Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-10-2006 Planning Commission PacketCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION SITE VISIT AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 3:30 p.m. PLACE: City Hall Parking Lot, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Site Visit Committee SITE VISITS WILL BE ON TUESDAY, JANUARY lO, 2000) FOR THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. Application OS-172 AWBREY Item 1 14395 Quito Road 2. Application 06-076 MA Item 2 14360 Paul Ave. 3. Application 06-154 HAMMER Item 3 21279 Lumbertown Lane SITE VISIT COMMITTEE The Site Visit Committee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The committee conducts site visits to properties that are nevv 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 that 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. I~ CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Ci~~ic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Manny Cappello, Jill Hunter, Robert Kundtz, Linda Rodgers, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, and Chair Susie Nagpal PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of December 14, 2005 ORAL COMMUNICATIOIvTS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or tahing action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staf f: 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 January 5, 2006. 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, or ten (10) calendar days for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR - None PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. APPLICATION #05-172 (397-OS-015) AWBREY 14395 Quito Road -The applicant requests design re~~iew approval to construct atwo-story, single-family residence and detached garage and study. The total floor area of the proposed residence and garage with study is 4,571 square feet. An existing 1333 square foot building will be retained as a cabana. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. The lot size is approximately 43,751 square feet and the site is zoned R-140,000. • APPLICATION #06-076 (503-27-650) MA, 14360 Paul Avenue; -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 2,017.5 square-feet with a 382.5 square-foot attached garage. A 966 square foot basement is also proposed. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 25-feet 6-inches. The gross lot size is 5,162 square-feet and the site is zoned R-110,000. APPLICATION #06-154 (503-55-040) HAMMER, 21279 Lumbertown Lane: -The applicant requests approval of an 800 square foot second story addition to the existing 3,328 square foot single story residence located on Lumbertown Lane. The proposed height of the structure is approximately 24.7 feet and the site is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. Design Review approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15- 45.060(a). DIRECTORS ITEM - Remind Commissioners that the meeting on January 25 is cancelled COMMISSION ITEMS - None COMMUNICATIONS - None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING • - Wednesday, February 8 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Incompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerh at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerh@saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Ciry to mahe reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II). Certificate of Posting of Agenda:, I, Elizabeth Runyan, Office Specialist for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted on December 8, 2005 at the of fice of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available forpublic review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.sarato~a.ca.us If you would like to receive the Agenda's via a-mail, please send your a-mail address to planning@sarato~a.ca:us L~ MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: PLACE TYPE: c~~Q~~ Wednesday, December 14, 2005 Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Regular Meeting Chair Nagpal called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cappello, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers and Schallop Absent: Commissioners Kundtz and Uhl Staff: Director John Livingstone, Contract Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick and Associate Planner Therese Schmidt PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE S .APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of November 23, 2005. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Schallop, the Planning Commission minutes- of the regular meeting of November 23, 2005, were adopted with corrections to pages 2 and 5. (5-0- 2; Commissioners Kundtz and Uhl were absent) ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on December 8, 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). • Planning Commission Minutes for December 14, 2005 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #06-049 - Adoption of Negative Declaration and Zoning Text Amendment for Saratoga Village parking: The City of Saratoga proposes a Zoning Text Amendment that would relax all parking requirements in the CH-1 and CH-2 zones until such a time that new development or intensification of uses equals to or exceeds the parking surplus as identified in a recent parking study. An Initial Study has been prepared for this proposed text amendment and no comments were received during the initial study public review period. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the Negative Declaration and adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve the proposed Zoning Text Amendment. r~ Director John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the City of Saratoga is the applicant. • Said that staff is proposing two Text Amendments to the parking requirements for the CH-1 and CH-2 Zoning Districts. • Explained that in April 2005, Council requested that the Planning Commission consider • modifying the parking requirements for the CH-1 and CH-2 Zoning Districts. Consequently two study sessions were held, one in August that was held in the downtown fire station and the second in September that was held in the Community Center at City Hall in order to obtain public input. • Stated that staff has crafted an Amendment that would suspend the parking requirements for new development or expansion of existing business uses in the Village until the combined uses take up the existing surplus of 93 spaces available at peak times. • Reported that a survey was conducted that determined that normally there are 93 spaces unused in the Village. • Said that staff is proposing allowing new construction and uses to utilize up to those 93 spaces without requiring the provision of any new spaces. • Said that there are four parking districts and one area is not within a parking district. • Stated that one space is allotted for every 350 square feet of gross floor area ratio. This ratio is consistent with Parking District 3, which is the most restrictive parking district. • Said that staff has researched and determined that this ratio is comparable to other cities. • Added that this Text Amendment is proposed to be in place for three years to serve as an incentive to encourage growth of business uses in the Village by getting the benefit of a reduced parking requirement. • Said that this proposal is consistent with the General Plan. • Recommended the adoption of a Resolution and supporting Negative Declaration for this Text Amendment. • Planning Commission Minutes for December 14, 2005 Page 3 Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the study used to determine that there are 93 spaces available at any given time was done in 2002. Director John Livingstone: • Said that a majority of spaces were in District 3, with nine on the street. All are in the downtown area. • Explained that the City's Traffic Consultant felt that with the downturn in the economy, peak parking usage would not have increased but rather would have stayed the same or decreased and they used the 2002 Parking Study in its analysis. Commissioner Hunter reminded that in 2002 there were six vacant storefronts. Now there are only three. Director John Livingstone said that there could be a slight flux depending upon the types of tenants and/or intensity of uses. There is a constant flux between vacancies and types of uses. Commissioner Hunter asked how it was determined that 93 spaces could support an additional 30,000 square feet and if was even possible for the Village to add that much new square footage. Director John Livingstone said that not all additions would be in new storefronts but rather some would result from intensification of existing uses. He said that approximately seven buildings with 5,000 square feet each could either be achieved with small additions or new structures. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the allocation of these spaces would be on a first come first serve basis. Chair Nagpal pointed out that it would not have to be seven buildings and that the allocations would be whoever comes first. Director John Livingstone said that a large restaurant would absorb more spaces. Allocation of parking ratios requires a combination of features. He added that it is hoped that this action to relax parking requirements might help to stimulate the Village during the three-year period it is in effect. He added that the allocation of 93 spaces is the maximum that could occur in the three-year period this amendment is in effect. Commissioner Hunter asked if this might result in three-story buildings in the Village. Director John Livingstone reminded that this Ordinance would not change the current height limitations for the Village but just parking considerations. He reminded that the maximum allowable height for the Village is 30 feet. Commissioner Hunter said that she is happy to see that cities such as Lafayette and Orinda were used as comparables to Saratoga rather than some others that could have been used. Planning Commission Minutes for December 14, 2005 Page 4 Commissioner Schallop asked if other cities used this technique to stimulate growth and was the effort successful. He asked how the three-year duration for this was established. Director John Livingstone explained that it takes time to get project financing together, hire an architect, draw the plans and submit them to the City. It can generally take a year or longer, two years depending on the size or need to assemble parcels to create a lot large enough to develop. Three years was the maximum time frame suggested. Chair Nagpal asked if the three-year period requires Planning Commission final approval to have occurred. Director John Livingstone said that it is the time period during which a project must be deemed complete. He added that new structures for the Village would come before the Planning Commission. Chair Nagpal said that she wants to see this stimulate growth and questioned staff as to the maximum amount of .time it might take to get a project through to the Planning Commission if it is a complex one. Director John Livingstone replied between six months and one year. He said that projects usually go back and forth between staff and the applicant. Being deemed complete during the three-year effective period is the key as opposed to obtaining a final approval. Commissioner Rodgers: • Said that a number of other solutions in addition to this amendment were suggested and asked if any of them were currently in progress. • Listed some of the proposals as including the re-striping of some areas of Lot 3 and recalculating the number of spaces in Lot 1 near the Saratoga Inn. • Added that it was only recently that she realized that there was public parking available near the Saratoga Inn. Said that it was also considered that increasing signage and lighting might be useful to make availability of public parking more clear to the public and help alleviate crowding. Director John Livingstone: • Said that this is one part of an overall concept to help stimulate activity in the Village. • Reported that Commissioner Hunter is a participant on the Village Committee that is looking at the rest of the picture. • Added that this is but one piece of the puzzle that can be activated more quickly. Commissioner Rodgers: • Said that she has reviewed the legal documents. • Stated that most of the spaces are in Lot 3. • Explained that the City has the power to modify use of those spaces under current conditions. There are cross easements that help improve the parking lots. • Reported that bonds were previously issued. All improvements have now been made and the bonds were paid off. Planning Commission Minutes for December 14, 2005 Page 5 • Said that it is legally sufficient as to the appropriateness'of action proposed for tonight. • Said that approval by the City Attorney is assumed. r~ • Chair Nagpal said that she has a question about the 93 spots and how it is calculated when assigning them out to a specific use. Director John Livingstone: • Explained that staff tracks spaces based upon square footage. Each space is worth so much square footage. It is the same equation. • Gave an example that if a business had a current requirement for one space and wanted an intensification of use that required two more spaces, than two parking spaces or 700 square feet would be allocated from the available 93 parking spaces or 32,000 square feet in new commercial tenant space. • Reiterated that both intensified uses or new construction would be evaluated against this available parking. Chair Nagpal asked about the potential of having one large tenant coming in that would require all available parking to be assigned to it in order to support its use. Director John Livingstone replied that the answer is the same and consists of the number of spaces required times 350 square feet to equal the anticipated maximum of 32,000 square feet of new or expanded uses in the Village. Chair Nagpal asked if there are not different parking requirement numbers based upon use. Director John Livingstone said that there is a blanket ratio for parking for a restaurant. If not within a parking district, that ratio for a restaurant is one space per 75 square feet that would be calculating using the 350 square foot ratio per parking space assigned from the 93 available. He assured that everyone would be on the same even playing field and the parking would be calculated against the number of spaces per ratio. Commissioner Rodgers said that instead of the old terminology a square footage translation is now being used to fill all of the available allocation. She said that this would- not. stop new applications from being considered after this time period and/or after the 93 spaces have been allocated. However, those new uses would be required to have a full out parking survey prepared. She questioned if it is fair to burden one business for that sort of expense. Director John Livingstone said that when the allocation is close to being assigned out and if another business feels there is still ample parking to accommodate their use, they would still have the opportunity to prove that fact but would have to pay for a study to prove there is sufficient available parking. Projects began within the original three-year time frame would continue through the processing even after that time period has ended. Commissioner Rodgers asked how much such a study could cost. Director John Livingstone replied that he is unsure. Planning Commission Minutes for December 14, 2005 Page. 6 Commissioner Hunter pointed out that some businesses paid for parking including some who have spent more than $150,000. Questioned why this proposal is fair. Director John Livingstone said that this proposal is intended to open opportunities across the board for a limited time period to help stimulate the Village. Everyone benefits from more activity in the Village. Commissioner Hunter questioned the viability of a large supermarket in the Village with no new parking provided. Director John Livingstone said that lots of downtown businesses do not have readily accessible parking where customers can pull in directly in front of said business. That is the nature of a downtown that is a row of attached businesses. Patrons park in one area and walk to one or more destinations in the Village. Chair Nagpal asked if it is conceivable that one business could take up all 93 spaces. Director John Livingstone replied that it would be possible if they could assemble enough parcels to create a project large enough to absorb all 93 spaces. Commissioner Schallop said that this scenario is unlikely in the Village. Commissioner Rodgers: • Advised that she has spent a fair amount of time reviewing documents behind Parking Districts 2, 3 and 4. Information on District 1 was not readily available. • Said that each District was developed to create a large lot behind businesses with uniform spaces, lighting and improvements. • Reported that the City issued bonds, paid fair market value for land behind the buildings and enacted cross easements. • Said that the City retains easements and ownership and can do as it pleases with these lots as long as it is consistent with public policies. • Added that in 1988, 31 spaces were made available for sale and no one availed themselves of that opportunity and it closed. That was more than 15 years ago now. Director John Livingstone advised that two letters of support were provided as desk items this evening. One is from a business owner and the other from a property owner. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Jim Rosenfeld, 14219 Okanogan Drive, Saratoga: • Said that he owns 14471 Big Basin Way, location of the International Coffee Exchange. • Advised that he made a $459,000 contribution to the parking district. • Said that was in the past and we have to now look forward. • Stated that this proposed amendment is a progressive idea that moves the Village in the right direction to help motivate better buildouts and help close up gaps with new storefronts. Planning Commission Minutes for December 14, 2005 Page 7 • • Said that it is essential to create a critical mass of retail as the Village is currently too small. • Added that his property is built out but that the driveway near Panda Express is not needed and could be built out. • Said that the City offered a matching funds program that resulted in several small improvements. That was a very successful venture. • Stated that this is a major opportunity. • Agreed that there is no concern that parking is saturated at this time. That is not an issue. • Reported that he has lived here for 60 years. • Opined that the linchpin is the Buy and Save property where a major store such as Whole Foods or Andronico's could be located. That property is key to a viable Village. Commissioner Hunter asked where people would park for such a store. Mr. Jim Rosenfeld replied underground. Ms. Annette Casabonne, 20120 Herriman Avenue, Saratoga: • Said that she is a property owner on Big Basin Way and used to be a vendor there. • Said that relaxing parking requirements will help create a good marketing mix for the Village. Mr. Michael Shadman, 14190 Victor Place, Saratoga: • Said he also owns property on Big Basin Way and Highway 9. • Said he is happy to see that a study was done that determined that more than 90 spaces were available in the Village. • Stated that this shows that the Village is underdeveloped and that a mix of uses is needed. • Said that the three-year limitation with the Ordinance amendment may create a problem and suggested that it be based only on parking limitations rather than three years. • Added that this would avoid any problems if the 93 spaces were not committed within three years time. • Stressed his preference to limit this relaxed parking standard only until the available spaces are assigned and not to a three-year time frame. • Said that this offers a proposed road map for future development and that the three-year time frame is really meaningless. • Thanked the Commission and staff. • Said that this is a good start and he hopes to see this action approved tonight. Mr. Bob Cancellieri, 14860 Cody Lane, Saratoga: • Said that he owns the Saratoga Market and Tapioca Express. • Advised that he paid over $300,000 over a period of 15 years and also bought property rights. • Said he liked the concept of underground parking as mentioned by Jim Rosenfeld. • Asked for clarification as to which areas of town are CH-1 versus CH-2. • Said his own feeling is that the City should stick to the formula we have now. • Stated that having Starbucks is a step in the right direction. Planning Commission Minutes for December 14, 2005 Page 8 • Reiterated that underground parking is more of an answer and that he does not see using • other people's property as a sign of progress. Commissioner Rodgers said that it appears that Mr. Cancellieri has some development rights that he purchased without using. Mr. Bob Cancellieri said that he feels like he is being penalized since he chose not #o develop it. ' Commissioner Rodgers said that if he has development rights, Mr. Cancellieri is excluded from the 93 spaces limitation and can still develop when he is ready to do so. She asked staff if this assumption is correct. Director John Livingstone replied that she is correct. He added that Mr. Cancellieri might want to wait three years to see what happens. Ms. Shirley Cancellieri, 14860 Cody Lane, Saratoga: • Said that the comments made by Commissioner Rodgers bothered her in that the City can do whatever it wants to do. • Stated her impression that the Commission has already made up its mind and -that no one is listening to public comments. • Said that she has a problem with City, State and Federal government and does not feel that she has a say. • • Said that the City Manager Harry Peacock had told them that they were the only smart ones to buy development rights. • Stated that when someone is given something without paying for it, they don't appreciate it. • Reminded that they have given to the parking district and did not build. • Reiterated that it appears the Commission has made up its mind already. • Said that she has an 1,800 square foot building right now and should be given another 1,800 square feet. • Said that they deserve to get something for paying money all those years. • Said that she would like to build studio apartments in the area like those at Santana Row and could use more room. • Reminded that they put in a lot of money. • Pointed out that Whole Foods and Starbucks can afford to pay for parking. Commissioner Rodgers: • Assured that no one's mind is made up. • Said that she had simply consulted with the City Attorney who made the determination that this is something the City can do. • Advised that right now this is a planning matter being considered by the Commission. Council handles policy matters. • Stated that Ms. Cancellieri's situation is unique and may require individual negotiations • that she may want to refer to Council. Planning Commission Minutes for December 14, 2005 Page 9 • Ms. Shirley Cancellieri said that she was pessimistic. Commissioner Rodgers apologized for giving that impression. Mr. Eugene Zambetti, 14575 Oak Street, Saratoga: • Said that his building is part of District 4 and in the CH-2 District. • Said that this proposal will help preserve a historical building on Big Basin Way. • Reminded that an Ordinance prohibiting personal services was recently adopted. • Stressed the need for good circulation, getting through Big Basin Way, and having buildings look similar front and back. • Stated his hope that this lowered parking requirement would spark growth of goods and services needed in the Village. • Cautioned against building another Santana Row but rather fill in the vacancies on Big Basin Way. • Said that with this Ordinance, staff and issuance of Use Permits, the City will be able to put together a very unique Village. • Stated the need for one or two great shops that are unique to Saratoga and the Valley. • Said that there is no problem with over utilization or intensification. • Said he and his wife are hoping that the Commission will approve this Text Amendment and they look forward to seeing what happens as a result over the next three years. • Mr. Mitch Cutler, 14480 Oak Place, Saratoga: • Informed that his office is located on Big Basin Way. • Stated that he likes the- tone he hears from the Commission and its good level of cooperation. • Said that this comes down to the vision of Saratoga into the future. This is a major step in the right direction to advance the Village. • Said that he too purchased development rights but said that voting for this Text Amendment is a step in the right direction. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Chair Nagpal said that she still questions the concept of a large project that could take up all of the available spaces. She asked if the Commission could regulate this through the Use Permit process. Director John Livingstone said that while the concept is possible it is also fairly remote. He added that a large project would also be required to undergo environmental review. He said that smaller projects are already starting to have interest in this Ordinance before it even goes through. Chair Nagpal asked if there are any pending projects. Director John Livingstone said that so far one has expressed interest. Commissioner Schallop: Planning Commission Minutes for December 14, 2005 Page 10 • Informed that he had received a call prior to this hearing from Mr. Zambetti. • Said that Mr. Zambetti's comments this evening were well said. • Said that he views this Text Amendment as a low cost mechanism to drive investment in the Village in a manner that has been successful in other towns. • Said that property- owners in the Village are interested in this opportunity in the next few years. • .Added that he can understand the feeling from some that this is unfair to those who spent on parking districts but pointed out that they have the same rights as anyone else to take advantage of the relaxation of parking requirements during this three-year period. Chair Nagpal asked Commissioner Schallop what he thinks of the three-year time frame. Commissioner Schallop said that Mr. Zambetti had recommended five years but he was satisfied with staff's recommendation and rationale for athree-year period. Chair Nagpal said that the traffic study was old. She added that the time frame is because of a desire for this to create a quick impact. Commissioner Schallop added that this could always be renewed or extended. It can be looked out from along-term standpoint. Commissioner Rodgers: • Said that the reason for the limit to three years is to serve as an incentive to take rather • quick action to help increase investment in the Village. • Said that this amendment offers a way to allow for quick development without major studies or investments. • Said that the three-year time frame gives time to look at other options, traffic patterns and determine the Village's atmosphere into the future. • Said that she lives just beyond the Village and goes through there several times a day. • Declared that she loves the Village. • Said that she has noticed an increased and improved vitality in the Village over the last few years. • Reported that she too received a call from Mr. Zambetti and wanted that fact in the record. • Pointed out the two written letters of support received this evening • Expressed disappointment that there are not more regular citizens present tonight to speak to this issue but it is clear that the business and property owners here are in support. • Announced that she is willing to recommend Council's approval of this Text Amendment. Commissioner Cappello: • Reminded that two study sessions were held on this issue. • Said that options were weighed carefully and negatives and positives evaluated. • Said that this proposal is a good first step to the revitalization of the Village but is not the only thing that needs to be done. • Stated he is in favor of this Text Amendment and likes the three-year limitation since • activity is needed fast. . Planning Commission Minutes for December 14, 2005 Page 11 • Commissioner Hunter: • Stated that this is an enormously disturbing decision. • Said that she knows property owners in the Village very well and knows Saratoga very well. • Identified herself as a preservationist. • Cautioned that the City must be careful what it hopes for as it may end up with a Village that it does not want. • Pointed out that two Commissioners are absent tonight. She is sorry that they are not here to express themselves on this issue. • Said that if the Village ends up looking like any other downtown rather than the unique and picturesque place we now have, she will be upset with herself. • Said she would not and could not support this Text Amendment because the Village means too much to her. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that the design standards are not changing with this action. The same level of review would occur. Commissioner Hunter said she questions the #act that there are 93 spaces available. Recounted that she recently went to Buy & Save twice in one day and could not find parking. When her family goes to dinner on a Friday night, they have problems finding parking. Chair Nagpal asked if a tighter time frame would make this better. • unter said that she wants to see the results of the citizen survey before Commissioner H supporting this action. Chair Nagpal said that this is a step to stimulate activity in the Village. Commissioner Hunter: • Questioned if there is any proof that this would actual stimulate growth of the Village. If people come to the Village and find no place to park, do those people not go elsewhere? • Pointed out that just a year ago there was talk about lack of parking in the Village. Chair Nagpal said that it would be better to have too much traffic coming to the Village than not enough. She asked if Commissioner Hunter disagrees with the 2002 Parking Study. Commissioner Hunter: • Replied no, it is too old to rely upon. • Said that she spoke with a Village business owner who said that business is thriving. • Advised that the citizen survey is a 24-minute long telephone survey and it might be rare for people to be willing to take that amount of time to participate. • Encouraged people to respond to the survey takers. • Chair Nagpal: • Said that she believes the Village can use more diversity and revitalization. • Suggested that this is one avenue to do so. Planning Commission Minutes for December 14, 2005 Page 12 • Expressed support for this Text Amendment to relax parking requirements for athree-year • period. • Explained that Fehr & Peers has determined that the 2002 Parking Survey is sufficient. • Assured that no one's mind was made up prior to this hearing and that she was somewhat hesitant about the three-year time frame. • Said that two years would be good and could be extended if necessary. • Added that the others seem to think that three years is reasonable. • Said that a tight time frame is needed to make sure impacts are positive. Commissioner Rodgers said that one, three and three-and-a-half year options. were offered She asked for feedback from staff as to why three years is the time frame supported by staff. Director John Livingstone: • Reiterated that people have to get financing, hire an architect, have plans developed and then have their project deemed complete by the City. • Said that this process can take a year or longer. • Added that restricting this amendment to a one-year time frame is too risky. Applicants would likely feel too rushed to accomplish everything necessary in that time. • Said that three years is hopefully the middle of the road time frame that is comfortable for applicants while still sparking prompt action. • Reminded that getting a commercial project through the system takes time. Commissioner Schallop asked if there should be a cap on the number of spaces that one business can have allocated from the 93 available. Chair Nagpal asked about the noticing for this hearing. Director John Livingstone explained that a large ad was published. Notices were mailed both to property owners and business owners in the affected area. Commissioner Hunter said that the business owners are clearly in favor and it would be odd if they were not. Commissioner Schallop said that a lack of interest by business owners would have indicated that this is not a means of achieving the goal of revitalizing the Village. Chair Nagpal pointed out that this public hearing received lots of notice. Commissioner Hunter replied that ads about parking are largely ignored by the average person. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Rodgers, seconded by Commissioner Schallop, the Planning Commission. recommended Council approval of a Negative Declaration and a Zoning Text Amendment (Application #06-049) that would relax all parking requirements in the CH-1 and CH-2 zones for three years or until such time that new development or intensification of Planning Commission Minu#es for December 14, 2005 Page 13 • uses equals to or exceeds the parking surplus as identified in a recent parking study, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Nagpal, Rodgers and Schallop NOES: Hunter ABSENT: Kundtz and Uhl ABSTAIN: None Chair Nagpal asked staff when Council would consider this item for final action. Director John Livingstone replied January 4, 2006. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 2 APPLICATION #05-097 (503-26-005) Lam/Wong, 20880 4th Street: The applicant requests design review approval to demolish asingle-story, single-family residence and to construct a two-story, single-family residence. The total floor area of the proposed residence is 3,366 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. The lot size is approximately 10,500 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-10,000. Contract Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick presented the. staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval to demolish asingle-story, two bedroom, one bath residence with attached garage and construct a new two-story residence with attached garage. • Explained that the proposed residence would consist of 3,366 square feet where 3,370 square feet is the maximum allowed. The maximum height is 25 feet, 9 inches. The lot consists of 10,500 square feet and is located within an R-1-10,000 zoning district. The property has an average slope of six percent. • Described the proposed architecture as Contemporary Mediterranean/Spanish Revivalist. • Said that the second story is stepped back in excess of the minimum requirements. The applicants are proposing a landscape plan that includes two 24-inch box Japanese maple trees. Of the eight trees on the property, three or Ordinance size, two of which remain unaffected by this project. One tree, a plum, is to be removed and has been ranked as not being in good condition. The arborist has recommended a mitigation tree to be located at the rear of the property. • Said that the architecture in this area includes a mixture of single and two-story homes. • Stated that this home has been designed to address privacy issues and minimum bulk. The project underwent geotechnical review and received geotechnical clearance. • Said that this project is compatible with adjacent homes. • Explained that privacy concerns have been raised regarding a balcony proposed on the second story rear at the corner that is proposed for providing air and light ventilation for the rear of the house. • Explained that the applicant and the property owners from two doors down have met and reached a satisfactory solution that includes partially closing off one side of the balcony to prevent views over to that neighbors property. Both sides are present to be able to talk about that agreement. Planning Commission Minutes for December 14, 2005 Page 14 • Cautioned that enclosing the balcony too much may create an FAR issue. • • Said that a letter was received today from Mr. Ken Schulz who lives at 15001 Springer Avenue who has a concern about the height of the building and the potential of blocking his view of the hills from his house. • Stated that one balcony is proposed at the front of the house facing the street with no privacy impacts. The balcony to the rear was of concern to a neighbor two properties over not the adjacent neighbor. • Said that the setback to the rear property line is 52 feet, which is fairly large. • Said that no significant view issues have been raised. Commissioner Cappello asked staff to clarify the impacts if the balcony were to be enclosed and at what point would that space be counted as floor area. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that if it were to be 60 percent enclosed it would be counted. With two open sides this is okay. The solution reached is to have the side of the balcony facing the neighbor with a privacy issue dealt with through the addition of a screen that blocks view onto her property from this balcony. Commissioner Cappello questioned how to safeguard that this element is incorporated into the project. Chair Nagpal asked if the Commission would have to know the exact changes. Un o-McCormick said the Commission could offer specific direction to the • Planner Deborah g Community Development Director. Commissioner Hunter asked the size of that balcony. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick deferred a response on that question to the project architect. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Patrick Lam, Property Owner and Applicant, 20880 4th Street, Saratoga: • Said that he has resided in this home for 12 years, since 1993. • Stated that many of his neighbors have rebuilt their homes during that time. • Explained that his home is small and consists of only about 1,000 square feet. • Thanked his architect for a nice design. • Said that on behalf of his family, he also wanted to thank his neighbors for their support. • Read from a letter from adjacent neighbors, Brad Johnson and Paul Kass, who cannot attend tonight's hearing but are in support of this proposed new home. The letter stated that there were no adverse impacts and that the project would help improve property values in the neighborhood over time.. • Reported that an agreement has been reached and that for the back bedroom windows non-transparent film will cover the glass from the bottom to above eyesight area. On the . balcony, non-transparent screening will be installed to prevent views onto this neighbor's Planning Commission Minutes for December 14, 2005 Page 15 property. This will not be full wall height but will block views of that neighbor's home from his balcony. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Patrick Lam for the size of this balcony. Mr. Patrick Lam replied 6 feet by 12 feet. Commissioner Hunter said that this is quite large. Commissioner Cappello pointed out that Sheet A2.2 of the plans outlines the balcony. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that as long as three openings remain on this balcony perhaps that side of the balcony could be completely closed off to achieve this goal of privacy. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that this house includes three balconies not just two. Chair Nagpal said that the only one with any issues raised is this one for the back bedroom. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that it is 11 feet by 8 feet. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Patrick Lam if he would be willing to make the balconies smaller. Mr. Patrick Lam replied that it depends on how small. Commissioner Hunter said that the balcony for the master bedroom is looming over asingle- story home located on the other side. Mr. Patrick Lam: • Said that he guessed that he could make this one smaller. • Said that Mr. Ken Schulz is the neighbor who has submitted a letter outlining privacy concerns. However, Mr. Ken Schulz is not a direct neighbor. There is another neighbor between the Schulz house and his. • Pointed out that they are utilizing a 50-foot setback where only 35 feet is required. • Said that there are large trees and more trees would be planted in the southeast corner of the property. • .Distributed some photographs and the agreement drafted between him and his neighbor for mitigations to the balcony to alleviate her privacy impact concerns. Commissioner Rodgers asked about the two fireplaces and whether they were wood burning or gas. Mr. Patrick Lam replied gas. Commissioner Rodgers cautioned that Code restricts a home to only one wood-burning fireplace. Planning Commission Minutes for December 14, 2005 Mr. Patrick Lam said that he wants to use gas for his fireplaces. Ms. Doris Branzich, 20896 4th Street, Saratoga: • Stated that she is not a newcomer to this neighborhood and that she was born and raised in Saratoga. • Said she has resided in her home for 57 years and has seen lots of changes. • Expressed her appreciation for the wonderful neighbors that the Lam/Wong family has been during the last 12 years. • Stated her support of the design plans that are considerate and accommodating. • Reported that these plans were shown to her in advance. • Said that this new home will add beauty and increase value to the neighborhood. • Stated her hope that this design will be approved by the Commission tonight as she wants to keep these good neighbors. • Said that the neighbor on Springer is not near, adding that they are the ones who look at the mountains from their street, not them. It is ridiculous for them to object. • Ms. Yvonne Forcier, 14401 Elva Avenue, Saratoga: • Stated that her home is located at the corner of 4th Street and Elva Avenue, directly across from Mr. Patrick Lam. • Explained that her home is two-story and was built in 1969. • Said that she has been in this neighborhood since 1945 when her parents built their home. • Said that she has received notifications of public hearings over the years but never attended a meeting until now. • Said that improvements help this neighborhood. • Said that the neighbor with privacy concerns due to the balcony lives two houses away. • Said that she pulls her blinds down at night to assure privacy. • Stated that this new home would be an asset to the neighborhood and is a very beautiful design. • Pointed out that there have been lots of changes in this neighborhood all for the better. • Reiterated her opinion that for someone living in a two-story house two houses away to complain about privacy impacts is ridiculous. • Stated her hope that this home is approved as Mr. Patrick Lam deserves this as he has worked hard on his proposal. Ms. Diane McCarthy, 20860 4th Street, Saratoga: • Explained that this is ahigh-density neighborhood with narrow substandard lots. On top of that the street is on a grade that highlights the impacts on homes up hill. • Said that she built her house six years ago and went through the same review process as the Lams and had to address the same privacy impact issues. To appease her downhill neighbor's privacy impact concerns, she had to obscure the windows overlooking that neighbor's house. • Stated that the Lam's house would overlook the adjacent neighbor and into her home two doors down into a large picture window. • Added that the proposed house would also block some view. • Said that the problem is the line of sight view that overlooks their home. Page 16 Planning Commission Minutes for December 14, 2005 Page 17 • Advised that Mr. Patrick Lam has been cooperative and that the other neighbors who have spoken this evening don't understand her concerns. • Stated that she wants the modifications to the balcony and windows facing her home to be written into the approved project, with the windows to be obscured up to six feet to prevent views into her home. Commissioner Cappello asked if the only issue is-with the balcony in Bedroom #1. Ms. Diane McCarthy said that this balcony would have line of sight into her house. She said she is simply asking for the same consideration for her that she had for her neighbor when she constructed her home a few years back. Mr. Patrick Lam said that he respects privacy, which is why he was willing to work with Diane McCarthy. Both sides agree and he is happy to provide the necessary screening. Commissioner Schallop asked staff if they had reviewed this solution and felt that this is an appropriate solution. Director John Livingstone replied that the solution is fine as far as Code is concerned. He said that if there were three walls and a roof, the balcony space would have to be counted as floor area. In this situation there are two open walls so that won't be a problem. He added that these amendments to the project could be conditioned. Commissioner Hunter asked how the requirement for obscuring film on the window could be guaranteed for Ms. Diane McCarthy. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied that it would be incorporated into the conditions of approval. Commissioner Hunter asked what if there are future owners of this home. If the film is removed, could the McCarthys complain for enforcement of this condition. Commissioner Rodgers supported having the specific material for the screening worked out with staff. Mr. Patrick Lam said he was willing to work with his architect, Diane McCarthy and staff. He said he is happy to do the same to his windows as Diane did to hers. Commissioner Hunter asked about the paint trim color as being gold. Mr. Patrick Lam said that it is a Kelly Moore paint and is not gold. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Hunter said that she is concerned at having two large balconies on such a small property. She added that in her five years on the Commission, they have tried to keep balcony sizes down in bedrooms. These are particularly large. Planning Commission Minutes for December 14, 2005 Page 18 Chair Nagpal said that nothing has been said against the master bedroom balcony. Commissioner Hunter said that it is rather large and could accommodate furniture for seating. It is a major balcony for a small property that effectively can become a full outdoor room. She added that this house would be visible from Canyon View Road. Commissioner Rodgers agreed that the Commission has asked for reductions in balconies in the past. She asked if the screening on the Bedroom #1 balcony would still be necessary if that balcony was reduced in size. Commissioner Hunter said she is speaking of another balcony. Commissioner Rodgers asked if Commissioner Hunter is proposing a reduction in the Master Bedroom and Bedroom #1 balconies. Commissioner Hunter replied yes. Commissioner Rodgers: • Said that she is reluctant on balconies. • Stated that there are differences between this application and the one heard on November 23~d. Tonight's lot consists of 10,000 square feet while the lot discussed at the last meeting was only 5,000 square feet in an R-1-10,000 zoning district. • Said that there is room for articulation on this larger lot that was not available on the previous smaller lot. • Stated that this home is further set back from the adjacent properties and is located further from the street. • Advised that she does not have the same concerns here that she had with that last project. • Added that the balconies do need to be reduced significantly. • Stressed the importance of specifically referencing the limitation to one wood-burning fireplace. Chair Nagpal asked about the obscuring of the balcony. Commissioner Rodgers said that she is not fond of obscuring film and does not like to impose that requirement. However, if this applicant is willing to do so, she is willing to go along with their agreement. If the balcony were reduced in size, it might reduce the need of a side wall. Chair Nagpal said that usually balcony reductions are done as a result of neighbor concern. She expressed concern that this proposed reduction is arbitrarily being done here. Commissioner Rodgers: • Said that the balcony for Bedroom #1 has a neighbor complaint and she likes to address neighbor complaints. • Added that while there have been no complaints over the Master Bedroom balcony, it will overlook the uphill neighbor. Planning Commission Minutes for December 14, 2005 Page 19 • Commissioner Cappello: • Said that he applauds the applicant's efforts to address neighbor concerns. • Thanked Mr. Patrick Lam for his efforts. • Said he has no issue with balconies or with blocking the view from the balcony for Bedroom #1 as long as it meets Code requirements and is proportional to the home. • Reminded that there are no neighbor concerns except Mr. Schulz who is too far away to result in privacy impacts. • Stated he is in favor of this project. Chair Nagpal asked if the next-door neighbor signed a letter of support for this project. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that that neighbor is Ms. Doris Branzich who spoke this evening in favor of approval. Chair Nagpal: • Agreed that balcony changes have usually been done in response to concerns raised. • Said she proposes leaving the balconies as they are especially since a deal has been worked out that addresses the concerns raised concerning the Bedroom #1 balcony. • Commended the efforts of Mr. Patrick Lam to work with his neighbors to resolve concerns. • Asked staff if they have enough direction on this issue. • Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied yes, the Commission's position is clear but specific direction from the Commission is helpful. She reminded that the proposal includes a portion of windows to be obscured to block views of the neighbor's property. Chair Nagpal said that she hates to approve obscured windows but since the applicant is willing she will support that solution. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Cappello, seconded by Commissioner Schallop, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #05-097) to demolish asingle-story, single-family residence and to construct atwo-story, single-family residence on property located at 20880 4th Street with the provision that the applicant assure privacy screening from the balcony in Bedroom #1 using a finished wall in a similar style to the house and use of obscuring windows using stained glass for those windows overlooking the McCarthy property, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Nagpal, Rodgers and Schallop NOES: Hunter ABSENT: Kundtz and Uhl ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Hunter explained that she is voting no because she cannot support such an enormous balcony. Commissioner Schallop said that he usually agrees but not in this case since there is no specific complaint by neighbors calling for the removal of these balconies. He said Planning Commission Minutes for December 14, 2005 Page 20 questioning the inclusion of large balconies is important since balconies can essentially . become added square footage and perhaps get past allowable maximum square footage. Commissioner Rodgers agreed that future owners could try to enclose this balcony completely thereby exceeding allowable floor area ratios. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 3 APPLICATION #06-037 (397-10-020) CHEN, 8357 MONTE VISTA DRIVE: The applicant requests Design Review Approval to demolish asingle-story, single-family residence and construct a 6,098.6 square foot one-story single-family residence. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 21 feet. The gross lot size is 1.02 acres and the site is zoned R-1-40,000. Planner Therese Schmidt presented the staff report as follows: • Stated that the applicant is seeking approval to demolish a 2,389 square foot, single-story residence and construct a new 6,099 square foot one-story single-family residence with attached two-car and one-car garages and a swimming pool. • Explained that the Zoning Code requires Design Review Approval when the total combined square footage on site exceeds 6,000 square feet. • Reported that since this house is less than 50 years old, it is not identified as a cultural • resource. • Added that this project is exempt from CEQA. • Reported that no complaints have been received. • Said that the project includes a number of fireplaces, including one outdoors. Only one fireplace is wood burning. • Described this new home as a single-story with a maximum height of 20 feet, 11 inches. Said that there are 26 Ordinance size trees and approximately five Modesto Ash would need to be removed. Per the arborist report one tree, a White Birch, is in ill health. The applicant agrees with the recommendations of the arborist report and is willing to bond the trees on site. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Hunter asked if the pool would affect any more trees. Planner Therese Schmidt replied no. The inclusion of a pool was always in the plan but was inadvertently left out of the resolution. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the large tree in front is being preserved. Commissioner Hunter said that she is surprised that the trees slated for removal were not marked before the Commission's site visit. ;~ Planning Commission Minutes for December 14, 2005 Page 21 Planner Therese Schmidt said that she neglected to do so and apologized for that omission. She said that she would defer to the applicant to answer specific questions about trees on site. Commissioner Hunter asked if there are two houses nearby with essentially the same design style. Planner Therese Schmidt replied essentially but with some differences. This house is sympathetic to this neighborhood. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Chris Spaulding, Project Architect: • Said that this home is different but with similar mass and style as two other homes nearby. • Said that the trees being removed are located behind the existing structure except for one near the pool and one at the front. • Added that they are clustered within the new building area at the rear. Commissioner Hunter asked if these trees would be replaced. Mr. Chris Spaulding said they are proposing to. • Planner Therese Schmidt said that the original tree bond amount calculated by the Arborist was $140,980. That amount was adjusted down to $103,580 with the agreement to comply with Arborist Babby's requirements. The Arborist has outlined replacement trees as 24-inch box. All replacement trees must be in place to the satisfaction of Arborist Babby before the tree bond can be released. Mr. Chris Spaulding pointed out that the trees are not removed because of the house but because of the removal of the old pool. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the mailing list for the hearing notice is wrong and includes properties on the other side of town from this property. Planner Therese Schmidt said that the wrong mailing list was attached to the report but the notice was properly sent to the correct list. Ms. Jill Chen, Property Owner and Applicant: • Said that she personally went to every neighbor with her plans and none had questions. • Stated that some neighbors were hard to reach but all are okay and signed the letters of support for her project. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that the Arborist Report dated September 9, 2005, recommended a higher tree bond. Planning Commission Minutes for December 14, 2005 Page 22 Planner Therese Schmidt said that at the time the bond amount took into consideration the • neighbor's trees. With additional mitigation measures to ensure the well being of those trees, the Arborist reduced the bond amount. Commissioner Hunter said that she is very grateful to be able to say yes to a project tonight. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #06-037) to demolish a single-story, single-family residence and construct a 6,098.6 square foot one-story, single-family residence on property located at 19358 Monte Vista Drive, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers and Schallop NOES: None ABSENT: Kundtz and Uhl ABSTAIN: None *** DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Director John Livingstone: • Reminded that there is no meeting on December 28, 2005. . COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Hunter advised that she attended the Ad Hoc meeting today where they are slowly going through the Village Guidelines. COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, Chair Nagpal adjourned the meeting at 9:52 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of January 11, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk r Item 1 • • • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: Type of Application: Owner: Staff Planner: Date: APN: 05/172 -14395 Quito Road Design Review J. C. Awbrey. Trustee Deborah Ungo-McCormick, AICP, Contract Planner January 11, 2006 397-05-015 Department Head: ~j- ~~ ~ 500 ft. buffer line 14395 Quito Road E . ~... ~^ 500 ft. of 14395 Quito Road Street_Labels ~~` Streets ~~.._] Parcels S 6Q'0 7S0 ft m 14395 Quito Road EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY: Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: OS/10/OS 12/14/05 12/28 /OS 12/21/05 O1/OS/OS The applicant requests design review approval to construct a new two-story, single-family residence with a detached garage/study. The total floor area of the proposed residence and garage/study is 3,942 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is approximately 26 feet. In addition, there is an existing 1,333 square foot residential building that will be retained as a cabana. The lot size is approximately 43,751 square feet and the site is zoned R-1 40,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the application for Design Review with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. • • Application No. 05-172;14395 Quito Road • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Very Low Residential Density MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: 43,751 gross and net square feet SLOPE: approximately 11.5 % average site slope and 1% at building site GRADING REQUIRED: Minimal grading required since most of the construction is at grade. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed new single-family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. MATERIALS AND COLORS: Materials and colors include stucco exterior painted in a light brown (Kelly Moore Balsam Brown) exterior with khaki (Maiden Stone) and beige (Limestone Ridge) or similar colors for window and door trim, El Dorado stone entry and chimney accents, a rustic wood door and Redland Red clay file roof. A colors and materials board is available on file with the Community Development Department and will be presented at the site visits and public hearing. • Application No. 05-172;14395 Quito Road PROJECT DATA: Lot Coverage: (impervious) Residence Garage/carport/study Porches Cabana Cabana patio/cover Paver areas Walkways Concrete retaining walls Sports Court Pump House TOTAL Floor Area: First Floor Second Floor Garage/study TOTAL Setbacks: Front Rear (cabana) Right Side Left Side (cabana) Height: Lowest elevation pt. Highest elevation pt. Average At the topmost point of the structure Maximum height ~, Proposal Code Requirements 19.79% Maximum Allowable 35% 2,694.00 sq. ft 812.00 sq. ft 100 sq. ft. 1,333.00 sq. ft. 604.00 sq. ft. 1,372.00 sq. ft. 216.00 sq. ft. 240.00 sq. ft. 1,200.00 sq. ft. 90.00 sq. ft. 8,661.00 sq. ft. 15,312.85 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable 2694.00 sq. ft 1248.00 sq. ft. 629.00 sq. ft. ft 5,904.00 sq. ft. . 5,922.00 sq. (10% slope reducrion) Minimum Requirement 28 ft 25 ft. 81 ft 50 ft. 25 ft. 20 ft. 28 ft. 20 ft. Maximum Allowable 96.53 98.0 97.26 123.26 26 ft. 26 ft. • Application No. 05-172;14395 Quito Road PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story, single-family residence that includes a detached garage and study. In addition, the applicant is proposing a carport to the left (west) of the garage with a garage door to maintain compatibility in appearance with the front garage elevation. The total floor area of the proposed single- family residence and garage is 3,942 square feet. The site currently contains a 1,333 square foot cottage that will be retained and converted into a cabana. The proposed total floor area for the site is 5,409 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. The lot size is approximately 43,751 square feet and the site is zoned R-1 40,000. The average slope of the property is 11.5 % and 1 % at building site. The site currently contains several accessory buildings in the middle and front portion of the lot that will be demolished and are located where the new residence and garage/study will be built. Because the existing cottage exceeds the maximum allowable floor area of 1200 sq. ft. for a secondary unit, it cannot be maintained as a dwelling unit and must me either reduce in size or converted into a cabana. The Saratoga Municipal Code defines a dwelling unit as: "Dwelling unit means a room or group of rooms including living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation facilities, constituting a separate and independent housekeeping units, occupied or intended for occupancy by one family on a permanent basis in and having not more than one kitchen." Thus, the kitchen will need to be removed from the cottage to convert it into a cabana." The applicant prefers to remove the kitchen instead of removing part of the recently remodeled structure to reduce its size. Sheet A-8 of the plan set includes a floor plan and elevations of the cabana and includes a note stating that the cabana is not a secondary unit and will contain no permanent kitchen facilities. Thus, a condition of approval has been added, which requires that the existing kitchen facilities in the cottage be removed prior to final occupancy of the main structure. The proposed residence incorporates an old country Tuscan style of architecture. Identifying features of the proposed residence include a rustic stucco finish complimented by Tuscan columns, rustic wood beams and fenestration details in keeping with a Tuscan farmhouse. Other features include rustic gauge copper gutter and downspouts, antique barn door, stone accents in the front entry, and an authentic Mediterranean hand cut stone will from the 1700's. The site contains 40 ordinance-size trees. The landscape plan for the project includes retaining all but one of the ordinance-size trees in their existing location. The multi-stem Oak tree (Tree #2) is the only tree that will be directly impacted by the project and the applicant proposes to relocate it on the site. The site also includes a sports court in the northeast corner of the site, a rough turf meadow, fruit orchard and pump house, and two Application No. 05-172;14395 Quito Road retaining walls along the west side of the existing house and buildings. All these features will be retained in addition the existing cottage (to be retained as a cabana) and adjacent patio. Additional trees and landscaping are proposed near the new home, which include olive trees, citrus trees and Italian Cypress. The landscape plan also incorporates stone pavers within a circular drive in the front entry area with a stone well feature and stone pavers in patio areas of the residence and garage/study area, all in keeping with the Tuscan farmhouse theme. The main driveway within the site is comprised primarily of a pervious Terrapave surface. The site is a legal parcel that does not have direct access onto a public street. Access to the site is provided by way of an ingress/egress easement along the southerly boundary of the adjacent parcel to the east (397-OS-014). Currently, the access easement is encroached by a two-story structure that was constructed by the adjacent property owner. The applicant will need to meet all Building and Fire Code access and fire suppression requirements, prior to building permit issuance. Compatibility with adjacent homes The project site is located in a residential area that consists of a mix of custom homes. The homes on either side of the project site are two-story homes. On both properties on either side of the subject site, the garages are located on the side abutting the subject property. The property to the west (left) of the site slopes and is at an elevation several feet higher than the average grade level of the area of the subject site where the construction is proposed. The new home has been designed to minimize interference with views and privacy to adjacent properties. This includes setbacks that exceed the minimum setbacks required by Code. One- upper story balcony is proposed facing the rear of the site. However, there are a 22-inch Oak and a 48 -inch Redwood tree immediately behind the balcony which provides screening, and the balcony at this point is located approximately 165 feet from the rear yard. In addition, the home on the adjacent site (along the rear property line) is approximately 100 feet from the property line. Additionally, the project has been designed to preserve ail of the existing mature landscaping along the rear and perimeter of the site. All adjacent sites also contain significant mature vegetation. Neighbor Correspondence The applicant has provided the City's neighbor notification templates for the- adjacent properties. No comments in opposition of the project had been received at the time of the writing of this report. Trees The Arborist Report identified 40 trees regulated by the Tree Ordinance that could be exposed to potential damage from the project. The Arborist report dated September 2, 2005 concluded that Tree 2, amulti-stemmed Oak tree located in the driveway entrance is the ~/ Application No. 05-172; 14395 Quito Road only tree that would be directly impacted by the project. The applicant proposes to relocate this tree on the site. The arborist concluded that that given the condition and size of this tree, relocation as proposed is acceptable. The Arborist Report includes specific design recommendations that are included as conditions of approval of the project to ensure that all ordinance-size tree will be protected through demolition and construction. Based on the proposed plans and location of trees, the tree protection bond would have a combined value of $138,400. Geotechnical Clearance: The application requires geotechnical review. Geotechnical Clearance was granted with conditions. The geotechnical conditions have been incorporated in the attached Resolution. Design Review Findings: The proposed project is consistent with all the following Design Review findings stated in MCS 15-45.080: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy The project has been designed in a manner that minimizes interference with views and privacy to adjacent properties. This includes setbacks that exceed the minimum setbacks required by Code. One balcony is proposed in the rear upper level of the new house facing the rear of the lot, where the setbacks would be over 165 ft. from the side setback and is screened by a 48 inch Redwood tree and a 22-inch Oak which provide significant screening. Additionally, the project has been designed to preserve most of the existing mature landscaping along the rear and other perimeter of the site and on adjacent sites (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The proposed residence and landscape plan incorporate the existing mature vegetation on the site. The use of earth-tone stucco and a clay the roofing in earth tone colors will blend with the natural environment. These measures serve to preserve and enhance the natural landscape of the site. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees.. The Arborist Report identified 40 trees regulated by the Tree Ordinance that could be exposed to potential damage. Of these, only one multi-stemmed Oak tree that is located in the area where driveway is proposed, will impacted by the project. The applicant is proposing to retain all other ordinance size trees, and to relocate the Oak tree while implementing recommendations by the City Arborist to ensure protection of the trees and trees on the adjacent site. All arborist report recommendations have been made conditions of approval of the project to ensure a high degree of survival for all trees retained on site. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulb Architectural details such as varied rooflines, varied and recessed wall planes. In addition, the elevations include rustic S~ Application No. 05-172;14395 Quito Road stucco finish complimented by Tuscan columns, rustic wood beams and fenestration details in keeping with a Tuscan farmhouse. Other features include rustic gauge copper gutter and downspouts, antique barn door, stone accents in the front entry to create architectural interest and reduce mass and bulk. (e) Compatible bulk and height The proposed residence is located in an area, which contains a mix of older single-story and newer two-story homes. The two-story residence has been designed in a manner that minimizes the appearance in height and bulk by varied and breaking up the planes: In addition, the home does not exceed the maximum height allowed in the area and zoning district. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposal would conform to the City's current grading and erosion control methods. (g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above and staff report. Conclusion Staff concludes that the Design Review findings can be supported. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the application for Design Review with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval. 2. Neighbor Notification templates. 3. Arborist Report, dated September 2, 2005. 4. Affidavit of Mailing Notices, Public Hearing Notice, Mailing labels for project notification. 5. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A" • • • • Attachment 1 • APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION N0.05-0_ Application No. 05-172 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Awbrey;14395 Quito Road WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review for a new 3,942 square foot, two-story home with an attached garage/study, and a 1,333 square foot cabana and with a maximum height of 26 feet for the main residential structure; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the project, which proposes to construct a new single-family home, is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 3 exemption applies to construction of a single family home in an urbanized area; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for design review approval, and the following findings specified in Municipal Code Section 15-45.080 have been made in the affirmative: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The project has been designed in a manner that minimizes interference with views and privacy to adjacent properties. This includes setbacks that exceed the minimum setbacks required by Code. One balcony is proposed in the rear upper level of the new house facing the rear of the lot, where the setbacks would be over 165 ft.-from the side setback and is screened by a 48 inch Redwood tree and a 22-inch Oak which provide significant screening. Additionally, the project has been designed to preserve most of the existing mature landscaping along the rear and other perimeter of the site and on adjacent sites (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The proposed residence and landscape plan incorporate the existing mature vegetation on the site. The use of earth-tone stucco and a clay tle roofing in earth tone colors will blend with the natural environment. These measures serve to preserve and enhance the natural landscape of the site. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees.. The Arborist Report identified 40 trees regulated by the Tree Ordinance that could be exposed to potential damage. Of these, only one multi-stemmed Oak tree that is located in the area where driveway is proposed, will impacted by the project. The applicant is proposing to retain all other ordinance size trees, and to relocate the Oak tree while implementing recommendations by the City Arborist to ensure protection of the trees and trees on the adjacent site. All aborist report recommendations have been made conditions of approval of the project to ensure a high degree of survival for all trees retained on site. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. Architectural details such as varied rooflines, varied and recessed wall planes. In addition, the elevations include rustic stucco finish complimented by Tuscan columns, rustic wood beams and fenestration details in keeping with a Tuscan farmhouse. Other features include rustic gauge copper gutter and downspouts, antique barn door, stone accents in the front entry to create architectural interest and reduce mass and bulk. (e) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed residence is located in an area, which contains a mix of older single-story and newer two-story homes. The two-story residence has been designed in a manner that minimizes the appearance in height and bulk by varied and breaking up the planes. In addition, the home does not exceed the maximum height allowed in the area and zoning district. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposal would conform to the City's current grading and erosion control methods. (g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above and staff report. 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 No. 05-172 for Design Review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: ~© COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ,. 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" (incorporated by reference, date stamped January 4, 2006) and in compliance with the conditions stated in this Resolution. Any proposed changes, -including but not limited to facade design-and materials - to the approved plans shall be submitted in writing with a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Proposed changes to the approved plans are subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. 2. The permanent kitchen facilities shall be removed from the existing cottage to make it a cabana, prior to final occupancy of the new two-story residence. The cabana shall not function or be approved as a secondary unit on the site. 3. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the Arborist Report dated September 2, 2005, as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division. 4. Front yard landscaping shall be installed prior to final occupancy inspection. A landscape bond may be submitted along with the applicable filing fee in lieu of this requirement. 5. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 6. A grading and drainage plan stamped by a registered civil engineer combined with a storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices, shall be submitted along with the complete construction drawings. An explanato~ note shall be provided if all storm water cannot be maintained on site. 7. Water and/or runoff from the project site shall not be directed toward the adjacent properties. 8. The construction set shall include a final landscape, irrigation and utility plan. The utility plan shall show locations of air conditioning units and pool equipment enclosures. Any proposed undergrounding of utilities /~ • • shall take into account potential damage to roots of protected trees, and shall follow the recommendations included in the arborist report. 9. The owner/applicant is responsible for all damages to curb, gutter and public street caused during the project construction by project construction vehicles at the public right away areas at/near the property frontage. Public Works Inspector will determine if any repair is required prior to Final Occupancy Approval. 10. Applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the City Public Works Department for any work in the public right-of-way including construction and curb, gutter and street repair. 11. T'he final landscape plans shall include relocation of Tree #2 in accordance with the arborist report and the proposed conceptual landscape plan as shown on Sheet L-1 of Exhibit "A". Final landscape plan shall be subject to approval by the Community Development Director. 12. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped areas especially along any hardscaped area. 13. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. 14. Property maintenance of landscping with minimal pesticide use, shall be the responsibility of the property owner. 15. All processing fees, in the form of deposit accounts on file with the community development department, shall be reconciled with a minimum $500 surplus balance prior to building permit issuance until final occupancy is granted. CITY ARBORIST 16. All recommendations contained in the City Arborist Report dated September 2, 2005 shall be followed. ~~ 17. Tree protective fencing and other protective measures, as specified by the City Arborist in review of the final plans, shall be installed and inspected by Planning Staff prior to issuance of City Permits. 18. The submitted final landscape and irrigation plan shall be consistent with the Conceptual Landscape Plan (Sheet L-1 and L-2), and recommendations stated in the City Arborist Report. 19. Prior to issuance of City Permits, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount of $138,400 to guarantee their maintenance and preservation. 20. Prior to Final Building Inspection approval, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. The bond shall be released after the planting of required replacement trees, a favorable site inspection by the City Arborist, and the payment of any outstanding Arborist fees. Geotechnical Clearance: r v all 21. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review and app o e geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for the building foundation, retaining walls, pool and driveway) to ensure that the plans, specifications and details accurately reflect the consultants' recommendations. 22. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to issuance of permits. 23. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections -shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for fill keyways, and foundation construction prior to placement of fill, steel and concrete. 24. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the geologic and geotechnical consultants in a ~~ letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to Final Project Approval. 25. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to issuance of a building permit. 26. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other related and/or erosion related conditions. FIRE DISTRICT 27. Applicant shall comply with all Fire Department conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 28. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. Section 2. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 36 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. • /~ PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, the 11th day of January 2006 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission • ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. /~ • Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • • l ~v • Attachment 2 • . AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, Deborah Ungo-McCormick, 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 Department on the 21th day of December, 2005, that I deposited in the United States Post Office within Sarita 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 250 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. i I~ Signed • /D 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 11th day of January 2006, at 7:00 p.m. Located in the City Theater at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Details are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. PROJECT LOCATION: 14395 QUITO ROAD APN: 397-OS-015; AWBREY, property owner APPLICATION: #OS-172 The applicant requests design review approval to construct atwo-story, single-family residence and detached garage. The total floor area of the proposed residence and garage is 4,571 square feet. An existing 1333 square foot building will be retained as a cabana. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. The lot size is approximately 43,751 square feet and the site is zoned R-1 40,000. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you maybe limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before Tuesday, January 3, 2006. 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. • /9 Impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide ~ www.avery.com Utilisez le gabarit 5160® ~ 1-800-GO-AVERY 39705009,39705010 40716007,40716012,40717050,40714008 ~m P. & Nona H. Christensen, Trustee SCVWD rrern owner or currern owner 185 I0 Sobey Rd 14304 Quito Rd Saratoga, CA 95070-0000 Los Gatos, CA 95030-0000 39705014 Robert J. & Virginia L Good or currern owner 14391 Quito Rd Saratoga, CA 95070-5626 39705015 Eunice Silacci, Trustee or currern owner 12481 Radoyka Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-5626 AVERY® 5160® 39705011 Nona Christensen or current owner 18510 Sobey Rd Saratoga; CA 95070-5610 39705028,39705028 Lester F. Hinz, Executor or currern owner PO Box 97 Saratoga, CA 95070-5626 40716014 39705072 39705073 Cupertino Capital Pacific Group Trust Management, Trustee Arthur L & Nancy K. (kola, Trustees or currern owner or current owner or currern owner 15700 Winchester BNd PO Box 2459 14463 Evans Ln. Los Gatos, CA 95032-0000 Saratoga, CA 95070-5601 Saratoga, CA 95070-5601 39705074 39705075 39705076 Rosalie M. Cac'rcti, Trustee James A. & Charlotte A. Lafferty, Trustees Barbara Tennison or current owner or currern owner or current owner 14501 Evans Ln. 14464 Evans Ln. 14452 Evans Ln. Saratoga, CA 95070-5601 ~ Saratoga, CA 95070-5602 Saratoga, CA 95070-5602 39705077 39705078 39705079 John M. & Abby J. Sobrato, Trustees Eugene R & Mary-Lynne Bernald Ashwin & Varsha Vora 1993 Comm'I Properties Trust or currern owner or currern owner Trent owner 14398 Evans Ln. 14356 Evans Ln. 0 Evans Ln. Saratoga, CA 95070-5602 Saratoga, CA 95070-5602 Saratoga, CA 95070-5602 39705080 39705081 39705082 Barry C. & Toby L Fernald, Trustees Mohammed & Mary K Amanatullah Paul & Barbara R. Heath, Trustees or currern owner or currern owner or currern owner 14344 Evans Ln. 14312 Evans Ln. 1431 I Quito Rd Saratoga, CA 95070-5602 Saratoga, CA 95070-5602. Saratoga, CA 95070-5626 39705083 39705088,39705089 40714013 Francis A. & Barbara H. Tiernan Glide/Write Albert F. & Helen J. Gaetano, Trustees or currern owner or current owner or current owner 14355 Quito Rd 304 Turquoise St 115 Old Adobe Rd Saratoga, CA 95070-5626 Saratoga, CA 95070-561 I Los Gatos, CA 95032-0000 39705090 39705091 39705093 Joseph M. & Rosalie I. Seward, Trustees Grace A. Sanfilippo, Trustee David E. Scott or currern owner or currern owner or currern owner 14357 Evans Ln. 117 EI Porton 14269 Quito Rd Saratoga, CA 95070-5601 Saratoga, CA 95070-0000 Saratoga, CA 95070-5626 39705094 39705095 39705096 Chung P. & Sho, L Lee Joann Li Yun Lee Timothy McNeil or currern owner or currern owner or current owner I I I Quko Rd 14401 Quito Rd 18450 Sobey Rd oga, CA 95070-5676 Saratoga, CA 95070-5676 Saratoga, CA 95070-5610 40716008 40714010 40714011 Brown and Kauffman Inc. Richard L. & Patricia A. Thompson Gary M. Gold or current owner or currern owner or currern owner 3 Embarcadero Center I O I Old Adobe Rd I OS Old Adobe Rd San Francisco, CA 941 I I Los Gatos, CA 95032-0000 Los Gatos, CA 95032-0000 ~b Impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide ~ vuww.avery.com ~ AVERY 5160® Utilisez le gabarit 5160® 1-800-GO-AVERY 40714012 Carlos E. Martinez, et al or current owner 109 Old Adobe Rd Los Gatos, CA 95032-0000 40714007,40714009 Town Of Los Gatos or current owner 110 East Main St Los Gatos, CA 95030-6904 • • • ~~ • • Attachment 3 • a~ 01/03/06 TLTE 14:11 FA% 4086156904 ADCI INC N~aghbor Notification ~'emplate fox.. Development Applications 2~ ~S pate: ~ SS: (`4`3 `~ ~ . Q.~ ~-C-~ '~zr' ~ '~ PRO7EC App _ - Applicant Name: ~~~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Application Number: V~ l 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 ~r ~oncerns and Issues when so ~crted by favorably upon neighbors who fail to voi 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 dir~ect;y to the applicant. Please ensure the signature onthis document is representative of all residents residing en 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~Iy°si~gnature below•cer#ifi~es-tb~followi~$ti-; have reviewed. the~iroj.ect plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues wbfcb 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; ~ and stand the sco a of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after dfscussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): ~ \r. ~..~ ~ rx~ti~ ~irt~v~. ~ ~x ric~-w Ncighbor Name: Ncighbor Address: ~~ ~ ~~~a„~ Neighbor Phone #: ~p g B 6 6 . - ! ~S `7-`" ~` `~ C o ~--: ~x,,,'~-s~~ ~•-. ~ ,C.r nay. Signature: Printed; ~z~-r-~ ~.~ City of Saratoga ., Planning Department C~ 003 • t • ~~ 01/03/06 TUE 14:17 FAg 4086156904 ADCI INC Neighbor Notification Template for.. Development Applications Date: ~ ~ ~ ~ S P~o~c aDD ss: I q-~ q ~ ~ ~-~ ~ ~ ~ Applicant Name: ~~ ~ ~ V1l ~'~ ~ Application Number:_. ~~ I ~2 ~ ' . ~ - . The Saratoga Planning Commission regu~res applicants to work with. their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior io the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. 'The Planning Commission floes not Iook favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicantsprior 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 ro the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative'ofoll residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion,expressed below, you, may reserve the right to amend your opinion at ~a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. y-signa#ure below~certi~x.es~e-following;-~ have r~~ed.ihe~roject plans; I understand the scope of work; and T d.o NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public~hearing on the praposed.project. UMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; ~ understand the sco a of work; and X have issues or concerns, which after discussion with tine applicant, have not been addressed. My ~concerns~ are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): ~~ • Neighbor Name:. Neighbor Address: / ~~. ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~~ a~~ ~~ [~ooz C~~~~~ Neighbor Phone #: ~ ~~ ~~ ;~. City of Saratoga Signature: Printed: ~;~ Planning Department 01/03/06 TUE 14:17 FAX 4086156904 ADCI INC . Neighbor Notification Template. for. Development Applications Date: ~ ~ ~ `' ~ PRO7EC ADD SS: 14~ q ~ Q•j i-l'"~ ~~'~' ~ , , Applicant Name: ~~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Application Number: ~~ 7'he Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with,iheir neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. ' ~'he Planning Commission hoes 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. ~- aMysignature below ~cer`tI£ es-~followutg;-~ have reviewed. the~xoj.ect plans; I understand the scone of work and Y d.o NQT have sny concerns or issues wbich need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed. project. ^A2y signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the sco e o work; and Y have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My eoncems are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): . Neighbor Name: ~{~D ~O~y6-j Gf4T1..~~ ,~'~u~r f .~-e-e Neighbor Address: ~eCr G~ .Ty ~ ~ Neighbor Phone #: b~ 3 ~o ~ ~ ~~ Signature: Printed: ~/tt~d~Qrt/~ G~~i'~ Gft uNr~ ~• L~ z ~- C~ 0 O 1 • • • City of Saratoga `~ Planning Department ~~ 06i16l45 THLT 16:21 F.+1s 4086156904 ?,DCI INC Neighbor Notification Template for. development Applications Date: '~ 2 ~ ~ 5 • PROJE ADD SS: ~ "~' 3 `~ S . Q.J i-I'~ ~-'° ~ ~ . Applicant Name: ~1 _ V1~'~'~'~l~ ~. Application Number: ~~ t ~~ ~ _-- The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicadts io work with. their neighbvr.~ to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of __ the public hearing.on the proposed project. ~ T7te 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, jjrand the Planning Commission prefer that " neighbors take this opportunity to express~any concerns or issues they may have direetlj- to the applicant. Please_ensure the signature on this document rr represe»tative'ofall residents residing an your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at ~a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. -y~ignature below~certifies-#13e followingr~ h~axe re~+iewe~l.#he.praject plans; I understand the stove of work; and I du 11'UT have any concerns or issues which need . to be address by the applicant prior io the City's public~hearing on the prpposed.praject. UMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the sco e o wor • and I have issues or concerns, which alter discussiaA with the applicant, have not been addressed. My conceras are tk~e following (please • attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Narae• ~ ~ ~-~ • • Neighbor Address: (~ ~'~gh~b° hone #: ~~ ~ ' l~~" O~~ ~i afore; Printed; Q `~fi.JU' /~ ~ !f City of Saratoga '~ Planning Department 1~ U02 ~~ 06/16/05 THL1 16:22 FAQ 408615690 9DCI INC • • ~ 004 Neighbor Notification Template far ~ ` D'evelopme~at Applications Date: ~ ~ 5 ~~ s4-'~ Gl'S ~.J I~ 'moo R '~' P~OJ'EC ADD S S : I ~ ~ . Applicant. Name: ~1 ~+c ~ ~~ ~ Application Number: ~~ ~ l~canis to work with their neighbors to 7~e Saratogax Planning Commission requires app address issues and concerns regarding ect elThe Planning Gommissiori does not~look of ' the public hectrzng on the proposed prod favorably upon neighbors whoh~r~ v Sta thantd the Planning Comrniss an Prefp' ~ applicants prior to the public $ ~ _. .. naigh$nrs take this oppor_tu i~Yt tp express; any_concerns or issues they may have directly _ _ _ _ _ __. to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this dv,eeiinerit is represenYaiiv~ ofzcii residents residing.on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed betow~ you . may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it ro the City of Saratoga. (~ -si afore below certifies-the~follo~wing~.~ have re~ievuetl the project plans; I_ V~IIv1Y ~ under] d the sco a of wor ~ ; and ~ do NOT have any concerns or issues whfeb 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 protect plans; I understand the sca a of work; and ~ ddressed~MyC~n~ rns~are the f llowasng (please with the applicant, have not been attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: ~ ~~ ~ b I~~ Z~ ~~lA~ f~1. ~+~'~'a6A~ ~'~ Neighbor Phone #: ~, ~ + ~ ~~ ~ ~g Printed: Signature: ~,,,,, ~~,~c, laRa R~ag~- C city ojSaratoga ,~'lanning Department • ~~ 06/16/05 THU 16:22 FAX 4086156904 ADCI INC Neighbor Notification 't'emplate for. Development Applications Date: ~J ~- ~ '~ ~ pROJ~CT ADD SS: ~ ~-~ Q ~ `~ t~ {~° f~~ . Applicant Name: ~~"~ t W ~~ Application Number: p ~ ~ ~~ • 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 FlQnning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues where solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Sta~'and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this apportuniry to express any concerns ar issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is represer:tative 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^.iiviy-signa#ure below•certifxes-tbe~•fol]owinge-I; have revicwed.~~roject plans; I understand the sco a 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. ^N1y signatwe below certifies the fol]owing: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work; and ~ Dave issues ar concerns, whicL after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please • attach additional sheets if necessary): ,//~~j r Neighbor Name' `~~l~~~~ Neighbor Address: t2A-~`D 6~- Neighbor 2'hone #: ~ ~ ~ ~~'- 'rj~~~~ signature: • • Printed: f~j 0 0 ~ City of Saratoga ~~ ,~ Planning ~7epartment ~~ •' Attachment 4 • • ~G _ a-'=., ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF A PROPOSED NEW RESIDENCE AT 14395 QUITO ROAD SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME: Awbrey APN #: 397-05-015 APPLICATION #: 05-172 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 Se tember 2, 2005 P P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources@comcast.net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.240.0777 • Licensed Contractor #796763 C 3 -David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist September 2, 2005 INTRODUCTION ~~ The City of Saratoga Community Development Department has requested I review the potential tree impacts associated with the proposal to demolish an existing barn and construct a new residence at 14395 Quito Road, Saratoga. This report presents my findings and recommendations. ' Plans reviewed for this report include Sheet A-1 (by Hometec Architecture, Inc., dated 8/8/05 and Sheet L-1 and L-2 by Garden Design Service, dated 7/24/05. The trees' locations and numbers are presented on an attached copy of Sheet A-1 (Site Plan). The trees are sequentially numbered from 1 thru 40. For identification purposes, round, metallic tags were attached to the trunks of accessible trees and contain engraved numbers that correspond to those presented within this report. FINDINGS There are 40 trees regulated by City Ordinance that were inventoried for this report.. They include six Cypress (#3-8); seven Walnuts (#1, 9, 10, 20-22, 32); sixteen Coast Live Oaks (#2, 11, 12, 25-31, 33-35, 38-40); three Coast Redwoods (#14, 24, 37); one Douglas-Fir (#13); five Monterey Pines (#15-18, 36); and two Valley Oaks (#19, 23). Specific data compiled for each is presented on the attached table. Tree #2 is in direct conflict with the future driveway. Sheet A-1 indicates this tree will be relocated rather than removed. Given its relatively small size, I find this course of action is feasible with a reasonable assurance that the tree will survive. All other trees are planned for retention and can be adequately protected provided the recommendations presented within this report are carefully followed and incorporated into construction plans. The plans show construction of a sport court at the property's northeast corner. This feature has already been installed. The bond amount required for adhering to the recommendations presented in this report is determined to be $138,400.1 ~ This value represents the combined value of the inventoried trees and is calculated in accordance with the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9`"Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2000. • • • Awbrey Property, 14395 Quito Road, Saratoga Page 1 of 4 City of Saratoga Community Development Department David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist September 2, 2005 RECOMMENDATTONS All recommendations presented below are intended to serve as design and development guidelines for mitigating any foreseeable impacts to Ordinance-sized trees on site and adjacent properties. Should plans be revised, the recommendations may require modification. Please note recommendations within `Design Guidelines' would seemingly only need to be incorporated into the final construction drawings. Design Guidelines 1. The proposed driveway and retaining wall should be revised so no soil cuts or fill are required within 10 feet of the trunks of trees #3 and 4. 2. The proposed swales should be designed outside from beneath the trees' canopies. 3. The proposed dissipater should be designed at least 8 feet from the northern property boundary and 10 feet from the eastern boundary. 4. The locations of trees #30 and 39 should be added to the Site Plan. 5. There is a discrepancy between the actual location of the sewer manhole in relation to trees #18 and 19. If installed in the direction as proposed (between the trunks of trees #18 and 19), it shall be horizontally bored with the pit established east of the existing retaining wall. Where this is not feasible, I should be consulted for an alternative installation method(s). 6. The location of the protective fencing delineated on the attached map should be shown on the Sheet A-1. 7. This entire report should be incorporated into the set of fmal building plans and be titled Sheet T-1 (Tree Protection Instructions). 8. The canopy dimensions of each tree presented in this report should reflect the sizes presented on the attached table and be shown on Sheets A-1 (this includes trees on neighboring properties). Furthermore, the numbers assigned to each tree should also be shown on both plans. 9. Temporary or permanent drainage features, including downspouts, must be designed so water is not discharged towards or near the trunks of retained trees. 10. The grading and drainage design must not require trenching, soil cuts or fill beyond two feet from the home's foundation or~driveway edge where beneath a tree's canopy. 11. Upon availability, the irrigation design should be reviewed for tree impacts. • Awbrey Property, 14395 Quito Road, Saratoga Page 2 of 4 City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~ ~/ David L. Bobby, Registered Consulting Arborist September 2, 2005 12. The walkway and decomposed granite path proposed beneath tree # 14's canopy should . be planned for establishment entirely on top of existing soil grade (i.e. a no-dig design). The landscape design should incorporate this recommendation. 13. The proposed mulched path/trail around the property's perimeter shall not require soil cuts or fill where beneath the trees' canopies; the expectation is that existing soil grade will remain and mulch will be placed on top of existing grade. The landscape design should also incorporate this recommendation. 14. The following additional recommendations should be incorporated into the landscape design and the landscape plan revised accordingly: a. New plant material should be avoided or limited towazds the outer portion of the azea beneath the trees' canopies; it should comprise no more than 20-percent of the canopy area. Plant material installed beneath the Oak canopies shall be drought- tolerant and compatible with Oaks. b. Irrigation should not .spray beneath the Oak canopies or within five feet from the trunks of all other trees. c. Any trenching for irrigation, lighting, plumbing lines or drainage should be designed beyond the trees' canopies. If irrigation or electrical lines for lighting aze designed inside this distance, the trenches should be in a radial direction to the trunks and established no closer than five times the diameter of the nearest trunk; if this not be possible, the lines can be placed on top of existing soil grade and covered with wood chips or other mulch. d. 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. e. Tilling beneath the canopies must be avoided, including for weed control. f. Bender board or other edging material proposed beneath the trees' canopies should be established on top of existing soil grade. Protection Measures during Demolition and Construction 15. Tree protective fencing shall be installed precisely as shown on the attached map and established prior to any grading, surface scraping, construction 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 24 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. I should be consulted regarding whether access within the fenced area is necessary for equipment or personnel to access the future cabana. 16. 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: demolition, grading, surface scraping, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. Awbrey Property, 14395 Quito Road, Saratoga Page 3 of 4 City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~ 3 David L. Bobby, Registered Consulting Arborist September 2, 2005 ,, 17. Prior to installing fencing, Irecommend afour-inch layer of coarse wood chips ('/z- to 3/a-inch in size) is manually spread beneath tree #24's canopy where gravel does not exist. The wood chips should not be in contact with the tree's trunk. 18. Each recommendation presented within the `Design Guidelines' section shall be followed. 19. All approved grading and trenching beneath a tree's canopy shall be manually performed using shovels. Roots encountered during the process shall be cleanly severed on the tree side of where the cut occurs; roots with diameters of two inches and greater shall be wrapped in a plastic sandwich bag that is sealed with a rubber band. In the case of any approved trenching, -roots two inches and greater in diameter should be retained and tunneled beneath. Please note great caze shall be taken to avoid cutting beyond two feet from any foundation or utility/drainage trench. 20. Any unused, existing underground utilities/services, lines or pipes beneath the trees' canopies should be abandoned and cut off at existing soil grade. 21. Any tree pruning must be performed under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist (not by construction personnel) and according to ISA standazds. Information regazding Certified Arborists in the azea can be obtained at http://www. isa-arbor. com. 22. The relocation of tree #2 shall be performed by a professional tree moving company that is experienced with successfully relocating trees. All recommendations for post- transplant care shall be followed and should include the installation of an automatic irrigation system (drip or soaker hose) for supplying water to the tree's roots for a minimum of two-years following installation. 23. Throughout construction during the dry months of April thru October, supplemental water should be provided to trees #1, 3-5, 14 and 24 every two to three weeks. I suggest an application rate of 10 gallons of water per inch of trunk diameter supplied to the soil azeas beneath the trees' canopies by deep-root injection or using low-pressure (water should not be applied against the trees' trunks). 24. 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. 25. Herbicides should not be applied beneath the canopies of retained trees. Where used on site, they must be labeled for safe use near trees. Attachments: Tree Inventory Table Site Map (a copy of Sheet A-1) Awbrey Property, 14395 Quito Road, Saratoga Page 4 of 4 f City oJSaratoga Community Development Department ~ }~ _ ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care ,. TREE INVENTORY TABLE California Black Walnut 1 (Juglans c. hindsii) ~19 30 50 75% 25% Fair Low 3 - X $370 .:. ,.. .., ~ ~ 3 3 '~ 3 ~ ~ . a T to mo ~' I~ ~ C. ca O ~ cS~~ ~ 1~i ~ c o, ° °o ° 'u \ ' a~ O a~. d. ~, ~ ° ~ .~ ~ Rt ~ CQ U ,~ ~ _ ,~ lrtr"r" - Qn ~ ~ y,, ~ C ~ C ~ '. N. ~ .3 II ~V •y 0. O NO. 'TREE NAME ~, °' w ~ w v~ x .. ~ C O ~ v~ r~ ~ ..; S r~ Coast Live Oak 2 (Quercus agrifolia) 6, 4.5 20 15 100% 25% Fair Moderate - X X $830 Arizona Cypress 3 (Cupressus arizonica) 24 60 30 75"/0 50% Fair Moderate 1 - X $3,110 Arizona Cypress 4 (Cupressus arizonica) 18 55 30 75% 50% Fair Moderate 2 - X $1,760 Arizona Cypress 5 (Cupressus arizonica) 11 50 30 75% 50% Fair Moderate 3 - X $670 Arizona Cypress (Cupressus arizonica) 14 55 30 75% 50% Fair Moderate 4 - X $1 Arizona Cypress (Cupressus arizonica) 18 55 30 75% 50% Fair Moderate 5 - X $1 Arizona Cypress 8 (Cupressus arizonica) 16 55 25 75% 50% Fair Moderate 5 - X $1,400 • ~' California Black Walnut 9 (Juglans c. hindsii) 17 50 45 50% 25% Poor Low 5 - $190 California Black Walnut 10 (Juglans c. hindsii) 27.5 35 40 50% 25% Poor Low 4 - $460 Coast Live Oak 11 (Quercus agrifolia) 23.5 30 50 75% 75% Good High 3 - $9,400 Coast Live Oak 12 (Quercus agrijolia) 29 50 50 75% 50% Fair High 5 - $13,000 Douglas-Fir 13 (Pseudotsuga menziesii) 21.5 70 45 l00% l00% Good High 5 - $5,100 Coast Redwood 14 (Sequoia sempervirens) 33.5 30 35 75% 25% Fair Low 2 - $6,900 Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata) 15.5 80 40 50% 50% Fair Moderate 5 - $ REPLACEMENT' TREE VALUES 15-gallon = $120 24-inch box = $420 36-inch box = $1,320 48-inch box = $5,000 52-inch box = $7,000 72-inch box = $15,000 Site: ]4395 Quo Rood Saratoga Prepared for: City of Saratoga Community Development Depart Prepared by: David L Babby, RCA I oj3 J 9%2/2005 _ ARBOR RESOL;IRCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care TREE INVENTORY TABLE ,-. ~_ ~ .~ . .. r ~ c o o ~o ~ a.a ~ m ~ M •~ ~ o ~ o ;~ ~:, ~ ~n 3 Q : :~ . TREE •~ ca ~ of b ~ ~"~„ o ° ,~ a o ~. p ~ . ~..°D ~:x C ~ V ' ~ .~ Q NO: ; TREE NAME ~ ~ ~ H . _ w a w ~ ~ o ~ c ~ " ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ~ C ~ . ~ c c ~. H Monterey Pine 16 (Pines mdiata) 17 80 60 75% 50% Fair Moderate 5 - $640 Monterey Pine 17 (Pines radiates) 17 90 50 75% 50% Fair Moderate 5 - $640 Monterey Pine 18 (Pines radiates) 23 75 60 75% 75% Good High 5 - $1,450 Valley Oak 19 (Quetrus !abates) 16 40 45 100% 75% Good High 5 - $8,000 English Walnut 20 (Juglans regia) 13 20 35 75% 50% Fair Moderate 3 - $530 English Walnut L (Juglans regia) 10 10 20 75% 50% Fair Moderate 5 - English Walnut 22 (Juglans regia) 9, 7, 6.5 15 25 75% 25% Fair Low 5 - $440 Valley Oak 23 (Quetrus !abates) 21.5 55 60 100% 75% Good High 5 - $16,300 Coast Redwood 24 (Sequoia sempervirens) 46 65 45 75% 50% Fair Moderate 2 - $14,600 Coast Live Oak 25 (Quercus agrifolia) 6.5, 5.5 20 20 75% 75% Good High 3 - $1,100 Coast Live Oak 26 (Querrus agrifolia) ~10 25 20 100% 75% Good High 2 - $1,800 Coast Live Oak 27 (Quercus agrifolia) -10 30 20 100% 75% Good High 1 - $1,800 Coast Live Oak 28 (Quercus agrifolia) -18, 15 50 40 100% 50% Good High 2 - X $10,200 Coast Live Oak 29 (Quereus agrijolia) --6 20 20 75% 50% Fair Moderate 3 - X $520 Coast Live Oak luercus agrifolia) 12 6 25 25 100% 75% Good High 3 - X $3,160 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 15-gallon = $120 24-inch box =$420 36-inch box = $1,320 48-inch box = $5,000 52-inch box = $7,000 72-inch box = $15,000 Site: 14395 Quito Rood Saratoga Prepared for: City of Sarowga Community Development Depart Prepared by: David L Bobby, RCA Z of3 9/Z/2005 n 1 (P _ ~ ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care TREE INVENTORY TABLE ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 3 ~ o ~' .~ w •• ~ ~ ,, a o ~ ;; 'moo ~ o: ~,~ ~ ~ r, . ~ w 'a ~ M A ~ .~' ~ tO .d ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ 'y °~ ~ ~. ~ ~ Q TREE : ~ a ~ .~ w ~o ~ °o ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~x U"y ~ ~': NO.: TREE NAME a F., ~, v w ~. a w v~ o , x :., . o ~ ~ .., > O ~ ~ a ,,., ~- a S H Coast Live Oak 31 (Quercus agrifolia) 8, 5.5 25 20 100% 50% CJOOd High 3 - X $1,730 English Walnut 8, 7.5, 32 (Juglans regia) 5.5(2), 5 15 20 75% 50% Fair Moderate 3 - $540 Coast Live Oak 33 (Quereus agrijolia) ~6 20 15 100% 100% Goal Higl- 3 - X $920 34 Coast Live Oak (Quercus ogrifolia) ~ --7 25 15 100% 100% Good High 3 - X $1,220 35 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) ~l 1, 8, 7, 6 30 30 100% 50% Gard High 2 - X $4,420 Monterey Pine 3(, (Pines radiata) 19.5 35 40 25% 50% Poor Low 2 - $410 Coast Redwood 37 (Sequoia sempervirens) 22 55 40 75% 50% Fair High 2 - $4,780 ~~I Coast Live Oak -22, 18, 38 (Quercus agrifolia) 7 35 50 100% 50% r,~ ~~ 3 - $14,300 Coast Live Oak 39 (Quercus agrifolia) ~7, 5.5 30 20 100% 50% Goal High 3 - $1,240 Coast Live Oak 4p (Querrus agrifolia) 5.5, 4 25 20 100% 75% Good High 3 - $860 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 15-gallon = $120 24-inch box = $420 36-inch box = $1,320 48-inch box = $5,000 52-inch box = $7,000 72-inch box = Site: 14395 Quito Rood Swatoga Prepared for: City of Swatogo Camnruniry Development Depart Prepared 6y: David L Ba66y, RCA 3 of 3 9/2/~OOS i• 0 O m ~ ~ r. r~ ~ ~C ~s~ ~~~~ ~N O A Z +O ~ `~~~ ~_ ~~ ,J~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~1 ~~ • Attachment 5 • ~~ Item 2 ~ REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: Type of Application: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Date: APN: 06-076/14360 Paul Avenue Design Review Muzhi Guo and Zhaoging Ma(Owner/Applicant) Therese M. Schmidt, Associate Plann~~~~~ January 11, 2006 503-27-050 Department Head: John Livingstone, Dir cto • a ~ ......._ ..~ 150 300 450 600 7° :Buffer zones around 74.960 PatA Avenue GCJ1 14360f~lAvenue 0500 ft ~ ~ ~ ~ n ^ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Parcels O~r~ so-eetNarres `~. ~ ~Gn~T ~ ~ ~ NORT^ ft ~_i 14360 Paul Avenue • Application No. 06-037; 19358 Monte Vista Drive/Chen. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • CASE HISTORY Application filed: 08/23/05 Application complete: 12/05/05 Notice published: 12/28/05 Mailing completed: 12/22/05 Posting completed: 01/05/06 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests design review approval to demolish cone-story, single-family residence and construct atwo-story single-family residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence is 2,017.5 square-feet with a 382.5 square-foot attached garage. A 966 square-foot basement is also proposed. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 25-feet 6-inches. The gross lot size is 5,162 square-feet and the site is zoned R-1 10,000. STAFF RECOMI~~NDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the application for Design Review • with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. • 2 Application No. 06-037; 19358 Monte Vista Drive/Chen STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: MDR (Medium Density Residential) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 5,162 Sq. Ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Level GRADING REQUIRED: Ggrading will be required. (28 cubic yards of cut and 10 cubic yards of fill. Approximately 411 cubic yards of cut for the proposed basement excavation with a total of 429 cubic yards for export. The basement excavation is not counted as grading.) ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposal is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. PROJECT DATA: Proposal Code Requirements Lot Proposed Residence 1,474.5 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable - Coverage: Proposed & Existing Hardscape 9,250 sq. ft. TOTAL PROPOSED 2,232 sq. ft (43%). 3,097 sq. ft (60%) Floor Area: Proposed Residence: 2,400 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable - 2,400 sq. ft. TOTAL PROPOSED 2,400 sq. ft. Min. Requirement Setbacks: 1-story 2-story 1-story 2-story Front 25 ft 4 in 30 ft. 25 ft. 25ft Rear 24 ft 1 in 28 ft. 7 in 20 ft. 20ft Left Side 11 ft 1 in 16 ft. 1 in 6 ft. 11 ft. Right Side 6 ft 3 in 11 ft 3 in. 6 ft. 11 ft: Height: Proposed Residence 25' 6" Maximum Allowable 26 ft. 3 Application No. 06-037; 19358 Monte Vista Drive/Chen PROJECT DISCUSSION Zoning Code Section 15-45.060(1) states that whenever a new multi-story main, or accessory, structure is proposed Design Approval by the Planning Commission is required. The applicant requests Design Review Approval to demolish a 1,043.5 sq. ft. single-story, residence and construct a 2,400 sq. ft. two-story single-family residence with attached two- car garage and basement. The existing home is less than 50-years old and has not been identified as a cultural resource. The proposed height of the structure will not exceed 25- feet 6-inches. The proposal is located in an older neighborhood of Saratoga consisting of one and two- storyresidential structures, several of which have been remodeled in recent years. There are two-story structures abutting the residence on the south and west property lines. The architectural style proposed- is modern split-level residence with rustic architectural features including: shutters on the front facade, stone veneer accents, exposed rafters to the rear and shake the roofing material. Proposed building colors are neutral in tone with a lighter shade utilized for the window trim to create depth and shadowing. An attached two- car garage is proposed with decorative garage doors containing three dimensional relief and windows to reduce the mass of the structure from the front facade. Neighbor Correspondence The applicant has shown the proposed plans to neighbors as indicated in the attached letters. The applicant received comments from eleven (11) neighbors, three (3) of which have expressed concerns regarding line of site from the proposal. Mr. Robert L. Weinmann, the neighbor at 14371 Springer Avenue (abutting the proposed site to the south) is concerned with the right elevation, second-story windows. Specifically, Mr. Weinmann is concerned that proposed Window Number 1 would overlook his swimming pool and rear yard. Mr. Weinmann is requesting that the applicant be required to install a smaller window and higher up towards the roofline or install sun tunnels to allow light without disturbing his privacy. The applicant is currently proposing a 2' x 2.5' window. Mr. & Mrs. Steven Zivanic, the neighbor at 14361 Springer Avenue (abutting the proposed site to west) is concerned with the rear elevation, second-story windows. Specifically, the Zivanics are concerned that the Master Bedroom and Bedroom Number 2 are too large and would enable the applicant to look directly into their backyard, family room, and kitchen. The Zivanics are requesting that the applicant consider the following options: a) frost the bottom-half of the current sized windows, leaving the top-half clear; b) utilize smaller windows and place them higher (above eye level); or c) implement "clear story" windows. The applicant is proposing a 2.5' x 4' bay window in both the Master Bedroom and Bedroom Number 2. With respect to the Zivanics' recommended second and third options, 4 Application No. 06-037; 19358 Monte Vista Drive/Chen the applicant would not meet Uniform Building code relating to emergency access from sleeping rooms and therefore, not a viable option. Mr. Sam Carmell, the neighbor at 14350 Paul Avenue (abutting the proposed site to the north) is concerned that the second story might block his view of the mountains from their second floor windows, that the fence between the parcels is replaced, and that harmful materials are not spread out during the demolition of the existing home. Staking and flagging at the site indicate that the proposal will not significantly block the views of Mr. Carmell's second story windows. The applicant is proposing a 28-foot 7-inch rear setback, which is greater than the 20-foot required rear setback. The additional setback reduces the visual impact to Mr. Carmell's property. The applicant has not included replacement of the side and rear yard fences in his proposal. A condition of approval has been incorporated ensuring that harmful materials are not spread out during the demolition of the existing home. The applicants have elected not to redesign the proposed home as requested; however, they are willing to except recommendations for changes determined appropriate by the Planning Commission. Neighbor Notification Templates have been attached. Geotechnical Clearance Frank Lee and Associates, prepared a Hydro geologic Review of Proposed Basement, dated October 7, 2005, and a Soil and Foundation Investigation, dated October 5, 2005, which were reviewed by the City's Geotechnical Consultant for the proposed project. As conditioned, the proposal has received geotechnical clearance to proceed. Trees An arborist report was prepared. Two (2) trees of Ordinance size are exposed to potential damage during development. They include one Mulberry located in the front yard and one Raywood Ash located in the back yard. The arborist determined that both trees could be adequately protected through appropriate mitigation measures, which have been included in the conditions of approval in the attached Resolution, including securing a bond in the amount of $1,960.00 General Plan Findings The proposed project is consistent with the following General Plan Policies: Conservation Element Policy 6.0 -Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development The proposal will demolish and existing one-story single-family dwelling and construct a new two-story single-family residence. Proposed building materials are earth tone and will not create a significant visual impact to the rural atmosphere of Saratoga. Rustic architectural features are proposed 5 Application No. 06-037; 19358 Monte Vista Drive/Chen including wood shutters, decorative garage door detailing, stone veneer facade, exposed rafters and the shake roofing materials. Land Use Element Policy 5.0 -The City shall use the design review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. As conditioned, the application meets the Findings required for Design Approval. Design Review Findings The proposed project is consistent with all the following Design Review findings stated in MCS 15-45.080: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The maximum height of the proposed single-story dwelling is 25 feet 6 inches: The structure will be approximately 25-feet from Paul Averiue, 28-feet 7-inches from the rear property line, 6-feet 3-inches from north side-yard and 11-feet 1-inch from the south side- yard. The proposed footprint is in essentially the same location as the existing footprint of the residence proposed for demolition. The neighboring properties to the north and south have mature landscaping, providing a natural buffer from the proposed site. The applicant is proposing construction of the structure 28-feet 7- inches from the rear property line, which is 8-feet 7-inches greater than the required 20-foot setback. The proposal will not unreasonable interfere with the views from Paul Avenue or the privacy of abutting neighbors. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The proposed site currently has minimal landscaping. Two ordinance size trees could potentially be affected by the proposal; however, with appropriate mitigation measures, as required in the conditions of approval, the trees will not have to be removed. The applicant is proposing additional landscaping to the parcel, which will improve the natural landscaping of the site. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The proposal is not requesting removal of Native and/or Heritage Trees. In addition, the proposal, as conditioned would not impact Native and/or Heritage Trees. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulb The applicant is proposing neutral color pallet for the exterior building, window trim and roofing materials as well as incorporating varying rooflines, stone veneer accents, and shutters to reduce the perception of excessive bulk. (e) Compatible bulk and height. Residences in the area are predominately one and two-story with similar architectural features. The proposal is compatible in bulk and height with the neighborhood. (fJ Current grading and erosion control methods. Since the building site is relatively flat and the proposed structure is in the general area of the existing residence, 6 Application No. 06-037; 19358 Monte Vista Drive/Chen minimal grading is proposed. In addition, the proposal shall conform to the City's current grading and erosion control standards. (g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above and staff report. Conclusion Staff finds that all of the Design Review findings can be made in the affirmative -and the proposal is consistent with the General Plan STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the application for Design Review with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval. 2. Affidavit of Mailing Notices. Public Hearing Notice, Mailing labels for project notification. 3. Neighbor Notification Letters 4. Letter from Muzhi Guo to Therese Schmidt,. dated October 10, 2005 5. Letter from Rachel Frame to Robert Weinman dated December 30, 2005 6. Letter from Robert L. Weinmann to Rachel Frame dated January 2, 2006 7. Arborist report prepared by Arbor Resources, dated September 5, 2005 8. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A." • 7 • Attachment 1 • • O APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 06-076 CITY'OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Ma;14360 Paul Avenue W~REAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review Approval to demolish asingle-story, single-family residence and construct atwo-story single-family residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence is 2,017.5 square-feet with a 382.5 square-foot attached garage. A .966 square- foot basement is also proposed. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 25-feet 6-inches. WHEREAS, Zoning Code Section 15-45.060(1) states that whenever a new multi- story main, or accessory, structure is proposed Design Approval by the Planning Commission is required; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, The. proposal is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review, and is consistent with the following General Plan Policies: Conservation Element Policy 6.0 -Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The proposal will demolish and existing one-story single-family dwelling and construct a new two-story single-family residence. Proposed building materials are earth tone and will not create a significant visual impact to the rural atmosphere of Saratoga. Rustic architectural features are proposed including wood shutters, decorative garage door detailing, stone veneer facade, exposed rafters and the shake roofmg materials. Land Use Element Policy S.0 -The Ciry shall use the design review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. As conditioned, the application meets the Findings required for Design Approval. • q Application No. 06-076; 14360 Paul Avenue/Ma WxExEAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The maximum height of the proposed single-story dwelling is 25 feet 6 inches. The structure will be approximately 25-feet from Paul Avenue, 28-feet 7-inches from the rear property line, 6-feet 3-inches from north side-yard and 11-feet 1-inch from the south side- yard. The proposed footprint is in essentially the same location as the existing footprint of the residence proposed for demolition. The neighboring properties to the north and south have mature landscaping, providing a natural buffer from the proposed site. The applicant is proposing construction of the structure 28-feet 7- inches from the rear property line, which is 8-feet 7-inches greater than the required 20-foot setback. The proposal will not unreasonable interfere with the views from Paul Avenue or the privacy of abutting neighbors. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The proposed site currently has minimal landscaping. Two ordinance size trees could potentially be affected by the proposal; however, with appropriate mitigation measures, as required in the conditions of approval, the trees will not have to be removed. The applicant is proposing additional landscaping to the parcel, which will improve the natural landscaping of the site. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The proposal is not requesting removal of Native and/or Heritage Trees. In addition, the proposal, as conditioned would not impact Native and/or Heritage Trees. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The applicant is proposing neutral color pallet for the exterior building, window trim and roofing materials as well as incorporating varying rooflines, stone veneer accents, and shutters to reduce the perception of excessive bulk (e) Compatible bulk and height Residences in the area are predominately one and two-story with similar architectural features. The proposal is compatible in bulk and height with the neighborhood. (fJ Current grading and erosion control methods. Since the building site is relatively flat and the proposed structure is in the general area of the existing residence, minimal grading is proposed. In addition, the proposal shall conform to the City's current grading and erosion control standards. (g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above and staff report. • x ~~ Application No. 06-076; 14360 Paul Avenue/Ma Now, THExEFORE, the Planning Commission of the City~of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application for Design Review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" date stamped December 22, 2005, incorporated by reference. All changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes and are subject to the Community Development Director's approval. 2. The following shall be included on the plans submitted to the Building Division for the building plan check review process: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. b. A maximum of one wood-burning fireplace is permitted and it shall be equipped with a gas starter. All other fireplaces shall be gas burning. c. The following note shall be included verifying building setback, "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per approved plans." 3. Prior to issuance of building permits the applicant shall submit a demolition plan for review and approval by the Planning Department indicating proposed storage and removal of potential harrriful materials. 4. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices. If all storm water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan. 5. Landscape plan shall be designed with efficient irrigation to reduce runoff, promote surface infiltration and minimize use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to water pollution. 6. Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolong exposure to water shall be specified. 7. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. ,~ /I Application No. 06-076; 14360 Paul Avenue/Ma 8. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. 9. Existing. native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. 10. Applicant shall abide by all recommended conditions identified in the December 6, 2005, Geotechnical Report prepared by the City's Geotechnical Consultant. 11. Staff shall not approve downgrading to the exterior appearance of the approved residence. Downgrades may include, but are not limited to, garage doors, architectural detailing, stonework, columns, shutters, driveway materials, etc. Any exterior changes to approved plans resulting in a downgrade shall require filing an additional application and fees for review by the Planning Commission as a modification to approved plans. Any other exterior changes to the approved plans, . which are not deemed a downgrade by staff, shall require a Zoning Clearance issued by the Community Development Director with payment of appropriate fees. 12. All processing fees, in the form- of deposit accounts on file with the community development department, shall be reconciled with a minimum $500.00 surplus balance at all times. In the event that the balance is less than $500.00, all staff work on the project shall cease until the balance is restored to a minimum $500.00. FIRE DISTRICT 13. Applicant shall comply with all Fire Department conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 14. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. ARBORIST REPORT 15. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Reports dated September 5, 2005, shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. This includes, but is not limited to: a. Prior to issuance of Building Permits the applicant shall obtain a tree bond, or similar funding mechanism, in the amount of $1,960.00. b. The Arborist Reports shall be incorporated, as a separate plan page, to the construction plan set and the grading plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plans. ~ /~ Application No. 06-076; 14360 Paul Avenue/Ma c. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the drip-line of any ordinance protected trees on the site. Section 2. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 36 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 11th day of January 2006 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent • Date -~ / 3 • Attachment 2 • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, //7erG5e ~ r~e~m,' ,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 City Council on the ~•~ day of ~ ~~eM6e~ 2006, 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 ~~ Impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide ~ www.averycom r//ll1 A~/~~® 5160® Utills~z le gabark 5160® 1-800-GO-AVERY ~ _ X0323025 JOHNSTON EVELYN A TRUSTEE Or Occupant PO BOX 53 SARATOGA, CA 95071-0053 50323043 I:ETTMANN JOHN R & MARIA A TRUSTEE Or Occupant 14250 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5824 50326005 LAM PATRICK K & MEI Y Or Occupant 20880 4TH ST SARATOGA, CA 95070-5839 50326008 KRAULE ERIC O & SHERRY Or Occupant 20850 4TH ST sARATOGA, CA 95070-5839 30326011 iCRAULE ERNEST O TRUSTEE Or Occupant 14433 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5827 50326020 MOSHTAGHI HAMID Or Occupant 20758 WILDWOOD WY SARATOGA, CA 95070-5877 50326026 FORD CLAUDETTE L TRUSTEE Or Occupant 524-24TH AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94121 50326029 KILLIAN EVERET D & LUCIE M Or Occupant 14395 WILDWOOD WY SARATOGA, CA 95070-5830 50326032 ICEMP CYNTHENY A Or Occupant 14362 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5826 50326050 E3EAUDOIN HAROLD A TRUSTEE ~r Occupant °O BOX 55 ~ARATOGA, CA 95071-0055 50323030 DEIMLER LOGAN S & CAROLE E Or Occupant 14320 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5824 50323044 SARNA GRANDER & ANUPAMA Or Occupant 14224 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5824 50326006 KASS PAUL D TRUSTEE ETAL Or Occupant 20870 4TH ST SARATOGA, CA 95070-5839 50326009 TREHARNE M C & CHAETH J Or Occupant 20840 4TH ST SARATOGA, CA 95070-5839 50326012 KRAULE ERNEST O TRUSTEE Or Occupant 14445 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5827 . 50326021 REED DAVID R Or Occupant 20750 WILDWOOD WY SARATOGA, CA 95070-5877 50326027 FORD CLAUDETTE L TRUSTEE Or Occupant 524-24TH AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94121 50326030 FORD CLAUDETTE R TRUSTEE Or Occupant 524-24TH AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94121 50326043 PACIFIC SUN PROPERTIES Or Occupant 734 CHESTNUT ST SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 50326051 CHIN SIMON S Or Occupant 20760 WILDWOOD WY SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 50323042 SCOTT JON M & DEMETRIA R Or Occupant 14256 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5824 50323046 MAULDIN CAROL & MICHAEL Or Occupant 15345 BOHLMAN RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-6356 50326007 JAFARI MASOUD & DIANE M Or Occupant 20860 4TH ST SARATOGA, CA 95070-5839 50326010 JAMES THOMPSON Or Occupant 20820 4TH ST SARATOGA, CA 95070 50326013 KRAULE ERNEST O TRUSTEE Or Occupant 14445 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5827 50326022 HEERWAGEN TYLER D & BELINDA B Or Occupant 14346 WILDWOOD WY SARATOGA, CA 95070-5875 50326028 BAGNAS EMMANUEL S SR & MARILYN V Or Occupant 14005 WILDWOOD WY SARATOGA, CA 95070-5830 50326031 RUANO RODOLFO SR & GLORIA Or Occupant 14370 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5826 50326044 SARATOGA CITY OF Or Occupant WILDWOOD WY SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 50326052 NEE JANE-MIN & JIM CHING-KUANG Or Occupant 14352 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5826 J ~ Impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide ~~ www.averycom ri/1C~1 A~/ERY® 5160® Utilisez le gabarit 5160® ~~ 1-800-GO-AVERY 50326054 50327009 50327010 . GHT BONNIE J & CLINTON M ARNO ROGER D & KATHLEEN A, GRANADO RANDY M & CECILIA R ccupant TRUSTEE Or Occupant 1 433 WILDWOOD WY Or Occupant 14341 ELVA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-0000 14343 ELVA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5813 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5813 50327011 50327012 50327013 SPEARS ROSALEEN , SARRAMI HAMID ZHANG KAI & XIN Or Occupant Or Occupant Or Occupant 14351-ELVA AV ~ 14361 ELVA AV 14371 ELVA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5813 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5813 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5813_ 50327016 50327017 50327018 GARCIA MARIA E TRUSTEE ;VAN DEN HOEK WILBERT & RIEKO PENUEN MICHAEL G & SHEII,A K Or Occupant Or Occupant Or Occupant 20845 4TH ST 15470 BOHLMAN RD 14380 ELVA AV . SARATOGA, CA 95070-5838 ' SARATOGA, CA 95070-6306 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5814 50327020 50327021 50327022 STEPHENS LLOYD G POOLE PRISCILLA F & DONALD E QUON SHUN W & JANE E JUE Or Occupant Or Occupant Or Occupant 14350 ELVA AV 14340 ELVA AV 14330 ELVA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5814 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5814 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5814 50327023 50327024 50327026 STANARO CHESTER J TRUSTEE HESTER JAMES L ROBIN YEAMANS ccupant Or Occupant Or Occupant , ELVA AV .14310 ELVA AV 1340 S DE ANZA BL 201 TOGA, CA 95070-5814 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5814 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 50327027 WU YIT-SUN A & MEI-LEE L Or Occupant 14270 ELVA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5812 50327038 OH DAL S Or Occupant 14261 PAUL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5818 50327039 RIOS AURELIO & DING Or Occupant 14271 PAUL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5818 50327040 ~HOI TAT C & TINA K TRUSTEE 7r Occupant 14281 PAUL AV 3ARATOGA, CA 95070-5818 50327041 GHAFOURI AMIN R & NARJES Or Occupant 14291 PAUL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5818 10327044 50327045 ~ANCELLIERI ROBERT & SHIRLEY MARSHALL BRUCE & ROBERTA TRUSTEE TRUSTEE ~r Occupant Or Occupant 14860 CODY LN 14341 PAUL AV 3ARATOGA, CA 95070-6018 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5820 10327048 50327050 3ANNIBAL ROSS & SUSAN MA ZHAOQING & MUZHI Jr Occupant Or Occupant :4375 PAUL AV 14360 PAUL AV TOGA, CA 95070-5820 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5821 0327052 50327053 .'IEHAFFEY JOHN F & ANNE W NISHIMOTO GARY M )r Occupant Or Occupant 4340 PAUL AV 14330 PAUL AV ~ARATOGA, CA 95070-5821 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5821 50327042 KAZARNOVSKY ARIC J & CLAIRE J Or Occupant 14301 PAUL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5820 50327047 POLCYN JAMES J Or Occupant 14365 PAUL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5820 50327051 CARTMELL SAM Or Occupant 14350 PAUL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5821 50327054 SZALAY TIBOR & MARGARET Or Occupant 14328 PAUL AV / SARATOGA, CA 95070-5821 . Impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide ~ www.avervcom Utilisez le gabarit 5160® 1-800-GO-AVERY 30327055 50327056 CHIEN EDWARD Y & TEHCHI H NOLA MARYANNE Or Occupant Or Occupant 14314 PAUL AV 14300 PAUL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5821 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5821 50327058 KOVACS JOSEPH L & MARIA P Or Occupant 14280 PAUL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5819 50327059 HUANG DAVID & EMILY Or Occupant PO BOX 895 RUTHERFORD, NJ 07070-0895 50327U61 50327066 MARKHOVSKY FELIX & ISABELLA CLARK ANTHONY L & LINDA R Or Occupant Or Occupant 14250 PAUL AV P O BOX 81 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5819 SARATOGA, CA 95071--0081 50327068 QIAN HAO & BUYING Or Occupant 14261 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5823 50327074 SPARACINO MICHAEL G & CHARLOTTE J TRUSTEE Or Occupant 14325 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5889 50327077 SCHNEIDER SCOTT K & NOLA A ETAL Or Occupant 14510 BIG BASIN WY 226 SAR.ATOGA, CA 95070 50327082 ARENA JAMES R & KATHLEEN L TRUSTEE Or Occupant 14294 ELVA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5812 50327069 SCHWARTZ DONALD M & RUTH TRUSTEE Or Occupant 14271 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5823 50327075 SCOTT SAMUEL T III & AIDA A Or Occupant 922 BICKNELL RD LOS GATOS, CA 95030-2112 50327078 DEIGNAN RICHAD & SUZAN TRUSTEE Or Occupant ]4291 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5823 50327083 BAUER BENNETT J & CYNTHIA L TRUSTEE Or Occupant 14288 ELVA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5812 50327086 50327090 VIC CHESNEY MICHAEL J & SUSAN M KUO DAHN WEI & JENNIFER K p Or Occu ant 06020 LOMITA AV 14291 ELVA AV 3ARATOGA, CA 95070-6024 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5811 10327093 AIM SAMUEL U & SUSAN S Jr Occupant 14370 ELVA AV iARATOGA, CA 95070-5814 50327094 POUTRE JUDITH E TRUSTEE ETAL Or Occupant 14360 ELVA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5814 X0327098 3SIA0 KUANG N )r Occupant 'O BOX 610544 ;AN JOSE, CA 95 1 6 1-0544 50327099 MERZ WILLIAM M & JOCELYN B Or Occupant ]4391 ELVA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5813 U A~/ERY® 5160® 50327057 SZALAY TIBOR ETAL Or Occupant . 14290 PAUL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5819 50327060 LU MEI-SHIO Or Occupant 14260 PAUL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5819 50327067 MARTIN RONALD P & YOLANDA I Or Occupant 14251 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5823 50327073 SPARACINO MICHAEL G & CHARLOTTE J TRUSTEE Or Occupant 14325 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5889 50327076 WEINMANN ROBERT L Or Occupant 14371 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5889 50327079 KRAFT BARBARA L TRUSTEE Or Occupant 14299 SPRINGER AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5823 50327085 SALAZAR URIOL J & CHRISTINE V TRUSTEE Or Occupant 14303 ELVA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5813 50327091 FORCIER DAVID A & YVONNE M Or Occupant 14401 ELVA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5813 50327097 AMIRKIAI YOUSSEF & MALIHEH D Or Occupant 14399 PAUL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5820 • 50327100 TENNYSON JAMES F & ELAINE W Or Occupant 14315 SPRINGER AV / SARATOGA, CA 95070-5889 Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® 90327108 SLAVIN BEVERLY A ETAL ccupant 5 PAUL AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5820 50363002 TRAVIS WARD C Or Occupant . 20810 4TH ST UNIT 2 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5844 50363005 POKRESS WAYNE R AND SUSAN K Or Occupant 20812 4TH ST UNIT 1 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5845 50363008 MURPHY CAMERON AND TINA Or Occupant 20812 4TH ST UNIT 4 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5845 50363011 3RISWOLD LAURA J ~r Occupant 2 4TH ST UNIT 7 ,TOGA, CA 95070-5846 10363014 I'IGHE BRIAN R AND ANITALYNN M TRUSTEE ~r Occupant 1374 CANDLEWOOD CT ~UPERTINO, CA 95014-4610 10363017 3LANTZ WILLIAM J AND JENNIFER C sT AL Jr Occupant !0812 4TH ST UNIT 15 iARATOGA, CA 95070-5.847 ~ www.averycom ~ AVERY® 5160® 1-800-GO-AVERY 50327109 50363001 TOOYSERKANI PIROOZ & NAZANIN GATEHOUSE CONDOMINUM TRUSTEE '~ HOMEOWNERS ASSN THE Or Occupant Or Occupant 14315 PAUL AV 20810 4TH ST UNIT 1 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5820 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5844 50363003 50363004 MCGRATH ANN F TRUSTEE KAMIAK SANDRA TRUSTEE Or Occupant Or Occupant 20810 4TH ST UNIT 3 20810 4TH ST UNIT 4 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5844 ~ SARATOGA, CA 95070-5844 50363006 WARREN KATHRYN B ET AL Or Occupant 501 CLIFFSIDE CT PT RICHMOND, CA 94801 50363009 COCHRANE ELSIE M Or Occupant 800 BLOSSOM HILL RD UNIT 72 LOS GATOS, CA 95032 50363012 ROGERS WILLIAM AND DIANA Or Occupant 20812 4TH ST UNIT 8 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5846 50363007 SCHWENDINGER RICHARD L AND PATRICIA A Or Occupant P.O. BOX 266 SARATOGA, CA 95071 50363010 DEMARTINIS STANLEY A AND MIRIAM L TRUSTEE Or Occupant 21315 SARATOGA HILLS RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-5376 50363013 JAKOB ROBERT M Or Occupant PO BOX 6214' SAN JOSE, CA 95150-6214 50363015 JENG CHYI RONG AND ZEUU CHYI Or Occupant 15214 BELLE CT SARATOGA, CA 95070 50363018 SHON CHANG SUN AND SANG S Or Occupant 20812 4TH ST UNIT 14 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5847 10363020 50363021 ~ORSA DANIEL A JR TRUSTEE & ET ZARECKY GARY L AND DIANE ~L Or Occupant Jr Occupant 20812 4TH ST UNIT 19 :0812 4TH ST UNIT 16 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5847 ~ARATOGA, CA 95070-5847 0363023 30DEN MIKE J AND LINDA L )r Occupant :0812 4TH ST UNIT 21 TOGA, CA 95070-5848 026 'EN KIRK K AND PI-CHENG C )r Occupant 0812 4TH ST UNIT 22 ARATOGA, CA 95070-5848 50363024 WHEELER LORRAINE A Or Occupant 20812 4TH ST UNIT 20 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5848 50363027 THANAWALA ASHISH A AND SINHA SHEFALI Or Occupant 20812 4TH ST UNIT 25 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5848 50363016 TIGHE BRIAN B TRUSTEE & ET AL Or Occupant 337 JUNIPERO PLAZA SANTA BARBARA, CA 93105 50363019 SANFORD PETER L TRUSTEE Or Occupant 109 LIMESTONE LN SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 50363022 BARRIE-SODERSTROM KATHLEEN C Or Occupant 12908 PIERCE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070-3714 50363025 BRENNOCK THOMAS M AND PAULA A Or Occupant 20812 4TH ST UNIT 23 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5848 50363028 CARNEY JAMES AND NORMA TRUSTEE Or Occupant 13959 TRINITY CT / SARATOGA, CA 95070-5343 Jam and Smudge Free Printing ~ vuww.averycom Q ANERY® 5160® Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® ~ 1-800-GO-AVERY 5'0363029 50363030 50363031 EAKLE STEPHEN S HERMAN THEODORE C TRUSTEE BRASH LAURA Or Occupant Or Occupant Or Occupant 20760 4TH ST UNIT 11 20760 4TH ST UNIT 12 20760 4TH ST UNTT 9 3ARATOGA, CA 95070-5851 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5851 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5851 10363032 50363033 50363034 vG FLORA SCHRANZ VIKTOR AND KRISTALY ANDERSON RONALD A ~r Occupant ERIKA G Or Occupant Z 1285 SARATOGA HILLS RD Or Occupant 20760 4TH ST UNIT 8 ~ARATOGA, CA 95070-5375 20760 4TH ST UNIT 7 ' SARATOGA, CA 95070-5851 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5851 10363035 50363036 50363037 3GGLESTON ROGER B AND ROSALEE WOOTTEN LAURA L CRUZ VERONICA TRUSTEE Jr' Occupant Or Occupant Or Occupant 12487 ARROYO DE ARGUELLO 20760 4TH ST UNIT 6 20760 4TH ST UNIT 3 >ARATOGA, CA 95070-3010 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5850 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5850 >0363038 50363039 SILBERSTEIN J H AND LILLIAN 50363040 RUSIN ANNE S ET AL ~ZWORNIAK KENNETH J TRUSTEE Jr Occupant !0760 4TH ST UNIT 4 Or Occupant Or Occupant 20760 4TH ST UNIT 2 ~ARATOGA, CA 95070-5850 20760 4TH ST UNIT 1 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5850 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5850 0363041 50363042 50363043 ,YU CHUNG-NAN AND LU MAY BOBORICKEN STEPHEN AND ANNE ROESSLER CYNTHIA A )r Occupant Or Occupant Or Occupant 9782 BRAEMAR DR 1140 W LATIMER 20740 4TH ST UNIT 9 iARATOGA, CA 95070-5001 CAMPBELL, CA 95008-1700 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5853 0363044 50363045 FALCONE VIRGINIA M TRUSTEE & ET 50363046 FRADIN DAVID M UNDER LESLIE A AL )r Occupant 0740 4TH ST UNIT 10 Or Occupant Or Occupant 20740 4TH ST UNIT 8 :ARATOGA, CA 95070-5853 520 VISTA DEL MAR APTOS CA, CA 95003 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5853 0363047 50363048 50363049 ~TEARNS JAY M KOOT ROSE S LAWSON RONALD G AND LINDA E )r Occupant Or Occupant Or Occupant 0740 4TH ST UNIT 5 20700 4TH ST UNIT 6 20740 4TH ST UNIT 3 ARATOGA, CA 95070-5852 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5843 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5852 0363050 'ELTON VICTOR AND REGINA 'RUSTEE ~i Occupant 662 BLUERIDGE DR AN JOSE, CA 95129- 3363053 [AURER FREDERICK J z Occupant )720 4TH ST UNIT 17 ARATOGA, CA 95070-5895 )363056 ARRIE KATHLEEN C r Occupant '.908 PIERCE RD ~RATOGA, CA 95070-37]4 50363051 50363052 CINGOLANI GEORGE AND BEVERLY ANTABLIAN AREVIG Or Occupant Or Occupant 20740 4TH ST UNIT 1 20740 4TH ST UNIT 2 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5852 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5852 50363054 BLACK JOHN P AND CHRISTINA D Or Occupant 20720 4TH ST UNIT 16 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5895 50363057 PARK JIN W AND MIN K Or Occupant 20720 4TH ST UNIT 11 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5855 50363055 BARRERA DAVID R Or Occupant 20720 4TH ST UNIT 15 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5855 50363058 BORJA SALVADOR Or Occupant ~ d 230 LILLE LN UNIT 214 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663-2665 Jam and Smudge Free Printing • Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® 50363059 PETAN FLORENCE ccupant 0 4TH ST UNIT 9 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5855 ~ www.averycom 1-800-GO-AVERY 50363060 TAI HSUEH H ET AL Or Occupant 20720 4TH ST UNIT 10 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5855 p A~RY® 5160® .50363061 WILLIAMS SHELLIE S JR TRUSTEE Or Occupant 11951 BROOK RIDGE DR SARATOGA, CA 98070 50363062 50363063 .50363064 KIRK GEORGE E AND NANCY G FALCONE MARK C AND CYNTHIA A WALSH T F TRUSTEE •`t'RUSTEE TRUSTEE Or Occupant Or Occupant Or Occupant ~ 12759 PLYMOUTH DR 20270 