m«~+c~r.. ~'Si °`- _, .. •.-___...~~ Q a t ~.. f 3. µy~'~~ 7~ S•(IC'~SAt" ij~l1' .,"'f .M ~J •- till ~C ., '"''~'r ,,.g;# "'^v '""~". ~ :~< Y - '"' ~ - ~,;,~;Y ~.~ •',.~~R,~~~~ ~,{~'~-thy" i~ 'r "ti+. °~~''y~~A~ a ~:a.ac ~, „~,br rrt ~.~.y~r ~'w ~ ~+ '~~.~~,,'` ~,,yi ;'~rt ~TT ~a '~L yi ' rr~ ~~~~ r ~ ~ ~°-`' ~ *t~ }= f A ' O ~ .~: 19550 Prospect Rd. ~ ~ `~ CA-2146G North Hwy 85 Saratoga, CA 95070 "' a; ~, ~, ~~~Proposed ~ ~' s~>> ~ " 'z~ {~~~ ~ proposed Nextel tree pole ~ r ~,~~` " ~ ~, ~ ~ a~a _ ~ a ~ "fit ~~' ~; V1 .A.~~ ~~ .. ~.~, O . ~,~ ~ r -£'~. }~~~e b '' 2 yid Cr°~*+ ®~ ~ ~ e ~ ,~ 11 ~ ~~ ~ +5. ~a. ~ ~ py>., z~ ~ ~ ~ _ A v „ ~ '.4 r 9 r Fa -~ ~, % ., ~- °ua 57F M1~y' j~ {-y - F ~' c e +x _ _~~ -M1 ~' ~5r',}:.- rs,..diY.~nry,~.~~;~' ~~~ ._ ~ ~.a'~-Q ~~`Y - 4-c,, - ` ~ ._ ,.. ~ ~~ s. .~. a ~. -.. .. ~`ao. - ,.re...t ..-. w.a-~..,._:.~a+... z.=s, va. ..~~.-+`:s~ ,-_ ~ "7T _ ..._.,...~ y~ A~1 - ~ jr ~ ...... ..,r ~ gf~a~~y v ~.•. te'a` ~ ,. ..'~s ~ ~ ,n 7Fxd ,tea ~• .h.~,,~ ; ~~~ ~: ~ r ~~-~ ' ~ *~, «~'~.~ . ~'~ .~, ~ .~d1t ? ~~ a ~tua °" '~~~` ~'~; ~ ~ o: '!eN ,,,~`~k1iN$~T ~d->!r? ~ " E. ~s~-~~' ~' ~;?~c °>4~+'~a~a~~~V ~ r~, -'`, uG- ~ '' C7 e, O ~. _~ ~ ., .~®: ... _- -. _ _ ~ . a ~ .__ M T_~.~- ~e ~~~~c~~~ LL~ F W ~~ ~mr' Photosimulation of the proposed telecommunication facility as seen looking southeast from Prospect Road ~~ ~~ Attachment 7 • 0~®~~~ Lata Vasudevan om: raymuzzy@comcast.net nt: Monday, August 15, 2005 11:11 AM To: Lata Vasudevan Subject: Nextel Application 04-177 ~~ R&D CofA.doc (32 KB) Lata Vasudevan We have left a message on your phone stating our opposition to the NEXTEL proposed installation of an antenna on the Church of Ascension property (Application 04-177). The notice period, which was about a week ago, was very short considering this project has been underway for over a year and a half without telling and seeking inputs from any of the local neighbors. we are out of town on a planned vacation but we would like to get this a-mail into the pre-meeting package that is going to the commissioners prior to their meeting on the 24th. I have also included an attachment with the information. Ray and Donna Muzzy 19518 Eric Drive ************,r******~c********v~***~r*****,r********************************* Commissioner Manny Cappello Commissioner Susie V. Nagpal Commissioner Jill Hunter mmissioner Robert A. Kundtz mmissioner Linda Rogers ommissioner Mike Yhl Commissioner Michael Schallop We moved into our home at 19518 Eric Drive in 1967. When we made that decision we selected Saratoga because of its strong residential community values. Saratoga?s vision of a small town, picturesque, where a residential atmosphere is retained was the same as ours. We are involved in the Saratoga community because of our strong desire to support this vision for current and future generations. We also were encouraged by the desire of local government and its planning commission to support this vision. As the years have passed we have remained optimistic even though the city planning commission is constantly challenged by outside pressure to make changes to established residential zoning. Application 04-177 by Nextel to place a commercial antenna in a residentially zoned area is yet another example and we are opposed to its infringement on our residential community. It is proposed to be located on the Church of Ascension property, which has a conditional use permit to operate as a church within a residential community that completely surrounds it. In no way does this commercial venture have any relationship to a church charter. The only reason for the venture is the $2,000/month that the church will receive. Apparently the church now requires commercial sponsorship because it is not fully supported by its congregation. What will be its next commercial venture and how will it impact the entire residential community surrounding it? Planning of this Nextel commercial activity has been underway for over a year and a half ithout any of the local neighbors being notified or being involved in this installation hat directly impacts them. Contracts have apparently been negotiated and the parties involved believe the deal is finalized. Then within two weeks before it is going to appear before the planning commission for final approval we are finally informed, not our idea of a concern for local neighbors. OQ©~~~ The decision on this application has far reaching consequences for all the residential communities within Saratoga for the following reasons: 1- The already approved Nextel antenna installation at Prince of Peace, which is adjacent to a commercial area with some isolated residential neighbors, is now being used as justification for the Church of Ascension, which is located in a residential community that completely surrounds it. The two situations are very different. This proposed location is very similar to one of your neighbors across the street wanting to install a commercial antenna. This is not what we want for all of the residential communities in Saratoga. 2- Setting this precedence for one cell phone company, Nextel encourages other cell phone companies to do the same thing. One day, Prince of Peace may have a complete plastic forest on its property. Why restrict commercial exploitation to just one industry once precedence has been set. The cancerous growth will spread unabated. Remember Saratoga?s vision of a small town, picturesque, where a residential atmosphere is retained was the same as ours. Now is the time to stop this commercial exploitation before it infects every residential community in Saratoga. Ray and Donna Muzzy 19518 Eric Drive • • z V~~~~~ Commissioner Manny Cappello Commissioner Susie V. Nagpal Commissioner Jill Hunter Commissioner Robert A. Kundtz Commissioner Linda Rogers Commissioner Mike Yhl Commissioner Michael Schallop We moved into our home at 19518 Eric Drive in 1967. When we made that decision we selected Saratoga because of its strong residential community values. Saratoga's vision of a small town, picturesque, where a residential atmosphere is retained was the same as ours. We are involved in the Saratoga community because of our strong desire to support this vision for current and future generations. We also were encouraged by the desire of local government and its planning commission to support this vision. As the years have passed we have remained optimistic even though the city planning commission is constantly challenged by outside pressure to make changes to established residential zoning. Application 04-177 by Nextel to place a commercial antenna in a residentially zoned area is yet another example and we are opposed to its infringement on our residential community. It is proposed to be located on the Church of Ascension property, which has a conditional use permit to operate as a church within a residential community that completely surrounds it. In no way does this commercial venture have any relationship to a church charter. The only reason for the venture is the $2,000/month that the church will receive. Apparently the church. now requires commercial sponsorship because it is not fully supported by its congregation. What will be its next commercial venture and how will it impact the entire residential community surrounding it? Planning of this Nextel commercial activity has been underway for over a year and a half without any of the local neighbors being notified or being involved in this installation that directly impacts them. Contracts have apparently been negotiated and the parties involved believe the deal is finalized. Then within two weeks before it is going to appear before the planning commission for final approval we are finally informed, not our idea of a concern for local neighbors. The decision on this application has far reaching consequences for all the residential communities within Saratoga for the following reasons: 1- The already approved Nextel antenna installation at Prince of Peace, which is adjacent to a commercial area with some isolated residential neighbors, is now being used as justification for the Church of Ascension, which is located in a residential community that completely surrounds it. The two situations are very different. This proposed location is very similar to one of your neighbors across Q~~~~~ the street wanting to install a commercial antenna. This is not what we want for all of the residential communities in Saratoga. 2- Setting this precedence for one cell phone company, Nextel encourages other cell phone companies to do the same thing. One day, Prince of Peace may have a complete plastic forest on its property. Why restrict commercial exploitation to just one industry once precedence has been set. The cancerous growth will spread unabated. Remember Saratoga's vision of a small town, picturesque, where a residential atmosphere is retained was the same as ours. Now is the time to stop this commercial exploitation before it infects every residential community in Saratoga. Ray and Donna Muzzy 19518 Eric Drive • • O~~J~~ Lata Vasudevan ~om: raymuzzy@comcast.net nt: Monday, August 15, 2005 11:05 AM To: Lata Vasudevan Subject: Nextel antenna proposal Lata When you reviewed the proposed installation of the Nextel antenna~on the Church of Ascension property did you take into consideration the near and long term artificial appearance of the structure and its impact on the entire residential community surrounding the church? Will this become a new standard for other residential communities in Saratoga? I have been present in many planning meetings and know the city is concerned about ascetic issues like plants and trees when considering residential use permit exceptions. Was the city?s arboretumist involved in the final analysis? What were his views in terms of impact of plastic structures on Saratoga?s standards for residential ascetics from a short and long term point of view? Since artificial plastic structures degrade when exposed to the elements what are his views on what it would be like in the future? Ray Muzzy • • Q~~~ 1307 Regency Dr. San Jose, CA 95128 August 15, 2005 Ms. Lata Vasudevan, AiCP Associate Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvaie Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Ms. Vasudevan: AUG 1 5 Z~ 05 C!'1'Y OF SARATQGA •+err~rrTV nct,~r ~,.. As you had requested, I, on behalf of Church of the Ascension, have reviewed the plans, for the concealed ceNular antenna to be located at the Church of the Ascension, with the most immediate neighbors and with other, interested neighbors in Saratoga. This is in regard to Application 04-177 Use Permit. Enclosed are 32 signed statements, on your Planning Department form, certifying that those persons have reviewed the project plans, they understand the scope of work and do NOT have any concerns or issues to be addressed by the applicant prior to the public hearing scheduled far August 24, 2005. There is one additional form with the "have issues" box checked because, while she supports the project, she wanted to register a preference for the flagpole. Her farm is in the third category noted below. . I have grouped them into 3 categories: 2 3. These 5 are from the neighbors who are most immediately adjacent to the project - 2 on Eric Drive, 1 on Miller Ave. and 2 on Ardmore Ct. {reviewed the plans with 2 other neighbors on Eric Dr. and gave them the complete packet of information, including your form. Although they say they are opposed to the project, l do not have their signed fom~s. These 2 are the statements from Beth David Congregation, our most immediate neighbor an the West and the personal statement from Rabbi Daniel Pressman. His residence, in San dose, was one of those that received the notification you sent to those within 500 feet of the project. These are from 26 other neighbors in Saratoga. They include 2 from those on Scully Dr., which is the next street directly west of our property, and a form from Rev. Jim Friedrich, the Sr. Pastor at Prince of Peace Church in Saratoga. Just as a point of reference, !took an informal poll regarding a preference for the tree vs. the flagpole. While mast respondents had no preference, those who did voted 8 for the tree and 4 far the flagpole. Si~ntcerely: ,/ ' ~`~~. ~F Jerry Streb for Church of the Ascension cc: Fr. Paul Duong, Pastor, Church of the Ascension Christian Svensk, AlarislParsons • • • C1~~tJ~~ , Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: August 2, 2005 PROJECT ADDRESS: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the, applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I d~ NOe Cha se u lic hearing on the proposed project. to be address by the applicant pno tY P ^My signature below~certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): ~ ~. Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: ~ ~~ ~~/~Uv ~l ~ ~S ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~-Z%L~.~? ~~ Neighbor Phone #: ~~~ f ~~`'~~""~ Signature: Printed: i - ~ ; L L~ ~,'4 ~ ~,z, ~ ,~ Div i L ,~C.~ r~r„ nf,CaratoQa ~(~p4't Planning Department Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: August 2, 2005 PROJECT ADDRESS: 19550 Prospect Road , Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission ha eedrrectl neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may y to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have ubl c hearin son the proposed proj a t. to be address by the applicant prior to the City s p g the followin : I have reviewed the project plans; I ~, ^My signature below certifies g understand the scope of work;b enIaddressed sMy concerns~are the following (please with the applicant, have not attach additional sheets if necessary): -~ `~ Neighbor Name: '~ t ~~ ~ IN h Neighbor Address: ~~'~ ~~~~ ~' ~ ~ ~ e"' Nei hbor Phone # : ` «-3 ~ ~ '~~ " '~~ g ~ ~'. . a ~.~, _ ~t~t Signature: Printed. i _ r~ t~ ;~ ~~~~~~ City of Saratoga Planning Department Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: August 2, 2005 PROJECT ADDRESS: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. I My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: V ~1 ~' L°.. , ! CY (~ ~~~~'J Neighbor Address: ~ q5~ q ,~I~r ~ D~~ ~~ S~-~~-~-og~, ~/-~- ~~~' 1 U Neighbor Phone #: a ~ 7 '~~ 3 6 ~ Signature: City of Saratoga Printed: Planning Department Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: August 2, 2005 PROJECT ADDRESS: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): r -- Neighbor Name: ~ 9°~ ~~ r ~ ~ t-; ,~ ~ -7 ', - ' `- 7 , i ;Y. Neighbor Address: y I.~1 i,~ G rJ fi\~ ~f l.'~ . r~. .. ' '?' ~-' ~ Neighbor Phone #: t ~ ~ ~~ ~~`t ~~ Signature: ,, ~, ~ , r'~ t City of Saratoga Printed: ,,, ,., ,, Planning Department • (l~tl-Q~~~i Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications • • • Date: August 2, 2005 PROJECT ADDRESS: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when. solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express arty concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your. opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ©My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: l~c~, ~,, , ~Ll C1 ~~~~~- Neighbor Address: ~_~CL~~ ~ ~ , , ~ ~ :~ ~ 7 ~ Neighbor Phone #:(~~G ~ ~ 7 aC S - ~ `I 4t t Signature: Printed: ~ ,,'} City of Saratoga Planning Department (~~«~.1 ~r~~. Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: August 2, 2005 PROJECT ADDRESS: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when, solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. SYafj'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 C~ity~of Saratoga. LJMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: T have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): R t ..l 4 S Neighbor Name: ~+°~ " t/~~ Neighbor Address: E ~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ }%ie ('.~^ ~ Neighbor Phone #: ~ ~S ~.~~ '~ ~~ • City of Saratoga Planning Department t~(~~~~~:~~ Signature: Printed: Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: August 2, 2005 PROJECT ADDRESS: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when, solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Sta,~`'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. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): j~ _ Neighbor Name: ~~~(-2_ l ~~SS~G 1'1 Neighbor Address: f ~V d ~G ~ tom GS ~-ti., ~n ~ p~~ ~~S 1 c~-~ Neighbor Phone #: ~~0 3~oh-- ~-~C~ Signature: Printed: r" City of Saratoga Planning Department ~1~~}~ ~3 Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: August 2, 2005 PROJECT ADDRESS: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-1 ?