Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
06-13-2006 Planning Commission Packet
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION SITE VISIT AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 3:30 p.m. PLACE: City Hall Parking Lot, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Site Visit Committee SITE VISITS WILL BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA • ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. Application #06-323 SLOAN /ROBINSON 14524 Oak Street 2. Application #06-208 3. Application #03-259 The Site Visit Committee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The committee conducts site visits to properties that are new items on the Planning Commission Agenda. The site visits are held on the Tuesday preceding the Wednesday hearing, between 3:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. It is encouraged that the applicant and/or owner to be present to answer any questions that may arise. Site visits are generally short (10 to 20 minutes) because of time constraints. Any presentations and testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the Public Hearing. During the Site Visit, the Planning Commission may only discuss items related to the project. The agenda does not allow any formal votes or motions on the proposed project or other matters. The Site Visit is afact-finding meeting where the Commission may discuss the item and ask questions from or hear statements from members of the public attending the Visit. No comments made during the Site Visit by the Planning Commission are binding or required to be carried through to the formal public hearing where actions will be taken on the proposed project. WOODS 15595 Peach Hill Road St. Michaels 18870 Allendale Avenue • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION • STUDY SESSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, June 14, 2006, 5:30 p.m. PLACE: Adult Care Center located at 19655 Allendale Avenue, Saratoga TAE: Adjourned Regular Meeting ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 13, 2006. APPLICATION #03-2'59 (391-O1-014) St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church, 18870 Allendale Avenue requests a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review approval to construct a 6,609 sq. ft. church consisting of 254 seats; a new identification sign; and a trash enclosure. The proposed height of the church will not- exceed 50-feet at the peak of the central dome. The proposed design has been changed from the original application submitted in 2003 at the request of the Planning Commission during a study session conducted at the end of 2004. The original proposal consisted of a 5,000 sq. ft. church with 300 seats and a central dome rising to 52-feet in height. Through the Conditional Use Permit process the applicant is requesting variations to standards to allow for an increase in impervious -coverage, floor area, maximum allowable height, and a reduction in the number of parking spaces required. The parcel consists of 3.1 acres and is zoned R1-40. The study session is an information meeting for the Planning Commission. No.decisions will be made at this meeting. ADJOURNMENT TO REGULAR PLANI~TING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, June 14, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA • PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Therese M. Schmi Associate Planner MEETING DATE: June 14, 2006 SUBJECT: St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church 18870 Allendale Avenue (APN 391-01-014) Application #03-259 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the proposed architectural design, project plans, and requested variations to standards of the proposal on a preliminary basis and provide input to the applicant, neighbors, and staff. PROPOSED PROJECT: Background St Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church currently holds a Conditional Use Permit to operate a church at 18870 Allendale Avenue. Existing structures on the site include: Pastor's residence and attached garage (2,521 sq. ft.), Hall (9,731 sq. ft.) and Chapel (1,224 sq. ft.). There is a separate single-family parcel owned by the church on the adjacent lot. This parcel is not part of this application. The applicant filed Conditional Use Permit and Design Review Application #03-259 on November 30, 2003. The applicant proposed construction of a church consisting of approximately 5,000 sq. ft. consisting of 300 seats. The ridge of the roofline would be 33-feet high with a bell tower dome rising to 44-feet and a central dome rising to 52-feet. This item was brought before the Planning Commission for a study session on September 8, 2004. The applicant received comments from the Commission, staff, and the neighbors indicating key concerns including: the distance of the proposed church from the street, the size of the church proposed at 300 seats; the scale of the church in terms of overall height and mass; the design's compatibility with the neighborhood; traffic; and noise associated with church bells. Plcrnraing Con~missic~ri Stu~h~ Sessiost :1.lemoranclunt 2 -- C'~incli~ionizl [~sc~ .Permit ~rnd i)esign Rei~iei+~: (13-2~~. 1 S8 %0 .•1Uendnlc~ .=11-efruc: Revised Plans The applicant has made the following modifications to the proposal: 1. Changed architectural design from an Medieval Byzantine to Morava Byzantine; 2. Reduced the ridge of the roofline from 33-feet high to 26-feet high, reduced the bell tower dome from 44-feet to 40-feet and reduced the central dome from 52- feet to 50-feet. 3. Reduced the proposed square footage from approximately 5,000 sq. ft. to 4,025 sq. ft.; however, the proposed floor area is 6,609 sq. ft. because Municipal Code Section 15-45.030 requires any space with an interior height of 15-feet or greater to be doubled, which it has been; 4. Reduced the number of proposed seats from 300 to 254; 5. Rotated the orientation of the proposed church 30 degrees to reduce visual impacts to Allendale; 6. No longer proposing operating bells. Requested Variations to Standards The applicant is requesting consideration of the following variations to standards: 1. Parking Standards: Municipal Code Section 15-35.030(a) and (b) requires a total of 240 parking spaces to accommodate the combined proposed uses on the subject parcel. Two covered spaces within a garage is required for the existing single-family detached home and one parking space is required for each forty sq. ft. of floor area usable for seating if seats are not fixed. The applicant is proposing a total of 85 paved parking spaces, 155 spaces less than required. The applicant is proposing the following: a. The applicant is requesting an interpretation of Municipal Code Section 15-35.020(e), which requires "Where parking requirements are determined by gross floor area, such area shall include any exterior balcony used as the sole means of access to a business establishment." The applicant has not calculated 492 sq. ft. of the Hall's foyer in the required parking calculations, resulting in a reduction of 12 required parking spaces. b. The applicant is proposing to provide 85 paved parking spaces, with 41 additional spaces designated as overflow spaces, located in a grass area that would be utilized as a playground when the overflow is not required. Municipal Code Section 15-35.040 (f) requires parking areas, aisles, and access drives to be paved. The applicant is requesting relief from this requirement in order to provide additional pervious coverage on the site and to provide a play .area for the congregation's children. c. The applicant is proposing a parking plan restricting simultaneous utilization of structures on site; therefore, reducing the need for all required spaces. _ ~ Pl;tnrtirt~; Corr7ntissiorr Stur~i~ Sessiat :t•~c~rrrurartcfunt 3 Crlyditit%rtul (s~' Permit ~tttil D~si~rrt Rai-i~~~ti: C).?-Z.i9, ISB-U Allendctl~-.=lvertue 2. Impervious Coverage: The subject site is located in the Rl- 40,000 zoning district, which restricts impervious coverage to 35% of the parcel. The subject site's current impervious coverage is 55.22%. The applicant is proposing to reduce the amount of hardscape associated with the parking lot and driveway as well as creating a grass area for a playground. Therefore, the proposed coverage is 50.52% of the subject site, which is 15.52% over the maximum allowed. 3. Floor Area Ratio: Municipal Code Section 15-45.030 (e) limits floor area to a maximum of 7,200 sq. ft. The subject site currently has a floor area of 13,476 sq. ft. and is requesting an additiona16,609 sq. ft. for a total of 20,086 sq. ft, which is 12,886 sq. ft. over the maximum allowed. 4. Height Limitation: Municipal Code Section 15-12.100(a) limits the height of main structures (other than single-family dwellings) to 30-feet in height. The applicant has submitted a letter regarding the requested height dated January 27, 2006, which has been attached to this report. Staff Discussion with the Applicant Staff has asked the applicant to considered removing some of the existing structures which would: reduce the floor area, reduce impervious coverage, and reduce the number of required parking spaces. The applicant has indicated that they need all of the existing buildings as well as the proposed space to meet the congregation's needs. Neighbor Notification Staff requested recirculation of Neighbor Notification Forms in letters of Incomplete issued on November 9, 2005 and February 23, 2006. Staff has not. received updated Neighbor Notification Forms from the applicant. However, the applicant has held three neighborhood meetings since the last Planning Commission study session: July 19, 2005, August 9, 2005, and October 4, 2005. Please see attached presentation materials. Public Noticing Notice for the June 14, 2006 Study Session was mailed to property owners within 500 feet. STUDY SESSION REQUIREMENTS: During the Study Session, the Planning Commission may only discuss items related to the project. The agenda does not allow any formal votes or motions on the proposed project or other matters. The Study Session is afact-finding meeting where the Commission may discuss the item and ask questions from or hear statements from members of the public attending the meeting. • 3 Planning C,ornneissiora Sturjv Session .,'t•Icrnorartclunt 4 `- CrlnctiiionalCse>Pern2itandl)esi~rnRei-ic~tiv: C13-Zj~,1~8?0.41lenctrzle.=~i~enue No comments made during the Study Session by the Planning Commission are binding or required to be carried through to the formal public hearing where actions will be taken on the proposed project. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Affidavit of Mailing Notices. Public Hearing Notice, Mailing labels for project notification. 2. Letter from Paul C. Bunton, AIA of Bunton Clifford Associates, to John .Livingstone, AICP, Community Development Director, City of Saratoga, dated January 27, 2006, regarding St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church CUP Resubmittal. 3. Summary of Neighborhood Presentations 4. Reduced Plans • • • Attachment 1 • City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408-868-1222 NOTICE OF STUDY SESSION WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF SARATOGA'S PLANNING COMMISSION announces a Study Session on Wednesday, the 14th day of June at 5:30 p.m. in the Adult Care Center located at 19655 Allendale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Details and plans are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Thursday, 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. If you have questions, Planners are available at the public counter between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 12:00 noon. STUDY SESSION ITEM: APPLICATION #034-259 (391-O1-014) St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church, 18870 Allendale Avenue requests a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review approval to construct a 6,609 sq. ft. church consisting of 254 seats; a new identification sign; and a trash enclosure. The proposed height of the church will not exceed 50-feet at the peak of the central dome. The proposed design has been changed from the original application submitted in 2003 at the request of the Planning Commission during a study session conducted at the end of 2004. The original proposal consisted of a 5,000 sq. ft. church with 300 seats and a central dome rising to 52-feet in height. Through the Conditional Use Permit process the applicant is requesting variations to standards to allow for an increase in impervious coverage, floor area, maximum allowable height, and a reduction in the number of parking spaces required. The parcel consists of 3.1- acres and is zoned R1-40. Therese M. Schmidt Associate Planner 408-868-1235 tschmidt@saratoga.ca.us • CP • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES I, Denise Kaspar ,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 1st day of une , 2006, that I deposited 59 notices in the United States Post Office, 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 described as: APN: 391-O1-014 -18870 Allendale Avenue; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. ~L ~~. Denise Kaspar Advanced Listing Services • 1 June 1, 2006 500' Ownership Listing Prepared for: 397-01-014 ST ARCHANGEL MICHAEL SERBIAN CHURCH 18870 ALLENDALE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 389-28-002 JACK H & MAHA ZAROUR OR CURRENT RESIDENT 18825 ALLENDALE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 389-28-003 MICHAEL W & DIANA GOBLE OR'CURRENT RESIDENT 13812 SERRA OAKS CT SARATOGA CA 95070 389=28-005 CHRISTOPHER R ADAMS OR CURRENT RESIDENT 13786 SERRA OAKS CT ~'RATOGA CA 95070 ~'9-28-012 ~G KU U:~t,CURRENT RESIDENT 13.7.83 SERRA OAKS CT SARATOGA CA 95070 389-28-015 PHOTOPOULOS OR CURRENT RESIDENT 13774 FORTUNA CT SARATOGA CA 95070 3~9-30-014 ~I7WIN & MICHELE ROSEBERRY OR CURRENT RESIDENT ??761 DOLPHIN DR ~s?RATOGA CA 95070 ?~~7=30-018 +~~~ES R & CATHY ODONNELL )R CURRENT RESIDENT 13770 DOLPHIN DR SARATOGA CA 95070 389-28-006 INDERPAL S & SUSHIL NARANG OR CURRENT RESIDENT 13778 SERRA OAKS CT SARATOGA CA 95070 389-28-013 HOWARD & PATRICIA LUM OR CURRENT RESIDENT 13791 SERRA OAKS CT SARATOGA CA 95070 389-28-016 DICK L LIU OR CURRENT RESIDENT 13740 FORTUNA CT SARATOGA CA 95070 389-30-015 CITIMORTGAGE 1NC 1000 TECHNOLOGY DR O FALCON MO 63368 389-30-019 RON & GABRIELE MCINNIS OR CURRENT RESIDENT 18940 ALCOTT WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 389-30-021 389-30-022 KEITH M & MARGARET FERGUSON JON & CYNTHIA KINSTING ~R CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 18900 ALCOTT WAY 18880 ALCOTT WAY iARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 ~~9-30-024 ~`~:4SA LLC ?:~~r48-ALOHA AVE ~':~.RATOGA CA 95070 389-30-025 KOENIG FAMILY TRUST OR CURRENT RESIDENT 13746 MANTECA WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 ~',.. 389-28-004 SAM NGUYEN OR CURRENT RESIDENT 13794 SERRA OAKS CT SARATOGA CA 95070 389-28-011 GURINDER S & 1NDERJIT AULAKH OR CURRENT RESIDENT 13775 SERRA OAKS CT SARATOGA CA 95070 389-28-014 ALBERTA & DIANE DREWKE OR CURRENT RESIDENT 13809 SERRA OAKS CT SARATOGA CA 95070 389-30-013 ]NGRID KOERBER OR CURRENT RESIDENT 13755 DOLPHIN DR SARATOGA CA 95070 389-30-017 ELAINE WILSON OR CURRENT RESIDENT 18945 ALLENDALE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 389-30-020 ANDYICHEN OR CURRENT RESIDENT 18920 ALCOTT WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 389-30-023 HOWARD L & PATRICIA WENDLETON OR CURRENT RESIDENT 18860 ALCOTT WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 389-30-026 VILLETTE H & DONALD GOTTWA~ OR CURRENT RESIDENT 13730 MANTECA WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 i .389-30-036 .!~.?2IKANTH NUGGEHALLI CSR CURRENT RESIDENT 20 TWAIN CT TOGA CA 95070 389-30-039 PHILLIP L & BONNIE JORDAN OR CURRENT RESIDENT 13745 MANTECA WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 389-30-042 JAGDEEP & SUNITA BAL OR CURRENT RESIDENT 18947 ALCOTT WAY ~.ARATOGA CA 95070 ~::°9-30-057 ~'iJNG & RONY FENG ?7.BOX 2922 ~ARATOGA CA 95070 389-30-060 ABDOLHAMID & OZRA ABDOLLAHI OR CURRENT RESIDENT 18883 ALLENDALE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 7-01-024 BELDING FAMILY TRUST 3Z0 DRAKE CT SANTA CLARA CA 95051 `~97=01-040 ;?FFREY NEWMAN ?.~`tt. CURRENT RESIDENT X4055 CHESTER AVE ~f~RATOGA CA 95070 397-01-044 GORDON E KATSKE 555 KNOWLES DR 120 LOS GATOS CA 95032 397-01-059 BILLY CHIANG OR CURRENT RESIDENT 13.917 CAMINO BARCO SARATOGA CA 95070 01-063 .:& SUE SABO ;`296 CAMINO BARCO ~ARATOGA CA 95070 389-30-037 DONALD & RACHEL MCINTOSH OR CURRENT RESIDENT 18910 TWAIN CT SARATOGA CA 95070 389-30-038 CLYDE R & LILLIAN NOSIER PO BOX 3144 SARATOGA CA 95070 389-30-040 389-30-041 ANTHONY G & WAREEN MATUKAS PETER & MARYBETH SNAILS OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT , 18911 ALCOTT WAY 18929 ALCOTT WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 389-30-055 REVELL FAMILY TRUST 6541 W 84TH PL LOS ANGELES CA 90045 389-30-056 DUBA TRUST OR CURRENT RESIDENT 13745 FORTUNA CT SARATOGA CA 95070 389-30-058 PAUL H & PATRICIA KELKER OR CURRENT RESIDENT 13783 FORTUNA CT SARATOGA CA 95070 397-01-006 397-01-007 BELLICITTI FAMILY 14001 CHESTER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 397-01-025 DANIEL T & SUSANNA WONG PO BOX 2953 SARATOGA CA 95070 397-01-042 RICHARD G & BEVERLY ROSSI OR CURRENT RESIDENT 14046 APRICOT HL SARATOGA CA 95070 397-01-045 JAMES J & ENRIQUETA ARCELLA OR CURRENT RESIDENT 14001 APRICOT HL SARATOGA CA 95070 397-01-060 HARCHARAN S & URSULA SABHARWAL OR CURRENT RESIDENT 13929 CAMINO BARCO SARATOGA CA 95070 397-01-064 ROBERT E & KARYN BARB OR CURRENT RESIDENT 13914 CAMINO BARCO SARATOGA CA 95070 389-30-059 ANNA & LASZLO SIPOS OR CURRENT RESIDENT 18873 ALLENDALE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 397-01-012 397-01-014 ST ARCHANGEL MICHAEL SERBIAN PO BOX 2355. SARATOGA CA 95070 397-01-039 CHRISTOPHER J HOUCK OR CURRENT RESIDENT 14003 CHESTER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 397-01-043 IVAN & JACQUELINE LEE OR CURRENT RESIDENT 14022 APRICOT HL SARATOGA CA 95070 397-01-046 LOUIS A & ANTOINETTE KOVACS OR CURRENT RESIDENT 14023 APRICOT HL SARATOGA CA 95070 397-01-062 E A & SUZANNE MAAS OR CURRENT RESIDENT 13948 CAMINO BARCO SARATOGA CA 95070 397-01-066 RICHARD PREVITE OR CURRENT RESIDENT 14008 CAMINO BARCO SARATOGA CA 95070 vl y. ~~- 397=01-067 ATSUSHI & PAMELA HORIUCHI OR CURRENT RESIDENT 13941 CAMINO BARCO SARATOGA CA 95070 397-01-070 GLEN & ELLEN MC LAUGHLIN OR CURRENT RESIDENT 14016 CAMINO BARCO rSARATOGA CA 95070 397-01-068 397-01-069 ALLEN A LEINWAND ROBERT J & HEIDI CAUDLE ORCURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 19050 CAMINO BARCO 14024 CAMINO BARCO SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 City of Saratoga Att: Therese Schmidt 13777 Friutvale Avenue Saratoga CA 95070 • • ~~ • ~1 • Attachment 2 • 11 B CA architecture p l a n n i n g interiors January 27, 2006 Mr: John Livingstone Director of Planning City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Re: St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church CUP Resubmittal Dear Mr. Livingstone and Planning Staff: The following letter serves to give the City of Saratoga a fuller understanding of the traditions, symbolism, and Faith of those who follow the Orthodox Christian `Way of Life' in the community, with an emphasis on responding to concerns that the City of Saratoga has raised regarding specific features of the design of St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church's proposed new worship facility. As stated in Item #6 of the Planning Department's response to the CUP resubmittal dated October 18, 2005, "Proposed Height of the Church", the main concerns of the City of Saratoga regarding the new church design as submitted are the inclusion of a belltower and the overall height of the structure. In response to this, the following document will explain in detail why both these key elements are a necessity in the design, in the context of a discussion of relevant aspects of the Orthodox Christian Faith, which are outlined below: • A Discussion on Height and Structure • The Question of a Belltower • Proportions and the `Golden Ratio' • Symbolism and Holy Tradition in the Orthodox Christian Faith • The Byzantine Style and the `Morava School' • Serbian Orthodox Heritage in the United States • A Discussion of Orthodox Canon Law I. A Discussion on Height and Structure The reason for the ultimate height of the dome is based upon the functional heights of the nave, balcony,. and narthex, in the traditional style and symbolism of the structure (discussed in .further detail in Sections IV and V), as well as the Golden Mean proportions (discussed in Section III). All these factors work together to determine the overall width, length, and height of a Church which is designed to be occupied by a given number of worshippers. The ceiling of the narthex rests at a height of 9'-6", which is a very reasonable height, if not in fact, a bit low for an entry way. Add two feet of structure, and 11'-6" is the floor elevation of the balcony. Due to acoustic requirements, the balcony's ceiling is vaulted and ranges from 6'-6" to 12'-4" at its highest point, averaging close to a very reasonable 9'-6" floor to ceiling height once again. The overall height of the balcony ceiling at its highest point is thus 23'-10". The balcony height, for acoustics and continuity determines the interior height of the nave (at its highest vaulted point), which is also 23'-10". By design, the procession through the nave ultimately opens up into the central area covered by the dome -this requires that the height of the "vault" under the dome (actually a series of 4 "vaults" or pendentives which support the dome), must be higher than the nave. Bunton Clifford Associates, Inc. Corporate Office Branch Office www.BCAincOnline.com 210 Hammond Avenue ^ Fremont, CA 94539 519 West Main Street ^ Merced, CA 95340 [T] 510 445.1000 [F] 510 445.1005 [T) 209 725.1800 [F] 209 725.1818 ~2 Mr. John Livingstone St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church CUP Resubmittal Page 2 of 7 Adding a reasonable 5'-2" to the nave's barrel vault creates a pendentive height of 29 feet. Adding 3 feet for the structural support of the dome brings the height to 32 feet. At this point, proportions determine the vertical height of the dome itself; in this case, the dome is 12'-4" high (the same proportion as the height of the balcony). This brings the height to 44'-6". The remaining height is made up by the 5'-8" of the dome's roof structure and slope. This lengthy description serves to illustrate not only the process which is studied to arrive at the necessary height, but also shows how any reduction would cause a "domino effect" affecting every aspect of an Orthodox Christian Church's functionality. Thus, reducing the height in this design would preclude many of the functions that the Orthodox Church needs and the Holy Traditions that Orthodoxy holds sacred -- it would not allow for a balcony (which requires a minimum head height); it would not allow for the Divine Proportion of the architecture to be expressed, an important aspect most worthy of a House of God; it would not allow for the symbolism experienced through the high windows lining the nave (as there would not be sufficient wall space or height to include them); and most of all, it would not allow for the height necessary to evoke the majestic grandeur of the central dome which signifies Christ looking over the Church from the heavens -the latter two being essential parts of the structure's symbolic tradition and are given more attention in Section IV below. An excerpt from a letter dated January 10, 2006 (see attached Exhibit 'A') from His Grace Bishop Longin, regarding the Canon Law governing the Serbian Orthodox Church in the United States and Canada, explicitly states the following in regards to verticality: "The building's vertical architectural elements are to dominate the horizontal, as they must reinforce a heavenward aspiration of bringing the heavenly Jerusalem down to the faithful in this sacred space. Accordingly, to achieve this effect, the ceiling and cupola [dome] are to be of height strictly proportional to the base footprint of length and width." 1 It should also be mentioned that the central dome, while being the core element of an Orthodox Church for many symbolic reasons, also serves the same role as a common church steeple, expressed in a unique-style (a dome) which adheres to tenets of the Orthodox Christian Faith. "Since about the 12`h century, Christian church buildings and steeples have been practically inseparable. Today, steeples remain an icon of American churches. Steeples serve two basic purposes. The first is that the unique architecture of a steeple indicates the nature of the building beneath it An important function of a steeple is to break up a skyline, giving ready identification to the fact that this building is a church. Steeples also serve the same spiritual function they always have-turning eyes (and hearts) heavenward to God. In satisfying both these functions; steeples must at the same time be noticeable and yet seamlessly blend with the church's architecture." 2 II. The Question of a Belltower In regards to the question and necessity of a belltower: the belfry is generally constructed in connection with the church, either in a separate tower or in one of the domes. The direct use of the belfry is to summon the faithful to worship, although the rubric concerning the use of the different bells and their manner of chiming and pealing is very detailed and complicated. They are rung at certain points in the service, in order that the faithful, who, for any reason, are not in church, may unite their prayers with those of the worshippers in the Temple at the most solemn moments. At Matins, for example, they are rung before the Gospel is read, while the lights are being kindled, and the choir is singing: 'Praise ~re the Lord'. At the Divine Liturgy one bell is rung while the Holy Gifts are being consecrated. While St. Archangel Michael has 6CA t3 Mr. John Livingstone St. Archangel Michael Serhian Orthodox Church CUP Resubmittal Page 3 of 7 agreed to not have its bells rung to the outside due to neighboring residences, the inclusion of the tower and the bells as a visual and internally audible element, is still necessary to fulfill the Church's tradition and symbolism. This resolution addresses both the needs of the Church and eliminates any neighborhood noise issues. This strong Holy Tradition in the Serbian Orthodox Christian- Church is strengthened through precedent, and many Serbian Orthodox Churches built in the United States for a congregation which has had the funding to do so, have included a belltower. Some examples of these churches, which follow the requirement of the Canon Law referencing the inclusion of a belltower, include St. Sava Church in Phoenix, AZ; St. Steven's Serbian Orthodox Cathedral in Alhambra, CA; St. Basil of Ostrog in Angels Camp, CA; Holy Assumption of the Mother of God in Fair Oaks, CA; St. Peter the Apostle Church in Fresno, CA; St. Sava Church in Jackson, CA; St. George Church in San Diego, CA; St. Sava Church in San Gabriel, CA; St. Petka Church in San Marcos, CA; Holy Resurrection Serbian Orthodox Cathedral in Chicago, IL; and, Holy Trinity Church in Butte, MT. (See attached Exhibit'B')4 III. Proportions and the `Golden Ratio' Another item to note in the design of this Church is that the belltower is not the highest element of the structure. The central dome, integral to the design of the Church, stands at 50 feet high. The belltower is in fact 10 feet lower than this, resting at 40 feet. There is a reason for each portion of the design, and every element works- together to form a whole which is harmonious and worthy of the title of a House of God. The "Golden Ratio" (also referred to as the "Divine Proportion", "Golden Mean", "Golden Rectangle", and "Golden Section") is used to define relative dimensions, and appropriate proportions in the design of a building so steeped in tradition, history, symbolism, and purity of architecture. "Shapes proportioned according to the golden ratio have long been considered aesthetically pleasing in Western cultures, and the golden ratio is still used frequently in art and design, suggesting a natural balance between symmetry and asymmetry. The ancient Pythagoreans, who defined numbers as expressions of ratios (and not as units as is common today), believed that reality is numerical and that the golden ratio expressed an underlying. truth about existence. " s This beauty and harmony found so often in nature is a testament to the world of the existence of God, and thus the Golden Mean is often seen in the design of Churches which rely on the importance of such divine symbolism. The attached Exhibit 'C' shows the church plan and elevations in relation to the properties of the Golden Mean.6 Any reduction in height would significantly alter the natural harmony and proportions of the structure, and render the Church unsuitable for the functionality required for the proper worship practices of the Orthodox Christian Faith. IV. Symbolism and Holy Tradition in the Orthodox Christian Faith It also must be understood h'ow and why such symbolism and tradition are such integral parts of the Orthodox Christian Faith; to help clearly express this, the current design of St. Archangel Michael's new sanctuary will be used here as an example. Through its architectural expression, the design of this unique Orthodox Church attempts to reveal the fundamental experience of Orthodox Christianity: God is with us. The roof forms of the exterior are broken up to reduce the mass of the building, and to increase the element of human scale. More importantly, these different planes, which start from the lowest and most human, gradually step the worshipper's eyes up, from one roof to the next, until they ultimately end at the top of the dome. This gradual procession from the ground to the apex of the dome prepares the worshipper to focus up towards the heavens, ready to come inside the church with a prayerful heart focused B C!A t~ Mr. John Livingstone St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church CUP Resubmittal Page 4 of 7 upon God. Inside, the high windows let light into the nave from the heavens, illuminating the frescoes, and creating an inviting procession through the church nave, again ultimately lifting the worshipper's eyes up toward the dome, and to the image of Jesus Christ the Pantocrator. The harmony of all the interior forms working together to create a perfect symmetry and alignment represents God's perfection, and the desire for His worshippers to create a House of God that is worthy of His presence. The crowning element of this structure, the house of the Church that is the people of God, is the magnificent dome which serves to symbolize that in the Kingdom of God, and in the Church, Christ "unites all things in Himself, things in heaven and things on earth," (Ephesians 1:10) and that in Him we are all "filled with all the fullness of God." (Ephesians 3:19). The outcome is a beautiful and timeless structure which is faithfully designed to be in complete alignment with the tenets of the Byzantine style of architecture while at the same time delicately and successfully integrating into the rural character of the City of Saratoga. It should be understood that Orthodoxy is not a 'religion'. It is a 'Way of Life'. In fact, early Christians were known as "The People of the Way". Everything which is done in the liturgical practices is done for a specific purpose -that being to help establish a correct relationship with God on their path ('Way') toward theosis, i.e., to become like Christ. As John Ivancovich, President of St. Archangel Michael's Church Board, says, "When we are told that we can not orient in the Easterly direction, when it is physically possible to do so, we are prevented from practicing our Faith ('Way of Life) fully. When we are asked to hide our Church in the back of the property, so that it can not be seen, we are, in effect, told to go back into the catacombs, and, to not put ourselves forward where we can present an inviting image to passersby who might be interested in seeing 'what goes on inside that beautiful building' and to become exposed to Orthodoxy. In Orthodoxy, as in the song, "little things mean a lot". lf, historically, Orthodox people had compromised their traditions and practices over the centuries, there -would be no Orthodox Church today - at least not in its present form. It is important to be able to convey this message to the City and other influential parties. Little things mean a lot" V. The Byzantine Style and the `Morava School' The Byzantine style, which this Church is designed to follow per the Canon Law, has many tenets in its own right which must also be respected. Every effort has been made to meet these requirements while integrating into the surrounding area. There are many Byzantine sub- styles, and the one which has been chosen, an interpretation of the Morava school of Serbian Orthodox Church architecture, is a common style found in the Adriatic where red roofs, straight lines, and white walls prevail. The book Serbian Legacy, a work on historical Serbian Orthodox Church architecture describes this style: "The basis of the plan is a trefoil formed by three apses, north, east and south. In the centre, as always, there is a square space above which are constructed the pendentives, drum and dome. The apses are crowned with semi-domes, and at the west end there is a vaulted nave, to which may be added a narthex." The book goes on to add that "Where there is a narthex, it may be covered by a dome or by a belfry tower. In this final stage of development the combination of brick, stone and tiles reaches the limits of richness." ~ This style is very complementary to the neighborhood, where many homes in the area exhibit similar materials, colors, and rectilinear forms. As stated above, the height of the building is governed by the necessary height of the dome. This height- requirement fulfills the Holy Traditions of the Orthodox Christian Faith, follows the requirements of the Canon Law and, in regards to Byzantine Architecture, is necessary to "adhere to a specific architectural style", as stated in the City of Saratoga's Municipal Code. e B CAA ~5 Mr. John Livingstone St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church CUP Resubmittal Page 5 of 7 Serbian Orthodox Heritage in the United States Moreover, this style is becoming- increasingly important to respect, as the ongoing construction of new Serbian Orthodox Churches in the United States is beginning to create a new style; a fusion between a renaissance of the traditional medieval Serbian Orthodox Byzantine style of architecture and various influences brought about from years of worship in America. Cornell University scholar Tanja Damljanovich, of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Serbia in Belgrade, offers the following commentary on the subject: "Until recently, the anathema toward religion in earlier communist ideology stopped religious building in Serbia. From the start of communist rule, Serbs in exile, especially in the United States, were in a better position to develop previously established church building traditions than indigenous communities... In recent years a demand for authentic expression in newly built churches has become synonymous with employing architectural prototypes considered essentially Serbian-Orthodox.... Although the building of Serbian-Orthodox churches in the United States has had a long tradition, more or less independent from the native country, recently built churches obviously show close links with the principles that have been established in Serbia. The creators of new Serbian- Orthodox churches in the United States, usually proud of their ancestors' heritage that they try to reconstruct, are probably not conscious of the fact that they are also creating a part of American heritage." 