Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-14-2007 Planning Commission PacketP DATE: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 3:30 p.m. PLACE: City Hall Parking Lot, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Site Visit Committee ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. APPLICATION #07 -029 2. APPLICATION #07 -207 3. APPLICATION #07 -063 3. APPLICATION #07 -058 P:\PC SITE VISITS\Site Visits\2007\SVA 021307.doc CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION SITE VISIT AGENDA SITE VISITS WILL BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Maesumi 13921 River Ranch Circle Dukes 14451 Oak Place Arramreddy 19358 Monte Vista Bob Baylor Homes 18595 Avon Lane 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 a fact 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. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, February 13, 2007, 5:00 p.m. PLACE: Administrative Conference Room located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on December 7, 2006. 13921 RIVER RANCH CIRCLE APP# 07 -029 (397 -25 -009) —The Planning Commission will conduct a Study Session reviewing the proposed project to construct a new residence and providing input to the applicant and staff. The proposed project includes the demolition of an existing single -story residence and the construction of a two -story residence. The study session is an information meeting for the Planning Commission. No decisions will be made at this meeting. Adjournment To Regular Planning Commission Meeting Wednesday, February 13, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers /Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Planning Commission Study Session Memorandum 1 Design Review 07 -029, 13291 River Ranch Circle STUDY SESSION REQUIREMENTS: RECOMMENDATION: PROPOSED PROJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Suzanne Thomas, Assistant Planner MEETING DATE: February 13, 2007 SUBJECT: Two -story Residence Application #07 -029 (APN 397 -25 -009) The Study Session is a fact finding meeting where the Commission may discuss the item and ask questions from or hear statements from members of the public attending the meeting. 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. 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. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the proposed architectural design and project plans on a preliminary basis and provide input to the applicant and staff on the following categories: o Neighborhood compatibility o Bulk o Height o Design. Background The applicant filed Design Review Application #07 -029 on July 21, 2006. The project includes the proposed demolition of an existing single -story residence and the construction of a two -story home in a predominantly single -story neighborhood, which is zoned R -1 -10. The existing structures include a 2,185 square foot residence and a small shed. The proposed two -story residence is 4,273 square feet. Planning Commission Study Session Memorandum Design Review 07 -029. 13291 River Ranch Circle 2 The Van De Vens and the Clarkes live next door to the project site, to the left and to the right, respectively. In July 2006, when the initial neighbor notification forms were submitted, they showed that Jie Chen (13801 River Ranch Circle) and Jan and Ken Clarke (13911 River Ranch Circle) had no concerns. However, Michael and Jamie Van De Ven (13930 River Ranch Circle) expressed concern about some of the windows on the proposed home. The plans were revised, and on September 15, 2006, a revised neighbor notification form was submitted with the Van De Ven's signature and the following statement, "Ok per revised dwg on Sept. 13, 2006. With all windows facing our yard are gone. And recessed window in front." On October 4, 2006, a letter from the Van De Vens expressing concerns about the project was submitted to Staff. The letter was dated September 28, 2006 and signed by residents from eight of the households on the block. The applicant attempted to contact all of the neighbors who had signed the letter. He spoke to five of the eight neighbors and made multiple attempts to contact the other three. Staff sent out notices to each of neighbors who had signed the letter explaining that the project had been reassigned to a new planner and inviting them to contact the planner if they wished. Staff was contacted by residences in three of the neighboring homes. The Van De Vens and Margaret Smith (13881 River Ranch Circle) expressed concerns about the compatibility of a two -story home in the neighborhood. The other next door neighbors, Jan and Ken Clarke (13911 River Ranch Circle), recognized their neighbors' concerns regarding privacy but stated that they "have no problem with a 2 story structure on the street." Public Noticing Notices for the February 13, 2007 Study Session were mailed to property owners within 500 feet. Correspondence has been received from property owners both before and after notification of the Study Session, and the letters /emails are attached. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Correspondence: Neighbor Notification Templates, emails, and memos 2. Applicant Correspondence 3. Affidavit of mailing, mailing list and Notice of Study Session 4. Reduced Plans Attachment 1 41) Suzanne Thomas From: Jan Clarke [janclarke @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 3:53 PM To: Suzanne Thomas Subject: River Ranch Circle Page 1 of 1 Hi Suzanne, We are at 13911 River Ranch Circle and would appreciate any information regarding 13921 River Ranch Circle. We also will plan to attend the meeting on 2/13. We initially signed off on the drawings and were very pleased with the design. Having said that, I do understand the concerns of our other neighbors regarding privacy. But also have no problem with a 2 story structure on our street. We are right next door and feel that the new owner has been very thoughtful regarding the impact it would have on us. Thank you, Jan and Ken Clarke 1 /1 r /111117 Suzanne Thomas From: Michael and Jamie Van De Ven [eimajj @earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 2:09 PM To: Suzanne Thomas Cc: Jamie Van De Ven Subject: per new residence at 13921 River Ranch Circle #07 -029 January 19, 2007 Dear Ms. Thomas: Thank you so much for giving us the opportunity to speak with you today about our issues concerning the proposed new home next door to us at 13921 River Ranch Circle. As we discussed, our concern is that the proposed two story structure would not blend well into the neighborhood. In fact, this large structure would stick out and be an eye -sore that we would have to see every day and may have a very negative effect on our property value. We understand that Saratoga allows for homes to be two story. However, we feel that our situation is unique since we share the front yard as part of a cul -de -sac. Because of the geometric angle of the property line, we would have this towering structure directly over us and it would be very visible to all our neighbors facing it. As we stated in our letter of 09 -28 -2006 that was signed by the 8 neighbors effected by this proposed structure, we feel it violates the Saratoga supplementary building code No. 7 6 -04 section 15- 45.080 (a) as pertains to "height, elevations and placement on the site It also violates section 15- 45.080 (e) "compatible bulk and height We want to reiterate that our issues are related to the uniqueness of the location of the property, proposed building and how it will impact us. This structure will tower over our home and will impact our privacy as we share a front lawn at the bottom of the curve of the cul -de -sac. Again, we want to emphasis that there is plenty of space on the lot to accommodate a one story structure of the same proposed living square footage that would take into account the easements that are a part of this property. A one story structure, although large, would not impact us or any of the other neighbors as it would not be unduly visible from the street. All the other homes on the street except this one, have been re- modeled and all neighbors have kept to the one story ranch style architecture that is so much a part of Saratoga. Thank you for your time and help with this issue. Sincerely, Michael and Jamie Van De Ven 13930 River Ranch Circle Saratoga, Ca. 95070 1 September 28, 2006 Sincerel 4. Michael and Jamie Van De Ven 1 13930 River Ranch Circle C �Y it 1 Saratoga (1rt` c GL 1051 vv4 U` Aka 1 K\sv) CO\ 13 %s t et,; er- gancl C+f- C,c1 qSo O Dear Ms. Vasudevan: E This letter is in reference to the building project of Mr. John Maesumi on 13921 Ri Ranch Circle in Saratoga. Since you are the senior planner on this project, we are addressing this letter to you. Please forward this to the planning department and the 0 4 2006 building commission for their action. CITY OF ?UN /T yp o 70 G River Ranch Circle is a cul -de -sac and the homes on our street are older one -story ranch style residents. Although, most of these homes have been re- modeled over the years, the residents of the street have kept the single story ranch style architecture. Mr. Maesumi is proposing to demolish the single story home at 13921 River Ranch Circle that is located at the end of the cul -de -sac and construct a two -story 4,346 square foot residence in its place. The architecture of this residence is in the Mediterranean style. Our issue is that this proposed structure violates section 15- 45.080 (e) of the Saratoga supplementary building code No.7 6 -04 entitled "Compatible bulk and height. The fording is stated as follows: "The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures or adjacent lots....." Our cul -de -sac is small and we share a front yard with the proposed building. We have re- modeled our home and it is now a one -story 2200 square foot ranch style house. We are quite concerned that his proposed structure will be out of place on the street and tower over our home and the other adjacent homes on the cul -de -sac. This will destroy the rural natural feel of our street. Not only is it a two -story structure, it is also almost double the square footage of any other home on the street. The term "eye- sore" comes to mind. The lot at 13921 River Ranch Circle is extremely large, slightly under one -half acre (19,000 sq. ft.). Although, there are creek and storm drain easements, there is ample room for Mr. Maesumi to build a one -story structure that would be considerably larger than the current approximately 1600 square foot home on the property. We would like the planning department and building commission to reject this proposal and ask Mr. Maesumi to re- submit a building plan with a single story dwelling. G 3 t f; Vim►--- i2ft h� 1 Ir cr to g 6 pA'eJ CA%- *Aator cA /3 ye/ /e,o.A 7 01:5 E V c 0 o 2 n, uu6 ca 44, UM Ty I E ()GA City of Saratoga Signahue: Date: PROJECT ADDRESS: 3 ZI R! Yer L Applicant Name: M P5U AI Ai-es v Application Number: 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. OMy 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. y signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project'plans; I understand the scope of w rk; 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: �tn Neighbor Notification Form 13,E ii w. ,v,o S ctc.-\kof_t Neighbor Phone Number: 86 Printed: ?6 7/fl-6 1E i Ea SEP 1 5 2006 CITY OF co MMUNITy DEV ELOPMENT ts juL 7,iTY o:- WU 6 5 ors Signature: Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: 3) r 12aiftt City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: n PROJECT ADDRESS: 7 R ,`1,/ e y K alt C1/4l Applicant Name: /`1 45 VP 4' S U in 'L Application Number: 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. p ly 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. DMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project'plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary):' c ol Neighbor Phone Number: Lt4 2�r Printed: J LE C I-1 b.t/ JUL CITY 5 of 5 Date: PROJECT ADDRESS: Applicant Name: M 1 5u Al es Application Number: 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. ❑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. y signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project'plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: 1312,1 RI'✓er i2 -J CL- Signature: Printed: City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form C‘) Neighbor Phone Number: 86 7 (1 "2/ F 1/4) i2 A./ 4(I CITY OF 5 ors r/0 Date: 7/I7 a' City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form PROJECT ADDRESS: /?iL t y`�►' t mil- r Applicant Name: l S 1 v/ pt 5 V M L, Application Number: 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 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. DMy 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: \-)1/ 0.64 �/lU Neighbor Address: Cukap OA- X Neighbor Phone Number: L f a 74/ 0 dam' 7' Signature: Printed: \*tik g6L1 \Yi JUL Ji 2. 0 2006 CITY OF I 5 of 5 Attachment 2 January 10, 2007 Dear Ms. Thomas, This letter is in reference to letter dated September 28, 2006 from my neighbor Mr. Mrs. Van De Ven in which signed by other neighbors. I approached the neighbors who signed above mentioned letter to see if there is anything that I can do to the design of the house in order to get their support. Here is the result as follow, 13851 River Ranch Cir. (Mr. Mrs. Chen) Approach them once on 1/8/07 11.00 am, and nobody answer the door, second time on 1/9/07 6.00 pm while the interior lights were on yet nobody answer the doorbell. 13860 River Ranch Cir. (Mr. Mrs. Gotol) Approach them once on 1/8/07 11.00 am, and nobody answer the door, second time on 1/9/07 6.00 pm while the interior lights were on yet nobody answer the doorbell. 13861 River Ranch Cir. (Ms. Sara Guida) I talked with Mrs. Sara Guida on 1/9/07 5.30 pm. She is neutral and said, she is not even able to see the house from her location anyway and she won't attend planning commission meeting. Comments Remarks: 13881 River Ranch Cir. (Mr. Jack Smith) I talked to him on January 8, 2007 and said he has no concem about the project, his only concern is Mr. Mrs. Van De Ven and he wants me to satisfy them. 13890 River Ranch Cir. (Mr. Mrs. Yu) I talked with Mrs. Yu on 1/9/07 6.30 pm. She signed the letter because her neighbor approached her after I introduce myself and my family and our intention of building the house, she actually was supportive of my house, and also said that she won't attend the planning commission meeting anyway. 