~ Use Permit The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when, solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Stafj'and the Planning Commission prefer, that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. 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. ~viy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do N4T have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: T have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: _ `~'~ ~ 1 ~~`~ ~ s ~~~~? ~~ R ~t.~`~"~ ~~ Neighbor Address: ,=-~,~ ~~~r7`' cy E% ~ ~ ~~ ~ L' ,(~~ Neighbor Phone ~~'f ~ -~ ~ -~ ~- ~ -----,.. Signature: Printed: C -~ ~~ r 1„ City Of Saratoga Planning Department O~~ ~~~ -~ Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: August 2, 2005 . PROJECT ADDRESS: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to , address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when.solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. ,Stcrff'and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Ptease ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: S,~ti~Q=/~ .~\~tiL ~.~ Neighbor Address: 12 i 3~ ~,~L ~y , SA ~ R ~ ~~ ~ Neighbor Phone #: ~ ~~ ~ ~`-' ~` ~ ~~ Signature: Printed: ~'~~y -, City of Saratoga Planning Department I~~R~~~ .Neighbor Notification Template for _ Development Applications Date: August 2, 2005 PROJECT ADDRESS: 19SS0 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when. solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express arty 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. J'rrespectrve 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. UMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): ~--_ t Neighbor Name: ----1 i r'K-- ~./LL ' -,,ctt ,-~ Neighbor Address: -~~~~`T Neighbor Phone #: ~~ 5 -~ Signature: Printed: -~ f ,~ City of Saratoga Planning Department Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: August 2, 2005 PROJECT ADDRESS: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The Saratoga Planning Commission requires apmen ants lications prt:or~ o the evening of address issues and concerns regurding develop aPP the public hearing on the proposed project. ~ Poncerns and issues wheon solicited by favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their c applicants prior to the public hearing. Sta,,ff and the nlaortts~ues they may haveedttrectly neighbors talre this opportunity to express any co to the applicant. Please ensure the signature ov toisthe o mraonJexpressed below~youl residents residing on your property. Irrespeetr e f P may reserve the right to amend yaur opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ~,.~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I unders d the c e of wor ; 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. ~~--}} true below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I UMy s~gna erstand the scope of work and I have issuesM oncerns~are the followi g (please with the applicant, have nut been addressed y attach additional sheets if necessary}: Nei bor Name: ~ {-t N ~` ~us`-4- ~`' n' ~___~ f n___LL'b~~ 8h Neighbor Address: -°fr Nei hbor Phone #: ~ - Signa e: _ Printed: ~. C,'ity ofSarato;~a Plunning Departm~t~~~~~,~~ 08/11/2005 09:50 4082963977 LAW OFFICE ~ PAGE 81/81 Aus 10 05 06: 1 fip LuR!he and Jerry Streb 408 996 315@ ' lY~igbbor Not3Sc~tian Templote~ fog Devs~up~~~AppU~csitioua Date: ;August 2, 2Q05 . PRO]ECT ADDRESS: I X550 Prospect Rand !~ Name: Nextel'D~ueeless Appditation Number: 04-1~"I Use Permit ?des Siaratogrr Plarmir;g Cuimreission r,t~ir,es gpplfcmi~r b work with their teetgkbors to 'ad-d~ss l~snes arxt avrnaerNs rung d~•,~1 aP,~~omr prfor b Abe. g of Iaewr+ably xpo +wr the pinpamd pr~fitc~ . Thee Plug Caars~issfbri e~ aot look aa#glrbora wib fail to y~ Nib. ~cerna and irsraes s-lmir, aoticitsd lrj- gRp~GmrtsprBor m thepe>~Odie ke~;a8 ,~'~ tlee Plmgn'n~g Co~enrri~sio~r,p„exr t1 k~ rxigi~bors take thEt opportart~tty to ~F-'ess ary Gor+csra~,t or r'asw,s they nary hcrMr cfii+suty to lhs .r~iomn~ l'leaae erRtsre the sigma on this ~ is taNvr of all ~ ~ °n3"vevt'+h' ~spscttvie °f the °p~f°er ssd belax', you may nesuve the right to amend yrurr opfrion at a later dace arrdcoeesruiei~ate it m ties City of Satatogrr. ~~~' u+e below c $e following: I have re~v~iewed the pxoject Piaos: j and ~ do NO? ~un+e aqy oososrns ar iasaea wlticb need to be add»aa by the applicl4t prior to the Cih''$ Pao 8 an the penp~ed project, ~M3'sig~aadure below the foltowirag: ~ have mviewed the 'ed lans• ~l P ~ ~ ' and ~ have is~es or ea~atas, w•h~ abet df+seaasioa w~ ~ ePP~mti lreve not bem addreued. My oozicd~ are the fa~tlowbu8 (pldsse at~hsriditional sheets if ne~beasaxy): Neighbaar Name: '~~a ~ R ~ ~~ jfvl e~ Neighbor Address: . l g7~~ Cu ~~:rh ~ ~- ~- ~a A C.~ ~~ s~a'7o_ Neigb~bor Phone #: p.l r?'If~r?'~~ ~ GL ~ ~~ fit/ PrRated: City of Smntogrr ' Plannir~,Dep~mvdrlsnr • ~~~~~~ ~~ Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: August 2, 2005 PROJECT ADDRESS: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel '9Vireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the.evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when. solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Stcr,,~`'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 Saratoga. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: ~~K/,~r' .r~ -ST`a~~~ ~ Neighbor Address: ~' ~ o ~~~./ i ///~~ -~.n/~~` ~i/2--~"-~~ ~~,~~ ~?,~''' >'S'~ i ~ Neighbor Phone # : ~~ 3 - ~,~71. ~ Signature: fG~ Printed: ~~.x/,t~ ~ ~ !N, ~1 L~f,~G•~7~r City of Saratoga Planning Department Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: August 2, 2005 PROJECT ADDRESS: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The Saratoga Planning Commission require~oaPPent a is licatr'ons prior to the evening of address issues and concerns regard:ng deve p PP the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their con~~Q and Commission prefer that applicants prior to the public hearing. Sta,~''and the g have directly neighbors take this opportunity the presture on this documentis representative of all to the applicant. Please ensure g~ residents residing on your property. IrrespecQi a la er date and comrmun~ ate it t~o the may reserve the right to amend your optnron City of Saratoga. M si afore below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project pwl h h need Y ~ understand the scope of work~and odt ~e C ms's public hearing on the proposed project. to be address by the appl~ca p ^1Viy signature below~certifies the fallowing: I have reviewed ~ ch after di,4cussion ~~nderstand the scone of work; and I have issues or concerns, w g lease with the appUcast, have not been addressed. My concerns are the followin (p attach additional sheets if necessary): .~~_.~-d ~~~ ghbar Name: `~~ ~~ ~ " ~~ `~ ' Nei '~- Neighbor Address: ~ ___ ~_, Signature.: r ° -_ A~,.n . ~ - ~ , Neighbor Phone #: Printed: ~'~ ~, -~ ~~` .. t - _ .. .. ~- ~ ... ~° • • • Planning Department C,'ity of Saratoga ~["i,~~ f~~(J Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: August 2, 2005 PROJECT ADDRESS: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorobly 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 arty concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name~~'~o_ ~ ~ ~~~. ~~' ~~ ~~~.~e~~~,~~ ~ Neighbor Address: ,~ ` Neighbor Phone #: 4~1~, -- ~ 2 ~ ~~ ~ ~ -~ . S' afore: Printed: ~, City of Saratoga Planning Department Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: August 2, 2005 PROJECT ADDRESS: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding develapmerit applications prior to the.evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when. solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Stafj'and the Planning Commission prefer,that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. 1'rrespective 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. ~Viy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: ~e /-~'z~ ~-2 /~.~.~ Neighbor Address: ,f ~ _ ~ C ~ %5-{~~ Neighbor Phone #: ~ f y ~~ `7~ ~~ ~~E' Signature: Printed: v • City of Saratoga Planning Department Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: August 2, 2005 PROJECT ADDRESS: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when. solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Stcr,,~`'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. ®My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: ~~Y~LEf ~'obE'I^f Neighbor Address: /2775 ~3~~~1~ C~, S~i~~ To~'g ~~a ~~ Neighbor Phone #: ,~ ~~G~f1 7~~ ©/ .~ ~ Signature: Printed: City of Saratoga Planning Department ~f)~~~~ Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: August 2, 2005 PROJECT ADDRESS: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when, solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Stajj'and the Planning Commission prefer,that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. 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. ~,.IMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do N4T have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following {please attach additional sheets if necessary): t~G'-~t~.--~ Neighbor Name: pd N F-~ L ~} ~' , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ h~ Neighbor Address: t qYg`~ 5~~ C~-uLc Gv~jj~' 1 Neighbor Phone #: ~ D ~' ' ,`~-S h - ~, c~ ~ ~ Signature: Printed: City of Saratoga Planning Department ~~~~~~ Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: August 2, 2005 PROJECT ADDRESS: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. T'he 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. Sta, f 'and the Planning Commission prefer'that neighbors take this opportunity to express arty 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 o Saratoga. ~ My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name:. / /LD ~-f,4fi ,// ~ ~C~~G Neighbor Address: Signature: Neighbor Phone #: ~~~gJ ~.~~ ''`~~ ~ °~` Printed: City of Saratoga Planning Department Q~~b~.~~~~~ Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: August 2, 2005 PROJECT ADDRESS: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Fermit The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when, solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express arty concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work: and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: ~/~r2~jC~C~~ ~~~~ Neighbor Phone#: "~~~'~ Y ~ S ~ ~~~' ~'~ Printed: City of Saratoga r~ Planning Department • ~~~~~.~~ Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications • Date: August 2, 2005 PROJECT ADDRESS: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04- 177 Use Permit The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to , . address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the.evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when, solicited by a,~plicants prior to the public heating. SYaff'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 resia~ents 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. L~My signature below certifies the following: T 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 L1My signature below certifies the following: Y have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, Lave not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): ~.;,F~ Neighbor Name: ,/ i !~~ ~~,.~'~1~2L, T Neighbor Addre~ss~: , ~,r /~ :~ _ n ~__. Signature: /~. ~.~` City of Saratoga Neighbor Phone #: ~ ~`'`~ ``° Printed: / y Planning Department U~~k~l~3f~i` Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: August 2, 2005 PROJECT ADDRESS: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when. solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Sta,~`'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. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I. understand the scope of work; and I do N4T have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work: and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion . with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): 3 ~~~ i Neighbor Name: ~.-i-2~ /~~ Neighbor Address: r' ` ~~--~ ~ °~---~ Neighbor Phone #: ~~~ ~ ~ ~~r~~ Signature• ~~-- Printed: ~~ • City of Saratoga Planning Department ~~~~~~ Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: August 2, 2005 PROJECT ADDRESS: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel'Wireless Application Number: 04177 Use Permit The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when, solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. SYafJand the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express arty concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga_ ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): ~~ t Nei bor Name: ~1-~ ~ ~ ~=~ '~ ~ --~ gh ~ `J Nei hbor Address: F , ` 1 '~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ l r ~ ; ~.- ~' ~~ +~ ~' Neighbor Phone #: ~_, `~ . Signature: ,r ~rinted: ~~ _~ ~ p (jJ ~ (J;,_ r ,- ~ d ;~ • ~ ~ ~ ,~. i_ City of Saratoga Planning Department Neighbor Notifscation Template for Development Applications Date: August 2, 2005 PROJECT ADDRESS: 19550 Prospect Road , Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04- I T7 Use Permit The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work w ~ or to the even~ng of address issues and concerns re8e~ i ro'ectelThe Planning Comm~sron does not look the public hearing on the propo p 1 avorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their con~~a an d Commission prejfer that, applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the g Kaye directly neighbors take this opporturiiry t he s~ nature on this docurnentis representative of all to the applicant. Please ensure t g residents residing on your property. Irrespective l.f eh date and comrmun~ atelit to the may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a City of Saratoga. ~Ivi si nature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I •.~ Y g under rand the sco a of work; and I do NOT have ublic hearing on the proposed project. to be address by the applicant prior to the City s p ^1VIy signature below~certifies the following: I have reviewed th cbrafter discussion understand the scone of work; aneenIaddressed sMycconcerns~are the following (please with the applicant,llave not b attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: r%_ Neighbor Address: ~~'~ ~ ~~ i~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ,2 ~ Neighbor Phone #: Signature: Printed: • ~.~` ~ - ~..~ cam'- ~ ~ ~ Planning Department C.'ity of Saratoga Q,~~~°~ Neighbor Notification Template for Development Appiications Date: August 2, 2005 PROJECT ADDRESS: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-1'77 Use Permit The Saratoga Planning Commission requires appli~c~ Q is lications prtior to the eventing of address issues and concerns regarding develop pp the public hearing vn the proposed project. The Poncerns and issues wheon solicited by favorably upon neighbors who fail to vorce then applicants prior to the public hearing. Sta, f~'a Conce~ns orJis~ues they may h eeditre tly neighbors take this opportunity to express any to the applicant. Please ensure the signature o ethoisthe o rinionl expressed belowoyoul residents residing on your property. Irrespectr f p may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later dare and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ~~ My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work; and I do NOT ha se ublic hearing on the proposed project. to be address by the applicant prior to the City p tore below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I ^My signs ll derstand the scope of work; and I have issues concerns~are the following (please with the appUcant, have not been addressed. y attach additional sheets if necessary): hbor Name: ~. _~~Z ~ Ne~g Neighbor Address: jjj ~ ,~~~~ ~l'.~ Neighbor Phone #: Signatwe: ,,,~ Printed: ~~ lj/} .~_. .,. e~~ _ (~/j / /; C.'ity of5'aratoRu Planning Department Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: August 2, 2405 PROJECT ADDRESS: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. T'he 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 f Saratoga. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: ~~~~ ~~ G'.~? !