9 VI. A Discussion of Orthodox Canon Law A description of the essential components of a Serbian Orthodox Church edifice encompasses a very strong Holy Tradition which; through the years, has evolved into a style that is unique and widely accepted as being the basis for the design of a new Serbian Orthodox sanctuary. In the case of St. Archangel Michael Church, this description is recorded in the localized Canon Law of the Serbian Orthodox Diocese of Western America. The following excerpt from "The Book of Canons" by Father Gregory Grabbe explains how Canon Law, by its nature, reflects the characteristics of each local Church: "Each local Church has its own compendium which reflects the local characteristics. The source of all such compendia lies in those collections of Church law compiled in Medieval Byzantium. These contain decisions of Church authorities which were reached in totally different historical epochs and in different Churches, as well as decrees of Byzantine emperors and a number of statutes which are of purely local character. The form in which these codices of local Church law presently exist cannot fully serve as practical guides and are in reality only of historical interest. Today's Church organization outgrew these codices. A significant part of their norms cannot be applied to present conditions and have been changed and even discarded in various autocepha/ous Churches. Along with these codices the autocepha/ous Churches publish and continue to publish their own canons either making up a part of local compilations or exist in separate forms. Naturally there is neither external nor internal agreement among all these norms which make up the Canon Law of each local Church." to Thus, the Orthodox Canon Law states that a local entity, be it a Diocese or even a single Church, may develop and publish their own specific Canons, based on the original Canon Law, which suit the needs and reflect the values of their individual jurisdiction or parish. In turn, the local Canon Law stating the requirements for the design of an Orthodox Church edifice, as written and recorded by His Grace Bishop Longin, Bishop of the Diocese of Western America, of which St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church is a parish, should be revered as Holy Tradition, B CAA too Mr. John Livingstone = St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church CUP Resubmittal Page 6 of 7 and this parish's Canon Law. 'I Thus, this letter by Bishop Longin must be upheld and its requirements fulfilled. Father Ilija Balach, a priest of the Serbian Orthodox Church and also a former architect, offers the following words regarding Canon Law and Holy Tradition: "Orthodox Church design has evolved as a function of Holy Tradition which is sacred in the Church. There are numerous liturgical and theological implications on the design of Orthodox Churches that enhance worship services. It is important to note that Orthodox Churches have characteristic forms that relate to the region of the world that the people come from. Just as anon-Orthodox Christian would not like to have someone impose a church form that is foreign to their culture, so it is not appropriate to impose non-Orthodox forms on Orthodox Christians. You cannot compare church architectural forms with the residential fabric of a neighborhood. Churches have always been unique and rightly so. Heights of Orthodox Churches likewise have a proportional aspect to them that defines the form. Changing the height to fit an arbitrary standard is tantamount to saying that no one is unique and that everyone should cut their hair in a `crew-cut' style." Tradition plays a very large role in how Orthodox Christians practice their Faith. For instance, the most noticeable is the manner in which one makes the sign of the cross from right to left, as opposed to left to right, which the Roman Catholics do. This is not something which can be found in the Canons, but is as much a part of the Orthodox Christian Faith and traditions as anything else. Just because it isn't written, does not make it unnecessary. A short, round, Greek-style church, would not work for Orthodox Christian Serbs. Another example of fundamental "tradition" which is nowhere to be found in the Orthodox Canon Law is referenced below, again from "The Book of Canons" by Father Gregory Grabber "The more complete canonical compilations, not only Eastern but Western as well, have no canons which establish general and fundamental principles of Church organization. These compilations have any number of canons regulating the relationship of bishops among themselves, the interrelation of presbyters and deacons, but we would not be able to find canons defining the very principle of hierarchy. There is not a single rule calling for the Church to have all three orders of clerics. The basic organization of a Christian community headed by a bishop is not to be found... We are so accustomed to these gaps that they are not even noticed, but if some historian would attempt to describe the organization of the Church based exclusively on canonical norms he would fall into a number of serious errors."12 So it is with the Canon Law regarding Orthodox Church architecture as well; one cannot quantify the requirements and guidelines for the design of a new Church edifice solely by the general Orthodox Canon Law, in the same manner that the design- of such a Church could not be governed by ideals which are non-Orthodox or contrary to Holy Tradition. Specific requirements for the design of a new Church must take into account prior precedent, functionality, tradition, and ultimately the Canon Law of the specific jurisdiction or parish. These requirements have been clearly defined in the attached signed letter by Bishop Longin (see attached Exhibit 'D'), and, by the nature of Orthodox Canon Law and the authority it extends to local jurisdictions, is the only list of requirements which must be followed in the design of St. Archangel Michael's new worship facility. i3 In closing, consider the examples of other Serbian Orthodox churches, both in the US and in the "old country", which consists of Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, and adjacent lands in which Serbs have lived for one and a half millennia. None of these churches look like a house, and rightly so; a church is not supposed to look like a house, as their functions are completely and fundamentally different. Thus, heights should not be constrained to B CAA t~ Mr. John Livingstone St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church CUP Resubmittal Page 7 of 7 residential heights. Making it lower in height will damage the architectural beauty of the design. Altering the proposed design interferes with the way Orthodox Christians worship in the manner which best serves their Faith and its worship practices. The practice of Orthodoxy requires height in order to have adequate wall space for frescos, openness, sound quality, and the imperative feeling of majestic beauty. If accepted as designed, this Church will prove to be one of the most beautiful buildings in Saratoga and the surrounding area, and will be sure to enhance the City's cultural and architectural landscape in a way that other buildings would simply not be able to do. Due to its cultural richness, remarkable symbolism, architectural purity, and strikingly simple beauty, this building truly does have the potential to become a beloved landmark in the City of Saratoga. Sincerely, Bunton Clifford Associ es, Inc. ~~ F ]p }'~ t / e x p ~~~ .~ Paul C. Bunton; ~4fA President Cc: Samer Kawar, Associate, BCA Gerry deYoung, Ruth and Going John Ivancovich, President, St. Archangel Michael Fr. Slobodan Jovic, St. Archangel Michael References: - 1 See attached "Exhibit A", letter by Bishop Longin, dated January 10, 2006. 2 http'//www.christianitytoday.com/vc/2005/005/3.40.html 3 http'//www.lasvegasorthodox.com/library/Orthodox Practices/svmbolism.htm 4 www.westsrbdio.org/list/index.html; See attached "Exhibit B", photographs of referenced Serbian Orthodox Churches 5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden ratio; 6 See attached "Exhibit C", Plans and Elevations illustrating the Golden Mean. 7 Stewart, Cecil. The Serbian Legacy. "Chapter Six: Morava", pp. 79-80. 8 City of Saratoga Municipal Code; Chapter 15 -Zoning Regulations; Article 15-12 R1: Single Family Residential Districts; 15-12.100 -Height of Structures; (a). http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/codes/saratoga/ 9 Damljanovic, Tanja. American Religious Architecture as an Expression of Cultural Heritage, Serbian-Orthodox Churches in the USA: [Cornell University] 10 http//www holytrinitymission.org/books/english/canons apostles grabbe.htm 11 See attached "Exhibit D", letter by Bishop Longin, dated August 31, 2004. 12 http//www holxtrinitymission.org/books/english/canons apostles grabbe.htm 13 See attached Exhibit D ,letter by Bishop Longin, dated August 31, 2004. B C'A ~~ ~an 13 06 08:30a Fr. Slobodan B. Jovic 408-867-0421 p•1 ~d~ ~ 406 Sb7 0421 ^ o i ~.X~-1-lB1~f ,A t • Se>•bian ®rtliodox Cliu~ch in USA and Canada Western American Diocese 2547 Crestiine Terrace, Alhambra, Caiifomia 91803 His GraceBishopLONGIN Phone: 626/289-9067; Episcopal Residence 626/284-6825; Faz 626/28¢1484 E-mail wesfdiocese@earthlink.net January 10, 2006 • • TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The Canon Law governing the Serbian Orthodox Church in the United States and Canada defines, among the rest, the following requirements for its church edifices, as sacred buildings destined for divine public worship: Overall size. The church building as a permanent structure must fundamentally meet the congregation's need for the total experience of a living temple for joint prayer -receiving the Eucharist, partaking in the other sacramental Holy Mysteries and the regular celebration of the Orthodox Christian Liturgy. It must also fundamentally be able to accommodate occasional and special.pazish needs, including weddings, funerals, Christmas and Easter observance, major and minor patron saint day celebrations and other Church holidays. Orthodox churches are not mere gathering places but signify and make visible the Church.living in this place, the dwelling of God with men reconciled and united in Christ. Basic architecture. Mandatory elements of the building included as separate areas are the Altar, Nave, artd-Narthex. Conditions permitting, the church building should have four cupolas and a V""` -~ bell tower; at a minimum it must include one cupola of appropriate height and a bell tower, each surmounted by a Cross. Church bells are to mark the beginning of each Divine Liturgy. Verticality_ The building's vertical architectural elements are to dominate the horizontal, as they must reinforce a heavenward aspiration of bringing the heavenly Jerusalem down to the faithful in this sacred space. Accordingly, to achieve this effect, the ceiling and cupola are to be of height strictly proportional to the base footprint of length and width. If there are more questions about our Church, this office is at your service to address them. Respectfully, + Longin, Bishop of Western America RFr.FivFD TIME-JAN. 13.- 8:23A~~ Serbian Orthodox Church, Diocese of Western America ~ St Sava Serbian Orthodox Church Page 1 of 2 ~x+~~r~~r ' t~' Contact Us St Sava Serbian Orthodox Chur [home] Diocesan Radio Program . The Department of Christian Education . Christian life . parishes . lives of the saints . bookstore . Serbian Orthodox Church , church history , church in kosovo , holy fathers , holy new martyrs , chilandar prayer , liturgical petitions People Serbia and recent war Subscribe to mailing list Enter your email Subscribe Appeal for chilandar The Prologue of Ohrid ~.. ~. ~ aB~ ~>~ a ~~~ ~Gpnt~ ~ r~a,~ p St Sava Serbian Orthodox Church 4436 East KcKinley Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85008 tel (602)275-7360 fax (602) 275-4112 V. Rev. ]anko Trbovic 1631 N. Sunset Drive, Tempe, AZ, tel (480) 949-9475 http://www.westsrbdio.org/info/showarticle.php?article=church~hoenix 1/19/2006 2(~ ' . Serbian Orthodox Church, Diocese of Western America ~ St Steven's Serbian Orthodox C... Page 1 of 2 • Contact Us St Steven's Serbian Orthodox Catr [home] St. Steven's Serbian Orthodox Cathedral Diocesan Radio 1621 West Garvey Ave Program . Alhambra, CA 91803 Tel. 626-284-9100 Fax 626-281-5045 The Department of Christian Education . V. Rev. Nikola Ceko a-mail: Katedralni@aol.com Christian life . parishes . Rev. Norman Kosanovich a-mail: FrNormanK@aol.com lives of the saints . bookstore . .Web: http://www.sa intstevens.org/homepage. htm Serbian Orthodox Church church history , church in kosovo holy fathers holy new martyrs ,chilandar prayer , liturgical petitions People , serbia and recent war Subscribe to mailing list Enter your email Subscribe Appeal for chilandar The Prologue of Ohrid r~ u http://www.westsrbdio.org/info/showarticle.php?article=church ahambra 1/19/2006 a~ Serbian Orthodox Church, Diocese of Western America ~ St. Basil of Ostrog Serbian Orth... Page 1 of 2 .._ n ~I g~tnag~ >FC~ a~~ ~p c {~- Lip 7arE ~ Contact Us St. Basil of Ostrog Serbian Orthodox [home] St. Basil of Ostrog Serbian Orthodox Church 930 N. Main Street, Angels Camp, CA 95222 Diocesan Radio Program . Mailing address P.O. Box 673, Altaville, CA 95521, tel.(209)736-2340 The Department of Christian Education . V. Rev. Stavrofor Miladin Garich, christian life . Administrator 6723 Will Rogers Dr. ,Fair Oaks, CA 95628 (916)966-1999 parishes . lives of the saints . bookstore . Serbian Orthodox Church , church history , church in kosovo , holy fathers holy new martyrs , chilandar prayer , Ilturgical petitions People serbia and recent war Subscribe to mailing list Enter your email S`ubscnbe Appeal for chilandar The Prologue of Ohrid • http://www.westsrbdio.org/info/showarticle.php?article=church angels 1/19/2006- Serbian Orthodox Church, Diocese of Western America ~ Holy Assumption of the Mother... Page 1 of 2 • Contact Us t [home] Diocesan Radio Program . The Department of Christian Education . Christian life . parishes . lives of the saints . bookstore . Serbian Orthodox Church , church history church in kosovo holy fathers holy new martyrs chilandar prayer , Ilturgical petitions People . Serbia and recent war . Subscribe to mailing list Enter your email Subscribe Appeal for chilandar The Prologue of Ohrid Holy Assumption of the Mother of Serbian Orthodox Church Holy Assumption of the Mother of God Serbian Orthodox Church 7777 Sunset Avenue, Fair Oaks, California 95628, tel (916) 966-5438 fax(916)966-5235 Very Rev. Dane Popovic, a-mail: Father_Dane@Yahoo.com (church address) .... tel. (916) 966-6276 Protodeacon William Weir 2911 Morse Avenue, Sacramento, CA 95821 .... tel. (916) 488-0827 httnJ/www_westsrbdio.or~/info/showarticle.nhn?article=church s marv 1/19/2006 _~~, Serbian Orthodox Church, Diocese of WestevrnuuA22m~~erica ~ nSt Peter the Apostle Serbian Ort... Page 1 of 2 !~ ~f I i41 T ~ , U, C Lo K•' t ~- .. ... i1Cl~ ~ t~~ABH~t ii~ ~1~B4 ~IEd,~ilw01~1't~ ~i~ 'it' ~ Contact Us St Peter the Apostle Serbian Orth Church [home] Diocesan Radio Program . The Department of Christian Education . christian life . parishes . lives of the saints . bookstore. Serbian Orthodox Church . church history . church in kosovo holy fathers holy new martyrs . chilandar prayer . liturgical petitions People Serbia and recent war . Subscribe to mailing list Enter your email Subscnt?eJ _~ Appeal for chilandar The Prologue of Ohrid St Peter the Apostle Serbian Orthodox Church 3502 North First Street, Fresno, California 93726 209 227 5565 tel. (559) 227-5565 fax (559) 227-0501 Very Rev. George Gligich a-mail: stpeter2937@sbcglobal.net 2343 E. Birch, Fresno, CA 93720 tel. (559) 325-8528 Rev. Protodeacon Brad Matthews a-mail: bwmatth@sierratel.com 1101 6th Ave. Dr., Kingsburg, CA 93631 . tel (559)897-7319 Rev. Deacon Norman Shultz 4082 N. First Street, Fresno, CA 93726 tel (559) 227-1145 • ~r Serbian Orthodox Church, Diocese of Western America ~ St Sava Serbian Orthodox Church Page 1 of 2 • Contact Us St Sava Serbian Orthodox Chur • [home] Diocesan Radio Program . The Department of Christian Education . Christian life . parishes . lives of the saints . bookstore . Serbian Orthodox Church church history . church in kosovo . holy fathers . holy new martyrs . chilandar prayer .liturgical petitions People Serbia and recent war Subscribe to mailing list Enter your email __ Subscribe ': Appeal for chilandar The Prologue of Ohrid St Sava Serbian Orthodox Church 724 North Main Street, Jackson, California 95642 209 223 4320 V. Rev. Stavrofor Miladin Garich, Administrator 6723 Will Rogers Dr. ,Fair Oaks, CA 95628 tel (916)966-1999 Rev. Stephen Tumbas a-mail: Tumbas@mindspring.com 29 Arlene Ct., Walnut Creek, CA 94595 tel. (925)947-0253 Rev. Deacon Triva Pavlov a-mail: FrTriva@volcano.net P.O. Box 594, Jackson, CA 95642 tel. (209)-223-4640 e ~_ . _.yr ~ ~ ? . - _. f~ ti Y i~_~.1`/^~ ~~rY.i _ ~ ~ ,r ,. y.+~~ ,:T~wti-~ t~~n-l :~. T; .4s~` ~~ ~ ~ ~~* ~ ~. • y ~ ~ .~ ~;._ ~_ Fy F y Y , ~~a ~ ~~~~~ l,rr„•//ww`ro wPCtsrh~in.~rg/inf«7/sh~warticle.nhn?article=church Jackson I f ' ~* 1"~.w.. x l {' <° 1/19/2006 ~ Serbian Orthodox Church, Diocese of Western America ~ St George Serbian Orthodox Ch... Page 1 of 2 ~. p ~I atr~t~~a x~ ~~ Cpnt~a pae i~ ~ ~ ~ Contact Us St George Serbian Orthodox Chin [home] Diocesan Radio Program . The Department of Christian Education . Christian life . parishes . lives of the saints . bookstore . Serbian Orthodox Church church history , church in kosovo holy fathers , holy new martyrs chilandar prayer , liturgical petitions People , serbia and recent war Subscribe to mailing list Enter your_em -. Subscribe ~_ Appeal for chilandar The Prologue of Ohrid St George Serbian Orthodox Church 3025 Denver Street, San Diego, California 92117 619 275 4476 V. Rev. Stavrofor Bozidar Draskovic a-mail: njegos@san.rr.com tel. (619)276-5827 • • 1/19/2006 °Z~P rx~-tlg~T 'g' C~°N~-) Serbian Orthodox Church, Diocese of Western America ~ St Sava Serbian Orthodox Church Page 1 of 2 • Contact Us St Sava Serbian Orthodox Chur [home] • Diocesan Radio Program . The Department of Christian Education . Christian life . parishes . lives of the saints . bookstore . Serbian Orthodox Church church history . church in kosovo holy fathers holy new martyrs . chilandar prayer .liturgical petitions People serbia and recent war Subscribe to mailing list Enter your email $ubsci-ibe Appeal for chilandar Monastery The Prologue of Ohrid St Sava Serbian Orthodox Church 1700 South San Gabriel Blvd, San Gabriel, California 91776 626 288 8811 web: www.saintsavachurchla.org V. Rev. Stavrofor Petar ]ovanovich 1637 South Gladys Avenue, San Gabriel, CA 91776 tel(626)288-1977 St. Sava Church (at Cemetery) 4355 Second Street, East Los Angeles, CA 90022 l,trn•//www.westsrhdio.or~/info/showarticle.phv?article=church s Gabriel 1/19/2006 0~1 Serbian Orthodox Church; Diocese of Western America ~ Saint Petka Serbian Orthodox C... Page 1 of 2 .rv. - ~ - - ittA ~ Bt1CAA6H,~ 1~ i~AifNl~ Contact Us Saint Petka Serbin Orthodox Chi [home] Saint Petka Serbian Orthodox Church 1854 Knob Hill Road, San Marcos, California 92069 Diocesan Radio tel. (760)743-2178 Program , fax (760)743-0513 The Department of Christian Education . Very Rev. Milan Vukovic Christian life . 819 Wulff Street, San Marcos, CA 92069 parishes , tel. (760)744-4829 lives of the saints . fax (760)744=5474 hc,nkstore . Serbian Orthodox Church church history • ,church in kosovo , holy fathers holy new martyrs chilandar prayer , Ilturglcal petltlons People Serbia and recent war Subscribe to mailing list Enter your email Subscribe Appeal for chilandar The Prologue of Ohrid ticte_nhn?article=church s netka 1/19/2006. o ~ • • Photo of Holy Resurrection Serbian Orthodox Church: Exterior ~XC-trl13iT `i3' (~~N~-~ Map of U.S.A.: _; ~, ~~, i` Page 1 of 2 Chicago ~~~ Districts and Zones aAws v.NC,aora a ~~ 'f1~15 SFrDNSORSMIP Buildings SEAN IKTERNA710NAL ~ PtACE t5 AVAILABLE Q$IL'>rSC~1 High-rise Buildings Other Buildings Famous Buildings Construction Status ~EIVfFOR-S iTiCt~CS Building Diagrams '~~ Companies H~ Resurrection Serbian Orthodox chuff Images Local Editorial Staff All photos of this building How you can advertise your firm on Emporis. http://www.emporis.com/en/iUim/?id=252702 1/19/2006 02~ English _ ~magesW . .. ~ ~::~ Emporis Quickjump ~ [ ? ] Your position: World /North America / U.S.A. /Chicago. IL /Holy Resurrection Serbian.. Exterior (Emporis Image No. 252702) Serbian Orthodox Church, Diocese of Western America ~ Holy Trinity Serbian Orthodox ... Page 1 of 2 Xt~lBi1- ~ g' ~co~-l-) [home] Diocesan Radio Program . The Department of Christian Education . Christian life . parishes . lives of the saints . bookstore . Serbian Orthodox Church church history , church in kosovo , holy fathers holy new martyrs , chilandar prayer liturgical petitions People serbia and recent war Subscribe to mailing list Enter our email --- ---y---- ------ -- $ubscrbe Appeal for chilandar The Prologue of Ohrid Contact Us Holy Trinity Serbian Orthodox Ch 2100 Continental Drive, Butte, MT 59701 tel. (406)723-7889 Rev. Bratislav Krsic a-mail: Lkrsic@aol.com • • ~X1-1.1131~ ~ C ~ - ~ ~ j `~ ,,. ~~ ; , ~~ - ~ ~~. ~ ~; _ ~~~ i ~ ~ = i ~~ ~~. .~ 31 ~ x1-41 B~ ~ ` C ~ (c...~f - • • ?,~ ~~st~~~a A~ra~~~a ~i~~~s~ 2~~1 C`~~f6in~ ~~~ra~e, ~8~~t~~ad'a, ~~iiforrai~ 918~~ his Cr~c~ ~i~ft®~ L O fd G i N Rhone: $26~259.9~?®l; Episcopal Residence 626128-~~25; Fax 6261aBd-f~B~ E--mail wesfddxese(aear~frdink.net • • To whom it may concern: August 31, 2004 According to the Canon Law, an Orthodox Church edifice - i.e. the Temple, or place of worship - must fulfill the following requirements: 1. Footprint to follow the form of the Cross. 2. Mandatory inclusion of separate areas for Altar, Nave, and Narthex 3. At a minimum must include one cupola and a bell tower (conditions permitting, should have four cupolas and a bell tower}. 4. Architecturally to adhere to the general Byzantine Style, the distinctive and dominant style in the Serbian Orthodox Church. 5. Tv be oriented from west (main entrance) to east (altar area}. --- -~ - 6. Observe appropriate proportions between length and height. Adequate height directly symbolizes the worshippers' closeness to Gad on High, in addition to being necessary for proper acoustics of the choral music, which is an integral part of the Divine Liturgy. 7. The overall size must meet the regular parish needs as well as occasional and special needs, such as weddings, funerals, patron saint celebrations, Christmas and Easter observance. 8. Must be internally decorated with frescoes and an icon screen (iconostasis). 9. Church bells are to n-,ark the beginning of each Divine Liturgy. 10. Both cupola and bell tower must have a Cross on top of them, to w that the Temple belongs to a Christian Orthodox Church. If there are more questions about our Church, this office is at your~rvice to address the Resp Bish~ +L C 3~ • Attachment 3 • ~- ~ ~ - ~-. ~ - ~ ~.~ d,...; _ ~~ _ ~ _ V ~+. ~~~ ~ ~~.. ~ ~: , ~ ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~_ O~ ~~~ W { ~- Q~ ++ ~ y v ~ r ~~ ~~ ~ ~" `s~ ;.+ ._ o - 3 ~ ~ • ^ . ~, 3 ~ ~ - `G1 •G ~• '~ ~ ~ ~/ ~; ~# t- k O ~ L Q. V Z v `~ ""' ~ `. y ~ CC '~ .:, - ~--.dam v~ H _ ~, ,.:,~ ~ ~ .~C ~ ~ : .t~. ~ V` ~ CAS ~~y O ~ ,~ ~ ._ _,~„ C ~ ~ O m V ~ O ~ 3 ~ ~ Qg ~y ~>~~, ~ W v ~ W ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~' !!Oww ~ ~ ~ N 'R~. ~ ~ •~ h t~ !L ~ ~ ^+ L'~= r ~; . ~': ~ ~. A + W ~ s v O . ~-+ N: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V z. ~ a ~ ~ oe4roooy, CHURCy • •~ r . R <. < y O A S r J~ y't ,,~M-'N~lir SS ~ :'~~r H t0 a L d O ~L.. N r • •.+ ~ L ~ N t d v ~~ ~ ~ E Z K~ ~ W }' W V ~+ Z d ~ O L ~ V y .C 0 d i ~r = E ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ m ~~ c~a r•+ ~ W ,v_~ Z D ~ A 0~~= ~ t~ - t .~ ~ ~ - ~+ ~ ~ ~ ' /~ ~ ~ _ ~ W ~ ~„_. -- L~ , ~ 3 ~_-. ~ d ~ ~ L ~~ ~ C ' O. ~ ~ ~ ~ L ~ ~ ~ m N -fy ~.+ v '~ y.. ~ .., y _- ~ ~{~ Q . `~ C :. = : C C1 ~.N y ~ .: ~ ~; ~ ,Q ~ ~ ~~ ~ L => ~ O v ~ •,,,, ~ ~ Q r, - s ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :-, ~ ,_ • ~ ^ .~ ._ O d ` ' ~3~ Q :, d ~ ~ ,C 4 ~ O 3 ~ ~ c. ~ ~ ~ L ~~. ~ ' '~ ~ ,: L ~ `~ W , t w ._. O ~ O ~ ~, ~ ~-~ ~~ .,~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ V) ~ C :~~.. - z.. a.+~~ +r '~ ~0 W V =~ ~ ~ dot ~ _~ , ,~ ~~ ,c v d N • s.:3 ~A~. V/ .V N ~ ~ _ ~ ~ V ~ Q opx cHU~y pe4,ip • `yd ~ V N ,~E< o W` ~ S~ • ~~ yvt n'rx~av ss ~ ~ y„ ~ - ~. c ~ c .o c ~ ~ ~,, *r ~°, .a 1~ k tl-. OO - ~ o ~ y .°~ ~ .y- . ~ N` o_~ a L s E ,: ~ ~ , ,~_o --z ~ a ~ v,~ v = :a a w m v ~.~ ~ m ., .~ .~ ~ t"~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ N f 1~ ~ i. YI v~ b t y ~ _ _I , t~I v+ -*d ~ F: V ,.-~ ~.+ Z +-' ~ C ~~ mt ~ ~ ~s ~ Q ~ C ~+ ~p~ ~Ci~~~s~ ~~~. ~~y~v V ~ ~ .C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ,~„ .H O ~ tot -;~ : `+~ : ~H ~ ~ __ ~ ~" yr ~ .~ ~~ y~ 4~ ~~~sC ~~' ~t z ~Qc ~~",o mQ.~ *~~+o ~ to .~.+ .. ~ : Q .. ::~. 0~== . H d ~.+ 31 ~~ ~ ~.~ Z (/~ V ~~ . ~ ~ tip ~ ~. ~ V ~ Q ~. oox ceu~y ~o e'~ 0 r M •~~.: ! ~ b.r- ~~ ~- z ~' ~ ~ ~ t- '_ ~ ~x "'"~'t~a o ~ ~ z~ _ y. i ~~ ~ ~. ~~ m r. i O ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~.. ~ ~ ; , ~,.~ y y V ` -;~0 '~. ~ -~ . ~ ~= ~ ~ ~- ~~ ~~ ~~'` . d ~ Z ~ ''~"' ~ ~~ ~°~ ~ ~ ~ ~s .' ; r '~ ~k ~ K ~ 1 L' ~-_-~r ~ ~ ~ ~ --`~ ~' Q °' + ~5 • , r c,.- ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~~, ~ . . vs ~ ~ ~ tY- ; ~ > ~ '~ Q ~ r F .~. ' ~•C ~i~+ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ Z v~~~ t as ~ ~ ~~ .e~ ~~ - ''" ,a,, t .,;~ y w ~ ~ O o03~~~ ~ °~ ~i ..~ Z L ~. ~ _ } ~~ ~~. ~ ,~ R~ ~. ~ a. ,•~ ~_ W v i ~-. -5 a.. ~y ~ ~ _ t ~` ~' _ ~.._ . ~ ~.s.~._. ~'~_ ~'~-~- ~~ • • ~= ~V~ ~, - ~ ~ ~` Z (/~.. s '~ O •-+ ~ ~ ~ O L ~ ~ CeS~OOOX CMURCy • `'i N ' E <-= V _ o A 6J ~e ~' • Sr ~'a-'+nav ss ! ~ ~.~~- Y ,__ _. ,C ~ - 00 w, W F :~ ~ - +~ 7 ~ ~ _~ ~ 3 ._ c •a ~ ~~~^~ __ ~ `~" ~ ~ N ~ -~ f c o ~- as ~ A '' ___.u _ ii ` _:. .,~, ~p , O ~ 4: ~ ~ pE - , .~ 1~ s i i L,..' - 'r ~ O -_ ~ ~ __ v~` „~~ ~ ?~ - ~ ~, , ~ v ~ ~ ~~ ~~ Z ~+ ~ ~:m~HL < y~ ~z ~ t V ea-'s.p 0 ^ .~ ~ ~ ~, • ~ L .3 .. w ~ ~, ~~ ~-~ O ~ z ,~ ~~- „_ ~ ._ z Z ~ a ~~~•a,~~ } _ _ L `~ ~ A ~ ~ k-~ c~ ~ , ~. v,. ^C~ C ~~ W ~. _ ~ ~ V i.. ~ Q oe4~ooQx CNUR~M . `~d °~ a ~ V a , ~• ~ V J W` 1~ SJ~'~ • 4~ r M'N~lir 15 • 1.J ~ ' ~< ~;~ " d N1 - - ~. _~. ^~ L ~ ~" ~ T "~ • r ~ ",~ O N O ~ 'a :rte .~ = ' ~ ~ ` ' ,h :.,: C y ~ Gi C ~ o ~ , , .y oa ~..~-~- y L ~ > _ ~ 3 ~. L ~~. .~ ~.. __- c _k C • ~: N o V .~ t ~ ~ ~{,~~ ~ L " ~ 3 ~;~ ~ _ _ -_ ~ V~' ,C y O , .mac 'v as N ~ -.~. __ ; ~ i ~ ~~~:.. ~ V '~ w ~.~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ `1r ~ ~ -~ ~ . Q '~ .~ Q ~ ~ ._.._ ~' C~ ^ N N ~,, ~ ~ k ~ ~ O c . ~• ~ A 3 ~r } ~. 'v.a,x~ ~ _, fix: ~~ r~ • ul • O ~ G ~: ~ . 0 Q • 0~4~ooox cNUrt~a • rya ~ V ,Wn f~~' - t ~ O Wa ~ s e ~~' ~*t ~~'-'x~yv i5 . 41 o .~ ~- ~ ~ _ °' ~ c ~ ~ o ~ ~ Q ~ ~ oooX cNUSCy o~s~ by e < s _ V J O W ~ r r ~J~'~'~-'H~NV y5 ~ yt ~a • .a~~-+~= ~ ~~ ~ ~%. ~,~5 ~^ ~ ~F ~, ,t'a' ~ ^~` . ~. -=:Z v~: ~ ~` 0 .~..~ ._ ~ to c ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ a ~ oe4~o~pY. CNURCp • `'`d r V N '.4<: ~ t ~ o W ~ tJ tr r ~)~ ~ 9 -+--+ ~ Q ~ .~ L U o a~ ,~ o ~ ~ ,c rn~ o .~ ~ c ~ o ~ U "''' ~ C ~ ~ N ~ C ~ ,~ ~.- to M O ~I d~ V m L ~. ~ ` ~ e F - r, ~-. ~.` ~ , ~. ~- ~ .~ L .~ V ~ . ~ i ~ a n ~ may, cxu~y oe4~,c • ~~ ~ $ ~ V ~ o ~~ ~ . ~J~'~~'y~tlr 15 ~ St L V d~ ~ U m • • Wl ~ • • %, 3 x L ,. ~,, O ~ . ^ ~ ~~ O L Q oax cNURCy ~ ~o s° y N ~_.~~,~_ ~ < J O WL ~ S r J~ y'~ • '"re~tiv ss d~ V m "1~~ d~ ~ V m a~ ~ H ~ f- ^A a~~ e~ ~.~. L~ ~ R ~ _ b ~`^yfT~-`ma'r. _ ~ _ V y..~ ~ k b... N 3 ~ s: q: 1 ~ _. ~ O ~ - ~. ~ ' O . . ~ ~. ~.~. ` ^~ ; I ,I ~- , ~ - ~ _~ V ~~ ~ ~ ~r t O ~ ~ ~ s L ~ ~ ~~~ Q ox ceuecy a 6: r V M .._~t,r... - y~ ti o f 'r J~'~ • 4 r ~'X~1W 1S • • ~~ _ ~ - ~'. ~. ~ ~. ~ .~ L; V .~ ~. _~ ~ 0 ~ V ~ L . Q o~4roQpy,CNUR~y • `fd • ~ e i r V N ,_~e < J ~ V ry` ~O f _ ~~'HJb~ is • ~l Attachment 4 ~. o u z F _ W CD W G ~ W vi ° ~ ~° C.7 0 x ~w" O ~ ~ N ~ ,. a ~ ° ~ ~' L~ U ~ p h Rnn ~ •J O O O ] 'O '~ A O O ¢ vI oo Q ~ Z ~. Z rn rn z F. O ~ z ~ ~ ~ A V x ¢ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ " ~ a~ z¢a z a ~za o~ ae¢ .a ~` o-~a g-~a ao~ °w x°U ~txv ~ ~v z~z ~Q F ~~ Q ~ O .a v~ O _o vi a z 0 a w O a _ a - - -- ----- a- z ~ A 0. U a ~,; z a z ~¢¢ ~ w o ~ z z z o z~~~ F, O ¢ z z z z F~ a ,¢.~ ~> O A~ a U W H z E^ z O p W W F z }, y' ~-' C/~ ~ z iZ ~ W ~ z ~ O .a z W Q Q Q Q Z U ~ O ~ vxi C7 Q w .T ~.' v~ x C7 Z pZp Z Q.' z V C; PC ~ ,~ U U U ~. U z ~ Z W z ~ W .a ~" v~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ H ~ A [ W W O ~ z w ~ u v W A~ w~ U v U w u~ a a a ~ x A ~ "~ F ,O^ U ~ W ~ .-~ W ~ r,,. N M V v7 ~O [~ 00 T. O .-. N V , c" i.4 ii _ - 1! O 'r ar 1 ~ ~~~. ~'''"~i~..`.~ Vii- ~-.~~ v~ ~~ ,1 ~~ ,k J ~- N O V^ 1 -{'~ ,..f ln-_, ~ `i ~ 1 . I .-~`\ ~.:•` C/~ g E E ~E E E E .__ - - - -_ __~_ _- __ / ~ r ~ - _ _-~ ~-.__ e_ E a a a a a a _ --___.-_ - - ~ '_ T ~ - z ' - W -- : 1 '~i\\~ l~f ~ ~~' ~~'~J t i\ J! l ~:\ _ 8 a 8 S S S O ` /X ',/'~'~~:~ \`. ;E. ill; ~~~_ _,-L-~i L~Z M A ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ w AQ O V 1 ~ ~~ A _ F- d ~ ~ w o 0 o a¢ a o °zo w w ~ O~-~ w w ~' z A¢~ vzi ~ uw, A A w F¢ a ~ A a ~ `~' ¢w~ ¢~O w N z N O O a ~O~ WC7U N~~~ M M¢ ~ O a ~www 0~~~~ wwF" uN-~00' ~ o `/ ~ L u, u. [~ ~ ~ rn oWC ° N ° ° ~ ~ A OO O ~ a A0.Q' w0.' W w w w w ~ F. F' f~1 A d r~ ¢¢a¢ ww~ ~~c7 z W W F U ~ cvWc~1 vW~ O O a O U ~ ~ ~ ~ Q0.x~Fx ~~~ U~ ~C a! O'C'O'C' U m s s~ W ¢cKwa o~~ o fk ,_, U U ~ o~ o a ~--~ CJ _ N~ ~ a. U d0. ~ O v W O z a~ °` M M ~ ~ N `' v x a °w z ? ~ ~ ~~ ~ a x~~~ w¢° a ° n c d zU 00 w M ~^• ~n v O F ~Z~F LL.dQ [A U E- w x 3 ~ O U~X~ O¢U Z ~ C7 Q w U ~ w A O ~~ 3wrxv E=a~z O ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ w zo o p O rci¢~~~ z ~ a C~" wzpW:a~' ¢>>-a'~C ~ C7 Q ~ d X O0.' FO ~ ~ Q O w W Q ~ ~ ~ >< C/~ F ~ ~ ~ ~ ? ~ P0.p.. a a z¢ v~ E• w a E- z ~ G? ~ w O X cx ¢ W O O~Ow Q~va, z,~ w pW a ~, ~ ~~a Uwa ~ A w x O 3 ~ O a v~ x Q ¢ Q Z ~ ~ rn E., vWi wA0~0 ~jU~ N V O U L:l W W O O ,.., U W O p; ~ u, W cC oC cK A X C7 O ~ = Ow~a 0.w¢W A zz~ N ¢¢¢C~ uw. ~ > W a x W F F H v' O O O 3 O O ~ w Q °• c~.~~v0.i ¢~a.0 rE.a k X ~z E- OOOa ~ °• ai x ~ w w w a! ~ ~ u. u. ¢ ¢ as ~ A. F -- N waez=~ - eaoz 'so ~•~ 6.~-tl3~OJ-dflJ \E"`P\tl0{Of0\I!^!~\ ~G -a~~ 6u~..oip ~~i 0 C_-o ~ ~ ~ ~. V ` ~ c ,., ,_ o .- a~ Y L f0 ~„ U C m a ._ O M U pp j ~ 0117 U 00 ~aa,~oo~ ° c ~E ui c ° o ~E_~ ° PEVOOQ ~_ 't°1°U 0 U ~ o ^"-' m O N ~ ~ LL LL m U ? ~ gt3 Z a d ~ c o '- a z g ~g T ~ ~ ~ V W s ~ s 0 o U e U V ~ F F - F Z F F _ _ _ _ R - o i I I ~ I I W I r V J i I I ~ 3nN3~y - 3~b'4N ~~~ y ;m ~- N .- N 0 N N ~ ° o z n a~ ~~ ~ 4 ... Y ~p _ Rya ~ >x t 4 ~ __ i S ~~j""~ ~~ ~ , . ~~=~~. m ~-=~~~ g ~ ~~m ~ ~, ,, y m m Z Z U wm= °' ~ ~ U ~ .~ X ~ w Q z o c n =JO ~'~ e ~ ~ z ~ Uw ~ ~ a oo Qi ~~ ~4z z~ Y c~n~p ~N w~a 3 y _ r° w ': -. ~ ,~ ,~?~ o ~ ~S .~ ~. ~ ~.. x ~' l0~ J a 2 p - Wra r maw c~c~ ~a¢ zza - F y W ~.:-._ n .:: ~~~' a ~ ~ _' W d , ~ ~ 77bg13~ z _ Sbg ~ . ~- ° _ _ i . 3 -Lf.Z£!9- __ -_ _... _. ~..._... m ~ m ~ Q NQ Z NQ Z ~--7 ~ ~~7 ~~ ~~ H ~~~ ~_ 1 ~~' 7 ~b^ g~ z x ° a w Z Z~ W C ~ N }Z1r~ m m/' 2 0~=~ w09Z~1 - 9002 'SO ~^f fiMP'L133H9 \fix.P\tlOfOfO\M!0\ -0 ~ol'J fi~nwo~0 ~~~' ~~~r ~~~~~ m ~ ~, ~ ~ > ~~ ~~'=~ - ~ ~ b t ~ icy ~ ~ ~i~ _ ~ - ~ - ~-~ s-- x f ~ ~ ~b .. ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~m ~ ~.. ~ a .. ~ ~ b ~ ~ ~ 3 /} J ~_ ~ _ ~ n W N O m ~ g m a ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ _ _ .h t, $'e • M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C Y •~ O U C •- a~ +' C ~ L ~ ~ -~ m a ._ c ui ~ E i~io°o $ ~pQ moo ~~~~~~ moo ? ~ = U ~ ~ C ~ m U ° c H LL c ci E -- -J s LL m U ~ c ~ Za~ P Z o Q~~~ ~~~~ U C Vii Z Z NU I..L Q _M Wm= ~ ZWU ¢.~ X E m ,o ~ ~ Z m 2 J v Q = ° o o °- a Y U~ ~~ ~ o W ~ c O t N T O g N ee O F o W Z Z Y O U ~ ~ ~ w ~ w ~ ' w ~ - Q 3 ~ ~ w O ~ } 0 0 ~ ~ w w p w ~ O ~ ~ ~ U W U Q w > W > Z O Z O Q (/J ' V7 O O IW~ Ow U ~ ~ (7 C7 C7 (7 (.7 C.7 Q Z Z Z Z Z Z H F H F- F- F- N - W N !n Vl fn V1 In Q !E Mf ~ W W W W W W C7 ' eW N ~ ....._ 3nN~ny 0 oM L~m'p+ ~ O M M1 ~ 0 ~ ~ yt~ 0 ~~vv p 0 q ~~JJ C ® h ~ ~ ~ [~~+ _ ~ m R .____ 2 N ~ R a a ~ F g8g i6 0 o 0 ~ 0 m a 0 ~ ~ o ~ pgp~} !°1 ~~yt e! ~ p F $ c~ o ~ m 8 $ ~+ ~ ~ ~ F I N ~ N g ~ ~ ! ~ S~~ ~ ~ $ `.~i o ~ r~ S Q ri M i ai ~ - S ~ $ 4 i a r ~ O ~q m ~ ~ IJI ~ w a ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~~ ~ _ ~ a ~ i ~ LL ~ LL ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v f~ m c ~- ~ Fn ~ q 7 ~k ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~j ~ 444 J ~ N ~ ~ J Q 6i ~ ~ K ,e 'o. 5 ~ ~ ;t Ci ~ a x ~ rn ~ _ _.___ ~ ~ a Q a m ~ ~' ~ ~ $ ~ ~~ a ~+ g gl. a u~i ai _~J ~ ~ , ~ // ~ ~ e, d_ - ~• - - __ - - ' - -'- _ - I - - _. _ -__. f /.1 -. aaR9.,n_ .6 Vr- ~~ T - ~I'"'~I I m ~I I I ,. Sri u `°°ma =~ o on n v' ; aim ~ ~ °CO° n - `o$ m ° ._ ° ° c _ ° a ~ oE< m ....... L ........................ ___....... .. ...... ...... ._..__ C m ._ r o.o nt ~° ~~ r$~z .E Y °a a E c°Y h o c °Uo Fg° ~a~ s~ ~n WN y ~- , i'- ,. - -..; _.,- .. i ~ \ ~ -4 o ° ° 3 N~ ov p p v - vio°S $ O° ._ ~ oc orco ~.. ~- ~€a __ " nm°ao $ V°cad Q$ n£NCO m u~°c ° ,~ O o oE N p N m " ~ c o•~ ~O r t ~ j P m ~ u o y m E ; o t$ y -~G Z _ nc;3 n $ °e~a ~ TiE ~ O {~ .S^sou~. E Tiq° m~- ° $ $g=` Cv°o4 n 5066 ~ c °n °` .n E ° " oe° eo °~Y "~ c c ~o~ ~ ~ _~ ° m = ~ n Y&°r ~Y. ~o~m °m c°'n ~~to~c o.. o.. ° goo ~ n~;e ` rnoo rn ~ c €y u ~ °a°$ ~oBI~i ~ d G•-m ~u ~c ~c_•= ° .~~mv Ym m P 0 -nom own m 6 ~ ~a'c n' t~ € E ° -ga ~ocm m ~ ~ ~_ O m p 9 ~~0.O 7° P = ~L ~ m yU~ 9V°p,m > of ~~g~ ..: .... _.......__. 2' Y.. .. .gym ..~ ° m v n oumm Q L = ..b o am5cc n n aoo Fi as n'3 a o M 1 in ~Op° wdZZ~l - 9ppZ 'Sp u^I' b•P'f133~f9 \b•P\tlpfpfp\l^!J\~D ~aii~ bu!•o.p • • • a v m h L ` ~ C r ,_ o U C •- N ~- y C s m .. U - C L ca a ._ ymU C > ~ O O ~~¢ boo ~ 9i c E Iti ui 2 `~ E:~~~~ E E V o 0 5 ~~~ '~ _ ~ ^. m ~c~l E~~~ C LL m Z U Q ~ J M~M T~ ~ W W = C UW~ ~~ ~ O O ~ Q= O o ~ V ~ ° 0 Y n C/~ ~ Q U- O 0 N o ~~ ~`2 ~o ~- - -~ /' / `~ Z ~ q a I t 1 ~ c J ~ n ~ ~N o ~g ~ n ~ n ~ \ / n O n _ ~ n ,~-.£b .Z-,Lf T ~ ~ y~ i ~ / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ JG ~ J< O y 6'Ip mn X p~ W~N ` ~ ~ r N / ~ ~~ / ~~ ~~ ~~ ~^ ^~ ~^ N ~~~ N ` ~ N ~ n / ~ ~ n ~ o ~ y ~ rn n II n Ol / N Z N ~ n ~ ~ I I O N O N n ~ O, ' ' ~ ~ ~ Oi C S ~ + ~ N ~ u] + O N O O, n / O, n n * O + ~ 0 + ~ 0 b ,O ~ N O N M `` ~~_~ ~ ~ S ^ n• t ~ + N ~ N ^ ^ Y N p, aD + + O Vl N ~ + ~ + o Q N N N ~ U`CU` N~ ~ ~ t M a a ~N ~ p N am '~ ~m ~~ N H L O t ~ ~N L d O L g ,l-~ l4 ~ V III ~~~ III µ o g o Q W ~ ~ `5 ~ .£-,9S Q ~~ < a Z • • • I ~ ~ y 7 ` C ` ,,., O ~ U C •- •- c ~ L (0 , U w C m a ._ U C ui ~ E m >~i°oo m _~¢~ app c ~ c E~vi c ES~~Qi EE~ooa '~_ ~~~m o O N ~ yLL ~ LL m /~ - - ~\ ~ ~ ~ a E- D n E w a > ~ 9 ~ gm ? O V J 0 N ' O }~ Z 6 ~ ~ ~ O Z g 0 0 Z U Q J M_M T~ W W = ~ C Z W U ~ ¢' 'E Z Q cn U W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ? U '~ `° Y (J ~ Q ~ ~ ~ r - - I I N I + I ~w a 9 I - - ~ I I 9~ I I --~~-- ---- ~---- -JL- I T a I I s I I I ~ I / \ i I ~ ~ ~~ ~ I I ~ o ~ I I ~ ~ " ~ ~ N I ~ I a 9 w~ f 9 I ~ / I I ~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~ ~ i I I ~ I I I ~g I I I I I I I I N I E= I I I ~ ; ~ I I I I ~ i --~ i g I I l I I 0 9 " I ~ " I I I I I I I ~~ I I I ~W I ~~ I ~ I i I I I I I E s I " I ~ T /~ n~\ c~ 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I I I I T~ IN nil I I " I ~/ I ~ I I I I I ~g I " I I 4 • • • J Q ~ ~ y ~ ` c _ rn ~ E ~ ~_ Q ~ r C ~ i~°oo $ c O W Z J U '- C ` c ~E vi ~ci ~c ~ E~~~o p p W ~ L f0 '~ a c m ~ Z .. M -- ^ ~ L~ Oo ~ ~ aN~ .-~ W W ~ ~. •- ~ LL m ~yf W O Z m~ ~ ¢ _ u-i O~O~O ZC~~Q~ ZUN I..L J W m = C C.7 ~ (,> X > .~ C~ Z Q (~ Uw o ~ p ~~ O O ~ ` V~ ~ ~ ~~ / '' t W J Y ~~ O ~ N W N O z' 0 0 N yy Z 6 ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~~ e 0 e O Q w J W W 3 ~I O w z O a ~~, w 0 z w J ~ ~ C ~I ~~ e O 9 Z F J W Q w ac a w ac z O Q w 0 ~s' .~~ `~1 ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i i . J J a ` ~ ~ ~ H M E c ~ _ N °_ V a~~oo~ u'~n ~' z~~ C N ~ 0 o o ~~ c ~ E:g O ~ ~=W 4 .-~ U o o i Z l ` - C ~ LL c c~ E ~..~ ~ _ . ~W O ~ fC d .. c LL m J ~.1~ N Q Z m ~ o~o~o zc~~ar- 2 Z U Q~ _..1 - ~ ~ ~~U ~( > ~ Q ~ " Z J Q ~ N O "_~O .CO ~ Z ~~ c~w ~ d Q = O O ~ ~ Y CJ~ ~ Q "' W W O °o N W Z a~ ~~ ga. FA-•~l A .Z O Q J W Z 0 o~ w t z m o +~ ~$~ ~ cn ~ z ~~ ~ 3 ~~ ~ O ~ ~~ 3 ~~ J W W ~~~ W ~~~ _ U a ~-.9 .6-.B 3~ a ty ~~~ z ~-.a ~ 0 0 _ __~ ~ ~ I I 4 I I .; I J - o • w O J w 2 Q ~ p-~B ~j ' Q !