13910 River Ranch Cir. (Mr. Mrs. Nyip) I talked with Mrs. Nyip on 1/9/07 6.15 pm. She signed the letter because her neighbor approached her after I introduce myself and my family and our intention of building the house, she actually was supportive of my house, and also said that she won't attend the planning commission meeting anyway. 13930 River Ranch Cir. (Mr. Mrs. Van De Ven) I talked to him again on January 8, 2007 and I asked him if there are anything that I can do to the design in order for him to support my house, he said, he only support one story house. In paragraph 2, letter says most of properties in that street are remodels, actually are not, at least not from outside. Page 2 January 11, 2007 Sincerely In paragraph 4, letter says that my property is not compatible with the neighbors in this street. I locate two partial two -story houses in this street, one on "13901 River Ranch Cir." Second on "13841 River Ranch Cir." and many more in other streets in the neighborhood. In paragraph 6, letter says that I can build one story house instead because my lot is approx 18,000 ft2, which is not truth, as you know my lot is limited by sanitation and water district easements. Masud Maesumi Owner of property on 13921 River Ranch Cir. Suzanne Thomas From: Masud Maesumi [maesumi©sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 5:32 PM To: Suzanne Thomas Sincerely; Masud Maesumi 3131 S. Bascom Ave. Suite 110 Campbell, (A 95008 muestani@sbeglobal.Net 408-369-6800 Tel 408-369-6805 .1.- 408-888-6222 Cel 1/19/2007 Page 1 of 1 Hi Ms. Suzane Thomas, went to Ms. Lisa Wang house (1 River Ranch Cir.) at three different time (11. am, 3 pin, 5 pm) on 1/17/2007. UnfOrtunately1 couldn't get the chance to talk. to her. Attachment 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Signed AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES S S. I, Suzanne Thomas 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 29th day of January 2007, that I deposited in the United States Post Office within Santa Clara County, a NOTICE OF STUDY SESSION, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to -wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing pursuant to Section 15- 45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property to be affected by the application; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. Suzanne Thomas Assistant Planner sthomas @saratoga.ca.us (408) 868 -1212 City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408 868 -1222 NOTICE OF STUDY SESSION The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following STUDY SESSION on Tuesday, the 13 day of February 2007, at 5:00 p.m. in the Administrative Conference Room of the Saratoga City Hall located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Details and plans are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Thursday from 8:00 a.m. 5:00 p.m. STUDY SESSION FOR 13921 RIVER RANCH CIRCLE #7 -029 (397 -25 -009) The Planning Commission will conduct a Study Session reviewing the proposed project to construct a new residence and providing input to the applicant, neighbors, and staff. The proposed project includes the demolition of an existing single -story residence and the construction of a two -story residence. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed no later than the Wednesday, February 7, 2007. 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. APN_1 ASSESSEE MAILING_AD MAILING_CI MAILING_Z 39725096 MENNEMEIER JUDITH A TRUSTEE 114 REDWOOD DR BOULDER 95006 -8532 39344003 SEATON KENNETH L TRUSTEE ET AL 13810 BEAUMONT AV SARATOGA CA 95070 -4969 39343010 FANALI JOSEPH AND RUTH TRUSTEE 13811 BEAUMONT AV SARATOGA CA 95070 -4970 39725001 LEE KENNETH D AND KIM J H 13841 RIVER RANCH CL SARATOGA CA 95070 -5424 39725014 CAPPELLO PAULA L TRUSTEE 13850 RIVER RANCH CL SARATOGA CA 95070 -5424 39725002 WEN SHAO -HSIU AND CHEN JEAN ET AL 13851 RIVER RANCH CL SARATOGA CA 95070 -5424 39725013 GOTOH TETSUO AND SHIGEKO 13860 RIVER RANCH CL SARATOGA CA 95070 -5424 39725003 GUIDO GEORGE D AND SARA D 13861 RIVER RANCH CL SARATOGA CA 95070 -5424 39725004 WANG RAY SHU NING AND LISA KING 13871 RIVER RANCH CL SARATOGA CA 95070 -5424 39725098 SMITH JACK S AND MARGARET 0 13881 RIVER RANCH CL SARATOGA CA 95070 -5424 39725012 SU JIM AND CHEN CHIA HUI 13890 RIVER RANCH CL SARATOGA CA 95070 -5424 39725006 TAM MARISA CHING SHUT 13891 RIVER RANCH CL SARATOGA CA 95070 -5424 39725007 CHEN JIE AND HSU WEN -JUNG 13901 RIVER RANCH CL SARATOGA CA 95070 -5424 39725011 NGUYEN JEANNIE TRANG TRUSTEE 13910 RIVER RANCH CL SARATOGA CA 95070 -5424 39725008 CLARKE KENNETH F AND JAN S 13911 RIVER RANCH CL SARATOGA CA 95070 -5424 39725009 BITTER JOAN V 13921 RIVER RANCH CL SARATOGA CA 95070 -5424 39725010 VAN DE VEN MICHAEL E AND JAMIE S 13930 RIVER RANCH CL SARATOGA CA 95070 -5424 39345024 GILL KAREN L AND CHARLES F 13935 SARATOGA AV SARATOGA CA 95070 -5435 39725082 RHODES MAUREEN M 13975 SARATOGA AV SARATOGA CA 95070 -5457 39725040 SAGARCHI SALIM 13991 SARATOGA AV SARATOGA CA 95070 -5457 39725074 COLEMAN SANDRA L AND NORMAN R 14000 JERRIES DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5411 39725087 FOX MICHAEL E JR AND LORI M 14000 JUNE WY SARATOGA CA 95070 -5410 39725075 STAHLMAN GLORIA D TRUSTEE 14001 JERRIES DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5409 39725101 ARCHER LANCE J 14001 JUNE WY SARATOGA CA 95070 -5410 39729013 COGGINS DWAIN L AND SMITH COGGINS 14005 OAK HOLLOW SARATOGA CA 95070 -5449 39725076 NISSLY KENNETH L AND MARJORIE J 14011 JERRIES DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5409 39725072 SUCKOW JOHN R AND SALLY C TRUSTEE 14020 JUNE WY SARATOGA CA 95070 -5410 39725077 PIVK LEOPOLD AND HELEN K 14021 JERRIES DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5409 39725102 BAILLIF PETER A TRUSTEE ET AL 14021 JUNE WY SARATOGA CA 95070 -5410 39725038 BIERACH MARILYN TRUSTEE 14920 JERRIES DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5407 39725037 LANDIN LESLIE H AND ELIZABETH A 14924 JERRIES DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5407 39725020 HALL WALTER D AND JEAN M TRUSTEE 14927 JERRIES DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5408 39725036 HARTER GEORGE A JR AND YVONNE L 14928 JERRIES DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5407 39725035 YEE TERRY 0 AND YAUSAN C 14932 JERRIES DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5407 39725021 SHAW WALTER N AND LINDA G 14933 JERRIES DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5408 39725022 MURPHY THOMAS P AND DENISE T 14939 JERRIES DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5408 39725033 DOZIER ROBERT JR AND ALLISON 14940 GERNEIL CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -5404 39725032 TRACEY JOANNA N TRUSTEE 14944 GERNEIL CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -5404 39725031 ARROYO MICHELLE AND ROBERT 14948 GERNEIL CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -5404 39725028 TAYLOR JOHN R AND MARY L TRUSTEE 14950 GERNEIL CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -5404 39725023 HO CHING -YEN AND CHEN LING -MAY 14951 JERRIES DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5408 39725030 KUO CHUN -HUI TRUSTEE 14952 GERNEIL CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -5404 39725029 RENNELL CHARLES R JR TRUSTEE ET 14956 GERNEIL CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -5404 AL 39725024 HEETER ROBERT W AND CAROL V 14961 JERRIES DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5408 39725027 DIMICCO ROBERT F AND VARGAS 14964 JERRIES DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5448 39725025 DANCE ALAN AND LISA 14965 JERRIES DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5408 39725026 DUJARI SHYAM AND ANJALI 14969 JERRIES DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5408 39345031 FANG SHIN -JOU AND DUAN -YEE 19933 DOUGLASS LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5522 39345025 GLASSTONE RAY AND CAROL JANE 19935 HERRIMAN AV SARATOGA CA 95070 -5405 39345021 IRWIN JACK L AND BETTY J TRUSTEE 19943 MORAN LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5430 39345034 POE GARY G AND WOLCOTT BARBARA D 19951 LANNOY CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -5423 39345027 ELEFTERATOS EMILE S AND JULIANA 19955 HERRIMAN AV SARATOGA CA 95070 -5405 39345033 REEVE LAWRENCE D AND JUDY P 19960 LANNOY CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -5423 39345028 COX ALLAN M AND SUSAN M 19965 HERRIMAN AV SARATOGA CA 95070 -5405 39725019 PAN MINGGUI AND LIN LI 19970 HERRIMAN AV SARATOGA CA 95070 -5401 39345032 YAGOL RICHARD AND EDITA TRUSTEE 19970 LANNOY CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -5423 39345036 DUGAR ABHIJEET AND PRITI 19971 LANNOY CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -5423 39345029 D'COSTA CARL AND OLIVIA TRUSTEE 19975 HERRIMAN AV SARATOGA CA 95070 -5405 39725097 DOUGHERTY KATHRYN N AND C W 19980 HERRIMAN AV SARATOGA CA 95070 -5401 39345037 KERR BRIAN J AND KAREN L TRUSTEE 19981 LANNOY CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -5423 39345030 FOUST DANIEL E AND MARILYN J 19985 HERRIMAN AV SARATOGA CA 95070 -5405 39345038 HILL BARBARA TRUSTEE 19991 LANNOY CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -5423 39344001 YANG MICHAEL S AND CHENG YA -HWEI 20021 HERRIMAN AV SARATOGA CA 95070 -4903 39344002 SONG JANET S 20025 HERRIMAN AV SARATOGA CA 95070 -4903 39343011 POST JACK AND BETTY 20121 HERRIMAN AV SARATOGA CA 95070 -4904 39725080 SVAGSM LP C/0 JOHN CHRISTOL 2372 BLUE HERON LP LINCOLN CA 95648 39725034 RICHARDS HERBERT F AND NELLIE E 4250 WILLIAMS RD SAN JOSE CA 95129 -3344 39725015 CASABONNE YVES G AND ANNETTE E P 0 BOX 247 EL VERANO CA 95433 39345026 ARTUSY LADAN P.O. BOX 112 SARATOGA CA 95071 -0112 39725073 HEESCH MORGAN L AND PATRICIA H P.O. BOX 1181 LINCOLN CA 95648 39725041 YANG AMY S ET AL PO BOX 282 SARATOGA CA 95071 39729007 GLAZER DONALD A AND ALICE A PO BOX 3687 SARATOGA CA 95070 -1687 39729012 LOS GATOS H S D SARATOGA CA 95070 39725063 S C V W D SARATOGA CA 95070 39345039 S C V W D SARATOGA CA 95070 Attacirnent 4 '9000itl111.393w iO30b1'1a300331.1.1 1030MFA390Ya Halba3111131009101.01. .1991193'ANM1031311.1111MIDV1.0 TI M13',WSW 311310. 11MM99tl910bvm10.1 k 153 0 0 v w cc M 0 0 cc 0 0 w v Q CC 01 CC 999'919330 n3 111 0 <0 J J a w w w w Q o UJ IL r r N Cr) 10 CO a a a a a< .1.0308 911' 9911130 0l 311LL n3118i111 19' abra NVid 3119 NOIIVWHOENI 103P0ad d b O N i 1 4 co 1 il 1 i d 1 V a 5-ig q 11! dil,; gg tl031p�000tld3b tl036113b'Q�N31M `INao�l�d0 vooldads 10 HONda 1:13A18 1Z8£1. d 30N301S3d IWfS3WW co g CC) Le- w ..3w H9NM boa 319103101a mmI0M0 3w 0103101.3311 9 9i0u' 'a• 9 g T I0 N 391 301101 1101...0 0 'SN000INaa. iO30Mild3IXN 3N1 A030%900NSIVA WOW 311111[1.3.O.013103d5QM50NWMp 3B31LLNvn locum T304A'.T95V3gum. NLLM wow. SN0LLMMo.0Ni S.01 1i103u5 ONV GO M 01.31LL'03L61,10.10'LIV< row rowNI'OON1311ANI A5 NP101100tlCau u03R13tltt30N3W 3tl3MA311LNO31M0:1 I030urreguuo 3N101031aW53051 stoiriO3u9 avmom.0 AO 3511:3011011 L1051 MOO 01 0 9-.0 fo 1 O 0 Z 00 u j I 00 0 0 cc a 5 O tL 5 cc 0 a u) 9 0 d) X J 1 0 la I W LL 9 I 3 O R g A a p n 0G00000®060 i x a 00000000 5 1n w Qj z z 0 0 U cc cc 0 O J LL FIRST FLOOR PLAN FAMLY ROOM VIN I0J11VO VJOIVEIVS JO Z ON ,3 NV1d E1001A 1SEIId 310!110 HONVE1 li3AIFJ GZ681. C3L< I :IV 3ON3OIS3l1 IWfS3VI' 'SN000INaa. iO30Mild3IXN 3N1 A030%900NSIVA WOW 311111[1.3.O.013103d5QM50NWMp 3B31LLNvn locum T304A'.T95V3gum. NLLM wow. SN0LLMMo.0Ni S.01 1i103u5 ONV GO M 01.31LL'03L61,10.10'LIV< row rowNI'OON1311ANI A5 NP101100tlCau u03R13tltt30N3W 3tl3MA311LNO31M0:1 I030urreguuo 3N101031aW53051 stoiriO3u9 avmom.0 AO 3511:3011011 L1051 MOO 01 0 9-.0 fo 1 O 0 Z 00 u j I 00 0 0 cc a 5 O tL 5 cc 0 a u) 9 0 d) X J 1 0 la I W LL 9 I 3 O R g A a p n 0G00000®060 i x a 00000000 5 1n w Qj z z 0 0 U cc cc 0 O J LL FIRST FLOOR PLAN FAMLY ROOM .00?' 1153. 4. /.30NVL3. MVO NV. /31NLL13N001710 Y0bIWde 018 6W1ffw0 MN{xw110VLN10 TT61,7.8893141131. N14N HIVIM aA0MR103301N 8.:1111#.330 TIVE611.1.1.011V.1103d8 axe SNW.wo 013win3u311nxd a'.xeda uo MO Mx1'awLL311ANVAe H01M10011d3N tl0 asr. MAMM 3313N.A3x11.1 10d3Le10301170031tl0 Mil 01031011.33x31 eN018013t313 RH 31MMSx0353N1 A3a1 MOO 4 NVid HOO7J ONOO2S VINUOJIIVO VOOlVUVS 310!110 HONVH H3A11:1 I3681 :IV 30N3mS3a IWfS3VW .0 ,9b II g co SHl3 .Atl133tl333X13030HY1d303I3H1dU 3.310.3 WOWHxtld alum. BNPIYJlgemsQlI 10333111.111 1M1.1.100NOMA'.T8T93NRf3x1. NIM xvn3u 6M31YIP3'S!H ONY Bv3N9H0,sdO T3 man 3HOLLV0,d,03d3 any so MY1p013LLL'anomie Wave x NO 310M x'mt HAHV AB HO000000d3tl NO3x9tl '¢30H3L11 3tl3MA3Hl.N tl033u3103p1d TM03p 3. 01 0310.011R1 el 3H011YJl SA Q1Y f 1.0 NMI „O•,6 m �33� 03�.3� OHIH011,Ad9 FLAT TILE ROOFING I WI 11111 TOP MOST ELEVATION 225* Al Will ......minor.,...iiminiimmignannliffnummounnsunommommernenninall...—...............- 5" 26 CIA. CU. OGEE GUTTER rp.,„,,,;,_,,,31. 1111111111111111110111PITA11111111111111M..... NEI N111111111•11111011111111111111•PlallUMBIITIIIIIVni1111•11111111•111111111111M.- ,A-- f APrmow t.:, v 0 L ,I IIIAIr t j LI 111 ‘1 r ift.L E1 1 ii.., ip -a, pi lfriiiiiv ioi •-iO4.....1....,..----"-_. --T,4 it. illirA 1 ii -016, 6.1/34R_ pL OO A R SECOND FLOOR EL. 21179 !qv iiim_.t.:F.A,1 cpc ----:„.-....---i-.........,-,:„ kb am I Itlit ill 4 1. 7; a Z? se----- iiimillmo g i' STUCCO 0/ FOAM 0 11111 G.A.R EL. 200.42 NATURAL GRADE EL. 199130# TRIM AT WINDOW STUCCO STONE SILL TYP. STONE VENEER FRONT SIDE ELEVATION NORTH WEST GARAGE DOOR BY AMARR" HEIGHT INFORMATION. LOLEST EX. ELEv. AT BLDG. EDGE. 199.11 HIGHEST EX. ELEV. AT eLDG EDGE: 199.99 EXTERIOR BULDING F HES: AVERAGE ELEVATION: IEE/38 TOP tIOST ELEvATION C26 229.63' s DESERT BLEND COBBI_EFIEI_D C.-V -2066) g MAIN BUILDING COLOR: SPANISH SAND (1":71 231) OR SIMI RECESSED G ROOF TILES BY "MONIER LIFE TIL OR EGUAL SLATE RUSTIC SRC:UN BLEND C ASSICS FAMILY WALL FROSTED SKYLIGHT OVER STAIRS IV I i 11 ilillill' IMAI III) 111 11 11111 10 AL •P 4 AV .....0 _____M7011111011101111111WIIIIIMINIMILIIIIIIMILI-r, IIMMIMIIIII10:19114111Melenj C k`', y, ,ti ,L 4L 0/ METAL LATH 0/ 2 LAYERS GRADE 4' BLDG. 0/ 2 x FRAMING. TOP PLATE ,4 Indoa,r l 4 L .......dr..., IN iTialmimiltlutimmniumumnranal min wfflamminvi 1 ,x,,,, 1E1111 11111ammonmunign SUSFLOOR SECOND FLOOR El_ 211.19* TOP PLATE L.R: .-t_____.____._inninimumo lo' i m. "771 1.‘:r...-111. rtij F 0 NATURAL GRADE EL. 19920+ LEFT SIDE ELEVATION NORTH EAST STONE VENEER EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS I 1/4"=1'-0" I SNOIlVA3�3 8011:131X3 VINFIO JI 1VO VOOIVHVS 319d10 HONVII U3Alti Iva 90.0 a31c ILL-44 SL33HS 30 iV ON J33HS :1V 30N3a1S311 IWfS3VW SHl3 .Atl133tl333X13030HY1d303I3H1dU 3.310.3 WOWHxtld alum. BNPIYJlgemsQlI 10333111.111 1M1.1.100NOMA'.T8T93NRf3x1. NIM xvn3u 6M31YIP3'S!H ONY Bv3N9H0,sdO T3 man 3HOLLV0,d,03d3 any so MY1p013LLL'anomie Wave x NO 310M x'mt HAHV AB HO000000d3tl NO3x9tl '¢30H3L11 3tl3MA3Hl.N tl033u3103p1d TM03p 3. 