LA PALOMA AV 1388 POE LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-3936 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5960 SAN JOSE, CA 95130-1342 50363065 50363066 50363067 JACKSON DEBRA D STRAW RICHARD E AND BARBARA L BANG HUNG SUK AND EUN JA Or Occupant Or Occupant Or Occupant 20720 4TH ST UNIT 3 20720 4TH ST UNIT 4 20720 4TH ST UNTT 1 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5854 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5854 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5854 50363068 FORTE KATHERINE A Or Occupant ?0720 4TH ST UNIT 2 3ARATOGA, CA 95070-5854 50363069 STAATS EILEEN A Or Occupant 14510 A BIG BASIN WY UNIT 228 SARATOGA, CA 95070-6012 .50363070 DAMS LESLIE Or Occupant 20700 4TH ST UNIT 12 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5803 X0363071 '.ELLY NOVELLE V TRUSTEE 7r Occupant 4TH ST UNIT 9 ,TOGA, CA 95070-5803 50363072 WEISKAL NATALIE J Or Occupant 20700 4TH ST UNIT 10 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5803 10363074 50363075 ARCHER MICHAEL E AND GAYLE L LEUNG DENNIS C AND GRACE CRUSTEE Or Occupant )r Occupant 20700 4TH ST UNIT 5 ' O BOX 7367 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5843 NCLINE VILLAGE NV, CA 89452-7367 0363077 ,EPIANE SYLVAN E )r Occupant 5890 SHANNON RD ,OS GATOS, CA 95032-5729 0363080 iASIK KATHRYN TRUSTEE )r Occupant 59 OLD ADOBE RD ,OS GATOS, CA 95032 0363083 AWSON LINDA AND RONALD -r Occupant 4090 ELVIRA ST TOGA, CA 95070-5815 3086 UNCANSON ROBERT A AND VONNE L TRUSTEE r Occupant )800 4TH ST UNIT 8 ARATOGA, CA 95070-5861 50363078 GOLDMAN JOAN C Or Occupant 1624 LYLE DR SAN JOSE, CA 95129-4810 50363073 CHANG WAYNE C AND SU-TI L TRUSTEE Or Occupant 419 GALLERIA DR UNIT 6 SAN JOSE, CA 95134-2434 50363076 LIANIDES MARK C TRUSTEE Or Occupant 20700 4TH ST UNIT 6 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5843 50363079 CHIAVETTA GARY G AND MADELINE S TRUSTEE Or Occupant 19548 CHARDONNAY UNIT CT SARATOGA, CA 95070 50363081 50363082 ZANGER CARL F AND BETTY J KAO MABEL TRUSTEE TRUSTEE Or Occupant Or Occupant 20800 4TH ST UNIT 12 10229 ADRIANA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070-5861 CUPERTINO, CA 95014-1125 50363084 .50363085 GILLEN LAWRENCE S AND LAURA N MCCURDY HELEN C TRUSTEE Or Occupant . Or Occupant 6025 FOOTHILL GLEN DR 617 RIVERVIEW DR SAN JOSE, CA 95123-4508 CAPITOLA, CA 95010 50363087 TSAY CHEN-HUI AND LI MEI-CHUNG Or Occupant 3821 THOMPSON CREEK CT SAN JOSE, CA 95135-1000 50363088 PLICKA JOSEPH A AND MILDRED I TRUSTEE Or Occupant 20800 4TH ST UNIT 6 ~. SARATOGA, CA 95070-5861 Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® 10363089 LONG JOSEPH P JR AND SUSAN D Jr Occupant ? O BOX 2095 3ARATOGA, CA 95070-0095 ~ www.averycom 1-800-GO AVERY 50363090 HU MIN HUEI Or Occupant 20800 4TH ST UNIT 4 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5897 AVERY® 5160® 50363091 ALVORD FRED L AND DORINE Or Occupant 13782 CALLE TACUBA SARATOGA, CA 95070-4921 10363092 50363093 ?LENI~TIKEN MATHEW T AND MILLER DIERKES CARL L TRUSTEE VALARY A Or Occupant ~r Occupant PO BOX 495 ?0800 4TH ST UNIT 2 SARATOGA, CA 95071-0495 iARATOGA, CA 95070-5897 10363095 )UMONT DENNIS Jr Occupant !0790.4TH ST UNIT 5 iARATOGA, CA 95070-5802 10363098 3ANZHORN HARRY E AND ELSBETH t TRUSTEE h Occupant :5943 VIEWFIELD RD vIONTE SERENO, CA 95030-3148 10363101 CU MIKE M AND SHANLI HU )r Occupant :0780 4TH ST UNIT 11 ;ARATOGA, CA 95070-5801 0363104 dEDEIROS ANNA K TRUSTEE h Occupant :0780 4TH ST UNIT 10 ~ARATOGA, CA 95070 0363107 TALE KATHLEEN M TRUSTEE )r Occupant 720 CAPITOLA RD SANTA CRUZ, CA 95062 0363110 aVIENEZ NATALIA )r Occupant 07804TH ST UNIT 4 ARATOGA, CA 95070-5849 50363094 ARCHER MICHAEL E AND GAYLE L TRUSTEE Or Occupant P O BOX 7367 INCLINE VILLAGE, NV 89452-7367 50363096 .50363097 ARCHER MICHAEL E AND GAYLE L PAOLI JENNIFER L ET AL TRUSTEE Or Occupant Or Occupant .16280 LOS SERENOS ROBLES P O BOX 7367 . MONTE SERENO, CA 95030 INCLINE VILLAGE, NV 89452-7367 50363099 50363100 TING SAI LUEN AND YE SHAO YING MANZAGOL DONALD S AND Or Occupant ' KATHLEEN M TRUSTEE 20790 4TH ST UNIT 1 ' Or Occupant SARATOGA, CA 95070-5896 23362 WAYFARER CT AUBURN CA, CA 95602 50363102 50363103 SUNDERLAND MICHAEL J TRUSTEE LINDBERG VERDA M TRUSTEE Or Occupant Or Occupant 380 BRANHAM LN UNIT 206 20780 4TH ST UNIT 9 SAN JOSE, CA 95136 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5801 50363105 ZAK CHRISTINE M Or Occupant 20780 4TH ST UNIT 7 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5849 50363106 RHEE PETER H Or Occupant 1150 SCOTT BL STE D2 SANTA CLARA, CA 95050 50363108 CARATOZZOLO JAMES R AND GAIL L ET AL Or Occupant 20435 CHALET LN SARATOGA, CA 95070-4926 50363111 BURGER BERT AND VIVIAN D TRUSTEE Or Occupant 20780 4TH ST UNIT 1 SARATOGA, CA 95070-5849 50363109 BADER RICHARD F AND PATRICIA J Or Occupant 27720 MICHAELS DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 50363112 WARREN KATHRYN B ET AL Or Occupant 501 CLIFFSIDE CT PT RICHMOND, CA 94801 C~ • 1 • ' • • Oct. 10, 2005 Therese, I have not received a signed "Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications" from my neighbor located at 14350 Paul Ave., which is rental property at the moment. Below is the log to show I did try to get it: Sept. 2na~ I gave a set of design drawings to the lady living in the house and she said she will send the drawings to the owner by mail the next day; Sept. 26th or 27th: I got the owner's phone number from the lady living in the house and called the owner the same day. Sam Cartmell, the owner told me over the phone that he has received my design drawings and haven't got chance to go through it as he has been busy. He also said he will review it and give me a call that coming weekend, which is Oct. 1St or 2na Oct. 2"a: Sam called and gave two concerns: 1. He is worried my second story might block his view or mountain from their second floor windows facing his backyard, so he would like to know the location of the new house outline to the backyard. 2. He thinks we should update the old fence between my property and his to a new one_ at the time we build the new house. I asked Sam if I can get into the house and take a look of the current view from their second floor windows. Sam said let him to talk to the lady living in~the house first. -Oct. 4tn: I called Sam and told him, after study the current site drawings and new design, the rear outline of the new house should be at the location of my current patio rear outline, with max of +/- 6 inch error. I also asked Sam to put all his concerns in "Neighbor Notification Template for .Development Applications" so I can submit my application, and I will continue to work with him to address his concerns. Sam agrees and told me he will do that. Oct. nth. Sam came over and we met in his house. Sam added one more concern: when we demolish our existing house, we need to make sure no harmful materials are spread out. With Sam's and the lady's agree, I also took a look from their second floor window to check the current view to the mountain and do an estimate how much of the view to the mountain will be blocked by the new building. I don't see very much mountain from there at the moment, as the majority I can see are trees. I attached several pictures here which show their current view that they are worried will lost once we build a new house. When asked about the letter, Sam said he will talk to his sister about the wording and will finish it early next week and will fax to my architect. In summary, they have three concerns in oral so far: 1. He is worried my second story might block his view or mountain from their second floor windows facing his backyard, so he would like to know the location of the new house outline to the backyard. 2. He thinks we should update the old fence between my property and his to a new one at the time we build the new house. 3. We should make sure no harmful materials spread out when demolish our existing house. Zhaoging Ma and Muzhi Michelle Guo / 6 // ~3 • Attachment 3 • • ~ `~ • • Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: o~ °" ~ I -a~ PROJECT ADDRESS: 1 ~' ~~'~ P~ ~ ~~" ~ ~`u~~'~ Applicant Name: iU t'1 Zh - M ~ ~ ~~C ~wo / ~~~a 1 /~G M A Application Number: ~ ~'~ ~- The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of atoga. 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): Nei hborName: V S ~+'W'~~~ 1 l; ~ ~ Neighbor Address: ~~t3'l5 1~a~.- ~ ~j ~~~~Neighbor Phone #: ~~~ ~~ `"`~ Signature: Printed: c'~ISG~-!1 ~h~nt~G~~ r'kk/Y1 i~ ~1 City of Saratoga Planning Department • Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: c ~ l ~ g ~ ° PROJECT ADDRESS: ~ `~3 ~ o' ~i'L{ ~-%e . ~'~'~-~~-~ _ Vii'} 9-~ ~7® Applicant Name: /(•~]~ ~6~i ~%~~ tl%~~~~~ ~Lw / ~z~~f~C~'~N't~ ~~{ Application Number: ~ ~ ~ ~-~ The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The. Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you . may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the . City of Saratoga. ,~Iy 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 ~Y' ~o ~ n ~ ~~ nom ~ ~~~ v~ Neighbor Address: ,Sa,r,~ C/~ . q~-~7 Neighbor Phone #: ~~~) ~ ~~~- C~~1 Signature: Printed: ~ ' r/ /" r l'C C,i 1'~ NYi ~ ~ 1'Y7 City of Saratoga Planning Department • ~~. • ' ~ ~ • .Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: ~~~ - ~ Z -~~ PROJECT ADDRESS: f ~'-3 ~ ~" ~~ ' . ~~' ~ ~~~7~ ~~; , Applicant Name: /~~~! -~ C~~~lr~ ~-7-,~~ ~~i~~i fa''C' /1'~~1 Application Number: ~ _5 ~~-~ 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 un erstand 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: ~f3~1G`1~ l~ ~ Neighbor Address: /~3~ j ~G'v~ yri~C a~--~~ ~ - Neighbor Phone #: ~`~ ' ~ ~~ ~"~~`~/ Signature: Printed: City of Saratoga Planning Department ~~ • Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: ~~i--3 ~ "05 PROJECT ADDRESS: Iii-3~~Pau.~ ~e. S~~'~°,5~1 Applicant Name: I~H~i ~~~r;~~~ ~wo~~~l~Q~~ICi ~A Application Number: ~ ~ 3 ~- 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. M si ature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I y gn 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: ~ A i ,~ c~~_:~"_~~ ;~ ~ ~''i~n~-~_ a~ ~ -~~~ Neighbor Address: ~- S Gl~ ~~.-~=:~' ~ C~ C~~ ~1. S~: ~~`~~ Neighbor Phone #: ~-G ~ ~- .~ ~ ~2 - ~ 3~' ~~ yc ,rj 1 ~ ~ Signature: Printed: -.:_-' _ ~~t'E~ 1tt~,~._j City of Saratoga Planning Department Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: ~~ PROJECT ADDRESS: 1 ~ 3t~~~' ~~~~ . ~~~"~~tr G~ `~--~v Iv Applicant Name: ~~I Z~Z ~ M i t%-j ~~~t? Cyt~C'/ ~~~~~~ ~~ Application Number: ~~3~~ 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 ~f 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 {~'~° 1'`~ ~ Gi~~~ ~ l~`'lt`11~ 1-~:~ ~ ~~ i CGS C r} h~f ~ i ~ ~- . Neighbor Name: (~`i~'i•+m ~ ! YN~c"-'~C~' ~.~. Neighbor Address: ~~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ Neighbor Phone #: ~'°~ ~~ _ _, Signature: Printed: City of Saratoga Planning Department • Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: ~~ - ~ ~~~ rROJECT A 1ZESS: 1 ~-3~~' ~ ~, ~~ ~ 93~~ ~ Applicant Name: l~i~iz!'t +~+~~.li~ ~~~/~h+~ ~~'IA~Gi /S.~d} Application Number: ~ ~ 3' ~` The Saratoga Planning Commission required 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): Neighbor Name: -J ~~~~ + ~~-~~~i. Neighbor Address: (`~3~(~ P~~l AJ~ Neighb r Phone #: Printed: ~`(b~) ~~~-3215 Planning Department ~ Q • • • City of Saratoga ., ~. i • Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: ~`~~-~~~-~~~ ~~ ~' S~ o ~ PROJECT ADDRESS: ~~ ~~~' ~-Y ~'~ • ~~~ ~ `~-~ 7 ~~ /+ Applicant Name: ~N.?~"i ~ laic-t-~~r~ ~.7i~c 1 ~~rf~~l~~l/~t~ ~~ Application Number: ~ ~ ~ 9 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): t 1 Neighbor Name: ~ Cp~. ~-- ~ (~ \ ~ ~ Ch l~ 2 ~ L' ~ Neighbor Address: S ,Qr~r i~ ~ :S V ~. ~~I~t~ s ' Neighbor Phone #: ~~ 00'"-~ ~ ~ - ~ ~~ `1 Signature: Printed: City of Saratoga Planning Department '~, • . A ` ` ~ • ~~ r ~. ~ i i ~ G~ C4 ~~2~ ^~~ l~ ~~ Neighbor Notification Template for Developmen# Applications Date: .PROJECT ADDRESS: 1 ~3{o P~ /~'dQ . ~~, C~ 93`o Jp Applirant Name=_ I'7HL~r /~~ P~P,~Ie Gko ~~l}DQJ/V~ ~i~ Application Number: 6~ 3 ~ 77te Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues grid concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing an 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 talrae this opportunity to express arty concerts or issues they may have directly . to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document.ls representative of all residents residing on 3'ou+' property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. _ - ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work; and Y do Nt)T have say concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. LJMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work; and I have issues or concerns, which gRer discueaioa . with the applicant, have not been addressed My concerns are the following {please attach additional sheets if necessary): ~, ~,~~ ~; v''V'~'+r' ~-a1L.aQ.. y~ h ~, '~. ts-~ws ~~Es,,d ' S wti~..-. V See. o ve+++ Neighbor Name: Robert L. Weim..ann } 14371 Springer Ave. . -•_ Saratoga, CA 95070-5889 Neighbor Address: _ ~ J Robert L. Weinrnann ~ '~ 1 _.A . 14371 Springer Ave. " ',:.: Saratoga, CA 95070-5889 Neighbor Phone #: ~ ` r Printed: n n 3~ Planning Department City o, f Saratoga • t • I~ r ~ Mry ~ d std'}' ' ~.tTLH e.1(,~ _e . . M~ 2~ n ~~ ~~ ~ ~~111/j J~~~~~ ~^~~~e. ~~ v ~~ . ~~ ~, r ~y •~-- ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ e"~°~ ~ ~~~, m ~- ZO ~~~- V V'LQ ~a,J_" 33 . ~~' 0 ~~ t T ~( tl r L---------- i r 1 1 ~~ ~~ ~~ i ~Qt F i I 1 1 i t i r I r • ~tl r r I ! . I r i i i i /~ Z -1 rn r rn O' z ~~ ~4i 1 I 1 I 1 r ~. aTRf~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ . • •.. • i Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: PROJECT ADDRESS: I ~I'3 6 O p~ pUZ • ~t~ ~~ jj i ,~r~natf~n M a Applicant Name: ~N2ni til~~e~~e ~+aol ~~t~~i~1~ Application Number: 6 ~ 3 y" 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 C~~iry//of Saratoga. LvJMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the 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): rl C.e._ ~1 e S'~ ~ ~~ 1 es a ire ~ `'`.~- ~t~ r j _ ~ ]~d~ Q --t ~ c~~s~ 1 wi ii ~-t-~~-F Dw~~e'r ~~ ~ y Goo ~.~4- ~~ n.e ' /~(_ 0.n . Neighbor Name: ~~N T'1+ 1~~~ a ~ ~~''''~`~ 1 ~ ~~ 1r~t / Neighbor Address: I ~, 31~5~ ~~jn vl 5 e~ A V -r Neighbor Phone #: ~~, ~ cis " ~i-4~9 Printed: • ~~~m~ ~~ M ~ l_~ ~ City of Saratoga Planning Department ~a~~~ ~ Cam- ~sv~y ~ t _ • • Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications~~ Date: Jq~ PROJECT ADDRESS: ~ ~"~ ~ ~ ~~~~ i`'N'L- • CST Applicant.Name: ~ ~ ~ ~ iGNC~ GwL ~~~,~ .~~~c-~i~c~r ~Gt Application Number: ~~ ~~ ~' / The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look . favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, you may reserve the right~to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or .issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: ]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 ~~ ~~. ~ /" 1~ ~ ~ Q.h Neighbor Address: 2 f ~ ~. rj 01 ~ Neighbor Phone #: 4d$ 1 ~I ~I ~~ ~`J' S Signature: Printed: I Mary~nr~ Ciry of Saratoga Planning Department 1° • • • ~. ` Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: ~ S Z S o 5 PROJECT ADDRESS: /4.3~ ° P~ ~~e • Applicant Name: ~ H, ~~(G; ~ ~iJ C ~,~ y ~ ~ ~~i e it ~ ~+rc~o Application Number: 6 S 3 µ9 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 t-o be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. L~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): 6Ut ~ arv Cc n c;et/'r~d wr ~ ~ y Gu~v-~'ey~`" ~s°t Z~ c-~ ~fi~ ~~a ~ • ~/`O~Lx ~ b2GlY(r3i"~. -~~,~ ~'ht~vvt dr' ~i~1y ~i ~'c1 Neighbor Name: S~V~ ~d ~t/o+'I >7 ~ zl ~(~ t U Neighbor Address: 1 `~ 4~'' L ~~ ~f ~~ ,I~l ~} ~ C ~ k / ~ u~ OCT 1 9 2005 ~~ /~3~~ SAr~h~~' ft`y~ .S~"~K ~~a~ 1 ~ `1 ~~ 7 ~=' Neighbor Phone #: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ Signature: ` , `'~~-- City of Saratoga Printed: ~/ - t/~ Planning Department ~ ~' .« ~~ d i~-~~- a~o~~, e~ ~ oar ~ ~.~- -~~,, - . ~ ~~ . d~~ o~ ~.~ ~ ~~~~~~ o~Y ~ ~s ~~ y ~~y ~~~ oss~~6~e~ o ~© ~ S ~~ wee N'~c~,~,~..~,t h~if of ~~ ~ P ~ l~~j~ Cc.l~oJ2~ e~;~ %v~ j) G1 . w ~ ~ ~ ~c~c~o WS ~~,~~ bpi w..e~ L ~~ nh~ G l L . ~ti ~ Q.~oo~l.~ n~c~ t~tcu'~` ~t,,_S' w'l ~~ -evlcc.lo/ p~ ._ • ~~ __ /~~~= ~ ~ ~/ L _, ~ • Attachment 4 i~ I • Oct. 10, 2005 Therese, I have not received a signed "Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications" from my neighbor located at 14361 Springer Ave. I did try to get it as below: Jul: I talked to Yvonne and told her we are designing a new two story house and will show her the design drawings for her comments once we finish it. Aug. 28th: I gave Yvonne a set of design drawings and she said she can finish the letter by the end of next week; Sept. 11th: I talked to Yvonne and she said her husband is in Japan and was not able to review it before he left. He is coming back on Sept. 16th and they can come back to me during the week of Sept 19th-23rd Sept. 24tH: . I knocked their door and the husband said they will finish it the next day; Sept. 25th: They stopped by my house on their way out and told me they did not fill out the letter because they are worried our window on the second floor might see their kitchen. So they asked my architect to draw asight-line to show if we will see her kitchen. Sept.30tn: I called Yvonne told her my architect said he can not draw the sight-line as he does not know where is her kitchen window. She gave me one more oral concern which is they are worried our windows in second floor will facing their windows in the second floor which they already have permit for extend from previous owner. OCt. 3rd: I knocked their door and talked to Yvonne asking her is it okay if we plant some trees along the fence to protect their privacy. She said she does not know. I asked her to put all her concerns on the letter so I can submit my application, and we will continue to work on their concerns. She said okay. Oct. 4th: I.went to city and was not able to find any permit in file for them to extend their second floor. I then called her and left her voice mail ask her to finish the letter. No reply. ~Ct. 7th: I called and left voice mail ask her to finish the letter. No reply. Oct. Stn: I called her at about 4:OOpm, she answered and told me she is sleeping and will call me back. I was not at home when she called at about 5:30pm and she said she will call me again. But I did not receive any phone call after that. In summary, they have two concerns in oral so far: 1. The windows in our second floor will see their kitchen; 2. When they extend their second floor(no permit found filed in city at this moment), the windows in our second floor might facing theirs. Zhaoqing Ma and Muzhi Michelle Guo • • Attachment 5 • ~/ December 3t}, 2CJ~ Re: Bedroom ~'~indo-a~ vv~rlo+G'r`.isdg pa, l • To: Dr. Uleir~man T am extremely. sorryY that I have offended you. It was my idea to make a final appeal to your sensibilities. My contention was that the Ivla's itad already tried to mbe~law the eye Level of the ta~est winda~,~r only 3" (1" if you include the window frame) member of their fat??ily. They did not feel that you were worried al ~ci~ d ~~ly out of invasion of your privacy, but the accidental invasion of a person g g a bedroom window. 1 was intending to show that, even at the average height you suggested, an accidental invasion of your privacy fromsth~ the bottom half f that impossible, but rather, highly unlikely. In addition, ob g ~r~indow would place the line of vision for the IVloss ~ not all, areeas of the room. And, They would have only a view of the sky from rn t, you had soemed to agree that you wouledhad no descusscd n our meeting tha tthe window them a view of the mountain. Also, w was to be a casement window, to allow thelMaAsthou ar~el most likely aware, a casement height (hecatrse of their heights} more ease y y therefore, could not be obscured urindow would have only a single pane of glass, and, with art glass only on the bottom half Again, as this had not been discussed, I felt there mi t be a chance of re-opening the discussion. 1 was obviously very wrong! gh I have met with Mr. And bars. lVia, and they have made the enclosed suggestion as a compromise (drawing snowing complete obscurity -~ because of the wall and window frame ~ to the height of 5' T'-the average eye level of a 5' l0" person - Qs you suggested -- and indicating the -sight line of that person through a window set at that height). I realize that this does not include the bottom half of the window being obscured with ~ glass, as you feel was agreed. Again, the Ma's have selected casement windows. For their height, it would be the only type of window set at this height that they could open Basil}~. 'The Ma's are very anxious to come to an ag~raent that will satisfy you. I hope that you and your architect will have a chance to look this over and that we can reach a compromise before the scheduled hearing, so that this is not an issue that the planning com~nissian will -have to decide. Sineerely°, r Rachel Frame ~~' • Attachment 6 • ~~ Rachel Frame, Senior Designer, Saratoga Construction 12201 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd., Suite D Saratoga, CA. 95070 2 January 2006 Dear Ms. Frame, Thank you for framing your- letter about tl~e Bedroom Window Overlooking Pool so well. First of all, however, rest easy -there was no offense taken. Here's the problem: when we met with your clients, Mr. and Mrs. Ma, I understood that you and they agreed either to obscure Window Number 1 or to use a form of art glass that would protect the privacy of my yard and of people sun-bathing at the side of the pool. This was to be done by obscuring the bottom half of the window with opaque glass or with art glass. We were tentatively favoring the latter pending a further report from you concerning the sight-line from Window No. 1. The idea is to protect the privacy of my yard and pool. As matters stand now, you can see from the 14360 Paul Avenue property that there is a pool; however, that's about all one can see. One cannot look down upon guests in the pool or sun-bathing next to the pool. Our agreement was for you and the Ma family to submit an altered plan for Window No. 1 that would show how your plan would protect the sight-line from Window No. 1 so that it would not look down upon the pool and impair the privacy of my yard and persons sun- bathing by the pool. Instead, when you returned your letter of 30 December OS you expressed a different plan. YOLl withdrew your agreement to obscure the bottom half of the window. You ~~-ithdrew the agreement to use art glass. You withdrew any consideration to make the window smaller or of a different shape. Then you called all of that "a compromise." I am still willing to try and work something out. The architect with whom I have discussed this problem has not yet had a chance to look at the properties or your elegant drawings. I will try to speed this up, but, as you know, I was not informed about these plans in timely fashion. This matter was brought to my personal attention for the first time over the Holidays - it has been difficult to get up to speed but I'll do my best so that the Planning Commission has the information it needs to come to a reasonable solution. Y~ Yo~~l ~ ~ c ~t w~ ~..c~ ~,'~ .Robert L. Weinmann 14371 Springer Avenue Saratoga, CA. ~c~' jz1-~l r ~ L :. """~~~ ~+~+~.'ss.~~eyj/ • • ~~ • • Attachment 7 • ~~ r ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care ,, A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED NEW RESIDENCE AT 14360 PAUL AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME: Ma APN #: 503-27-650 APPLICATION #: 05-172 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 September 5, 2005 P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 Email: arborresources@,comcast.net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.240.0777 ~ • Licensed Contractor #796763 • ~r David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist September S, 2005 INTRODUCTION The City of Saratoga Community Development Department has requested I review the potential tree impacts associated with the proposal to demolish an existing residence and construct a new one at 14360 Paul Avenue, Saratoga. This report presents my findings and recommendations. Plans reviewed for this report include- Sheets A-2 and A-3 (by Memarie Assoc., Inc., dated 4/14/05), Sheet C-1 (by SMP Company, dated 7/7/05) and Sheet LI (by W. Jeffrey Heid, dated 8/13/05). The trees' locations, numbers and canopy dimensions are presented on an attached copy of Sheet C-1 (Grading and Drainage Plan). FINDINGS There are two trees regulated by City Ordinance that were inventoried for this report. Both are planned for retention and include one Mulberry (#1) located in the front yard and one Raywood Ash (#2) located in the backyard. Specific data compiled for each is presented on the attached table. I find both trees can be adequately protected provided the recommendations presented within this report are carefully followed and incorporated into construction plans. The bond amount required for adhering to the recommendations presented in this report is determined to be $1,960. ~ RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations presented below are intended to serve as guidelines for mitigating any foreseeable impacts to the inventoried trees. Should plans be revised, the recommendations may require modification. Design Guidelines 1. Temporary or permanent drainage features, including downspouts, must be designed so water is not discharged towards or near the trees' trunks. 2. The location of protective fencing as presented on the attached map should be shown on Sheet A-3 (Proposed Site Plan). Grading should not be designed within the designated fenced areas, including for drainage purposes. ~ This value represents the combined value of both trees and is calculated in accordance with the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9`~ Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture (SSA), 2000. Ma Property, 14360 Paul Avenue, Saratoga Page 1 of 3 City of Saratoga Community Development Department ,~ r David L. Babby, Registered ConsultingArborist September S, 1005 4. This entire report should be copied onto a plan sheet and titled Sheet T-1 (Tree Protection Instructions). Reference to Sheet T-1 should be specified on Sheets A-2, C- 1 and L-l. The following additional recommendations should be incorporated into the landscape design: a. Tree #2 should be shown on Sheet L 1 as being retained. b. The irrigation beneath the trees' canopies should be designed prior to the contractor installing the lines. They should be established in a radial direction and placed no closer than five feet from the trunks; if this not be possible, the lines can be placed on top of existing soil grade and covered with wood chips or other mulch. c. Irrigation should not spray within five feet from the trees' trunks. d. Stones (such as the cobbles .proposed beneath tree #1's canopy), 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. e. Tilling beneath the canopies must be avoided, including for weed control. f. Bender board or other edging material proposed beneath the trees' canopies should be established on top of existing soil grade. Tree Protection Measures before and during Construction 6. Tree protective fencing shall be installed precisely as shown on the attached map and established prior to any grading, surface scraping, construction 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 24 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. Please note fencing for tree #2 should be installed immediately following removal of the wooden deck. 7. Unless otherwise specifically approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the designated fenced areas (even after fencing is removed). These activities include, but are not limited to, the following: demolition, grading, surface scraping, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. All approved grading, digging and trenching beneath a tree's canopy shall be manually performed using shovels (for the basement beneath tree #2, this is limited to a soil depth of three feet). Roots encountered during the process shall be cleanly severed on the tree side of where the cut occurs; roots with diameters of two inches and greater shall be wrapped in a plastic sandwich bag that is sealed with a rubber band. In the case of any approved trenching, roots two inches and greater in diameter should be retained and tunneled beneath. Digging for the new basement should begin where excavation for the overcut/overbuild will occur closest to tree #2's trunk. Please note great care shall be taken to avoid • Ma Property, 14360 Paul Avenue, Saratoga City of Saratoga Community Development Department Page 2 of 3 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist September S, 2005 cutting beyond four feet from the basement wall where within 15 feet of tree #2's trunk. 