~ Z Q J W 0 i a w i z VJ Z >Q W J W H W 3 0 z a a w 0 ~~ i . N ~ N ~ ` C ` ,•, O _ V •- C ` '~ ~ ~, r m tl w C ~a a ._ c ~ $ ~ > ~ o° o ¢ ~ o o c E ~i vi 2 E:~~~~ E E~ o o ~ ~_ -~~'~ o~~~m c E ~ O N LL {n Z NU I..L •~ wm= Z w U ~ ' . a E QUO =J ~ ~~ ~ Z Uw O ~ O ~ Q== ~ ~~ a ~ V~ C~`o ~°O U W Y ~ ~ O o O to ~ N i O 00 O N w ~ and r9i `~ eo Q X F W U W ~ Q Q z z z p O z ~ I u1n11 ~ I °C z I el ~I b I I II II I 1 bl~l tl b ~ w 11111111 i gl~l gl ~1 ~I ~I b g~ $ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - '- - - Z I I I I I I I 1 Z Z v O I I I 1 F W I I I I W I I I I ~ Z I I I I it II I I I II 1 ~I ^.I b 5i ~ NI al ~I I I I m 1 ~I ~I ~I~i ~I ~I ~I or I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I I I I I I 1 ~I ~ b ~I @I ~ ~ R n ~1 ~I ~I ~1 ~I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ R R ~ t Z Z ~~~oe c ~~~~m e ~ ~ :a 9939998 x b b ~ ~Yb7tibbLh ~~n__ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~n~ ~ o~ ~~a~~~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,,, ~,~ N ~ c ~, O U C •- +~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ O C co a ._ C m E m>~oo $ oQ W°O c ~ E:~~~~ EEvooa =o~~m O .O.N ~Fli ~ LL m U R ? c g{~ Z a tl ~, ~ o E Z= ~ aW~ H s ~ ~ U o~ V~ ~' 2 Z U _Q W m = c 0 C~ ~ U > .~zn 'n Q ~ X ~ O 'V 'V Uw ~ ~~ z O Q== ~~ ~?z d d cn~p "' l~Ll~ N r O Z s ~ ~_ ~_ ~~ ~ 0 n N !/'. a • aa~A `~. ~~ ~ =4 ,... ~ d... ~' . ___. n ~ M.._ ~ • tr _ ., .., -- - -- .~ - ~ e. ~ _~ ~~ n ~_ 1~ ~~ ~a Aa u ~ • /~ _, _ _ , • ~~~ 9e~ - - ~ • , , - , ~> 8 g 4% }. , ~ - ~ /' - 1~- .. .. . ~ ~ ' a a .. e g. , ~ , '~ • ~ A ~ ~C _ ~1 ~ ¢ ~ i S O ~ 4 ^a a `a ~ ~ ° ~ r i IL g~ ~ ~ t f .. .~ ; is ~ _ ~ ~ L ~ ~ t S ~ i ~ _ ~ .. ~ N 3 ~- . :_ - ._ . - -~ " ~ ~ -~ ~ - • ~ Gie I I dl j p U \\~ ~ ~ `~ e ~ ~. ~~~_~ { J 3' A! ~`\ tl Epp W &F ~a~ ~ ` _~ ~~ a _ ._. ~. _ ~ .66 i `_ i ~ ~ ~ ~ o o a ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ o o C x ~ ~ u i F Z U U Z F p w F w F w F w F w F w V .. F; i 1 3 w w J ~~ ~ ~ s ~ ~~ ~ ......___.. 3 _ _. _.. ..~ ... :~ 1 ~ ....._. ~' __'~-.~ is h - .L_ ~- -._.__ .._._ - ~ ,a ._...... . ~• ~. as _ -~.~~. ~ , - o~ A ~ ~ -~-,._ a c~ - _ ~... J° `` ~, _. `~~ ~_ ~?. i~ o F X~ ~ I^7~ WU N \ \. `,~ d a ~.a ~ a ~ q~~ a__, nAl 11 I ~~ . ~ ,. '' I . _ _ 0 s ~ a ~ ~ . , ~ _~~ .CF, Z s. _ ~'AlS .ltcv.M ~8 ASS • ~ " ._. e - - ._....._._.. .~~ ~ A• &$ ~~ ~ b • • N (n W W ~ ~ U U O ~ 8 ..i ~ ~ N ~ \` I ~~ ~ ~ Y ~ a iA O ~ m 4 ~ an ~ S ~ Z ~ [a O a ~~ ~ R ~ ~..........._...__..a' v W ~ ~ ~ w (n (n q ~ Q Z O fi ~ a ~ O w a anNan~ ~1~QN~~~b' . _._ _._._._. ,., _~.~_ ~ .._ __ ~ _ .. ~ _ z_ _ ; _. ~ .._ .A ~ ~~ -_ __ a ~ ~ ~~. _ o _ p w .,~ -a R y y' ,. , Af. i~- ~ w.~~ ... /'mow u p ~/~ `` ... L e~ d wasz:~ - eooz •so ~~ s.v~e~~vo,n \e.a\vaoca\ua~\:o :ou e~~.o,a • a~ rn ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ` w ~ E w C W >~°oo $ SEET ~ ~ $ O a~ o o ~ ~~` '~ ._ c U •- c E ici vi 0 gc5~ +O•' C y P E~j~ooa ~WC? ~ ~ ~ , ~ 11 ~ L N ~o cin~m ~ `oi ~I $ / O2 ` - C a N E .-.- 3sNao ~ti~ $ ~' ~ i m ~~ Z U Q J ~ wm= c N Z W U ¢' •~ ~ X O ~ Q~ z _~ ~ ~ Uw ~ ~~ O a° ~ = d O Q = Cn ~ Q ~ N N ~ O O 8 N N Z J_ _ ~~ ~~ ~o _, ~ y a _ ~` O 3 0 w /; Y O a „~ o ~ ~ d 3 O W d' N Q Q X .~.^ V, O V^~"I a ,~"" ~ . - a" m ~ _ - _ 3~N3/1b 37baN377b' n _ ~ _ N ~ a - / m .__..... '.. 7 ~ .. `_, N - ~ - ...... -~ .. i' __ \ \ N a ~ U 1 O N z 0 ~~ cn U ~ O~ m m ~ Q O Z ~ w W } V U ~ ~ N ~ W .. o ~ ~ ~ d w w ~ w ~ Z ~ a ~ W W ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~~} In ~~ ~ m a o w w ~ ~KQ Q p Z ,.__..-, __ W W / N .J S ~ __ ..O VI d 8 m U7 U U ~-~ a IJ W m W --W~ - ~a'LO . `" ~ _l,, i; \ o ~ ... ~ -~ i ° -- o- W v ~ zz v~ ° e w ~~~~-;~ as O W ..__.. . ° ~ ~.. \ ~ .' ~' Z W _ m a? 1 N~ ° ° w ~° i' x a d0 N~~ I \ Z ' 1 °.. ._.._ ,O V . Q ° ~°-_- -ZO v o FFa. ~.p o X~ ° a .- ~.._. ' W, Y ............ as ~, I, _. 00 ~~r I / ,`--. m ° ;,. -.,o V __... /~ ° ~ \ .' _ 0 __ °. W J Q v < j 10 OYY .-Op ~ Q , O //1- N \ Y O 1 Y '-t r ~ a O Ya ~ O I °° °° ~ ~- v e Q ° N Q v O Up~® ~~ ~ O U W O ~~~ ~ ~~__ r~_ _ - O k ~ 3 O _ ~ V ~ ~oJ ~, m Q a ~ __ ~ ,_ ..__.. /', /~ N\ W - ~`. W W S' ', R i W _-.., -~ -, ~ o ~\ •-. % w o °. a c~ , p a a w w z Z w ~ a a ~,~ $. \ m ,. W _ i~ v ~-_ F f0 a O w w W~W t0 J M ~ m r'~ ~ -a ~, • - -.,,• ~ w° oa; ~ e a m ` w / ~ \ ', w w w - .._. - _' " ~ -" a `, _. = . ~ a> ~ .n ~ ~ `. w O O ` . ~ Y ' NUW f D _-~ W K o ~ O ~ w w m ~~ ~ O ~ 8 ' ~ 'Z ~ - "I ~~ m i Z L ~~ mai~~ a 0 ~ w W m I w I a O Z a U ~ x v ° ~p 0 o I /._....... o ® ® O 0 .\ O /,.... .^ a O • /, Q z ; _._• a , . ; .-sx..... ~~' a \. ®_: ~m ,~' z~~: w i a `~'__ a i ~ti~• a~1 ' ^a .. w \\\ i' ~ a N -' N `\ i Z ~`.lis 6 . ~~ ~ U - y C ~ ~ ` w ~ E ~. C O `-0 6 ~ °o °o m t~~Sf Ct ~~i ~~~._ U '- ~ c E vi ui c ~~~ ~ ,' - ~ S c ! ` C w N ~ ~ LL ~ "~dj~~ .LP ~ ~ F3 3 e m y o w / `\ ;' ~, O Q , M O w .• 6 ''~ ~F. wl J w x U Z g Z U ~ /~/~ W•••~ ~ ~~U z ~..~..~ Q .N Q ~ ~ ~ O ~ n C = J - v ~ U W 0 ~ ~_ Q (D . d T Q= Z O ~ Q U_ ~ `° ~ Y ~ C Q ~ x ~ ~ _ 3~N3^b a y 8 ~ ~~ ~ o ~ ~ Z ~ ~ 37bpN3~lb U ~ y K ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ U ~~ ~wal g R ~ 7I ~ ~ • ~~ _._ w3 Q 8I 8 N N N N N 8I N b N N ~ N N ul N N N ~oI F t u w it Y 3' S a g. ~ a 9 a ~ ~ a B ~ ~ a ., .. ~ ~ .. a ~ W o _ ~ a ~ ~ O N ~ m -~ a ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a _ a > ~ ~ S E g S ~ Z 8. 3 a ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ € ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ 3 g ~ ~ s g ~ ~ W 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 's `s ~ ~ Wi o ~- o 0 0 ~® ~ 0 ~~~~~ ~ ooo~oa~ __, _ ......_, Q ~_x__a~ ~ N~ ~ /~ N~ ~['~~3 i _ L m ~._. . ., 'a: d d ~ ~ O o W ~ a o Q X Q -.~ ~~- 0 ~`~~ _ t ~Y` ~~ 3 ~ _ U ~ ~ ~ a 5 ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ ..: O W C_1 S \\\\ \\\L1, a 3 W N p ~ -+ E O S N g N ~ _ q J yZ O ~ ~ < S ,; ~,® O a '~ Nag' r ~ • ' ~ ' '~~ hg r m~ -_ w~~. IX• N~ :~ I . U' ~ d Q~i wl U O .. V i va. _._. ~ g a ~ I `: Z o ,~ ^ ° a o Nava --'"I Z ~ m ^° o. x~ m ilL a ~ ~i ~ ` ® _ a ~ - -' ~- QQ a v > X a~ _.._ m l o a. ~~ 0 v v O 0 o - - - ~ v d1 /I al { ~ V a m ., i~ ......~ a • • • 's ti N ~ N c ~ py O C ~ ~ i~i°oo $ ^~ .+ .- O p¢ moo ~ ~• o v U •- H c ~ E ui ~ ~c ~ C ~ `~ E °~~Q~ ~~~ oc~ C N o m~~ina t m ~; ~ ~ c -- -- m U O c c N E F LL 1. ~. .- m LL 6~~~ ~~ ,. 2 Z U LL J MM W W = C ~~U ~ Z W ¢' `~ O w W Q CJ~ O N =J O ~U O = ~ a d O Q= -~ w ~~O N r 0 N N ~~~~~ f c L' C i 4 r c c f V I _..._. ....... _. {L Z • • ~ CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Manny Cappello, Joyce HIava, Jill Hunter, Robert Kundtz, Susie Nagpal, Yan Zhao and Chair -Linda Rodgers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 24, 2006 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF: REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 8, 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, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR - None PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. 1. APPLICATION #04-189 (389-46-013- &013) -SUB-ACUTE, 13425 Sousa Lane: The applicant has made changes to the project site's landscaping, which are not in compliance with an approved site plan and modify the site plan to add a children's play area to the rear-yard. The Planning Commission will consider amending the approved site plan to allow for the changes or require the applicant to comply with the approved site plan. The site is zoned R-1 10,000. (Therese Schmidt) Item to be continued due to noticing error. 2. APPLICATION #06-208 (517-38-005, 517-38-006, 517-38-007) -WOODS, 15595 Peach Hill Road: Between June 9, 1999 and January 12, 2000, the applicant received Planning Commission approval for all required entitlements for this project and had commenced construction. However, due to inactivity, -the building permits expired, which in turn voided the Planning Commission approval of all entitlements. The applicant is now ready to resume construction and is requesting that the Planning Commission approve the following entitlements that were previously granted: (1) Design Review Approval to construct a 6,769 square-foot, two-story residence. (2) Use Permit approval to allow a water tank within the rear setback and an emergency generator. (3) Variance approval to allow retaining walls in excess of 5 feet in height. (4) Grading Exception approval to allow grading in excess of 1,000 cubic yards for a parking lot on an adjacent 6.2-acre parcel. The project site is 10.8 acres and is located in the Hillside Residential zone. (Suzanne Thomas) APPLICATION #06-323 (517-10-005) - SLOAN (applicant)/ROBINSON (owner), 14524 Oak Street: The applicant on behalf of the owner is requesting Design Review Approval to construct atwo-story home that will have 2,521 square feet of living area with an attached 488 square foot garage. The maximum height of the home will be approximately 26 feet and will be situated on a 19,391 square foot vacant lot situated behind another lot fronting Oak Street that is the site of an existing two-story historic home currently being remodeled. The property is located in the R-1-10,000 zoning district. (Lata Vasudevan) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - None COMMUNICATIONS - None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, June 28, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerk@saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II). Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Abby Ayende, 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 June 8, 2006 at the oj~ce of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.saratoga.ca.us If you would like to receive the Agenda's via a-mail, please send your a-mail address to planningna,saratoea.ca.us • • MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Rodgers called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cappello, Hlava, Kundtz, Absent: Commissioners Hunter and Nagpal Staff: Director John Livingstone, Associate Planner Suzanne Thomas, City Arborist Jonathan Wittwer PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Rodgers and Zhao Planner Therese Schmidt, Assistant Kate Bear and Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of May 10, 2006. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kundtz, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of May 10, 2006, were adopted with con-ections to pages 8 and 18. (5-0-2; Commissioners. Hunter and Nagpal 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 May 18, 2006. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Rodgers announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050(b). CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 24, 2006 Page 2 *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #06-314 (5.03-75-0171 SABELLA, 21771 Congress Hall: -The applicant requests an exemption to fence requirements enclosure of an area in excess of 4,000 sq. ft. in Hillside Residential Districts to allow for construction of 6-foot high fence, consisting of both chain link and tubular steel, enclosing approximately 11,251 sq. ft. of the rear yard. The lot size is 48,447 square-feet and the.site is zoned Hillside Residential (HR). (Therese Schmidt) Associate Planner Therese Schmidt presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking an exception to fencing requirements to allow an enclosure in excess of 4,000 square feet on a Hillside Residential District. • Described the proposed fence as being five-feet high tubular steel. The request has been reduced to one that would enclose 8,651 square feet of a 48,000 square foot lot. Additionally, the original proposal consisted of a combination chain link and tubular steel. When advised by staff that chain link fencing was prohibited in this Zoning District, the applicant changed the fencing materials to consist only of tubular steel. • Stated that staff is recommending denial of this exception and that no CEQA review has been done nor is required. • Informed that Section 15-29.020-c allows a Fencing Exception to be granted by the Planning Commission for an enclosed area in excess of the 4,000 square feet allowed under the Hillside Zoning. • Reported that staff is unable to make any of the three required findings to support this exception. One finding allows an exception if it can be demonstrated that visibility of fencing can be reduced by existing topography, landscaping, etc. That is not the case here. Another finding would allow an exception if said fencing is needed for safety reasons. Since there is already required fencing around the pool that already exceeds 4,000 square feet in enclosed area, this finding is not met. Another required finding might be that an exception has been granted for a neighborhood area. That is not the case here. • Added that this fencing request is not in compliance with the intent of the General Plan for rural areas. There are visual impacts. It is not in compliance with the Hillside Specific Plan. • Recommended denial. Commissioner Hlava asked if just one or all three findings had to be made. Planner Therese Schmidt replied at least one of the three required findings must be made in the affirmative. Chair Rodgers asked about CEQA requirements if the Commission elects to grant this fence exception. Planner Therese Schmidt said that it would fall under a Categorical Exemption but deferred this to the City Attorney. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 24, 2006 Page 3 City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that this is request clearly falls under Categorical Exemption. Chair Rodgers opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Jerry, Reed Associates Architects: • Explained that the Sabellas came to him a couple of years ago to design a pool that works well with the Hillside. • Said that they are concerned about the current fence location and approval for fear that it could look like a cage or sports court and would distort views. • Reported that one neighbor describes it as San Quentin. • Said that if the approved fencing were installed in the approved location, it would be visible from many locations. • Assured that it would be less visible if it were to be relocated as they are requesting this evening. • Pointed out that only 17 percent of this land would be enclosed within fencing. • Added that as proposed, the fencing would not impede the migration patterns of wildlife. • Stated that this proposal this evening is the best alternative for the community. Commissioner Cappello asked for clarification as the drawing states that one of the reasons why this proposed fencing is required is due to sloping terrain. At one point in the fencing area, it is felt that it would be easy for a child to hop the fence and access the pool. Mr. Jerry said yes, they wanted to avoid that possibility. He added that the fencing would not be visible as they are proposing tonight. Ms. Lori Burns, Resident on Congress Springs Lane: • Stated that she is on the Board of the Saratoga Heights Homeowners Association. • Pointed out that there are covenants in the CC&Rs that require changes to architecture be funneled through the Homeowners Association's Architectural Review Board. • Advised that there has been no contact by the applicant to the HOA about this project. Neighbors have not been directly involved and that is a significant problem. • Asked that the Commission take the existing CC&Rs into consideration. • Pointed out that many people these days are considering solar panels. That issue would also need to be considered by the HOA Architectural Review Board. Commissioner Zhao asked Ms. Lori Burns if she has seen the fencing design. Ms. Lori Burns replied no. She added that a message has been sent to all owners reminding them of the need to use the HOA's Architectural Review Board for any architectural changes to their property. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 24, 2006 Page 4 Director John Livingstone pointed out that CC&Rs are a private matter between property owners. It is the homeowner's responsibility to deal with their HOA. The City does not enforce the CC&Rs. He added that a pool is an over-the-counter permit as long as it meets Code and such permits are issued without Planning Commission review or noticing. Ms. Lori Burns said that she understands that the City is not mandated to enforce CC&Rs. She recounted about one neighbor who needed to obtain neighbor sign-offs in order to change rooflines so it seems odd that neighbor sign off was not required in this case. She said that owners should be encouraged by staff to contact their HOA. Chair Rodgers asked if 500-foot notification distances are determined at ground level or as the crow flies. Director John Livingstone replied as the crow flies. Chair Rodgers advised Ms. Lori Burns that this is the time to express specific objections and asked if she has anything else to add. Ms. Lori Burns said the City might want to consider changing its process in order to require HOA notification. Commissioner Kundtz said that in his experience CC&Rs are recorded and attached to a property's deed. Chair Rodgers asked- the City Attorney to address the issue of City enforcement of CC&Rs. She added that this Commission does consider neighborhood input. Ms. Lori Burns offered the HOA to be used for other decisions to be made in the future. Commissioner Hlava said that she. understands the concerns of the HOA having once been active on an HOA. She asked Ms. Lori Burns if the HOA wishes it had been consulted before the pool was approved. She asked Ms. Burns if she has an opinion one way or the other on the issue of this proposed fence exception. Ms. Lori Burns said that what has been described this evening is different than the description on the notice. Mr. Bob Commins: • Said that he has three concerns including the CC&Rs and HOA, the variations between the description on the mailed notice and that description given during the staff report this evening and the neighbor notification form requirements. • Said that the applicant gave him a form to sign that certifies that he has reviewed the plans and has no objection. • Stated that he is an engineer, "Show me something with more substance." • Added that not enough information has been provided to neighbors to respond to this request to sign off on a consent form. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 24, 2006 Page 5 Planner Therese Schmidt: • Advised that the applicant made changes to their plan after the noticing went out. However, the proposed changes are a reduction so did not require renoticing. • Pointed out that the notice advised the public that the project plans were available at City Hall for their review. • Added that the site was also staked and flagged to outline the proposed fencing for about a week or two. Chair Rodgers asked Mr. Bob Commins if he asked the applicant to see the plans. Mr. Bob Commins said that while he talked to the applicant he saw no plans. Ms. Deborah Sabella, Applicant and Property Owner: • Apologized to the HOA. • Pointed out that she understands there has been just one HOA meeting in the last eight years and that she never received formal by-laws. • Advised that she spoke with Mr. Bob Commins two weeks ago and tried to outline her plans to him. At that time, he did not seem to have a problem with the proposal. • Added that she followed up with a letter and explained that no chain link fencing would . be used and also provided her phone number. • Said that she spoke with Mrs. Commins who said she thought this fence was lovely. • Added that she saw Mr. Commins today and he didn't express concerns. • Assured that she would have provided plans to Mr. Commins if he had asked to see them. • Stated that she has tried to do the right thing here and made the enclosed area small and used better materials. • Said that she doesn't want to look at anything ugly either. Commissioner Cappello: • Expressed appreciation for the efforts made by Ms. Sabella. • Said that the three required findings are based upon visibility and impact on views, safety and previous Planning Commission approval. • Stated that he does not see any safety issues. • Asked Ms. Sabella if-she believes there is a potential safety issue in one area. Ms. Deborah Sabella replied yes. There is one area near the existing patio walls. She added that she believes their new plan presented tonight is more discrete and less visible. Commissioner Zhao asked for the height of the patio wall. Mr. Jerry replied two to two-and-a-half feet. Commissioner Zhao asked if the proposed fence would be eight feet at that location. Mr. Jerry explained that an area is created that can easily be climbed over with the existing approved proposal but that problem would be corrected with tonight's proposal. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 24, 2006 Page 6 Commissioner Kundtz asked Ms. Deborah Sabella if she was previously aware of the CC&Rs. Ms. Deborah Sabella said she is aware of them now. Today is the first day she heard about them. She added that she was living on the east coast when this house was purchased so she is not sure if she ever saw CC&Rs at the time of purchase. Chair Rodgers closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Cappello asked staff to clarify that it does not believe there is a safety concern with the already approved fencing plan. Planner Therese Schmidt said that the applicant does have an option to go up to six-foot height in that area of concern in order to correct any anticipated problems there. Commissioner Cappello asked staff to clarify -that it does not perceive there to be a current safety concern. Planner Therese Schmidt replied not that staff is aware of. Director John Livingstone said that five-foot high fencing is what is required to keep small children safely away from pools. Commissioner Kundtz: • Advised that he is torn on this issue. • Stated that the Commission does not rule based on the CC&Rs but that he does believe that people should comply with CC&Rs when they are in place. • Pointed out that staff's recommendation is for denial of this request. • Said that the current approved plan is an eyesore. • Stated that a solution is need that meets the safety standard and softens the approach. • Said he wants to support this. Commissioner Hlava: • Said that she is not sure there is a safety issue to be addressed here. • Stated that she is real sure that this is not the way the Hillside is supposed to look. • Reminded that this property is already over the maximum of fencing enclosure area allowed with the existing fencing surrounding the pool. • Said that it might be better to run the fence along the property line where oleanders are available to screen it but realizes that is not allowed. • Said that she can make the finding based on visibility as what is proposed here is better than the already-approved fencing plan. Chair Rodgers reminded that -staff has said in the report that planting plants and shrubs creates an artificial screen further affecting the area. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 24, 2006 Page 7 Commissioner Hlava said that she does not see how screening landscaping can have more of an impact that a wrought iron fence. Commissioner Cappello asked what if-the staff recommendation was to be denied? Would a Variance be required to proceed with the proposal for fencing made by the applicant? Planner Therese Schmidt said no, a Fence Exception and not a Variance is what is used for this request. Findings for a Fence Exception are less stringent that those findings required supporting a Variance. Commissioner Zhao: • Said that she too is torn on this issue. • Stated that she agrees with the staff report and cannot make the required findings on the issue of safety. • Added that any fence can be climbed over. It is only intended to keep young children safely away from the pool. • Reiterated that she agrees with the staff recommendation to deny this exception. Chair Rodgers asked if this Fence Exception is denied tonight would the original fencing i already approved for this property be reinstated? '"' Planner Therese Schmidt re lied es. P Y Chair Rodgers asked if the Commission could modify the existing approval. Planner Therese Schmidt said that the planting requirements could be modified to soften the impacts. The applicant can be required to use non-metallic paint. Alternately, the Commission can elect to modify tonight's request to allow a Fence Exception but for a much smaller area. Chair Rodgers: • Said that she agrees with all others on the issue of safety. She cannot make the finding. • Agreed with staff on the issue of reduced visibility as a result of topography and features of the site. • Said that she does not like the approved fencing plan that looks like Versailles. • Stated that she does not like to see large amounts of land on the Hillside fenced in. • Added that the Ordinance limitations are there for a reason. • Said that apart from the fencing needed to secure the pool, excessive fencing would create an atmosphere that is not currently found on the Hillside district. • Said that she cannot vote to approve this fence using vines to create a visual barrier. • .Reminded that there is significant migration of wildlife in this area. Commissioner Cappello: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 24, 2006 Page 8 • Stated that he agrees with the previous statements made and he also agrees with the staff findings. • Said he has a problem in that he does not like the design and will deny this request for an Exception. • Advised that he would like to see this applicant go back and work with her HOA Architectural Review Committee as required by the CC&Rs. • Suggested that the applicant come back with a design that does not require an Exception. Chair Rodgers asked about conditions for denial. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer clarified that this applicant has an approved fence plan. They can choose to go ahead and build according to that plan. They also have the option to work with their HOA. Director John Livingstone explained that the options for the Commission are to approve, deny or continue this matter. Commissioner Cappello said he couldn't approve this Exception as it stands today due to an inability to make the required findings. Commissioner Zhao said she couldn't make the findings. Chair Rod ers asked if the Commission- wants to go with-the staff recommendation or to 9 approve something with conditions to reduce enclosed area. Commissioner Zhao said she prefers a modified plan but is not sure. Chair Rodgers said that if the Commissioner agrees with staff's recommendation, they can deny this request and the approved fencing plan remains in effect. Alternately, the Commission can. approve the current proposed application with modifications. Director John Livingstone agreed as long as it is clearly articulated to staff so they can work with the applicant. Commissioner Cappello said that what is before the Commission is an Exception to the Ordinance for a new fence design that is based upon three required findings that he cannot make. He said he would have to deny this request. He cannot approve it with redesign options. Commissioner Kundtz suggested that the applicant be asked if they are willing to accept a continuance to give them time to work with their HOA. Mr. Jerry: • Said they have lost a lot of time. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 24, 2006 Page 9 • Added that if they were not successful in obtaining this Exception tonight, the construction on the already approved fencing plan would start tomorrow as his clients are having a graduation party at their home soon. • Reported that countless hours have been spent on options and that there is not a lot that they can do at this point. They have brought the fence in as much as possible. There are not a lot of alternatives. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Cappello, seconded by Commissioner Zhao, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution DENYING an exception to fence requirements to allow the enclosure of approximately 11,251 square feet with a six foot high fence on property located at 21771 Congress Hall, by the following roll call vote: AYES:Cappello, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: Hlava and Kundtz ABSENT: Kundtz and Nagpal ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 APPLICATION #06-351 (386-10-007) FANG, 18480 Prospect Road: - Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Dental Office in an existing tenant space located in a Commercial Neighborhood Zoning District. (Suzanne Thomas) Assistant Planner Suzanne Thomas presented the staff report as follows: • Stated the applicant is seeking a Conditional Use Permit to allow the establishment of a dental office in an existing commercial space located at the Big Tree Shopping Center. • Explained that a Use Permit is required under Section 15-19.030. • Added that this center has two anchor tenants, See's and Round Table Pizza. Another Internet business that was previously located in the subject tenant space, The-Zone, closed a year ago. • Advised that this is a difficult space to lease for retail use. It has limited window display area for such a large tenant space that consists of approximately 2,300 square feet. • Said that it is believed that a dental office will benefit the center and bring new clients. • Informed that the neighbors were notified and that no comments -were received. • Outlined the operational hours as 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. weekdays and from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. on Saturdays. There would be four employees. • Described the parking as consisting of 56 spaces. Dental practices require one parking space for every 200 square feet of tenant space. That is the same ratio as for retail use. • Said that staff surveyed the parking area and found it to be adequate. There were usually 20 to 30 vacant spaces available at any given time. • Said that a new sign would be installed within the existing casing. It would be illuminated between dusk and midnight. • Added that this dental practice would serve both children and adults. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 24, 2006 Page 10 • Recommended approval and advised that this would be the only dental -office in this shopping center. It would not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the community. • Said that the required findings to support this Use Permit can be made in the affirmative. • Recommended the adoption of a resolution approving this Use Permit. • Advised that the applicant is present and available for questions. Commissioner Kundtz expressed concern that limiting this practice to four employees may be too restrictive in the future. Planner Suzanne Thomas suggested bringing this issue up with the applicant. Commissioner Hlava asked if the restrooms serving this space also serve the pizza restaurant. Planner Suzanne Thomas deferred this question to the applicant. Chair Rodgers opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Dr. Fang, Applicant: • Advised that he is a five-year dentist. • Said that the restrooms are part of the complex but are. not shared with the pizza parlor. • Said that for the first four years,~they are likely to have staffing at just four people. One is his wife, also a dentist, who will practice with him. • Added that they might expand the practice in the future so there may be more than four staff in the future. Commissioner Kundtz said that the Use Permit should not limit the Use Permit to four staff. Director John Livingstone said that there are no staffing limitations outlined in the Resolution. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer added that the noticing did not place staffing limitations either. Dr. Fang advised that he is returning home. He grew up here and his parents are still here. Commissioner Kundtz saluted Dr. Fang's brilliance in locating his dental practice next to a candy store. Commissioner Hlava said she was interested in hearing what the building owner plans to do in the future as far as aesthetic improvements to the building such as painting. Chair Rodgers cautioned that the application under consideration is a dental practice Use Permit. Conditions won't be placed on this applicant for exterior building improvements. Dr. Fang assured that he would be developing astate-of--the-art dental office. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes #or May 24, 2006 Page 11 Commissioner Cappello said that this is the second dental practice that recently has been considered by this Commission for establishment within a typically retail area. He asked Dr. Fang what brings him to a retail area versus a typical medical office area. Dr. Fang replied exposure. People pass by. It is difficult to compete these days and dentists are moving out of office suites and retail space is the best option today. Mr. Mike McGuire, Property Owners Representative: • Stated that he is a realtor with 10 years of involvement in leasing this building. • Said that this tenant space is the problem child. Its frontage is small but the tenant space itself is big. • Pointed out that this center is unique. It is not visible when traveling west on Prospect toward Lawrence. Chair Rodgers asked Mr. Mike McGuire if there are any retail uses that could be pursued for this space. Mr. Mike McGuire said not at the size of this space. It is too big for most retail. Commissioner Zhao asked what previous tenants occupied this space. Mr. Mike McGuire said there was asecond-hand store, the internet business called The Zone, as well as the temporary use of the space .for the sale of antiques by Bensons. Commissioner Zhao asked if after-school tutoring programs such as Kuman had ever been considered. Mr. Mike McGuire said he appreciates the lead but is not sure how traffic flow and circulation on site would work for such a use that requires the drop off of children. Mr. John Seagull, Property Owner: • Explained that he bought this center in 1976 and has now owned it for 30 years. • Said that filling small tenant spaces is never a problem but this tenant space has always been a problem. It has never successfully operated as a true retail and is often vacant. • Described some of the previous tenants including a church for one year, a consignment used clothing store for about two years; a sewing and embroidery class for about three years and an antique business that was very successful there but was only paying about 43 cents a square foot in rent. An Internet business lasted less than one year likely because this is too affluent an-area to support it. • Said that when Dr. Fang applied, they felt he represented the perfect solution for this corner tenant space. • Added that they had tried to split the space in the past but it didn't work out. • Reiterated that he believes that a dental office is perfect for this spot. They would be a stable tenant and provide a different type of visitor that would be a big help for the other tenants in the center. • Added that the parking demands for a dental office are modest. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 24, 2006 Page 12 • Pointed out that the single-story structure is better for elderly and/or disabled dental patients to access their dentist's office. • Reported that this See's in this center is the second best selling .location in the entire chain. • Explained that he has plans for painting the building tan with white trim and amber doors. • Said that the big tree in front of Kraegan's blocks the signage on this site. • Said that while a parapet has been suggested to obscure the roof-mounted HVAC unit, he had a new $50,000 roof installed five years ago. He is reluctant to penetrate that roof. • Said he is available for any questions. Chair Rodgers closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Cappello said he liked the concept and can appreciate the benefits of a dental office in a retail location. He said that since there have been difficulties in filling this spot with a retail use, he can make the required findings to support this Use Permit. Commissioner Zhao said she agrees with the report and can make the findings to support this request. Commissioner Hlava said she too agrees about the Use Permit but also feels that new signage should be considered by the owner in the future to upgrade this center. Chair Rodgers said she agreed with the comments made by the others and is excited by the concept of a dental office being located here. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit (Application #06-351) to allow a dental office in an existing tenant space within a Commercial/Neighborhood Zoning District on properly located at 18480 Prospect Road, by the following roll call vote: AYES:Cappello, Hlava, Kundtr, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: Hunter and Nagpal ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 APPLICATION #06-092 (389-46-006) HANEY, 13397 Sousa Lane: -Staff has denied a tree removal request from the applicant to remove one deodar cedar tree on the subject property. The applicant is appealing Staffs denial to the Planning Commission. (Kate Bear) City Arborist Kate Bear presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the appellant has prepared a packet of information for the Commissioners. • Explained that the appellant is appealing the administrative denial of a Tree Removal Permit. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 24, 2006 Page 13 • Said that this property owner applied for a Tree Removal Permit on March 14, 2006, to remove a deodar cedar tree. • Reported that staff was unable to make the findings to approve this request and therefore denied it. • Added that the problem expressed by this property owner was that the tree drops limbs. Staff believes that this problem can be corrected with proper pruning of this tree. • Said that this owner elected to appeal that denial to the Planning Commission. • Stated that neighbors within 500 feet were notified and no comments were received. The applicant has provided several letters from her neighbors. • Recommended denial of this appeal and informed that a revised Resolution has been distributed this evening. .- Commissioner Hlava asked staff what is different with the revised Resolution. Arborist Kate Bear replied that it has been edited to reflect that the required findings should be met over all and not just simply one of them. Commissioner Zhao asked staff for feedback on the two arborist reports provided by the applicant this evening. Arborist Kate Bear said she had seen one of them before and the second for the first time tonight. She said that she wanted to be conservative in her approach to this request and wants to see pruning attempted before approving a removal. Chair Rodgers asked Arborist Kate Bear if she had a chance to review the second report this evening. Arborist Kate Bear replied yes. This was prepared by a good competent arborist and contains good information. He says that he cannot guarantee that limbs will not fall from this tree and that is true. Chair Rodgers asked about the liability issue and how it relates to the Commission's discussion of this request. City. Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that the specific findings must be considered but that damage to property can be considered. Chair. Rodgers opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Ms. Diane Haney, Appellant and Property Owner: • Explained that she brought the new material to City Hall at 5 p.m. today for the Commissioners to review and consider. • Said that she had the opportunity to speak to several of the Commissioners at the site visit and just picked up the Mitchell arborist report late yesterday. • Added that she secured this second report when City Arborist Kate Bear denied her first report. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 24, 2006 Page 14 • Stated that this tree is not safe and both of her arborist reports say- that limbs can fall down. This is a hazardous tree from which large branches have fallen in the past. • Said that overall she has discussed this tree with five arborists, including Mr. Coate and Mr. Babby. • Pointed out that both of the reports she provided this evening say the same thing, nothing will stop this tree from dropping its branches. Branches up to 20 feet long have fallen. One weighed about 300 pounds and required a chain saw to cut up and the debris filled an entire pickup truck. • Recounted that in March another large branch was hanging and had to be removed. It costs lots of money and has caused damage to their roof by cracking roof tiles. • Said that this tree has dropped branches over at least 44 years as recounted by neighbors. • Said that per page 3 of Mr. Mitchell's report, it is possible that damage occurred to this tree during construction about eight years ago. It is subject to failure without warning. This may be caused by changes in weather and moisture. • Informed that her young grandchild can't play in the yard and that's not fair. She is even afraid to go out into the yard to mow the lawn and does the job quickly. • Said that this is resulting in their not using their yard. That impact meets the required finding. • Stated that there has been damage to property and they can't use their yard. There is potential of harm to people. • Agreed that this tree is beautiful. • Said that she is willing to plant six replacEment trees. • Stated that she feels very unsafe with this tree on her property so close to her house. • Pointed out that one neighbor a few years ago was allowed to remove the same species of tree immediately and without a permit or arborist report when just one branch fell. • Said that she is deathly afraid of that tree. While Kate Bear wants to trim it to see if it solves the problem, she has two arborists who say that this tactic will not work. Previous owners had the tree trimmed twice. • Reported that they bought this house "as is" and there was a branch on the roof at the time that they had to remove themselves. They were not aware of the ongoing problem with dropping branches. Chair Rodgers explained to Ms. Diane Haney that the Tree Ordinance changed in recent years after quite a bit of debate. There is a different process in place now. Chair Rodgers closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Hlava asked what replacements would be required if this tree is removed. Arborist Kate Bear said that typically removed trees are replaced. Particular size and species for the replacement(s) trees can be specified. Chair Rodgers asked about the oak from the rear yard that was removed and if it too would be replaced. If the Commission decides to allow removal of this cedar, would it be replaced with a native species tree? Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 24, 2006 Page 15 Arborist Kate Bear advised that she told the Haneys that they would need to replace the oak removed from the rear yard with a 24-inch box native tree from the list. It could be conditioned that the replacement tree for the cedar also be a cedar. Commissioner Cappello asked if cedars typically have this problem of dropping branches. Arborist Kate Bear replied that they are not more prone than any other species to drop branches. This tree has been incorrectly pruned in the past. She hopes that if correctly pruned over the next couple of years, this tree would stop dropping branches. Commissioner Zhao asked how long it might take to see the results of proper pruning. Arborist Kate Bear replied right away. If the tree is pruned now and drops limbs in the next winter storm than the effort did not work but she said she believes pruning would work. Commissioner Hlava pointed out that two arborists have said that pruning will not solve this problem. She asked Arborist Kate Bear what she thinks about that. Arborist Kate Bear said that sometimes professionals disagree on a solution. It is accurate that two arborists have differed from her recommendation. Chair Rodgers said it appears the tree may not be at its natural grade. Arborist Kate Bear said that doesn't sound familiar. Chair Rodgers asked Arborist Kate Bear if she can see construction related damage to this tree. Arborist Kate Bear replied no. Chair Rodgers asked if this is a drought tolerant tree and if perhaps wet weather harms the tree. Arborist Kate Bear said that the tree does well in drought tolerant conditions. Chair Rodgers asked if there is no drought are there problems with this tree. Arborist Kate Bear said there might be root rot problems but not dropped limbs as a result of wet weather. Chair Rodgers asked about the tarpaper that had been wrapped around the trunk of this tree and whether it caused damage to the tree. Arborist Kate Bear said that the tarpaper had no impact. There was no damage detected once the tarpaper was removed. She was told that this tarpaper was there to keep squirrels off the tree. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 24, 2006 Page 16 Commissioner Zhao asked staff to clarify the findings required and how many must be met. Arborist Kate Bear replied that not just one finding but all must be evaluated. While not all must be met, it should be more than just one. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that a number of factors can be considered and some are more important than others in different conditions. The object is to apply and find which findings are more important and to decide overall what is the best course of action. Commissioner Kundtz: • Said he thought this was a beautiful tree. • Added that he can only find three findings (#3, 6 and 7) to support the staff recommendation and six findings that support the removal including an inability to enjoy the use of property safely. The site has a number of healthy trees. It is a lovely and well-maintained property. • Said he could support removal conditioned upon suitable replacements. Commissioner Hlava: Said that she typically goes with the staff recommendation. However, if this were her house, she said she would be down here to take down this tree. Said that she wants to see the replacement installed for the oak removed from the rear yard as well as replacement for this proposed removal. The replacements should be native species that will look good and not create the same problem in the future. Commissioner Zhao agreed and said she too can make the findings about health and safety concerns. She said she has young children herself and can support removal of this tree with appropriate replacements. Commissioner Cappello: • Said he appears to have the minority opinion on this request. • Stated that trees have a value to the community and the Commission has the responsibility to the community to preserve trees~as much as possible. • Reminded that the City Arborist has told the Commission that the main reason this tree is dropping branches is because of improper pruning and that allowing this removal is setting precedent. Most trees drop limbs at one time or another. • Said that the City Arborist is paid to do a job and he values her recommendation and therefore he cannot approve this appeal. Chair Rodgers: • Stated her agreement with Commissioner Cappello. • Said that the tree canopy is important to all. • Reminded that a lot of effort went into the drafting of the Tree Ordinance. • Said that while she does not know if this tree can ultimately be save, she would like to see the effort made to do so before a removal is granted. Y _ Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 24, 2006 Page 17 • Reiterated that this is a large beautiful tree that may thrive if given a chance with proper pruning. • Pointed out that five arborist reports were solicited by Ms. Haney and two supported removal. • Stated that there should be some provision that would allow the removal of this tree if damage continues despite pruning. • Said that she would vote to oppose this removal. • Asked how the motion should be crafted. Director John Livingstone suggested that when in doubt simply say motion to remove or save this-tree. Arborist Kate Bear explained valuation. This tree proposed for removal has been assessed a value of $20,000. Replacement trees are valued at $150- (15 gallon); $500 (24-inch box); $1,500 (36-inch box); and $5,000 (48-inch box). Ms. Diane Haney said that she is startled by that amount of valuation. She added that her property could not accommodate enough of the smaller sized trees to reach that valuation. Director John Livingstone said that if an applicant cannot accommodate the replacement trees on their property, they could pay into a tree fund used to place trees throughout the City. The Commission has the discretion to condition the size and value of replacement trees. Commissioner Kundtz said he is not comfortable imposing a $20,000 expense on these owners to allow removal of this tree. Commissioner Hlava said it is difficult to properly place trees to prevent such problems in the future. Commissioner Cappello said that this is a big beautiful 44-year old or likely even older tree. The arborist says there are not safety issues. Commissioner Kundtz expressed concern in the event the arborist is incorrect. He added that he still takes issue with the $20,000 replacement expense. Commissioner Cappello said that he is not there yet as far as allowing removal and replacement. He added that the $20,000 valuation reemphasizes the ,importance and value of this big beautiful tree. Commissioner Kundtz asked if there is some latitude in the valuation number. Director John Livingstone replied that the Commission has complete latitude on the replacement requirements. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 24, 2006 Page 18 Commissioner Zhao said that she would like to leave it up to the City Arborist to decide on the appropriate replacement. Chair Rodgers -asked what about if the value appears excessive. Commissioner Zhao replied that is simply what it takes to remove such a large tree. Chair Rodgers said that the replacement requirement demonstrates that it is difficult to • remove trees in Saratoga. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer reminded that the Commission has discretion, as does the City Arborist. The valuation is based upon ISA (International Society of Arborists) calculations. The Code says that the Arborist makes a decision on equivalent replacement based upon aesthetics and value. The applicant can appeal the Arborist's replacement requirements back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kundtz said that the applicant should be motivated to work with the Arborist. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kundtr, seconded by Commissioner Hlava, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution upholding an appeal and overturning the administrative denial of a tree removal request (Application #06- 092) for the removal of a deodar cedar tree on property located at 13397 Sousa Lane with the requirement that the applicant work with the City Arborist on replacement tree requirements, by the following roll call vote: AYES:HIava, Kundtr and Zhao NOES: Cappello and Rodgers ABSENT: Hunter and Nagpal ABSTAIN: None *** DIRECTOR'S ITEMS There were no Director's Items. COMMISSION ITEMS There were no Commission Items. COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 24, 2006 Page 19 Upon motion of Commissioner Cappello, seconded by Commissioner Hlava, Chair Rodgers adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of June 14, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • • • • Item 1 • • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Location/Application No.: 13425 Sousa Lane/Application No. 06-388; Modification to Approved Plans ApplicantlOwner: Arndt Trust -Byron C. Arndt, Trustee; ; Sub-Acute (tenant) Staff Planner: Therese M. Schmidt, AICP, Associate Planne Date: June 14, 2006 ~~ APN: 389-46-012 & 013 Department Hea /jG John Livingstone, AICP, ~~\\`' I N~Ws- --,~ ~, ^_ ~ 4~ _g soma-500 tt -J--LU ~__ - '~ . _ _ ;R1Kr €E FFFi9111 CA LI ~ "., N AN - HALIFAX DR _... / .~ A ~~___ _ __ STMONT AV RD i0 S00 450 800 750 k 13425 Sousa Lane • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 05/22/06 05/22/06 05/31/06 The applicant is requesting a Modification to Approved Plans. The Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review application on October 26, 2005, which allowed the applicant to place two modular structures and a portable generator on the subject site as well as construct a trash enclosure. The applicant has made changes to the project site's landscaping, which are not in compliance with an approved site plan; therefore, the applicant has submitted a new landscape plan for approval. In addition, the applicant is requesting an extension of time required for completion of conditions of approval under Community Development Condition No. 21 of Resolution OS-048. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS r~ Due to a staff error, notices were not mailed to property owners within 500-feet of the subject site. Continue this item to June 28, 2006, to allow time for notices to be mailed. • • • • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 06-208; 15595 Peach Hill Road (Di Manto Subdivision Lots 4 and 5) Type of Application: Design Review, Use Permit, Grading Exception, Variance Owner/Applicant: Murray Woods Staff Planner: Suzanne Thomas, Assistant Planner~~ Meeting Date: June 14, 2006 APN: 517-38-005, -006, -007 Department Head~~ " John F. Livingstone, AICP ~ ~ 1• ~ i tip 1 ,, y ~y ~F g! ~' ~ ~ "' ! ' ~~' ~ s '~ i >:e FF i ` ~~..~ ~ fG 4 r x I ~ ~#~ ~,~'i~~~~. '~ 1 ~.~ 1..., '~ ~ ~ . I 4 ~ ,L _ ~ _ ~ " /J4lp YM/./ I i::"~ __ M i~" /il Y r"; R~7 F, ~ VILL II ~~ _ ~ ~ e ~~°~ .g~ F_ r _ rt ~ , v~' ~ ^~ ~ ~S ~ ~ ~ J s . i 1 F _ '~/. I ~I ,C ....... .. ~ v _ ~Or .....-~ : N ~ •: n - ~~ ' C NN I s ~~ - # ,/ w-~ '~i Ai„~F_ 3R; ° ~ .. .,. ' •~ R ~,~' ~ R ~ r ~_. la i~ , ,iri. i'f~ ~~S;y,~4AJf11'r a~. `NU_ ~y,(I ~~ ' Subject: ~'" d~~ ~O' ~~' ' 15595 Peach Hill V J e y ~ APN: 517-38-0OS 517-38-006 -- ~ ~ : ~ 517-38-007 ' N - >' Radius 500 15595 Peach Hill Road • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY: Application filed: 12/20/05 Application complete: 01/02/06 Notice published: 05/31/06 Mailing completed: 05/26/06 Posting completed: 06/08/06 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Between June 9, 1999 and January 12, 2000, the applicant received Planning Commission approval for all required entitlements for this project on two adjacent lots. Construction commenced and continued for several years during which time the entire shell of the residence was completed, including all of the redwood siding and most of the stone veneer, along with all grading, retaining walls, and road construction. Work on the project ceased in approximately 2004. Pursuant to City Codes 16-15.030 and 15-45-090 (a), building permits expire if the work is suspended or abandoned for a period of 180 days. Expired permits may be reinstated within 180 days of expiration...provided that such suspension or abandonment has not exceeded one year. However, if a building permit expires and is not renewed, the Design Review approval also expires. The applicant has exceeded the one-year time and, for this reason, the approval for the project has expired. The applicant is now ready to resume construction and is requesting that the Planning Commission approve the following entitlements that were previously granted: (1) Design Review approval to construct a 6,769 square-foot, two-story residence; (2) Grading Exception approval to allow grading in excess of 1,000 cubic yards on each of the two lots; (3) Variance approval to allow retaining walls in excess of 5 feet in height; and (4) Use Permit approval to allow a water tank within the rear setback and an emergency generator. The combined project site is 10.8 acres and is located in the Hillside Residential zone. The original project includes two separate lots. One lot includes grading for a parking area and access road and the water tower, which was required as part of the original subdivision. The other lot includes the house and generator. These two lots are part of a five-lot subdivision, and both lots are developable. The original application combined the two projects. Staff is presenting them together with two separate resolutions, one for each lot. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve this application with attached conditions in order for.the applicant to finish the construction of the existing structure. STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: Hillside Residential GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RHC (Hillside Conservation Single Family) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: Lot 1:4.617 acres/201,115 square feet (gross); 200,526 square feet (net) Lot 2: 6.204 acres/270,345 square feet (gross); 252,449 square feet (net) SLOPE: Lot 1:37.79% Lot 2: 45.28% Slope at building site: 11.35% Slope at pool at deck site: 29.78% GRADING REQUIRED: There will be approximately 3,300 cubic yards of cut (plus an additiona1850 cubic yards for the basement) and 800 cubic yards of fill. Please note that the cut needed for the basement is not considered as part of the grading amount pursuant to City Code 16-15.160 .Section 3309.1.1. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed new single-family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 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: The existing residence has vertical redwood siding with a stone veneer. The retaining walls are faced with Bouquet Canyon stone veneer. Photographs of the residence, walls, and tank will be presented at the public hearing. PROJECT DATA Proposal Code Requirements Lot 1 Coverage: Max. Allowed Entrance road Entry court & generator pad Residence & garage Pool and terrace area Entry walk Subtotal 5,230 sq. ft. 4,000 sq. ft. 1,790 sq. ft. 3,360 sq. ft.* 600 sq. ft. 14,980 sq. ft. 15,000 sq. ft. Previously Approved as Pervious Entry court turf block 830 sq. ft.* Decomposed granite pathway 1,330 sq. ft.* Total 17,140 sq. ft. 15,000 sq. ft. * Staff has conditioned that the applicant will reduce the impervious amount to 15,000 square feet since these items have not been installed. Setbacks: Residence Min. Req. Front (East) 396 ft. 30 ft. Side (North) 86 ft. 20 ft. Side (South) 136 ft. 20 ft• Rear (West): ls` story/2°a story 151 ft./160 ft. 50 ft./60 ft. Generator Rear (West) (Nearest Prop. Line) 83 ft. 50 ft. Height: Max. Allowed • Residence 21.5 ft. 26 ft. Lowest Elevation Point 941.7 ft. Highest Elevation Point 955.2 ft. Average Elevation Point 948.5 ft. Elevation at Highest Point of Structure 970.0 ft. • i~ Lot 1 Grading: House Driveway Turnaround Pool area (Basement Level) Total Max. Depth 1,550 cu. yds. 850 cu. yds. 1,250 cu. yds. 150 cu. yds. 850 cu. yds. 3,800 cu. yds. Max Allowed 0 100 cu. yds. 0 250 cu. yds. 350 cu. yds. 1,000 cu. yds. 16 ft. 12. ft. Lot 2 Coverage: Water tank pads Pump house Road & asphalt parking Parking area turf block Total Setbacks: Water Tank Side (South) Rear (West) Generator Rear (West) (Nearest Prop. Line) Height: Pumphouse Grading: Parking Water tank Total Max. Depth 83 ft. 9.3 ft. 400 cu. yds. 450 cu. yds. 208 cu. yds. 0 608 cu. yds. 450 cu, yds. 6 ft. 5 ft. 815 sq. ft. 129 sq. ft. 2,696 sq. ft. 1,857 sq. ft. 5,497 sq. ft. Approx. 3 ft. Approx. 3 ft. Max. Allowed 15,000 sq. ft. Min. Req. 20 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft. Max. Allowed 26 ft. Max Allowed 1,000 cu. yds. ~- PROJECT DISCUSSION In 1988, a subdivision was approved that consisted of five lots. The geotechnical portion of the subdivision review determined that each of the five parcels had a viable building site. Trees The City Arborist reviewed ten arbor reports and site visit accounts ranging from July 9, 1998 to September 14, 2000. She also conducted a site visit and inspected the trees along the road, the trees azound the partially constructed house, and the newly planted trees that replaced those removed during construction. Per City Ordinance 15-50.080, a bond of $24,413 is in place for the project. The applicant has planted thirteen 36-inch box oaks, forty-two 24-inch bay trees, twenty-six 24-inch box redwoods, and sixteen 15-gallon redwoods. Additional trees are on site ready to be planted. They include two 36-inch box oaks, six 24-inch box -bays, one 24-inch box redwood, and twelve 15-gallon redwoods. Per the updated City Arborist report, dated May 24, 2006, the applicant should plant additional replacement trees equal in value to $81,096 on the property. The Arborist also recommends that the owner retain a certified azborist to provide recommendations for improving the health of trees #25, 26, 28-31, 34, 35, and 67-69 in particulaz and any other tree that begins to exhibit stress during construction. Those recommendations should be implemented throughout the remainder of the project. Tree protection fencing has fallen in some locations and should be reinstalled for the remainder of the construction. Geotechnical Clearance Geotechnical Clearance was granted with conditions when the project was approved in 1999. These conditions have been incorporated in the attached resolution. Neighbor Review Letters The applicant has contacted three of the surrounding neighbors and Staff has notified all parcels within 500 feet of the project. One neighbor expressed concern that the pazking area would be rented out for valet pazking to be used for concerts or parties, generating additional traffic in the neighborhood (Attachment 5). The home has been standing for an extended period of time, so the neighbors have had an opportunity to view any visual impacts. • LOT 1 [Identified on Subdivision Map as Lot 4] Design Review for Residence, Grading Exception, Variance for Retaining Wall Height, and Use Permit for Emergency Generator Design Review for Residence The applicant is proposing and has begun construction on a 6,769 square-foot, two-story residence. The new home is situated on a lot that is under the same ownership as the adjacent lot to the south. The home does not exceed 26 feet in height and includes a 1,921 square-foot basement. A pool and terrace are being constructed adjacent to the residence. All internal walls are framed and the roof and redwood siding are complete. Portions of the Bouquet Canyon stone on the exterior have also been completed. Wooden retaining walls for the access road and cul-de-sac are in, and all concrete, block, and stone retaining walls are built. Staff finds -that the proposed home, which is in the modern design, is compatible with the neighborhood. The residence follows the contour of the hill and the stone and redwood exterior blend with the rural environment. General Plan Findings The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, including the following 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 expand the City's housing stock and will protect the rural atmosphere of Saratoga by utilizing an existing large parcel for asingle-family home. The proposal will not block the views of the surrounding hills from neighboring parcels. The proposed architectural style is very compatible with the low-density ambiance of the neighborhood and the zoning designation in which the property is located. The applicant has planted 97 trees and has 21 additional trees onsite ready for planting. Land Use Element Policy S.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, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the application meets the Findings required for Design Review 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 project has been designed in a manner that minimizes interference with views and privacy to adjacent properties. The home follows the contour of the hill and is designed with a stone and redwood finish that blends with the rural environment. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. Applicant has made design choices that reduce. the number of impacted trees, including using a smaller number of high retaining walls rather than several short ones and working with the fire district to reduce the required width of the road and driveway, thereby reducing impervious surface. Per the Arborist report, the applicant will plant replacement trees and retain a certified arborist to help improve the health of the existing trees. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. 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 bulk. Architectural details such as varied rooflines, varied and recessed wall planes, stone trim, and redwood siding create architectural interest and reduce mass and bulk. (e) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed residence is set back almost 400 feet from the front property line and is comparable in size to other homes in the area. The home follows the contour of the hill with a height of 21.5 feet. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. Grading for the home, walls, and roads have been completed. All future grading would conform to the City's current grading and erosion control methods. The applicant is required to maintain storm water on site, where feasible. (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 avoidance of avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above. Grading Exception Pursuant to 15-13.050(f), the combined cut and fill of any grading in the Hillside Residential district shall not exceed one thousand cubic yards, excluding basement excavation, unless the Planning Commission approves the exception. The original proposal called for 3,300 cubic yards of grading on Lot 1 (plus 850 cubic yards for the basement). The grading was approved and has now been completed. Approximately two-thirds of this grading was necessary due to the length and steepness of the 0.1 mile driveway and the driveway turnaround, which was required by the fire district. The proposed project is consistent with City Code 15-13.050, in which the Planning Commission may grant an exception to 1,000 cubic foot restriction if all of the following findings can be made: • (a) The additional grading is necessary in order to allow reasonable development of the property or to achieve a reasonable means of access to the building site. The steep and lengthy 0.1-mile driveway and the turnaround required by the fire district necessitated a significant portion of the grading. (b) The natural landforms and vegetation are being preserved and protected. The road width has been minimized in order to reduce the amount of grading and tree removal required for development. 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. (c) The increased grading is necessary to promote the compatibility of the construction with the natural terrain. Consistent with the City's hillside development standards, the design used cut rather than fill to integrate the home into the hillside rather than out and beyond the hillside terrain. (d) The increased grading is necessary to integrate an architectural design into the topography. The home follows the contour of the hillside, thereby reducing bulk. and height. (e) The increased grading is necessary to reduce the prominence of the construction as viewed from surrounding views or from distant community views. By cutting into the hill, the home blends into the .surrounding environment and minimizes any impact on the viewscape. (f) No building site shall be graded so as to create a flat visible pad surrounding the main residential structure. This project minimizes any flat pads that surround the main residential structure. Variance The original proposal requested Variance approval to allow retaining wall height in excess of that permitted by Code. Variance approval was granted and all walls have been constructed. Per Section 15-29.020(b) of the City Code, the combined height of parallel walls within a horizontal distance of thirty feet shall not exceed 10 feet. The applicant requested variance approval for several parallel walls that were to be constructed adjacent to the residence and that would exceed this height limitation. It was determined that because of the steepness of the slope, constructing the walls at a shorter height would not have been sufficient to hold back the ground and locating the walls farther apart would have necessitated cutting deeply into the hillside, removing additional trees. The proposed project is consistent with City Code 15-70.060, in which the Planning Commission may grant a Variance if all of the following findings can be made: (a) That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. Although the City Code requires shorter retaining walls, the topography of this parcel is such that the strict enforcement of this requirement would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by adjacent properties in the vicinity. (b) That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. The proposed retaining walls would not constitute a special privilege in that the topography of the lot constitutes a physical hardship specific to this site, and that allowing these walls would not be a special privilege. (c) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed retaining walls would not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare or injurious to properties in the area in that it will protect individuals and properties from slides, and will not result in a negative impact on properties in the area. Use Permit The original application requested Use Permit approval for an emergency generator. The permit was- approved and the generator pad and adjacent wall have been constructed. Pursuant to City Code 15-80.030(k), emergency generators require a Conditional Use Permit and must comply with setback and noise requirements. Section 7-30.040(a) requires that exterior residential noise levels shall not exceed 60 dBA during the day, 50 dBA in the evening, and 45 dBA during the night. During the original application phase in 1999, the Planning Commission was concerned about the potential noise from the proposed emergency generator. The applicant's acoustical consultant calculated that with the proposed wall adjacent to the generator, the resulting noise level at the nearest property line (83.7 feet) would be less than 25 dBA. For comparison, whispering at 5 feet can be measured at 20 dBA and a soft whisper at 30 dBA (Attachment 6). Although the generator was not yet in place, the consultant conducted an onsite demonstration for members of the Land Use Committee by using a simulation of the projected noise level. The Use Permit was then approved. The proposed project is consistent with City Code 15-55-030, in which the Planning Commission may grant Use Permit approval if all of the following findings can be made: (a) That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The use of the generator for emergency use only will help to preserve Saratoga as a residential community with a rural atmosphere. (b) That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed acoustic level of the emergency generator meets the City Code requirements for noise levels. (c) That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of Chapter 1 S of the City Code (Zoning Regulations). The generator meets the requirements for setbacks and noise and is in full compliance with the provisions of Chapter 15. (d) That the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the immediate neighborhood or adversely affect surrounding properties or the occupants thereof. The generator will comply with the required noise limits, thereby not creating a nuisance. • • LOT 2 [Identified on Subdivision Map as Lot 5] Grading Exception, Variance for Retaining Wall Height, and Use Permit for Water Tank Height and Location Within Rear Setback Grading Exception Pursuant to 15-13.050(f), the combined cut and fill of any grading in the Hillside Residential district shall not exceed one thousand cubic yards unless the Planning Commission approves the exception. The original proposal involved grading in excess of 1,000 cubic yards to accommodate a parking area and a water tank system. The water tank system was required as a condition of the subdivision since it will supply fire protection water to all five lots in the subdivision. The grading for these projects was approved and has been completed. The proposed project is consistent with City Code 15-13.050, in which the Planning Commission may grant an exception to 1,000 cubic foot restriction if all of the following findings can be made: (a) The additional grading is necessary in order to allow reasonable