~ >~ ~ ;~~' Neighbor Phone #: ~- Signature: City of Saratoga Printed: ~~i~ ~,~ ~ Planning Department OQs~)'~~i +~ Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: August 2, 2005 PROJECT ADDRESS: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work w ~ ooh o the eve»ing of address issues and concerns regarding development applications p ' the public hearing on the proposed prof eet. The Poncerns and issues wheon solictited by favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their c applicants prior to the public hearing. Sta.,~'and the Pns vritnsgu S ~y may have that ly neighbors take this opportunity to express any con to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on thoisthe o~ri ion,exppessed below~youl residents residing on your property. Irrespectrve f p may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. y signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I o NOT have any concerns or issues which need understand the scone-of work; and I d ~s ublic hearing on the proposed project. to be address by the applicant prior to the City p • ^M signatuue below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I Y »nderstand the scone of work_•, and I have issues or concerns, which after d~cuslea e with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following {p attach additional sheets if necessary}: f L. tot r@ f`'t ~ /~'li'~~ l ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: _~~~~ ~ t~=~,~~_ ~~ Neighbor Phone #: ~~~ Signature: ~^ i~r F. ,!, ~~ ~~ mss' C: itv of Saratoga Printed: L ~~` 1 ~'? id ,^'Z. r v r4 Planning Department 4~$.~~.i~~7~ Neighbor Notification Template for _ Development Applications Date: August 2, 2005 PROJECT ADDRESS: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. ?'he Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when. solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Stafj`'and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express arty concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ~My signature below certifies the following. I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do N4T have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project.. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: %~,~/~/ f~'h/ T~~E ~ ~/ Neighbor Address: (~Z ~ c << C~ R~~ l~ ~i l.~/ ~~~~ ~I~Irl~'f~ ~>~ /~ ~~ u ~ Neighbor Phone #: ~ d ~ ~-.~ ~ l7~ 76 y. Signature: Printed: sir ~tir ~~-u~ ~ I~ c~~-rcr r~/i G'r~~ City of Saratoga Planning Department Q~~:E~:a'~~ Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: August 2, 2b05 PROJECT ADDRESS: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when. solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer than neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this aACUment is representative of all residents residing on your property. irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ~,My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: ~~ ~~ d~ /YI ,~_, Neighbor Address: ~s o ~.-. Neighbor Phone ~~~'/~~'~.~~~ ~ ~- Signature: Printed: City of Saratoga Planning Department Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: August 2, 2005 PROJECT ADDRESS: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding devetopment applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when, solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. StafJ`'and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name:. _ C.C.S :c~i . ~,~~ ~ .~?~ G-" Neighbor Address: ~ ~ - z/~ Neighbor Phone #: ~°~=~~ -~ ~ ~ ~~'`"~ ~/ Signature: Printed: City of Saratoga Planning Department • • r ~_ Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: August 2, 2405 PROJECT ADDRESS: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when, solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Sta, f~`'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. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicaat prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ~My signature below certifies the following: T have reviewed the project plans; I 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): n _ ~ Neighbor Name: ~ ~~'2~ ~ ~l-~2 ~~'?'7 Neighbor Address: I ~~~~ ~ ~~~~~- ,~ -~ .~~-.c~c~ c~7~ ~°.~ C ~ C- Neighbor Phone #: ~ L ~ ~aZSp_.~ ~~ f f . Si afore: City of Saratoga Printed: ~j~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~ l~ ~~~ Planning Department ~b~~l~,~~'o'; Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: August 2, 2005 PROJECT ADDRESS: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextei Wireless Application Number. 04-177 Use Permit The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when, solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City/of Saratoga. L_IMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name t' f ~ ~ r j ~ ~ ~~ ~~ Neighbor Address: ~"~; '~C~ c=`L ~~ Neighbor Phone #: ~ ~ ~%' ~--- `~ "~'`i c-~` S i unafi~re- Printed: Planning Department Q ~~ ~ . i eF,.> r~ (~ ~.yR. City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: August 2, 2005 PROJECT ADDRESS: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when, solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Sta~`'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. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ~ty signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I ]gave issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): ~q L-=l Neighbor Name: ~ 1 l~ C~.~ '- Neighbor Address: ~-~ . t1.. ~• .~ S ~' ~ Neighbor Phone #: Signature: Printed: C-? • City of Saratoga Planning Department E1/05l1994 05:26 8504565598 K NESS PLANT PEOPLE Neighbor Notil~cation Template for Development ,Applications Date: August 2, 2005 PR07ECT ADDRESS: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Pernazt The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address Issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public• hearin;~~ 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 ttl the public hearing. Sta.,~`'and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbor; take tlri,s opportunity to express arty concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of a residents residin~~ on your property..lrrespective of the opinion expressed below, L U may reserve the ri.Qht to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate tt to ~~~ Z 1"i 205 City of Saratvgu CITY OF SARATUGr1 ~ntr;rn•rv nF1ic~ "~ My signature helctw cezti~ies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scene of work; and I do NOT have any concenus or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plaits; I understand the scope of work; and I here issues or concerns, which a>l'ter discussion with the applicant, Dave pot beep addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets tf tlcccssary): Neighbor Name; __ l,) Neighbor Address: /' ~,..... ~.,~ ~ eighbor Phone #: "f KJ ~ ~~~~w~ ~ ~ U ~ a ~ ~-~ 1 Si~1 Signature: Printed: ' .~_.,~ r PAGE 01 LI i~ • V • • City of Saratoga Planning Department 61/05/1994 05:26 8504565598 K NESS PLANT PEOPLE PAGE 02 ~~' `I • PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING DATE; Wednesday August 24, 2005, at 7:OOPM APPLICATIQN: 04-177 PROPERLY ADDRESS: Church of the Ascension} APPLICANT: Nextel APN: 386-35-069 19550 Prospect Avenue (12033 Miller Avenue PURPOSE: Use permit application to locate a wireless facility in a residential neighborhood. OPPOSITION: I, Paul Joseph Fontenot, have resided with my family at 19537 Eric Drive, Saratoga, California for approximately thirty years. • OBJECTION: I, on behalf of myself, hereby object to the use permit for a wireless facility on the residential property applied for by the applicant. PROPOSED ACTION OBJECTED TO: Applicant and the Church of Ascension intend to install an ANTENNA and equipment enclosures on the Church property approximately 80 feet from the Easterly boundary of the property -Miller Avenue. Directly across Miller Avenue are single family homes, PROXIMITY OF MY HOME TO PROPOSED ANTENNA: My home is at the corner of Miller Avenue and Eric Drive. The location of the proposed antenna is directly across the street from our house. It will be plainly visible from our two front bedrooms and from our front doorway. The proximity to our home is such that regardless of the configuration, the curb appeal of my home and thus its value will be impaired and diminished. REQUEST THAT THE APPLICATION BE DENIED: For each of these reasons, request that this application be denied. ALTERNATIVE SITE OF ANTENNA: Upon learning of the objections of the neighbors, Father Paul Duong, Pastor of the Church of Ascension agreed to seek a postponement of this hearing so that a more agreeable site could be • 423J.U01 A3'1217,1 01/05/1994 05:26 8504565598 K NESS PLANT PEOPLE PAGE 03 3 aC ~ • investigated, Nexte! would not agree to a postponement regardless of how badly the proposed site impacted the neighbors. We on behalf of some of the neighbors have reviewed several options for a site for the antenna with the Church of the Ascension. One location is on the west side of the multi-purpose building, Worrier Hall, which would have an orientation toward Prospect and away from the single family homes along Mi11er Avenue. There are no homes which front on Prospect Avenue opposite the church property. Another alternative is to celebrate the flag pole approach and locate it in the parking lot. If it were sited at the intersection of four parking places, it would not interfere with the use of any of those spaces any more than a light standard. Attached is a copy of an a-mail from the Church of Ascension stating that they along with several community residents are willing to consider alternative locations for the antenna. For myself, !would consider dropping my opposition if the proposed antenna were moved to a more agreeable location. I strongly urge the City Planning Commission take into account the desires of the neighbors and the indicated concurrence of the Church of Ascension and require Nextel to consider, in good faith, alternative locations of the antenna as a condition for further consideration of #heir petition for a use permit. ;~ aul Joseph Fontenot ~ Date' • 4234.001 4371t 7.1 61/05/1994 05:26 8504565598 ~ NESS PLANT PEOPLE PAGE 04 Yahoo! Mail - janbillnesstc~yahoo.com From: "Jerry Sireb" ~strebzr~pacball.nat> Yo: "Jsn & gill Ness" ~janblllness@yahoo.com> Subiect: Temporary postponement of Plennlnq Commission heerinq Date: Sun, 14 Auq 2005 23;08:13 -0700 Hi Bill and Janet, Way Print -Close Window After we spoke today, I did talk with Fr. Paul about your asking for a temporary postponement of the Planning Commission hearing so that we may mutually explore your request to, "Place the antenna on the West side of Worner Hall," as you noted in your August 12 letter to him. We will support the temporary postponement of the Planning Commission hearing under these conditions: 1. We need, in writing. Flay Muz2y's concurrence with your request to, "Place the antenna on the West side of Worner Mali." 2. We need to get Nextel's concurrence with this temporary postponement. I will leave it to you to get item one since Ray told me last Friday that he will not agree to the antenna being placed on the Church property under any circumstances. I will work to get item two the first thing Monday morning. 1 will cancel my heart rehab session, which I have scheduled every Monday AM, to concentrate on item two. Just as a point of information, after a careful reading of the fetter that was sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project, I note mat it says the following, "In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before Tuesday, August 16, 2005." This does NOT prccl~~dc any other issues being raised or information being presented et the Public Hearing if it was not submitted on or before August 16. As I committed to you on the phone on last Friday, I will also work to get answers regarding the feeslblllty of placing the antenna on the West side of Worrier HaII. I hope we both are successful in our pursuit of our respecctive items. Regards, Jerry • http://us.f305.mail,yahoo rom!ym/ShowLetter?box=Saved%24Messages&.MsgId-8931_4... 8/15/2005 on~~~~~ Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: August 2, 2005 PROJECT ADDRESS: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you.. ~r, • may reserve the right to amend your opmton at a later date and communicate it to t' ~ ~~ City of Saratoga. AUG 1 6 ~20Q~ ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I crr}' orsgrt~a~ro~~ understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): ~ .c. ~1~+"+~-~ ~._ G,v-~ ~., _ ~~-~ ~' ~~. Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: ,/ ~(~ U r cam G'`~ Neighbor Phone #: ~~ Signature: Printed: ~~,~~v~rt~ ti. ~v~ss • City of Saratoga Planning Department ~~ Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: August 2, 2005 PROJECT ADDRESS: 19550 Prospect Road Applicant Name: Nextel Wireless Application Number: 04-177 Use Permit The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. 7'he 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. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): v Neighbor Name: Neighbor Addr s: r t . ~. Signature: • `~~-~ Neighbor Phone #: ~yG~~/ y y~ `~~ ~ s~ Printed: 1~ City of Saratoga Planning Department ~1~.~11~..t'°_,~..~1,1 .~t..~yt..~..~~~:c.(.C~1L~ iYYU~ ~J2~~-~l~. Jl?~i~i<. PUBLIC HEARING • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING DATE: Wednesday August 24, 2005, at 7:OOPM APPLICATION: 04-177 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 19550 Prospect Avenue (12033 Miller Avenue - Church of the Ascension) APPLICANT: Nextel APN: 386-35-069 PURPOSE: Use permit application to locate a wireless facility in a residential neighborhood. OPPOSITION: I, Janet Fontenot Ness, have resided with my family at 19537 Eric Drive, Saratoga, California for approximately thirty years. We have been members of the Church of Ascension for this period. OBJECTION: I, on behalf of myself and my family, hereby object to the use permit for a wireless facility on the residential property applied for by the applicant. PROPOSED ACTION OBJECTED TO: Applicant and the Church of Ascension intend to install an ANTENNA and equipment enclosures on the Church property approximately 80 feet from the Easterly boundary of the property -Miller Avenue. Directly across Miller Avenue are single family homes. BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY: At one time there was a total ban on cell phone antennas in the town of Saratoga. Then we believed that it was more ' important to retain the village and strong residential character of the town. The applicants have stated that the antenna is necessary to serve the residents of Saratoga. It should be noted that Nextel, the applicant, has recently combined with Sprint to provide cell phone service to Saratoga and beyond. This means that the existing facilities of Sprint will be available to the applicant. Attached as Exhibit A and B are copies of the maps published by Nextel and Sprint at their respective web-sites showing their existing cell phone coverage for Saratoga. According to the maps, Saratoga is already being served by both Nextel and Sprint. Accordingly, it appears that the necessity of the antenna to be built by Nextel is not as necessary as claimed by the applicant. 4234.001 437217.1 r (~!~ _ .^ • RESIDENTIAL ZONING: We understand that the church property has single family residential zoning and is operating as a church under a use permit. In general, we object to this or any commercial activity being conducted on any of the Church property. It is inappropriate. The activity is not even remotely connected to the general operation of the Church. The Church is leasing a portion of the property as a commercial venture for money. , In a community where the construction or expansion of single family homes is reviewed, under Municipal Code Section 15-45.010, with the purpose to avoid any adverse impacts upon the aesthetic character of neighboring residential structures. It is most inappropriate to allow the Church ,which is a conditional use, to conduct a commercial activity which interferes with the aesthetic character of the neighborhood. Significantly Section 15-80-020 precludes a flag pole in a residential neighborhood more than 15 feet high. IMPACT ON CURB APPEAL AND REDUCTION IN VALUE OF HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD: Attached are copies of photos, Exhibits C and D, prepared by the applicant. These views are what we see of the Church Office Building and • Worner Hall from our front door. Also, attached is a portion of the site plan prepared by the applicant showing the Office Building, Worner Hall, and the proposed antenna in its various forms. We understand that the proposed antenna is approximately 80 feet from the Easterly edge of the church property - Miller Avenue at the intersection of Eric Drive. Our home is at the corner of Miller Avenue and Eric Drive. We understand that the applicant has proposed two options as represented in Exhibits C and D. One is a FAKE flag pole (two foot square, 50 feet high) and the other is a FAKE tree (also 50 feet high). Neither is acceptable. Both alternatives will be unaesthetic and diminish our property values. Neither a large fake tree or large fake pole fits in to or blends with our neighborhood and either will be unsightly from our home. It is our opinion that the construction of the antenna as proposed either as a FAKE flag pole or a FAKE tree will have a significant decrease in the value of our home. It is my intention to provide oral testimony on this fact by a licensed realtor at the Public Hearing. The members of the Planning Commission may then be able to ask questions and receive answers as appropriate. 