10. The removal of the existing deck beneath tree #2's canopy should be manually performed. 11. Any unused, existing underground utilities/services, -lines or pipes within the fenced areas should be abandoned and cut off at existing soil grade. 12. Any tree pruning must be performed under the supervision of an 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. 13. Throughout construction during the dry .months of April thru October, supplemental water should be provided to both trees every two weeks. I suggest an application rate of 10 gallons of water per inch of trunk diameter is supplied by placing soaker hoses on the soil surface beneath the mid- to outer- canopies. 14. 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 street). 15. Herbicides should not be applied beneath the trees' canopies. Where used on site, they must be labeled for safe use near trees. Attachments: Tree Inventory Table Site Map (a copy of Sheet C-1) • Ma Property, 14360 Paul Avenue, Saratoga City of Saratoga Community Development Department Page 3 of 3 ~~ TREE INVENTORY TABLE ~ ~. ~ c . .., r-. ~ v a ~ 3 ~ 3 ~. N ~' o: c c t ~ a~', 'b - ~b o ~ ,~ c E. ~ . '~ > ~, o 0 0 ~ o Cs. n....~ a: ~ o 'A ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :a ~, ~ ~ a~ TREE '~ . NO. TREE NAME .~._ ~ w w vs x v~ .~ O yr - ~: p ~, . is, F . Fruitless Mulberry 1 (Morus albs) 17.5 30 30 75% 25% Fair Low 3 - $1,000 Raywood Ash 2 (Fraxinus o . 'Raywood') 12 40 30 75% 50% Fair Moderate 2 - $960 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 15-gallon = $120 24-inch box = $420 36-inch box = $1,320 48-inch box = $5,000 52-inch box = $7,000 72-inch box = $15,000 Site: 14360 Pau! Avenue, Saratoga Prepared for: City of Saratoga Community Development Depart. Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA September 5, 2005 • C7 ~; tC t- ~ J: ~ ~ ~: ::: `= ry '~_ . `•. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ' ~ ~ ~. ' N mi=l .~ ~ /; Cwt ~ ~~i ' _ ~ ~~ ; ~.; C_' ~ ` ~ ~ > 3 t` ~ :ems _ W "' ~ __ `i,,>~-, ~ ~ \ !i~Li~ ~ Ilk- ~' t ~ ~ Q I . ., 1 ~ - ~ - r~_ \\ \` \ ~ ~ i $ / __~ ~ .. ~: ~ ~r 01 '` ~~F= '~ N i c: ~ ~L, t 1. ~ sr ~ G ~ Y ` v = mow.. ~_._---C_~' ~ ~ c~ \ -$ cam -. ~..~_... ~. ~.=i _.. a .~. ~ tYO __..~___ s _.. _ s ._ _. ~ _ c D yam! _ S ~ ---- ~~ .._. - S __...._ _ _ - - c i-~ - J 3__- - ~ - - ~' - _---_ - -~` 0 ~-. ~~ • Attachment 8 • ~~ rsroseslno~xreseasw~or'm ZIIS6wJ'9SOfNYS'13d1LLS1S1IIdFILZION619 N o ~ ~ ~d,ro ~~IU `~n.t~~xv N ~~.~ ~d~~~~ ~~,L~i~I H D w Lug ° ¢-, o o ~ `~ ~ O1.056'VJ Y'~O1V?!Y5 "4VOb OlJfib 96S2bL ~ o ` ° ~ ` A3?19Mb NIl3 31~iY~'g ~J[Y2~ Z ~ Q ~~ = ~ ~ ~"" ~ 3WOH M3N 1~-~ ~~ ~ a.. a~ ~~ N ~ «KK ~ r ~ y_ ~ vi u n ~~ ai ui "~S4 u n ~ ~ ~~u ~~~ ~ Q .I ~ "' F- (25 N+~ tNN N ~ _ ~W ~ , Z to t~ ?o[N ~~ Q ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ s a ~~ ~ ~~ U ~ r ~m pQq(~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , + ~~ ` ~ ~~ ~o ~s N _ ~ - W d m o~~ ~j `~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ a N ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ Gc.1 - ;N1 IA oL~~ ~ ~ b ~`~ ~ o ~~ ~~ $~o ~~ ~~uui N ~ W ~~ ~ ~ Z OO ~ ~ LL ~~J F~ ~ 1n~ 0~ ~ ~ rl ~ - LEEE ~ ~ N O ~ N •O C ~~ ~~ ~ as ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~W ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ N h 1 T T n T •-• N .- N '~ ~J170 ROAD ~- ~~ _ N ~~ -~ ~ a 9. _ ~ ~ GYM u ~-`\ ~~ ^`- c. ~ n . ~ ~ ~ li ~ n ,~ Y p n n~ ` y, .Q r z }i N ~ y; p IIII ~ ~ ~~- 1J ~ (} q~t C~ c~(n5 F W ~ ~ F ~ ~ ~ o I• Y=N ~- lb l~.'. N~N <~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ p 1~: ~fa~ n.3~tg Ou. ~ ,.`\. .;i. ~ .~1~~,„ ~•- .• Uh ti~ 8 ~5 R }y, ~ , 8 ~ t.:"> 4tr _ ~`^. - ~:'~,: fl ~~ Y a ~s .; a~:. h:..: 1~~ ~'~ l 'n"h`,:; u y rd ~~ ~ tv:f:-; ~s. , r ~~~~ ~~ h ~~';-~;;,; r . s._.: ~, ~ ~~ X r' ~ w.. J : • ~ ~ j~lZ7or1 ~ ~ o ~ • e~ z m 0 Z~ ~~ >- o~~ ~oo ~~~ ~~ A Y Z J ~ M ~ ; ,a ., ~ ~ . ~ ~~ ~' • .~ ~ ~ ,, i 1 -/ a' ~ ~.~q~ i• _ ... r.. ~~.o / •. - j _~~ ,- _-~ ~ i I N O r'~ C • 9awseago."H[ ZI IS6 VJ ~S0(NVS'i33UIS LS~II.{FLI,lION 6I9 ~~ru `3xn.r.~aru3~~rv YQIIVHJRt ~lrT T ~7TiTl1TT OLO~fi V7 YaJO1V?JVS'OVO?J OLfR7 46Sdbl J132l9MY N(l3 3I2~~'Q J[Y~ 410d 3WOH M3N h I I ~ ~ / I a I I ti I 4 a ~' I I I ~ I I a ~ ' i i i - i i ' i ' i 'i as I ( y ~ na omx m b s I I ' ,' ,' ,' ', ~, ~ ~; '; '; '; '; , , ~~ ' ' ~ ~ ~ I i p ~ x ~ ~ p Y o-i O< Y I i I I i ~ I ~ , ~ ~, , ' ' , , , ~, , , i ~ , , , .e-s ^.Z-zz ~ , , , ' i ' , , '~ , ', , ', ', ', ' , ,, ~, ~,. , ~, ,, ,, , , , , I , J I / AOON3'I~NI ~ ! I I ~ g8 4 I ,a-.elx.a-sI W?149b31.SVW 'I ,, ~ , , , ,, ~, ~, ~, ~, ~, ~, ~, ~, , , , ~, ~, ~, ~, , ~, ~, ~, , ', ', ', ', \ I _~- -~ I 'I ~---------- --- a I ~ , , , , N I __ ______ I I I /- J o o ~- - - ' , , a~>mara I I I I I i II ~~ ~~ 9NWl ' ' Y A I I . , Z-9I x.trA , " t A i .o-tr^h~-u ~~1/ / I yy W I N3-L~JnI ~' ~~ ' 1 1, I ~ I -------~--- i --- , ~ .Z"9l x ~-q , , ' 9NINI4 pp„ ~ i. ~ ~ , „ b O f®9 „ ~ , ~~ ii ,, u $g $g 8 8 b S ` T • i ______-__ H1Y9 , y~ I I =9~_ ~, „ „ ..__ _ I -.~-J~ ----_~O--T-®9-- --=SBC___ - - - b 4 ' ,' .-s. i I . --------' . ,e~sx.s~.ec '~ , ------- ---~ iason T1 I i b YH ~~ ~ ~~ I ' I ~ ~' ' w d F{1 ', A~l1N3 y~ I y~yj I ~ ~~ ruffs ~ wva I a ~ Y -~`- S6C I .C-Jlx z-. ~ '~ I I c ~ ~.rx.r-e saxn l ?14N(IVl I ?IIV 15 -- ---- -- I ?13MONS . -a•rr - I I _ '1O~'u' 3Sl x 1}A _ ~ ruxtru nom- . WOOd~9 yviss3anrlnlNn ~ ~ .o-s ^ 09 uarxnnl+a ® o-sx.--9 " ' HlY9 $ ~' 13501 W ' ~ aaae N M s~ -~ Z li I \ \ ~~ I / I Fib IOd I ~ \\ , \ / / / \J I I \ ' ~i / / I ~ , D I . \ ' ..xc aa. I \ ~ ~: ---- I .rocx.o-a` .rtrcx.o-,oz ~ I \ 1?10d`dV~ \ i 39V?1V~ / I I , \ / / ~ I b \ ~ / I h '-------- ~ ' - r---------- / --~ I ~ ~ \ , , // ', J.afLLS i I~ a I ~ / I / ~ / ,~ , ~ \ \ I 4 I // ~i \ I b / '~ ` I I , / ~, 1351L~ 9 HLY9 l I~ 4 b _____________ ~ I aax , , oroa ,,-----T-----I----.o~. --'1' • ~ IO ~ ~ N N N a ~ b a ~ o ~ o R ~ a Z Q Q. .J 11~~ 1^^'~'' ~1C. Z ~ ~.~[. r V O 111 LL U I W ~s~o-swnrxva vsassdv-cu ZIIS6 V~'350[NYS'I3dY1 SI S>RIliigON619 ~1.~~ ~ Y~l~VS ~~ml Q~ ~ ~ o . . '~ru `axn ia~ i u3~x~+ a J13~t9MV NC13 3(~~/~'Q ~JI~ g ~ ~ ~ "' ~ . . . Ytro ~ r-~rT T~Tu NVW,L~ItlH'VQiftlH~IN '.1~'1.L~y~L~11 JJa y~ ~ h m ,„, ~3YYOHhl3N ~ Q ~ ~ ~ a Z d .__t d. flL O O Z O U 11J ~ ~ • i esrvss6~rorxv~ ssioseeaor'f31. ZI [S6 YJ'350f NYS Yi17iL$ r~+HIbON 6t9 ~O~.~J 7 ~ Y~IV~S `~IQ~ QjJ(~` CJ(`j 4r( s ~ ro•fb •~ru `axn.r.~~.u~~ .13~~9M~/ NIl3 3[2~`d~'S ~J(~ g ~ ~ ~" ~' ~ NYW.I.ZIYHYCIXVH~[2t ~~Z.•• OH ~ .,,L 3YVOH AA3N s 3 ~ i a q ~ O q ~( v° `o ~W~ LL N ~~~ F ~~~ ~~~ f ~ y ~~ o~ ~o~ ~~_ ~~~ i !S n a~ 0 ~m ~r° =~ l ~u ~I $ > ~ _~ ~o ~~ ~~ ~~~ <~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ , '~ I a Z O ~. j.~..~ ,^~ V J ~~--ff pL N 9MQnt~N eJ -,sy O ...+ 0 ~i ~~ ~ ~ ~~ X13 rn01 ~ 1N9 Y:II 7P ~a-gn8 I, N p • ~ LL: _~ r ~ ~~ r ~~ ~ ~~Q~ y 2 ~~_ ~~; L~~~ W r 1}p u 6 _ 8~ ~ ~ 0~0 w ~ ° i~~- 1 I,- 0 0 0 0 I, .' ~y o< Su SZ°m Y ~~ S 3 d =NS 3 ., n 2° <Z~Yv U o 2 3 Z tI ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~_ QQ~ c ~ ~aS ~ ,' W .--~ - LJ ~~ ~ r ! ~~~ o ~ ~ o ~ ~~ ~ / ~ ~~~ ,~ I 11 ~ 1 ~~~ ~ ~I v w~of6cao~xvi ss/ose~o~-ru ZIIS6 YJ ISO[NYS'].ffd2CLS,[S$Id EIC110N 619 ~~~Y~~V~r7~~~0~~ ~ Ti fl " z ~~ru •~~.r.~-t~xy Ha y J1.3219MY NIl3 31~121YJ'S JI~J ~; ~ eT ~ z ixvE[ v ~~ E~ ~ ~~.L~IOH c 4JOJ 3WOH NL3N o ~ o R ~ ~ ~_ i~ ~- o ~, ~ N r ~- ~~. Q ~ ~ ~.. r ~ I Z 1 J ~' LL1 S i1L a Z cL '~ I i _~ N 1 1 I~LJ I ~ W I~l~ O `~ W .~ W I~ ~U 4~ C~ fi • fsrose6aor XVe %rof66rtn -cv. ZtIS6 VO ~SOf NVS' L3iN LS SSHId H1NOH 619 01.~ ~ Y~l~VS `~~ (7~~ ~ o ~ ' . . ro,-v ~~ru `~xn.~~.r~~xv A32l9MV N(l3 3Id~ld~'S ~J[l~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~O ~ ~ z ~ ~ rfvs~t.~rnt .y axvx~nt ~ a.L t.`iJ/ ~LOH ~ ~ ~ . ~ 3WOH M3N s s ~ s $ ~ a -Q ~ _N _a ~ a _ l O - S/ ~~ I' - 1 1 ®l0 ~ D ~ ® Aa~ ~ i ~ ~ O D O D ^ ~ ~~, ~I$ O Qo ~ ~. m• i QO ~ ~ I ®® ,~-SZ k ' ~ ' m~ Z~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ o~ ~~ ~ ~ R~t~ :~ ~k< ~ s~k _ p[~C N~ GC6 e!~ O = .,~ .5' I ,Q',~) I • • ~ v ss/rtseupr7cw9slo-tsw~'[tt ZIIS6VJ$SO(11VS'r~axrclSllCiIILHON6I9 ~LOgf'V~~1~plY~1NS~QVO?lQll(R75@Sa`f~l o y,ro ~~ru `~~.rix~xv J13~l9M~/ NIl3 3[~d~'S ~JIY2l~ '~ ~ :r. . ~ ~ n Z Y . civtw.xvtt ro axvtt~cx ~~Z~IOH ~3W~~ ,~ ~ Q ~ o ~ o ~ $ 9 ~ ~ w ,a U` n~ y G ~ II n S a a ~ t' x { o v ~~ n o „ n ~ ~ _ m U r Ip n 0 nl 7 J In c 7 ~ N ~ ~- ~ r 0 c T ~ ~~~ 8 N ~ ,_ 9 ~` y w '~' P o_ -t- N ~ n m a . r Ih 9 rn N ~+ u ~ 7 9 .~ I N 3 II 11 I' 1' 1~ U 11 ° v II 11 it n n ~ pt~~ p m ry1 p m ~, 0 m ~~ ~ n p ~ ~? 4i Y, r•1 n nl S 4, ~ X r ~ x~ k J- ~~ $ N ~ N QT N ID x ~ Z ~ q ~ .I I! 5 % ~, " a- - x x F- n1 I ~ z x z ,,999 r ~ N 9 QQ1 J 4 r 9 a N V ~' ~ ~ 9' ~i 1 r_~ m O ~ n nS m V ~ k k U ' k f' ^ w M ~ 6 ~ - 7 P I~ ~~ I' II 11 P 11 11 ~ II 11 II v II 11 -t m V ~ W 1L ~i $ Ft J~ Z p n u a es d ,n Y J >.,~ Z O 1= d o U J ~~ U flL Q Z ^J 1.1.. O ^O • • O N 1 asev~a xve seascsnor ~[tt ZlTi6 VJ ~50(NVS'.L73N.CS JSlQ.{fiCNON 6T9 .v.T.v ~~ru `~uu.~~xv 01.046 lrJ YJOlV21v$ 'QVO?1 OLf1D 46~t .132l9Mb Nf~3 31~b~'8 ~Jfb2i~ 3WON M3N yxO~ a _~ 2 m .~ s 0 Z ~_ H } 11J J 11J '~ 0 u i r Z Q ~-- W J 111 1-- ~ r N1 0 Z l.ll J J1J (n Q ~~ f- Z ~_ ~--' Q W J 11J ~~ Z nL na¢ i r - I ns ------ a-x -----owr;-- ---- ,a y ------ i -omr----- - ; ' ~~ I I I d ~ m ~ ,c t g I ! ° I I b I ~ I ~"-~~ 8 ~ y I g I ~ I ! I I I ~ I I I I I °°°` I I I -- =-=="pop--== I I I I Jpr~ I I I Ig 9 I I I I ! I ' ' ! g I At I I I I I I ~~ I I I § I ~: I 4 I I I ~ °G ~ I ~ I ~ I ~ I I I ¢ ~ I I 1 I I I ~ ¢ I I I I I I R 1 I I ~- -----. I I .ooa _. ~ N ~ ~ - '-- , I I \ J ~ ~ ~~ i I l \ ~ t ` l ~ / a ,I~Zi \ ~ Q -tlP4 Sg ~ p ~ ii{ ~ \ // ~~ L 1 ~~ \~ -------o ~--- ~ p l L I - 1 ~ J---- `---- ~ I 1 4 I b I m h - I I _ _ -- _~ m i I I I I 1 1 I I ~ I I I I I I I I I ~ m tv o ! I 11 I I I =mss ~ eos = o.oc t' ~~ yos-_ I o..a W. ~----- I c i ~~ I ~~ I c ¢ I b I I _ I 1>B 1}8 8~ 11.1V ~ N ddd T 3 N o` S ~ is 0 u 0 ~~~ d -Q~~ ~ ~ 0 'I d < ~ ~ ~ w3 ~~~ 4 ~ L d .J ~ Y C~ FY- ~ O Z J 0 J ~ . r 1]J Y ~~ J Z m U • • • J t~ ~ ~`! ~ d.! A ~~ C ~ o~:c 4 .~n ~A~ ~Q7 . a x~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~< ~ ~ ~~ ~ aka ~~~~ao ~ ~ ~o ~x ~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ Q d~~~ ~ o °~ ~z o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~sQ ~a ~~~Q~~~~~~ "~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~o~ ~~ s~~~~~~ ~~o~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~5~~° o~~~~o~m~~~~~~ '~~~~~~~~~5~~~~~Q~~~4 ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~°~~~~sQ~~~~g~~ ~a~~~~ ~~ Q~~ ad~~~ <e~~~~~ ~r ~~~~~ ~d ~~ ~ ~~r~~~~~gg~~~~~< <~~ ~ ~ ~s~ ~®~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ Q~ ~ ~ a ~~ ~o~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ Q~~ ~~~Qz 0. V n.- fAH .. .. ,.,w~x..n^m nN~.o n.+n n m ;? ~o~m~fwv ~'„°nl+i ~',~.o .^.+~~^, i ~ ~ i Z7! A A32A223a.nk it ~ 22 A~ A ~II f, 4 ~ u. 1 ~ SAhit i! ELfi ~IitII A#AAh L f9 ~~ ~aiJ ~~~ °~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ > ~Qh < N~ g ~~~~ ~~~~ 3g ~ y~S~ `b m ~~ ~ a r ~C ~ ' ~ ~ uk ~ ~ ~ v ~X ~ ~~'~~ SO ~ ao ~~ ~ ~ ~~;~"~~~ ~~ QQ~ z s. ~ ~ ~ 3~ ~ ~~o ~ ~ $j $ ~ ~o~[, ~ ~ ,~ ~ Qa~ a 3a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .eF}~ p~ gyp`! ~~j a~~~ ~ q d V ~ ~~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ e~ < 1 ~ ~ _ ~~z<cS Z °{ ..~ ~j < ~~ 9z~ < ~~ ~ ~~~ ~a R ~~ a ~ ~i ~QQ Sk ~~ `Js ~ K `~ Uy~ ~~~~g I~~ e i G I ~ F+ d~ °,~ v7~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ a `55 S a ~ Q C ~a~^p O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ Qg F et ~~ ~Q r~ ; ~j~ S' ~il yJ ~ ~e ~ ~ Qf t7 s1c 's'ari ~OIC °a~ S aa ~J ae j ~ !f ~ t9a0 S ~ FF FhF o..an•m.e r ~~a~a~s~~s~~y~,„y~„~, ., >55 ~ ~ o~.,a.~~.n .on s ~'&'a X'ie~~~&'aan.aa&& ~ °1 I } ~ I i' O i~ 3~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ • • I f!~ m ~: :!~ 3 ~ ~~ ~~ > '' M~ ~.. ~~ _1 N ~ ~ C ~..,~~ ~. • • • m rW- 0 m N a ~ o W ~ ^~ z i ~a ~ y o a °' ~ 0 ~~' ~ O ~~3v~i ~ N W Q p ~ U z J ~ Q Q F- S~ • ,o a ao ~©~i°s m w I w .n ~? m v z m MW o ~5 J a S U wJ F W~ 1 0 H W J W S N W w 0 b o~ a, ~r 4a QQ ~a 0 o~ a 4a Q • gU1T0 ROAD _ - 1 N 1 ~ ~~ o o ~W ~ Z ~ d ~ Z ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ a °' z o ®~. v ~ ~ ~.1 ~ ~ ~ ¢ ` ~ o I Q ~~30 A ~ pd3®• 4 eG N } °' O i ~ ~ o o ~ ~sp m ~ ~ ~ \ & ~, ~M ac ; aii ~ ~ O Z Q Q > N ® J Q 1Q- ~ • ~ a ~ wZFi> ~ Z >>>~ '~ ~ ~~Z W ~'~~ ,( S~ ~-y~ (n 1n J 01 LJ W ~ m W ~ ~ ~W~OS<m ~ ~~ ~wa> o '~93y P 1 Z M d s 2 o yz~ 'a.'t~~ ~o r~~ yo y¢1 " ~ ~ C~ rn U ICq , ~ a~-~aa3~ ~ ~ J ~ (~ y ' a y U G A ~ .. J QUITO ROAD ---- ~~ ~, . o ~~ ~W °~~ ~ WV iW ~< yZ_~ ~H ~ ~ {r ~y ~~W d~=~<~OW~ ~~ ~~ FOWp ~~ h '~(/ ~~ ~o'dom"i~~~ W= ~~ ~~Q~ v,~ o ~ o s m K;• ~$p,~a z~.~tOJ[.po' ~~z~yO~'yoJ~b'~ m~ ~~ ~i. ¢~ a'c ~ < ~ p'jmg ~CCj ~WgVbZ1~O7W ~~ ~O ~~~~ ~mW O F<Wj N~grr ~o~ ~~1~~00~~~ Ko ~~ R$<~ ~~° o ~~~g W~$ ~H~ c~~HO:~H~W?~ ~~ /r'i <~S}~A ?a~ °w ~aox aaizci ~~S U~}W~SN~WO~Z VW d< ~N `~ ZW[(1 O ~2WN <SZN <<F~}~W ~~ ~ ~ ~p <l~ ~ OLF pKp NdaSa~ mNUm ~~O Z~m FmR{n~< N~ ~O Wm~ ~ g~ y N ~ ~~~ <~~~WZ~~V~ ~~ Y~ So~oo~ N°<? m < FSi~ i~~~ v=i~;~ ~F~u~ioy~~~U~ N~ Jvi ~?~~mF33 t~~ ~4~1 p~~ \o~~ QQj< n 1 °JS ~dR}~}~1~~~KK<~<aFa (w~~ ~< <,750 ~F~~jA ~W< W`JI nlN ~ZNOJ pV•~< ¢<¢NWO ~d R~4"1 pZ~Z~=W=U d' ~O s~- ~#~~2 2Od ~O W< JO (W~~~ WW VI•~:p~ N F=~~O <~U NIJF2~OWd O(OO J~d1~ <U ~~O FW~ O~ ~~ OO~WK NQ~< L 2Upp~Z ~~-~~JVWd U1I~ OpWU ° ~`j K<Z< NZ] ~O pm G'. yO~ZW13~ ~'ywjW~ W=Oa ~NOUNd~F'~JWW (4~~11~~< JGO ~~j7~FZ ~~ O~ SJ {~xNF NOm~ Fj ~ O `~Wy,W ~d O17I<00 <FK <W V32i-LU'S HIV-N ~1~ G~ <OFO FZVIq ~m~~6 ao~~i~°d<~c~ao oIrcl~ °gfa ~c°~o~o ~°~ ~~ ~~ <$t~"o ~?~o w k'K~ ao1~Z3Z ~~n ~W z~ZO qQY' ~} Zo ~d in ~ 1-r3 OF WUOWO O FW. ZO Nypp<WZ VISyIA I- ~<~ ~d'O m< UO K N S s~~WZZ~ ~Waaag z ~N?WZd~ 7p;<Om~<~KFY O ~~ 2~fJW <O WO w d ~ < W< 2 ~ N O? O F 0 0 4 0 K ? g~ Z< O~ VIA W N Q~ W~ j O N ~ Y Z K N ~ N NgUaa2~ Y3~~F~F '9' ~y~W~ im~~o~yZ~~+ tnzW° W<Ft ~< mz TZ~ < Q~ "9 mOOLL~ ~~O~W W i~7~K N~~N~I~~W7~'~ ~Om~ <O~ dpi « °~y ~ W741 ~~~~€ U'"F~~ 3~'F~~ uo~g°'~W~~<1UZyg °<?~ aZ1~' ~gvi ~iJm WZ ~ m~~ a Tu~~Ny <Oiff'~O U WZ ~N)g ~q~q d~~J~1<~ AN O o~~ ZWK NJ ~~ O ~~ k'J '~k' y~~~d~ ~ myS~SH <y~lJ HiX~~~~J i~~`d'd~< ¢o~tn mod ZF S~~ ~«W~ W~ ~ x<g D WJ~WD{ JJUW~€~ V ~~14F~~OV dOd~~~~S~FO~~~IQY~O F1y~~l ~ O ~~Nyy WFO OF hjZ ~` N<"' a ~~N~~ `y~ ~ 17Zj Zp ~O$~yWW+NZ ~U~~~(Z~S d'~fl1S~~ W<~Z ~JJ a#~ ai3 3~ m <WF Zm~~~ ~y=~~ O FOFSaF ~mQF4J QIJ}y ~~O~ ~N>~ WadO OOO J~ W~~ ~ ~~~ K WZ4~F OW` 3 F f' 2Vy?~JF ~1-N Z ~} 'd'<MI ~, < 0 ..1 mN W J'~WO~S~` p~~~~ q~q=' F~~<~~ 8~R~4~1 Q3 FOOH pU~~S F~Z aF ~Fy(:1 <~Jg9Y ~~F. ~~V7,~{~K ~O ~ Fy<jO8J <_WO~~ 33~yy~yy~~a7 ZpN W~ ZN3m Wg j}ZNZ ~"W~OF~~ 3=Oy K0" H ~~~U ~ZpOZa ~Q ~JJ`Y 4 N~N it <m~~K WO K~ ~y <J ~-WO y W~UVI=~~42~Z N- d4 ~ Cmp~m WU41 1~ O~ l73 ~O ~ 3~ O~jWW md' H~Ft-~ ~ y~ ~W- O< ON O F-F O y~ ? y~~ ~~ ~W~ ~yJ <~yGyq1~ W dZ N S~ WO ~ y$1 ~~ ~ ~W_ JZ d 1F~ Z Z< ~K VI F ~~< JJm ~NO~~ O~ ZOJ K ~WI~Ii =~¢~~\K~O~ W3~~~ KO ~~W ~~O CKy~~ U{W~ y~~~,] WX~ yW D OOff ~~ Z~4N< 2 ~Za O1<i ~O K~0]FF~Z-{~2~~~O ~=~~Y~Z ~ ~~~~ ~W W<yV~I ~O 1f(~J (3 (r3C < Q Oa~~Wy~ JJ ~~j~~ ~~ ~FW ¢~d17a{ <Zo ~y7la~-~Sy~J}WK~~aF- dCj~~~ ~ o~~~ ~~~ OO~N ~JOJW C< ~~j~ D: 'ys~ Z ~y~Z~Z~F i~.<~dW ~W <Z~Z~O [YY~N ~53~O~OF~=7OdN7'F<=- 1tm aJ ~~ O ~Z~W ~W?W? ~+11~~~~ <~ ~O ~~140~. aK< ~' ^~<~7 t30a:N~mO rj~ ~UmUSNK YIN Z<N~p~,3 U=U tG4 AN~U W .=Km~ HZF ~O~ V< Yi~ tG2O I~i- W~ < ~ Z 3 -< ~~~ ZW H H 2 Q J a ~w V ~ Q Q O 0 Q O wb Q M 0 w W V to ` ~J O 0 Q ~{ a `` N r ` ~~ a~RV~~ i ~s $ ~~ ~)~~ V+~ e gg I; 33~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ a~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s 8 i! z ~~ ~~~~ Q s ti d 9' ~ ~ ~ U y o ~ ~ . _~~~ ~ ~ ~~ W ~eS ~~~y~~~ S ~~~ ~~. ~. x:~ a . ~~~e~~~ (x//11 °s Fy ~ P Fc4 a c~ °~ a° m ~~$~ ~ o 3 ~"<~ '3 ~ $ ~~ z ~s~, 1~ Ln F o ~~ N ~ _] N j O ^, y~ < 1 ~~ U r I..i~ ~ ~ ~ , ~~~ J '-_ _ t t~ U U ~I V ~ ~ ~ ~ 6V ~ 9 0 ~0 r 0 .0 ~9 ~ ~~7U-~1UU ~~9~0.Z p ° ° ~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ r T H ~ v v ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ zZ Z ~ -.8 :-9 ~pp 6 ~ ~ n ~ ~ a ~~ ~ . o 0 0 ~ o ~~ ~.~ ~ ~,~~ ~~ ` ~ - t~ ` , 9,: "~ ~~ tr" _~ .:~ ~ :~~~~: ~~i~'~Y .[... i '' ~ ~~ 3V 3Y ~ ~ ~ a x a x ~ y p. ~ S., . Gl __ ~ W Qw ~ ~~ OI d ~ q~ 8 r '$61 s.. .o ~~~ 8~1 d iv n i 6 a n`, T IL _ c I ~ o ~ .'l ~~ /~ '~1 ` ~ y Q m 111 ~ 111 W ~ ~ ,°{ ~%,~ ~ C°p ~i ~ ^Ln pp~y~ N ~a ~ 9' T ~ ~ ~41 ~' P ~ '~ 4 1~''~~ "+~r ~,~ ~ ~ P_ ~~ ~ 1 ~~ I(.,~ ~- ('~~~ '~~ ~ ~s F)t ~ ~~~ ' ~ ~ IQL ~j A V }~ 1I LL~ ~VVX . ~ ~ i. a W ~ A Rpf ~ o~ 9 Ol ~ Yf J7 ~ ~ G ~ ~ ~ (~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ .9 ~P~G ffi<Aw~~~~'C?~I ~. ~~nM~. ~ S } UYFj ~~ ~~ ~ `"~ ~ _ ~ E ~, ~ ~.~a ~ r ~ ~-,~' , ~ ~ }Wxli ri ~~ ~ ~~ ,~;!-0a~°'.,. ^ ~ ~1 V . ~ . g ~~/J J IJ4 ~~ ~LL ~~ ~ N g~~ ~ ~ ~.~~ ;~ . ~~.~~ _ ~1 ~.1 ~~L IL~~~ IQ 9< 3~~ 'n~"y'3~8~ ~~~ ~ 4F`1 ,~ Y ~ ~ ~ ~ V V UUUUUU V V iNt~ r ~. ,~, ~ ~ ~ ~ LL _ ~ IR ' 1 amU QwLL Y V _ m~~~°? ~ ~ ~~~~ n0~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ n ~~ ~I xae ~ ae Q ~ K~~ r N V~ ~~ Q m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ^ ~ Z W a ~~iri~ ri~ ~ '~ Z ~ yNry~l M~ ~ h ~ - - A ~ _ ~ ., ~ ~ ~ a a III II III ~F~H ~~~ 1 ~ ~ ~ QQC ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~y Q ~ Q ~ ~ - ^ 0W ~LL IL-+ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~~ a QJ. ~ ~ j N LL N ~~ d1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ w~ O W ~ ~ d1 ~~ .M ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ V p4ZQ rr W0.110.1~~ a ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ® - 7~~ 4 N j !-FF IL V LLI[) IQ EOJ / ~ N ~ C ~ C ap ~ i ~ 7J-~ z r 1 t i ~ ~ ~ ~j ~ ~~ ~~ ~ } ® ~ ~ Q ~ ~ I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e Y ~ ~ Q 1 r 1 ~ ~ i Q~ ~ ~~ a ~ , ® 0 _ ~.~ V ~ - ~ ~ t u U ~ y •~d ~ d Z ~ ~ ® ~ ~~{- ~ ~ ~ } ~ ( ~ ~ 08 a~Q~ ~ ~ EWa a ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ Y ~ OCV ~o ~ ~ ~`3 1 ~~N ~..1 ~ . ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q Z ^ ~ J ~ ~ U r q1 ~ ~ \ iN-~H--lil Q ~ ~-- z ~ _ ;:~,:.. ~ ~ z Z 4 Q .~: ` a~ Q Z Z Q Q ~~ a~ E~ ~~~ ~''~ 4 ~ 0.~ ~ W W ~~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ a ~ ~ ~~ a~N ~~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ VI 9 i i i i'r ~1 `t N~9r~m i Q'-~Qaaaaaaaa$~ ~: _~ `: • O G'~ 1' ~ C: \fiO6K\PiIOJ\25e1-Paul\T-1.Owg iue Oct fl 16:55:56 2005 a }N Z w ~~ SzN db'W JIHdb21oOd01 aNt/ iL2Jb'aNn08 ~;~ "'gig"'~~i~ Y ~~ 1$ ~ a ~g I _.~ d z sa:~~~s ~a dINbO~I'tb~ 'do01~dS "~ ''~, o ~ J ~< ~, ~ ~~~ 3nN3nd ~ndd 09£b6 ~~'•`•'!......«~° ~ ~ N a ~ ~~k~Jk'~z $ '~~ ~ ° a ,n E a ~ uai 8 u ~ ~ ~ ono iHZnw ~s~w aNd ~~w ~ ~ o ~ ~` ~ " s "~" ~, ;: 0 i ;; ~a g ~~~ N O u -G -i $ eZ ~S M °sc,o~°E~ s I ~ I~ ~ ~ F >$ ~ H ~ Io ~s i s ~ 1~ ~ ~~ (n W Z J O O F- _ Q W _Z ~wW W U m Q~ ZLL' W ¢ Z~LLV~W> Z O W YZ~W2W~ ¢ U~~IWL a.~ILZm o ~gzow~o~= p ~U w ~paopQCW7oH. w v~iaic~3a3°w~c¢i ~ I I I ~WtJiU :~' Y m Q fZ~ ~ y O W ~ ~ ~ -__---._ LL1 ----~Q------ -~-- Q'- ~ ~9 - ~ I _ I.:- ___.-.-_ J LL j O ~ ~i i:.. I': ~ ¢ m LL LL O r ~~ i; z a ? ~' ~ ;~ o ~ U Wt~m Q mW ~ W oo O O WLL OOW ~~ ':~ ~ J LLt~1 0 Q~[ 2 R aZ w h N ;...; (A l1 ~ Z ' O J =~ ' ¢ t- O ~ LLUtn U ~ ~ a 3 ~Z F-o Z 1., m d p~~ Z o oat°giw ¢ c~ 0 a ~~° zoQ3 ~¢~ . - ------- Uzz O WHO= Z~uJ= y~ "~ Z ~Q Z~~ ~~~y ~LL ~ ~ t4 0 ~QS m=LL_Z W~W {{ w -- za? W fq ~~~ V1 ~ ~a~~ fA ~ ~~ s U fA _~ _~ e 8a .. g r ~~ S s 8 ~ wr'_... _t.---- __ g ~ _-_- s ,00'09 W LL- .._.. ._-- as _._--.-- s qa ss ~~ ~s __------ - - --- -- - `- s g ~ a ~ w LL ------- -- ~~ 0' ------- s ~ ~a --- -- -- ~ ~s -- ---- -- s s ~ _""~----------- - 8 a ~ W L _.-... _.. - -----. 8 s - ~ ~' /~'~ ~. g8 ~~ sd ~ ---'-- -_wLL 8 8 8 $ - ---- ------------- - ~ ~LLL_____--- 9 9 --- --- $ - --- --- 0 0 -___ -- --- ------ --- ~ s WLL __-.___--.- .-____________-_____ ~ m 8a~ • • a } _~ . Z Z "s"so~~ g„N Ndld 3ob~Nlb2~a dNb' oNla`dao ~E~~.rs~ "S d " g~~-q~~ ~~a blNbOdllb'~ '`doOlb2idS gi~~/~~,, `~ ~ W ~~~ ~~~ W W ~~ w a U O J p 11 ° a Y10~~~43 O ~ ~d+alYByl f.'~ § L Q ..~ b VI ~ VI iiN .• ~ ~ ~ W ~ ono iHZnw •saw aNd •~w ~ o ~ a ~ ~ L ~`I1I ~ U° N~U Q ,^ , Y+ 0 p N M Z = Q ~~ ~ i . i ~`,; ~ I ° I ~I ~ Ig 1 t ~ ~'~~,~ ` it F I± ~~ ' ~ ~ .~I `~ 18i~~t~°~S i ~ !d . y ~+ ~ ~ i` I ~ a ~ I W YJj w 5~p{{ ~ J/ TX' I i r.l ~ ~ I 3 3 ~-1 fl- - - ' ~ I I , ' <I la ~ ,~ ,m i° ~ ~,, ~ 3 u. 3 i""~€ ~ to __~ ~'I. to ~ W N ~ N O C J ~ a N Q = a z Q ~a° ~ ~ ? Z . oar ~~' m rYU' U W z m Q W ~ s &a~ W>a Q ZWW?~~ Z o¢ ~Z W~YV}~jj fn Z °ooK a ~ U^Z W FJ~LLZa a ~z~ ~~' W w~QOOf-WOU O C7 1- ce sZ'/,S '-°o `"° ( W ~v~ic=i3a3°wlJLca.> M 4SC,p~ ~ J _.. ~ a E S_6~~4 ~~, y~'~ _ z z o i > f5 ~ \ ~_ ~_° ~ ~f' w~7 ~ N I' w LL U I xzn K K ~ ~ ' ic~m r ~ JJw o ~ - ..- a ~:~ ~ ms°. ~ S m C I :/ i- ia i t ~ ~ ' ~P ~~- - ~ ''CC1 ';~:..-__ CW `~ ` 1~ yr_-' ~ J ~J c ~~ m~ stn s ~ I ~ ~ ~~~ w ~~~ ?~ Wz a W 3 ~ILo~dwK ~poa ~ ~ o I ik{ Q LLam LL' '~ fa ~~ Of U U os ?\o~ I I F O~ O y - ~ .-:a~a~ I ~~ 41; o z m >- I~~ z g~`~'t I~I~ti ~ ~ w ~~ ~d ZO NZ~ ~-~ ~~~ o M Op Z ~'o am ~:: LL Z m ~ f Q ~~~ ~ I ~ ~ O ~ 4 ~~ N ~o I-~,~~ri i- w mLL O.. HOF- p -- - ~8 ~~ ~~ I $~ ~ : Z W ~ ~ ~ 2 Quo w ~ I I ~, ^m W~fq °~w~ =o=z LL ~ ~ 4 a~ ~~ ~w ~ O ~°i~m ~ I 7 ~I # ~ 1 ~ ¢ x U ~~k w ~ ~ I amo ~ I II QU ~^z rz6•Z ~~ N~~ g ~ - __-_ ~ ~~ J ~ I __ UVZ Z^ W ~ - ~' ^ m 2 d O ~ Oa '~ ~ ~ ~ ¢~ UOZ Z~~y O~~ f ~ eo j ~i< ~ F zm3 ~ ~ ¢o~ o~•oo~=~~ ° °~~~ ~~ o ~ ~o~ wOai ~=oz ~~i a ~ >? wJ~ LLa wN y~~ -~ ~ ~- ~_, ~ ~ ~ lj °u ~ 1 a I °~ l` -. ~ 8{ ~ as" k" W ~ ~IZ ~I II D: J ~ 7 W J Z ~I ~"' C< 3 0 } o~ m O o~ w =~ o~ 7 U O ~ O W 3 ~ O s_ ~~ ~~ z o° O O O W W a ~ t ° ~ ~ ~ ~~ U : O ~ W ~ ~ N N o ~ O z ~, t ,- . fi m 1- ~ p ~~ r •_ ~ ~ 005 i~ „i ~0~1GZ1 ~ ~.. _ ~ a ~ i ''- - s _.. .~ ~_. ..:... s-._ - m s - a ...__ ° a ~ w~ s --- ~ e ---- a ---- m --- _- - . s _-- _ _--- - ---- ~- - s - -- . -- ~ -- a~'-' s -_--- x _g.._.c ~-~-~-~ o W ~b~' '-~ ~+ IJ LL ~j `.'a wn L gi _ ________ ___ __ __________ -- - SS N~ ~ W ~ _ __._--____..-.__ __--_ _-_ __.-..__._._ . __ ~- _~ __ g o s s ~ ~, a ~ ---- - -- --~~, %g _f ---- ..~ w"'-------- ~o wu __.- -_. _. ~ s _._ - ~LL ___.__. ~. ~-_ - _ ---- 8 ~ $ i 5002 9E 21 ~51 tl 7~0 an! fi.P'1-7\SNIVd 1IA17\Inad-1/52V`5tld\MS115\~~ t • • • i ° - 1 ~ ~.;.;~~ ~ I ~ .~ } ~ ~~° Hof I~•NI ~ ~ Im i ~ . ~ i r m-t, L a m~ I o ~I r ~I ~ os ~ \~_ ~ ;~ I `; sl ~ s°°~; \\.. ,6, _~. I ~ ~ t I• 1~ ~~ i M ~ ., ~ ~:~ ~~~ ~ o ~ ~ g ~ 0 J m ~ ~~ ~o g~ w ~~~.~~~ ~ ~ ~ o !fw!f~~ Q+ ~i~y~~ Nab ~^ tlg~p.9 ~ ~~" c ~ s p VI - o oG ~ 'w ~ ~ g ~~~~~ ,yam ~~~s~~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0. d U ~ 6 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ E6 5 y ~ 0 ,45~ aQQ ~ a y a ~$$5 g ~+ ~ ° ~n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ggg p F 698 ~ z _ _ _ .. ~ ~.. ~~ ds dd d.+ $~ II ! ~11~d. ~ 87 ~ 63~~ 8 q•Y a g a ,~ ~ . ~ ,e ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e I_ ~ q~ 4~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~g ~~ a u a W ` U'~ ~ O E" ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~/y p e d a ®~ a pp~o' a - ~~ W Gy Q" y ~~ ~` ~ 1 • , e° ®3 ~; ~E ~ ~e .e r s~ ~~ a I~ m~ e !~ i~ i~ 1 • a 0 a U d • ~~ ~§~~ ~~~~ ~ ~g 9~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ e .~ ~ E e ti ~ ~g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~~ ~~~~ ~,~ V ~~~ y)ay 9[~ r 9~SF g~9 ~ s ~~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~~~~o s~ ~~~~~~~ i W ~~~ ~~~y~y~~~, U~ 89 e B ~~~~~~~ ~ o ~a ~ ~~ yyy ~ ° ~ N x 0 ~ ~ a~ C ~a~ 3 ~~ ~ ~~ ~, z ~^~, 0 U _ .. a U ~I.I~I~ ,~ ~~ U ~~~~ • ~ • ~~~ A ` e~~~ ~ U ~~~~~ ~ ~ w ~~~~~~~ x 0 w ~U~ ~~~~~~ ~ o y o dg ~~~~~ ~ a ~ 3 ~ a ~ ~~ ~ H ~ p gg ~ .- w g w F @~~e ~`e I n o O ~~ ~ w ~ ~ ~~ ~ W ~~ ~ I I L H 0 A 0 ,,{!^~1 Vl tO 1 ^\ W ~~~~$~e~~~~ ~Hi,LlElil O ~ ~ Q ~ ,~ ~ N .~ AEU F~ R ~ ~ ... U o [i q I ~ I I ~~ ~ 0~ -~ 0 ~ ~~ WLL 0~ Wu _~ ~ ~ ~~ B Q~ EE _ - ~ ~ Jf OO « °v, 9 m~z~ 0 - ~~ - - -~~ . .~-- S J ~~QQ Spp1 ry WLL _ ~ ~~ Y ~ 0 0 NNN - ~ ~ _ _ ryQ WLL 8 0 WLL _ ~ _ r I Wa _ _ m~ ( - m _ L URb _~--~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • ~ • ~I$I~IIsI$I~ ~~ }} ~ ~~~~~~~ X~~~.~I..il~l nl el nl ml wl ol: I~ i ~w ~~~ O ~ ~~~~~ w ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~gF~~ w ~~~ ~~~~~~. ~ _ dg ~~ ~. ~. ~. ~~s& ~strs E _L I `A ~ « 1 ~ ~ ~ ry 9 Q _'r ~ ~~6-16tr ---=C ____ 1 ~ u 1 1 ~_ A _ J~ ~ N ti I I ~ o ;a ~ ~~ ~~$~' ,o ._ I I I ,I~_ ~ g LL -~ ILL 0 U ~ .~ _~ U e gg C7 M N o ~._ . . Y - - " -q I '..~. b ~, a,~, I W ~ .~ a 91' ~ a .i~o.~~ ~ e•:~, p I ..~ _ .. -- N a °" ' a~ WLL g`~ ~ -- ~ ~ _ _ ~, _ _ _ _ -~- - ~ - ,~ o ry ©~© a ~ to ~ XO= T O0 0 Wu m~1.~.pp ~ ~ ~9d ~ WJ ~ UKZd1 09 ~ _ ~~ _ ~ ~~ _ \/I all - ~ 1 ~/~/ - ~ ~~ ~ _ - - ~_~ J ~r ~ ~ WLL -_ 0 ~,a a~ ~ a __r---__ -- ~q >z~ - - r0 90 W" _ _ _~ _ - 00 WLL __~_- ~ _ I w~i _ _~~-- m°' 1 _ ~ _ Utt~ _~--~ ~ 1 I I 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I I 1 ' i - a ,. • _ • x 0 ~n ° a ~ 6 ~ a ~a ~ z ~_N w $,~, 01 ~ ~a~ a~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ Q 9 5 h .9 g ~~~~ s~ ~ ~~ q~ ~~9 ~ ~~8 og ~x5€ ~mr= g~~S ~ ~ ~.~ ~~~~ a ~ ~r ~ ~ A - _ ~o m ~ ~ ~ ~ ____-~ I L___.~ 0 0 ^ I I ®~ r- ~ n = L w ~ - _ ~ O _ I I ~ ~ R ^ 0~ 9 s _ Q y ~ I I 3 I iiii$ r §~ • • • Z ~ ~ s~s~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ W o ~ y . a~ ~ ~S~ ~k'~8 ~;'~ iF r Fi o dS ~~ ~~• .,~f ,~,~~~.~~~.&~ ~ a u d o$ p ~,.y§3~. BJ&'~9 S a ~ a v~ 0 `~ 0 ~n ° 3 ~<¢~ U E+ ~ ~ d z ~" 0 a 0 a U . ,~ .9-.E .m-.u .r-, .r•,c .mr.r 0 -,~ . -.m -.r ~ i I I ~ ~ I > o ~~ i~ _ o ----~ i I ~ ~ I I ° O O ----~ ~ I v m < .9-,6 .9-,91 -.6 .9-91 ,9-A b n m c ~ Q 0 ~~L Q Z~ ~~~ o~ ~~ ~ 0 N ~~a m'~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~f °~ O ~ ~ ~~ 0 ~I V z O O i 1 ^ v 1 I • • • I~ -I~I-lal a" ~ ti c ,y 9~~~~ 9 $~ o ~ ~ 4~@~ s~R .~9.a S ~~ ~ ~'~ ~~g ~~~~~ ~~8 ~~~ ~~~s~~~ ~ o ~q add a M $~ N R ~~ ~~~ ~ ~. s 4~ 6n~xQi xQaR ~ ~~j ~ ~ 1i$11{f ~~~ii x Qm~ n~S NH~3OLQC0 ~7n ~7 ri„tfa;mrao~s~d~ie~c g 7 x 0 ~ ~ O ~q;a H ~~ a a3i ~ ~, z ~ ^ ~ ~~ O a~ a U m n ~I.I~I~ •~ .O `tii W '~ W ~~~~~ ~ U _~_ __ -~-t _ ~~ ~- i ~~ .m-,9l 'XC'W ~ .9-,0L ~ I 9 Y ~~..+ Z _~ H 4 } w ~- a 1 I I I I 1 I I I~ I ~~ • • ~ ' • e ~` ~~~ O ti S ~~~~ ~ '~, ~ ~ ~9F~E o ~~ `~ asp ~~~~i'~ ~~ ~~~ ~q ~ W ~ ~~~ ~ ~F ~~~~• ~.x.~ ~~e~~ ~ o ~~ w a N $y~~ Ili ~~ ~~~~ r ri f ei,pf'dal~ ~d 14 Sm~[' N n c ii O c ~ k~a~ 3 ~~ d z ~$~ 0 a 8 ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ _~.~ ~~._ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~Q~ k' ~~ ~~ • ppI F]Q ~ II I I I II I I I II I I I ~I I I .I.~-------~ •7. I I I I I I I ~1~• I I I I I f~ I I I I I ~t I I I I 1 '.I I I I I I •6 I I I I 1 fl IIII I I I Z ~i~ III I I 1 O III I I 1 ,~' I~ I I I qqq I •7, I .I I I _ I .t IIII I I I I: III I I ~ •F: -III I I I 1•. III I I I 'J: III I I - I I" ill I I I }. III I I ill I I j • III I I I .~I 11 1 I I I a> III I I I N IIII I I I li I I l'. I I I ~ ~ I III I I I ~~ III I I I .i. III I 1 1: I I 1. III I I I '1' I I I I 1 III I I I i' iil 1 I I ~I I I I I :{ I ~~ I I I I ~I • I I I I 7 ~~I I I I 4 I I I I f III I I _-~ J ~, .I 1 1 1----- I I~ I I I I I I L1J--------I I I I I I I I I I I I 1111 I I I I III I I II I I I III I I I Ill I I I 1 II I I I l ll l I x I Ill I I I I II I I I IIII I I III I I I Ill I I I ggI ~I I I 0 0 im a~ m I I I I$ I 'r ~a~ Q~i U' ~a~ I ggI g 0 jm n m V I I I ~II I I I II I I I II I I I ~I I I I. ll ~; I' .. _I II I I----- I I II I I l I I I I I c l I II I I 1 I~ ':I II I 1 ® I II I I I _ 1. '1 4 I II I I i II I I I II I I l I i 1' . t'. -~- II I I I I I I I ll I I l ~ II 111 I !11 II I I I II I I l II I I I l l I I l ___ ... 'I '"1 I I IL1J--------1 I I I ~I I I 1 Z - - ( C ,I. I I I I ll I I I II I I I O i 4: ~ I ~I I I ~ ~•I f` 1' I I I ~ I I I ~ ll I I l IL1-1-- - --~ Ilri "i_ _~~I I / I I ltll _ ___ ~I I I f3-= -_ e _~ 11 r1"T__~__~9 ll I , I W 1 Iti 1I~LL1__== _= J I ~s=f--------(J F ~I' I I I I I II I I I ~ . I'~: I I I I I 1 ,1 ,1,, iJ-! I ,I J: =1 ~I I I ~ IiI I I 1 Ill I I 1 I I I I I :'I ~I` :1• 'I• I I I I III I 1 I III I I l II I 1 ~ I ~ ;4. .I". I,' I' I I I I I I ~ I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I : 1. I I. I I 11 I I 1 + I I ( I I l ~ I I ~ I I lA I I ~ I ~~ I I I 1 t I I 4-+-i-------J I I I I I I II~ I I I I I I I I I I I I ll~ l I l l I I I I I III I I I I t I i I © Q ®Im ~ m I m I ~~i~ • s • ~_ §_ ~ ~ ~ ~ •~ .~ w ti w ~~~~~ ~ ~ 9~b~~~ y. ~d W ~~ ~~~~~'~. ~ o 0 ~g ~~~~'~ ~ a ~ 3 ~ a ~~~e~~ N I~.fiJ~~ O~JL ~J I I 4 ~ ~~ ~ m it I I I I I I 1 III I I III o ~ ~~ o~ m I I ~ I~~ I~~ ~a~ '~ I Z v N I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I III I I I III I I I III I I ------------~-I' 4 -r+-- )~ I l i l I I 9 ~ I~ ~ ~, I I I w I ~~ n~~ ~a~ U 8 1 F- v W N • • • 7i ~ i § ~ ~d ~ ~ e 0 S ~ ~ Q ~ .~ U ~~~~~~~ U ~ ~ ~~~~~~~ W ~~ .~~ ~Q~ I g I- 9 01m ~ m ------------~ III I I I TI ; r L-- .9-,91 , I I I I I I I - - - _ -- - I 'I 'I - - 1I I I I I~I I I I I II I I I - - 1 1 I I III I II ~ ~~' I j ~l I III I I I I III I I j I III I ~1 r~ ~ ~ l a T I~ I I III' .. .- ~~ ~ ~ I I II I I ~ I Iql I I ~~- h III I I- I I II I II I I I IIII I I I~ I ~ I I I I 1 z I I I O i I I I I I _ I I I I I I I ~~ ~. ~ II I I I I I I ;~ ..nn V l W Iljl I I ' IIII I I ' I ^~ I I I IIII I I III I I I I I I III I I I I.I I I ' a~. ~'`'` ~'~'~~ 'yi 7 I w - -. ~~I~.