development of the property or to achieve a reasonable means of access to the building site. The water tanks are a required element of the subdivision and need to be located on a site that is high in elevation, relative to the property, and that is relatively level. The area proposed for the parking area was identified on the subdivision map as the location for a future home site. The tanks and parking area are on two of the most level areas on the site, thereby reducing the amount of grading that is necessary. (b) The natural landforms and vegetation are being preserved and protected. The sites selected for the tank area and parking area/future home site area have gentle slopes, relative to the lot, and therefore will require less grading and help to preserve the natural landform. Several trees have been already been planted on the site and several others are onsite ready to be planted: The applicant will be retaining a certified arborist to improve the health of the trees. (c) The increased grading is necessary to promote the compatibility of the construction with the natural terrain. Grading is necessary to create a level area for stability of the water tanks and for the future home site/parking area. (d) The increased grading is necessary to integrate an architectural design into the topography. The grading lowers the profile of the parking area/future home site and water tank areas and provides a level foundation for each. (e) The increased grading is necessary to reduce the prominence of the construction as viewed from surrounding views or from distant community views. Grading lowers the overall height of the water tanks, thereby reducing the prominence of the construction as viewed from surrounding properties. The future home site/parking area uses cut rather than fill to integrate the future home into the hillside. (f) No building-site shall be graded so as to create a jlat visible pad surrounding the main residential structure. There is no residential structure on this lot at this time. However, the parking area is situated in the approximate location of the future home site, as identified on the subdivision map. Variance The original proposal requested Variance approval for retaining walls exceed the allowed height in the Hillside Residential district. Variance approval was granted and all walls have been constructed. Per 15-29-010(g), retaining walls on a hillside lot shall not exceed five feet in height. Variance approval was requested for the retaining walls adjacent to the water tanks. Because of the steep topography and the size of the water tanks, it was determined that a wall, approximately eight feet in height and located behind the water tank, would serve to cut the water tank into the site and was physically needed to construct the water tank at the desired location. The proposed project is consistent with City Code 15-70.060, in which the Planning Commission may grant a Variance if all of the following findings can be made: (a) That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. Although the City Code requires shorter retaining walls, the topography of this parcel is such that the strict enforcement of this requirement would deprive the applicant of the use of the water system for domestic water. It would also deprive the applicant and other subdivision residents of the fire protection that is enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. (b) That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. The proposed retaining walls would not constitute a special privilege in that the topography of the lot constitutes a physical hardship specific to this site. The water tanks are a necessary part of the subdivision that must be located uphill from the home sites. Their construction at this location requires them to be set into the hill, and because of the steep topography, that cut must be supported by a wall that is approximately eight feet in height. • i3 (c) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed retaining walls would not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare or injurious to properties in the area in that it will protect individuals and properties from slides, and will not result in a negative impact on properties in the area. Furthermore, the other lots on the subdivision could be impacted in regards to health, safety, and welfare if the applicant was unable to install the fire protection tank as required by the fire district. Use Permit The original application requested Use Permit approval for the height and location of the water tank system. This was approved and the water tank system is now in place. Pursuant to City Code 15-55.030, a Conditional Use may be permitted to allow for different structure height and yard requirements other than those permitted for the zoning district. The rear setback and height requirements for the Hillside Residential district are fifty feet from the property line and twelve feet in height pursuant to City Code 15-13.90(a) and 15-13.100(b), respectively. The original subdivision conditions of approval required that the applicant provide water tanks for both domestic use and fire protection. The 50,000-gallon fire protection tank is to supply all five lots in the subdivision. The water tank location was based on the engineering need to locate the tanks at a high elevation, relative to the subdivision; the determination that this location was one of the few relatively level areas on the designated lot; and the necessity for a large tank capacity to meet fire district requirements. The applicant requested and was granted approval of a Use Permit to allow two water tanks within the rear yard setback at a maximum height of 14 feet (six feet from the property line). The proposed project is consistent with all the following findings stated in City Code 15-55- 030, in which the Planning Commission may grant Use Permit approval if all of the following findings can be made: (a) That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. By providing the required fire protection for the subdivision, the water tank system protects public health and safety, property values, and the rural environment. The excess height of the tank is brought about by its 50,000-gallon capacity and its proximity to the property line is necessitated by the fact that it must be located at a fairly level spot that is at a high elevation, relative to the home sites. The tanks are located on one of the more gently sloping areas of the lot rather than on a steep, visually exposed site, and are screened by vegetation, thereby maintaining the rural character of the district. (b) That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The water tanks are situated in such a way that the fire protection tank can provide emergency -water to the other parcels in the subdivision, thereby promoting public health, safety, and welfare. (c) That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of Chapter 1 S of the City Code (Zoning Regulations). Because of the limited area that can be used for the water tanks and the need to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the residents, findings can be made to allow the tanks to be located in the proposed location, as described, and be in full compliance with the provisions of Chapter 15. (d) That the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the immediate neighborhood or adversely affect surrounding properties or the occupants thereof. The water tanks are located in one corner of a large lot and are screened by vegetation. They will not adversely affect uses in the immediate neighborhood, but instead, will enhance safety in the area. Parking Area/Future Home site There is no room .for parking along the driveway, fire road, or along Peach Hill Road, and the fire district requested that the truck turnaround at the house on Lot 1 be kept free of automobile parking. The parcel with the house is a standalone parcel and does not require an adjacent parking area. However, the applicant requested approval for an overflow parking area to be located on the adjacent lot (Lot 2). The fire district commented on the proposed overflow parking area, stating, "To propose to develop a certain portion of the adjacent parcel for expanded parking would not negatively impact our response capability to your site. In fact, I presume it would aid our response to your site should the need ever occur" (Attachment 7). The Planning Commission denied the first request because of the size of the proposed retaining walls, the amount of grading and the potential impact on trees. The applicant submitted modified plans for a smaller area and these were approved by the Commission. The parking area/fizture home site has now been graded. Conclusion Staff finds that all findings for Design Review, Use Permit, Variance, and Grading Exception can be made in the affirmative. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve application 06-208 with conditions by adopting the attached two resolutions. 1S ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval for Design Review, Grading Exception, Variance, and Use Permit for Lot 1. 2. Resolution of Approval for Grading Exception, Variance, and Use Permit for Lot 2. 3. Arborist Reports, May 24, 2006. 4. Affidavit of mailing notices, public hearing notice, and copy of mailing labels for project notification. 5. Neighbor review letters. 6. Acoustical information for emergency generator. 7. Fire Department requirements and letter. 8. Photos of site, water tanks, and retaining walls. 9. Color rendering of home. 10. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A." • • • i- • • Attachment 1 • i~ RESOLUTION NO. _ Application No. 06-208 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Murray Woods; 15595 Peach Hill Road -Lot 1 WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received a request for Design Review Approval to construct a new two-story single family home with a basement on a vacant 200,526 (net) square foot lot, Grading Exception Approval to cut and fill in excess of 1,000 cubic feet in the Hillside Residential district, Variance Approval for retaining walls that exceed the maximum height allowed in the Hillside Residential district, and Use Permit Approval for an emergency generator. The total floor area of the proposed residence will be 6,769 square feet including an attached garage, with a 1,921 square foot basement. The maximum height of the proposed residence will be 26 feet. The site is zoned Hillside Residential; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing in 1999, when the project was original approved, at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and • WHEREAS, the project, which proposes to construct a new single-family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (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 the findings for granting- said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings specified in City Code Section 15-45.080 and the City's Residential Design Handbook: (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. The home follows the contour of the hill and is designed with a stone and redwood finish that blends with the rural environment. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. Applicant has made design choices that reduce the number of impacted trees, including using a smaller number of high retaining walls rather than several short ones and working with the fire district to reduce the required width of the road and driveway, thereby reducing impervious surface. Per the Arborist report, the applicant will plant replacement trees and retain a certified arborist to help improve the health of the existing trees. • (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. 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 bulk. Architectural details such as varied rooflines, varied and recessed wall planes, stone trim, and redwood siding create architectural interest and reduce mass and bulk. (e) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed residence is set back almost- 400 feet from the front property line and is comparable in size to other homes in the area. The home follows the contour of the hill with a height of 21.5 feet. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. Grading for the home, walls, and roads have been completed. All future grading would conform to the City's current grading and erosion control methods. The applicant is required to maintain storm water on site, where feasible. (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 avoidance of avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above; and WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for a grading exception to cut and fill in excess of 1,000 cubic feet in the hillside district, and the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support the findings for granting said application for grading exception as specified in City Code Section 15- 13.050(f): (a) The additional grading is necessary in order to allow reasonable development of the property or to achieve a reasonable means of access to the building site. The steep and lengthy 0.1-mile driveway and the turnaround required by the fire district necessitated a significant portion of the grading. (b) The natural landforms and vegetation are being preserved and protected. The road width has been minimized in order to reduce the amount of grading and tree removal required for development. 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. (c) The increased grading is necessary to promote the compatibility of the construction with the natural terrain. Consistent with the City's hillside development standards, the design used cut rather than fill to integrate the home into the hillside rather than out and beyond the hillside terrain. • I~ • (d) The increased grading is necessary to integrate an architectural design into the topography. The home follows the contour of the hillside, thereby reducing bulk and height. (e) The increased grading is necessary to reduce the prominence of the construction as viewed from surrounding views or from distant community views. By cutting into the hill, the home blends into the surrounding environment and minimizes any impact on the viewscape. (f) No building site shall be graded so as to create a flat visible pad surrounding the main residential structure. This project minimizes any flat pads that surround the main residential structure; and WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for a variance to allow retaining walls that exceed the height maximum in the Hillside Residential district, and the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support the findings for granting said application for variance as specified in City Code Section 15- 70.060: (a) That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. Although the City Code requires shorter retaining walls, the topography of this parcel is such that the strict enforcement of this requirement would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by adjacent properties in the vicinity. (b) That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. The proposed retaining walls would not constitute a special privilege in that the topography of the -lot constitutes a physical hardship specific to this site, and that allowing these walls would not be a special privilege. (c) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed retaining walls would not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare or injurious to properties in the area in that it will protect individuals and properties from slides, and will not result in a negative impact on properties in the area; and WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for a use permit allowing an emergency generator in the Hillside Residential district, and the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support the findings for granting said application for use permit as specified in City Code Section 15-55-030: (a) That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The use of the generator for emergency use only will help to preserve Saratoga as a residential community with a rural atmosphere. (b) That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed acoustic level of the emergency generator meets the City Code requirements for noise levels. (c) That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of Chapter 1 S of the City Code (Zoning Regulations). The generator meets the requirements for setbacks and noise and is in full compliance with the provisions of Chapter 15. (d) That the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the immediate neighborhood or adversely affect surrounding properties or the occupants thereof. The generator will comply with the required noise limits, thereby not creating a nuisance; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, including the following Policies: (a) Conservation Element Policy 6.0 -Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The proposal will expand the City's housing stock and will protect the rural atmosphere of Saratoga by utilizing an existing large parcel for asingle-family home. The proposal will not block the views of the surrounding hills from neighboring parcels. The proposed architectural style is very compatible with the low-density ambiance of the neighborhood and the zoning designation in which the property is located. The applicant has planted 97 trees and has 21 additional trees onsite ready for planting. (b) Land Use Element Policy S.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, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the application meets the Findings required for Design Review Approval. • 2 NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the application, site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, application number 06-208 for Design Review Approval, Grading Exception, Variance for retaining wall height, and Use Permit for an emergency generator on Lot 1, as conditioned below, is hereby found exempt from CEQA and in compliance with the required findings set forth above, and approval thereon is granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The proposed single-family dwelling shall be constructed as shown on Exhibit "A," incorporated by reference. 2. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the Arborist Report, dated May 24, 2006 shall be included on the plans submitted to the Building Division for permit plan check review. 3. Final landscape, irrigation and utility plans shall be incorporated into the construction plan set and shall comply with the following requirements: • 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. • To the extent feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain on site and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolonged exposure to water shall be specified. • Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. • 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. • Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. • • A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected tree on the site. 4. Front yard landscaping shall be installed prior to final occupancy inspection. 5. Any changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. No downgrading in the exterior appearance of the approved residence will be approved by staff. Downgrades may include but are not limited to garage doors, architectural detailing, stonework, columns, shutters, driveway materials, and similar items. Proposed changes to the approved plans are subject to the prior approval of the Community Development Director and may require prior review by the Planning Commission. 6. 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. A storm water detention plan indicating how all storm water will be detained on- site to the extent determined feasible by the Community Development Director, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices, shall be submitted along with the complete construction drawings. 8. Water and/or runoff from the project site (if any after compliance with paragraph 4 above) shall not be directed toward the adjacent properties. 9. There will be no more than one wood-burning fireplace per structure. 10. The temporary asphalt strip along the edge of the driveway turnaround shall be removed. 11. The applicant will reduce the amount of impervious surface to a maximum of 15,000 square feet. 12. All processing fees, in the form of deposit accounts on file with the Community Development Department, shall be reconciled with a minimum $S00 surplus balance at all times. In the event that the balance is less than $500, all staff work on the project shall cease until the balance is restored to a minimum of $500. CITY ARBORIST 13. All recommendations contained in the City Arborist Report dated May 24, 2006 and incorporated herein by this reference, shall be followed. 14. Tree protective fencing shall be reinstalled for the remainder of construction, as specified by the City Arborist. ~~ 15. The applicant will retain a certified arborist to provide recommendations for improving the health of trees #25, 26, 28-31, 34, 35, and 67-69 in particular and any other tree that begins to exhibit stress during construction. Those recommendations should be implemented throughout the remainder of the project. 16. Prior to final Arborist review, the applicant shall plant replacement trees, as specified in the City Arborist Report dated May 24, 2006, equal in value to $81,096 on the property. If not enough room is available to plan enough trees to satisfy this requirement, the remainder of the value of the trees may be paid into the City's Tree Fund. 17. Conditions #14 and #15 reflect the existing and proposed trees for both Lot 1 and Lot 2. The total value for both lots is $81,096. GEOTECHNICAL CLEARANCE 18. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for the building foundation and driveway) to ensure that the plans, specifications and details accurately reflect the Consultants' recommendations. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. 19. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for fill keyways, and foundation construction prior to placement of fill, steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the Project Geotechnical Consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to inspection for final project approval. 20. The Owner and Applicant shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to project Zoning Clearance. FIRE DEPARTMENT 21. The applicant shall comply with all Fire Department conditions. • CITY ATTORNEY 22. Owner and Applicant agree 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 project. Section 2. Construction must commence within 36 months or this Design Review Approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be rnet. 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. • ~s PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission. State of California, the 14th day of June 2006 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Linda R. Rodgers Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: John Livingstone, AICP Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • • Attachment 2 • 2~ RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 06-208 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Murray Woods; 15595 Peach Hill Road -Lot 2 WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an request for Grading Exception Approval to cut and fill in excess of 1,000 cubic feet in the Hillside Residential district, Variance Approval for retaining walls that exceed the maximum height allowed in the Hillside Residential district, and Use Permit Approval for a water tanks that are within the rear setback and exceed the allowable height for accessory structures in the Hillside Residential district; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing in 1999, when the project was original approved, at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support the findings for granting said application for grading exception to allow grading for a water tank system and a parking area/future home site as specified in City Code Section 15- 13.050(fj: (a) The additional grading is necessary in order to allow reasonable development of the property or to achieve a reasonable means of access to the building site. The water tanks are a required element of the subdivision and need to be located on a site that is high in elevation, relative to the property, and that is relatively level. The area proposed for the parking area was identified on the subdivision map as the location for a future home site. The tanks and parking area are on two of the most level areas on the site, thereby reducing the amount of grading that is necessary. (b) The natural landforms and vegetation are being preserved and protected. The sites selected for the tank area and parking area/future home site area have gentle slopes, relative to the lot, and therefore will require less grading and help to preserve the natural landform. Several trees have been already been planted on the site and several others are onsite ready to be planted. The applicant will be retaining a certified arborist to improve the health of the trees. (c) The increased grading is necessary to promote the compatibility of the construction with the natural terrain. Grading is necessary to create a level area for stability of the water tanks and for the future home site/parking area. • (d) The increased grading is necessary to integrate an architectural design into the topography. The grading lowers the profile of the parking area/future home site and water tank areas and provides a level foundation for each. (e) The increased grading is necessary to reduce the prominence of the construction as viewed from surrounding views or from distant community views. Grading lowers the overall height of the water tanks, thereby reducing the prominence of the construction as viewed from surrounding properties. The future home site/parking area uses cut rather than fill to integrate the future home into the hillside. (f) No building site shall be graded so as to create a flat visible pad surrounding the main residential structure. There is no residential structure on this lot at this-time. However, the parking area is situated in the approximate location of the future home site, as identified on the subdivision map; and WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for a variance allowing retaining walls adjacent to the water tank area that exceed the height maximum in the Hillside Residential district. The applicant has met the burden of proof required to support the findings for granting said application for variance as specified in City Code Section 15-70.060: (a) That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. Although the City Code requires shorter retaining walls, the topography of this parcel is such that the strict enforcement of this requirement would deprive the applicant of the use of the water system for domestic water. It would also deprive the applicant and other subdivision residents of the fire protection that is enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. (b) That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. The proposed retaining walls would not constitute a special privilege in that the topography of the lot constitutes a physical hardship specific to this site. -The water tanks are a necessary part of the subdivision that must be located uphill from the home sites. Their construction at this location requires them to be set into the hill, and because of the steep topography, that cut must be supported by a wall that is approximately eight feet in height. • Z~ (c) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed retaining walls would not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare or injurious to properties in the area in that it will protect individuals and properties from slides, and will not result in a negative impact on properties in the area. Furthermore, the other lots on the subdivision could be impacted in regards to health, safety, and welfare if the applicant was unable to install the fire protection tank as required by the fire district; and WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for a use permit allowing an exception to the height and setback regulations in the Hillside Residential district, and the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support the findings for granting said application for use permit as specified in City Code Section 15-55-030: (a) That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. By providing the required fire protection for the subdivision, the water tank system protects public health and safety, property values, and the rural environment. The excess height of the tank is brought about by its 50,000-gallon capacity and its proximity to the property line is necessitated by the fact that it must be located at a fairly level spot that is at a high elevation, relative to the home sites. The tanks are located on one of the more gently sloping areas of the lot rather than on a steep, visually exposed site, and are screened by vegetation, thereby maintaining the rural character of the district. (b) That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The water tanks are situated in such a way that the fire protection tank can provide emergency water to the other parcels in the subdivision, thereby promoting public health, safety, and welfare. (c) That the proposed conditional. use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of Chapter 1 S of the City Code (Zoning Regulations). Because of the limited area that can be used for the water tanks and the need to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the residents, fmdings can be made to allow the tanks to be located in the proposed location, as described, and be in full compliance with the provisions of Chapter 15. (d) That the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the immediate neighborhood or adversely affect surrounding properties or the occupants thereof. The water tanks are located in one corner of a large lot and are screened by vegetation. They will not adversely affect uses in the immediate neighborhood, but instead, will enhance safety in the area; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, including the following Policies: (a) Conservation Element Policy 6.0 -Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of. new development. The proposal will expand the City's housing stock and will protect the rural atmosphere of Saratoga by utilizing an existing large parcel for asingle-family home. The proposal will not block the views of the surrounding hills from neighboring parcels. The proposed architectural style is very compatible with the low-density ambiance of the neighborhood and the zoning designation in which the property is located. The applicant has planted 97 trees and has 21 additional trees onsite ready for planting. (b) 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, Staff' recommends that the Planning Commission find that the application meets the Findings required for Design Review Approval. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the application, site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, application number 06-208 for Grading Exception approval,. Variance for retaining wall height, and Use Permit for water tank height and location on Lot 2, as conditioned below, is hereby found exempt from CEQA and in compliance with the required findings set forth above, and approval thereon is granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The proposed water tank system, retaining walls, and grading shall be constructed as shown on Exhibit "A," incorporated by reference. 2. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the Arborist Report, dated May 24, 2006 shall be included on the plans submitted to the Building Division for permit plan check review. 3. Final landscape, irrigation and utility plans shall be incorporated into the construction plan set and shall comply with the following requirements: .'~ • 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. • To the extent feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain on site and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolonged exposure to water shall be specified. • Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. • 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. • Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be .retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. • A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected tree on the site. 4. Any changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. No downgrading in the exterior appearance of the approved residence will be approved by staff. Downgrades may include but are not limited to garage doors, architectural detailing, stonework, columns, shutters, driveway materials, and similar items. Proposed changes to the approved plans are subject to the prior approval of the Community Development Director and may require prior review by the Planning Commission. 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 storm water detention plan indicating how all storm water will be detained on- site to the extent determined feasible by the Community Development Director, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices, shall be submitted along with the complete construction drawings. 7. Water and/or runoff from the project site (if any after compliance with paragraph 4 above) shall not be directed toward the adjacent properties. • 8. 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 at all times. In the event that the balance is less than $500, all staff work on the project shall cease until the balance is restored to a minimum of $500. CITY ARBORIST 9. All recommendations contained in the City Arborist Report dated May 24, 2006 and incorporated herein by this reference, shall be followed. 10. Tree protective fencing shall be reinstalled for the remainder of construction, as specified by the City Arborist. 11. The applicant will retain a certified arborist to provide recommendations for improving the health of trees #25, 26, 28-31, 34, 35, and 67-69 in particular and any other tree that begins to exhibit stress during construction. Those recommendations should be implemented throughout the remainder of the project. 12. Prior to final Arborist review, the applicant shall plant replacement trees, as specified in the City Arborist Report dated May 24, 2006, equal in value to $81,096 on the property. If not enough room is available to plan enough trees to satisfy this requirement, the remainder of the value of the trees may be paid into the City's Tree Fund. 13. Conditions #11 and #12 reflect the existing and proposed trees for both Lot 1 and Lot 2. The total value for both lots is $81,096. GEOTECHNICAL CLEARANCE 14. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for the building foundation and driveway) to ensure that the plans, specifications and details accurately reflect the Consultants' recommendations. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. 15. 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. • 33 The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the Project Geotechnical Consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to inspection for final project approval. 