4234.001 437217.1 r~ LOCATION OF THE ANTENNA: The Church owns extensive property. Some other portion of their property may be more appropriate than that proposed. We believe that the proposed location will impact our property value since the structure will be the primary view from our house. GENERAL PLAN: We received the Notice of this application only last Tuesday and since we are out of town, we have not been able to review the City's General Plan but we are sure it too values and protects the aesthetic character of neighborhoods, FAILURE OF APPLICANT TO INVOLVE NEIGHBORS IN PLANNING: We understand this project was approximately one and a half years in the planning. During this period we as the closest neighbor were not contacted nor were we aware of their plans until receipt of the notice of hearing. REQUEST THAT THE APPLICATION BE DENIED: For each of these reasons, we request that this application be denied. • • 4234.001 437217.1 • • • EX~~B~T /3 S~<<~~- r C7 • ~~~~~~~s ~X ~~ 1'3'T- ~` 0 0 0 0 0 0 a r.. c~ c~ A O C n O n '+ N fD ~D 3 O O UG ~D N O fD fD (D C~~F ~~~.r.~. ~..~-~ yti.~~ y'~ • .j /T~ l°~ R1J ~~~~_~-~ ~- :., f ~* ~,~,,~ ~"~ r~(1- '°--r ., ,_ • • ~~ . ~.~ w ~rA ~~~~~ 0 ~~~ v ~ y~~ 2 A N ~ U m -o w (~ 'O x' oh=m ~~i ~ g ' 0 c~ ~ r 1 y_., .'~ r n m ~- ~ m N ~, > i' ~ _ ~} ~- o J _ .~.. m 6 z c~ {// m ~s ~~ Z ~ ~ m F~ a .~' -8~ AREA m > to v m ~.N.. ~O ~ m ~n rn~ x_' o N ~QZ N m f Z -i -1 r ~'am ~ZO 1 \ Z ~ pNj, ~ ^' o ~v ~Z µ X n r7, J r I/ rri c ~Z c~ m ~ c C ~ O Z r m ~>y~ N J MILLER A E _ ~~~~. ~~l(~1j b O n H O Y b Neighbor Notification Template for - Development Applications Date: ';~ - ,~' ,~ _~, PROJECT ADDRESS: Applicant Name: Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission reguires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ' I.JMy signatwe below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. , '' y signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I , understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): -... _ - /. ' f ,~ ~ ' ~ Neighbor Name: ,..~-~---~...; ~ ~ ~? ~' ~ .`~~ ~ ! r~ ~_ ~~'~~ Y~ f'~-~~~ Neighbor Address: ~ -~ ..~ ~.. ... -~'? ~~-~ -~~ `~; ~ ~ Neighbor Phone #: -~ ~ ~~'-_. / ~ ~~' Signature: Printed: 1. y City of Saratoga Plamzing Departme~ t ~'3f~~~i~.~~ Attachment 8 • ~~~ ~~}~~ AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES . STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, ~, Citit.) ,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 • ~~~~~ • 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 24`h day of August 2005, at 7:00 p.m. The public hearing will be held at the Adult Day Care Room 19655 Allendale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. The public hearing agenda item is stated below. Details of this item are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Please consult the City website at www.sarato,a.ca.us regarding Friday office closures. APPLICATION/ADDRESS: #04-177 - 19550 Prospect Avenue (12033 Miller Avenue -Church of the Ascension) APPLICANT: NEXTEL • APN: 386-35-069 DESCRIPTION: Nextel requests use permit approval to locate a wireless facility at the aforesaid address. The project consists of the installation and operation of concealed cellular antennas. Related equipment cabinets will be installed in a proposed enclosed area attached to one of the buildings on the property. 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, August 16, 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 r~ ti.~. ,*~; >.,: ~~. ~-. !,+~ k ~~ owner street city state zip apn CHAN ESTELLA C & KWAN H TRUSTEE PO BOX 303 CUPERTINO CA 95015-0303 37309001 LIN YI-NAN &CHING-CHIH 1684 DANROMAS WY SAN JOSE CA 95129-3906 37309002 AHERN RITA J ESTATE OF 1672 DANROMAS WY SAN JOSE CA 95129-3906 37309003 PRESSMAN DANIEL J & BEVERLY R 1660 DANROMAS WY SAN JOSE CA 95129-3906 37309004 GILL JASPAL S & BLINDER 1659 MILLER AV SAN JOSE CA 95129-3942 37309031 MAY DAVID R & COLLEEN W 1671 MILLER AV SAN JOSE CA 95129-3942 37309032 CHEN SHUI C & HSIU Y 1529 CONSTANSO WY SAN JOSE CA 95129-4949 37309033 GUINN ROBERT & PATRICIA D TRUSTEE 1695 MILLER AV SAN JOSE CA 95129-3942 37309034 LI TIES & HONG 6343 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE CA 95129-3943 37310001 TYAN HUNG-PING & SHIN-FEI 6351 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE CA 95129-3943 37310002 LI FULIN & TONGXIN 6359 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE CA 95129-3943 37310003 JOSHI SUNEEL D & PRATIMA S 6367 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE CA 95129-3943 37310004 ALLEN ROBERT R & NWE N TRUSTEE 6379 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE CA 95129-3943 37310005 TANG ERIC S 1690 LARKIN AV SAN JOSE CA 95129-3929 37310006 SMITH EDWARD M & PATRICIA C TRUSTEE 1662 LARKIN AV SAN JOSE CA 95129-3929 37310007 BRADLEY ROSEMARY J TRUSTEE 6378 IVY LN SAN JOSE CA 95129-3918 37310008 AUMAN WILLIAM S & ELAINE T TRUSTEE 6368 IVY LN SAN JOSE CA 95129-3918 37310009 SHIOYA KUNITAKA T & ETSUKO 6360 IVY LN SAN JOSE CA 95129-3918 37310010 LAKSTIGALA JOHN & JILL A 6352 IVY LN SAN JOSE CA 95129-3918 37310011 KINGSBURY ALLIN D & EILEEN D TRUSTEE 1658 ELMAR WY SAN JOSE CA 95129-3914 37310012 SHIOYA KUNITAKA T & ETSUKO TRUSTEE 6360 IVY LN SAN JOSE CA 95129-3918 37310013 CAMARDA ANTHONY & ANN E 1657 DANROMAS WY SAN JOSE CA 95129-3907 37310064 REN MIN & JIANHONG 1669 DANROMAS WY SAN JOSE CA 95129-3907 37310065 DUBOFF ALAN J & JUNKO 1681 DANROMAS WY SAN JOSE CA 95129-3907 37310066 O'DONNELL PHILIP & MARILYN 1693 DANROMAS WY SAN JOSE CA 95129-3907 37310067 KLAVINS ANDREW & DOROTHY A 6492 IVY LN SAN JOSE CA 95129-3900 37312036 PARK JOSEPH C & YOUNG J TRUSTEE ETAL 6470 IVY LN SAN JOSE CA 95129-3900 37312037 SABES MYRON I 6448 IVY LN SAN JOSE CA 95129-3900 37312038 WONG DENNIS R & KAREN S 6426 IVY LN SAN JOSE CA 95129-3900 37312039 MARASCHIN ROBERT W & MARIETA Z 1665 LARKIN AV SAN JOSE CA 95129-3928 37312040 FAN KYLE C & SHU-CHIH 6405 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE CA 95129-3840 37312041 GROVIER EDWIN J & MIREILLE M TRUSTEE 6427 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE CA 95129-3840 37312042 PUJARE SANJAY M & OSHA 6449 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE CA 95129-3840 37312043 LEE LI HUA HO 6471 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE CA 95129-3840 37312044 CHAMBERS RALPH W & ELAINE A TRUSTEE 6493 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE CA 95129-3840 37312045 LO JEFF CHING-LUNG & CONNIE CHI-HUI KA06515 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE CA 95129-3841 37312047 • • • rw ~,. ~, k~ i ~ BUFORD NORMA L ETAL 6537 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE CA 95129-3841 37312048 TING CHARLES & MARGARET A 6545 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE CA 95129-3841 37312049 LIANG SHENGHUI S & SHUYUN S 6538 IVY LN SAN JOSE CA 95129-3837 37312054 HAHN SUSIE 6524 IVY LN SAN JOSE CA 95129-3837 37312055 MUSSETT CHRISTOPHER J & KATHRYN F 6292 TRACEL DR SAN JOSE CA 95129-4761 37728022 LIANG CHUNGTI A & GLORIA I 6280 TRACEL DR SAN JOSE CA 95129-4761 37728023 ADELBERG CHARLES R & DAVIDA W 6268 TRACEL DR SAN JOSE CA 95129-4761 37728024 BROWNLIE RICHARD E TRUSTEE 6256 TRACEL DR SAN JOSE CA 95129-4761 37728025 CHANG ENG-SON & JANE H 6244 TRACEL DR SAN JOSE CA 95129-4761 37728026 ARMES GEORGE F & BETTY G 6232 TRACEL DR SAN JOSE CA 95129-4761 37728027 JOHN D SANFORD & LYSBETH F SANFORD 6223 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE CA 95129-4740 37728063 WUNSCH DAVID E & ROSEMARIE 6235 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE CA 95129-4740 37728064 37728065 KANG ANDY & JULIE 6259 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE CA 95129-4740 37728066 HU CHENG C & JEAN C TRUSTEE 6271 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE CA 95129-4740 37728067 MA CHENG H & TERESA 6283 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE CA 95129-4740 37728068 ADDA SARVESH & SWARNA 6295 PROSPECT RD SAN JOSE CA 95129-4740 37728069 GORDON ERNEST S & MARCIA S TRUSTEE 12176 TERRENCE AV SARATOGA CA 95070-3347 38603018 KUMAGAI YOSHITARO & YOKO 12168 TERRENCE AV SARATOGA CA 95070-3347 38603019 BROGLIATTI MICHAEL L & GEORGIA H TRUS T 12154 TERRENCE AV SARATOGA CA 95070-3347 38603020 SHIN FRANK D & MOON JOO 12146 TERRENCE AV SARATOGA CA 95070-3347 38603021 DEAL WILLIAM A & LORI TRUSTEE 12138 TERRENCE AV SARATOGA CA 95070-3347 38603022 YOUNG GERALD W & KAY 12122 TERRENCE AV SARATOGA CA 95070-3347 38603023 JOHNSON ROBERT J & ROSEMARY TRUSTE E 12111 TERRENCE AV SARATOGA CA 95070-3346 38603024 HSU LAWRENCE L & POLLY P 12129 TERRENCE AV SARATOGA CA 95070-3346 38603025 KAREL STEVEN & ELLEN A 12137 TERRENCE AV SARATOGA CA 95070-3346 38603026 HOA YUNG-SHENG & PAI-LING 12141 TERRENCE AV SARATOGA CA 95070-3346 38603027 ANDRIS ROBERT P & CECILIA C TRUSTEE 12155 TERRENCE AV SARATOGA CA 95070-3346 38603028 CHANDRAMOULI RAMAMURTI & RANJANI 12167 TERRENCE AV SARATOGA CA 95070-3346 38603029 WANG SHIN-TAY & YING-WEN 12150 SCULLY AV SARATOGA CA 95070-3339 38603048 LEE GEORGE J ETAL 12142 SCULLY AV SARATOGA CA 95070-3339 38603049 SIGNORE VINCENZO & SANDRA 12138 SCULLY AV SARATOGA CA 95070-3339 38603050 HUTZ JOHN B 8~ ELIZABETH K 12130 SCULLY AV SARATOGA CA 95070-3339 38603051 GUPTA ANIL & SUMAN 12110 SCULLY AV SARATOGA CA 95070-3339 38603052 WHITE DENNIS F & ANGELA 19465 ERIC DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3310 38627006 CARCANIS GLORIA M TRUSTEE 19481 ERIC DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3310 38627007 CHU WEI-MING 8 ROGER H 19499 ERIC DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3310 38627008 rp CCU a -~+ a HILDEBRAND AUDREY 19519 ERIC DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3310 38627009 FONTENOT JANET TRUSTEE 19537 ERIC DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3310 38627010 ST PATRICKS MISSIONA RY SOCIETY 19536 ERIC DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3354 38627011 MUZZY RAYMOND J & DONNA D TRUSTEE 19518 ERIC DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3354 38627012 BOSTIC CHARLES R JR & JILL TRUSTEE 12057 CANDY LN SARATOGA CA 95070-3366 38627013 BIRNBAUM MARGARET M & DAVID N 12073 CANDY LN SARATOGA CA 95070-3366 38627014 APPLEGATE GENE B & BETH A 12091 CANDY LN SARATOGA CA 95070-3366 38627015 PENG ANDREW & JIH-HORNG 12111 CANDY LN SARATOGA CA 95070-3307 38627016 LIN PHILIP M & JULIA H 12123 CANDY LN SARATOGA CA 95070-3307 38627017 NIEDLE CHARLES F ETAL 12141 CANDY LN SARATOGA CA 95070-3307 38627018 JOHNSON TERRY T & SUSAN E TRUSTEE 12153 CANDY LN SARATOGA CA 95070-3307 38627019 CLARKE FERGUS 8~ MAURA 12175 CANDY LN SARATOGA CA 95070-3307 38627020 CAMPBELL RICHARD I TRUSTEE 12110 CANDY LN SARATOGA CA 95070-3308 38627031 LEE JAMES A & REGINA C TRUSTEE 12092 CANDY LN SARATOGA CA 95070-3365 38627032 RIHAL GURPREET & RANDEEP 12074 CANDY LN SARATOGA CA 95070-3365 38627033 BROUILLETTE BRIAN T & LOIS F 12058 CANDY LN SARATOGA CA 95070-3365 38627034 JANG YIHBAN & ALICE 12200 MILLER AV SARATOGA CA 95070-3324 38627062 GALL JAY K & CHERYL K 12198 MILLER AV SARATOGA CA 95070-3324 38627063 HUPTON JAMES R & BONNIE E TRUSTEE 12176 MILLER AV SARATOGA CA 95070-3324 38627064 TRUCKAI CSABA & GABRIELLA 19566 ARDEN CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3301 38627065 FRANKEL STEVEN B & DONNA 19557 ARDEN CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3301 38627066 YANG EDWARD Y & PING G TRUSTEE 19569 ARDEN CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3301 38627067 THOMAS ROBERT H & ELIZABETH M TRUSTEE 12148 MILLER AV SARATOGA CA 95070-3357 38627068 SMITH AUGUST D & BARBARA TRUSTEE 12124 MILLER AV SARATOGA CA 95070-3357 38627069 DANIHER WILLIAM C & NANCY L 19572 ARDMORE CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3302 38627070 FLORA ROBERT E & WANDA A 19560 ARDMORE CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3302 38627071 SON JINSHU & KEIBUN TRUSTEE 19555 ARDMORE CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3302 38627072 WANG KENNY & FEI 19567 ARDMORE CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3302 38627073 C/O CHURCH OF THE ASCENSION 12072 MILLER AV SARATOGA CA 95070 38627074 BURLESON DAVID W & TERRY J 19686 ASCENSION DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3356 38635045 LIU DAVID R & WEN-HWA TRUSTEE 19666 ASCENSION DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3356 38635046 POPYLISEN DANIEL M & JOAN B 19642 ASCENSION DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3356 38635047 CHANG JEAN C & DAVID 19620 ASCENSION DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3356 38635048 TOLANI ANAND S & RIE 19604 ASCENSION DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3356 38635049 SOONG YEONG C & TSELI 19603 ASHTON CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3303 38635050 LIU HUI & QI 19617 ASHTON CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3303 38635051 CHANG CHEN CHI & ALICE YIAFEN TRUSTEE 19655 ASHTON CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3303 38635052 • • • a MIRTH GEORGE P & LINDA S 19671 ASHTON CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3303 38635053 FERNANDEZ DENNIS J & CHERYL D TRUSTEE 19684 ASHTON CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3303 38635054 KUO DAREN TAN LUN & SHEAULI GRACIE TRl 19668 ASHTON CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3303 38635055 KULM ELMER R & FRANCES E TRUSTEE 19644 ASHTON CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3303 38635056 DIBIASE RONALD J & JAYNE L 19618 ASHTON CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3303 38635057 YOUNG MARY Y TRUSTEE 19602 ASHTON CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3303 38635058 MA BILL WEI-HSIUNG & HELEN HUNG-CHURN 19601 LADERA CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3329 38635059 LI DANIEL F & NANCY Y TRUSTEE 19619 LADERA CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3329 38635060 CATHCART W ILLIAM T & JACQUELINE L TRUS 19645 LADERA CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3329 38635061 YING TIEN-PING & STELLA H 19661 LADERA CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3329 38635062 C/O CHURCH OF THE ASCENSION 12072 MILLER AV SARATOGA CA 95070 38635069 CONGREGATION BETH DAVID 19700 PROSPECT RD SARATOGA CA 95070-3352 38635070 CONGREGATION BETH DAVID 19700 PROSPECT RD SARATOGA CA 95070-3352 38635071 CHANG YAO H ETAL 19771 COLBY CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3202 38637001 PATTERSON JAMES H & MARSHA C 19783 COLBY CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3202 38637002 HAYWARD JANICE L 19795 COLBY CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3202 38637003 KHOO SAM & PAMELA K TRUSTEE 2025 CALIFORNIA ST 3 MOUNTAIN VIEV~ CA 94040-1970 38637004 WANG LUNG WEN & SIU LAN 19819 COLBY CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3202 38637005 WYANDT DAVID A & BERNADETTE M 19827 COLBY CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3202 38637006 PIAZZA ROGER & MARY J 19828 COLBY CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3202 38637007 ANDERSON ALTON & CARMEN TRUSTEE 19816 COLBY CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3202 38637008 CHEN LILY H & PASCAL S 4F,#3,LANE 8,LING-YI ST TAIPEI 38637009 KEENER NEIL A & JUDITH A TRUSTEE 19798 COLBY CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3202 38637010 SHAG LINGXIONG &YING 19786 COLBY CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3202 38637011 DEGIVE LOUIS P & BERNICE S TRUSTEE 19774 COLBY CT SARATOGA CA 95070-3202 38637012 BROWN GRIFFITH M & LOTS M TRUSTEE 19773 VIEWRIDGE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3236 38637013 KAO KLEIN K & IUE F H 19785 VIEWRIDGE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3236 38637014 MAZER THOMAS B & KATHERINE A TRUSTEE 19797 VIEWRIDGE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3236 38637015 LIND ROBERT A & BONNIE E 19809 VIEWRIDGE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3236 38637016 FAN CHUNG-HO &CHEN-HUiI M 19815 VIEWRIDGE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3236 38637017 UCHIMOTO WARREN TRUSTEE 19808 VIEWRIDGE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3205 38637021 LUAN CHUNG CHEN TONY & MEI-PING GRAC E 19796 VIEWRIDGE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3205 38637022 MONTGOMERY-RAYL NORMA L TRUSTEE 19784 VIEWRIDGE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3205 38637023 WANG KUANG-YU & DREAN L 19772 VIEWRIDGE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3205 38637024 LIOU WEN CHUNG & KA HUNG 19775 OAKHAVEN DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3213 38637025 KASS ALFRED J & MARLENE W TRUSTEE 19787 OAKHAVEN DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3213 38637026 ANTONELLI DEAN D & LUCILLE M TRUSTEE 19799 OAKHAVEN DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3213 38637027 • • Attachment 9 • ~~~~~'~ • o~ Attachment 10 ~:~ o~oa a~- a a ~. L __- ., ~.kyr . ,N ~.