01 0310.011R1 el 3H011YJl SA Q1Y f 1.0 NMI „O•,6 m �33� 03�.3� OHIH011,Ad9 FLAT TILE ROOFING I WI 11111 TOP MOST ELEVATION 225* Al Will ......minor.,...iiminiimmignannliffnummounnsunommommernenninall...—...............- 5" 26 CIA. CU. OGEE GUTTER rp.,„,,,;,_,,,31. 1111111111111111110111PITA11111111111111M..... NEI N111111111•11111011111111111111•PlallUMBIITIIIIIVni1111•11111111•111111111111M.- ,A-- f APrmow t.:, v 0 L ,I IIIAIr t j LI 111 ‘1 r ift.L E1 1 ii.., ip -a, pi lfriiiiiv ioi •-iO4.....1....,..----"-_. --T,4 it. illirA 1 ii -016, 6.1/34R_ pL OO A R SECOND FLOOR EL. 21179 !qv iiim_.t.:F.A,1 cpc ----:„.-....---i-.........,-,:„ kb am I Itlit ill 4 1. 7; a Z? se----- iiimillmo g i' STUCCO 0/ FOAM 0 11111 G.A.R EL. 200.42 NATURAL GRADE EL. 199130# TRIM AT WINDOW STUCCO STONE SILL TYP. STONE VENEER FRONT SIDE ELEVATION NORTH WEST GARAGE DOOR BY AMARR" HEIGHT INFORMATION. LOLEST EX. ELEv. AT BLDG. EDGE. 199.11 HIGHEST EX. ELEV. AT eLDG EDGE: 199.99 EXTERIOR BULDING F HES: AVERAGE ELEVATION: IEE/38 TOP tIOST ELEvATION C26 229.63' s DESERT BLEND COBBI_EFIEI_D C.-V -2066) g MAIN BUILDING COLOR: SPANISH SAND (1":71 231) OR SIMI RECESSED G ROOF TILES BY "MONIER LIFE TIL OR EGUAL SLATE RUSTIC SRC:UN BLEND C ASSICS FAMILY WALL FROSTED SKYLIGHT OVER STAIRS IV I i 11 ilillill' IMAI III) 111 11 11111 10 AL •P 4 AV .....0 _____M7011111011101111111WIIIIIMINIMILIIIIIIMILI-r, IIMMIMIIIII10:19114111Melenj C k`', y, ,ti ,L 4L 0/ METAL LATH 0/ 2 LAYERS GRADE 4' BLDG. 0/ 2 x FRAMING. TOP PLATE ,4 Indoa,r l 4 L .......dr..., IN iTialmimiltlutimmniumumnranal min wfflamminvi 1 ,x,,,, 1E1111 11111ammonmunign SUSFLOOR SECOND FLOOR El_ 211.19* TOP PLATE L.R: .-t_____.____._inninimumo lo' i m. "771 1.‘:r...-111. rtij F 0 NATURAL GRADE EL. 19920+ LEFT SIDE ELEVATION NORTH EAST STONE VENEER EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS I 1/4"=1'-0" I V101131U1S3U3S3W..14W3TS1.1 1103 3.0.93p4...13LW15N00W01.3.0.18 ONI RMMH10363N1NY 1.X11100 TIMM VMS. 3NM3N0.NLLN NM1311 SNUIYMWJM aMI 3V30113N9M30 TIYONIIX121M 6Ng1HJb103a8 Rry BIXIwvUOW 311.13' o311911pW11I'1nd1411:103101lNM10U314Axv 01 .10001.1.tl0361W'WON31M.3M.11.1 IWNtlDf3191' 910.1 IMMO NI 01031=1831:14.011 03-1215 WY SOMIMVhV 393X1J039N: 3011.11/0MM'00 0 1� SNOIIVA313 11OI831X3 VINUOJIIVO VOO1VEIVS 31OHIO HONVli H13AI8 1Z681. 1V 30N341S3U IWfS3VW T. a 4 QCs §r •E N� S Q ac gEosali NV1d A001 SNOIiO3S VINHOAI1VO VOOlVdVS 31O1:1IO HONVH 1:13AI1:1 I.36EI. :IV 3ON34IS31:1 IWfS3VW I� a MEM „0•,6 ,.0-.0 0 T 9 Co 63141d03; NABNOInYJIsYJ3d6QW 6IXAMM10 383HL HOM 17YIN00 10181 .1N66Y63M63HO.H11MMN3N S.M.°. OW 9Y33'6Nd830lN014Ofln FIg1YJUIONS ON'1'60NLM1tl0013110'03MBIHOIM 61'1HYd NI8031011MM bOH13N.WYA. NOIL7I331d31110 2s R z NVId 3dVOSUNV1 VINU04I1V9 VDOlVUVS 31OUI0 HONVH 1:13AIa LZ6@ :1V 33 8QIS3a IWIIS3VW 0 3tl TAO.. 3N3NA3NL191WA tlOf 3L8L32111 11M10Mtl03N1010310IWB3tlfl 6N llV01 ]3i ONI6W WrvNO363N1 iD 3SI1: 30114 INgtl Ad00 g J 6 VO NOa3A 31121A4 NOWWOO NON N 31INIIVNVW 31110 DAYLILY LAVENDER COTTON .S'.1 3NId CNV'1sl ......vristro I GISN31aVNVO sflNld a3CIN 210 a34NV3 31IH111 .daVONV1S. a34NV31O 1411a3N NERIUM OLEANDER "STANDARD" WHITE 31"IVN IVJM/109 V no31Xf19 393M VOINa0rro. VOla.11.l WfaaN3a000Ha S3CIOT13HY VIOI 1 WEMEROCALLUS HYBRIDS SANTOLINA CHCMACYPARIS5U5 0 Z M m m 'V9 SI VV 51 VH 95 V. I "V9 1 o o a 7 i 63141d03; NABNOInYJIsYJ3d6QW 6IXAMM10 383HL HOM 17YIN00 10181 .1N66Y63M63HO.H11MMN3N S.M.°. OW 9Y33'6Nd830lN014Ofln FIg1YJUIONS ON'1'60NLM1tl0013110'03MBIHOIM 61'1HYd NI8031011MM bOH13N.WYA. NOIL7I331d31110 2s R z NVId 3dVOSUNV1 VINU04I1V9 VDOlVUVS 31OUI0 HONVH 1:13AIa LZ6@ :1V 33 8QIS3a IWIIS3VW 0 3tl TAO.. 3N3NA3NL191WA tlOf 3L8L32111 11M10Mtl03N1010310IWB3tlfl 6N llV01 ]3i ONI6W WrvNO363N1 iD 3SI1: 30114 INgtl Ad00 g J 6 0 co 0 cr) 0 0 0 0 Z 7_ W o CI 0 0 0 co tr) L o xO d•E N C71 cs1 tO II II II 0 a v) cr Eag 600-gZ-6LC :NdV VINEI0d11V0 V901.VEIVS 9101:110 HONY1:1 1:12AIE1 Le6el uid aaeure..ip pue BugyeZ 600-9Z-6LC :NdV VIN1:10d11V0 V00.1.Vh1VS 191:110 HONVIA bleA11:1 26el dVPN A3Ailf1S 011 AEIVC1N1108 7 %1 r ot 8' 1 I 8 N is• N..., t I 1. 7- ,11 -.1.= \go \N N N 9002 C :a BO AON PM 5 11A10 iN9BB92\0ab Jan!II JaAaas\ li e.i N 7 II ws i A r'l i l 1 A FiL I i, 1 1 W..1 0 7 Zt I 1 2.■ A A I t ek r- r r oi t 1 F.L.t, 1 ‘1 t I g 8" i FA:-.. C.'it, -kg, 71 7 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Manny Cappello, Joyce Hlava, Robert Kundtz, Susie Nagpal, Yan Zhao and Chair Linda Rodgers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of January 24, 2007 ORAL COMMUNICATION: 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 February 8, 2007 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 #07 -063 (397 -10 -020) Arramreddy, 19358 Monte Vista Drive: The applicant requests a Modification to a Design Review Approval granted by the Planning Commission at their December 14, 2005, hearing, allowing them to demolish a single -story, single family residence and construct a 6,098.6 sq. ft. one -story, single- family residence. The proposed modification would change the approved footprint of the residential structure, allow for construction of a cabana, and relocate the swimming pool. The gross lot size is 1.02 -acres and the site is zoned R -1 40,000. (Therese Schmidt) 2. APPLICATION #07 -058 (410 -40 -003) Bob Taylor Homes, 18595 Avon Lane: The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a new one -story single family dwelling. The dwelling will consist of approximately 5,840 square feet. The height of the structure will not exceed the 26 -foot height limitation. The gross lot size is approximately 47,678 square feet and the site is located in the R -1- 40,000 zoning P:\PC Agendas\2007\Agn 021407.doc district. Design Review approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15- 45.060. (Shweta Bhatt) 3. APPLICATION #07 -207 (397 -22 -041) Dukes, 14451 Oak Place: The applicant is appealing a decision by the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC). The HPC determined the subject property is historically significant. (Shweta Bhatt) DIRECTORS ITEM: None COMMISSION ITEMS: None COMMUNICATIONS None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Wednesday, February 28, 2007. 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 February 8, 2007 at the office of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.saratoga.ca.us If you would like to receive the Agenda's via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to planningAsaratoga.ca.us P:\PC Agendas\2007\Agn 021407.doc MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 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 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present: Commissioners Hlava, Kundtz, Rodgers and Zhao Absent: Commissioners Cappello and Nagpal Staff: Director John Livingstone, City Arborist Kate Bear and Assistant City Attorney Phil Parkin APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular Meeting of January 10, 2007. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of January 10, 2007, were adopted as submitted (4 -0 -2; Commissioners Cappello 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 January 18, 2007. 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 January 24, 2007 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #07 -200 (503 -28 -109) Cunningham, 21070 Canyon View: The applicant is appealing the denial of a Tree Removal Permit. The permit denied the removal of four mature oak trees. City Arborist Kate Bear presented the staff report as follows: Explained that this is an appeal of a denial of a Tree Removal Permit. The appellant wants to demolish an existing house before selling the property including the removal of four mature Coast Live Oak trees in the process. Three of the trees are located in a courtyard surrounded by the house and the fourth tree grows next to the house and partially through a deck. Stated that staff had recommended to the appellant that prior to demolition of the house he should determine if there are constraints on what could be constructed on the property if the house is removed in case it is preferable to remodel the existing home. Said that denial of the appeal is consistent with the General Plan, which states that the City shall control the removal or destruction of trees and states that the Design Review process shall be utilized to consider which trees, if any, should be removed when a project is submitted for new construction. Added that denial of the appeal is also consistent with Code 15- 50.080 in that the application does not meet the burden of proof for the criteria used in determining whether a tree can be removed. Outlined that the appellant did not meet the following criteria. o The oak trees are not diseased. o They are not in eminent danger of falling. o They are not interfering with utilities. o They don't threaten damage to the house. o The trees grow on a very steep slope and their removal may possibly increase erosion of the hillside on which they grow. o There is an alternative to removing the trees. The house can be demolished around the trees leaving them in place. Advised that the general purpose of Article 15 -50 is to preserve healthy mature trees. Stated that no information has been provided so far about a possible design for a new home, any safety issues or other extenuating conditions that may require the removal of the trees in order to demolish the house. Said that removal of the trees is not required for enjoyment of the property in that they allow the existing house and could potentially allow for a major remodel. Recommended that the Commission adopt a Resolution denying the removal of the four oak trees. Commissioner Zhao asked staff how old the trees were. City Arborist Kate Bear said that she was not certain but could say they are older than 50 years old and perhaps as much as 75 years old. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for January 24, 2007 Page 3 Chair Rodgers sought clarification that although there are nine criteria not all are required but a weighing of them is considered. City Arborist Kate Bear said that is correct. She weighs the criteria overall. Chair Rodgers opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Brian Cunningham, Appellant and Property Owner: Thanked the Commission for allowing him to make an appeal. Advised that he is representing his family trust and is responsible for selling said property following the passing of his parents. Assured that his family has always loved oak trees and that is evidenced by the fact that they have built their house around and amongst these trees. Said that he does not want to have to take these trees down. However, unfortunate structural damage to the residence makes it questionable as to whether fixing the house is cost effective. Added that he is asking the Planning Commission to recognize that this is an unusual situation and allow the removal of these trees during any needed demolition as well as grant permission to rebuild the home on the existing house footprint that has been in place for 40 years. Said that the Arborist used four criteria to deny his Tree Removal Permit in October. He said that he agrees with the first criteria that the trees are healthy and not dead. However, two other criteria deal with the tree not threatening damage to the residence or property. If the residence is repaired or replaced, this condition may apply. Added that one of the trees is currently pushing up on a large support beam for the front deck and those are tied in to the house support. One can even visually see a little movement on it. Said that the courtyard trees bang into the house during windy days. Disagreed that removal would have an adverse reaction on soil or water flow, as a home would be rebuilt over the tree location and effectively eliminate local erosion and water would still be carried away via gutter. Pointed out that five other allowed criteria were not evaluated in the original decision. Of those, three of them can reasonably be used to justify the tree removal. One has to do with the number of trees on the property being able to support the removal. This 1.1 -acre property is heavily oak forested. Stated that another criteria has to do with whether the removal is contrary to the Ordinance's intent in maintaining a sustainable urban forest. He said that the situation here is unusual as the trees are in the middle of a house and one tree is growing into the support beams of a house. This is not a sustainable element but rather is an unusual situation that does not meet the Ordinance's intent. Added that another criteria is consideration of economic enjoyment of a property. Blocking removal of the trees reduces options, increases expenses and devalues his property. Therefore, it has a devastating financial impact on the owner. Said that potential mitigation factors that can help justify removing these trees is that they could then clear out currently unreachable vegetated areas, reducing fire hazard and replant additional oaks there. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for January 24, 2007 Page 4 Said that replacement of the house with something modern that is energy efficient is a positive environmental factor. Pointed out that there are many new regulations today that complicate rebuilding on site. They include new root zone limitations applied to defined tree canopies, new building site slope regulations, new structural post height requirements, new Fire Department turnaround requirements and probably many others of which he is not yet aware. Asked that the Planning Commission allow his Tree Removal Permit and further allow replacement of the existing structure with a modern structure without requiring a series of post build codes that exclude building a replacement home on this well established housing footprint. Said he does not understand why there is not a grandfather clause to protect residents that suffer these types of calamities and are then subject to further financial harm due to the City changing the rules after completion of the game. Said that seems unfair. Commissioner Zhao sought clarification as to whether what is being considered this evening is the Tree Removal or does it include other things not mentioned in the application. Chair Rodgers clarified that only the Tree Removal Permit is to be considered. Director John Livingstone said that the request is for a Tree Removal Permit. Some of the appellant's reasonings are more of an explanation. Chair Rodgers said that appellant wants the option to be able to rebuild the house on the existing location, tear it down and build a new house or do a major reconstruction on the house. Mr. Brian Cunningham said yes, that is what he is looking for. Chair Rodgers asked Mr. Brian Cunningham if he has plans yet. Mr. Brian Cunningham replied no. Mr. John Colistra, Neighbor: Said that he lives two doors down from the Cunningham home. Added that he is a 29 -year resident that built a home on a vacant lot. Stated that the Cunningham home needs to be replaced no question. Said he cannot see why this request for a Tree Removal Permit is not approved, as there are Tots of trees on site. The trees the Cunninghams are trying to remove are located in the middle of the pad and will not threaten mudslides if removed. Pointed out that there is no description in the report on the number of trees on this property. Said that the house is not visible from other properties. Advised that Brian Cunningham is trying to enhance this property and these trees are hindering his opportunity to make it buildable. Stated that it is unreasonable to make an economic hardship on this family. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for January 24, 2007 Page 5 Chair Rodgers closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Kundtz: Stated that he would personally feel better if there was a design plan in place that would replace the existing structure. Said that it would be a massive undertaking to renovate this home. Added that without a plan he cannot approve this Tree Removal Permit with the demolition of the house as the end result may be a vacant lot due to the difficulty in building a replacement structure. Expressed his support for the staff recommendation to deny. Commissioner Hlava: Agreed with Commissioner Kundtz. Said that she too has problems with this request although she also has sympathy for the property owner's situation. Added that if there were a specific plan to review, she might be willing to say that some trees can come down if necessary if they are located on the only place available on site to build a new home. Stated that there are lots of oak trees on site. Said that she knows that the same house cannot be built on the same footprint under current regulations. A 30 -foot beam holding it up will not happen under current Building Code requirements. Said that she thinks it is in the best interest of the Cunninghams to deny the Tree Removal Permit and have them obtain professional to help plan the future use of the lot. Concluded by staying she cannot make the findings and supports the staff recommendation to deny this appeal. Commissioner Zhao: Said that when she was on site she could see potential damage to the structure. Added that without a future plan it is hard to approve this Tree Removal Permit as that potential design could end up keeping the trees and locating the house elsewhere on the property. Suggested that the Cunninghams come back with a design. Expressed her agreement with the staff recommendation. Chair Rodgers: Said that the purpose of criteria is to protect trees. Added that trees define Saratoga. Values of the City of Saratoga include the beauty of its hillside and its urban forest. Agreed that the house is in terrible shape. That is not just because there are trees leaning against a beam. The windows are not square. The floor sags everywhere you walk. There are places roped off because the owner felt they were too dangerous for visitors to walk on. Large posts seem to have sagged. Advised that she is not sure this can be done inexpensively. Said she prefers to leave the trees and allow a new owner to work on how best to do that. Added that a new owner may want to build closer to the front of the lot and further from the back hillside. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for January 24, 2007 Page 6 Said that because right now this is all speculative, she is not comfortable allowing this tree removal. Stated that she is not seeing the difference in economic enjoyment to the current or future owner. Said that because of topography, Tree Ordinance regulations and the fact that there are alternatives available, she supports staff's decision. Stated that this is such a beautiful property with potential for a beautiful house. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Zhao, the Planning Commission denied an appeal and upheld the administrative decision denying a Tree Removal Permit for four mature oak trees on property located at 21070 Canyon View, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Hlava, Kundtz, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: Cappello and Nagpal ABSTAIN: None Chair Rodgers advised Mr. Cunningham that he has the option to appeal this action to Council and /or she wished him good look with the sale of his property. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 2 APPLICATION #07 -082 (City Wide) Draft Land Use and Open Space /Conservation Elements of the Saratoga General Plan and Negative Declaration: The proposed project includes an update of the City's Land Use and Open Space /Conservation Elements of the Saratoga General Plan and Negative Declaration. These Elements establish City goals and policies related to the location, type, density and intensity of development in the City as well as the location of trails, open space and natural resource areas. Contract Planner Deborah Ungo- McCormick presented the staff report as follows: Reminded that this General Plan Update to the City's Land Use and Open Space /Conservation Elements was most recently continued from a Study Session held on December 12, 2006. Reported that for that Study Session a matrix of items for discussion was created. A third column was used to reflect changes resulting from the Study Session. Advised that the changes from the Study Session were made accordingly. Said that she and her associate, Jerry Haag, were available for any questions. Stated that staff is recommending moving this forward to Council for approval. Chair Rodgers said that the updates have been discussed at length at previous meetings. Commissioner Hlava said that she is unclear on the edits to page 14 (Community Facilities Sites). She pointed out that West Valley College is listed both under Community Faculties as well as Public Facilities. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for January 24, 2007 Page 7 Contract Planner Deborah Ungo- McCormick said that repetitions could be eliminated. She added that schools are listed under Institutional and Public Facilities. Contract Planner Jerry Haas said that the term "i.e." could be replaced with "e.g." Commissioner Hlava suggested revising the order of language on the value statement. Chair Rodgers read out, "...Its residents value quality educational facilities, neighborhood parks for recreation, cultural opportunities and for community involvement for all ages." Chair Rodgers opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Ms. Cheriel Jensen: Said that she has a number of comments. Started with three comments about the Land Use Map (attachment 2): o The first is on page 5 of 54 (Historic Orchard /Library Site). She said that the Library is a Community Facility but the Orchard is Open Space /Managed Resource. o The second is on page 14 of 54. The housing development site depicted includes a commercial area fronting Saratoga Sunnyvale Road. The commercial area should be designated Commercial Retail to be accurate. o The third is regarding page 4 of 54 (The Belle Grove Area). The professional office space located on the southeast corner of Cox is currently designated as M -10 but should be designated Professional Office. Pointed to page 7 of the Land Use Element draft, third paragraph, should read, no sites used or designated for industrial purposes." Added that descriptions on page 7 are not correct and need to be changed. Advised that Marshall Lane School has been left off page 8 listing of schools as well as the Cupertino School District. Commissioner Hlava said that it was decided to list only those schools physically located in Saratoga. Ms. Cheriel Jensen: Pointed out that Marshall Lane is indeed located in Saratoga. Added that mistakes and inconsistencies need to be corrected. Stated disagreement with using the term "significant amount of" in relation to the amount of open space /parks available since the City does not even have half the parkland it should have. Commissioner Hlava said that there is lots of adjacent open space available to Saratogans. Ms. Cheriel Jensen: Said that the list of creeks does not include Vasona Creek, which meets Wildcat Creek. Said that on page 11, some important Neighborhood Character issues have been left out including Tight, air space and privacy. Stated that on page 12 building site coverage needs to be addressed at some point. Some homes are being built now that are too large for their neighborhoods. The current design standards are not strong enough to prevent that from happening. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for January 24, 2007 Page 8 Stressed the importance of prohibiting timber harvesting outright (page 15). Commissioner Hlava pointed to page 42 in the Open Space /Conservation Element draft where a policy says, "discourage logging to the maximum extent possible." Ms. Cheriel Jensen said logging should be prohibited outright. Chair Rodgers asked if logging is best handled under the Land Use or Open Space Element. City Attorney Phil Parkin said that logging is an activity that occurs on land but is not a Land Use Element issue. Ms. Cherie) Jensen said that she really appreciates her comments that have been incorporated into the draft. She mentioned that the level of activity allowed in Neighborhood Commercial designated areas might not be appropriate in the Village. Commissioner Hlava clarified that Neighborhood Commercial is a Zoning designation and Commercial Retail is a Land Use designation. Ms. Cheriel Jensen: Said that allowing residential uses in a commercial zone makes sense in the Village but not elsewhere in the City's other commercial sites because there are so few such commercial sites. Said that basement issues have not been integrated with issues of building height limitations. Chair Rodgers advised that a house's height is measured from grade. Ms. Cheriel Jensen: Said that the employment trends outlined on page 20 are based on projections by the State Department of Finance. They are so unrealistic and absurd. They don't really make sense and are not likely to come about since there is no land and it is expensive to live here. Stated that the City should not have to amend its Land Use policies to accommodate their projections, as they don't make sense. Brought up page 25 (Land Use Policy 2.3). She said that a decision should be made as to whether bed and breakfasts should be allowed in residential districts. If not, don't include the possibility of that in the General Plan. Contract Planner Deborah Ungo- McCormick said that there are no recommended changes here and the language is existing language. Ms. Cheriel Jensen: Stressed the need for consistency within the documents. Raised the issue of the North Campus via page 26 (LU -4), suggesting that public uses should "keep the publicly owned land in Saratoga or trade for lands more appropriate but equal in acreage and seek to acquire more land for parks." Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for January 24, 2007 Page 9 Said that 75 to 80 percent of the voters wanted to keep the North Campus. A policy is needed to protect City -owned property. Said that on page 27 (LU -5.2), privacy does not appear here and should be added to the list. Said that on Policy LU -5.3 development plans should be added. Said that on Policy LU -5.4 privacy should be added. Said that on page 28 LU -6.4 should include language that says, "development plans should include native trees." Said page 29 LU 9.1 is an inconsistent policy. Commissioner Hlava asked why it is inconsistent. Ms. Cheriel Jensen: Said that it is redundant to say what you cannot do. Added that she just likes things to be really clear. Cautioned that if there is an opening in a General Plan someone will find it and use it. Mentioned LU 11.1, saying she is not sure the City wants to be consistent with the other districts /jurisdictions but rather more strong and firm and doing the right thing. She said that policy is really a mistake and doesn't' serve us. Said that regarding the Conservation Element some discussion on creeks needs to be held to make sure creeks are not channelized. The current language is not strong enough to prevent creeks from channelization. Thanked the Commission for hearing her comments and including many of the recommendations she had suggested at previous meetings. Chair Rodgers thanked Ms. Cherie! Jensen for her participation in the process. Ms. Meg Giberson: Advised that she has some concerns and feels that perhaps another Study Session is in order to iron out the remaining issues since certain things still need to be addressed. Said that she submitted something in writing that was mischaracterized by the staff response and said that she wants to submit more comments in writing. Stated that she had asked that the Hillside Specific Plan areas that were added in 1994 be shown with more particularity in the documents. A very general description is in the document and the map but the map is not sufficiently clear so people can see if they fall in the area or not. Said that she would like to see the Conservation easements listed somewhere on a map or on a list in these documents. Pointed out that there is some good protective language in the County Plan on grading and riparian corridors. Reiterated her suggestion that another Study Session be held. Submitted five pages of comments to staff. Chair Rodgers closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No 2. Chair Rodgers asked staff to comment on Ms. Jensen's comments. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for January 24, 2007 Page 10 Contract Planner Deborah Ungo- McCormick: Reminded that the purpose of a General Plan is to set policy. Said that background was added. Stated that each Element is self- sufficient yet consistent. Said that specific plans are incorporated by reference but their details are not included in the General Plan. The specific plans are separate documents. Maps identify the specific plan areas. Reminded that any change to the General Plan has to go through a General Plan Amendment. Reported that the City is in the process of updating maps incorporating the GIS system. Added that the environmental document is also incorporated by reference. Contract Planner Jerry Haag said that the City is adopting Land Use and Open Space /Conservation Elements and not individual development projects. Environmental review is limited to the two Elements. Commissioner Hlava: Said that Ms. Cheriel Jensen brought up a few things worth discussing. Suggested that perhaps language could be added to the Open Space Element on page 40, Policy 9.1, that currently reads, retain water courses as much as possible." She suggested adding "...and prevent future channelization of creeks." Chair Rodgers said that one has to allow for natural changes. Commissioner Hlava said that it might be good to put this into the General Plan to prevent future channelization of creeks, however, what if someone comes in with a big water problem? Mr. Jerry Haas said that it is tough to make absolute projections and that the existing language is pretty clear while opening the door for extenuating circumstances. Commissioner Hlava agreed that she would not want to absolutely say one cannot do it but perhaps the text could read, and discourage future channelization of creeks." Commissioner Kundtz pointed out that only four of the seven Commissioners are here tonight. He said that he didn't know if another Study Session is in order and assured that Council would not simply rubber stamp the Planning Commission recommendation without further discussion. He asked staff what procedure there is for people to get comments to Council. Director John Livingstone advised that a Study Session is planned for Council prior to its holding the final public hearing. Commissioner Zhao said that she did not think that hard language should be in the policy that leaves no flexibility. She said it is fine as proposed. Chair Rodgers agreed. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for January 24, 2007 Page 11 Commissioner Hlava said that Cheriel Jensen also brought up two other things including adding a privacy issue to LU -5.2 and LU -5.4. She said she is concerned about adding such language. Contract Planner Jerry Haas said the question is how does one quantify /judge what is a privacy impact. The Design Review process is the appropriate place. He said he is leery of putting this issue into the General Plan because once it is there it would be something that is required to be looked at. Commissioner Hlava agreed that privacy is something already looked at with Design Review and may be better left to Design Review. Chair Rodgers said that LU -5 (Neighborhood Protection) is concerned with public safety hazards. Commissioner Hlava questioned whether light, air space and vegetation are things that should be added to the list of values. Chair Rodgers said that there is no Ordinance currently dealing with light and /or air space. This would be a major change. Commissioner Kundtz asked about the maps on pages 4, 5 and 14. Planner Therese Schmidt: Explained that she prepared the maps. Assured that staff can make the maps friendlier so they are clearer. Stated that all issues on the maps have been met. Commissioner Zhao said that all schools should be incorporated. Chair Rodgers suggested using the reference in the Open Space Element. Contract Planner Deborah Ungo- McCormick said that instead of using the same list, they had referred to the Land Use Element. She assured that she would make sure language is checked out for consistency and accuracy. Commissioner Zhao supported including the list from the Land Use Element in the Open Space /Conservation Element. Contract Planner Deborah Ungo- McCormick said that would be fine. Chair Rodgers asked if on page 8 it might make sense to state, significant land devoted to parks..." Commissioner Kundtz said that he agrees with the existing language and is comfortable with it. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for January 24, 2007 Page 12 Contract Planner Jerry Haas asked if it is proposed to have a new Land Use designation of Neighborhood Commercial? Contract Planner Deborah Ungo- McCormick clarified that there is no recommendation of changes since zoning has specifics. Commissioner Kundtz said that Meg Giberson's suggestion for another Study Session would be well served by attending the Council Study Session. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of a Negative Declaration for a General Plan Amendment to the Land Use and Open Space /Conservation Elements of the General Plan, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Hlava, Kundtz, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: Cappello and Nagpal ABSTAIN: None Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Zhao, the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation of approval for a General Plan Amendment to the Land Use and Open Space /Conservation Elements of the General Plan, as modified, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Hlava, Kundtz, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: Cappello and Nagpal ABSTAIN: None DIRECTOR'S ITEMS There were no Director's Items. Chair Rodgers asked Director Livingstone if there are any appeals pending. Director John Livingstone advised that Council would hear one appeal at the second meeting in February on the paving issue around olive trees on Springer. COMMISSION ITEMS Chair Rodgers advised that she attended a recent Council Study Session where they outlined some initial green environmental objectives, some of which relate to Planning Commission review. Council has asked the Commission to look at these issues first and forward initial recommendations back to Council. Commissioner Zhao asked what brought this issue up. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for January 24, 2007 Page 13 Chair Rodgers replied that Council is preparing its agenda for the year. Director John Livingstone added that this is a Federal and State issue, including issues such as global warming. Council has placed a lot of emphasis on this issue and wants the Commission to begin looking at it. Chair Rodgers added that this discussion needs to occur before the next joint session with Council. Director John Livingstone suggested that this brainstorming session occur in March after a site visit. He said he would provide some initial information for review and 'to help start off this discussion. He added that another Study Session on two -story additions would be held in February. Commissioner Kundtz said that February 13 is better for him as he will be traveling on February 27 Commissioner Zhao said she couldn't attend a Study Session on February 13 COMMUNICATIONS Contract Planner Deborah Ungo- McCormick announced that she would no longer be working on contract for Saratoga as she has taken full -time employment with a San Jose -based law firm. The Commissioners extended their best wishes and appreciation to Deborah Ungo- McCormick for her work on development projects and especially on the General Plan Update. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, Chair Rodgers adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of February 14, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: Type of Application: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Date: APN: 07- 063/19358 Monte Vista Drive Modification to Approved Plans Sujith Arramreddy (Owner /Applicant) 4 19j Therese M. Schmidt, AICP, Associate Planne February 14, 2007 397 -10 -020 Department Head: John Livingstone CP, Dir ctor E Buffer zones around 19358 Monte Vista Rivet 19358 tvbnte Vista Drive 500-ft. notice T Streets Street Labels El Parcels 19358 Monte Vista Drive Item 1 Application No. 07 -063; 19358 Monte Vista Drive/Arramreddy CASE HISTORY: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Application filed: 08/17/06 Application complete: 01/11/06 Notice published: 01/31/07 Mailing completed: 01/16/07 Posting completed: 02 /08/07 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests a modification to a Design Review Approval granted by the Planning Commission on December 14, 2005, which consisted of an approval to demolish a one- story, single family residence and construct a 6,098.6 sq. ft. one -story single family residence with attached two -car and one -car garages. The proposed Modification would change the footprint and elevations of the approved structure, add a basement with associated light wells, relocate the pool, and allow for a detached cabana. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the Modification to a Design Review Approval with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. 2 Application No. 07 -063; 19358 Monte Vista Drive/Arramreddy STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R -1- 40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD (Residential Very Low Density) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 1.02 acres AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 4.4% GRADING REQUIRED: Minimal grading will be required. The grading associated with the proposed basement is not counted toward the overall grading quantity. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposal is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single family residences. PROJECT DATA: 3 Previously Approved Proposed Modification Code Requirements Lot Coverage: Proposed Residence And Cabana Proposed Existing Hardscape TOTAL PROPOSED 6,098.6 sq. ft. 9,250.6 sq. ft. 14,312.8 sq. ft. 6,347.7 sq. ft. 7,780.6 sq. ft. 14,128.3 sq. ft. Max. Allowable 35% 15,550.9 sq. ft. Floor Area: Proposed Residence: TOTAL PROPOSED 6,098.6 sq. ft. 6,098.6 sq. ft. 6,091.8 sq. ft. 6,091.8 sq. ft. Max.Allowable 6,100 sq. ft. Setbacks: Front Rear Left Side Right Side 71 ft. 2 in. 119 ft. 4 in. 20 ft. 20 ft. 71 ft. 2 in. 114 ft. 3 in. 20 ft. 20 ft. Min. Requirement 30 ft. 50 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. Hei:ht: Proposed Residence 20 ft 11 in 22 ft Max. Allowable 26 ft. Basement: Proposed none 5,217 sq. ft. Not Calculated in FAR Application No. 07 -063; 19358 Monte Vista Drive/Arramreddy STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R -1- 40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD (Residential Very Low Density) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 1.02 acres AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 4.4% GRADING REQUIRED: Minimal grading will be required. The grading associated with the proposed basement is not counted toward the overall grading quantity. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposal is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single family residences. PROJECT DATA: 3 Application No. 07 -063; 19358 Monte Vista Drive/Arramreddy BACKGROUND On December 14, 2005, the Planning Commission issued Design Review Approval to allow the owner of the subject parcel to demolish a 2,389 sq. ft. single -story, single family residence and construct a 6,098.6 sq. ft. one -story single family residence with attached two -car and one -car garages with a circular driveway. The subject parcel has since changed ownership. The new owner is requesting a modification to the approved plans. PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting a modification of approved plans to add a 5,217 sq. ft basement with associated stairwell and light wells, relocate the approved pool location, construct a cabana, construct a porte cochere, and modify the footprint of the approved residence. The proposed changes would not modify the architectural style of the home or change proposed building material or colors. Wrought iron railing will be added to enclose the light wells and stairwell. The approved floor plans illustrate separate attached garages, a two -car garage and the other a single -car garage. The applicant has modified the footprint to accommodate a three -car attached garage. Neighbor Correspondence The applicant has shown the proposed plans to neighbors as indicated in the attached letters. No negative comments have been received at the time of the writing of this Staff Report. Geotechnical Clearance JF Consulting, Inc., prepared a Geotechnical Investigation, dated July 22, 2005, and an addendum dated September 15, 2005, which were both reviewed by the City's Geotechnical Consultant for the original project. An Addendum was prepared, dated January 3, 2007, reviewing the proposed modifications, which was also reviewed by the City's Geotechnical Consultant. As conditioned, the proposal has received geotechnical clearance to proceed. Trees An arborist report was prepared for the original approval by David Babby, dated September 9, 2005. Twenty -six trees of Ordinance size are exposed to potential damage during development. They include five (5) Coast Redwoods, four (4) Coast Live Oaks, three (3) American Sweetgums, (5) Cedars, one (1) White Birch, three (3) Holly Oaks, and five (5) Modesto Ash. There are five (5) trees (all Modesto Ash) in direct conflict with the proposed home and will require removal. In addition the White Birch is in declining health and should be removed without requiring additional mitigation. The arborist determined that the bond amount required for adhering to the recommendation of the Arborist Reports is $140,980.00. The applicant requested reconsideration of the bond amount since several of the trees identified are located on his neighbor's property. The arborist has reviewed the applicant's request and determined that $37,400.00 could be 4 Application No. 07 -063; 19358 Monte Vista Drive/Arramreddy waived from the required $140,980.00 bond with stringent mitigation measures; therefore, a condition of approval has been incorporated requiring a bond of $103,580.00. This condition would remain in effect. The City's Arborist, Kate Bear, evaluated the proposed modification and determined that the proposal would impact one tree, a protected redwood, and is requiring the applicant to relocate the proposed swimming pool so that it is completely outside the drip line of the redwood. A condition of approval has been incorporated requiring the applicant to submit revised plans illustrating re- location of the swimming pool for arborist approval prior to the issuance of building. General Plan Findings The proposed project is consistent with the following General Plan Policies: Conservation Element Policy 6.0 Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The proposed changes to the approved plans will not substantially change the bulk and mass of the building, modify approved building materials including paint color and would not impact the rural atmosphere of Saratoga. As condition, the applicant would meet the intent of the Policy and is consistent with the City's General Plan. Land Use Element Policy 5.0 -The City shall use the design review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. As conditioned, the application meets the Findings required for Design Approval. Design Review Findings The proposed modification of approval is consistent with all the following Design Review findings stated in MCS 15- 45.080: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The proposed changes to the approved structure would not unreasonably interfere with views and privacy of abutting parcels. The residence's elevation would change by approximately two inches and the proposed footprint is in essentially the same location as the approved footprint. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. While the original proposal will require removal of five (5) Ordinance size trees as well as removing one (1) tree recommended by the arborist due to poor health, the majority of the existing mature landscaping will not be disturbed even with the proposed modification. Three new trees, minimum 24- inch box size, shall be installed as a condition of approval, which will mitigate removal of the six (6) trees as well as enhance the natural landscape. The applicant shall be required to re- locate the proposed swimming pool outside of the drip line of a protected redwood tree. 5 Application No. 07 -063; 19358 Monte Vista Drive/Arramreddy (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The proposal is not requesting removal of Native and/or Heritage Trees. In addition, the proposal, as conditioned would not impact Native and/or Heritage Trees. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The applicant is not proposing to change the approved neutral color pallet for the exterior building, window trim and roofing materials and will still incorporating varying rooflines, arched wood windows, and columns all of which reduce the perception of excessive bulk. (e) Compatible bulk and height. Residences in the area are predominately one -story with circular driveways and similar architectural features. While the structure is proposed to have a maximum height of 22 -feet, it is a single -story residence. The proposal is compatible in bulk and height with the neighborhood. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. Since the building site is relatively flat and the proposed structure is in the general area of the existing residence, minimal grading is proposed. In addition, the proposal shall conform to the City's current grading and erosion control standards. (g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed modification conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above and staff report. Conclusion Staff has concluded that all of the Design Review findings can be made in the affirmative and the proposed modification is consistent with the General Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission find the application exempt from CEQA and approve the application for Modification to Design Review Approval with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval. 2. Affidavit of Mailing Notices. Public Hearing Notice, Mailing labels for project notification. 3. Neighbor Notification Letters. 4. Arborist Reported prepared by Arbor Resources dated September 9, 2005, and Arborist Report prepared by City Arborist Kate Bear, dated November 29, 2006. 5. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A." 6 Attachment 1 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 07 063 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Arramreddy; 19358 Monte Vista Drive WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for a modification to a Design Review Approval granted by the Planning Commission on December 14, 2005, which consisted of an approval to demolish a one story, single family residence and construct a 6,098.6 sq. ft. one -story single family residence with attached two car and one -car garages. The proposed Modification would change the footprint and elevations of the approved structure, add a basement with associated light- wells, relocate the pool, and allow for a detached cabana. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, The proposal is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single family residences. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review, and is consistent with the following General Plan Policies: Conservation Element Policy 6.0 Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The proposed changes to the approved plans will not substantially change the bulk and mass of the building, modify approved building materials including paint color and would not impact the rural atmosphere of Saratoga. As condition, the applicant would meet the intent of the Policy and is consistent with the City's General Plan. Land Use Element Policy 5.0 -The City shall use the design review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. As conditioned, the application meets the Findings required for Design Approval. Application No. 07 -063; 19358 Monte Vista Drive/Arramreddy WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Modification to Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The proposed changes to the approved structure would not unreasonably interfere with views and privacy of abutting parcels. The residence's elevation would change by approximately two inches and the proposed footprint is in essential the same location as the approved footprint. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. While the original proposal will require removal of five (5) Ordinance size trees as well as removing one (1) tree recommended by the arborist due to poor health, the majority of the existing mature landscaping will not be disturbed even with the proposed modification. Three new trees, minimum 24- inch box size, shall be installed as a condition of approval, which will mitigate removal of the six (6) trees as well as enhance the natural landscape. The applicant shall be required to re- locate the proposed swimming pool outside of the drip line of a protected redwood tree. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The proposal is not requesting removal of Native and/or Heritage Trees. In addition, the proposal, as conditioned would not impact Native and/or Heritage Trees. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulb The applicant is not proposing to change the approved neutral color pallet for the exterior building, window trim and roofing materials and will still incorporating varying rooflines, arched wood windows, and columns all of which reduce the perception of excessive bulk. (e) Compatible bulk and height. Residences in the area are predominately one -story with circular driveways and similar architectural features. While the structure is proposed to have a maximum height of 22 -feet, it has been designed to appear to be a single -story residence. The proposal is compatible in bulk and height with the neighborhood. (1) Current grading and erosion control methods. Since the building site is relatively flat and the proposed structure is in the general area of the existing residence, minimal grading is proposed. In addition, the proposal shall conform to the City's current grading and erosion control standards. (g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed modification conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above and staff report. 2 Application No. 07 -063; 19358 Monte Vista Drive/Arramreddy Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application for Modification to Design Review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: PERMANENT CONDITONS OF APPROVAL None CURRENT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL CONDITIONS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" date stamped September 29, 2006, incorporated by reference. All changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes and are subject to the Community Development Director's approval. 2. The project shall utilize materials illustrated on a materials board date stamped December 14, 2005. 3. The following shall be included on the plans submitted to the Building Division for the building plan check review process: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. b. A maximum of one wood burning fireplace is permitted and it shall be equipped with a gas starter. All other fireplaces shall be gas burning. c. The following note shall be included verifying building setback, "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per approved plans." 4. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on -site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction Best Management Practices. If all storm water cannot be retained on -site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan. 5. Landscape plan shall be designed with efficient irrigation to reduce runoff, promote surface infiltration and minimize use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to water pollution. 6. Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide 3 Application No. 07 -063; 19358 Monte Vista DrivelArramreddy detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolong exposure to water shall be specified. 7. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. 8. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. 9. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. 10. Applicant shall abide by all recommended conditions identified in the January 17, 2007, memo from Public Works relating to Geotechnical Clearance. 11. Staff shall not approve downgrading to the exterior appearance of the approved residence. Downgrades may include, but are not limited to, garage doors, architectural detailing, stonework, columns, shutters, driveway materials, or similar items. Any exterior changes to approved plans resulting in a downgrade shall require filing an additional application and fees for review by the Planning Commission as a modification to approved plans. Any other exterior changes to the approved plans, which are not deemed a downgrade by staff, shall require a Zoning Clearance issued by the Community Development Director with payment of appropriate fees. 12. All processing fees, in the form of deposit accounts on file with the community development department, shall be reconciled with a minimum $500.00 surplus balance at all times. In the event that the balance is less than $500.00, all staff work on the project shall cease until the balance is restored to a minimum $500.00. FIRE DISTRICT 13. Applicant shall comply with all Fire Department conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 14. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 4 Application No. 07 -063; 19358 Monte Vista Drive/Arramreddy ARBORIST REPORT 15. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Reports dated September 9, 2005, letter dated November 11, 2005, and letter date November 29, 2006 shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. This includes, but is not limited to: a. Prior to issuance of Building Permits the applicant shall obtain a tree bond, or similar funding mechanism, in the amount of $103,580.00. b. The Arborist Reports and letters shall be incorporated, as a separate plan page, to the construction plan set and the grading plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plans. c. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the drip -line of any ordinance protected trees on the site. d. The applicant shall receive arborist approval for the re- location of the swimming pool outside of the drip line of Tree No. 20, a protect redwood prior to issuance of building permits. Section 2. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 36 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. 5 Application No. 07 -063; 19358 Monte Vista Drive/Arramreddy PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 14th day of February 2007 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Linda R. Rodgers Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: 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 John F. Livingstone, AICP Secretary, Planning Commission 6 Attachment 2 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 16 day of January 2007, that I deposited 39 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: addresses shown above. enise Kaspar Advanced Listing Services APN: 397 -10 -020 Address: 19358 MONTE VISTA DR that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the January 17, 2007 500' Ownership Listing Prepared for: 397 -10 -020 ARRAMREDDY 2003 19358 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6220 397 -10 -001 MARY C BURNS OR CURRENT OWNER 15335 VIA COLINA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6249 397 -10 -005 GIOVANNI P JULIA GIANNELLA OR CURRENT OWNER 19401 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6434 397 -10 -008 DAS FAMILY TRUST OR CURRENT OWNER 19491 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -5014 397 -10 -011 LAWRENCE OR CURRENT OWNER 15200 FRUITVALE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -6272 397 -10 -016 MICHAEL H YU OR CURRENT OWNER 19396 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6220 397 -10 -019 FRED E DOLORES DU BOIS OR CURRENT OWNER 19360 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6220 397 -10 -022 HANNAH COMISKEY OR CURRENT OWNER 19324 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6220 397-10-025 CHANDRA S REKHA JOSHI 19641 BRAEMAR DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5044 397 -10 -003 ESMARALDA DAS OR CURRENT OWNER 19351 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6434 397 -10 -006 WALTER S GERTRUDE ANDRUS OR CURRENT OWNER 19431 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6434 397 -10 -009 CHIEN -FENG K JUI -HUAN CHENG OR CURRENT OWNER 15288 FRUITVALE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -6272 397 -10 -012 ING -SHENG FRANCIS CHIEN OR CURRENT OWNER 15160 FRUITVALE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -6271 397 -10 -017 MIN PI -YU HUANG OR CURRENT OWNER 19388 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6220 397 -10 -020 ARRAMREDDY 2003 OR CURRENT OWNER 19358 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6220 397 -10 -023 IYER FAMILY TRUST OR CURRENT OWNER 19298 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6220 397 -10 -026 JOHN PATRICIA SULLIVAN 95 CHURCH ST 2205 LOS GATOS CA 95030 -6924 397 -10 -004 PAUL