16. The Owner and Applicant shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to project Zoning Clearance. FIRE DEPARTMENT 17. The applicant shall comply with all Fire Department conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 18. Owner and Applicant agree 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 project. Section Z. Construction must commence within 36 months or this Design Review 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 14th day of June 2006 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Linda R. Rodgers Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: John Livingstone, AICP 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 • • • Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 15595 Peach Hill Rd ARBORIST REPORT APN 517-38-005 Owner: Murray Woods INTRODUCTION Application #: 06-208 ~~~ May 24, 2006' Prepared by Kate Bear ISA Certified Arborist WE 2250A The property owner of 15595 Peach Hill Road has submitted plans to the city to renew planning and building permits that have expired. The project consists of a new road to two lots, construction of a new home on one lot, and a parking area and new water tower on the other lot. This project was started in 1998. Michael Bench of Barrie D. Coate and Associates inventoried trees on the property that would be impacted byconstruction-and were protected by City Ordinance 15-050. He conducted several site visits and prepared reports dated July 9, 1998, December 18, 1998, February 27, 1999, May 20, 1999, September 16, 1999, December 4, 1999, January 4, 2000, February 11, 2000, March 14, 2000, and September 14, 2000. All of these reports were reviewed in preparation for this report. REVIEW OF REPORTS AND SUMMARY OF PROJECT Road (Subdivision) -July 9. 1998 Originally, a total of 86 trees were inventoried and potentially impacted by construction. Fifty two trees were approved for removal to construct the road to the two lots. Their total value was $71,230. Replacement trees equal in value to this amount were recommended. Thirty four trees were retained with a total appraised value of $52,511. A bond of $13,128 (25% of the total value) was recommended. New House -December 8 1998 Originally, a total of 69 trees were impacted by construction. Thirty nine were approved for removal to construct the new house. Their value was $75,671 ($71,812 + $3,859). Replacement trees equal in value to this amount werexecommended. Thirty one trees were retained. Their total value was $72,605. A bond of $18,151 (25% of the total value) was recommended. 37 Page 1 of 3 15595 Peach Hill Road Water tower -February 27. 1999 Originally, a total of 62 trees were impacted by construction. Fourteen were approved for removal. Their value was $17,481. Replacement trees equal in value to this amount were recommended. Forty eight trees were retained. Their total value was $49,118. A bond of $7,368 (15% of the total value) was recommended. Revised plans - Mav 20 1999 and December 4. 1999 In 1999, the plans were revised to relocate the parking area, impacting fewer trees during construction. As a result, the total bond amount for trees on this project was revised to be $24,413, which is equal to $17,045 for the house and the road combined (25% of an appraised value of $68,180) plus $7,368 for the water tower. In addition, the project was revised to reduce the number of trees that required removal. When the plans were finalized, a total of 61 trees were approved for removal. They were #4 - 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18 - 27, 32, 33, 36 - 46, 48 - 50, 54 - 59, 62, 65, 70, 71, 75, 76, 78, 79, 100, 101, 107 - 109, 114 - 117, 119. Their total value was $137,076. Replacement trees equal in value to this amount were recommended. SITE OBSERVATIONS AND TECHNICAL DISCUSSION I visited the site on May 16, 2006 together with Murray Woods and inspected the trees around the partially constructed house. We also inspected trees along the road and counted newly planted trees that replaced those removed during construction. The trees closest to the house appear stressed. I recommended to Mr. Woods that he hire someone to help him improve the health of these trees and keep them from declining further. At this time, a total of thirteen 36 inch box oaks, forty-two 24 inch box bay trees, twenty six 24 inch box redwoods and sixteen 15 gallon redwoods have been planted. Their total combined value is equal to $47,640. Additional trees are on site ready to be planted. They include two 36 inch box oaks, six 24 inch box bays, one 24 inch box redwood, and twelve 15 gallon redwoods. The value of these additional trees is $8,340. This gives a total value of $55,980 in replacement trees. Replacement trees equal in value to $81,096 are still required to be planted on site before the project is considered complete. Per City Ordinance 15-50.080, a bond of $24,413 is in place for the project. This bond amount is based on a percentage of the appraised value of trees to be retained. Appraisal values are calculated according to the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9~` Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2000. • PaaP. 7 of ~ .. 15595 Peach Hill Road RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Owner should plant replacement trees equal in value to $81,096 on the property. Acceptable species include those listed under Article 15-50.020(n) of the Zoning Regulations. If not enough room is available to plant enough-trees to satisfy this requirement, the remainder of the value of the trees maybe paid into the City's Tree Fund. Values for replacement trees maybe found in the arborist report dated July 9, 1998 at the bottom of each page in the Tree Inventory Table. 2. I recommend that the owner retain a certified arborist to provide recommendations for improving the health of trees #25, 26, 28-31, 34, 35 and 67-69 in particular and any other tree that begins to exhibit stress during construction. Those recommendations should be implemented throughout the remainder of the project. 3. Tree protection fencing has fallen in some locations and should be reinstalled for the remainder of construction. • • 39 Page 3 of 3 ~ Attachment 4 . AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES I, Denise Kaspar ,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 26`~ day of. Maw, 2006, that I deposited 29 notices in the United States Post Office, 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 described as: APN: 517-38-005, 517-38-006, 517-38-007, 15595 Peach Hill Road; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. ~ry '' rte/ e 'se Kaspar Advanced Listing Services 41 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 14th day of June 2006, at 7:00 p.m. The public hearing will be held in the City Hall theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. The public hearing agenda item is stated below. Details of this item are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Please consult the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us regarding Friday office closures. APPLICATION/ADDRESS: 06-208 - 15595 Peach Hill Road APPLICANT: Woods APN: 517-38-005, 517-38-006, 517-38-007 DESCRIPTION: Between June 9, 1999 and January 12, 2000, the applicant received Planning Commission approval for all required entitlements for this project and had commenced construction.. However, due to inactivity, the building permits expired, which in turn voided the Planning Commission approval of all entitlements. The applicant is now ready to resume construction and is requesting that the Planning Commission approve the following entitlements that were previously granted: (1) Design Review Approval to construct a 6,769 square-foot, two-story residence. (2) Use Permit approval to allow a water tank within the rear setback and an emergency generator. (3) Variance approval to allow retaining walls in excess of 5 feet in height. (4) Grading Exception approval to allow grading in excess of 1,000 cubic yards for a parking lot on an adjacent 6.2-acre parcel. The project site is 10.8 acres and is located in the Hillside Residential zone. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before Monday, June 5, 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. Suzanne Thomas Assistant Planner (408) 868-1212 May 26, 2006 ~ership Listing Prepared For: 517-38-005 & 517-38-006 Murray H Woods 15595 Peach Hill Road Saratoga Ca 95070 510-26-005 510-26-006 510-26-009 .ALAN G & MARGARET GIBERSON MARK D & CATHERINE WILSON MARY KAWAHARA 5561 GLEN UNA DR 15567 GLEN UNA DR 15748 PEACH HILL RD ;'.:OS GATOS CA 95030 LOS GATOS CA 95030 LOS GATOS CA 95030 "3~ ` 517-22-041 510-26-012 517-15-012 GARY E & LANAYA DIX MARY KAWAHARA MONTALVO ASSOCIATION OR CURRENT RESIDENT 15748 PEACH HILL RD PO BOX 158 15404 MADRONE HILL RD LOS GATOS CA 95030 SARATOGA CA 95071 SARATOGA CA 95070 517-22-043 517-22-088 517-22-111 JOE D & STEPHANIE HADDEN WILLIAM J & BARBARA ELFVING IQBAL HUSAIN OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 20140 MENDELSOHN LN 15500 MADRONE HILL RD 15451 PEACH HILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070 TOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 _ 7-23-001 517-23-005 517-23-006 XIJPAN WEN WINGYU & LOUISE LEUNG WESLEY BEHEL ~7R CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 15699 PEACH HILL RD 5481-PEACH HILL RD 15671 PEACH HILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070 ~~ARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 517=23-007 517-23-009 517-23-016 RICHARD H & ELEANOR RUSNAK JOHN K & MARGUERITE RESTRICK MARY KAWAHARA OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 15701 PEACH HILL RD 15725 PEACH HILL RD 15748 PEACH HILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 LOS GATOS CA 95030 517-23-017 517-23-018 517-23-020 RIVES C CHALMERS DONALD E & MARCIA NEWHALL LAZAR & JANELLE BIRENBAUM 800 POLLARD RD A3 PO BOX 52 OR CURRENT RESIDENT LOS GATOS CA 95032 LOS GATOS CA 95031 20052 SUNSET DR SARATOGA CA 95070 ~~ 517-23-022 517-23-023 s 17-23-021 RICHARD A & DEBRA BELGARD MARDI TRUST yn~AL HUSAIN OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT ;. :.-1'40 MENDELSOHN LN 15571 PEACH HILL RD 15581 PEACH HILL RD c=~?,RATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 23-024 517-23-025 51.7-23-032 ERT M & DONNA GORSKI WILLIAM MUSSONE. VICTOR J & KATHERINE DEFINO OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 15600 PEACH HILL RD 15590 PEACH HILL RD 15625 PEACH HILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 y3 517-23-045 JAMES NELSON 20050 RED HILL RD LOS GATOS CA 95030 517-38-005, 006, 007 HURRAY H WOODS ,5.24 ROXBURY LN ~~ ~'bS GATOS CA 95032 517-23-048 ROBERT T & BEIJIA BECKETT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 15580 PEACH HILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070 CITY OF SARATOGA ATTN: SUZANNE THOMAS 13777 FRUITVALE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 517-38-001, 002, 003, 004 W L PELIO 14573 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 • • • • Attachment 5 C ~~ Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date:1~'1-~~~~ ~~i Zvv G PROJECT ADDRESS: /S~ I~43' ~E'A~N /~[ ../~e~~ S2p`~ ~Gq Applicant Name: [ t µ R ~ A ti . ~ • 4~V 00 ~ S ~~~0 'I /~ q ry ciTY or s.gru~-roc,~: Application Number: (~,~ - 2 ~ g 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 1o 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: Neighbor Address: 1 ~ ~ 8"~ ~Pe~c ~~ ~~ S wy ~~ Neighbor Phone #: ~~' ~~ ~b 7 - 6 ~~-~ Signature: Printed: B ,~~ '~j • • .,.. ~„___.__,. PlnnninQDenartment Neighbor Notification Template for -, .~ Development Applications ~ ~ ~ ~ u ~ ~ `~ ~ _ Date:/~i,~c~~ B', ZocyG ~ APR 2 7 2006 PROJECT ADDRESS: Is'S9S- ~AG~/ ~i~ L ~i ag a S 2~ ra 6 ~ CITY OF SAKATOG~ Applicant Name:_ u?!1 ~~ ~~_ ~v © S Application Number: D to - 2 Oa 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. ~vly 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: ~.~F~-G~ / -~~~'~~ Neighbor Address: Signature: ~f~ ~~ Neighbor Phone #: ~cd- '~67" 7~ ~~ Printed: ~7 City of Saratoga Pla~:ning Department Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Dater ~~ PROJECT ,4DDRESS:/.S.S9S f'~~/3cH ~icc yQ~~1L-S'~t~7'oGA Applicant Name:~,tr/1!l ,~N ~ - ,~j~D~/r~S 1~~~~1~i'L~ APR 2 7 2006 `~ CITY OF SARATUG~ti. Application Number: (9 G z ~ ~, 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. ~y 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): Nei hbor Name: C~~- G ~s~~ ~ ' ~~~ G g Neighbor Address: ---~--- Neighbor Phone #: ~~~ •3Jr Printed: ~~~ (,~ GAS/~e /~~-/~ a ~~350 ` c ~ ;a,~ %n o ~ rz~n d~ ~_?Q Y~ fo ~ Q ~ ~ • Planning Department • • Suzanne Thomas From: mohsen mardi [mohsen19@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 11:43 AM To: Suzanne Thomas Cc: mohsen19@yahoo.com Subject: Public hearing regarding 06-208-15595 Peach Hill rd. and My concern Dear Suzanne, Thank you for taking your time and reviewing the parking plan of this house with me. It was very helpful. My name is Mohsen Mardi and I live on 15581 Peach Hill road. My concern with this permit is about the size of parking lot. From what I saw, I think that this parking area is way to big for 6769 square foot house with an existing 3 cars Garage. The plan shows the additional parking area of 42 feet by 33 feet plus additional Turf block of 66 feet at the bottom with 39 feet on the top next to it which make this area as big as 42 feet by 93 feet. As far as I can tell a turf block can always be used for parking as well. Since our street has no room for parking most of the neighbors hire Valet attendants when they have big parties to take the car to other streets for parking. I am afraid that this parking space might be used as central parking for the neighborhood.. With two young children I would like to reduce the amount of over flow traffic around my house, therefor I would like to know why such a big area for parking? Is this normal in Saratoga? I heard they added this for fire safety, fire safety is something we all have to live with, and is the same issue for all of our neighborhood. Since this property is for sale I just wanted to make sure whomever is buying this house will not- I repeat will not - turn it to Block party parking or neighborhood parking lot. Can this parking space be eliminated or reduced? Best regards Mohsen-Mardi Do You Yahoo!? Tired of Spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com • ~y • Attachment 6 • ;~' ~,~• ..- • ~,'~{;~'~:.- •. CAarlss M ialt•r Assoel .. •,,. ;• •;+ .+.i ;~F~• .: ~ , ;,:~ ;~.' `ter ' 26 July 1999 ~~~y~~ .T i~,, : R ; . 1' / ...lei yi. , .. 'R i".;;i'i.~:ii 1 n c ;` Hugh Kennedy 1.-~,.~.111A 1 1 a~1 Hugh Keaaiedp Architect u114 o K 111 ~ ~°"W"'nll~~ 1901 Rode Sweet, ~i104 `''""""'w'"9" Mvwrtain View. CA 94043 1;1{1 li111 M:t ~flfi'1!! ?wwl h!:ulf.tmal p Subject. MW'rylY w00da ReNdence ( ~ ;; ~; a; ,7 J csA Project: 9x.762 1i r ally alll30/WS~ •:1}11rtl;wYu111iw1:Ar:gnul Dsar Hug~A: ..wV.1 IIp1111W 1W111 .awl a~ M I:.r. 1•l IRIMII II?~IWI/t -AtY ~NI/aMr 11 iW.I: 11F 1 w 1 h.a6w d•rm {. •.url.., -1• /11A1 1 111M11• 11.w1wr. ~ :i. awYal P'C 1RN1A1lr,YNUrnIr! 111w11A1• W f.na. 14 1nw+Yn M lin uawl4l-ry :,, : Irarf7p11g1 +e 1-..»A1111M~M•Ni N111 II W11wr .1 / aNlw11 Ms1..•• 11 bM h 1.gY111 fllryJl 1.•.I. A warol ,.a1: A Nrt1~ 4r n 1/ i MIV 1 •Nr11• Ah+...-• u.f.a I l cll. cdy h I IMynp 11. A 11tw I.y1fM1 R1fw91f: 11_,,1-IM111~ I;w.«. v n.1,r, Mlw 11 Ml'i AWw1-~ ~ 11-w Ir~„n11: M+r RWM D Pewlla~ Via FAX: 650/691-091 S ?his fetter aurrsmarizee the roeults of our acoustical measurements made for the proposed ernergencY generator at the site on 23 Jvty 1999. As discussed is our 19 June 1999 letter. 20 decibels of noise reduction was predicted (referenced at 23 fee fl+om generator) at the nearest residential property liet {133 feet away from the proposed emergency generator locatjon). A 45 dBA level at the property line would result. No acwunting Eon ocoustieal shielding from terrain or foliage was taken into aaouat The acoustical masuremenu made as the tilt document these additioml et'fotts. Our acoustical testing indicated that chore would be actually 36 decibels of A~ighteti noise reduction at the residential property lice phra S dB predicted for the wall sutrounding tho generator 1'hic is an additional 2l decibels of Hoist reduction beyond the ealoulated levee. Therefore, we would expect the resultitag noise at the p~topaty {ine 5ro~t the emergency generator to be less than 25 dBA. This u far below the requirements of the Noise Ordinance and is ear tho ambicrn background level of the area. Encbced is a chart indicating various sound :ounces and thew typical A-We~bted sound .level. . w • This concludaa our cttttent oornments. iifyou love quectionsl please call. Slncer rslyt (ARLES M. SAY.Ti~R A6SOG7ATFS- II~TC. xer,nvch w. oraveq P.B. principal C'~ona-Itant XWG/m~ 9l9erepol ~~.il f19.7~ A6v+gY Wendt Rf+ridr+~os 0776Pilaes >F S ..t " ~ ~ E~~.rr- r MagneTek POWER SYSTEMS • dude QN1L 50 kW Natural Ga Liquids eum enerator Set wsL •~ renQrator S®t Rating 60 Hz Sound levels @ 23 fl. Three Phase 60 Mz 50 t'1Z No load 65 dBa kW/KVAkW/KVA FuU load 67 dBa C:on~nuou9 standby 150'C 50/62 35/M Nrime Power 105'C 38/47 3p/38 Single Phase 60 Mz 50 tiZ kW/KVA kWA(VA ~ :cnt~nuous StaMby 150'C 30/30 30130 Prime dower 705'C 2383 25125 Quality Power Producing Equipment is our business at Elliott Magnetek Power Systems, inc.. Our power systems offer solutions fo requirements for reliable, quahey electrical power. • toot full loan tested. • Performance supported by prototype • 12 teal re-connectable AC synchronous generators. • Solid stela automatic voltage regulator. - SO or 60 Hz operational. • Standard Digital Control Panel meeting standards set by NFPA-110, testing. .. _..._...,.....,r` L` • ~.___.~ Product Features System Reliability and Longevity oog~n with design experience and . nregrity. EMPS was formed by two companies with over one hundred rears experience producing stat9-of tha.art power ganeretlon equipment. This cxperienoe is designed into our Single Source Responsibility: Organizational Commitment , Product service. support and parts to innovative. leading edge teehnoktgy a~raiiable through EMPS network of and environmentally friendly electrical ~I distributors. products and services. 1 Accessories and Flexibility t sre desipne~d into EMPS' generator sets at trio factory level to Yneet specific appgoation needs. generator eats. • New York: 50 Broadway, 6th Floor, New York. NY 10004 917-305-7700 (Voice) • 917-305-7999 (TTY) • 917-305-7888 (Fag) Page 1 of 3 Florida: 2800 W. Oakland Park Blvd Suite 306 Oakland Park FL 33311 954-731-7200 (Voice) • 954-731-7208 (TTY) • 954-085-6336 .: ~}Nose~Geriter NOISE CENTER OF THE LEAGUE 1 888 NOISE. 88 • Noise Center: Decibel Levels NOISE LEVELS IN OUR ENVIRONMENT FACT SHEET How Loud is Too Loud? Experts agree that continued exposure. to noise above 85 dBA over time, will cause hearing loss. To know if a sound is loud enough to damage your eazs, it is important to know both the loudness level (measured in decibels, dBA) and the length of exposure to the sound. In general, the louder the noise, the less time required before hearing loss will occur. According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (1998), the maximum exposure time at 85 dBA is 8 hours. At 110 dBA, the maximum exposure time is one minute and 29 seconds. If you must be exposed to noise, it is recommended that you limit the exposure time and/or weaz hearing protection. Measure Up and Turn it Down: Decibel Levels Around Us The following are decibel levels of common noise sources around us. These are typical levels, however, actual noise levels may vary depending on the pazticulaz item. Remember noise levels above 85 dBA will harm hearing over time. Noise levels above 140dBA can cause damage to hearing after just one exposure. Points of Reference *measured in dBA or decibels . 0 The softest sound a person can heaz with normal heazing • . 10 normal breathing . 20 whispering at 5 feet • 30 soft whisper 53 Noise Center: Decibel Levels Page 2 of 3 • 50 rainfall • 60 normal conversation . 110 shouting in ear • 120 thunder Work Recreation Home • 40 quiet office, library . 40 quiet residential • 50 refrigerator • SO large ofTice area . 50 - 60 electric • 65 - 95 power lawn . 70 freeway traffic toothbrush mower • 85 heavy traffic, noisy • 50 - 75 washing 80 manual machine, restaurant machine tools • 90 truck, shouted • 50 = 75 air conditioner • 85 handsaw conversation • 50 - 80 electric shaver • 90 tractor • 95 - 110 motorcycle . 55 coffee percolator • 90 - 115 subway . 100 snowmobile . 55 - 70 dishwasher • 95 electric drill . 100 school -dance, boom box . 60 sewing machine • 100 factory machinery . 110 disco • 60 - 85 vacuum • 100 woodworking class cleaner • .110 busy video arcade • 105 snow blower • 60 - 95 hair dryer • 110 symphony concert • 110. power saw . 65 - 80 alarm clock • 110 car horn • 1101eafblower • 70 TV audio • 110 -120 rock concert . 120 chain saw, hammer • 70 - 80 coffee grinder on nail • 112 personal cassette player on high • 70 - 95 garbage • 120 pneumatic drills, disposal heavy machine • 117 football game (stadium) . 75 - 85 flush toilet • 120 jet plane (at ramp) . 120 band concert . 80 pop-up toaster 120 ambulance siren • 125 auto stereo . 80 doorbell • 125 chain saw (factory installed) • • • • • Noise Center: Decibel Levels . 80 ringing telephone . 80 whistling kettle . 80 - 90 food mixer or processor . 80 - 90 blender . 80 - 95 garbage disposal . 110 baby crying . 110 squeaky toy held close to the eaz . 135 noisy squeeze toys . 130 jackhammer, power drill . 130 air raid . 130 percussion section at symphony . 140 airplane taking off • 150 jet engine taking off . 150 artillery fire at 500 feet . 180 rocket launching from pad Page 3 of 3 . 130 stock caz races • 143 bicycle hom . 150 firecracker • 156 capgun . 157 balloon pop • 162 fireworks (at 3 feet) . 163 rifle . 166 handgun . 170 shotgun LEAGUE HOMEPAGE ~~ Noise Center ~~~ EMail Copyright LEAGUE FOR THE HARD OF HEARING ~J ss • Attachment 7 • • • 1 LrL VJ i~~~ i l • LJ i' 7 l• ~ Jrll 1 1 rl \..~11 \1"1 trill F__:E DEPARTMENT SANTA CIARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95030-1818 (40$) 378-4010 (phone) • (908) 378-9342 (fan) Mr. fames Walgren Community Development Director City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: Tracts 7424 &8561 /Madrone Hill & Peach Hill Roads Dear Mr. Walgren, • I have been asked to discuss the required driveway widths of a particular parcel of the above noted tracts with yourself relative to fire department access. While I am not yet in receipt of a recent parcel rnap which will legally depict the parcel which Mr. Woods refers to, I will state with your concurrence, that this department will likewise accept the deviation from 14' to 22' driveway width. I will reserve my official comments pending receipt of the referenced final parcel map. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact myself. Sincerely, c~ Way~A. Hokanson Deputy Fire Marshal II Fire Prevention Division cc: Mr. Murray Woods A Colifornla Dire Protection Distrkt scruing Sonty Coro County and the tornmun~cies of Campbtll, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Mils, Los Gatos, Monte Serena, Mwgon Hill, anti Sorotoga s~ FIKE DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 (phone) • (408) 378-9342 (fax) CONTROL NUMBER BLDG PERMR NUMBER Q c PLAN REVIEW NUMBER ~ 8 - ~ ~ ~ 6 FlLENUMBER DR 9$-051 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS CODE/SEC. SHEET NO. REQUIREMENT Review of proposed new 8,690 square foot single family residence with attached garage and basement. 1 Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access and water supply as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work the applicant shall apply to the Building Department for applicable construction permits. 2 Required Fire Flow: Required fire flow for this project is 2,500 GPM at 20 psi Appendix III-A ~, residual pressure. The required fire flow is not ()available from area water ' mains and fire hydrant(s) which are spaced at the required spacing. 3 Regarding item #2 above, it is noted that a private water system for fire suppression purposes is proposed and approved by this office. Refer to plan review comments 98-1386 dated 6/2/98 (See Attached). The aforementioned fire protection plan shall include provisions for on-site fire hydrants and shall conform to the requirements listed below relative to design and timing issues. ~~ 4 Automatic Fire Sprinkler System Required: Buildings requiring a fire flow in 903.3 as ,~,d~ excess of 2,000 GPM shall be equipped throughout with an approved automatic s~vtc fire sprinkler system. The fire sprinkler system shall be hydraulically designed 16-20.130 per National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard #13D, 1994 Edition, this department's Standard V-1 and any local ordinances. DISTRICT PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST.TYPE PERMITTEE DATE PAGE STG ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ HUGH KENNEDY AIA 12/1/98 1 4 GF SECJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION BY Residential Development Hokanson, Wayne { NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION SFR Peach Hill Rd J :] A California Fire Protection District serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan HiII, and Saratoga • FIKE DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 (phone) • (408) 378-9342 (fax) CONTROL NUMBER BLDG PERMR NUMBER PLAN REVIEW NUMBER 9 S- 3 Z 7 6 FlLENUMBER DR 98-051 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS CODE/SEC. ~ SHEET ~ NO. I REQUIREMENT ~''~ 5 Private On Site Fire Service Mains and/or Hydrants: Installations shall 903.2 conform to National Fire Protection Association Standard #24, and Fire Department Standard Details and Specification W-2. ~~ 6 Timin og_f Required Water Supply Installations: Required Fire Service and Fire 901.3 Hydrant installations shall be installed tested and accepted by the Fire. Department, prior to the start of framing. Bulk construction materials shall not be delivered to the site until installations are completed as stated above. Building permit issuance may be withheld until installations are completed. UFC ._: 7 Fire Apparatus (Engine) Access Roads Required: Provide access roadways with 9o2.2.z a awed all weather surface and a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet, P vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside, and a maximum slope of 15%. Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications A-1. UFC ` 8 Fire Department (Engine) Roadway Turn-around Required: Provide an 902.2.2.4 ~l ~ approved fire department engine roadway turnaround with a minimum radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside. Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications A-1. Cul-De-Sac Diameters shall be no less than 72 feet. ~~ 9 Fire Apparatus ~Engine)Access Driveway Required: Provide an access driveway 902.2.2 - with a paved all weather surface and a minimum unobstructed width of 14 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside, and a maximum slope of 15%. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications D-1. DISTRICT PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST. TYPE PERMRTEE DATE PAGE STG ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ HUGH KENNEDY AIA 12/1/98 2 OF 4 SECJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION BY Residential Development Hokanson, Wayne NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION SFR Peach Hill Rd A California Fire Protection District serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga sy FIRE DEPARTMENT SL"ll\TA ~l..L"1I1C'1 NOUN 1 I CONTROL NUMBER 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 BLDG PERMIT NUMBER (408) 378-4010 (phone) • (408) 378-9342 (fax) 9 $ - 3 2 7 6 PLAN REVIEW NUMBER FILE NUMBER DR 98-051 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS CODE/SEC. SHEET NO. REQUIREMENT ~~ 902.2.2.4 10 Fire Department (Engine) Driveway Turn-around Required: Provide an approved fire department engine driveway turnaround with a minimum radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside. Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications D-1. ~''~ 11 Emergency Gate/Access Gate Requirements: When open gates shall not 902.2.4.1 obstruct any portion of the required access roadway or driveway width. If provided, all locks shall be fire department approved. Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications G-1. ~''~ 12 Fire Department Kev Box/Switch Required: Provide an approved fire 902.4 department key box and/or key switch for access gate control or appropriate gate keys. Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Detail and Specification K-1. ~''~ 2 2 13 Parking Along Roadways: The required width of fire access roadways shall not . .4.1 90 be obstructed in any manner. Parking shall not be allowed along roadways less than 28 feet in width. Parking will be allowed along one side of the street for roadways 28-35 feet in width. For roadways equal to or greater than 36 feet parking will be allowed on both sides of the roadway. Roadway widths shall be measured face to face of curb. Parking spaces are based on an 8 ft wide space. DISTRICT PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST.TYPE PERMITTEE DATE PAGE STG ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ HUGH KENNEDY AIA 12/1/98 3 4 DF SECJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION gy Residential Development Hokanson, Wayne SFR LV VN I IVI~1 Peach Hill Rd A California Fire Protection District serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga FIRE DE* PAAARTMEN~T) SC11r l A CLARA NOUN 1 I CONTROL NUMBER • CODEfSEC. I SHEET I NO. I REOUIREMENi FlLENUMBER DR 98-051 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS UFC 901.3 trFc 901.4.4 14 15 ~~ C-1.1 16 902.2.2 UFC 17 901.2.2.1 902.2.2.2 SMC 14-25.11 NAME OF Pr 18 Timing of Required Roadway Installations: Required driveways and/or access roads up through first lift of asphalt shall be inspected and accepted by the Fire Department prior to the start of construction. Bulk combustible materials shall not be delivered to the site until installations are completed as stated above. Building permit issuance may be with held until installations are completed. Premises Identification: Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background. It is noted that the driveway to the proposed site is shown as a "Dirt Road". ,The applicant shall be made aware that the roadway surface shall be all-weather (concrete/asphalt/pavers or other engineered surface acceptable to the fire department) as opposed to dirt or gravel etc. Required Plans and Permits: Plans for fire apparatus access roads and fire hydrant systems shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to construction. Permits are required for the installation of all Private Water Supply, Tank, and Hydrant Systems and must be issued to contractors prior to the start of installation of such systems. 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 BLDGPERMRNUMBER (408) 378-4010 (phone) • (408) 378-9342 (fax) q c PLAN REVIEW NUMBER ~ ~ - 3 ~ ~ 6 Early Warning Fire Alarm System Required: Provide anapproved-Early Warning Fire Alarm System throughout all portions of the structure, installed in accordance with City of Saratoga Standards. DISTRICT PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST.TYPE PERMITTEE DATE PAGE STG ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ HUGH KENNEDY AIA 12/1/98 4 4 DF SECJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION gy Residential Development Hokanson, Wayne SFR LOCATION Peach Hill Rd A California Fire Protection District serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga ~r FIRE DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 (phone) • (408) 378-9342 (fax) CONTROL NUMBER BLDG PERMR NUMBER e PLAN REVIEW NUMBER ~ 8 -13 8 6 FlLE NUMBER DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS CODFJSEC. I SHEET I NO. I REQUIREMENT Review of proposed new fire service for a five lot residential subdivision. This system consists of one 45,000 gallon storage tank related piping and a distribution system of 4 on-site fire hydrants. This project is located within the City of Saratoga. It is noted that a portion of lot #2, and parcels #3, 4 & 5 are located within the Santa Clara County Fire Department enforcement jurisdiction. Lot #1 is within Saratoga Fire Department enforcement jurisdiction. This jurisdiction is concerned with the following methods of Fire Code compliance relative to the installation of this system. The City of Saratoga may have other regulations which will impact this proposed system.. While it the both jurisdiction's desire to review this application simultaneously, certain regulations may differ. Please consult with the individual departments accordingly. 2 As a condition of permit issue, this department shall receive and approve documentation from developer/owners of a recorded system maintenance and fire service access easement agreement. Included in this document shall be responsibility for maintaining the system functional at all times and provisions for immediate repair of system deficiencies or impairments. Inclusion of contingencies to facilitate immediate repair of impaired systems shall be included in this document. Note: Repair of system deficiencies or impairments shall be immediate and financial accountability by developer or owner shall be so stipulated in said agreement. The word system here shall include all components including piping, tank, hydrants, pumps and any alarm systems on private property beyond the water company's point of connection. DISTRICT PLANS SPECS NEW RMOL AS OCCUPANCY CONST.TYPE PERMITTEE DATE PAGE STG ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ROY A NELSON 06~02~98 ~ 1 of 4 LOAD I DESCRIPTION Residential Development Hokanson, Wayne NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION t~ PEACH HILL- MADRONE HILL DEVELOPMENT Peach Hill Rd A California Fire Protection District serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga • FIRE DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 (phone) • (408) 378-9342 (fax) CONTROL NUMBER BLDG PERMTf NUMBER PLAN REVIEW NUMBER ~ ~ - ~ 3 8 6 FlLE NUMBER DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS PEACH HILL- MADRONE HILL DEVELOPMENT I Peach Hill Rd A California Fire Protection District serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga CODE/SEC. SHEET NO. REQUIREMENT ~~ 3 Private On Site Fire Service Mains and Hvd rants: Installations shall conform to 903.2 ~, National Fire Protection Association Standard #24, and Fire Department Standard Details and Specification W-2. No installation shall occur until plans have been approved and a separate installation permit has been issued. 4 After permits are obtained, installation shall be facilitated by at least a qualified C-36 general contractor or a licensed fire protection contractor. 5 As a matter of pipeline clarification, clearly identify domestic and fire line separation. It appears in certain locations where only one line exists although the line is identified as both fire and domestic. 6 Provide provisions for securing of all system valuing in an open and locked condition at all times. It is highly recommended that this system be maintained with an automated monitoring system which checks for liquid level in tanks, water flow and valve monitoring. Said monitoring shall be terminated at the City of Saratoga Fire Department alarm office or in addition to the fire department, at an approved central station alarm company. 7 It is highly recommended that the power source for the operation of the noted booster pumps from Peach Hill point of connection be provided with an approved back-up power source. Should the developer/owners so choose to utilize emergency generator back up, please note that permitting through this office and the Hazardous Materials division shall be required. DISTRICT PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST. TYPE PERMIT'TEE DATE PAGE STG ~ ~ [~ ~ ~ ROY A NELSON ~~~ : .:. 2 4 of SECJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION gY Residential Development Hokanson, Wayne 63 FI~R~TE DEPARTMENT SC11\'1'A l~.L['1I~C'1 COUN'~ CONTROL NUMBER 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 BLDG PERMR NUMBER _ (408) 378-4010 (phone) • (408) 378-9342 (fax) g $ .13 8 6 PLAN REVIEW NUMBER FlLE NUMBER DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS CODE/SEC. I SHEET I NO. I REQUIREMENT 8 Prior to obtaining installation permit, installing contractor shall provide qualified details on proposed system components to identify suitability for use in hilly locations. In addition, suitability for use within the specific seismic zone shall also be required. 9 Installing contractor shall be prepared to provide hydrostatic testing of system within the system in potentially "isolated" sections to account for elevation changes and tank and point of connection break points. 