~?~~', _ ~ ~~~~ ~' +~°i^ ~~~~~: =.~ ,. f 1 I ~ +9 ~s EX}il~.°T A Nextel of California, Inc. dba NEXTEL Communications SPECIALIZED MOBILE RADIO FACILITY SITE NAME: ~ ~J O~ ff~ ~ Il~ll fail U ~ ~ ~ SITE NUMBEP,: ~~°~ ~ ~~~ ENGINEER/PRCHOECi L.D. STROBEL CO. INC. 11022 SHARY CIR. SUITE 9 '~, CONCORD. CA 945 i8 (9257 686-3241 FAX: (925) 686-3350 PAalEC1 MANAGER I NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 1255 TREAT BLVD., STE. 800 WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 CONTACT: STEVE JACKSOA. (510) 719-8675 fA%: (925) 279-2683 ; wmu RaNr, INC. 110 LRTON DR. SURE 230 CRASS VALLEY, CA 95945 (530) 477-7171 fA%: (530) 477-6967 IPoCAL ENGIN RANDALL LAMB 208 UTAH ST. STE. 207 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 (at5) 512-9771 FAX: (415) 512-8940 I CONSULTANT TEAM I l fACUIT 6 UIIMOED ANO MOT TOR NIMW IMAIAIxNI 119x1xYPPm 7CCESS AEOUpflplOi IIOh AEpxI~D, N ALYCMVICE NM CALIAOIUM SMTE AOYNR'IRAINE COOP, RNLf 2 tinE M SEC110N 11060.3.42, 0(CFPIgN 1. I SITE NAME: NORTH HWY 85 SITE NUMBER: CA-21466 SITE ADDRESS: ;9550 PROSPECT ROAD SARAiOGA, CA 95070 SANTA CLARA COUNTY OWNER: ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF SAN JOSE 12072 MILLER AVE. SARATOGA., CA 95070 CONTACT: JERRY STREB (408) 996-3158 APPLICANT: NEX1<L OF CALIFORNIA dba NEXTEL COMMUNICATION° 1255 TREAT BLw. SUITc 600 WALNUT CREEK, CA 9459E ZONING MANAGER: CHRISTIAN SV£NSK (415) 495-4082 A.P.N.: 38635-069 OCCUPANCY : V-1 (UNMANNED COMMUNICATION FAGUTY) TYPE OF CONST.: TYPE V (1 HOUR RATING) U BHT N0 OECCRIPTION --' OTLE SHEE- LS-1 SITE SURVEY LS-2 SITE SURVEY DETAILS LEGAL DESCP,IPi10N A-7 OVERALL SI'E PLAN A-2 ENLARGED EDUIPMEN' PLAN § ANTENNA PLAN A-3 SOU7H ELEVATION AND EAST ELEVATION -3A SOUTH ELEVATION AND EAST E~vATION (ALTERNATE VIEWS w1?H FLAGPOLE) AUG l 5 ~~0~ Cf S HEET IN~~it~~+T-,;, -.~. _ ~n srx~f,. c~iN~ /.6 p m hGf80, G W77 MIOIC RS-111-,II/1 IM 775.111-1tlp Nextel of Califomio, Inc. dba ~Q Communications t2ss TREAT fiLw. srE. t6oo WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 PHONE (925)279-2300 FAX (925)279-2683 NORTH HIGHWAY 95 CA-21466 19550 PROSPECT ROAD SARATOGA, CA 95070 SANTA CLARA CCUN?Y f' I MLL W11i1! I ~.1rnro7 ~'! ~~; APPROYALfi LFASNG: DATE: ZOIUNG: DATE: Rf ENGINEER: DATE:_ CONSIRUCIION: PATE: TAG CHECK: pATE;_ OWNEk: DATE:_ CA-21456 DRAWN BY ~ TDH CHECKED BY !DS //~~ I[ IIC /11 ~ 5/31/05 ii 905 ZD i:A ~ 6/09/05 ~ 100x ID -/~ I~ B/11/05 i 100; ZD t¢ suBMnTU: 2nd SURMRTAL COMPANY JOB N0. 3078 R SURVEYNOTES ~,,. I PROSPECT ROAD I o, i 1 i i ~\ I i ~ ~ ~ ~ i / I..,. `~ / \ I ~ p+e. ( ~ I ~ ( -y a~ N,~ ~~ ( //~ ( I ( ~~ ( /~ ( I '~ ~. ~ I ~~, I I ~ i- I ~. L ~ ~ ~ ~ I ' i ~~ n i i / m. I •'I ~ ~ I i .~, i I \ , / ( ~ ~ ~ ( \\ ( ~~i ( ~\ I I ~ ~ I rf ~ ~,/ ~ I o, ~.~ ~ '~ ,~4;',UB4i ;ati: ~ 1 ~~ ~~ 2 .n `" ~ ~ ~l ~ ~ \HVal~4 ~ ~H~ 4~ I /i :: 4 ~ ,~~~ / r ~, / ,~ ~;,~I '11f~1o w ~~ ~,.1~C ., ~~,~~ ~ ~ SITE PLAN C/L ur toN Icrrun L I I SHEET TffLE - R!L- IpfpiplE IIiE -t - EIEL'1RIC !/f r',e N~ NfCiRC k1O 19Mp'f LItS .~~ .)f/rt ~Y ~+ - fIIA'L ~ se KmiMNr F- ~ „~ sNEEr NuIAeER d ~~ tt ~,~ LS-1 s .~ Nx~r R riaN ARFAC£ RON' ~a~ Bft' ~Rpr FKi cr dkR 1st SUBLNTTN.: 04-30-04 n moawu ~ BanOlf ar ~ 2nd SUBNRTAL 9/10/04 IBI1 1ao 8Yi( CF NNIK 1. AL(LATITUDESAAID (ONGIIUDESARE NAD 83, A(( E(EVAIIONSAREA4IVD 8S 2 ALL BOUNOARYINFORMAliON SHONMHEREONHASBEEN COAPI(ED FROMRECORO DATA 1 OAT E OF Fl EL D SURVEY APRN. 28.1884 4. PRELIM(N4RYTIREREPORTNUA4BER56901-54990319FRT, DAIEDAPRN.14,1004 BYNORTHAMERICAN TIT2E HAS BEEN PROVIDED, ANYFASEMENTS OR OTHER T/7LERELATFD ISSUES NO72NCLl1DED IN SAID REPORT WHlCHARf PART OF 7NE71REPROCESS MAYOR MAYNOTHgVEBfEN ADDRESSED, !NlflAL POINT. INC. ANDTIMOTHYF. SCHAD. L.S. ACCEPT NO RESPONSIB1LIiY OR LlAB1L1TYFOR BOUNDARYOR T/TLEITEMSADDRESSEOHEREON THISISNOTABOUNDARY SURVEY. lNl11AL PGYNT, LNG uD urra4 Dm~ SUITE 230 CRASS VA(lfT; CA, 95945 PHONE: 530) 471-7177 FAK ( ) 477-6967 Nextel of California, Inc. dba ~j. Communications 1155 1REAT BLVD. /800 WALNUT CREEK, CA 91596 PHONE (9251279-2300 FAX (9251219-2683 CA•2'46G "N.HVVY B5" 73550 PROSPECT CT. SARATOGA,CA.95070 ~`~~~~ IAMI td~Y f iN11. ~ c ~ LS 6021 ' EW. 3/7701 1j+I~M [IUI~~V' . PUN APPROVALS AND DATES (EASING: OATE:_ ZONING: DA1E: RF: _ DATES CONSTRUCTKAi: DATE:_ iNRA CONNECT: 0A1E:_ 1fS50R: DATE 'PonJEGT NC. -',a,G '. ~~~DRAVJN EY :G° ~, (CHECKED 9Y iF$ J7G/Oa NEW LEASE PARCEL & ADD suRVEr 1/12/04 REV LEASE PARCEL 8 UTIL. ESNIT. 6/09/05 REV LEASE PARCEL dl UTiL ESUT. wcu Aa9uu69r "~- ---o-~~. -~_~ tEUraw~ - -- I I ---~"~- PROSPECT ROAD --' sBrst•7vr ~ I I SDTJI;11 0A~ ~ I I tIQ~. ~~°~ I oa J I I ~,,;,1 6/,219 ~/ i \ 1 I I I \ ~/ I / I , '~ h FD. t , ~~ ~ i~(~~ ~ / I ~` J $ ~ I2 I I " Ij ~, A ~/~ ra' P. s. t e. <sWt ~ ~~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~ ~W ' P~j 31(. 3766 P0. 599 ~ \ ~ / ~ ~ I .I I ` . , .VAB'00"O0'N ~ / ~ ~ -,a,,,,,, ,;,~; ~~i :zg•~aocF :d01g. -4- R'pH/XJC 4NE %'~ ~ -t - _1m>arc 1rr PROPOSED LEASE PARCELS ~ ~ ~ -ar- CICCIR,C AND lE1ffPIRJNf LILACS 7.155.00' W ~, L•112M'~ ~ Q > I. ~Il ~ x+c ravawr J MG4ES5 ~ CSRCSS E°..XT 0UY X1AE \ / PEA 6K. 16J PO J97 d• PC. J99 ~ ~ iI8EE7 ~, ~ l U / y ' ~ 5>.aEr 1w11r ~ % AMkR w!K h ~ /S ilAt5ll S1bQFACE o rv FL FLOW UAL ;~ " 7C IOP b' CU3B oV'oo6 BFC BOtfON FACC OF CURB o~p nY tOP OF WI11 h ~ryo / fiW ~lrON OF WAl1 O' 3'„r i3W it1P BLACK 0f WVK 1 0"3.T2J'IO.11' I e . R•1000' ' e~ ~, 112.99' 3l/ l1 I ASCENSION DRIVE -""~---...J ~'R~rc i uA.a.~Aradlr :, ..-,... 6 pixLow ~ ~ ~E'sW;4sr,ln '~~' I'U",~'ru>'~zsu~ OVERALL SITE PLAN __. mg 1 "=50' FR•rLand.rn > ~ r . ~ YIa . ' : rrc.v n .°'?3 k'•' E :_ •g: y Y'y 1 A ACCURACYCERTIFICATION Fefz. ~ ~i LEGAL pfSCRlPTION ;._.._. ~'r-- ; --- ~kawbo;• Parr, m ut o -.. ~ '~ C .M~'Jr - DATEOFSURVEY'SEPTEMBER&1001 t ~. ~ ;: 'x^by ALL,IFl4TCERTAINREALPROPERTYSRWTE1NIIff000MIJYOF 8lanastlo ®.r ~ 3-„ ' _ _ o ~ ~a -_ of ,$ ~ ~ `_~ SuWTA CUR,4, Cl1T'OFSARATOfa4, STATEQ~C4Lff0/BVIA, DESCRIBED ~. •ti, ~-'y~ ~ T - SITENUMBER~ OA•1r46G ASFOLLOWS• ~irooue~-F.uk M1 ,~ N4ME• N HWY. df ~"' '" P ~ TYPE: PROPOSED TREEPOLE ~ 9X11.;~ -s-_ ~ ~~QI`tl O~' 1 • SJIEAOORESS1955oPROSPECTRO. PARCEL I, AS SHOWNUPONTHATCERlA9VPARCELAIAP,,FILED ~.ipY17W!' ,,~ ' j i ` I _„~:: a; .~ NOVEMBEN 08,19718Y BOON311 CFMAPS,ATPAGE4Z INTNE .1 ? r -4 i I ~ ~ SARATOGOG495070 OFf1CEOFTNERECQ4D~,54NTAClARA000NIY,C4fORNG1 Crrr~du b' Miood Dt' 15 ~ . q t5t.ki~nL~` lutu(Ilr ~' ?~ ~ ,~ ~{, 1,7,NIOTHYSCiL4D,NEREBYCERIfFY1-~CEOOE7IC ,gpAt3Bbaf.G4g Hfilla~orruru r ,[~r?~,,,, ~ ;` r ,~~i COCRDINAJES(NADdaJATTHECA:OF7HEPROPOSED YY~1tlo6F4d .Cox Av~,''~ ' ~ ---^ c • `, ~ ,-`: r : `~ ~ ? LATTIIA7E 3T 1T31.69'•N u ~ MteA , COIM61NShGATI1#Y057NDRi1M11ESTERLYCO/0B1L1tPARCd1, ~ -`-"' ~'`~ 2 rtss _ Qujt ar ~ t LONGIIUOE /11'00'SS9S'W ASSFA7NNU°Q4TFNTCERTAPIPARCQ1l4P,fLEDMOI?~16ERLI~ ~~~~pr :fir ,~i'pa arkJ ~~?" 1971ANBOQYJ1fOFWAPSATPAGE4xTH9VCE50UTN79'14'al' ' -~, -I`- --04r Oe~on~ MOFI/WTIIERI;ERTTFYTF61rTF1EBEYA71GA5hERELYV EA57,era19F&TrDTHETRUEPO9VTOFBEDNhMYC~T1fNCETNE i t?tandeR; ;~yiz p~le~~~^~~-'!c AREA80VEIIEiWSEAIEV$(IWWd9JANDAREAS fOLLONAMGFOMAP(<JCOf~SESAAODSTAACE3• OQ004 NroClvptmm, Iz.; OII004 NAY1Eq ` , . , ~'T I -'-- "' F~LOW5: VICINITY MAP (N.T.S.) 1: souTNer1s46'EASr,1znFEEr, cROUwoELEVaTrDN: z7zsFr. rsouTNOrariz•wesr, z1.soFt:Er, a•NanN9rlste'w>:sr, r217FEEr, TNEAI;CURICYSrAha4ROSFORTl9SCERT~IOATICW 4:NORT}!01'3PrrEAST, z1.50FEET AREASFOUOws• TD T1E iRL4EP01NTOFBEGAWWGANG ENCOMPASSIVG 181.7 GEOOETICCOLWDAIl4TES:+r•FIFTffJV(is)FEET(IUO~B3J SOU4REfEFT,AKWEORLESS ELEVATKaNS: IF T}-tEE(3JfEET (NAVDdBJ LEGAL DESCRIPTION {CONT'DJ LEASEPARCEL'>3" COAN8ENCINGAT TNEMOST SOUTHWESTERLYCORNER OFTHE PRE7BWSL Y DESCRIBED (EASE PARCEL 'A" THENCE NORTH dr 15' 08'WfST, a00 FEET, THENCE SOUTNOB°aT?B'EAST, 55.98 FEET TO TNETRUEPOWT OFBEGINNING' THENCE iffEfOLLOWING FIVE/5J COURSES AND DISTANCES: /:EAST a45FEEl, rsour,r adoFEEr, a WEST, d00FEET, 4: NORTH, B.OOFEET 5: FAST, 4.55 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING AND ENCOMPASSING 64,0 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS UTlLlTYEASEAIfNT'4" A STRIP OF LAND FIVE!51 FEET iN WIDTH, THE CENTERi1NE OF WHICH .S OESCR/BEDAS FCLLOWS: COMMENCINGAT TfiE MOST SGUTNE4S i ER1Y CORNER OF THE ?RP/IGUSCYOE3CRIBfOCE,95EPARCEI "": THENCE;VORTHBI'^5' J8'WEST 3.00 FEET. 701HE 1RUE PCINT CF BEGINNING. TH6VCE THEFOLLOWING ONE; !) COURSEANG DISTANCE: 1: SOUTH O6°aS28' EAST. 55.90 FEET TO THE NORTHLLNE OF THE PREYIOUSLYOfSCRIBEOCEASf PARCEL re' ACCESS: NON EXCLUSNF RIGM fOR PEOEST RIAN AND VEHICULAR INGRESS ANO EGRESSOVER EA9STINGACCESS ROAD FROMMILLfRAVENUE. A STRIP OF UND TWELVE (11J FEET 1N WIDTH, THE CENTERLINEOF WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THEMOST SOUMEASTfR1YCORNER OF THE PREVIOUSIYDESCRIdEOLEASEPARCEi'4` THENCFNORTH02°74' 11'EAST. L88FEfT. TO THE TRUE POINT OF dEG/NNlNG THENCE THE FOLLOWING FOUR /4) COURSES AND DISTANCES %'SOUTHBr2S48'EAST, 2S.6JFEET. 1:SOUIH01°70'41'~ST, 39.99 FEET, S:SOUTH46°30'a7'EASr 1S74FfET. ~: SOUTH73°43'38'EASL ;8.16 FEET TOAPOINT ON THE WESTERLYCINE OF;WICCER,4VENUE lNIAAL PGYNT, INC. 1,'0 UTTON ARIVE SIATE 230 CRASS VAl1EY, CA 95415 PNp~• 530) 4n-nn Fax ( ~ ,;n-s9s~ Neztel of California, Inc. dba ~L Communications 1155 TRUi BLVD. }800 WAINUT CREEK, CA 94596 PHONE (9 2 51219-23110 TAM (925)279-2663 CA-2746G "Y. HWY 95" ~ 9550 PROSPECT RD. SARATCGA.CA.95070 ~~s~~` uo tyyF/ f. °' LS 6021 E~.3/31/01 ~~Irt or C~ll1~~~~ PUN APPROVALS ANO GATES LEASING: DATE:_ 20Ne10: DAIE:_ Af: DATE:_ CONSTRUCTION: DATE:_ INTER CONNECT: DATE:_ LESSOR: DATE:_ FROJEC' P10. '..A-21460 DRAWN BY ~~~P CHECKED BY TFS ~, t 10/04 NEW LEASE PARCEL k ADD SURVEY 2 1 1/12/04 REV LEASE PARCEL k l1TIL ESIAT. S /09/05 REV LEASE PARCEL k UT1L. ESMT. Sylf wRr~r A~TAKS ~ aESC~nav LS-2 1st SUBYTTUL• p4-3U-04 2nd SUBYrtTAL 9/10/04 PROSPECT ROAD LQ STweo. Ca Inc .ICI ra~~acaa a /wt 1190 N /I! 15iN-3tl0 W ~~ z a ~~ w .; :. Nextel of Califamia, Inc. dho ~Q Communications 1255 rREAr BLw. srE. -eoo WALNUT CREEK, CA 9469fi PHONE (915)279-2J00 FAX (925)279-288T NORTH HIGHWAY A5 CA-2146G 19550 PROSPECT ROAD SARATOGA, CA 95070 SANTA CLARA COUNTY ~-. ~~` ~ ~. ~,1,~ ~~t~a,p°~;; APPROVALS ~TAVNC: DAr: ZONNC: DATE:_ RF ENGINEER: DATE:_ CONSTRUCTION: CATE:_ TAG CHECK: pqr;_ DWNER: OATE:_ CA-2146G DRAWN BY TDH ! CHECKED BY LDS i c I / i'~. ~ 5/31105 i 905 ZD Y ~ 6/09/05 'i 1WS ZD /3'.. ~,~ B/ti/CS I iW5 ZD i1TLE OVERALL SITE PLAN 2 90 0 RAI ~?F PLaN SCALE: 1/16=1-'0' X80 MAGNETIC DECLMATION = 74.57' 0 4' 1fi' 32' 48' SCALE: 1 /16'=1'-0' 1st SUBMIRAL 2nd SUBIAITTAL: _~ COMPANY JOB N0. 3078 R r SECTOR'C' 2`0° I I PROPOSED NEXTEL U.C. d4IE; COAX ROUTE IN 4-6'PVC TREE BRANCHES NOT I CONDUITS (APPROX. t50') SHOWN FOR CLARITY. I I PROPOSED NEXTEL 4' PANEL ANTENNAS, 4 PER SECTOR, 3 SECTORS TOTAL MOUNTED I AT 45' RAD CENTER I I I PROPOSED NEXTEL 50' HIGH TREE POLE (EST. 24'a POLE) ~I SECTOR'A' 100° y SECTOR'B' 180° ANTENNA. PLAN SCALE: 1 /2"-' -'C'' 0 N 2)0 n wig ~~°%% i ~~, ~`/; ~ IE 9p '~'' ~,', r~o MAGNETIC DECLINATION = iaSl' ~ 0 6" r 2' E. 6 , t7-'" -LEASE AREA j _ ~.-4. Vii%/ ~/ ~~~.' ~ ~ (E) GORE ~~ (E) GUTTER-~ '~ ~ PROPOSED NEXTEL I i i GPS ON CABINET-~-, ~ y' I I I ;a j N I I \~ I ~ i ___' '___= ~ / ' ,~--OROPOSED NEXTEL 8' HIGH _ ~~ ~ / ~ ax SPLIT FACE MASONRY ' 1' o ~ i WALL rlN'ISHED TO MATCH f ~ -?' i a fE' BUILDING \ ~ (7 ~ I - / ' I PRGPOSEC NEXTEL ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ TEL CG SERVICES ' '' ~ ~ , a i. ~ ~ ''r1 CA.BINET N - I ~ !~ - / ~ ~ ~~-PROPOSED NEXTcL i - ' l ' ' ~ _- , f GPS MOUNTED ON i ~ ~, _ _ _ i -- I i ~ ~ ~J ~. NEW MASONRY WAL ' ,. f' ~ ~ ! ' PROPOSED NEXTEL i ~ / ~ 277/480V METER/MAINZ ~ ~ ~~ ;, MOUNTED ON NEw 8" RICH ' II i ~ MASONRY WALL ~ ~ I i ' PROPOSED NEXTEL DOUB V ~ ~ (E) DOWNSPOUT I II ~ LE THROW SWITCH W/ GENERATOR ~ _ _n ~ ~ ~ RECEPTACLE (BELOW) LJ II \ '\ n "_-C \ \ \ CUT (E) CURB AS PROPOSED NEXTEL 8' HICH REDWOOD FENCE, ~ \ REGD. PROPOSED W/ (2) 3' WIDE SWING GATES, TAN' TO MATCH \ NEXTEL U.G. COAX ROUTE NEW MASONRY WALL I TO ANTENNAS ENLARGED EQUIPME SCALE: 3/6'=1-'O' ~ NT P AN I i j W tt ai Leo MAGNETIC DECLINATION = 14.57' 0 1' 2' 4' g' SCALE: 3/8'=1'-0' FFF~INSTALlATION OF CABINET REFER TO MFR. SPECIFICATIONS PROPOSED NEXTEL GPS ANTENNA MOUNTED ON `(E) BUILDING ROOF -2' - (E) I wpm PROPOSED NEXTEL 8' RICH K~ oar I ~r 4XSPLIT FACE MASONRY ~ ~k' ~ ~~ BUILDINGISH TO MATCH (EJ I 11 a _ ~o < •I w r, xW I ~ N I U ~ 2~W / J ~ ^wz~ ~ ~>;y ~~ PROPOSED NEXTEL GPS I ~ 1 1 ANTENNA ON NEW WALL (E) BUILDING WALLS `~~ \ f L, J L I ~, 6'-0' ~ a'-o° ='-6' ~. ~'-6' 2'-0' ~ (E) CONC. CURB RESTRIPE (E? PARKING ~ ~~ AND GUTTER SPACES AS SHOWN I ~, `~ PROPOSED NEXTEL 8' HIGH ~ ~ ~ ' ~j I REDWOOD FENCE W "2) '' ~/ ENLARGED q PAN SCALE: 3/16'=1-'0' a 0 i 0 iD it I ii ~! ~\\ LIl Srro®. Ca~Irm `~~ IA~~ mI1001tl,G IW] INwC IIN ~.1i 16W-II70 Nextel of Californio, fnc. dba ~Q Communications ,155 TREAT BLVD. STE. leoo WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 PHONE (915)279-2700 FAX (925)279-2687 NORTH HIGHWAY 85 ca-zlasc 19550 PROSPECT ROAD SARATOGA, CA 95070 SANTA CIARA COUNTY ~~\1 I ~,~ j APPROVALS If LEA6INC:~ p.4TE: ZONING: DATE:_ Rf ENGINEER: O4TE:_ OONBtRUCDON DAT< rAC cNEa: oAr: OMTIER: DATE:_ CA-2ta6G DRAWN BY TDH CHECKED BY LDS rv~ A.. n /'', 15/31/06 ~ 90~ ZD ~ 6/09/OS j 100„ ZD 8111/05 I 1005 ZD (GED EQUIPMEN & ANTENNA PLA 0 SHEET NUMBER NEXTEL sHRUes N 2I0 W r~ - f 90 180 1st SUBMRTAL -~ MAGNETIC DECLINAl10N = 14.57' lrid ~~~~ 0 2' 4' 8' IB' SCALE: 3/16=1'-0' COMPANY JOB N0.• 3078 A WIDE S'mNG GATES S'TAN' TO I MATCH NEW MASONRY WAL! ~I I (~1 BUILDING OVERHAN' j ~~ ~~ ~I LEASE AREA~~ I ~. j I` ~,i l ii ?'i20PO5E0 NEX1L_ UG. ^OA>i ~ ~~ P.OUTE N a_E PvC CONDUITS (APPP.CX '~- PROPOSED NEXTEL 50' HIGH TREE POL (EST. 24"m POLE) i0P OF (P TREEPOLE EL 50 AG.L PROPOSED NEXTEL 4' PANEL TOP OF (P) ANTENNA A SECTORS TOTAL,E MOUNTED AT EL. 47 AG.L. 45' RqD CENTER ANTENNA RAD CENTER ,~ PROPOSED NEXTEL EL 45' A.G.L. 50' HIGH MONOPINE (EST. 24"0 POLE) PROPOSED NEXTEL TELCO SERVICES CABINET ON CONCRETE SLAB (BEHIND) ROOF PROPOSED NEXTEL CPS .GL ANTENNA - TYP. OF 2 (E) 30' HIGH FLAG POLE - '~s ^-w ~ I r D_ q^ AMSL D2.5' i PROPOSED NEXTEL SHRUBS-~ ~ PROPOSED NEXTEL J.C. COaX ROUTE IN a-6" PVC CONDUIT: (APPROX. 70'ti EAST ELEVATION SCALE: ,/a"=.-'o. (E) FENCE III I I ~BU11LD M1G CH PROPOSED NEXTEL n' HIGH 4x SPAT FACE MASONRY WALL FINISHED TO HUTCH (Ei BUILDING F) TOP OF (P1 TREEPOLE EL 50' AG.L. .' ~ -PRCPOSED NEXTEL +' PANE. ANTENNAS. 4 PER SECTOR, 3 TOP OF (PJ ANTENNA ,~ SECTORS TOTAL, MOUNTED AT .L. 47 AG.'4 ~ 45' RAO CENTER ANTENNA RAD CENTER ,~ ~ -PROPOSED NEXTEL EL. 45' A.C.- L. ~- 5D' HIGH MONOPME (EST. 24"m POL EI (~) ROOF -6 AG.L. (E) BUILDING BUILDING PROPOSED NEXTEL TELCD SERVICES CABINET ON CONCRETE SLAB (BEHIND) PROPOSED NEXTEL GPS ANTENNA - TYP. DF 2 LnsT~,.catN~ ro~i ~'e~axo Nnc i r Nextel of California, Inc. dbc ~Q, Communicotions 1255 TREAT BLVD. STE. rB00 WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 PHONE (925)279-2700 FAX (925)279-26&7 NQRTH HIGHWAY 85 CA-2146G 19550 PROSPECT ROAD SARATOGA, CA 9507C SANTA.CLARA COUNTY i~~\ xo wnw n ', ~ ~ ,ronn A~' .~o' APPROVALS LFASWC: DATE:_ ZONING: DAT~: RF ENGINEER: DATE:_ CONSTRIICTHIN: DAi~: TAG CHECK; PATE: : DATE:_ CA-2146G DRAWN BY TDH CHECKED BY .DS w' i P I I ' I ~ I S/3I/OS ~, 90; ID ~i Y ' i,+, i 5/09/05 1W2 ZD l 9/1]109 I 100„ ZD d ELEVATIONS PROPOSED NEXTEL B' HIGH 4X SPLR FACE ... ....._. MASONRY WALL FNISHED TO HATCH EXISTING SHEET NUMBER BUILDING ///~~\ (~~( L ~~--.J Y Y G BUILDING H PROPOSED NEXTEL B' f6GHl REDWOOD FENCE. W/ (2) 3' PROPOSED NEXTEL U.G. COA1f WIDE SWING GATES, TAN' TO ROUTE IN 4-6" PVC CONDINiS MATCH NEW MASONRY WALL (APPROX. 