J DAS OR CURRENT OWNER 19371 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6434 397 -10 -007 MIKE MASOUMI OR CURRENT OWNER 19467 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6434 397 -10 -010 ALI T PANTEA FAR OR CURRENT OWNER 15230 FRUITVALE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -6272 397 -10 -015 JAMES J OBOT OR CURRENT OWNER 19311 VALLE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6283 397 -10 -018 SHIRLEY DORSA OR CURRENT OWNER 19372 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6220 397 -10 -021 PATRICIA MELEHAN 2465 DE LA CRUZ BLVD SANTA CLARA CA 95050 -2922 397 -10 -024 JAMES P JENNIFER CARRIGAN OR CURRENT OWNER 19311 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6219 397 -10 -027 RAO FAMILY TRUST C OR CURRENT OWNER 19385 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6219 397 -10 -028 70 JEROME 0 CONNELL OR CURRENT OWNER VALLE VISTA DR TOGA CA 95070 -6246 397 -11 -014 ARLINE ROWEN OR CURRENT OWNER 19361 VALLE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6245 397 -19 -012 EDWARD JOSEPHINE YBARRO OR CURRENT OWNER 15275 FRUITVALE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -6265 397-19-036 TONY YU OR CURRENT OWNER 15159 ALONDRA LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6446 510 -06 -003 E F M KVAMME OR CURRENT OWNER 19490 GLEN UNA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6412 397 -10 -029 MICHAEL A KLAYKO 20141 RANCHO BELLA VIS SARATOGA CA 95070 -5958 397 -11 -048 BHARADHWAJ OR CURRENT OWNER 19371 VALLE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6245 397 -19 -030 WILLIAM F MARIAN SCHMIDT OR CURRENT OWNER 15217 ALONDRA LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6446 510 -05 -038 ALFRED KATHLEEN MURABITO OR CURRENT OWNER 19489 GLEN UNA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -0295 510 -06 -063 ROBERT A SANDIE OR CURRENT OWNER 19400 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6435 397 -10 -034 HUGH F ROWENA LENNON PO BOX 3315 SARATOGA CA 95070 -1315 397 -11 -049 ROBERT C HANSEN OR CURRENT OWNER 19391 VALLE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6245 397 -19 -031 TOM T CAO OR CURRENT OWNER 15185 ALONDRA LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6446 510 -05 -039 PREMNATH VISWANATH OR CURRENT OWNER 19501 RUE DE GLEN UNA SARATOGA CA 95070 -6411 CITY OF SARATOGA ATTN: Therese Schmidt 13777 FRUITVALE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 Attachment 3 Date: tali PROJECT ADDRESS: 93 i 1� c rr Applicant Name: hegigiteiZEZ•7mY Application Number:_44 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 propetty. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; i understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. GMy 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: 3 3 1, Wit Neighbor Phone Number: -3,5 7• 7 4 Signature: City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Printed: 6 of 6 J2/02/2005 20:58 408 -732 -0243 ACTIONTEC City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form PAGE 01 Date: f J. PROJECT AD DRESS: ,applicant Name: /1� concerns Application Number: .opportunity to express arty or er that n eighbors take this.opPo lure on this document n Staff and the Planning y have Commission the a opinion ressed below, you is th may have directly to the applicant. Please Regardleess o a op e re issues they all residents residing on your property the actual public review and ed at)peal l representative of opinion at a later date during reserve the right to amend your op periods. e eat plans; Lunde the a Ueant pri or' to owing: I y mature below ceve any oncerns or issn sewhich th need to be address by pp review and I do NOT have any public hearing on the proposed project. the City's p 1 have reviewed the project plans; O M y signature below ccrti£aes the following: have not been addressed. My concerns are the follow �k; and 1 have issues or concerns, which lease arch addit oral sheeps f� following (p Neighbor Name: i 1 it iu Ut'4" Neighbor Address: J ''3g% fri \J,5 Neighbor Phone Number: f q-, 9 0 a Signature: ,10‹ Printed: f+�J rYI$IU l'IL ll Date: mil/ PROJECT ADDRESS: 33 /'ki-ie, Applicant Name: .ec:4Ni 2)7 y' Application Number: 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. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of mark; 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. DMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; 1 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): Signature: City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Neighbor Nam %.A 1 r Neighbor Address: Neighbor Phone Number: Printed: i 6 of 6 Date: PROJECT ADDRESS: Neighbor Address: Neighbor Phone Number: City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Applicant Name: A,/cigiteizE y' Neighbor Name: v Cp 9260 ,7 .ol 4)» ',A boa 8s a 9 Signature: Printed: 4, Application Number: 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. Aly signature below certifies the following: 1 have reviewed the project plans; U mdergand the cc�.c p estt. work and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. OMY Sn signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; 1 understand the snnpe 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): Application Number: 1:2-12- 7c it City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: G!i PROJECT ADDRESS: Applicant Name: rieg9nm•p r 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. M y signature below certifies the following: 1 have reviewed the project plans; i nnderstand_the grnpe of wnrk; 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. DMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; 1 understand the scnpe of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concems are the following (please attach additional sheets ifnecessary): Neighbor Name: /1'A v271/ Neighb or Address: 19 3 7 04/; vi 7 ,4 5; <,4 l�- Neighbor Phone Number: cS 6 1 y7 f Signature: Printed: 1 C 1 7_ 1 nn filth. 6 of 6 11 lent PI IVAV k) P Ir111P1111 on 1 1 1 flrl +.r1 ciao Neighbor Name: Date: O PROJECT ADDRESS: C 6- Applicant Name:_ 1 1 y' Application Number: r i 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. Ay signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; T understand the. scope nf work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. oMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the senpe nf viwork; 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): City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form 41 Sit; Neighbor Address: 1 14 11 Neighbor Phone Number: Signature: Printed: `4-k 41 Date: Neighbor Address: 0' PROJECT ADDRESS: 924X 2, Applicant Name: 2E 'AiwJ -E ])vyy Application Number: s3 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. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the srnpe of wnrk; 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 senile 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: /41A Y/11 193AS��l.��aJ, .A Neighbor Phone Number: Signature: 44 City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Printed: 11 ri 6 of 6 Attachment 4 19358 Monte Vista ARBORIST REPORT APN 397 -10 -020 Owner: Jerry and Jill Chen INTRODUCTION Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Califomia 95070 Application 07 -063 November 29, 2006 Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Phone (408) 868 -1276 The property owner of 19358 Monte Vista has submitted revised plans that relocate the pool and include a new cabana. A total of 26 trees protected by City Ordinance 15 -050 were inventoried for this project by David Babby in a report dated September 9, 2005. Plans reviewed for this report include Sheet 1, Site Plan dated July 18, 2006, and Sheet T -1, Topographic Survey, dated September 19, 2005, by SMP Civil Engineers. SITE OBSERVATIONS, PLAN REVIEW AND TECHNICAL DISCUSSION The plans propose to relocate the pool to approximately the same location where it stands currently on the lot. Two trees are shown for removal in order to create a pathway to the pool and to build a new cabana. The two trees, one mayten and one holly, are not protected, and therefore do not require city approval prior to removal. The proposed location for the pool extends underneath the canopy of tree #20. It should be relocated to a position that is completely outside of the drip line of this redwood. The cabana does not impact any protected trees in its proposed location and is acceptable in this spot. No grading plan is available for review with respect to impacts of trees. The present location of the pool on the property is approximately 2 -3 feet higher than the trees. In constructing the new pool, no grade changes may occur in within five feet of the canopies of trees 13 —16 or 19 20. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. This entire report, as well as the entire report prepared by David Babby, dated September 9, 2005 shall be incorporated into the final set of building plans. 2. Tree protective fencing shall be shown on the Site Plan in the final set of building plans. 3. No grade changes are allowed within five feet of trees 13 16 or 19 20. Page 1 of 1 ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting Tree Care A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF A PROPOSED NEW RESIDENCE AT 19358 MONTE VISTA DRIVE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME: Chen APN 397 -10 -020 APPLICATION 06 -037 Submitted to: Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Certified Arborist #WE -4001A September 9, 2005 P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 Email: arborresources @comcast.net Phone: 650.654.3351 Fax: 650.240.0777 Licensed Contractor #796763 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist September 9, 2005 INTRODUCTION The City of Saratoga Community Development Department has requested I review the potential tree impacts associated with the proposal to demolish an existing residence and construct a new one at 19358 Monte Vista Drive, Saratoga. This report presents my findings and recommendations. The plan reviewed for this report is the Site Plan (Sheet 1) by Chris Spaulding Architect, dated 6/30/05. The trees' locations, numbers and approximate canopy dimensions are presented on an attached copy. The trees are sequentially numbered from 1 thru 26. For identification purposes, round, metallic tags were attached to the trunks of accessible trees and contain engraved numbers that correspond to those presented within this report. FINDINGS Twenty -six trees of Ordinance size are exposed to potential damage during development and were inventoried for this report. They include five Coast Redwoods #1, 17 -20); four Coast Live Oaks #13 -16); three American Sweetgums #4 -6); five Cedars #9, 11, 12, 21, 22); one White Birch #10); three Holly Oaks #2, 3, 26); and five Modesto Ash #7, 8, 23- 25). Specific data compiled for each is presented on the attached table. Trees #12, 13, 16 and 18 are not presented on the proposed plan and should be added. Their locations as presented on the attached map are approximate and should not be construed as being surveyed. Trees #7, 8 and 23 -25 are in direct conflict with the proposed home and will require removal. Each is a Modesto Ash and is highly suitable for removal as they have inherently weak structures, vulnerable to infections by harmful pathogens and are low- valued. Mitigation for their loss should include the installation of three trees of 24 -inch box size within the backyard. Tree #10 is a White Birch that is in declining health as evidenced by its dying top. As such, no protection measures for this tree are suggested and its removal should be permitted without requiring mitigation. All other trees are planned for retention and can be adequately protected provided the recommendations presented within this report are carefully followed and incorporated into construction plans. The bond amount required for adhering to the recommendations presented in this report is determined to be $140, 1 I This value represents the combined value of the inventoried trees and is calculated in accordance with the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9` Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2000. Chen Property, 19358 Monte Vista Drive, Saratoga Page 1 of 4 City of Saratoga Community Development Department David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist September 9, 2005 RECOMMENDATIONS All recommendations presented below are intended to serve as design and development guidelines for mitigating any foreseeable impacts to Ordinance -sized trees on site and adjacent properties. Should the plans be revised, the recommendations may require modification. Design Guidelines 1. The proposed driveway should be designed to be at least 15 feet from tree #3's trunk and 10 feet from tree #4's trunk. The protective fencing presented on the attached map considers these minimum distances. 2. The following should be added to the proposed Site Plan: [1] the trunk locations and canopy dimensions of trees #12, 13, 16 and 18; [2] the accurate canopy dimensions of all trees; see the attached map for examples; [3] the numbers assigned to each tree within this report; and [3] the location of protective fencing shown on the attached map. Additionally, to improve clarity of the plan, I recommend all canopy dimensions are shown as a circle rather than the current design. I also recommend the two, southernmost trees located on the neighboring property along the eastern boundary be removed from the plan as they are not there. 3. Where beneath the canopies of trees #1 -3, the grade of the future driveway should not exceed the depth of the existing. 4. Temporary or permanent drainage features, including downspouts, must be designed so water is not discharged towards or near the trunks of retained trees. 5. The grading and drainage design should not require trenching, soil cuts or fill beyond two feet from the home's foundation or driveway edge where beneath a tree's canopy. 6. Upon availability, the grading and drainage design, landscaping (planting and irrigation) and underground utility design should be reviewed for tree impacts. 7. This entire report should be incorporated into the set of final building plans and be titled Sheet T -1 (Tree Protection Instructions). 