10 Installing contractor shall submit plans which identify the installation of the complete system. There shall be no phased installation of this system permitted. 11 Provide an estimated system refill rate based upon service delivery from San Jose Water Company's point of connection. DISTRICT PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCWPANCY CONST. TYPE PERMITTEE DATE PAGE STG ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ROY A NELSON 06/02/98 3 DF 4 SECJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION BY Residential Development Hokanson, Wayne NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION PEACH HILL- MADRONE HILL DEVELOPMENT Peach Hill Rd A California Fire Protection District serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga • FIKE DEPAKTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 (phone) • (408) 378-9342 (fax) CONTROL NUMBER BLDG PERMR NUMBER PLAN REVIEW NUMBER ~ ~ ~ 1 3 ~ 6 FlLE NUMBER DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS CODE/SEC. I SHEET NO. REQUIREMENT 12 It is noted that all five homes located on these proposed lots will be provided with an approved residential fire sprinkler system (NFPA 13D or 13R) which the plans reflect will receive its water supply from the proposed new fire service. As the residential fire sprinkler systems are designed to operate from domestic water service, and for reliability of system service, this department maintains that the systems shall not be included within the .new proposed fire system. Feed fire sprinkler systems from the domestic water services. Separate plan review and permits are required for that phase of the project. 13 As this project is located within two fire service jurisdictions, both Santa Clara County and the Saratoga Fire Departments shall be consulted when any system modification or impairment is identified or proposed. Approval by the two fire service jurisdictions shall be obtained prior to any system modification or impairment. 14 It is noted that a portion of lot #2 is intersected by the jurisdictional boundry line. For the sake of the proposed tentative map creation, the developer is urged to make all appropriate application to the City of Saratoga and other agencies as necessary to preclude possible application delays. 15 Review of this submittal is limited to only the new proposed fire system. Any conditional approval of it shall not be construed to approve any other portion of the proposed site development or map condition. Further review of proposed lot subdivision or tentative map and any site and architectural review shall occur separate of this review. DISTRICT PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS STG ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ NAME OF PROJECT PEACH HILL- MADRONE HILL DEVELOPMENT ROY A NELSON Residential Development Peach Hill Rd 06/02/98 I 4 OF 4 v Hokanson, Wayne A California Fire Protection District serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga ~~RE DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Wuuhester Blvd, !mss Gatos, CA 95030-1818 (408) 378-4010 (phone) • (408) 378-9342 (fax) t~IR110L NUMBFJI stao r~terR NurracA vtn+t REViEVrt~svt 9 8 -10 i11~ NNM8t7i DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS COOFI6EC. ~ SMFkT ~ N0. ~ REGIAROfrtM iew of proposed driveway plan serving two residential lots. the 1 The ~LSe of a fourteen foot roadway from Peach Hill road is permitted per this 902.2.2 department's standard & detail D-1 (driveways serve no more than 2 houses). The inclusion of 1' shoulders in addition to the roadway width on either side c the driveway is likewise approved. 2 Provide one 20' X 50' turn-out along driveway leading to first lot. A.s discusses turnout may be located in area of "stitch wall" installation approximately' from Peach Hill Road. t~ 3 It is noted that an initial gradient from Peach Bill Road for approximately 100' 9°2z.z ~ at 17%. While this exceeds this department's 15% requirement, it shall be permitted due to the short length of excess gradient. 902 2 2 a 4 Cul de sac bulb regvixes 36' radius or 72' diameter of drivable surface. Should { rolled curbs be employed, credit will be given to account for additional taming width. D TRICT PU1NB NiIN RI~DI AS OCp1PANC7 coNBT_ TYpE t7~TE PAGE sTC ^ ^ ^ D ^ acs McDl~oTr HErss o4/r~/9a 1 ,~ i SEGFLOOR NEB 1A4o GESCRIIRON OY LOTS 4 ds 5 Residential Development Hokanson, Wayne MnNE Oi PROJECT lOCA7lON TRACT 7424 Peach Hill Road A Calljom~a Ars Protertlon DJserict serving Santy Ctaro County and the communiues o/ Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos. Monte Sereno. Morgan Hilt, and Saratoga TOTAL P.05 C7 Attachment 8 • 6~ • • `~ (A c 2 N v rn z O S v rn '~;~ .z m D a m rm D N -~ N v rn Vu • :7 O C c m -~ n Z O Z (n -i O Z m O Z C r v z G~ m D z z G~ a r r N Y m D Z N a Z G~ r O I r O N ~~~o~~ ~ ~uw o s zoos SARATOGA DEVELOPMENT • • Attachment 9 ~~ U z . m ttn,~ co ~ ~ • • I i . Attachment 10 L` 72 0 Y C O m 8 VINbO~I~V~ A1Nf10~ V2fdl~ V1Nb'S t+901d?JVS (Xtld) 6616-L94/BOi ~ SdaUUDld • SJO~(aNlls . s~aaul6u3 - ob!Q?!'1'IlH HJb!3d:56551• .. ool6-LBb/BOb 101 JNI~IaVd - Z 101 {c~s6 va oo~ziins ~'~~ ~~ ~~ 3n1a0 Xatld a30Cla l86 3~N3ois~a saooM - -Nb~d 9NIadbJ -: ~ ~~"~ 76vNnap pc suolsl^ar r' ~`~ ~ ~ ~^ \ x ~ it ,/~/ a n ~ / - ~x ~ ~' .~ ~ ~` ~ Z ~ ~: \ { / ~`"`.,1\ ~~ \ ~ ~* / ~ ~ ~~':~ ~~ ~ \ to ._ *P i _~.4 r -- \w ~' ,mow `~.~ -< -. \ l ~ } ~ ` I m `r-~--~+-'~'~ T ' `~ ;/\ ~ ~ tip/ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` II ~ I .I I ,I Y~ ~ m0 ~ I t~ y i ~~ r3 ~ 6 _ ' ~ I ~. ~I .; i ~% B,.B ~ d Seg\ ~y $ . ` ~ t i + d ~ i , I c t~ I I 92B ~~r'p \ ~~ I o r e- \ ` 1 897 5, ~ -, r 1 ° ~ ~ I~~W cJ l 1 ,~,~ r ~`eBB , I r r:~ ~ 1 o ~., \m m ~ ~ 1. tip U6 r` %t0 ~ / .` 1 ' \~-=' v' ~~ ~ L I .;ne 9 1 ~ L ``\ `hot as. ~~. ~., ` \ ~,-~:/Y. ff T ~. ~\ I ~ s '-. t~' 1' ~ ~ \ -'. - sa _ ~ + ~ ' sg '~ ~ rn~ a -~ ~ I ~~ u i ~ ~x \ in ~ ~ \ ,'~ ssg ~ s r ~` ~ , \ i~ . _ - ~' 99 } ~~` \ ~ i i ~\ 968 ~ i \ ~ ,~ ~ ~ .. ~ I - _~N~ f .mss ` ~~ \ Q~\' 9 t t \ e9 (~? i~.. ~~. ~ I 9 I ~ ' ~ ' '~ z ' s~ i , . ~ ~ $ v \~ 57• 2 ji v~ ° ~\ ~ \ z 4 I p \ ~ +- 'A W to -. ~ a \ + a a- o x ~~ ~ \ ss 2 r _ 1 Zr., ` _ ' /~' ~ ` , ~ `~ u a ~~_ ~ ~~, "F / ~ ~~ 1 ~~ -.. voi~~ ~f : , i s '1 '^q - ~ r ' / , ~ ~ n t ce \~ ~ 4 `O \ ~ ~ 1 ~ {` - i ryp C ~~:GS ~?~ ` h ~ - M ~- ~, ~ ~ ~ t \ \ O d` ~! ~ \ ~~ t ' ~ \ ~ \ - \ 3~ ; 1, o of ~~ 0 r S ` \ 4- Z ~Si Z~ F ~ I - ~ z~ r ` ~~~ - vim, ~ ,4 - ~u \ £O \ . ~ .. ~ ~ , ~~, ~ ~ ~ \ ~ , •. V _ '.^.dr, ,{' ~N ~ 6 1J~ -~ B ~ ~ ~ I ~j~ r .7 ~!\ ~ s' us ,\ ~ y.U ~` ~ ~ . 7 ~; $ a~ 1" 0 0 °a ~ O ___._-__ _____-_ i _._. _. _.. _.. _ I I ~ 1 I _.-.r 1 ~ (V I i _~ OS fBB 30na I I zs c SOna i U N r v'M pl.m I ZS+O -SOn3 I; n n I , i ZS'b6B 3~na SL ZO+I ~SOAB h ~ b N ±m m± O ~ ^ > ; it ~ R ~w w~ S5 as a a i s _ 60968 ~3~n3 SL'ZZ+t $On3 ~~ I b ~< of N R z~ 0 O N aor BpWP wo~tltly w T ~ r ~Xp •^~ .N fiMN Blsep ,~ ' Ol ,1 aIO~S -- T 88. Of -6 a3W p b\ N Oi ~ OIn Q J YI X IG o' 0 m X ' W ON ~ . -+Z UV 12¢ D d N N N V mO a~D O O _ ~ ~ ~ ~ O C. m I O~O _~ ~ p II II II Q (n - J Q °o r ~ -t ~ l C -._ ~ -1... ~. ~` y- a Z ~ ~~ O _ ~ \ 1J Y :S - ~ a ~ \~ a ~ ril-.. < S g ~' W w f ~ ... `S~ 1 -... ~ ~ vTr~Fr,t+ U VI U F m m / ' - \ ~ ~'- ~. ~ .i- -- - • ~' r v ~ ~ J J 'd' a Lf7 ~ W a j } v ~ ~ ~ Opp ~ ~ ~ N 00 ~ ~ (fl y :J O ~ = H _ ~ w ~ W Z cn Q ¢Q n. F- O r g O N a r z 0 U 3~ I ~ oy r~ 1.1 = m >N~~ Opp w}Z ~VQO ZI60~ I~mi W d2U ~l.r0 2 ~ <~o mW ^O V ~~~ 2 D_ az~' Q W _ j/1 ~~W3 C.7 a a y O sod n' ;nca ~I~au~i a}W F O F w 0 ~ "' H °o w w aaazo C7 ~ msoa¢ Wi J ~ mNOd; ~ ~ a~ ,~ n m • • ~ - i ~F / ~ i ~ , •~~: ~ /: _~___ sy?rjg i i ~ ~T'T~~LZZ7T` (~~'~t 7i ~ ~~ {. L u '-_ `~- ~ L._. ~. Via,- ~~~. Ti'--~. ~~i ~- i_ ~ ~~ /)-' g ~, Sz`~ z~ ~. =.v tL U~ I I f ~ i ~ ''~yyyppp ~i ~' ~ . I i i ~ r ~ • • F 8 . ~ i - _. ,\ C. j ' ~' `I I I ~3 N ~ ~--~ ~ -. ~ - ~-- - --- - - -i----- r - -, -~ ~ ;~ , 1] .1 f uw- v - i .~_-- ~ -------- -- .. _.__--- - . _.._- ---- ? ~ I ~ ~ ~ - ~~ r -.-ry ~ ~ w . ~ F. ~ ? ~ ~ 5 I - r ~ - ~~ ~ ,.1 t_ I ~~ ~- ~ __ -- _~ ~-~ ~, , ~ r --- , _.. _ . _ _ _ ... l~' G\' N :1,~ i X ~ - Ill ~ ~ ~ X= 1 '~- ._.._- - - T ', Q `~, t y ~. - `-~, - - ~ ~ u D ~~ ! `~ I.. ~ - 1 G ~ - d0 ~1 ~ Z 4 : .~;~ 1 ~ w~ I i 1 ~ ---- _~ 3 u; ` ~- j ~ ~ ~ -~ I ,. J ~`_ r~~~ , ~,I~~: J! ~ I ; s o 5 -~-- ~ i i ___.. ------ _ l - - -- ~.. r~ - - - --- _._. ~ _ . - ~,;r - ~~ _li~l s„IW _ _ So a ~. ~ m ~e ~~ - ----- --- - -~- --- i _ I ~.y %" ~ I _. i i ir°> r82 ~~D LI j j - -I ; ~ - - - - I - ~ -- - N - - - j ~4 ~ .,r~ ,~ j _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~I ~j p .. ? y U -,- 1 _^ li -- w ~ L ~ ~, ra ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ SC ~ ~~ - Z ?D I F ~ . ~ ~ I j ~ ~ y-,~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' Q ~ ~' 3 ~~F :~i-ri 11 y d~1 - I - - ~ ~ ~ _ ~. u~i ~L ~ .. Y ~ _: ._ ~, S SL _ .. I ,..- ~•. ~ ~ - I~CI`` - ~!-_-!: _ .4__ _ _ _ a~ ' Ste. ~ 4^ . ~ R U ~ - - - A ut ? F- I~ ! - ~Z C~ ~. 4-~` - - 13 .~, ~_~ w I I I~ . U .~ _) 3 u ;~ ~~ ~~ ~_~ ~ti~ I II .I..~ f f s t i S -..__ .~ k ~__ ~ i • . • =~n:~ - . • • • C -. '~.~ O .. - K ~. N-iO ~-aD N ~ 1~ ~ -° o - °+ a a a ' 1/ ' a O o 0 0 0 0 o aaaaaaa `u a a u u sin a v in ~ '~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ O ydj . P Y ° ~ ° w ~ ~~ - o N 2P1 t N J - C O ~ Ir ~ 1- m N N ~ r \ ~ L ~ y 4 ~ r..I i \\ ~ V O ~~\ i ~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~ N ° ~ , . ~,~~~~~~ .~~ a ..~ a ~~~~~ ~ o Q o e o .~ o ; .a~~ ~ y~p V_ °IZ ~` y~ I --. .. '... T .... ...-:- .... ~I.. • ~ 1,1 `' '~~W 11 1 1~ ~J 4~ ~ ~ ~/` ~~~ aOm" _ ___ °a2o YP ~>; i O.. i O ~ ~ ~ ~ b. ~, x~~ ~ I~ C , ~ l ~ ~ U i=s s a _~ ,. : ~ y Y ~ ~ '~ :s. ~ n `.J c ~ ~. :C ^? 1. ~ `- /J ? `~ QLL ' ~ N. \ ~ o ° ~7 ~' ~ ~ :] W ;Lt! cp ~ cG ' 2~3 ... c ~ z o ~ c z. ~ ~ Z3 o.~s- ~m3:. .~-.. i u • .. . - _ ~.r ~ U J~C ~ . - V- U - ~ - - - \ ~ I Jp ¢Z .. ~ - 4 9 - Q of 6! V. ~l p . Qy_ - ~ }. . ~_ S Z ~ Z ° W I ~o ~~ y . ~ J~ Y Q l.r ~ IJJ Z ~ LL _ w~ ~ ~a __ o; z ., ~ \ . a ~: lp °~ LL F. . ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ z ~ ZiW NJ_LU ~~a ~ _ -~ h= - ~~ ~~ V>p a~ ~ a Q ~ J ~ N. i - -~ -- '. :. ' ~ _ _ J' _ .. .~ F .. / . O Y _ _ _ ~~ _ _ .. - C~Z J. Z~~ ~. j. U.. ~ ~ ~ N ~ > ~ y S- a ¢ c 40 t0~ ~ _ az °•' o ~~ - - . - . '... ' .. , .. ' _ ~ - ~ 0 N '~.-u. ~ ~ Q . ~ ~ V V a a~ sLL moo . ° a , z cN ~.1 ' ~\ _ ` :ry ~ ., z_ z.. ~ tt O ~~r\`.E.A # Y y -_- ~- ~ - ~ - .. ' . n ~ / __ __ ... ~. ~~ J ~ ~ o Na 8 `. . i ~ I ®. N K Z ,, m I' ~ N ~. Y 3 31 zw ~~ p E-60 v i , C= ~ z~av ~ ~ a ~~ Y J~ ~, ' 3'~'d' I ~~za" i i ~~~~ o ~u or i Ji z ~. ~ ~ ~ "> i ~ i I O . . N i ~ ~~~ ~3 o x ~ I a Y ~ :•. i ~ Z W ~ , -. - ~, ~\ I ~; ~2 ~r .,. ~ ~w ~~ ~ ~_. ` I ~ - +~ G ~_ L - ~ ~ ~'• -~ L ~ I ~, Qr ,~ ~__ ~~.~ . 11 ~ _ _ -. - - ~ v ~ ' - - i .. - - ~ - ~ ii I ~' ~ I { ~ ,lu _ 44 I ~ _ '~ ~ l _ ~ - v _ ~ i I fi ~ i ` N -1-_-~ ~ . '.. om- I - 1 -. - __ t~~.. ~ . -. . i I' I I Wm. ~- ` % :. : `.., -: r _ ~~ r o~, . - _:;._-.. ~~~ . _ . II w ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ o ~ ~ ~~ ~. ~= _ ~x ~i ~~ ~w ~~ I _. - , ,, ~, ,.a ~,.,,, ~ , ;,w ~.~ . ~ ~. ~ . _ ~` ~J • i !~ Item 3 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 06-323; 14524 Oak Street Type of Application: Design Review Owner/Applicant: Robinson Staff Planner: Lata Vasudevan AICP, Associate Planne>~~ Meeting Date: June 14, 2006 APN: 517-10-005 Department Head: ~~ John F. Livingst e, AICP .. .~ ~.. T •-- ~° . .1a 11i 9 ~ PcL e ; ' I S A / ~ • . ------- °. .wt... L'--i--- y [112 O PCL . 5 KL.I . : a . , ~ Z; 1T ~ .. _. .M -- Ar- - +: i a• _ _ - - I ... ~: ~I.1 _ .~'. .~.. r. 231 0 _ _......o. ~~. 4-•- • .J ,.._ - i .. _._ . ' - __.-OAK v.'fi :tis~s'~' L~~~ __ - _' _o •-- >g ~ ~~ ... ... - nj1 .. °• ~ j ~ f .~ 2~ .. e.u1n SARATJOA S QDL DISTRICT ~7 r 1v w .u 01 500' ~ 4 InIC P 1 1 ~' ~ '. •.4 fi e ~ 2 TMCT M 1102 eAP.ATOC.1 r. U. ~ ~ ~ . 3 K v 8 ° 11 - '° vc L. •y `~ 2f A - ° • •6-1 • O ~ ~~ I .•L •[l ~ _ ~ _ took y ~ s \~ 2 i g la1 St c \~iC i .rw ..ter P ~~ ~ a M.]eN41p • r a $ .L ~ I M e ~ a. ~' I s -ALOHA -~. elm- ~ p__ ~ ~ ~g ~ I' e ~ 7 ~~, at I ..... « ~_~... .17 Subject: ~ ~ M I I p ;D . 14524 Oak Street ~ '~ = '~ a ~ w ~ """ ~° ~ ~" 1 a +~ I APN: 517-10-005 - °'~" ~~ °'••~ ~c 1 z i l 1 •• D $001 RH(IIUS -"'"-- __~r'L-~ga-:Aa_".'}R~ , -' ."_-u4'L-- ~O .. 1 21 z ~ oa.c ~ t ' 4 ~r z+ ~ .e a' - •- ~ 14524 Oak Street Application No. 06-323 for Design Review; 14524 Oak Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY: Application filed: 03/27/06 Application complete: 05/10/06 Notice published: 05/31/06 Mailing completed: 05/24/06 Posting completed: 06/08/06 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant on behalf of the owner is requesting Design Review approval to construct a two-story home that will have 2,521 square feet of living area with an attached 488 square foot garage. A basement is not proposed. The maximum height of the home will be approximately 26 feet and will be situated on a 19,391 square foot vacant lot situated behind another lot fronting Oak Street that is the site of an existing two-story historic home currently being remodeled. The property is located in the R-1-10,000 zoning district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommends that the Planning Commission approve this Design Review application. ~J • Application No. 06-323 for Design Review,:14524 Oak Street STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: M 10 (Residential Medium Density) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 19,391 sq. ft. gross and net are same SLOPE: 5.2% average slope of site GRADING REQUIRED: There will be approximately 237 cubic yards of cut and 96 cubic yards of fill. 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: The applicant is proposing Class A composition roofing, painted wood columns, vinyl-clad wood windows and stucco siding. A material board showing the exact proposed colors will be presented at the public hearing. 3 Application No. 06-323 for Design Review,• 14524 Oak Street PROJECT DATA Lot Coverage: Floor Area: Residence, incl. garage Driveway, walks, porches TOTAL Main Floor Garage Upper Level TOTAL Setbacks: Height: Front Lot Line Rear Lot Line 1St story 2"a story East Side 1St story 2nd story West Side 1St story 2na story Lowest Elevation Pt. Highest Elevation Pt. Average Elevation Pt. Elevation @ top of home Proposal Code Requirements 30 % Maximum Allowable 60% 1,894 sq. ft. 3,883 sq. ft. 5,777 sq. ft. 11,635 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable 1,526.39 sq. ft. 488.25 sq. ft. 994.49 sq. ft. 3,009 sq. ft. 4,400 sq. ft. 25 ft. 42 ft. - 2 in. 47 ft. - 2 in. 59 ft. - 7 in. 58 ft. -1 in. 20 ft. - 2 in. 53 ft. - 5 in. 25.49 ft. 92.53 ft. 99.90 ft. 96.21 ft. 121.70 ft. Minimum Requirement 25 ft. 25 ft. 35 ft. 10 ft. 15 ft. 10 ft. 15 ft. Maximum Allowable 26 ft. •i Application No. 06-323 for Design Review;14524 Oak Street PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to construct a new two story home with an attached garage. The new home, which will have a maximum height of 26 feet, will be located on a vacant lot that is behind the historic Hanchett House, which is currently being remodeled. Access to the subject parcel is through aningress/egress easement on the front lot containing the Hanchett House. The subject parcel has two accessory structures that are currently being demolished. The subject parcel is surrounded by mature trees and the neighboring homes to the rear are situated at a higher elevation. The proposed home is in a farmhouse style with detailed wood columns accentuating the wraparound porch, and stone accents at the base of the proposed facades. Staff finds that the proposed home is very compatible with the character of the neighborhood, which has several historic homes and newer homes built in late nineteenth and early twentieth century architectural styles. Trees A total of ten trees were inventoried for this project. These trees include one redwood, one big leaf maple, one valley oak and seven coast live oaks. The Staff Arborist has reviewed the potential impacts to these trees and all of the recommendations contained in the attached Arborist Report have been made conditions of project approval. Most importantly, the Arborist Report specifies that the garage and deck shall be constructed entirely on top of grade using a pier and beam foundation since these areas will be within the rootzones of large oak trees on the property. Staff has noted on many other projects that this type of foundation has prevented the decline of trees. A prior Arborist Report was prepared for this site which reviewed the impacts on trees related to the demolition of the two accessory structures. The applicant has already installed protection fencing and has deposited a security bond in the amount of $60,920 prior to commencing the demolition work. In conjunction with the proposed home construction, the owner is required to provide additional tree protection security in the amount of $230,800. No ordinance size trees are proposed for removal. Geotechnical Clearance Geotechnical clearance is not required for this project. Neighbor Review Letters The applicant has obtained favorable comments from surrounding neighbors and has documented all contacts, as included in the attachments. No negative comments have been received as of the writing of this Staff Report. • J Application No. 06-323 for Design Review; I4S24 Oak Street General Plan Findings The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, including the following 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 retain and extend the life of the City's housing stock and will protect the rural atmosphere of Saratoga by utilizing an existing residential site that was once occupied by a single family home. The proposal will not block the views of the surrounding hills from neighboring parcels. The proposed architectural style is very compatible with the ambiance of the neighborhood and the zoning designation in which the property is located. 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, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the application meets the Findings required for Design Review Approval. Design Review Findings The proposed project is consistent with all the following Design Review Approval findings stated in City Code Section 15-45.080: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The project has been designed in a manner that minimises interference with views and privacy to adjacent properties, including setbacks that meet or exceed the minimum setbacks required by Code. The proposed home is situated more than 40 feet from the rear property line. The homes toward the rear are also at a higher elevation and will be separated by large trees and sufficient distance. There are no windows proposed on the second floor of the east elevation. The large trees surrounding the home-will provide sufficient screening from the proposed balcony on the second floor which faces west. (b) Preserve Natural Landscapes This property is located in a developed area surrounded by homes. There are minimal grade changes proposed and no ordinance sized trees are proposed for removal. The major portion of the lot is relatively level and slopes upward toward the rear. This upward slope will be maintained since there are large protected trees in this area. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. 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. There are no heritage trees on this site and no native trees are proposed for removal. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulb Architectural details such as varied rooflines and well-designed wooden columns which accentuate the wraparound Application No. 06-323 for Design Review; 14524 Oak Street porch will add visual interest and charm. The proposed windows are appropriately placed with additional smaller window details that break balance the appearance of the facades. Therefore, the perception of excessive bulk is not an issue given the proposed articulation of each facade. (e) Compatible bulk and height The residence has been designed in a manner that minimizes the appearance in height and bulk and does not exceed the maximum height allowed in the area and zoning district. There are two-story homes surrounding this site that are of similar scale and character. (fJ Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposal would conform to the City's current grading and erosion control methods. The applicant is required to retain stormwater on site to the extent feasible. (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. Conclusion Staff finds that all of the Design Review Approval findings can be made in the affirmative. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that design review approval application 06-323 is exempt from CEQA and should be granted with conditions by adopting the attached resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval for Design Review 2. Arborist Report dated May 10, 2006 3. Neighbor review letters 4. Affidavit of mailing notices, public hearing notice, and copy of mailing labels for project notification. 5. Reduced Plans, Exhibit A • • • Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. _ Application No. 06-323 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMIVIISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Robinson; 14524 Oak Street WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review Approval to construct atwo-story home that will have 2,521 square feet of living area with an attached 488 square foot garage. The maximum height of the home will be approximately 26 feet and the property is located in the R-1-10,000 zoning district; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heazd and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the project, which proposes to construct a new single family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This 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 the findings for granting said application for design review approval, and the following findings specified in City Code Section 15-45.080 and the City's Residential Design Handbook: (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, including setbacks that meet or exceed the minimum setbacks required by Code. The proposed home is situated more than 40 feet from the rear property line. The homes towazd the rear are also at a higher elevation and will be separated by large trees and sufficient distance. There are no windows proposed on the second floor of the east elevation. The large trees surrounding the home will provide sufficient screening from the proposed balcony on the second floor which faces west. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. This property is located in a developed area surrounded by homes. There are minimal grade changes proposed and no ordinance sized trees are proposed for removal. The major portion of the lot is relatively level and slopes upwazd towazd the rear. This upward slope will be maintained since there are large protected trees in this area. • Q Application No. 06-323forDesign Review; 14524 Oak Street (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. 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. There are no heritage trees on this site and no native trees are proposed for removal. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulb Architectural details such as varied rooflines and well-designed wooden columns which accentuate the wraparound porch will add visual interest and charm. The proposed windows are appropriately placed with additional smaller window details that break balance the appearance of the facades. Therefore, the perception of excessive bulk is not an issue given the proposed articulation of each facade. (e) Compatible bulk and height The residence has been designed in a manner that minimizes the appearance in height and bulk and does not exceed the maximum height allowed in the area and zoning district. There are two-story homes surrounding this site that are of similar scale and character. (f) Currentgrading and erosion control methods. The proposal would conform to the City's current grading and erosion control methods. The applicant is required to retain stormwater on site to the extent feasible. (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 fmdings above. (h) 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, including setbacks that meet or exceed the minimum setbacks required by Code. The proposed home is situated more than 40 feet from the rear property line. The homes toward the rear are also at a higher elevation and will be separated by large trees and sufficient distance. There are no windows proposed on the second floor of the east elevation. The large trees surrounding the home will provide sufficient screening from the proposed balcony on the second floor which faces west. (i) Preserve Natural Landscapes This property is located in a developed area surrounded by homes. There are minimal grade changes proposed and no ordinance sized trees are proposed for removal. The major portion of the lot is relatively level and slopes upward toward the rear. This upward slope will be maintained since there are large protected trees in this area. (j) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. 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. There are no heritage trees on this site and no native trees are proposed for removal. ~~ Application No. 06-323 forDesign Review; 14524 Oak Street (k) Minimize perception of excessive bulb Architectural details such as varied rooflines and well-designed wooden columns which accentuate the wraparound porch will add visual interest and charm. The proposed windows are appropriately placed with additional smaller window details that break balance the appearance of the facades. Therefore, the perception of excessive bulk is not an issue given the proposed articulation of each facade. (1) Compatible bulk and height The residence has been designed in a manner that minimizes the appearance in height and bulk and does not exceed the maximum height allowed in the area and zoning district. There are two-story homes surrounding this site that are of similar scale and character. (m)Currentgrading and erosion control methods. The proposal would conform to the City's current grading and erosion control methods. The applicant is required to retain stormwater on site to the extent feasible. (n) 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. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the application, site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, application number 06- 323 for Design Review Approval as conditioned below is hereby found exempt from CEQA and in compliance with the required findings set forth above, and approval thereon is granted subject to the following conditions: COMMiJNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The proposed single-family dwelling shall be constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" incorporated by reference. 2. Four -sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the Arborist Report, dated May 10, 2006 shall be included on the plans submitted to the Building Division for permit plan check review. 3. Final landscape, irrigation and utility plans shall be incorporated into the construction plan set and shall comply with the following requirements: ~~ Application No. 06-323forDesign Review; 14524 Oak Street • 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.. • To the extent feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain on site and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolonged exposure to water shall be specified. • Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped azea, especially along any hazdscape area. • Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific chazacteristics 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. • Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. • A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected tree on the site. 4. Front yazd landscaping shall be installed prior to final occupancy inspection. 5. Any changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. No downgrading in the exterior appeazance of the approved residence will be approved by staff. Downgrades may include but aze not limited to garage doors, azchitectural detailing, stonework, columns, shutters, driveway materials, and similaz items. Proposed changes to the approved plans are subject to the prior approval of the Community Development Director and may require-prior review by the Planning Commission. 6. 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. A storm water detention plan indicating how all storm water will be detained on-site to the extent determined feasible by the Community Development Director, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices, shall be submitted along with the complete construction drawings. 8. Water and/or runoff from the project site (if any after compliance with pazagraph 4 above) shall not be directed towazd the adjacent properties. to Application No. 06-323 for Design Review; 14524 Oak Street 9. All processing fees, in the form of deposit accounts on file with the Community Development Department, shall be reconciled with aminimum- $500 surplus balance at all times. In the event that the balance is less than $500, all staff work on the project shall cease until the balance is restored to a minimum of $500. CITY ARBORIST 10. All recommendations contained in the City Arborist Report dated May 10, 2006 and incorporated herein by this reference, shall be followed. 11. Tree protective measures, as specified by the City Arborist, shall be installed and inspected by Planning Staff prior to issuance of City Permits. 12. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security equivalent to $230,800 to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of all existing trees except any approved for removal under this Design Review Approval, and for the replacement of any removed trees. 13. The City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. The bond required by item 12 above shall be released after the planting of required replacement trees (if applicable), a site inspection by the City Arborist finding compliance with all tree-related conditions contained in this Resolution, and payment of any outstanding Arborist fees. FIRE DEPARTMENT 14. The applicant shall comply with all Fire Department conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 15. Owner and Applicant agree 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 project. Section 2. Construction must commence within 36 months or this Design Review 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. r~ Application No. 06-323 for Design Review; 14524 Oak Street PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission. State of California, the 14th day of June 2006 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Linda R. Rodgers, Chair Planning Commission ATTEST: John F. Livingstone, AICP 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. Properly Owner or Authorized Agent Date ~~ ~l ,~ Attachment 2 • 15 community Development flepartment City ofSaratoga 13777fruitvale Avenue `Saraloga,Califomia 95070 :124 Oak Street -rear ARBORIST REPORT AP1~T `517-10-00~ Owner: Robinson INTRODUCTION Application #: 06-323 ~~~~ iVlay 10, 2006 ~~ai~' aced by -Date $ear iSA'C-erti~ied Arbor`ist VV~ ~2;OA 'i'he property owner of 14524 Oak Street has submitted plans to the city to~molish a :cottage and ~a-aae .and build a new single family home. A total of 10 trees protected by City Ordinance i 5-050 were inventoried for this project and are ~ex:posed to potential impacts from construction. They include one redwood'(#1), one big leafmaple,~#2),-one valley oak (#3), and seven coast live oaks j#4-i 0). Detailed information.for these trees may be'found in the Tree Inventory Table attached to this report.. The plans reviewed for this project were the Survey Plan, dated February ~2b, ~U06 ~y J~K Associates and Sheet A-OL; Site Plan, dated March 21, 2005, by Metro Design~Group.-One previous arborist'report, dated July 22, 2005 by David Babby, was also reviewed in preparation for this report. When the previous arborist report was prepared the projectconsisted onlyofdemolishing the cottage and shed. The proposed new-house was not yet shown on the property. Since then, .the owner: has submitted plans that include the proposed new house. - SITE OBSERVATIONS, PLAi~l R1i:VIEW AND TECHNICAL DISCi:SSIOI~T 3 his house will be constructed on the rear portion of the property and construction-equipment mustaenter and exit past oak #i0 growing on the front ofthe property. protective~€encing:must be installed and remain around this tree as long as work is being done on this proj~vct. 31~e house is situated on the lot in such a way that it is largely under thecanopies oftheva~~e,°s and impacts approximately 20% of the root system for trees #3 and 7-9. The corner of the garage is approximately 14 feet from the trunk of oak #3. This will have a significant negative impact on this if there is any excavation to construct it and it should be constructed entirely on top of grade with a }pier and beam foundation. The deck around the southwest portion of the house must also be pier and-beam construction. The patio under oaks #6-9 must be constructed entirely of pervious materials on top of:gratle, with no excavation. Percolation~rates of the base material must equal 3/o inch per. Oak trees #b-9 may require pruning in order to build the second story. 'his should be done under the -supervision of an I'SA-oerti~ied a;-borist anti according to 1SA pnuiing'st.anclards• Paige 1 of 3 ti„ 1~~24 Oa1cSt~eet _ ~°ar Ali trees can be adequatelyprotected with fencing, which must be installed prior to start ofconstruction. Per City Ordinance 1~-50.080, a bond amount of $391,720, which is equal to 100% of the dotal appraised value the trees on-site, is required. 'This bond amount is based on the retention of all tees on the property. Appraisal values are calculated according to the -Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9`~' edition, published by tl~ international Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2000. RECOMMENDATIOI~IS 1. This entire report shall be incorporated into the set of final building puns and ti#Ied Sheet ~'-1, Tree Protective Measures. 2. Owner should -survey trees #2 and 4 and include them on the Site Plan. 3. The garage and deck must be constructed entirely on top of grade using a pier and beam foundation. Pier footings must be hand dug within the drip lines of tree canopies. 4. The patio must. be constructed entirely on top of -grade using pervious materials -and a base material with a percolation rate of 3/4 inch per hour. 5. A grading plan must be submitted for evaluation of impacts to trees prior#o any.:grading onsite. Any approved grading or trenching beneath the trees' canopies shall be manualYylie~'orined using shovels. 6. A landscape plan showing irrigation, electrical connections, trenching and plant palette must be submitted for evaluation for impacts to trees. 7. The landscape plans must also show the following: a. Design irrigation so that it does not spray trunks of trees. Valve boxes and-controllers must be installed outside of drip lines of tree canopies. b. No more than 20% of the area under the tree canopies maybe pian~d.Plant selection must have similar water requirements to the trees under which they will be placed. c. Lawn must not be installed up to the trunks of trees; it must be corilirred -to the outside 20% of the area under the canopy. No lawn maybe installed under the~anopy-ol' any oak #ree. I recommend placing mulch under the canopy instead of a lawn. d. Design topdressings so that stones or mulch remain at least one foot from the trunks of retained trees and 6 inches from the trunks of new trees. e. Do not allow tilling or stripping of the topsoil beneath the trees'-canopies, including for weed control. f. Bender board or other edging material proposed beneath the trees' canopies must be established on top of existing-soil grade (such as by using stakes). 