70't) tet SUBMITTAL SOUTH ELEVATION 2na SUBMITTAL: ~ 0 2' B' 16' 24' SCALE: 1/8"=1-'0' COMPANY JOB N0. 3078 2 SCALE: 1/9'=1'-0" R (El JO' FLAG POLE 0 I y EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1 /8"=1-'0" PROPOSED 4'-O" PANEL ANTENNA TYP OF 3 (INSIDE; (E) 3D' FLAG POLE OF (E) ROOF 7_a er.i (E) BUILDING (E) BUILDING ~(E) CHURCH BUILDING PROPOSED NEXTEL U.C. COAX ROUTE IN 4-6" FVC CONDUffS (APPROX. 70'1) RUTH ELEVAT1oN SCALE: 1/8"=1-'0' ~~ ~~ L.n sT~l. ca f~ :; 1.6 of Z/ ,,G•, 11IOC q7-I11-Y 1 IAC tlY011-3R1C Nextel of California, Inc. dba ~Q Communications 1255 TREAT BLw. STE +800 WALNUT CREEK, CA. 94596 PHONE (925)279-2300 fAX (925)279-2683 NORTH HIGHWAY 85 CA-21466 19550 PROSPECT ROAD SARATOGA, CA 9507C SANTA CLARA COUNTY /~~~°'y. i ({l~w. cams '~~~! c.. >niM~~rrx; "~vrNF/' APPROVALS LFASNG: GATE ZONING DATE: RF ENGWEE4 DATE:_ CDNSTRVCfION: DATE:_ AC CHECK: PATE: ONNER' DATE:_ CA-21456 DRAwN 9Y TDH CHECKED BY LDS Ic iF ~~`~, ~ s/31/as Sox tD 6/09/05 1005 ZD /3l'~, 6/II/OS 1005 ZD ELEVATIONS /~ e tet SUBMDTAL: 8 2nd SUBMITTAL: 0 2' 8' 16' Z4' COMPANY JOB N0. 3078 ~ SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" 1 R a. i ~I wi zl w, U ~, o -24"m FLAG POLE f I vl i -PROPOSED NEXTEL TELCO o' SERVICES CABINET ON ,°~ CONCRETE SLAB (BEHIND) -PROPOSED NEXTEL GPS ANTENNA - TYP. OF 2 -PROPOSED NEXiEI B' HIGH 4X SPlff FACE MASONRf WALL FlNISHED TO MATCH IXISTING BUILDING PROPOSED NE)OEL 8' HIGH REDWOOD FENCE, W/ (2) }' WIDE SWING GATES, TAN' TO MATCH NFW MASONRf WALL V TO MATCH (E) BUILDING PROPOSED NExTEL u.G. COAx ROUTE Lu 4-5" PV^_ CONDUIT= ;APPROX. 70'1) DAB Wednesday, August 24, 2405, Immediately Fallowing the Rogular Molting PtAC~ Adult Day Care Room,19655 Allendale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 1~OLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on August 18, 2005. STUDY SESSION AGENDA 1. APPLICATION # 06-049 CITY OF SARATOGA, Saratoga Village; - .Planning . Conunission Study Session to review alternatives to reduce parking requirements for . commercial business in the downtown Village area in order to promote business in the downtown area. . „-, ' ~ The study session ~s an uiformanon meeting for the Planning Commission to get theu.quesaons .;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 NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, September 14, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA ~. -~ ~, • • • r. i~~;/ ~.}s*:,j-~i 'i K~~lii~ . :.rab.i i ter, q~~" r ~r•,~ ,-~ P 4x5' • Appikadoa NoJLoattla~: &wtopt Vipsfe Applkant/Owner: CMy of Type of Applicatlon: Goandi Request for Planning Commiezion Review of e Partdng Ordinance . St~Plaaner: Lock Tiafew ' . Amt Cky MaaaOer • M~ Date; Angnst Z4, ZOOS. ~~~ APN• ent Herd: PLANNING COIVIIVIISSION STUDY SESSION DISCUSSION . •~ , Dam this Study Session tl~t Plowxhig Ca~~ sway only dltcrrts keeps d to the p The ageAda dots yet allow otry fsr~l vetes or motions ow tA~e propgstsl proJtat or ohUer matters ?he Study Session tr .a faa Jlndiag we~tin8 where the Commission may ~~ the iteor and os~r gytsl~ons frow or hear start~e~ from members of the public g the ~e~ing. No c+emments made daring the Sai~y Session by tJis Planning Commlasiow ars binding or r+sgaired to bt ca~rrisd t~owgli to tht formol.P hearing when acATons will:bs to~sw on the proposed proJa~ , MAPS See attached zoning map of Saratoga Village and map of Saratoga Village parking , :- ~ diatricte, both inch~ded as. Attachmdrt A. CASg HISTORY ~oimcil Request Maw: 4J2aos A,pp>;cation compiata: N/A Notice published; 8!10!05 Mailing completed: 8/9!05 Posting completed:. 8/18/05 oc~ooos • ~~~~. ~~,~,;~Q ~171a~'ta t11Y~El+Oil i3l~ ~YC.II$ 8i~C8S--fOUi' BpCC1fiC j.1$ ~38tiiCtS•iDt~ 0~~ ~0. A '~-' talfle is b~: ~ . ,.. of gross - ed with i 979 (tile space-far each 380. sq. 4 8~ 3 d with 1988 Oate fcr each 330 sq.R of gross 3 floods at+ea Buaiayeeeet a~cisted with 1979 one apace far e®ch 380 sq.tt. of gross p 4 floor area wed with i space Pea' 200 ~9~ groaa :floor area all o peg leas for retail use eJC~pt foc r~cst~t»nts-- they are requu~ed to hive 1 spacae for . each 75 .ft. a :: floor aa+ea propca#ies located within a paiicing district are ct~i~par~rbk to. other . .: , , w'ee`, t~ requirements associated-with the areas outs~Cl+e of eatabli~e~rod parting d~ restrictive than typically found else~rhere. -The won penrented tiv `:;~ ibe aepo~t inclr-ded as Attachmean B contains. a comgartsos~-table of parkin8 ~• Oi10b0 .. . Under the parking district structure, property owners in each area were required to pay a pazking district assessment that was used to repay bonds sold by the City. The bond proceeds were then combined with City funds to pay for the purchase of and improvements to the parking areas. In return, each property owner then received a specific number of development rights based on a calculation that took into account squaze footage of their property among other considerations. The properties outside of the districts were not required to pay a pazking district assessment. This difference in financial support is the basis for the different requirements. "Extra" Spaces in District 3 All public pazking azeas in the Village are owned by the City. Only one district has "extra" spaces-District #3 has 31.2 spaces available. The City owns these spaces as well. In October 1988, these 31.2 extra spaces were converted to 312 development rights, (DR) and made available to the property owners in that district at a cost of $1,360 per DR ($13,600 per space) until January 30, 1989. After that time, the price increased to $1,450 per DR (or $14,500 per space). After September 1989 the price was indexed to increase according to a calculation used by Caltrans. The price in January 2001 was calculated at $19,546 per space (in response to a request). Today's price has not been calculated. Any property owner could potentially purchase or lease the extra spaces in VPD #3 and depending on which property owner took advantage of the remaining 312 DRs (31.2 spaces) with which uses, the following new development could occur: Square feet of new space in each District with use of remainin 312 develo ment ri is Parking Pazking Parking Pazking Properties in District #1 District #2 District #3 District #4 azea outside Parking Districts Retail/Office 14,773 11,856 10,920 11,856 6,240 Restaurant 14,773 11,856 10,920 11,856 2,340 However, the purchase cost of the 312 development rights using the current Caltrans calculation would likely exceed $600,000. Options for Changes to Parking Ordinance A number of changes to the parking requirements aze possible. Staff developed the following list: Make changes to requirements that apply to the area not currently in a parking district Create a new parking district • O(lOQ(JJ • Change the parking requirements in all areas to provide greater flexibility in property use and expansion; for example, cutting in half the number of spaces needed for various uses ^ Suspend all parking requirements for a fixed amount of time, i.e., one year Community Meeting Part of Council's direction to staff in April was to gather input from Village property and business owners. All were invited, as well as other interested parties, to a meeting on July 27, 2005, to provide feedback on the options identified by staff and/or make other suggestions. Approximately 25 community members attended including the following: Eugene Zambetti Kathy Phelan Michelle Beck Arlene & Jim Rosenfeld Annette Casabone Chris Van Hoy Jason Sweeney Rick Ratra Christine Calice Marilyn Marchetti Mitchell Cutler Francisco J.C. Masek Bill Cooper Klaus Pache John Marian Greg Pache Nassar Heikali Bernard Wallace Virginia Fiorentino Kathleen King, Norman Kline, John Livingstone, Michele Braucht and I attended on behalf of the City. Discussion included the reason for the meeting, how changes to existing parking requirements fit within the Village Revitalization goals, a brief history of parking districts, review of options for parking changes developed by staff, and suggested new options by group. A list of options-both those generated by staff and by the group-with specific comments is included as Attachment C. No option for change was supported by everyone; however, when asked who would like the Village to stay the same and the City to take no action, no one raised their hand. Other comments made at the meeting: ^ Explore ways to revitalize the Village other than changing the parking at least for now • Monitor development elsewhere in Saratoga (i.e., Argonaut, Quito, etc.) because activities there can adversely affect Village ^ City should consider permitting bed & breakfast establishments • Investigate options related to the creek, i.e., create a Creek walk, culvert the creek and pave/construct over it; staff agreed to research ^ Staff suggested installing parking meters to create funds to support pazking garage construction -received mixed response frgm the group • parking time limits if enforced need to reflect actual use, i.e., make the time frame 4 hours instead of two to allow shoppers to lunch, spa, shop in same visit. Possible Changes to Parking Ordinance Part of an Overall Strategy The City Council is .also interested_in explgrinng_other_revitalization strategies in addition to potential changes to pazking regulations. Other ordinance changes such as allowing bed & breakfast establishments aze being discussed and there is potential for creating a Village Association and/or a Business Improvement District among Village property and business owners. With the relinquishment of the Village sidewalks to the City from Caltrans including $741,000 in funds, infrastructure upgrades can also be considered. A local VTA shuttle that could move shoppers to the Village is under development. City staff members aze exploring interest in a small, weekday evening Farmer's Market and other visitor-attracting events. The new improved relationship between the City and the Chamber of Commerce could also contribute to a new synergy focused on the Village. Council will discuss "Village Revitalization" in more detail at their September 7, 2005, meeting. ENVIItONME1vTAI. DETERMINATION Changes to the parking ordinance are subject to environmental review under CEQA. COMMU1vITY INPUT All attendees who signed in at the July 27 meeting were notified and invited to this study session, in addition to the regular noticing procedures. ATTACHIVIENTS A. Maps of Saratoga Village B. Council Report dated Apri120, 2005 C. Two-page table of options developed by staff and the community group at the July 27 meeting, including pros and cons of each D. Correspondence received on this issue E. City of Saratoga Notice, Noticing Affidavit and Noticing Labels • O~)On(3a ATTACHMENT A ~ 1. Map of Saratoga Village showing zoning designations 2. Map of Saratoga Village Parking Districts • ~~~~~ I ~°~q c ~.~~Q~U B E RY C ~' ~ q 0 ~~f .;:: X ~~ ~~ r.,, .: S~ Y• ~~~~ ~~ • • C, CITY OF SARATOGA f~~RI~CNI~ [~k~~F~~~T~ ~- ~~ ti w J~ '/rVy/F -. . .., ., , ~, I' ':. ~. i ~ '~~~ ,:~ `~. ~ _T at. . ' ~?~ S~ %~Z i \ ,` ~ ; ` ~ j \~~~I 11 1 \ \s, ~ ~ `` ,' etGB~''"WAY '~ , ~~ 11 ~''~~ f, ': SIG ~ ;. x ••~,; , ~~ 1 i ' ~ '~~~ LEGEND ~~ Parking District #1 - 119 Spaces Parking District #2 - 65 Spaces ~~ Parking District #3 - 206 Spaces ~~ Parking District #4 - 60 Spaces i Businesses using Parking District #1 Businesses using Parking District #2 Businesses using Parking District #3 Businesses using Parking District #4 r •. ~~~. r~ ~ ~. ~~ ~.: -~. ;' •` '`\ . ~ ~~~ ,_. ~~. . ~, . i %~ ~' %~ .` ~ o\y~i`,~. ~~.` N April 2005 Copyright 2004 Santa Clara County, All Rights~i~~~n V ~~... / ~, f J \ j/ I~ ~1~r > ~ :~ \~~~,;`~ ,~\ OAK ~`~ `%,.~ ' . :fir. , ~ ATTACHMENT B Council Report dated Apri120, 2005 • • SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: Apri120, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager's Office CITY MANAGER: PREPARED BY: DEPT HEAD: Lorie Tinfow, Asst. City Mgr. .SUBJECT: Review of Village Parking Standards RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Lorie Tinfow, Asst. City Mgr. Direct Planning Commission to review existing parking requirements for Village businesses and make recommendation to City Council regarding changes. Direct staff to meet with affected businesses and/or property owners in the Village to discuss the implications of any changes. REPORT SUMMARY: The Village continues to struggle to retain businesses and attract customers. The City of Sazatoga has taken a number of steps to help: installed new benches and trash receptacles, new parking signs, and lighting in the trees to improve the evening ambience. The City has co-sponsored events such as the annual tree-lighting ceremony, Art in the Park, etc., to bring people into the Village. However, future Village support will be far less than in the recent past as a result of budget reductions for 2005-06. Council has directed staff to cut funding for Economic Development in the next fiscal yeaz. Parking Standards Reviewed The Village Ad Hoc Committee, comprised of Mayor Kathleen King and Vice Mayor Norman Kline, has been seazching for no or low cost activities that would help support the Village. One constraint on business expansion and attracting new businesses is the stringent pazking standards that apply to businesses outside of the four prescribed Parking Districts. Sazatoga's parking standards are shown in the following table: Location Parkin Standard Businesses associated with Parkin District 1 Ones ace for each 473.5 s .ft. of oss floor area Businesses associated with Parkin District 2 Ones ace for each 380 s .ft. of oss floor area Businesses associated with Parkin District 3 Ones ace for each 350 s .ft. of oss floor area Businesses associated with Parkin District 4 Ones ace for each 380 s .ft. of oss floor area Businesses associated with all other parking ~.e~ 1 space per 200 sq.ft. gross floor azea except for restaurants-they are required to have 1 space for each 75 s .ft. of oss floor area • • O+(lOFi~~,Cj A map of Saratoga business azeas and corresponding Pazking Districts is included as Attachment A. A quick survey of small cities with similaz central business districts shows that Sazatoga requires more parking for those business not included in a Sazatoga pazking district than other communities. See Attachment B "Pazking Standazds for Downtown Business Districts." Village Parking Options Several options exist to modify pazking requirements and enable existing businesses to expand and/or property owners to attract new business including the following: Standardize pazking requirements for all Village businesses Set the standazds for the non-Parking District properties at the lowest level-required in a parking district Suspend parking requirements for a fixed amount of time, for example 1-5 years Any of these options could potentially improve the economic vitality of the Village by permitting a wider range of businesses as well as an increase in total business square footage. Village Parking Capacity A Village pazking study was conducted in July 2002 (included as Attachment C) that showed pazking demand highest during lunch and dinner hours and that Parking lots 1, 2 and 4 were most used. However, during all times, additional pazking capacity existed in the Village. Modifying pazking standazds might create business activity that would fill the vacant spaces. Next Steps The Village Ad Hoc Committee believes suspending or relaxing parking requirements could be a low cost way to stimulate activity in the Village. If Council agrees, staffwould collect further information. The Planning Commission would then evaluate the information and develop a recommendation to the City Council. In addition, staff anticipates that business and/or property owners may have differing opinions about the attractiveness of changing the pazking standazds. Many have bought into established parking districts to meet the requirements at the time they came to Saratoga. Staff expects meetings with the Village business community and the Chamber of Commerce to be needed to explain any possible changes and gather feedback. ' FISCAL IMPACTS: The process to gather information, work with the Planning Commission and hold meetings would require staff time; implementation would require City Attorney time in order to make the necessary changes to our Municipal Code. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): No changes to the pazking standazds would occur at this time. 2 of 3 ~(~n(l~„~, ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): N/a FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Staff will implement Council's direction. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACIiMENTS: • Attachment A: Map of Saratoga Business Areas and Corresponding Parking Districts Attachment B: Parking Standards for Downtown Business Districts Attachment C: Village Parking Survey conducted by Fehr & Peers, July 2002 • 3 of 3 nl[~~1~1~.~ ~~ ~ ~ CITY OF SARATOGA PARKING Q~STRICTS ,,~ ~, ~~ WA ete ~ gTG QP LEGEND . ~-- Parking District #1 - 119 Spaces --- Parking District #2 - 65 Spaces ~~ Parking District #3 - 206 Spaces .~...... Parking District #4 - 60 Spaces Businesses using Parking District #1 Businesses using Parking District #2 Businesses using Parking District #3 Businesses using Parking District #4 N April 2005 o~ • Copyright 2004 Santa Clara County, All Rghts Reserved ~ lJ ~o ~I • • • ATTACHMENT' B °~ r ~~ Parking Standards for Downtown Business Districts The following matrix of parking standards includes parking standards in municipalities in the general vicinity of the City of Saratoga and those with downtown business districts facine similar issues to those faced by $aratAQa_ Land Use Saratoga Los Gatos Campbell Campbell Lafayette ~ Orinda Novato Downtown General Central Basinesa (pop 23,908) (pop~17,600) (pop 48,000) Central DlsMct/Shared Special Retail Downtown Downtown Area Business Parking Facility Business District Zoning DisMct DisMct Professional office 1 space/200 sq ft ross floor area 1 space/250 sq ft fl 1 space/425 sq ft 1 space/250 sq ft net 1 space/250 sq ft 1 space/250 sq ft g gross oor area gross floor area floor area gross floor area Retail 1 space/200 sq ft 1 space/300 sq ft 1 space/200sq ft i space/345 aq ft 1 space/250 sq ft net 1 space/250 sq ft 1 space/300 sq ft gross floor area gross floor area gross floor area floor area gross floor area, plus 1 space%ach company vehicle Services 1 space/200 sq ft 1 space/250 sq ft 1 space/250 sq ft gross 1 space/345 sq ft 1 spaceJ250 sq ft net 1 space/300 sq ft gross floor area gross floor area floor area gross floor area floor area gross floor area Banks 1 space/200 sq ft ] spacd250 sq ft 1 spacd350 sq ft gross 1 space/350 sq ft 1 space/200 sq ft net l space/20b sq ft , 1 space/250 sq ft gross floor area gross floor area floor area gross floor area floor area plus 3 spaces for gross floor area each teller window - and ATM Restaurant 1 space/75 sq ft no bar 1 1 space/every 3 seats; 1 1 space/4 seats 1 space/45 sq ft 1 space/3 Beats 1 s 50 ft pace/2 sq gross -floor area space/every 4 space/250 sq ft gross gross during area indoor and outdoor (indoors and/or seats2; floor area iftake-out and i apaceJ500 sq seating area and outdoors). w/bar, taverns, ft of gross kitchen waiting/lounge nightclubs area area 1 space/every 3 seats Districts 1 Range of N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A through 4 1 space1350 sq ft to lspace/ 473.5 sq ft ~ "Gross floor area" includes space such as stairways, hallways, etc.; "net floor area" does not. Z Some cities have a philosophy of using seat count instead of square footage to determine parking requirements and there is no consistent comparison between the two. Square footage has one advantage-it's easier to regulate. " . fp ~. FEHR ~ PEERS TpANSPONTATION CONSULTANTS July 23, 2002 Ms. Lurie Tinfow City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: July 2002 Parkil~g Surveys for Saratoga Village 1013-I13A Dear Ms. Tinfow: Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. completed parking surveys: in the Village area of Saratoga as requested by staff: The purpose of these surveys is to evaluate the parking supply to determine if it is sufficient to accommodate the existing demand. This letter summarizes our findings. Parking Occupancy Surveys Parking occupancy surveys were conducted in the village area on Wednesday, July 17 and Saturday, July 20 to measure the actual parking demand of the existing land uses for a typical weekday and weekend day. The numbers of parked vehicles were recorded once an hour between the hours of 9:00 am and 10:00 pm. On-street and ofl=street parking spaces included in the surveys are shown on Figure 1. Results The proportion of spaces occupied were charted versus time and are presented on the attached graphs (Figures 2 through 4). The graphs illustrate the surplus spaces. available at a given time that surveys were conducted. On-Street Parkins The on-street parking surveys show that all the parking spaces were never fully occupied in the Village area on a weekday or weekend day. The highest percentage of occupied spaces occurred during the evening hours between 7:00 pm and 9:00 pm. As would be expected of areas with retail and restaurant uses, the lunch hours between 11:00 am and • • 255 N. Market Street, Suite 200 San Jose; CA 95]]0 (408) 278-7700 Fax (408) 278-1717 www.fehrandpeers.com (~~'(~~~ ~,; t • -~ FEHR ~ PEERS TRANS/ONTATION CONSULTANTS Ms. Lurie Tinfow July 23, 2002 Page 2 2:00 pm also showed an increased occupancy compared to the morning and afternoon hours. Wednesday District Lot Occunancy In general, parking lots should provide a surplus of approximately 10 percent for vehicles to circulate and find an open space. During the weekday, Lot 1 never exceeded this threshold. Lots 3 and S experienced the majority of the' demand in the midday hours between 11:00 am and 2:00 pm. Lot S exceeded the ninety percent occupancy threshold during the 1:00 pm hour with Lot 3 very near the threshold at the same time. Lots 2 aad 4 were very near capacity at the lunch hour and at 100 percent capacity at the dinner hours (7;00 ~ 9;00 pm) during the weekday. Saturday District Lot Occuvancv On Saturday, Lots 1, 2, and 4 generally showed the same occupancy pattern with occupied spaces increasing throughout the day and peaking in the evening hours. Lots 1 and 2 exceeded the design threshold (90 percent) during the afternoon (1:00 and 2:00 pm) and evening (8:00 and 10:00 pm) hours. Lot 4 was 100 percent occupied from 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm. Lot 3 was approximately twenty to forty percent occupied throughout Saturday. Lot 5 peaked at 1:00 pm and gradually decreased occupancy throughout the rest of the day. Comparison to September 2001 Data In a previous study, the same counts were conducted on September 19 and 22, 2001. Bar graphs comparing the differences between the dates are. also attached (see Figures S through 8). Generally, the percentages did not vary greatly. However, one exception was the occupancy of the parking lots on Saturday. During the .evening hours, the more recent counts were over twenty percent lower then the previous counts. It should be noted that the counts conducted in July 2002 included an additional lot with 42 spaces (Saratoga Village Center). • • a~nc~~,~ t Ms. Lurie Tinfow July 23, 2002 Page 3 FEHR ~ PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS If you have any questions regarding our findings, please do not hesitate to call us. sincerely, FEHR & PEERS ASSOCIATES, INC. /~ D. Sohrab Rashid,/P.E. Senior Associate J on Ne dahl Transportation Engineer attachments nt By: Fehr 8 Peers Associates; .; • ~~ • 408 278 1717; Jul-23-02 2:29PM; Page 5 .:~ WdC ' r ~~ ~ ~ `~v t . 1F" Yom. h 0 • _ __ Z ~~ ~~ ~~ 4'~,~y 1~ ~ o •. ~' .e --~ ,E !~~ r~~~~` ` o . 1 N ~~ .~ ~~~ ~ N a d O ® ~ ~- n~~~~: ~; ~u«~~ • • • 0 ~$ j D i ~ g j V ~$ ~S 9. ~8 ~8 ~8 ~~$ ~$ ~$ ~p _ ~_ ,/~ W N O c ~ ~ ~ c o `° ~« N m 7 a O N a ~g~~. ~~~8. ,,~ ~ ~~' i ~ • • • Percent of Spaces Occupied N w A c~ v~ v oo co g 0 0 0 ~\~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~~~ • • Figure 3 Parking Space Occupancy-District Lots Only (Wednesday) 100% 90% 80% is 70% a~ a 60% m o. 50% 0 ~ 40% m v m a 30% 20% 10% 0°~ 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00. 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00' 8:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM ~ PM PM PM PM Time • • • -f-Lot 1-Wed -~ Lot 2-Wed Lot 3-Wed ----Lot 4Wed ~~ -+- Lot 5-W ed • • • • Figure 4 Parking Space Occupancy-District Lots Only (Saturday) ra ~~ 100% 90% SO% a 70% d .a O 60% a~ d a 50% 0 ~ 40% m .. m a 30°~ 20°h 10°~ 0% • DO ~-- Lot 1-Sat Lot 2-Sat - Lot 3-Sat ~• Lot 4-Sat -+- Lot 5-Sat • nm rim nw~ r n. .... .... .... --- --- • 1nIT18 . • • • ;~. I~, 100% 90% 80% 70% .~.. ~ a. ~ 60% C U ~ O 50% a.. a V1 ~ 40% ca N 30% 20% 10% ~0% Figure 5 Parking Space Occupancy-Lots September 2001 vs: July 2002 counts (Wednesday) 9:00 10:00 11:00.12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 ~ 5:00 6:00 7:00 .8:00 AM AM AM ~ PM PM ~ PM PM PM PM PM PM PM Time 10:00 PM ^ Sept 01 ^July 02 • • • • • • a r. t.. . . - .. .. -. - .- .. „~ ,,. .. .~ . • ,. ,,. ,. . . - ~~. ~~. ~~. ~~ o~io • • 9:00 10:0011:0012:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 5:00 9:00.10:00 AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM ~ PM PM PM PM PM Time • • • Figure 7 . Parking Space Occupancy-On-Street - - - --- - - - - - - - ---- ~ 100% 90% 80% 70% w. ~- ~ 60% ~ 50% °' a ~ 40% ~ ~ 30% 20% 10% 0% • • • 9:0010:0011:0012:001:00 2:00 3:00 -4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:0010:Ob AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM, Time • • ~ :~ A~ ~i m ._ o ~ U ~ 0 i ~ ~ U a ~ a. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Figure 8 Parking Space Occupancy-On-Street September 2001 vs. July 2002 counts (Saturday) • • • 9:0010.:Oq.1:Oq.2:001:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:0010:00 AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM -~'M Tirhe ATTACHMENT C ~ Two-page table of options -_ _ _- - -- developed by staff and community • t~nnc~~s • • • Option A: Make Option B: Option C: Change the parking Changes to Area Create a new requirements in all areas (i.e., Outside Parking parking district reduce by half); would create a Districts Only number of design rights for each existing property owner that could be traded and/or sold to others needed for new business a or ex ansion ~~: - ~= Staff _ Doesn't directly _ Consistency Equal treatmerit7opportumty; identified affect those within Pros established pazking districts Addresses most Would require All could benefit; would create restrictive of the agreement and opportunity to buy and sell areas buy-in ($) by parking ro ert owners Associated with a Substantial potential for number of energizing the Village properties so the effect could be substantive and ositive Group May improve Could create an Would allow the Village to grow identified business for in-lieu fee towazd Pros everyone building a azkin aza e -3e . _ ~yy~,.~ ~}yak. _ ~~ ~ T' Staff May be perceived, Implementation Implementation and identified as inequitable to and administration challenging Cons properties in other administration azkin districts challen 'n May create too May create too May create too much traffic much traffic much traffic Group Creates inequity None noted There aze vacant spaces now; identified with other property how would this option help? Cons owners A credit bank is not attractive; 'ust more bureaucrac Heard of example in other city where owners were able to get onl $500 er credit Option D: Suspend Option E: (Generated Option F: (Generated all parking by the group) by the group) requirements fora Relax all parking Suspend parking fixed period requirements and requirements but development assess in-lieu fee for restrictions (i.e., lot new development; coverage and height) in funds would go the Village fora 5-year toward new parking enod _ _ ara e ~~:,;z u Start Equal Equal treatment/new identified treatment/opportunity development wouldn't Pros get something for nothin Easy to implement Relatively easy to and administer administer Impact could be monitored year to year; program could be either stopped or extended depending on outcome Greatest potential for energizing the Villa e Group Discussion evolved to Could create a "gold identified create Options E & F 'rush" mentality Pros xt columns e see n .~F y ~.}y ,~,{~ State May create too much Changes to both parking Would take identified ~.~c and development would considerable amount of Cons be a little more complex in-lieu fees to cover than arkin alone ara a costs Some properties could benefit more than others Discussion evolved to create Options E & F see next columns Group Could create a "gold identified rush" mentality Cons May jeopardize the Villa e's uaintness • • • ~~n~~ ~ ~ ATTACHMENT D Correspondence received on the topic • • n~1nQ~~ 9 ~iUG ~ ~ 2005 G`i''i"'`'~c~~St~f~2,STCGA ! ~ ~~. ~ ~~~~~~ ~.~. ~- 0 o -__ _ ~ t9't/ Uh'w`~ ~t~ ~ D U~ OD0,1 ~f~DDO ~~ t~r~.,~c.~-~ vL ~ ~f ~~ vDv C ~-L!/L Cam` J ,~~ ~~ , ~„~~~~_~~~"~.-/-~ ~!¢~~?~'~, U ~~ a-w' vu~~--.i ~~,.o~w~ut, 2w,.~ ,G-c- d ~~ ~ ..G~~loi ~~. ~~ ~ „",~" ~Q~~ ~ t s r ~~_~~ _ f ~e.,~~_ d~,aa.~ .a~~,oL oyt/ _ ~/L.~ Pagel of 1 Lorie Tinfow From: John Livingstone Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 6:09 PM To: Lorie Tinfow Subject: FW: PUBLIC NOTICE RE PARKING IN TOWN FYI From: Andrea Sandoval Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 5:18 PM To: John Livingstone Subject: FW: PUBLIC NOTICE RE PARKING IN TOWN -----Original Message----- From: MASEK@aol.com [mailto:MASEK@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 5:02 PM To: Andrea Sandoval Subject: PUBLIC NOTICE RE PARKING IN TOWN ' DEAR MS. SANDOVAL IN REFERENCE TO OUR EARLIER DISCUSSION OF TODAY IN REGARDS TO THE ABOVE, I SHOULD LIKE TO INFORM YOU THAT I HAVE RECENED IT WITH TODAY'S NOON MAIL DELIVERY. ALTHOUGH IT WAS MAILED AUGUST 9th 2005 (as per postmark on envelope) AND TODAY IS THE 16 nth, I FEEL THAT NO ONE HAS ENOUGH TIME TO SUBMIT A WRITTEN COMMUNNICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BEFORE THE END OF TODAY ! MAYBE, FUTURE NOTICES MIGHT BE MAILED OUT 2 WEEKS EARLIER? PERSONALLY, I FEEL THERE ARE AMPLE PARKING FACILITIES IN ALL THE DISTRICTS, HOWEVER WHAT IS NEEDED IS A PROPER DISTRIBUTION/ALLOCATION ETC. WHERE SHOP KEEPERS AND EMPLOYEES MIGHT PURCHASE FROM THE CITY A "PARKING PERMIT AND PARK IN SUCH DESIGNATED AREAS, THUS NOT TAKING AWAY VALUABLE SPACES NEEDED FOR THE PUBLIC.. WE, THE PROPERTY OWNERS WERE ASKED BY THE EARLIER CITY COUNCILS, TO PROVIDE "CUSTOMER PARKING", WHICH TODAY, AND WITHOUT ANY CONTROL IS JUST A FREE FOR ALL. AMICABLY, • Joseph Masek ATTACHMENT E ~ City of Saratoga Notice, --- - Noticing. ~f~davt-and.: ---- Noticing Labels • • ~l~nt~32 NOTE TO SARATOGA NEWS: THIS IS A LEGAL AD. Please typeset text. Any questions should be directed to Andrea at 868-1222 (Publish Saratoga News August 10, 2005) NOTICE OF STUDY SESSION WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF SARATOGA'S PLANNING COMMISSION: announces the following Study Session on Wednesday, the 24th day of August at 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. at 19848 Prospect Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. - -_ The study sessions are 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 concenls 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. APPLICATION # OS-179 (386-26-070 & 071) CITY OF SARATOGA, 19848 Prospect. Road; -Planning Commission Study Session to review a request for a ,Tentative Map Subdivision, General Plan Amendment from a Quasi Public Facility to Medium Density Residential, General Plan Conformity Determination for Property Disposal, and Mitigated Negative Declaration, to demolish the existing church facility and replace it with 9 single family residential lots. NOTICE OF HEARING BEFORE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF SAR.ATOGA'S PLANNING COMMISSION announces the following public hearings on Wednesday, the' 24th day of August at 7:00 p.m. in the Adult Day Care Room 19655 Allendale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Details and plans are a-vailable at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Thursday, 7:30 a.m. - S:Oi) p.m. If you have questions, Planners are available at the public counter between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 12:00 noon. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting. APPLICATION #06-020 (389-05-021) LOVOI, 19152 De Havilland Drive; -Appeal by aforesaid property owner of an Administrative decision denying the removal of a Canary Island Pine tree at the noted address. APPLICATION #04-177(386-35-069) NEXTEL, 19550 Prospect Avenue (12033 Miller Avenue - Chuj•ch of the Ascension); - Nextel requests use permit approval to locate a wireless facility at the aforesaid address. The project consists of the installation and operation of concealed cellular antennas. Related equipment cabinets will be installed in a proposed enclosed area attached to one of the buildings on the property. n~n~~~ NOTICE OF STUDY SESSION II WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION A second Study Session will be held immediately after the regular Planning Commission meeting that starts at 7:00 p.m. The Study Session will be held in the Adult Day Care Room 19655 Allendale Avenue immediately after the regular meeting. APPLICATION # 06-049 CITY OF SARATOGA, Saratoga Village; -Planning Commission Study Session to review alternatives to reduce parking requirements for _ _ --- _ _ commercial business in the downtown Village area in order to promote business m e downtown area. ~/$ ~~F • • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, Lorie Tinfow, 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 9th day of August, 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 e addresses shown, to-wit: (See list attached hereto and made part ' persons at th 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 the area immediately affected by changes to parking requirements in Saratoga Village; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. ( ^~ Lorie Tinfow Assistant City Manager ~~~~~~ 50367001 FITZSIMMONS KATHLEEN A 14605 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6081 50367004 FITZSIMMONS KATHLEEN A 14605 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6081 50367002 FITZSIMMONS KATHLEEN A 14605 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6081 50367005 BOSCOE MARY B PO BOX 2423 SARATOGA 95070-0423 50367003 FITZSIlVIl~~IONS JOSEPH J TRUSTEE & ET AL 14611 BIG BASIN WY UNITE SARATOGA CA 95070-6073 50367006 FITZSIlVIlvIONS KATHLEEN A CA 14605 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6081 50376001 50376002 50376003 CHEN CHENG J-AJND-LIlV-F'ENG CI~I-'TELLY-ADD CHOW _. ------ K~VEi~ATHERINE Y TRUSTEE Y CHEN EUGENE & ET AL 603 FOREST AV PALO ALTO 1125 HUMBOLDT RD BRISBANE TAI CHI CA 94301-2623 CA 94005-1728 1125 HUMBOLDT RD BRISBANE 50376004 50376005 50376006 HSU DORA HUI-I RUBENSTEIN MICHAEL J CALVO OVIDIO AND WENDY 14591 BIG BASIN WY 14593 BIG BASIN WY 14595 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6069 SARATOGA CA 95070-6069 SARATOGA CA 95070-6069 50376007 OLSON GREGORY G AND MII.LER TRACEY M TRUSTEE 14597 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6069 51709051 DIPIETRO DECOKES 14613 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070-6015 50376008 BARATTA-LORTON ROBERT 14599 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA CA 95070 51709052 MAITRA SIDHARTHA AND ANURADHA 14455 PIKE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 50376009 CHEN JUNE F PO BOX 2963 SARATCSGA CA 95070-0963 51709053 GLASS JACQUELYN M TRUSTEE 14110 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN SARATOGA CA 95070-5418 51709054 51709055 51709056 CANINE MAGDALENE A FITZPATRICK JOSEPH A JENKIl~TS PATRICIA M TRUSTEE 14605 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 14603 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 14607 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070-6015 95070-6015 95070-6015 51709063 DALTON PETER J TRUSTEE & ET AL 14467 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070-6025 51709066 BUSSE ROBERT K AND LISA C 14461 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070-6025 51709074 MONGRAW VIOLET F TRUSTEE 14591 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070-6075 51709064 MICHELI STEVEN L AND FRANCIS CYNTHIA R 14465 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070-6025 51709072 SCHREMPP JAMES B 14587 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070-6075 51709075 ALFORD GARY D 14593 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070-6075 51709065 MC KIBBEN TED JR AND PEGGY L 14463 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070-6025 51709073 REDMON RAY D TRUSTEE & ET AL 14589 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070-6075 51709076 LALLY JAMES P TRUSTEE & AL 21764 CONGRESS HALL LN SARATOGA CA 95070-9714 c~~n~~6 51709077 MCGILL PATRICK 7 OAK ST SARATOGA CA -6075 51729003 BROSTROM EDWARD H AND KAY C 14662 C BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6047 51729006 HANSEN=~RAiG AND -- QUELLA CLAUDIA TRUST 14664 B BIG BASIN WY UNIT 15 SARATOGA CA 95070-6048 51729009 PIZZILLO THOMAS A ET AL 14666 C BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6062 51729012 LEISHMAN GAYLEN W AND ELIZABETH P 185 BIG BASIN WY 5 29015 -.. _.. - - - - - - - - - BOWERS MARILYN H TRUSTEE 14652 D BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6044 51729018 SMERDON GARY J AND WHEATLEY SANDRA L ET AL 14654 B BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6009 51729021 WOLFE DONALD L 14656 C BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6045 >1729024 BRANDEBERRY JEROME E 14658 C BIG BASIN WY UNIT 26 3ARATOGA CA 95070-6042 027 Y JULIANNE K 14660 A BIG BASIN WY 3ARATOGA CA 95070-6046 51729001 KEAST DENISE T 14662 A BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA CA 95070 51729004 MARSHALL FRANK J AND JUDITH M TRUSTEE 14510 BIG BASIN WY UNIT #265 SARATOGA CA 95070 51729007 HENSLIi~i Wii;LiA1Vi E-TRUSTEE-- &ETAL 14666 A BIG BASIN WY UNIT 3 SARATOGA CA 95070-6042 51729010 MARSHALL FRANK J AND JUDITH M 14510 BIG BASIN WY UNIT #265 SARATOGA CA 95070-6324 51729013 MOYLES DAVID P AND DENISE B TRUSTEE 20201 HILL AV SARATOGA CA 95070-6352 51729016 SUN PETER T AND ROSA S ET AL BENJAMIN P SUN 19951 DURHAM CT SARATOGA 51729019 GRAHAM NANCY B TRUSTEE NANCY GRAHAM 1650 CAMERON RD ELK CA 95432 51729022 ANDERSON MARGARET M TRUSTEE 14656 B BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6045 51729025 BLANCHARD ROBERT N 14658 B BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6063 51729028 HARTMAN DENISE S 14660 C BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA CA 95070 51729002 GRACE LARRY W 14662 B BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6047 51729005 BELUR RAKISH 14664 C BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6048 51729008 MILLERTiENRY S Ai~tD EVELYN J 123 LA RINCONADA DR LOS GATOS CA 95030-1716 51729011 GENOVESE KAREN A 14650 C BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6043 51729014 KATHERMAN VIRGINYA C TRUSTEE P O BOX 191 SARATOGA ~A 95071-0191 5172901.7 PARKER RUSSELL 14654 A BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6009 51729020 HAYDON SANDRA L AND SANDRA L TR/T TRUSTEE 135 ALTURA VISTA LOS GATOS CA 95032 , 51729023 BURRELL MARGARET C 14658 A BIG BASIN WY UNIT 9 SARATOGA CA 95070-6042 51729026 COSENTINO-ROUSH GEORGE E AND COSENTINO PAUL 6585 LITTLE FALLS DR SAN JOSE CA 95120-4050 51729029 WONG FRANK W 14660 D BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6046 51734001 GRABLE TRUDY LYNN M TRUSTEE 1238 CORDELIA AV SAN JOSE CA 95129-4212 51734004 CANNIZZARO ANTHONY J AND MARGARET J 19540 REDBERRY DR LOS GATOS CA 95030-2931 51734007 SIlVIP~ON TAIVIAZZA J __ -----_---.._..- 14527 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070-6074 51734002 BARDHAN PRASENJIT 1648 MARIPOSA AV PALO ALTO CA 94306-1026 51734005 FOX KATHERINE J ET AL 14537 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070-6074 51734008 _ -I~-CHbLS MI~H~IEL-I' AND------ BETH ATRUSTEE 14525 OAK ST UNIT H SARATOGA CA 95070-6074 51734003 SULLIVAN VERONICA 14541 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070-6074 51734006 ALFORD GARY D ET AL 14593 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070-6075 • 50324008 ~ANCELLIERI ROBERT & S IRLEY TRUSTEE 0 CODY LN TOGA CA 95070-6018 50324009 CANCELLIERI ROBERT & SHIRLEY TRUSTEE 14860 CODY LN SARATOGA CA 95070-6018 50324015 50324020 50324023 ~ 50324027 LONG RUTH M TRUSTEE STAUSS CHARLES J & CUTLER MITCH & TRACY PO BOX 2095 ELSBETH R 14480 OAK PL SARATOGA CA 95070-0095 PO BOX 2265 SARATOGA CA 95070-5910 SARATOGA CA 95070-0265 50324029 50324030 50324034 PA3'SY~,~U =_-- ---- ~----TOSCO~VIA~KETING-t0 DC1.7 TRUSTEE L TRUSTEE P.O. BOX 52085 112 CALFHILL CT 621 DEL ROY CT PHOENIX AZ 85072 LOS GATOS CA 95032 CAMPBELL CA 95008-1834 50324046 STN AT SARATOGA INC. 20645 4TH ST SARATOGA CA 95070-5867 50324050 PAYNE GEORGE M TRUSTEE 15940 ROCHIN TR LOS GATOS CA 95032-0000 50324051 CASABONNE YVES G & ANNETTE E TRUSTEE P O BOX 247 EL VERANO CA 95433-0247 50324054 ~RAWFORD OTTO M & BETTE [t TRUSTEE 12471 GREENMEADOW LN TOGA CA 95070-3032 ~ 4059 3ULLIVAN L~M & LOUELLA M TRUSTEE ETAL ?0570 CANYON VIEW DR 3ARATOGA CA 95070-5876 10324063 vIELTON THELMA D TRUSTEE ?TAL 1710 SANTA LUCIA DR JVOODLAND HILLS CA 91364 10324067 20SENFELD JAMES I & ~RLENE H TRUSTEE 14219 OKANOGAN DR iARATOGA CA 95070-5549 10324072 3ROZDA JOSEPH & HELEN TRUSTEE !35 LINDEN ST SANTA CRUZ CA 95062-1019 076 RESS NOT AVAILABLE-5 KK 50324057 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE PO BOX 6000 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92658- 6000 50324060 BLOXHAM FAMILY LP 14610 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 50324064 LEES PARTNERSHIP 14493 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6093 50324070 BROZDA JOSEPH & HELEN TRUSTEE 235 LINDEN ST SANTA CRUZ CA 95062-1019 50324073 BROZDA JOSEPH & HELEN TRUSTEE 235 LINDEN ST SANTA CRUZ CA 95062-1019 50324078 CUNNINGHAM SUSAN K P O BOX 2230 CUPERTINO CA 95015-2230 50324058 BLOXHAM FAMILY LP 14610 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 50324062 WALLACE BERNARD A P O BOX 1060 DISCOVERY BAY CA 94514 50324066 MASEK JOSEPH C & MICHELLE 14467 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6093 50324071 BROZDA JOSEPH & HELEN TRUSTEE 235 LINDEN ST SANTA CRUZ CA 95062-1019 50324074 ADDRESS NOT AVAILABLE-5 KK 50324079 CUNNINGHAM DENNIS M 14407 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6080 50325003 ACCOUNTING DEPARTMENT 374 W SANTA CLARA ST SAN JOSE CA 95113-1502 50325012 DAMES C H PO BOX 2039 SARATOGA CA 95070-0039 50325007 PELIO & ASSOCIATES 14573 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6013 50325013 SUDHOLT RICHARD H & THERESA P 2061-0 LOMITA AV SARATOGA CA 95070-6024 50325008 PAUL FLANAGAN 14658 NELSON WY SAN JOSE CA 95124-3517 50325015 GASIK JEFF 21070 DORSEY WY SARATOGA CA 95070-5336 50325016 50325022 50325025 FTTZSIlVIIVSO1VS70SEPH7~i -----PA~tKER~'HOIVIAS~'-- -------HP;PViRGii; it ~t EVELYN V TRUSTEE P O BOX 756 C TRUSTEE 14611 BIG BASIN WYE CARDIFF BY THE SEA CA 14995 WONDERLAND BL SARATOGA CA 95070 92007-0756 BEDDING CA 96003-8522 50325026 PIERCE INGER L TRUSTEE ETAL P. O. BOX 5496 AUBURN CA 95604 50325028 PAUL FLANAGAN 14658 NELSON WY SAN JOSE CA 95124-3517 50325029 FITZSINIlvIONS ANN V & JOSEPH J TRUSTEE 14611 A BIG BASIN WY E SARATOGA CA 95070-6081 50325031 SARATOGA CITY OF 4TH ST SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 50325039 BAHL KENNETH S & SWARAN B ETAL 14645 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6081 50325032 PACHE KLAUS W & YVONNE C TRUSTEE 14555 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6013 50325040 BAHL KENNETH S & SWARAN B ETAL 14645 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6081 50359001 503670017006 COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT 1935 DRY CREEK RD 203 CAMPBELL CA 95008-3631 51708001 51708002 MARCHETTI WALTER S & PALLA LOUISE MARILYN R TRUSTEE 8350 RAINTREE AV 20701 ST CHARLES ST RIVERSIDE CA 92504-2861 SARATOGA CA 95070-6032 51708004 MAULDIN MICHAEL & CAROL 15345 BOHLMAN RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6356 51708005 LONG RUTH M TRUSTEE, PO BOX 2095 SARATOGA CA 95070-0095 51708011 STAUSS CHARLES J & ELSBETH R PO BOX 2265 SARATOGA CA 95070-0265 51708012 BEHNKE DORIS K ETAL 13691 BEAUMONT AV SARATOGA CA 95070-4968 50325033 50325041 BAHL KENNETH S & SWARAN B ETAL 14645 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6081 503760017009 51708003 PALLA LOUISE 8350 RAINTREE AV RIVERSIDE CA 92504-2861 51708010 BEHNKE FRANK 14510 BIG BASIN WY 161 SARATOGA CA 95070-6090 51708026 BARATTA-LORTON ROBERT 14599 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA CA 95070 O~~t34(~ 51708043 HOLT JOHN & KATHRYN O OAK ST ~ATOGA CA 95070-6030 51708044 COMPEAN LUPE TRUSTEE 936 HARRIET AV CAMPBELL CA 95008-5120 51708045 MC KENZIE GEORGE H 3 & FRANCINE PO BOX 184 SARATOGA CA 95071-0184 51708046 51708047 51708048 TAYLOR JENNIFER CUMMINS MICHAEL J & HERNANDEZ GLADYS P ETAL 14672 OAK ST DEBRA A 19641 CHARTERS AV SARATOGA CA 95070-6030 14666 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4407 SARATOGA CA 95070-6030 51708058 51708060 517080537056--- -- _ - _ -------BEHNKE CHARL. --BEHNiCL DORiB K TRUSTEE DORIS K TRUSTEE ETA 14655 OAK ST 1 13691 BEAUMONT AV SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070-4968 51708063 51708066 SRINIVASAN S TRUSTEE ETAL 14598 BIG BASIN WY C TOGA CA 95070-0000 ~~ 51709013 ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP PO BOX 192202 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94519-2202 51708065 51708064 SRINIVASAN .S TRUSTEE ETAL 14598 BIG BASIN WY C SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 51708067 SRINIVASAN S TRUSTEE ETAL 14598 BIG BASIN WY C SARATOGA CA 95070-5139 51709011 CAROLYN HOLM 1 GOODWIN CT REDWOOD CITY CA 94061 51709014 FRANK L BURELL III 470 VANDELL WY STE A CAMPBELL CA 95008 51709017 51709018 KLEAR ELIZABETH P TRUSTEE FITZSIMMONS JOSEPH J 20387 THELMA AV TRUSTEE ETAL SARATOGA CA 95070-4946 14611 BIG BASIN WY E SARATOGA CA 95070 51709021 FITZSIMMONS MICHAEL D TRUSTEE ETAL 165 SUMMERFIELD ST ILLS CA 94506 9026 SIK JEFFREY F 21070 DORSEY WY SARATOGA CA 95070-5336 51709024 SORENSEN DAVID L 14493 OAK ST ' SARATOGA CA 95070-6025 51709027 JACKMAN ERNA B 14515 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070-6025 517090.12 STARK CHARLES D & KATHIE L P.O. BOX DRAWER 219 APTOS CA 95001 51709015 FRANK L BURELL III 470 VANDELL WY STE A CAMPBELL CA 95008 51709020 ELLENIKIOTIS ANTHONY J & GEORGIA TRUSTEE 14451 CHESTER AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5624 51709025 JAMES KENNEDY 540 SANTA CRUZ 215 LOS GATOS CA 95030 51709031 COOPER-HART MICHAEL A 20576 3RD ST SARATOGA CA 95070-6053 ~~n~-~~. 51709032 DONOHOE LISA S 1021 HARRISON ST MONTEREY CA 93940-2117 51709044 FITZSIlVIlVIONS JOSEPH J TRUSTEE ETAL 14611 BIG BASIN WY E SARATOGA CA 95070 51709042 K1M JOUNG S & YOUNG H TRUSTEE 7221 SILVER LODE LN SAN JOSE CA 95120-3356 51709045 BONREALTY COMPANY INC 12591 SARATOGA CREEK DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3538 51709043 FITZIlVIlVIONS JOSEPH J TRUSTEE ETAL 14611 BIG BASIN WYE SARATOGA CA 95070 51709046 FRANK L BURELL III 470 VANDELL WY STE A CAMPBELL CA 95008 51709047 51709058 FRANK L BURL-L-iii - __ --------5170905170.56 __ __ ,-__ -___.. _----------.~ _H£i; POSTAS 470 VANDELL WY STE A 438 W CAMPBELL AV CAMPBELL CA 95008 CAMPBELL CA 95008 51709059 PURCELL BARBARA L & MICHAEL E 200 VIAGENOA NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663- >1709062 11709069 ?OLLACK ENTERPRISES 14500 BIG BASIN WY C iARATOGA CA 95070 11709078 iARATOGA CITY OF 1TH ST iARATOGA CA 95070-0000 51709060 MCKENZIE BARBARA G TRUSTEE 18680 VESSING CT SARATOGA CA 95070-5666 51709061 SALVATOREJLABARBERA 1426 FRUITDALE AV ' SAN JOSE CA 95128 517090637066 51709068 CALI INVESTMENTS 14510 BIG BASIN WY ' SARATOGA CA 95070-6090 51709071 ZAMBETTI EUGENE L 517090727077 PO BOX 34 SARATOGA CA 95071-0034 51709080 51709081 JOHNSON RICHARD & ANGELA SALEHIEH DAVID J M 20582 3RD ST 20578 3RD ST SARATOGA CA 95070-6053 SARATOGA CA 95070-6053 ' 11709082 51710002 FITZSINIMONS MICHAEL D TRUSTEE ETAL 165 SUMMERFIELD ST DANVILLE CA 94506 >1710004 3IRSCHFELD HAROLDINE M CRUSTEE .4524 OAK ST ;ARATOGA CA 95070-6026 51710006 HELM RONNIE L 14516 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070-6087 51710003 FITZSIlVIMONS PATRICK J & JO ANNE M 14534 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070-6087 51710007 ESPINOSA GARY H & DIANAGAY J TRUSTEE 14510 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070-6087 1710008 51710009 51710011 ALLEN JOHN N & MARY OUR LADY FATIMA VILLA INC SARATOGA LODGE NO FOUR 4500 OAK ST 20400 SARATOGA/LOS GATOS TWO EIGHT IOOF TRUS ;ARATOGA CA 95070-6087 RD P O BOX 54 SARATOGA CA 95070-5927 SARATOGA CA 95071-0054 n~l(1(i4~ 51710012 SARATOGA CITY OF TOGA CA 95070-0000 51710047 SARATOGA UNIONS D SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 51710013 SARATOGA CITY OF SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 517290017029 51710034 OUR LADY FATIMA VILLA 20400 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5927 517340017008 50324036 50324049 - -- 50324068-----_. _ _ __-_ SARATOOA CITY OF__ -- -- . - - -PAYNE GEORGE-1VIfiRUST'EE ----- 4TH ST 15940 ROCHIN TR SARATOGA CA 95070-0000 LOS GATOS CA 95032-0000 • • ~~nc~~.~ - I~OpD 8g~ C v Shaded Parcels R~ceived Public Notification ,w. ~ ~~ ~~ s~, i Gw4 ~ OAK PL . 4~$ % `~Q~ 0~' ~ N i i A i C! ~ C'A~~~ ~ ~ S w ti ~ ~ti~ s~ w ~ ~ 4~ ~ s a~ rn ~ .~ ~,~. a ~'? ~'~s W j ,f.. i ~~~ O N. W o~- -~ ~ < Q~