~ I I - ` -~I I I ~ ~ . . _ I I I I I I I - ~ 1 I 1 I I I I I I II 1 I ~Q , I I II I I I II I I I II I I I I I I I ~ I I- - 9 ~I~ ^~ ~ I I I I I I I " ' ' I I I I I I I I 1 I ------ ---- -- rlr err ICJ I I I I I d I I I I I I ------------r I"I-h-t-- ~ 3 I Q ~i~ ~ ~ w ~ii I l I I I I I 1 I I ~ ~ ~ I I I I I I . .. •. .. w ~~ m I I I ~o e~~ ~~ ~~~ .`J ~ ® ~ ~~ 3 ~ O ~ ~~ ~~~~ w ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ .o ~ ~a~. ~~. ~~~e~~ I~ ii F1 ~ P ~~ '~ a x 0 v~ ° O >a 3 ~a~ 3 ~~~ ~ `~ z ~~~, N W ~~ W~ Q~1~Q~Q QZ I 4 ~~~ ~ m O a 8 0 U $i§i~i~ V ~ O~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ uu~ U~ - ~~ ~ QQ ~QZ I 9 ~ Im ~ m i i l i i I II I I I II I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I t I I I I ill I I 19 I~dJ - ~~ ~a~ Q I Q z O F- v ua N I III I I I I fl I I I III I I ~~~~~~, ~ ' ~ I w ~~~ I~~ ~a~ Z O v • ~ • if~t u 4 $<. > ~ • i1O :AY -` f a J a ~ ~ o J Y~~ ~ ~ ~~~ 2 a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~I~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a J 3 L7 ~~ ~ ~T s ,~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ,, r--.._---,.~_ _ - ------ _, _ ,~ _ __ - ~ ~ a ~- i '~ ~ i ~s : , -- J I + . i ~' Yom; ~ ~ ~.~ a 1 ~ .I I. -. - R ~ ~ ~ ~nn~ane~ ~nd-~ ~ ~~ ~ ?~ ~t~~ ~8 ~ ~~~~ • ~ • • Item 3 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 06-154/21279 Lumbertown Lane Type of Application: Design Review Applicant/Owner: Tony and Carol Hammer, Property Owners Staff Planner: Shweta Bhatt, Assistant Planner ~ Date: January 11, 2006 APN: 503-55-040 Department Head: ~~~ ~n^,:~:.~,y, a~~ ^~ O av svee~ r~rres o ,~~~ ~~ ~ ~' ~~G, G ~o~ '\\I J 21279 Lumbertown Lane i~ G CASE HISTORY: Application filed: 10/20/05 Application complete: 12/12/05 Notice published: 12/28/05 Mailing completed: 12/20/05 Posting completed: 01/05/06 ZONING: R-1-40,000 (Single-Family Residential) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD (Residential -Very Low Density) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 40, 031.64 square feet (gross and net) AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 36.8% GRADING REQUIRED: No grading is proposed with this project. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of construction of an addition to an existing single-family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. • • • PROJECT DATA R-1-40,000 Zonin Pro used: Re aired Site Coverage 14,011 SF maximum Main Building 3,328 SF (8.3%) (35%) based on net Other Site Impervious: 5,984 SF (15.0%) site area TOTAL Site Covera a 9,312 SF (23.3%) Floor Area Existing Home 2,836 SF 4,206 SF maximum Existing Garage 492 SF based on 36.8% Proposed Addition 800 SF slope TOTAL Floor Area 4,128 SF Setbacks Front (from Lumbertown Ln): First Floor No Change 30' Second Floor 37'7" 30' Rear First Floor No Change 20' Second Floor Approx 125' 20' Exterior Side (Haymedow Dr): First Floor- No Change 25' Second Floor 98'6" 30' Interior Side First Floor No Change 20' Second Floor 33'8" 25' Height Lowest Elevation Point 97.3 Highest Elevation Point 100.3 Average Elevation Point 98.65 Topmost point of proposed addition 123.3 (24.7') 124.65 (26` maximum) PROJECT DISCUSSION Site Characteristics and Project Description The applicants request Design Review approval to construct an 800 square foot addition to the existing residence at 21279 Lumbertown Lane. The site is located in an R-1-40,000 zoning district and currently has an existing 2,836 square foot home and 492 square-foot garage. While the gross and net site areas have the same numeric value, the average slope of the property is 36.8%. Therefore, the allowable floor area is reduced per Saratoga Municipal Code (SMC) Section 15-45.030. The proposed addition complies with floor area maximums per code requirements. Additionally, the height of the proposed addition will be 24.7 feet, which complies with the 26-foot height limitation. The proposed square footage will accommodate a new master bedroom and bath. Also proposed on the new second floor is a lanai. The square footage of the lanai has not been included in the floor area calculation per SMC Section 15-06.280, as it not enclosed on three sides. The addition will match the existing stucco and will be constructed of like materials. The surrounding residences and are a mix of one and two story homes. The addition is well within the setback requirements for the site. Neighbor Review The applicant has shown the proposed plans to neighbors adjacent to and across from this property. No negative comments have been received at the time of the writing. of this Staff Report. Trees There are several protected trees on the site. However, the proposed addition is solely on the second floor and will not impact any trees. The closest ordinance size tree is at least 18 feet away from the addition. A condition protecting all existing ordinance size trees during the construction phase has been added to the resolution. Design Review Findings The proposed project is consistent with all the following Design Review findings stated in SMC 15-45.080: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The proposed addition is well within setback requirements and meets height limitations. Additionally, the site is a corner lot with street frontage on three sides and the addition has been designed to minimize impact on the neighbors that share property boundaries, as the balcony faces the street and is setback a distance of approximately 98 feet. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. Since the addition is for the second story only, no grading is necessary. Additionally, no trees will be impacted by the addition because no changes are proposed to the first floor. A condition of approval to minimize impact to existing ordinance sized trees during the construction phase has been added to the resolution. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. There are no heritage trees on the property and no trees are proposed to be removed. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulb The addition is setback from the street and is well articulated with facade details. Additionally, materials are proposed to match the existing home and therefore the new addition will blend with the existing ~~ construction. (e) Compatible bulk and height The home at its maximum height is 24.7 feet, as measured from the average elevation point. The new roofline is compatible with the existing structure since it closely approximates the existing roofline. Additionally, materials consistent with the existing structure will be used further reducing perceived mass and bulk of the addition. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. No grading is proposed for the addition, as the first story footprint will remain as existing. The additional square footage is for a new second story. (g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views, as it is setback back far from streets and property lines, minimizes privacy impacts to neighbors, and blends in well with the existing construction. Conclusion Staff finds that all of the Design Review findings can be made in the affirmative. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conditionally approve Design Review Application 06-154 by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. Neighbor Notifications 3. Affidavit of Mailing Notices, Public Hearing Notice and List of property owners who were sent notices regarding the public hearing for this application. 4. Reduced plans, Exhibit "A", date stamped January 02, 2006 • • Attachment 1 • • APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 06-154 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMNIISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Hammer; 21279 Lumbertown Lane WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review to construct aneight-hundred (800) square foot addition to the existing home at 21279 Lumbertown Lane; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the project, which proposes to construct an addition to an existing single- family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for design review approval, and the following findings specified in Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-45.080 have been made in the affirmative: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The proposed addition is well within setback requirements and meets height limitations. Additionally, the site is a corner lot with street frontage on three sides and the addition has been designed to minimize impact on the neighbors that share property boundaries, as the balcony faces the street and is setback a distance of approximately 98 feet. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. Since the addition is for the second story only, no grading is necessary. Additionally, no trees will be impacted by the addition because no changes are proposed to the first floor. A condition of approval to minimize impact to existing ordinance sized trees during the construction phase has been added to the resolution. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. There are no heritage trees on the property and no trees are proposed to be removed. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk The addition is setback from the street and is well articulated with facade details. Additionally, materials are proposed to match the existing home and therefore the new addition will blend with the existing construction. (e) Compatible bulk and height. The home at its maximum height is 24.7 feet, as measured from the average elevation point. The new roofline is compatible with the existing structure since it closely approximates the existing roofline. Additionally, materials consistent with the existing structure will be used further reducing perceived mass and bulk of the addition. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. No grading is proposed for the addition, as the first story footprint will remain as existing. The additional square footage is for a new second story. (g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy -and views, as it is setback back far from streets and property lines, minimizes privacy impacts to neighbors, and blends in well with the existing construction. 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 No. 06-154 for Design Review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. Conformance to plans. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" (incorporated by reference, date stamped January 2, 2006) and in compliance with the conditions stated in this Resolution. Any proposed changes, including but not limited to facade design and materials to the approved plans shall be submitted in writing with a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Proposed changes to the approved plans are subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. 2. Impact to Trees. Any impact to any ordinance size tree (as defined by Saratoga Municipal Code) shall be minimized during the construction process. No construction vehicles shall be parked or driven within the dripline of any ordinance size tree, and any type of construction materials shall not be stored within the root zone of any ordinance size trees. A note stating this shall be included on the site plan. 3. Building Height. The height of the structure shall not exceed 26 feet as defined in Saratoga Municipal Code. 4. Building Division Submittal. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution shall be submitted to the Building Division. 5. LLS Stamp. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor 6. Site Plan Notation. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 7. Encroachment Permit. Applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the City Public Works Department for any work in the public right-of--way. Subject to Public Works approval, low walls/columns are typically allowed within the right-of--way portion of the lot if they are situated at least 5 feet from the edge of the street pavement. 8. Minimum Balance. The applicant shall, at all times, ensure that a minimum balance of $500 is maintained in the planning account for this project until the project receives final approval. FIRE DISTRICT 9. Comply with conditions. Applicant shall comply with all Saratoga Fire District conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 10. Hold Harmless Agreement. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. Section 2. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within thirty-six (36) months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. • D PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga ,, Planning Commission, State of California, the 11th day of January 2006 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 aclrnowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • 9 • '" City of Saratoga Neighbor NotiScation Form' ~, ~' ~~ /279 ~clir ~~ j~ ~~~- PROJECT ADDRESS: ~ Applicant Name: l ~`~ !-~ ~-u~rP~ Application Number: Stu~`'and the Planning Commission prefer that neghbors taJEe this opportunity to express ~, taonc~'ns ~ issues they ~' have direcfly to the applicant. Phase ensure the signature on this doc~nent is representative of all residents residing ~Yow'P'h'• - Regw-dless of the opinion expressed below. You rnsserNe the right to omend your opinion at a date dura~g the actual public review and appeal periods. y signature below certifies die following: I have re~rie~ared the"pmject plaas;l -. understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to-be address by tLe applicant prior to the City~s public hearing on the proposed protect. UMy signature below certifies the following: I 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 die following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name• ~ ~ r ~ c P Lo WE - Neighbor Address: Z(c ~1 H"fl`fM~RDow .~R. sARRT~ ~~ SA RAz~ ~A Cpl 9 ~? ~ Neighbor Phone #: ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ " ° ~ K ~` Sim: ;t t oEC o ~ zoo5 CITY C~ ~ARATO~-~ City of Sarate~ga Planning Department // • City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: /° - i~ ~-~S PROJECT ADDRESS: ~Z /2 79 Cum ~~ ~'~ ~~~ Applicant Name: /~`~ l~ ~~~~ Application Number: Staf,~`'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. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the pmject plans; I un tand the scone of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: ~~--- s ~- ~ ~J • Neighbor Address: ~- ~ Z~ 3 Lam.. ~ ~.rt---~ ~,, ~ ~-~ ~ S ,~u~-~~ ~, c1~` ~ ~~"1 "° Neighbor Phone #: ~~- ~ ~ ~ - c 3 ~-~ Signature: Printed: ~~ ~t ~v._S V`--~ ~~~-MTV City of Saratoga Planning Department ~~ Date: /a - ii ~-GS PROJECT ADDRESS:, Applicant Naive: /per !~ G~*wi~°!~ Application Number: Sta, fJ'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. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right. to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods. 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. ' OMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns aze the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Nei bor Name: ~ ~/ QC Neighbor Address: ~• ~ Nei bor Phone #: ~~ ~ C ~~ Sign e: ,:~' , i ~ • • City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form' ~ i2 ~~ ~~ sue, ~~~ Printed: • City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification d`orm' Date; /~ - i% --~5 // PROJECT ADDRESS: ~ /2 79 L!ul.~r ~~ 7~' C`~''~ Applicant Name: /°" !~ ~~'~~'' .Application Number: :, Sta,,~`'and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express mry 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. .Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT Lave any concerns or issues whicL need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. OMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I Lave issues or concerns, whicL after discussion vvitL the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: Q ~/l~~c=~ C/~l ~ SC Neighbor Address: ,2 / /~S ~i~l</~ /Vl r L L. ,eo,~ ~?~r~ ~~/-+ Neighbor Phone #: 0 6 ~"5t~ Signature: ~ Printed: ~/ i` - City of Saratoga NeigLbor Notification Form' - Date: /~ - i/ ~-~.5 // PROJECT ADDRESS: ~ ~2 79 Ccr~r ~~ J~r'' L`~`'~' Applicant Name: /ou l/~ ~~~`' Application Number: Sta_,~'and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity #o 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. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeat periods. LJMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the 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): Neighbor Name: ~" ! ~ ~~ Neighbor Address: 2/2 Y3 ~c~~w~`f G~ ~Q~11~ ~~- Neighbor Phone #: Signa ~ Printed: i~ ;] City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: ~~' - i% ~--~5 PROJECT ADDRESS: ~ ~27~ ~~ ~~ ~~ `r'`'te Applicant Name: /~`~ /~ G~+wrPl^ Application Number:, 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.- Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a ter date during the actual public review and appeal periods. 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 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): Neighbor Name: ~ ~`' ~'' ~~'~ ~`' Neighbor Address: 2t2~1 .~ S ~~~ `~~%~` ~ ~~ Neighbor Phone #: ~ ~ g '~/~ ~ ~Z-'~ Signature: . -, i ~ ~' Printed: City of Saratoga Planning Department ~~ Attachment 3 • • `~ AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ~) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, Shweta Bhatt, 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 20th day of December 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 Sta#es Mail #o the addresses shown above. k i~~ Signed • ~~ CITY OF SARATOG'A 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 11T" DAY OF JANUARY 2006, AT 7:00 P.M. The hearing will be held in the City Theater, located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue in Saratoga, California. Details regarding the project described below are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. PROJECT LOCATION: 21279 Lumbertown Lane PROPERTY OWNER: Hammer ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 503-55-040 APPLICATION NUMBER: 06-154 REQUESTED ENTITLEMENT: Design Review PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests approval of an 800 square foot- second story addition to the existing 3,328 square foot single story residence located on Lumbertown Lane. The proposed ~ height of the structure is approximately 24.7 feet and the site is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. Design Review approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-45.060(a). All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written 3 mmunications should be filed by noon on the Tuesday before the meeting (January ) 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. Saratoga Planning Department Contact: Shweta Bhatt Assistant Planner Ph: (408) 868-1266 Email: Sbhatt@saratoga.ca.us ~~ APN 50355005 HWANG, GEMMA or Current Owner ~3 LALOMA DR ALTOS HILLS CA 94022-4579 APN 50355008 ENGELKING, GARY & LINDA TRUSTEE or Current Owner 21158 BANK MILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5705 APN 50355011 GORDON, GARY B & NICOLA W TRUSTEE or Current Owner 21112 BANK MILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5705 APN 50355033 LYNNE, PIERCE A & MARGARET or Current Owner 21075 BANK MILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5704 APN 50355036 HAUSER, CONRAD A JR & LESLIE USTEE or Current Owner 1 DEEPWELL CT ATOGA CA 95070-5709 APN 50355039 JANTZEN, DALE & BETHANY J TRUSTEE or Current Owner 21243 DEEPWELL CT SARATOGA CA 95070-5709 APN 50355045 %AJDIC, BRANISLAV or Current Owner PO BOX 3423 SARATOGA CA 95070-1423 APN 50355048 GROSE, ANDREW J TRUSTEE or Current Owner 21145 BANK MILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5706 APN 50355053 PERSSON, JONAS & JENNIFER TRUSTEE or Current Owner ~4 HAYMEADOW DR ATOGA CA 95070 APN 50355056 SUSZDIEKER, CAROLYN W TRUSTEE or Current Owner 21327 TOLLGATE RD cn~eTnrA f:~ Q.rn7t1-5715 APN 50355006 KIM, JIN K & IHN H TRUSTEE or Current Owner 21194 BANK MILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5705 APN 50355007 KAUL, SUNIL & REWA or Current Owner 21172 BANK MILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5705 APN 50355009 APN 50355010 DOWN, JANICE C TRUSTEE ETAL ATWELL, ANTHONY E & SUE S or Current Owner TRUSTEE or Current Owner 21146 BANK MILL RD 21134 BANK MILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5705 SARATOGA CA 95070-5705 APN 50355012 APN 50355013 GIVENS, CAROLYN or Current HERAN, ROSE H TRUSTEE ETAL Owner or Current Owner 21098 BANK MILL RD 21062 BANK MILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5705 SARATOGA CA 95070-5705 APN 50355034 APN 50355035 TALLMAN, RICHARD J & KRISTY C DASHER, DONALD N & LISA or or Current Owner Current Owner 21193 DEEPWELL CT 21151 DEEPWELL CT SARATOGA CA 95070-5709 SARATOGA CA 95070-5709 APN 50355037 CHU, TAIN-GEENG T & KAI-JUNG G or Current Owner 21223 DEEPWELL CT SARATOGA CA 95070-5709 APN 50355038 NAYLOR, ANTHONY F S ETAL or Current Owner 21235 DEEPWELL CT SARATOGA CA 95070-5709 APN 50355040 APN 50355044 HAMMER, TONY P & CAROL E or ARELLANO, ANGEL ETAL or Current Owner Current Owner 21279 LUMBERTOWN LN 21328 LUMBERTOWN LN SARATOGA CA 95070-5712 SARATOGA CA 95070-5712 APN 50355046 APN 50355047 LOWE, PHILLIP T & DAPHNE or LOCHHEAD, CHRISTOPHER & Current Owner CHRISTINE TRUSTEE or Current 21197 HAYMEADOW DR Owner SARATOGA CA 95070-5710 21185 HAYMEADOW DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5710 APN 50355049 JONES, CECIL R & GUDRUN T TRUSTEE or Current Owner 21127 BANK MILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5706 APN 50355052 MARIAN, VAUGHN R & DOROTHY R TRUSTEE or Current Owner 21182 HAYMEADOW DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5710 APN 5035505'4 APN 50355055 D WEISER, RICHARD A & ABBY N or REDMAN, JANET B & KEITH G Current Owner TRUSTEE or Current Owner 21216 HAYMEADOW DR 21208 HAYMEADOW DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5710 SARATOGA CA 95070-5710 APN 50355058 APN 50355059 ROGAN, DAVID A & SUSAN E CALDERON, FRANCISCO & TRUSTEE or Current Owner NANCY T or Current Owner 21282 TOLLGATE RD 21196 TOLLGATE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5714 SARATOGA CA 95070-5714 c~ O ~~1PN 50355063 GARRETT, DAVID or Current Owner 21166 HAYMEADOW DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5710 APN 50355073 LIN, MING-TE or Current Owner 21315 LUMBERTOWN LN SARATOGA CA 95070-5712 APN 50355064 KIM, KI Y or Current Owner 21175 BANK MILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5706 APN 50355075 WALL, JOHN J TRUSTEE or Current Owner 21333 LUMBERTOWN LN SARATOGA CA 95070-5712 APN 50362002 APN 50362003 MOMROW, EDWARD G TRUSTEE MOHAN, MAHAL & SANDHYA or ETAL or Current Owner Current Owner 14728 BOUGAINVILLEA CT 14696 BOUGAINVILLEA CT SARATOGA CA 95070-5708 SARATOGA CA 95070-5708 APN 50355072 THOMAS, RUSSELL C & SHARON L or Current Owner 21293 LUMBERTOWN LN SARATOGA CA 95070-5712 APN 50362001 RODGERS, DAVID P & LINDA R or Current Owner. 21359 TOLLGATE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5715 APN 50362004 VAHABI, MOHAMMAD & DEBBIE or Current Owner 14664 BOUGAINVILLEA CT SARATOGA CA 95070-5708 • • ~/ ~~• i~ ~~ • • • Z8ti56 ~`d~'H`dlJifl OtO~~S ~: r~orsa~r ~. ~ 9 311f1S 133?J1S 1890) ~3 99l ~r~~!v'<u~l~,rrb;zr oG F g ~ £960-E8t LOL 1~311H~21`d d~WVVM~ I~NON.If~M SdW QN~ dW m~ 11'o t`L-"- w b3~Niz3o~~ ainda ~~N~QIS~d 01 'I~CIOW~d QNd NOIlIQCI~ Nd~d ~I-IS ~~ °°° o~ ,- L .r. ~ ~ ~V oc~? I ~o~" O ~~ !_ ~_~ ~ N ~~ w ~ ,~ ~ v` O 7 n ~ Q Q ~ Q ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z ~ r~ Gam. . _~: ~s N ~ .~ u, ~ nc z =^inz~ O ~ Q -~ rn~~~ ~ O~z OQ , z 'k ~z~ ~~ QQO~ ~ ~ ~ J 4.~,,' ~ ~ ' ~N mac- ~~ O~ - ~-~' N ~~ ~FO > e~ ~: ~~~ ~ N r~ i _ ~~~ >- Z O~ O~~ ~~~ z,,,~~ ~ ~zn ~ ~ O~~ j U ~ '.~e~ one ~rn~ ~= ~~N 000 ~~'~ ~. 00~ '~' ~ ~rn ~SK~ ~ QO~O a~.00 `~rnNO~ 00~~ ~o0\c~iz ~z0~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N z V~ 4- z~ v~ ase-cv O~ N ~p~ ~,~~ ~~~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ G p iii _ `- ' O ~n000 u ~ ~ ._ •~ „ ~xOtiz~.~~- N--~~o>~ Q~O~N~~ N ~~, ~S~ `\ `\ ' - ~`.` ~•. -( ~ - / ~` ~ ~~ / i._ ~ ~ . ,: ~,~ F -, ,- ~' / ~~~ N . _. ____..._ i '.' A~ / / ~ _ ` ~ `. _..__ i \V_ ~ / ~xa ~ 1 -.. .. _,. ~ ~ / h \ ~ / i ~ \\ ~ ~~ ~ % c 9 ~~. _ _ a '~7 I'~ .~ -' __ _ :q e ~~ - \ ' \ \ I ~~ ~ ~ `~ ~ I ``~' u. I k ~_ ~ i i~ y ' zl -` I l~ ~ _:- \ _ ~? ~ as^Dra. aa~rc.~v a 1 i7 - ~ ~. \ ` / / / ~; Y ~ ~ a :~ , ~- -~ ~ -_ ~ ~ ~ - ~ N ~. : _ _- ' Y A~l~ W J a U N \\ Z `~ \ ~~ i ~~ d (/~~' Q ~~ ~ ~ i 1 ~~ ~ Z I H ~ V H 3di~ ~, h~ ~__ ~~ ~ i Z~ P'~~ 6 `^ ~ yi IY p~ V O^ \v` \\ t` ~h\ v O O 1 O ~ U ~ o ~ I n i M - n z ~ - n z ~ ~ z ~ I -i ~ I ,~ l i --J I U I - I v = ~ Z ~ ~ i ~ U I _ c l o W Z ~ U _ o l W w i I I I ~ ~ i ' ~I I I I ' ~ II - I I ~ G~ ~~f; • • • i Z84S6'V~'HVlJln Cu?5h•l'b'~ddv= I ; ~~~0 ~ 8 311fIS 1332~1S 1880`J '3 99L +~.M`I rVVLJZJ'A'f l oi.zlZ ~ .tom. ~ ~ Z E960-£94 LOL 1~311H~21V C~~YY V V V H /`NO~~ S~W QI~~ dW ~ ~/ I \1 n \J 1 A 1 m e ~'~ H `r w ~ i iVV ~Gi GVO~:~G~Y1o I ~"l• v~j~ p~ _ ~3oNiz~obo ainda ~~N~QIS~ O.L 'I~QOW'~d QNd NOI~IQCM v z ~ ,~, ~ ~ X ~~o ~~~ ~~ ~- ,,., v„~-c~a ~o ~; ~~~ ~~ ~~h~ od O n z O O O • • • I zatss'd~'HVI~n o~^.~ ~~ v!~ovd~ , ~ 8 311nS 133211S 1880`) '3 99l ~~'" u~k;l,~aaro~ ~ 6G~:Z. I O .~ I~~" z £960-£94 LOL 1~311H~ab' ~~~v~N I~NO!-IlNd (7dW QNd d~v Z ~~-' LL W ~ W ~ I m~ O ~ 2i3JNIZ~02iJ al/~b'a ~~NdQIS~d 011~QONI~d QNd NOIIIQCId N~11d d001~ d~dd!i ~~ °~ o z ~; - I __ _. ; i. I__ ~ _ i -- _... -... ~. ~ . ~ ~ ~ ` g `4 v ~~ O O O 11 z Q O O x O ~ ~ ~-- ~ ~ ~ = z ~ ~ v~ U~ ~ N z z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~= ~ ~ O c0 .i LL . .. ( B !ti ._ L~ ~ ; ., ~~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~; z ~ ~ ~ z ~ x ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ,~ ~ ~ a CV ~ ~ ~ • • • Z8bS6't/~ `H`d171f1 G«an ~7'0':~~:ea~"; ~. p 9 311f1S 1332i1S 1990) '3 99l ~J~ ! uw~:a~~vm v t.z ~ Z 0~~ ti~ I E960-£9b LOL 1~311H~21`d d~WWMN J\N(71'I.~Nd SdW Qi~ acv m ~ "p F ~ w I 2i3JNIZ302i9 01/1`d0 ~~N~QIS~d 011~QOWa~ QNb NOI~IQCI~ S N 011'd;1 ~ 1 ~ ~"' °~ o~ ~ I ~~ I~~ L ~{ ~. ~~ ~I~ - I ~t I'~J ~ ~ i~ ~ I ~ ' ~ "!', tl i I i ' i it € iV f I Ills fil I ~I I ~I li ,~ I I~ II Ll~ ,'~I I -.._ E- ,;~ L J I ~ s I i ~~ ~ 0 a i ~\ ~I ?? ~I. ~; ,., ~; ~_~ ~~~ 4 ~., / `~ x O 1 Q .. I~ r ' r~I I I ~X r. ~~ rua:dra a.w~'r -~. ~~~I! s-= , I __ ; "-. o ~;°' r z v o - i ~I ;~ I u ~ f~i`\ __~I: ~ '-``~~ `•.j_. - LEfi:L['dA,f'JPl ~i\~ Q I ~I i i 1 ~, I___ _ ~~ j - i `I `--__ _-.. _ to i I '', ! ~~ I I _, I ~ F z I 11 'r ' ~ ~ -III{. I~ . I ~~ i y ~ !; ~~ I I I I_, r lI a I I I ~ ~ I Z I ~ 1 .--- I - __. I< ~' ~~,~ , I ; I ~ ~ ~ i ~I ~ z r~ I ~ I I ii ~ 0 { " ~ '' ~ I I ~ . . -.-_ . - 1 - s ~ I a III r ~ ~ . C I I -~ ,' I I ~~ 1 ~; • ~ ~ ;~ I ~ ~ ~ . : , ; , _ _ s _ ~~ ~ y, \f, _ I ~ I I i _ I I ~ i . ,i i '- ~. -- ~! ` ~~ ~ I T~` ~_ ~~ ~I - dig fl, -I lI~ ~' ~4 ~ ~h - O I Iii ~ ~, J ~ - > \ - II \ 1 ;` d ~J ~l iII -- fie. i ~ I~ I i 1it - _-_ - - -_- F" 11 a li III __ - -- ' I,h II ~ - I , ~ ! I I; I ~, I I ~ r ~ II \ ~i r j - ; ' I _-- -- ' -' I f - it ~ ~I~ r~ I I ~ -- - ~ I I I~ I I I I~ ~ , I _- _II'I I - - '~ II '~~ I - -- - ----- - i - I I I - O I I I i II II , I ~ ,. I i I I, JI , I Z E;i I ~ -: i I ~ LEI --- -- --- z,, _ r'II f >. » ,,• I ~ - L_-.-.. ~ I ~ ~ I ~ r ~ - ~ '' I ~ - -__ - - _-- r-- ~ ~ I ~~ I' ~i <~ f ,. 5_ --__ __ ~ ter. ~. ' i I J __ ~1~ nos • - ~ G I ~ a .;_ ~ i~~~ ---- ~z rtT o ~~ I ~y i i -~~( ~ I, i I~ I I' I ,. - I I I ~ O I i I ~ ~ = . I; ~_-I I I I i . i i 1 I _ ~I 1 ;. 11 - ~ I': I '_ '~ I ~ I! II I I.: ` I ~ I _ _ I ~ ~ ~'~ i ----I ' I i I ~ I I ~ i I I 1 II ~ I ~ !I ~ I 'v I1~ ~ I I_ I 1 I; ~~ - ~ I ,, I'Ir `I V` i I I t :I~ ~ ( I~r I i r~ < =~~r I ~ ~~ll~= I ~ , _- - ~~ ~~ ; f ,I ~ ~I -- I~ --- -- - I ~ I ~ i it _ ~f II~ 7.f-_ _ _ I ' - _. __' I it I -. > I -,I - - - ___. ~ I I j II i ~ ~ i , I I I ~ , I ' !s____ .. _.I +: ~s' -__- ----- - 1 ,.._-. I -- -- - - ~I - - I - -- - -- I ~ ; i --' i i f I - ~ -- - f i p - i i - - I i I I' I ~ i I I -f - 1 L . 1 ' , __ ~~ I -_ - - F ` ~ , ~ _ ~ _ ~ ~ , :~ I ~, I `i ,-. 14 • • • O~Jti6`:`J'a~iD1v2b'S - i zavss ro~ 'HVINn ~ ~. o rrn r~~~:~~rm G ~, 8 311f1S 133Z11S 1880) '3 99L p ~~ O F ~ E960-E9Y LOL 1~311H~ilf/ d~WWdN J~NONl~ SdW Q~ dW m ~ " O ~ ~ W ~ ~3~Niz3o~~ ainda ~~N~CIIS~d 01 ~~QOWd QNd NOWCICM NOU~~~S °~ °~ oo >- I ~' ~I `J\ y I I i I I ~I _ _._ , ; ,: -_ ~ ' y 1 ~ = j - , , ..~ I - . -, n I ~ ~. ---- ~ ~ I l , _ ~i i_ '{ I ~ ~ 1 , ' i >``"• i _ i ___._ ____I 4 ~ ' ~` ~~ I; .~ ~ !~ ^. g V:. ~ I I - C S 1 .i : ii_ I ~ I ii i ~ ~' I ` v ' ? ~ .' ~ ~ ' I ! ~ ~~ ~ t `~ ~ a ~ I I ~: ..~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y; it s~~ O ~~ ~j z O ~_- v • • • i ~. 1 ll i ,p -. ~ <_~ ' `y / +~ ® J / 1 1 ~.~ 1 ti i^. i i Oi ~J ~ 4 ~ r;~i ~1:~ ~ ~~;~1- I ~ ~ ~j'~ ~~'I I F i I ~ ~ ' ~\ `4 i ' I ! ^? \ i '. '4l~ ' g .~ i I i ~s ~ `~ ~ `~ I ~5: ' --r---- ---- ~ . , ' ~ '' __ l v 1 ~ ~ i J L(' I ~ ~0. ~ ~ - ' I ~~? ~ ~ p ~ V } ~ ~ i +~ ~ ~~ ~. ~~J ' y ~@ f1 ~_~ ~ _L. ~ " ~ ~ B.Y. ; ~ ~ ~ i q_; }`p 1: _ ~ i L _ .i A~ `-L iFi ~- ' ~ ,~ ~ ~ J ? ~ I _ ~,~ ~ vi ® 1 ~ ' _ - -._..WE--- __._~..._-__b ilj:~ -r .. _ liC, ' -i ~ C: ~ _;~ 1 n i r; v 1 ,' a .~ k . :~ x ie -~ ~, J -u Q~ • • •