8. Per City Ordinance 1 ~-50.0804, the owner shall provide a tree protection bond in the amount of $291,730. 9. Tree protective #encingshall be installed. as shown on the attached. maps and established pnor to the arrival ofconstruction equipment or materials on site. Following demolition of the shed and prior to any~~ading, fencing -shall be installed as shown on the attached map titled Construction Page 2 of ~~ 14S240akStreet -mar Phase. ~'en~cing shall be 'comprised of six-foot high chain link fencing mounted •on eight-foot fall, two-inch diametergalvani~ed posts, driven 24 inches into the ground and~a~d no more than i0 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction process until final inspection. 10. Prior to installation of protective fencing, a four inch layer ofeoarse wood chips shall be installed on exposed soil within the drip line of all protected trees. 11. Any soil used to fill in where foundations have been removed 5hal1 have apercolation rate of/2 inch per hour. 12. Any obsolete underground utility pipes or lines shall be abandoned in:place and capped rather than removed. 13. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must ~e conducted outside the designated fenced area (even after fencing is removed). These activities include, but are not n~ssarily limited to, the following: demolition, grading, trenching, equipmentcieanirtg, stock}~iiing and dumping materials including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation-and parking. 14. Any pruning of trees on site must be performed under the ~sup~ervision of an SSA certified Arborist, by an IAA-1/ertified Tree Worker and according to iSA Pruning~tandards. 15. The disposal of harmful products such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited beneath tree canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath tree canopies. Additionally, fuel shall not be stored nor shall any refueling or maintenance of equipment occur within 1.00--feet of the tree's trunks. 16. Herbicides shall not be applied beneath the tree canopies. Where used on-site, they must be labeled for safe use near trees. Attachment: Tree Inventory Table Maps Showing Tree Protective Pencing • Page 3 of 3 TREE INVENTORY TABLE .~ ~~ u o o w a ~ o ~ o ~ °a ° c ~ ~. T ~.. „ U eO ., ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ i y ° ti 3 ~ 3 ~° w ~ ~ > ,o «; U ~ ~ c ~ ~.~ ~ o ~p ~ ~ `i~10. TREE I~TAME H t7 w ~ x ~ a7 ~ O ri ~ ~ .=, . ~ A . .°a a ¢ Redwood 1 Se uoia sem ervirens 46 30 75 75 Good H' 3 $45,200 Big leaf maple 2 Acer macro h Ilum 8 20 50 50 Fair Moderate 4 X $230 Valley oak 3 ,puercus lobata 50 l20 75 75 Good Hi 2 '$56504 Coast live oak 4 ~Ouercus a Yolia 7 15 75 50 Fair Hi h 3 X $650 -Coast live oak 5 ercus ' olia 16 35 75 50 Fair Hish 3 X $3;540 Coast live oak b ercus a _' olia 27 35 50 50 Good H' h 4 $24,800 Coast live oak 32.5, 1 7 ,Duercus a .' olia 27.5, 24 60 75 23 Good Hi~ 4 $35,200 Coast live oak 18, 8 ercus a ' olia 14.5 35 25 25 -Fair H' 3 $5;500 Coast live oak 9 Duercus a ' olia -57.5 l00 75 75 Good High 2 $11b,000 Coast live oak 10 ercus a ' olia 22, 18 30 75 25 Good Hi h X - $4,100 Total Appraised Value Replacement Tree Values 15 gallon = $150 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500 48 inch box = $5,000 52 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000 Should any tree listed above become damaged owner will be required to repair the damage. Should any tree listed above be removed owner will be required to replace that tree with trees equal in value to its assessed value. X291,720 Address: May }0, 2045 14524 Oak Street -rear ~~ ~ ~o, 1 ~' Protective Fencing , ~~ demolition and Construction Phases ,Q ..~ • -LOCATION OF EXI5i1MG OAK T~i~ '..~~~ ~ i~TT BAiCK fiEOUIREMENTS ~~ 'PFi01i ~O FOl~AT10N /ACTION SiY ~Tf £~Y, T-f i1S~OF $'Wl PROVDE A WFifiZEN~-RTF~CAiION FIAT All ~IAD~K''8'~IHACKS Aft PER Tif A9PRJ11E~D PLANS' .~ ~'~OIA , ~~c~s~~: .~ . ~~~ ~~ AaFJ- ~Y14'ffilr: ~A.V~ ~'~~, LOCATION F'FiUF'EHTV LRd~ ~0 ~' i' J • i• ~~WOOd at P -II... - ~.... i` a; r 1 'r Y l ~' ~~a i 'p; _ ~ ~; 9 y t`t I ~.i fH ~1 xi~y{i _. ~~a .OGAO.LtC ! !'c ~ !~F - ... ~ n I 13 r_. ._. I 1 tt «•'tll. 1 j .. I i qq ~ s 1 \ \ ^" ~" i ~ \ 1 1' ~ ~ ~~-„ Z i 1 1 ~ `~ Q ~ 1 ,~ `ry/ ~ it i ~ / ~ ~ _ _ '- r 1 \ 1 :~' Ili ~I ~ ~ ~ ~ I i _ I 1 1 1'1.5. . O .r:~~-':.~;"x :~`~' ~ 1 I ~IIT/• :. 1 AG - _..y K __~- I _ yy~~ . } 1:.. .fit` ~1'%?"i :: i..4i:'r' 1 ~ ~ }, ?~ Y~ ~II~' f ~: ~'i ft t ~~i~ :/ 1 /~/~S4T[` y, ~5i[~ YRYRYR y ~ ! ~ .''15. GC~S~{is4. 4c='r5 ~4`C~~„1'Ir K;C, -^.4!I.x,-, r.:]: + 1 :;~ I 4 j]Y, -.~,~'~' y} AMY ~ ~~ Ley ~ -`~Yr'`.-''. }• IR ~~ 1 I 1 j ~'., ~* - 1 (i a ~ Y ~5 ~ ~s~Y3 ?4 4 t ~} ~~ ~~ S rr ~ ~--~ \ I \ i "~ ; v3 \ ~~ '~ - ,~„~ ,~ 1 7 ~ it 1.` 1 :r:.. a ~ ,:. ~ u ~. ~ ~ ~, T ~~ ~ ~ w •. 1 ~ r 1 . - ,. \ 1 1 ~ l• , I y r Y ._._N~~-~ _ _. _._ 1 ~ c 1 \ ~ ~~ ys+ 6 p ~ ., ~. . - ... ~a r~ o~/ ~~~~~~ ~ oG--3Z3 Neighborhood Notification Neighbors in all five of the single family homes which border the property have viewed copies of the proposed plans and have either verbally or in writing expressed approval. Details are included here: 1. Joanne Fitzsimmons (517-10-003) no concerns & signed neighbor notification form submitted on April 4th. 2. Salim Sagarchi (517-10-004) no concerns & signed neighbor notification form submitted on April 4th. 3. Ron Helm (517-10-006) no concerns & signed neighbor notification form submitted with application on March 27. 4. Sue & Chuck Leiter (517-10-032) viewed plans and expressed no concerns with the design; neighbor notification form to be mailed to the City of Saratoga. 5. Bob Shepherd (517-10-033) no concerns & signed neighbor notification form submitted with application on March 27. • • (l !gyp ~~ , qPR ~ 4 2~0 -, c, g ~. ~~,~~~ TY~E~T~CA o~`'~ City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: PROJECT ADDRESS: 1l~c 5.24 ~~1L ~ /rte' ~~~ S/~ - J~ - oaS Applicant Name: YL~~Ir~~v.C,f~ edtitSOa 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 later date during the actual public review and appeal periods. y s~gnature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the stove of wor ; and I do NOT 1lave 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 stove 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 sheen if necessary): Neighbor Name: ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~"'v~ Neighbor Address: S ~: .P I~ Neighbor Phone Number. Signature: Printed: SofS d~.~ City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: 3 I S ~d PROJECT ADDRESS:1~c s~ A~~C ~ ~t' ~/,~ ~O ODS~ Applicant Name: _~0.~ ~ ~ QN 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 later date during the actual public review and appeal periods. )~Iy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work; and I do NOT 1}ave 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 stove 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 Address: Neighbor Phone Number: Signature: Printed: ~_ :~ • ~~ • SofS ~o City of Saratoga . Neighbor Notification Form Date:_ PROJECT ADDRESS:1 t~l~ Q1~ ~ ~l'~4iI ~~ Sly p Ot~i Applicant Name: ~'y(° ~~Q-~ ~t~~~'1 Application Number: ~O6 -323 Sta,$'and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issue.: 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. 'Elfvly 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): 9 Neighbor Name: ~ ~ ' ~ z S ~'~,ti~^A r~ Neighbor Address: 1:.~~~'~ U~ S~ ~~ _. r ~-.~ `-- J ~ 'i . -Ki Neighbor Phone Number: % Lf ~ ~ ~S ~ ~ Signature: Printed: ~~~~ ~ is . APR 6 4 2©06 / ~~ CIT3' Ut ,, SofS City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: PROJECT ADDRESS: •~! ~- !~} - ~~ S 1 ~ ~-~ ~zk Sf (,~~ I©~~ Applicant Name:~~~~`1E~~` ~ ~11~°F'( Application Number: ~ G - ~3~ 3 - 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. 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. y signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of w ; 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: L --. ,~: .. ~. ,r" Neighbor Phone Number: S/o~ 39 ~ ~~ E Signature: Printed: lJ ~ lel AP U R 0 4 2006 CITY OF SARATOGA ~ - SofS a~ • • i• Attachment 4 ~t AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES .. I, Denise Kaspar ,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 24`h' day of Maa~_, 2006, that I deposited 75 notices in the United States Post Office, 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 described as: APN: 517-10-005 - 14524 Oak Street; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. 1 l, r .~ ~~ = ~~ Denise Kaspar Advanced Listing Services • 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 14th day of June 2006 at 7:00 p.m. The public hearing will be held in the City Hall theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. The public hearing agenda item is stated below. Details of this item are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Please consult the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us regarding Friday office closures. APPLICATION/ADDRESS: #06-323 - 14524 Oak Street APPLICANT/OWNER: Tom Sloan/Robinson APN: 517-10-005 DESCRIPTION: The applicant on behalf of the owner is requesting Design Review Approval to construct atwo-story home that will have 2,521 square feet of living area with an attached 488 square foot garage. The maximum height of the home will be approximately 26 feet and will be situated on a 19,391 square foot vacant lot situated behind another lof fronting Oak Street that is the site of an existing two-story historic home currently being remodeled. The property is located in the R-1-10,000 zoning district. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before Tuesday, June 6, 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. Lata Vasudevan Associate Planner 408-868-1235 3~ May 24, 2006 500' Ownership Listing Prepared for: 517-10-005 Matthew B Robinson 14524 Oak Street Saratoga CA 95070 .;97-22-002 397-22-003 397-22-011 Kris A & Carol Sowolla Robert K & Anne Louden Flora M Cox 219 Jackson St Or Current Resident 1146 Telfer Ave Los Gatos CA 95030 14494 Oak Pl San Jose CA 95125 Saratoga CA 95070 397-22-014 397-22-044,068 397-22-049 California State of Saratoga Federated Church William F Breck P.O. Box 23440 14370 Saratoga Ave Or Current Resident Oakland, CA 94623 Saratoga CA 95070 20375 Saratoga Los Gatos Rd Saratoga CA 95070 397-22-050 517-09-011 517-09-012 Frank & Letha Matas Richard Sermone Marte Formico Or Current Resident 14620 Big Basin Way 14480 Big Basin Way 20385 Saratoga Los Gatos Rd Saratoga CA 95070 Saratoga CA 95070 Saratoga CA 95070 X17-09-013 517-09-014,015 517-09-020 Rk Of Amer N T & S A Frank Burrell Anthony J & Georgia Ellenikiotis Po Box 2818 470 Vanden Wy Ste A 14451 Chester Ave :~Ipharetta Ga 30023 Campbell CA 95008 Saratoga CA 95070 517-09-021 517-09-024. 517-09-025 Mahnaz Khazen David L Sorensen Javid J Salehieh Or Current Resident Or Current Resident Or Current Resident 20490 Saratoga Los Gatos Rd 14493 Oak St 14501 Oak St Saratoga CA 95070 Saratoga CA 95070 Saratoga CA 95070 517-09-026 517-09-027 517-09-031 Ricky & Rubina Ratra Thanh Luong Audrey Sutton Or Current Resident Or Current Resident Or Current Resident 14505 Oak St 14515 Oak St 20576 3rd St Saratoga CA 95070 Saratoga CA 95070 Saratoga CA 95070 5~7-09-032 517-09-042 517-09-063 ;'2ichard J & Laurel Hess Joung S & Y Kim Peter J & Pat Dalton ~Jr Current Resident 7221 Silver Lode Ln Or Current Resident '.4563 Oak St San Jose CA 95120 14467 Oak St ~aatoga CA 95070 Saratoga CA 95070 517-09-064 517-09-065 517-09-066 Steven L Micheli Ted A & Peggy Mckibben Robert K & Lisa Busse Or Current Resident Or Current Resident Or Current Resident 14465 Oak St 14463 Oak St 14461 Oak St Saratoga CA 95070 Saratoga CA 95070 Saratoga CA 95070 • • ~~ ~~ ~7bC 517-09-068 517-09-069 517-09-071 Cali Investments Pollack Properties Ii Llc Zambetti 510 Big Basin Way 14500 Big Basin Way Po Box 34 toga CA 95070 Saratoga CA 95070 Saratoga CA 95071 517-09-072 517-09-073 517-09-074 James B Schrempp Ray D Redmon Walter Miller Or.Current Resident Or Current Resident Or Current Resident X4587 Oak St 14589 Oak St 14591 Oak St c~aratoga CA 95070 Saratoga CA 95070 Saratoga CA 95070 517-09-075 517-34-006 517-09-076 517-09-077 Gary D Alford James P Lally Patrick Mcgill Or Current Resident 21764 Congress Hall Ln Or Current Resident 14593 Oak St Saratoga CA 95070 14597 Oak St Saratoga CA 95070 Saratoga CA 95070 517-09-078 517-10-012,013 517-09-080 517-09-081 Saratoga City Of Richard & Angela Johnson Tiong C & Candice Ong 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Or Current Resident Or Current Resident Saratoga CA 95070 20578 3rd St 20582 3rd St Saratoga CA 95070 Saratoga CA 95070 10-002 X17 517-10-003 517-10-004 -. O.& M Zakerani ' Fitzsimmons Trust Salim Sagarchi id . Or Current Resident Or Current Res ent ~iQ.l~1 Vista Loop 14534 Oak St 14524 Oak St 1 Sari lose CA 95124 Saratoga CA 95070 Saratoga CA 95070 517-10-006 517-10-007 517-10-005 Ronnie L Helm Gary H & Dianagay Espinosa Matthew B Robinson Or Current Resident Or Current Resident 19818 Vineyard Ln 14516 Oak St 14510 Oak St Saratoga CA 95070 Saratoga CA 95070 Saratoga CA 95070 517-10-008 517-10-009, 015, 034 517-10-011 John N Allen Our Lady Fatima Villa Inc Saratoga Lodge No Four Two Eight Or Current Resident 20400 Saratoga Los Gatos Rd Po Box 54 14500 Oak St Saratoga CA 95070 Saratoga CA 95071 Saratoga CA 95070 517-10-018 517-10-019 X1,7-10-014 Wu & Tao Jeffrey Becker Atlas-Properties Llc Or Current Resident Or Current Resident lyn'Box 14189 14601 Aloha Ave 14615 Aloha Ave ~~ari Francisco CA 94114 Saratoga CA 95070 Saratoga CA 95070 517-10-020 517-10-025 517-10-028 George L & Joyce Lauro Daniel L & Carolyn Casas Richard & Janis Jacobs Or Current Resident Or Current Resident Or Current Resident 14625 Aloha Ave 20545 Komina Ave 14651 Aloha Ave Saratoga CA 95070 Saratoga CA 95070 Saratoga CA 95070 10-031 517-10-032 517-10-033 ~ ert L & Pamela Dunnett Charles Leiter Robert F & Tamara Shepherd Or Current Resident Or Current Resident Or Current Resident 20477 Forrest Hills Dr 20483 Forrest Hills Dr 20491 Forrest Hills Dr Saratoga CA 95070 Saratoga CA 95070 Saratoga CA 95070 33 517-10-035 517-10-036 517-10-039 Noel S & Bernice Kane Jeffrey E Doty Or Current Resident Saratoga Tennis Club Or Current Resident 20471 Forrest Hills Dr Po Box 202 Saratoga CA 95071 14611 Aloha Ave :Saratoga CA 95070 Saratoga CA 95070 5?7-10-042 517-10-043 517-10-044 Bo Li Horacio & Lilian Fukuda Leonard W Mulbry ~?r Current Resident Or Current Resident Or Current Resident 14607 Aloha Ave 14585 Aloha Ave 14675 Aloha Ave Saratoga CA 95070 Saratoga CA 95070 Saratoga CA 95070 517-10-045 517-10-046 517-10-047 Ernest C Westbrook Alan W & Nanci Wokas Saratoga Union S D Or Current Resident Or Current Resident 20460 Forrest Hills Drive 14689 Aloha Ave 14703 Aloha Ave Saratoga CA 95070 Saratoga CA 95070 Saratoga CA 95070 517-11-051 517-11-052 517-11-053 Ruth Brunner Mohammad H & Soheila Baniani Ju & Janet Shen (7r Current Resident Or Current Resident Or Current Resident x4662 Aloha Ave 14648 Aloha Ave 14638 Aloha Ave iaratoga CA 95070 Saratoga CA 95070 Saratoga CA 95070 ~Si7-34-001 517-34-002 517-34-003 1 ~" ~ ~xudy Grable Prasen it Bardhan J Scott Trust 1238 Cordelia Ave 1648 Mariposa Ave 922 Bicknell Rd San Jose CA 95129 Palo Alto CA 94306 Los Gatos CA 95030 517-34-004 517-34-005 517-34-007 Bridget M Roman James A Ells Tamara J Simpson Or Current Resident Or Current Resident Or Current Resident 14545 Oak St 14537 Oak St 14527 Oak St Saratoga CA 95070 Saratoga CA 95070 Saratoga CA 95070 517-34-008 City of Saratoga Tom Sloan David J Splawn (?r Current Resident Attn: Lata Vasudevan 307 Orchard City Drive #107 1525 Oak St H 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Campbell CA 95008 Saratoga CA 95070 ~Aratoga CA 95070 .. :•~::.~i ~ .. • • Attachment 5 35 • • • OZa r°~6 si ~~oo ow~~~~~p s ' ~ o ~J10 3~~o xhsc€'s€~ an' o~~ g d OLOSb'd~ ~0'~~Ol'd?~'~S - m ~ w ~ N ~ o c- 0 ~o ~ ~ ~Y ~~°~~t~~ ° 133215 ~I'o~0 i~ZS~b l ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~~ 8~xs°°°~3E > ~ n m ~ y m ~ z 1- m ~° b a o~ o g s-b ~ "G 3~N3QIS3~4 NOSNI~O~ .. w z W Y Iw- U w w X „ a~. °aI Z a $ ~ F < < W U 0 y~ i s ® ~loaroad a ~ o v < d ~ \\ _ ~ ~ iZ Duo ~ ~ ~~ ~ J ~ Z< o Uw V ~ ~ < ~ w K ~~ pmN < _~ ® .J ~7 ~;~ ~ rvM'~N a 0 e`r ay ~t X < ~~~ ~ ~ ~ t ••~ UJ Q W ~~~` LL ~~ N ; w p < O J ~y `~ `~ ~ V J ~l `r 1. . 4 A < _.... .yam P 9 o ° p` ~` Ct E~ V ~ J m } < m N d ~ ~ . ~ 3 S . 4 o~z ~, d < <.. z = C~ X 4 a W w - p W - Z D~~ _ p. p J Z W pFF ~ z 8 d ~ of N m < < ~ ~ ~ ~ Z ~ -~ .:,v~ z W N < ~' z a s_ w F~ ~ u z W O Z O m Q N U F F U1 LL N K W W N O J .,, a ' yf g ^ n m v N m o r ~..n... m `~ m i ~ i i i i i i i u ~ F ~ }: LL IL ~ u0i u0i u0i F^ ~ LL ~ IL Ic(L7~ IL u0i L` uai Q1 u0i H^ 14 C F f F F- ~ .<~`.. CS Ci O d ~~~+{ a w ~+ m m 1- ~ J (S a < in b b in i IQ z m N Ic O r m 7~ N P S ro n m • m ~! N N N N d1 N ^m O m m m m O N w ~ h ~ N O m 3 1>f b n a N N O ^ ~ ~ r n X m d. Z O O X c m m m r ^ mr m IY c m Y N v NN O v ~ d O O R •- O W V V h m f P m V m rti ~' < C 7Q M Y q m m c v c n N - O uZ J O 1"O z K m W m } ; W Q p p O p O ^ ry ^ Y h f N N N N n n 0. U, J Ifj N P w m ~ j V N V N b b ( 2 ~ Z w m x O W ry Q 0 'o- On n v v ~ ~ V O K O Z< ~< ~ O IN 111 '1 w O ;x n >O 00 O m J J m _~ c ~ o O ~ to w w g ~ wp ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. m c iW ~Z ~ < rv< ~ bob b N 9 c a I < a w p t W K K V w S a ~ w Iw-- ~ Q Y ° ai i N OL n d h ry > K K IL < w u N ~{ w z ~ < Z K '1 O J ~ Z W < p~~ O NU u O z z ry ry n. z ~ 00 ~ r0 4 ~ - N N O 0 ~ O ~ J W K ~ W U w Qa' 0 o<C m ~ ? < 0 ~< 3 0 ~ ~ p F N a n Fp fp < < u>i uw > > w w = w ~ 0 V W w Z ~ ~ i m w K K ° ~ ~ ~/ IL ~ O < W < LL O K '- W Q Q ~ < Z ~ ? pw( } d1 J K ~ pC Y O F F F i i u u J J~ J Z '! 2 W F F J m N ~ W K A Z ~ O ~ O d O Z ry C 2 = ? < ~ ~ ( ~ .a m m OU } < c W J ~ _ 4 ' ~ K U ~ ; < < ~ w L V ~ i0 W ~ i w ~ ~ i< K }p ~p m '~~ w~ u~ K I~ ~ d W < O ~ } p < OnL ~ ~m i J U N N N~ 0~<~ w ~ u ~ J w N N N ~ X W W F g y Fm Q ~ < N D Z < 03 w a ~ ~ Qj 2 ~ ~ ~ < EC O ® K Q p W O m d m > ~ g Ng d K ~~ pp 0. ~ ~ d 2 J ; W Z m p w t = N ~ ~ O N W ~ ~ ^• h 1 ~ < W v f N p ; ~ F A W ~ N K J 4 S< < F V N < ~ O < O N Z F L O W X Q2 BUvJ N. W u N OL ~ ^ h p Y N m d F < N N I 3 O V < z z ° O ~ b= 4 ~ ~ zw p~ pQo ~ << L L ~ u ~ OZZ ~_.~ U ~ D 3° Z ~ ~u~ Z r Opm . g r w W 3r6~' C ~ ~ ~ Q W Y -~ ~- _-- ~ ~ ~ Iq O = O _ o ~ I~ry ~ f ~ „, O Q J Ijlg~ O ~ ~ pL O P In a K< Z W ` Z ~°~o~~- z _~o~ ~_Q= ~ __ uuLL^ry Nz QQ II Ili Z ~ O Y. ~ O ~ ~ ~ V OO <~~ m Q ~. ?; ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ V zN< x ~ J K J W _ Q u10pm 'ouw0-. Zi'~rlm0~ YKUZmp imJ r ' < Z d ~ Q '~ ~ pup ~ ~ ~~ ~ N i~ u ~ -~ i ~ g ~ ~ Q! 00 <u n s V '°~ V u ~ ° d~~ p dl p i . '~ ~- K { F A ~ Z ~ ~ a ~~ 0_ p Y ~ Ypt ~ ~ J ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ K ~ (~ ~ o ~ Z ~i~ im W s. u I I ~ I I O F ~ w yy jl I 1 Q 9 ~ = u z 'i'_1 _ l Q ~ IQ ~ ~ E~ W 0 < ; f < i v m V p} z ~ < ~ t ~ ~ O 5 ~ ~ u ~i m ~~ ~ Y ~ ~ kk ~4 << ~ o ~ 9 0 9 C~~` o <' ~~ o ~ d fl " p j9,v o o9R4~~S __ ~4 j "oG~~ r $a r ~~ e f ~ >k S iz ~ $ 8 E g ~ < ~ €u"I z> ujU F<F ~k Wool kd o~iY ~=o~ ~ of~mzp i~ ~~ =g~a~s g o m ~ ~S r ~ r < J ~ = omE 5~ 8 8 y ASS 4y> x °o39~i ~ C ~r°~o< <K~>u u(~yg~a....p ~~ ~ n~ym~i ~ ~syc ~~ [py 9 iu < L ~~ $ -fluy n~S~~LtSBV $~~do GE ~ ZE~oooS~yu ~~t :_ -~ 6 0" o~k~Se _c c 8~z 8 `i~ Uypp ii^~ ~ $o~fEFF~66 ~<(d ~ ~~= C ~p{G t<{ ~ »q R ~K RJ ~ I~~0 ~ NJ Y ~ 0 # ~ o ~ _ ~ o Q ~ s ~ W Oi0 <F'- ~ p z p ~ r = p z ~ <~ °}.°,~ id °',~I o ~pu~~ z ~p rc - ~ S ~ ~ [CCCCCC ZI d f~ 1 NOd 1 1 . 1 10 01 1 F C S 5 »»3, LLLZLLL LZLZL~L; .l< w W ~ O i ~ n 1 ~ a W ~ < p l p p,, ~ C po 4 > Q C~ Q i® ZOL ~ C~i .~ fn~~~ >~ :~ui'000 < J mJgKEi O y c¢eexzo~ ooS~i ~~7c ~c3~aalkStSo o ~mo .....~~~~~ER~Z~ 5~5 »S» LL~'~~~ii~2't~CE~ ., x O y sOIu Kmi~i pY W zQ0 u > f _COm <r V~2~~} wt Fit iNa~C _ _ _ < u 0 z w<~< N p~ W ~<~ O mu~ O 1= _i <z6 OvmW u rc x O ~ E u~ K N ~ J ° ) w ~ a K K m O ~ ~ y g g mu uzp ~~i°w Y~=~~i ~~~;~y = Gd ~ rip ~9~ ~ ~ $ ~ ~ ~ C= ~ 3~k ~ _ ~ o ~# ~ ~ E s R R~ m ~ ~ r = ~ O•~F~ii ~° iuu i<p~W iYOzY~z za oow~'pr os~ °OZOZ= oS `~Kk m?; K O J K[ u p p N Z< U m f J C Z ~ O< ~ 99 F~ ~ ,~ ~~ ~ ~ < ~~~ u 3:""0' ~ ~~~Bt f~~., m~<<~ > ;, [[ yy Upu ~ (S eQ~ pJ p p7p7 .~ ~ ~ ~~ 3~ ~ ~ tt y pp << j77 j S 1 $ pp ~YY~ 5~ ~0~`I i I~~IFF~FIIFZI~I Z~ZZI ~~~~YYZ Ob000tS000Q~ EOt~C'~t C ~~~C~L1El OL ~~~i 0~7 CC[~[[C ~~r c W u C ~O O~ • p O J q Y Y~ ~~~~~~~~5~ FI ~I Z ~~ ~ ~~£ ~ f oS8S58 $ob ~ ~ i ~- 5 0 ~ g f n Y Y 3 ~ ZZZ I ZF Z Z I ~iZ Z Z i o b iiii{!ILL~I Li~L LLttll 00 CCCr i CZC[ ~ ~ ~~/ o W Z B,VV~pOt(Yp Q ~ Z O ~ js m o 5 ~ !L Ul p Su C~ xmO rc ~ Si JO8i1u ~i<~~i ~ mW~ iw ~[ ° ~ ~ ° ~ s s o o s Y ~ i o m° Y=W os :~:-wQ o~:~~+ i O O ; < ~ ~ ~ b ~~ d k : .~ ~ _° o Sr~ ` t r p ~ _ _ ~ < = r R ~ r < n r<z r ~ 3:~.. L p Zhu<4~~R 4i XF~C~o ~ ~ 8 prou ~.1 p 0{~~3 F O O~ r u ~1« ~ 5 Ct41f ~3 > ? -• U ~ ~ z ~ pm<Z uOai~t O~~<O~ ~ zC < u~< W ok'~WWY W= 6e~g Jm '1 ~'~~ZJJ~mO ~TiOS~K O~ZK z<(S ~ ~ U 1U m Jm F~ U ~ p _ p< r, ( y < ~~ ~C .( <F J 4C~xxZ ~} V~.1 V!<O~ l fl<<~.1 Q~ 72 Y ,z~$ oz``CxGLEL ~ ~«<S ~ f~~~ 4 ~8~~ ,~~ ~ ~ ~~S~~S~~pB <oZ°~i nOfu4E ~m~Lw ~~~ ° x~~C4 ~ O C RRS ~i 0 O L L 3< ' ~< ~ ®F ~ B J~D=J-pQ~J° Iyg~ ;m~gJZ J~~KW : out C ~m i m rc ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ %c m ~ ~ ~ z ~ < K1Q } z a. ~ ~z i V F ~o 0 u F < mJ SUxW oC ~~ yuy u C~ C~ 0~~5 O2 I C ~ oo~ngognooooo 35.S~~ddd~~d33SS8~S~~u ~~.~9~iC~~~59~YYYY~ce~`88~~ «t~«~5~~~~ ~$~~$$~58< ~YYt~ ~ < o ~ ~ ~ } d , {~. F~}< p } Np~ m z <_ z u ~ m m ~ z: ~ ~' ~ d ~ ~ z z r ~m ~ O~ O M LL7 m m e m a b d x _ , F < O z C` K O <~ w K Y W N~ K ~ z K O ~ N u p~ u m J u< } z < m» < ' ~ z ilf i d M W ~ t C 1n1 0 fit] F k ~~ a ~y 3 A ~ iil iir ~l <~3ufkc`S ` m~l ~m O ~~C.Q.Q mOF Cf> _ ZO~fpp S~d~€S6$Snuo ~Shdddd~~h99b$S~u$$ tc~i..dYY t Ett 00o~0am0000tl ~xxx~xxx flE ~~d? ~~~ z z g N > O ~ 4 pL u i m p g N FlJ4Y3.~ZOW(~O ~OCm~J ~~X~.Z(O J;y~ u~ ^ j ~ ~ ~ j ~ p j ~ O ,~ _ p V p O O i F ZO O p v S u ~ u J m~ ; C u~ O ~ K ~ O r Y J m p o~ i m O pY( J~ FW p v i~~~~~ < z= W ~ ~ r ~ ~ = o _ 34 8 U zpC ~ f Q ~ ~ L ~1F V i E w p m= p m m i m~ 0 t L ° ~ J Z J ~ J F <~ F F-= pv z < F W<^~i y0 pz O~<1 ~ W W V ~ i ~J = < p3p < ;{ u u m ~ ~'[ ~< 0tl U ~ ~ A ~ E ~~ik4 i9~~~ fU>u ~ o a ~ ~ ~d~ uF 5 4~4 4} ~ 98ay°o ~ J ~ FL `eN ~` u < ~ ~ ~c ~ ~ ~ LY .V.. R 0a1T i V'3ZS JofS Fs~ Y~4 $ 3o«<iv ~< ~ ~i If f OE U£g 2 gxu<p ' (1 LC p r°~ oo,~~'v' ~~~'~`~~E~~ ~g3`~~9~~ ~sY4~88' r • ~o= ` `~~~ `~ `~i9~s ~g~ 3d ` ~~ ~ ~ 4 P-' ~ p 8 JJ ~ . ~ m x ~ ~ ~ ir J J 33 p << ppp JJpp pppppoo pppp pp``~T ppp uu ~~ 6G~~~ < <2~ i « <~~ « <Y 2~~k~i33< 0Om OmO~Op~mq m SUJUUUJJUJSUUUV VJ3U3JJJ3JUJ 3JS~UUJ3U iO0~00p000~0~ ZQ V E ; "S ~ ~ N UUp2 p> C J~1UL `aV Op{~ JJ (d ~~(( 00 J .13 p pppp ppC <(({(« <Z<~ « « « ~<~ « « < ~00~~6~~~~m~Yp~O J~S UUUV J3UU 3~3U U~l 3~3333J3JU335~UJU~V o0~o00 ~p C1p~00 l1d ~ < sz ~ • ~ • i I ~ ~ + ~--- ~f ~, ~ ~~ ~~ ~ i~ .~ ~ ~`~- //+ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~a a... ~ r' °° + J/ ~ ~ \./, ~~ + j /I as ~° ~ "' '~ ~ ~ ` .~ I ~ g~ ~ t \ O pa ~/ ~$ ~ ,~~ + ~ n 4 / 6 ~ 7 ~\ \ \ s.aaooc~s "~----- ,\ ~ . bV ~ I ; I + + I I ~°i e I I S I o f q~ yJ Z I 8 u~l F ~~ ~ ~ ~ o g ~~~o~ I ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~ w~~oe ffi~ ~~~~~ ~~ <~ w ~~ ~ 9 ~ 9 y < ~ y o ~ ~ ~ ~ g g ~ ~ I ~ W ~2~, X q 0 A 3 U ~ F g z m a~ YY ~ ~ " a ~ y ~ w ~~ g~tg yamy{{ ~~ I ~ ~ 9 X B~ p a ~~~ 2 ~ N ~ ~ u{ a6 ud ' I _- __ ' W LL Ll ~ ~ U ~ • O V ~~ z a ~ a d Q~Q Q, W~~C Q ICI N~Q~ ~ py O~LVO Qp W ~~~F z •'UQti h h Vi .i V ~ y L [~" n- O Z~ r °O- ° o 0 c v o 8 ~ n O 5~^'~`a 6 ' Z < m ^ ~~0 3~~0 ~ ~`ss;;o~x~ OL05b'~7 '~~Ol'o~?J'o~5 ~ W m ~ a N ~a~ i~i ~Y ~ ~no~'~~~ ° ~ 133?~15 ~I'~{O ~'z5t~ l ry ~ ~ ° ~ o ~ ~ V o ~' 0.u O 4 ~ ~ 3 ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ 3~N3a~53~ ~tos~i~o~ "' = m W ~ ~ W ~ '6-§..t3t~ w U w , z ~Bv Ss S3f ' ' ~ 173f OTJd ~ Jl Q J < ~ 2 w ~bo "'4ti r _ Y 4 H .~ ~;~' ,• ~ ~,~ ,~,~ ~ ~ i ~ ° ~ .~' ~ 3 7 I~; /~ °~ Iw- Y K ~ ~- ~ ~ ~ r ~~ ~ °Z~U r~ w^ Z < s \ ~ ~ < w ~` ~I`~- / V ~~m J q 0 .n ~~Y3 SE 4 Z ~ V< m= j U/ t~ ~ W R tll • 5 v ~°s~d ~ W Y= Y u_ LL I O r ms e ~~ ~0 moLK ~ } r 5 OC J w W r ~ n~ i j o tl1aJULL ID ~ ° [ ~ e' _ 1 11 ~ I { ~ -- r~-- --_--__---t- ° ------- - - _ i ~I \I I. ~ / g 4Y0~0 ~ 129.95'-- --~__~---- - -- - 1 _ _ 1 ~ I ;I 0•b/ --- - 1 8m OJ "' ~ _ 1 ~\ Iry 1 i~ i 9 ~ ~'' 1 ~ ~ ~~ ' <s 1 1 i i ~ o~ n , ^ 1\ ' I \ \~ - - - 1- - I b ~,'. " ! BY'O' ° ~ ~ i z J ~v ~ ~ ~ Y i 1 ~ J "~.~, ~ C ~ ~ ~ , V ~ i ~ r~ •~•. ,~'~ n5~ n ~--- -----------_-------__-__ r f ~a \ ~ O ~ \ i -C n~~ ~^ ti,t` ~'r~T aetewu~: ai _ n~ d~ o ~~\ B \ 1 \ 1 ~ -. i ni \ \~j _ \ \ ~~ OAK °.+TRC!'T *~ R5T FLOOR 0.CAR 6 ~`~ I 0! 200.00'TO 5s-o' \ O~ RI6MT OP WAY V i+o~LOOR~,RSe+l~~i \: ~~ ,~ OI `I , c I \ \ 1 1\ I ~ j ~ m ~~~ ~ A \ ~ I V ~! Ijll j ', ~ ~ ~ a\ 1 \ \ x i \ ~ \ ~ 'I iljll!i! '' ~ - I \ ~ ~ I ~;~ ~ ~~ ~ 1.__~ 'll I I ~ b ~s I` , \ ~ ~ Iii lid il~lllll l `~ 1•- _ _ -'-~- a A _~..-..~ ^ o \ ~g I II ~iil j ~ I ~ 1 ~ li~l,l ~I~I ~~ t .~ r - li - ~ \ I 1 S _ ~ , --~-1~--- \1 ~ ~ - - - -_- ~ ,i t: ~ 1 t~.,, - s "~-' _ ~-~ <~~; o - - -\ nl i - ^ ~ - `F " P - d 1 _ 1 ~ } i:rs I \ - - ~ ~R i - ~" - b +=J:'„'` - p; ~' }, ( Q: .'.•'=i !V Z ~ rR0r05PDR R \ i - f^'-"`,"= - .-~~`p~.~", ~} "f" ? ~ / r ~ y f \ i , i bF O \ \ \ _ -- - •.r'-'•===""•~ ra„o5ev~auwT: ~p O u I Doi a, i <~~t:=~%<. "` 4~ O I1 :;:;.~: -- „l.. .~::•: _ \ _ ~. .`:: u ' 1 ;,. - ° ;~: .,t, sr .,;-::. , a ~ -------- ~ ~` \ _ _-- - -- - ------------ ----- 1 ~, :.:,:. ,.~. ,. ~,~ ~ \ i i\ \ s'; I i ', 1~ i Z '-`ti'2.'t"~SVtc~,zS~ S 1 \ ~I I \ ~j _ I _ _ - ~..-.- _ ~ ~ {~~ ., ~u 7P 65'-5' `I: ~,.k i ~ Y b I fPJ SETB~K 1C 1 IJ 1 I _. e__ \ 1 , ..,FMS ~'Z. '~' - _ n p \ ~ ° I %`~ g' g z i ?\ u \ ~~ I f~'' \_1---t '"'r ~ 9'I.~'-~ 0O W 1 2.9'1' yc_ \ ~ \ J ^ ~ d r _ ``~ I , \ ~~s~ Z ro ~N I \~--~Li\ ----~- -~ ~ O\ r?.n O - '^.r S~S~ •pb\ ~ ~ \ ~ I ~ uCf~ \ ~ o r F ~c ~ J -"~'-~ap - n0 ~f om ~ ~~ ~ ~ a ~ ~~ 4m ~S ~n ~9 6~~/ p g~ 1 0 0 ~ o z n m n~ ~rV 2'~ - "L n d ~SSng``b b' u ~ 'i~UL-tc~.T.rS~ l • • • O Y d sO°oo " ~on~ o~c ~ ~` i~ $ E ' < m ~~~ ~ . Hdl ~~a< V O o <<£ 5~~ 44 <° a s ~'~ ~ K a d d OL05b'~7 'd~01'dZl'~S ~ ~ ~ w \ dl O ~ ~ a m "• ~a~ ~ mY °°°ev3~~ ° 133Z115>I'~Ot~zS~bl ~ p ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ m n 5g~$o~ rc ~ 3~N3Gi~53Z1 1~1O~I~I~~Q m y ~ U w =~ n~6~ 3 ~ "~ = ~ ° ' - 3 Y ~ k o$ s s 3 f ~ ~ < < ' J i K _ N d °173f'021d d Q J1 R O U K < p. z • ~ • Oza ~O°gb s dg<~ ~~s~~~e~ B ~ ' ` m ° --m0 3 °° '~~Ol'd?J'sf5 OLOSb'~O m F ~- 0 fay ~ ~Y $$`a~3~~ ~ - ~ 133ZI15 ~I'~O ~bZS~b L n ~ m ~ Z O ~ ~ ~ i ~ ° ~ v >4- ~~~~n~~~ ~ ~ 3~N3aisa~ Nos~iso~ - z W ~ ° W ~ s-63t3~r H ~ < w J p = ~~ 3 L~ 3 i ~ = ' O J ~ V 4 1731 OT3d Jl ~ I I . -. . -. . - . -. .o-.~ r~ ~ n j r~ r r~ LJ J LJ LJ L LJ s ~ ~ I O I I - ~ I ~ ~ ' ' , n I ^ ~ r~ ~ \ o LJ , - O f I , , , ' I ' I I j V~ I ~ I I Q _. - - - - - - m V ~ ~~ I 4 ~ ~ W - - - ` - - - I Q < I I I O I j I f I II LJ I LJ I it a I ~ I ° I j ~ LJ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q I j ~_ , I I I I I i I I I I I _ - ~ 0 -; _-_ ° O ~ _ _ J O! m. I i l j _ __ . _. _. _._._ . I I j I .. _ _ . _ - - F, ~ hl ~ o- ~ ' _ _ I ~ I ___ __ _ .._ ___ . . ___. ._._. _ __ _ __ ~ _ ~ ~ J I I I ' LJ O ~ I; -__ __ _ ~ d _ _ __ _ . ~ I V ~: I I i !v mi ~ -- - -- -- --- ----- ---- - - - -- L - r~ ' i , I I I • • -• ,~ _ I j ~~ I I I ` \ ~ I \ I ~ / ` ~ / ' ~ ~ v ~ j ~ 1 ~ I j i ~ ~ I I I I I ~--------------j---~ . ~ ~~ ~ \ I ~' ~~ I \\ ~~ . \ .\ .\ ~v 2 a ~ m ~ Q ,~ ~ v m r r a ~ r o 7 v ~ Y ry Y ~ ~ V ~ a v m ~ ~ J V p<~ o' n d~ o Q J ~ < O p ~ F- LL Z Q Q m~ l9 ~ F`- O J ( m U ~ N Q ~ • • • ~ ~ ~~~ -° 3 0 0~ 'b °~°~ ~ ' o~ ~ ~ ose ~a ~ ~ ~Y ~ =~ g~~o~ a ~~°ea`3~ ~ a e ~ OL056'd0 '~~Ol'd?J'o~5 1332115 ~i'~O ~z5~b L .~ n 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ F ,. ° ~ ° o o IA ~ Q F U` ~ n ~ °b ' ~ y~ 3~N3QIS3~ ~OSN190Z{ m ~~ y W W w ' m oa°3~~ a ~n 6 ~ W z ; ~ Ul 3oai ~ 8 8~ s .•. ® - °1731'0214 < p d ~. ~ p = U aU' d ~ d In Z O O • ~ • o _ z ioo d ~ Ro $ u $ g v ~ os 9gSgo °3 ~ o$ ~ ~ z < m ~~~ t~<= wwK @ ~o y 6~gcgo~~ x°s-asn~~ _ + OLOSb'~O'~~Ol'd?J's~5 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ p ~ 0 ~a~ ~ __ ~=~QO;3 3 ~ 1332115 ~I'~O ~bZS~b l n ~ ~ ° ~ z ~ °~ ~ ~ ~ Q ° s"s~ 0 3 a ° ~ 3~1~3Q153Z1 NOSNI80~ m W ; ~ ~ W w ,~ 3 ~ w ~ v ~ 2 8 S $ ~ .°. a i ~ '1731'O?Jd O ~ Q U ( p~. LJ J ~ ~~~~ o ~ ~~_ , G ~ : t i ~ ~ 8 ~ ' 3 ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~~ g g ~ o ~ +/ ~ 0 n~ ~ ~ ~ u ~ g ~ ~ V 9 ~ z X O Q n L J r i > L 9 O ~ ~ 1 ~ ~_ ~; } ~ ~ w . ~ ~ } , ~ ~ r ~~ ~ w , ~ ~ w o ~ m~ w N a 6 h t = r ~ r ~ o i i ~ ~ M~N ~ ti 9 > ~ .. ~ ° t 3 .. 9 c Q i ., n Y „ P ^ ~ ' '~ ~'i l~ ~ '. O ~i r u ~~''~~ I - - - t _ ~~ I ~~ ~~~ ~. ' ~J I a • • ~ 020. 0~~° '~ o 'b S°g$~n°O, ~ " 0 - ~~o ~~~o e c3~s€s~~ a~~ x== g ` OL05b'd0 '~~01'v~Zl'd5 0 ~ ~ U ~Q~ p r ~3 ~ ~ ~ 133ZI15 ~I'Sf0 f~ZS'b l ry a ~ o ~ ~~ n 2s e y udi v fi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 g ~ ~ i ~ /~ ~± 3~N~Q153?J N05NI~0Z{ "' ~ .. }. m m W 1- ~ ~ ~ ~- O W ~ ~ b~~ s~ 3 i ® ~ - a a a i rc ~ ,~ ~ N 'y l~ar obd ~ ~ O v < a . Vie, a o ~ I I ~ Z 0 w w 0 N ~' `.. ~~ n~ III ~ e z 0 } w J w w ~I ~ ~~~~iuI~HN~: I i ~,ti~~u~;,~~u 1 j .,..,. ~ , 'ti~~~hH~i''~ y~gPIP~~ .... _ . _ I . ~' I ~ ~~ ICI ~ IJ I ~- ~ ~ _____ ~ ~ I _ I i® j I H :, _}~ j~ ~ ~ II 8~ ~~ ~ k I ~ ~ f ' j I F I ~ r ~I ~ I~ 1~ ,i' I I ~u I I h ~ ri ~ ~ I~ N ,~ I ~ ti i I ' ti ~ ~ j I i ~ 1 h ~I I I _.__ .__ -~- r ~ ~ 1 g ~ s 0 o ._ .. L. ~ ` Y L ~ n ~ k n ~ 1 o ~ < r a ~ ~ G C o ~ 5 ~ a 8 s Y ~ ~ s ~ ~ o J __ i 0 D V a F i ~l ry q i n a • • • 0o D o 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 ~Sr~Eo~ s z a~.^' ~~`~ V I O U~ V O ~o ~ ~ ms ~~~5_a`€p~ $~ o W b gib, a~am~3~~ Z ° j ^ OL05b'd7 '~~Olb'21'~5 133ZI15 ~I'~O t~ZSt~ L 0 ~ b ' p W ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ° a ~ t-- O Z ~ 4 5` 3~ `..° L`am ~ h ~ O _ 6 g~ a z~ a°c 6 s! ~ V ~I V 3~N3CI~53~ 1~1051~t~SOZ{ m W m z y W H U w W °~ "~3L° ~~~ S s~ 3 i ® ~ < < w J O = °173f'OZId A m Q U ( a '`~ z O t= v w • • 1!J z 0 V w Oz a r°ns u i ~ 5~a paE o O ~ ~ " Z < ~~o ~~<s , ~a ~ koa a x 8 ~ OL05b ~O ~~Ol'dZl'~S ~ b W ° a N ~ fa ~ ~ mt $ga~3~~ ° 1~3J15 >I'~O ~b'z5'b L ry ° ~ ° o 0 n ~' y oam S o~~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ a~r~3aisa~ ~os~i~o~ m z W F ~ W v $-6~r`at~ ~gg~a~_u w F- w ~ ~ < u w x V -r O Y ~ b 8 3 s w 3= ® °1731'OTJd p U le p U < a r >: > i F 4 ' I I { J J U J I 0 a 0 O rv rc r ~~ u I I i I ~ rv m 8~gg rc ~ J~ ~ I ~ R~ AAA m e I ~ d z i u Zp~y 3 F ~~ y°>( u w I I~ ( I I I ~ m a r ai a p~u <r~t Y~ ~ >i :°~~ B~ iiG mmmY~~ 8~° ~<5 ~ I = m U o m 9rgio0o2 n r "'E39 Y ~6'~ z vY £~8 Fun ~ ( ~ £~`~~v9~ ~ rv O 'F p~pd((~11~C=J~~Q ~uKp<}~~Q~00 y~YFrug}~ K n Z J ^3Om4~<~ } m ~ UJ ZI=$a i4l<eK°jlh mccf $0 ~S};<~< 2 I 1 ~ ,Z, ~~C~p,'~!! ; u ~ ~Z yy f ~ r u1 ~mmnm~i}. Z>» t i I U 1 ' Q } >' "~ ~a$£<~~Lu<o ° w ~ O L ,~ zVyi VKV-: 4; T, {O; i 4 ~+ I ~ ~ q( O ~- v F, -1uu00 CZ < $ Z Z2 ~ z >: vv?? ~ qqK:}4w!} VL}~dv => Z' 1 1 0 I I I Jd r U rrv- ~=v<a a Kd O S$zz:....r 2nnnnnnnna}},. »att`~ E}C n '~ Oe ~ QJ I I ° Rn0®d®^m;l I Y ~ .° m ~~ £ 44f= o "m'wijm U ~ ~_ U W ~ IU z l it I- 1 ~ '°' °~oiiji o ~~< r O 1 1 d.>m.,m_. ~/ ~ u~ s J I I I o~ ~ 1 ~; i > Y ~ w~ 4°P~<4~n`>o S ~ ~~Qg~ ~ ^ M ug ~ p >~ F W V J rv j <~~mz=.u n i <~w~-• Ip •n af- -IrrJ rY ~ ~ ~~ 4 ~~ ~ ~ m ~ n (~mYp~~~iY ° g Y2~'m~p v .. °s$ $~m Qo5 i ~gi~m r~u Y ~ ~ o ~ o 0 3~ y~y s~~<ur:m r m 4 i m~~<=~ g0~~p j~wic~u'nm> ~ ui 0 ~ ~_$ m$ 9 X ~ iOnsOp°$ ~ u ~ ~ Q V 3<~$$m~=~"a~ vi£ 99°0`~ mjos~x`0id ~ F k i o B~ 11~ m xa L_JUU=} >O~-O=='~uL iOU~u uu d u?i ~~ekl`CF(p Ou u u ~ w W ~ i'm4 ~}[~~1( } ; >W d d1 m m m}r~ ~-° }m o~«=e6 ;A= 1=~ mm}} } r ~a~ a m I ~ ~} r< ~rc m$m9®<m~g4og~d~~~`~Y ~ =o<i rc E zmtec°r: 4~m~~ Y O~ ~ ~ ~ S S`mmj<g, 'o F c «mm vvv oo ~c~`m=£~~~FF J ~o$c~ F~1F(~<CCFpyp m~6rn 0 d3 y~p,~_ f~ f~ ~ K ~~~' Em=£ ~c m V ~ ; V X W $~ mm<`~zp3pi mi' m< ylj O OW X3 XLL F U tlO~ll mrkizE O°75~ F f50 O4° dJVQ»JQ04^ V~' >timil-1~m?4 ~w <; O ~vxu ~~in mammj CO~~iO ~; ~ ~' f f ~ W ~I ?tF`a~£=~< ~ u0< Fm t<mmmvvvv'nuo~duu.~.« .am=9_~SFF ~ 4 r<~ £"r4° E°.~ m ~ 3yy~~ ilu0 `° m=~~ m~ ii i }mm~ im t~ E ms YF~ Y<° FL ~ m° u= 2 IC } zr< <~,~rc 3r< F my mh$o3~ <;J~ 3 Y} $nm "=o m < ~ : < A zR o„J'4 Y ~ n~<;~ F= iE ~ r°-'Y ru S oo V CnrOC~o =°m~>><~us f~ Fu[>.iz ~p~Oti m0~a; <}$45 }C m Op=mY=~ Bm} F 0 (~~°~°~F 04~iC$bf~ u~ uOnp F= CJC~ <x0 >S~~o ;j u L~C<°<p SKic m Z in~~~€~o~ ~LiLB~t<`a`°= _ ri$ ~oe< >O:i ongo ~.`Inr°~ ¢~ ~pZ~°re} ;n44° iY ' Y <uF _O yimt OI°mn~F<~ ~~ n- li <ppC £pY G <}uF `°u Y~~mI~ ~z ipup < $ ummi 4> O~iu >< 0 }ju~iF ~<um G°un> u>3u OOf ~£$<~ mu0 mom} P. J ~~=J~<a<3_ °>LS Co<~= 9° @ ~~ i mmm :s ~' ru }~~~8 =03 YI<mm~~Yr o0 M F~F[S°°}u~~ ~<°u~~S~~,<. m0 iS~<4j0 ~Smr 09mom brF°Z ~Gu_ Ou£>~JI=~~ ~~t! ~E i mEu~ }~ 05$ m < <~4~~ < o o $° trm`=~ '~ :o6°unusn< v °< £~m"F`mm4r < ``='<°~ni~t° £~ ioo ~ Q ~i9 ~£E g « =,°,i 8°o ria°o:oisE o 'o < F.4=~~ <~® u"}~:o~~~° ~~ i~tm<m$ S=5r ~<3<. Erm `-En .S~~m JJYp ~~} ,`~° Z_4 ~ iSmS} $J<-~ [u Z ym} SmYVm ~SO}m Oi= iu<m'~f< F (( ju<Y 3S~i„u~u C=~(~ au<= u~ a~oi}C a~ ~ZFG `<y~ C~<<z ~}4 «°<Eu ~~ ~aG L< u•= ~~ ifr pp CYn J < ~On $t[ i$ O m<>" [ ~m' e =ul' $Y<OFY~i n tJ rv2 9ml °nz Y CO= uz=m i0p~~} 3m Y OY ` £ A a~°} o off, o }r9}$m"= £ m~ °= i n ~ n ~`sm <. ° U 9 u ` oi£Z°ouF<C <iu;p20q}+~< min rf<r~i£ <~iu i34uiz ti~~' o,m-~ir °°<rilG,.°_,r°0 nY0 ~_ ti` 0 9 5z m ~ ~4~~~Eoii ~`<~Sv~<~tE~r~ tai ~~~g~~~ <:~i ~~ri~~ ~rmo33 ~~3~ ~3mYR4o~o ~~~ ~c ;~ O u ns u $ F _ M m • e a r o ~ o r } < o~ 1 ~- ~p g z< r a $s ° ~ 8~ n k n < ~o ~ p° " a ~ 1 z ~ ,. ~ _ ~1 1~ :~ o 0 ° ,l I I I \ 1 1 I j YE .'~c', ~ 1y i !I 1 `r° ryb Ou - ~ 1 1~~ n I j i G I .,~2 I er ~ gin- Or i i ~ 7; ~ jI `t! ~ I~~ ~ .~ r \ \ ~ __ _ ~ 1D~~1 ~I Y I ~ 1 J -r ~ \ v ~; ~ ~ \ I I o I -------~--------' " \1 01 \ \ I T-- s o ~I\ B \ ~ \ j 1` i IBS RS TBAI~R \ \ \' 1i ~' ---~ ~ \ \ o ~ ; ~ j o ~ ry < nl 1( i' ! ~1' ~ ~ \w ;!{.`` I 1. t~ ~~ I~Ii ~I 'i I~ ~ x~ m~ i l; '~ ~ I ~ i ~; .~ \ , ~ j Ili ~ ~.;' ~ ~ m V rRO~paPDRUR I \ F .~:}+f~ "%~' ~y ~'+~`~^'-~'~' 11 \ ~ 1 n~ ~L /\Y P II I~:~ I SV~ R -/ ..~ , ~ '.= 0 <_ ~ i\ ~ ~ ~ ~~s \II .~, ' S 1 G \ ry ~~. ~:~ I ~? ~r I _.~_r~_~'_ ~' - -94'1 O' o ~.S C~ ? nf" ° \ I - j .. Pit L; ' 00.00' 10 OAK 3TRE8t q RIbHT OP WAY ~ ~ > ~$ =~~~~; ~ ~,oroxn FROM ' O O w; ar, 4~ F` _~" U .~- ., :,.. . '~• .= _ ,, } 1 ~, Z u ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 1 I~ ( i ..~r~- e .-. ~}.~ - . n .3'1 s ` " 5 i0"~ 8~ , \ d 1 ~ < ~~ ~ 1 g6 ~~ }y 1 \~ E ~~ ~ ~\ u i u 1 1 ~ ~~ I J u E~Ti N~ n[ p~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~~ ~< ~~ m ~~ ~~ I I o o °a ° on °r ° C m~ r C.". ~~ ~ iii a m m m 4 i • • • ~zd z°O-oo o ~ n~ FimO~ ~~`~~d E ' ~~0 3~~o o o r a'~s<<~~ ao~ ~ ~~ Z _ a OL05b'~O '~~Ol'dZl'~5 o o ~ W ` ~ N ~ 0 , ~o ~ ~ mY ~ e ~ a°°q~3~~ ° 13315 ~I'~O ~bZSt~ L -- ~ ~ f ° z ~ ° ` ~o ~ " ~ /I~{~G i~~~Q 1~1~~I~{I~O m oo~ ~uC ~~ 3 3 s s 3 i S d r . Gi W Z y ~ W w °i~aroad Q ~ ~ o ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ I I I j~ I i I - ~ ~, ~ ' i I ! Z o J > ~ of s-e-W m n~ o a m ~ 1/. O U y 14 Z ~ V m ~ ~ ~ ~ C K ~ < d ?; w 0 0~ ~ 0 0> z F 0 ~ j i O O 0 z 01 C C 0 U 1 Z w F ~(~ f Y W d y L i 2 W W W W d ~ d Q ~ 0 N d m K K y0 z 2 z n~~ Oa S F i O r d O 0 m~ m 0 0 0 0 0 ~ O - y ~~ iu v~ d u W d~~~~ W d J I, I `,~ \ ~ I ~ I l-I, ~I ~-- ~ ____._-- \ ~~ ~„\ _ i i i \ ~ \ \ i \ j \ ~ \ i \ i 1 \\ \ \ 1 ~ - ~ ~ ~- \ i ------ - ~ i ! \ l j ~ \ ~ ~ \ \\I \ ~ e h ~ i I \ \ ~\\ ;; \ i {~ ~ \ \ I I \ ~\ i \ I \ I ~ \ , \ \ \ i I \ \ i \ i \ \ \ ~ V i i ~ \ \ i V \ I \ \ i i ii \ \ ~_~-- ---y \ o \I I \ I \ I " \ . I \ \ ~ i i I ` \ r~ ~ ~ ,. i,~ l I ° j ~ ~~~ ll l. 1, x i \ i I \ i \ ,, t - \ \ \ ~ \ \ i I _ \ ~-. \ i \ 1 \ \ \ I r \ \ ~ ~ ; •~°~ ~ I S' I \ ~ \ 1 11' ~ l S \ __ I i \ I \ ~ \ \ \ ~r ~~ ~I ~~I I_a~"~ --~"-- _ \ I ~ \ I I \ I 1 I I\ I \ _~ I \ L ~ i \ \ > ___ \I -------~ \ -+~ N \ - \ ~~ j \ ~ .. ~ \ \ ,mss \\ \ ~ , ---- j r _ _, I ., -~________._._.- I ~ I '~ i `.?~~ ~ -- \\ G~ 0 9 `; ~. v e! ~ I e ~I !' ~ ``~, - . ~ o ;a ,~, t° F i j ,~~`S 'L i ~ i - ~ e ~ "s ~ a o _ I Jg 11. I~ i ~ / c l \\ /t 1 /.__....G__.__~ __~~ \ / ( ~ / I i I ~~2ti2,. ._._ _o ~_._._ ~~ 5 ~ "------' o~ \ o ~~ I ,~..--~~u-- fi~ \ ~' \ _ e ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~`~ ~ . ~ }} ~.' d R - ~~,t ~ Y i r~i~ ~ _ .: •' '~y..~.. r:. ~: ~'~ ::.' -~ .:~' ~.~ ---1 1 I I I / 1 ~i I~ ~ _ \ i~ i _ \_ ~I i _-- u \ ~ i ,. ', a ____J', ~~ ~ . _ J ~ \ 2 ti ~ ~ ~~ J _ _ - _ _ ~--`c --`r----------- G ~-~ ~ \ <r ,s5" ~ ~ ~ ~sss' I \ N \ I r 1-------------- •