8. To mitigate the loss of trees #7, 8 and 23 -25, three new trees of 24 -inch box size should be installed somewhere in the backyard, outside from beneath the canopies of other trees and at least 20 from beneath the high voltage electrical lines along the rear of the property. Acceptable replacement species include Quercus agrifolia, Quercus lobata, Quercus kelloggii, Quercus douglasii, Quercus dumosa, Acer macrophyllum, Aesculus californica, Pseudotsuga menziesii and Sequoia sempervirens. The trees should be installed prior to final inspection, staked with rubber tree ties, and supplied with automatic irrigation in the form of a drip or soaker hose system placed on the soil surface and not in a sleeve. Chen Property, 19358 Monte Vista Drive, Saratoga Page 2 of 4 City of Saratoga Community Development Department David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist September 9, 2005 9. The following additional recommendations should be incorporated into the landscape design: a. New plant material should be avoided or limited towards the outer portion of the area beneath the trees' canopies; it should comprise no more than 20- percent of the canopy area. Plant material installed beneath the Oak canopies shall be drought tolerant and compatible with Oaks. b. Irrigation should not spray beneath the Oak canopies or within five feet from the trunks of all other trees. c. Any trenching for irrigation, lighting, plumbing lines or drainage should be designed beyond the trees' canopies. If irrigation or electrical lines for lighting are designed inside this distance, the trenches should be in a radial direction to the trunks and established no closer than five times the diameter of the nearest trunk; if this not be possible, the lines can be placed on top of existing soil grade and covered with wood chips or other mulch. d. Stones, mulch or other landscape features should be at least one -foot from the trunks of retained trees and not be in contact with the trunks of new trees. e. Tilling beneath the canopies must be avoided, including for weed control. f. Bender board or other edging material proposed beneath the trees' canopies should be established on top of existing soil grade. Protection Measures during Demolition and Construction 10. Tree protective fencing shall be installed precisely as shown on the attached map and established prior to any demolition, grading, surface scraping, construction or heavy equipment arriving on site. It shall be comprised of six -foot high chain link mounted on eight -foot tall, two -inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction process until final inspection. Please note fencing for trees #1 and 13 -16 requires being established in two phases, one for demolition and the other for construction; see the attached map for details. 11. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the designated fenced areas (even after fencing is removed) and outside from beneath the canopies of Ordinance -sized trees not inventoried for this report. These activities include, but are not limited to, the following: demolition, grading, surface scraping, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 12. Prior to construction, I recommend a four -inch layer of coarse wood chips to 3 /4- inch in size) is manually spread on the unpaved areas beneath the canopies of trees #1- 4, 13 -16, 17 -22 and 26. The wood chips should not be in contact with the tree's trunk. 13. Each recommendation presented within the `Design Guidelines' section shall be followed. Chen Property, 19358 Monte Vista Drive, Saratoga Page 3 of 4 City of Saratoga Community Development Department David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist September 9, 2005 14. Hardscape removed beneath a trees' canopy shall first be broken into small pieces using a jackhammer. The broken pieces should be manually lifted onto a loader that must remain off unpaved soil during the process. Immediately following removal, a four -inch layer of wood chips should be manually spread on the surface and remain moist for a two -week period. 15. Great care shall be taken to avoid damaging branches of trees during the removal of structures. 16. All approved grading and trenching beneath a tree's canopy shall be manually performed using shovels. Roots encountered during the process shall be cleanly severed on the tree side of where the cut occurs; roots with diameters of two inches and greater shall be wrapped in a plastic sandwich bag that is sealed with a rubber band. In the case of any approved trenching, roots two inches and greater in diameter should be retained and tunneled beneath. 17. Any unused, existing underground utilities /services, lines or pipes beneath the trees' canopies should be abandoned and cut off at existing soil grade. 18. Tree pruning and approved removals must be performed under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist and according to ISA standards. Information regarding Certified Arborists in the area can be obtained at http: /www.isa- arbor.com. 19. All ivy should be removed off and remain two or more feet from the trees' trunks. The removal of shrubs, plants and/or groundcover must be manually performed and great care taken to avoid excavating soil during the process. The stumps of removed shrubs and trees should be ground below grade rather than pulled up with an excavator. 20. Throughout construction during the dry months of April thru October, supplemental water should be provided to the retained trees every two to three weeks. I suggest an application rate of 10 gallons of water per inch of trunk diameter supplied to the soil areas beneath the trees' canopies through soaker hoses placed beneath the trees' mid to outer canopies. 21. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited beneath canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath canopies. In addition, fuel should not be stored nor shall any refueling or maintenance of equipment occur within 100 feet of the trees' trunks. 22. Herbicides should not be applied beneath the canopies of retained trees. Where used on site, they must be labeled for safe use near trees. Attachments: Tree Inventory Table Site Map (a copy of the Site Plan) Chen Property, 19358 Monte Vista Drive, Saratoga Page 4 of 4 City of Saratoga Community Development Department 7 Modesto Ash Fraxinus v 'Modesto') 21.5 50 65 75% 50% Fair Moderate X $440 2 Holly Oak (Quercus ilex) 24.5 40 45 75% 75% Good High 4 $11,800 TREE INVENTORY TABLE 1 Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) 28.5 65 50 75% 100% Good High 3 $10,400 3 Holly Oak (Quercus ilex) 26 40 55 100% 100% Good High 2 $17,700 4 American Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua 14.5 50 30 100% 50% Good Moderate 2 $2,660 5 American Sweetgum (Liquidambar styracijlua —13 55 45 100% 75% Good Moderate 4 $2,430 American Sweetgum (Liquidambar styracijlua 13.5 55 30 100% 75% Good Moderate 4 $2,620 8 Modesto Ash (Fraxinus v 'Modesto') 22.5 50 50 50% 25% Poor Low X $280 9 Deodar Cedar (Cedrus deodara) 23 65 50 75% 100% Good High 3 $7,120 10 European White Birch (Betula pendula) 11 40 30 25% 50% Poor Low $0 11 Deodar Cedar (Cedrus deodara) 12.5 30 20 100% 75% Good High 4 $2,150 12 Blue Atlas Cedar (Cedrus a. 'Glauca') —23,23 70 60 100% 50% Good High 4 X X $7,100 13 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia 9 30 20 100% 50% Good Moderate 3 X $1,030 14 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia 15.5 35 50 100% 50% Good Moderate 3 $2,950 15 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 16.5, 15 30 60 100% 50% Good Moderate 3 $3,920 15- gallon $120 24 -inch box $420 Site: 19358 Monte Vista Drive, Saratoga Prepared for City of Saratoga Community Development Depart. Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 36 -inch box $1,320 48 -inch box $5,000 52 -inch box $7,000 72 -inch box $15,000 1 of 2 9/9/2005 TREE INVENTORY TABLE "FREE NO. a a fl CD: 16 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia 9.5 30 25 75% 25% Fair Moderate 3 X $760 17 Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) —42 110 60 100% 100% Good High 4 X $1 8,700 18 Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) —50 110 60 100% 50% Good High 4 X X $18,700 19 Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) 17.5, 11.5 50 25 75% 50% Fair Moderate $4,740 20 Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) 27.5 55 40 75% 75% Good High 3 $8,100 21 Deodar Cedar (Cedrus deodara) 28 75 60 100% 100% Fair Moderate 3 $12,390 22 Deodar Cedar (Cedrus deodara) 17.5 50 40 75% 50% Fair Moderate 3 $2,930 Modesto Ash (Fraxinus v 'Modesto') 14 50 30 75% 25% Fair Low X $160 23 1 24 l 25 26 Holly Oak (Quercus ilex) 9, 7.5, 4.5 30 25 100% 50% Good High 3 $2,780 I REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 1 11 15- gallon $120 24 -inch box $420 36 -inch box $1,320 48 -inch box $5,000 52 -inch box $7,000 72 -inch box $15,000 i Site: 19358 Monte Vista Drive, Saratoga Prepared for: City of Saratoga Community Development Depart. Prepared by: David L. Bobby, RCA 2 of 2 9/9/2005 I Modesto Ash Fraxinus v 'Modesto') 17 45 30 50% 25% Poor Low X $160 TREE INVENTORY TABLE "FREE NO. a a fl CD: 16 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia 9.5 30 25 75% 25% Fair Moderate 3 X $760 17 Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) —42 110 60 100% 100% Good High 4 X $1 8,700 18 Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) —50 110 60 100% 50% Good High 4 X X $18,700 19 Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) 17.5, 11.5 50 25 75% 50% Fair Moderate $4,740 20 Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) 27.5 55 40 75% 75% Good High 3 $8,100 21 Deodar Cedar (Cedrus deodara) 28 75 60 100% 100% Fair Moderate 3 $12,390 22 Deodar Cedar (Cedrus deodara) 17.5 50 40 75% 50% Fair Moderate 3 $2,930 Modesto Ash (Fraxinus v 'Modesto') 14 50 30 75% 25% Fair Low X $160 23 1 24 l 25 26 Holly Oak (Quercus ilex) 9, 7.5, 4.5 30 25 100% 50% Good High 3 $2,780 I REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 1 11 15- gallon $120 24 -inch box $420 36 -inch box $1,320 48 -inch box $5,000 52 -inch box $7,000 72 -inch box $15,000 i Site: 19358 Monte Vista Drive, Saratoga Prepared for: City of Saratoga Community Development Depart. Prepared by: David L. Bobby, RCA 2 of 2 9/9/2005 Modesto Ash (Fraxinus v 'Modesto') 12 50 30 75% 25% Fair Low X $120 TREE INVENTORY TABLE "FREE NO. a a fl CD: 16 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia 9.5 30 25 75% 25% Fair Moderate 3 X $760 17 Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) —42 110 60 100% 100% Good High 4 X $1 8,700 18 Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) —50 110 60 100% 50% Good High 4 X X $18,700 19 Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) 17.5, 11.5 50 25 75% 50% Fair Moderate $4,740 20 Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) 27.5 55 40 75% 75% Good High 3 $8,100 21 Deodar Cedar (Cedrus deodara) 28 75 60 100% 100% Fair Moderate 3 $12,390 22 Deodar Cedar (Cedrus deodara) 17.5 50 40 75% 50% Fair Moderate 3 $2,930 Modesto Ash (Fraxinus v 'Modesto') 14 50 30 75% 25% Fair Low X $160 23 1 24 l 25 26 Holly Oak (Quercus ilex) 9, 7.5, 4.5 30 25 100% 50% Good High 3 $2,780 I REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 1 11 15- gallon $120 24 -inch box $420 36 -inch box $1,320 48 -inch box $5,000 52 -inch box $7,000 72 -inch box $15,000 i Site: 19358 Monte Vista Drive, Saratoga Prepared for: City of Saratoga Community Development Depart. Prepared by: David L. Bobby, RCA 2 of 2 9/9/2005 fe Attachment 5 Q3 OQ c9 Wa Mm m m O A o <z H au O w w m M a z O M 0 R4 L11 CV ghn &12s µo C NU Z Ou aQ °G <2 C OL N w m or z z mm <n r w w <0 Z roz La a0 U wep Q F (5 U 0 O U 0 =.,,g z m w 0 0 0 m O Z Y F FR V o cp EM PE oz Un EO H 02, 0 >O In L m GlEn u3 O a 0 zu a i NVOMM N 5 0 5 U 7 1 m0Za W v oo N2 3Gro z nom F N Z Z wz0z U <0 ¢u z 0 m w`0O Z Z <awz 00 U z w Q io u z w wZ no QG L U) NU N 0 Z OZ UR M 0 nn O U J p J Z N 5 O d m m O N N N U N m 0) N O O O m m s c0 —m 0 1 T r N N cn c n c j cn O (Ni f N c i N f N cn CD N 13 In m v O N CD s r ru T Cp N. CD sr Q cn CD —sr 1 m- N m V' In CD N 03 01 CD N cn sr l7 CD N. 03 07 O N 0 O z 3 9N3QIS321 AliV V 3l9NIS fallllll1011!! .97 A.M95.65 3: (•S653 00S02 B LNOW OW O =2E Z -2- J. IL C E O_ tu 0 6 G 5 O U o O u IL D_ z w CD J so .2e O O N 0 O N W 0 q OE O 0 0 9 �y 0 y W 6 5 N 8 U 2 Z U_ J N O 2TZ 1 7 .0 .E'A I 9.61 L J 2 A'.ZZ 5 2 9.5 U W J I I o Q K 0 0 I I rt t I I 1 3 9 N .X411 t J m z0 9 0 r m .6,41 IL 3 r -J 7 S 0 m 5 6 5 5 0. 5 0 6 U c O O z LTZ? r r L L O.Z I .9•5 1 .0 C I I I I J 4 I \1 I I I I I I I i sm. IIIIIl\ MI H 8EB D O L [1i �u L J 0 2 BEE 0 =8 L J 9 U a Z r 1 ir I 130 .0 M 5 L b lL J J 2 0 .0 ,01 9 A J IP eab CIF a 9 0 8 O 9 0 1 v 1NIOd 1Sdu9114 01 0 2a'09'9AY 11021.111-1901-1 .0 w 0 a r IIMMINKr r 1 sailor r 39VMV9 1H913N 31V'Id .0 ,G 11.19014;/V1.1.0-.? I oho wslo get 44 :�3!�sirC 1NIOd 159H91N 01 3UVY9'9AV WOW 11-19131-I 'X W .0 d N 1 a ,I �N m om 1 O i�V�!�Wj� N e .�..g► O Q 1 we J w 0g., o J Q Rr- 0 0 0 V 0 0 2 z 0 0 ai 0 0 U MENEM 1NIOd 19u9M 01 30V219'9AV WOMB 1H913H 'XVY .0 L L H H H L 1 L T 0 z _N t� T H H H O I 6fifififir f� EMI �•nunu v N b 0 0 1NIOd 1S3u9114 01 30V219 '9AV Y 11.1901 -1 .O Is mgrallli. nTTrn7Trnlrrrn II 1111111111111111 11111111111111111 II111LIJJ1LIJ11LLJ_ :1 �1i'+lSi u z IL Z N O 442 W, w H 1u 0 N CD E2 J O Z 0 lLI J Q W (T IE Z CD O Z s 0 z 0 4 1- c 11.19121.1 OILY 'XV 1H913u 21V1d .0 ,1 I 0 U d U J00if J0 INIOd 1521491N O1 2aV219'9AV INOYJ .0 2 114912N 2.1.V1.1.4? 1 <a a .01 ot tu 0 0 d" 8 m m 0 11aAAI_u9n 5 O 11.791211 91111129 ')M1 LJ904 9Nf10o ?,E 1 5 1 111912N 9Nfllgo 'XVW .0 1 11491214 21V1d .O 1 JOON JO 1NIOd 152}19111 0.1. 20d210'9AV WOMJ .0 11191214 ;Acid .01 a O O O N 0 V J 3 ((a!M 09) anldp b'1SIA a1NOW u w 0 O CIM l 09) gA!&lp n P i w .99t131 A.OE.9S6 %.F '��...L. 17 �r b ,y am A.00.9S.6gM 4.47 a4I 0 z J 0 w if 1 J W 0 N O j t ®t EH 1N10d 1$3119114 0130'09 '0AV 11021.1.1110121.1 '%VW 1N10.11$21-011-1 0130'09 '3AV 1^1011.411.19131.1 'XMN; .0 1 J 1 J 1N103 157119114 01 30'09 7AV WOW 11491314 WVW :P.0,1 60 004 0 0 s 0 0 y U 3 y g 1NIOd 1G 1V11 01 Wee OAV WOMd /1191311 'WIN .0 Immem NEMM IMMENI NMI MMEM OMEN MIME MEMO MEMO ill C 1NI0d 1S3H01H 013OVM0 '3AV WOMB 11491314 'WA A I Z �gg 1NIOd 153u91u 01 30VM9 '9AV 11011d 11.0131.1 'XW1 A 1NIOd 153N91H 0130VM9 '1AV WOMd 1u913N'XVW A Z d 1 0 z 0 w r C 0 5 0 5, rte f ''''cc s:( Application No./Location: Type of Application: Owner /Applicant: Staff Planner: Meeting Date: APN: 18595 Avon Lane Item 2 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION 07 -058; 18595 Avon Lane Design Review Bob Taylor Homes Inc /Carmel Meadows Shweta Bhatt, Assistant Planner, a,e.010P 7 February 14, 2007 410 -40 -003 Department Head. John F. Livingstone, AICP °w kl yr, e1 1.069 h•µFL •NEr• 12 93 K1.4 1.119 A1••µ 108 L A AC. 15 Subject: 18595 Avon Lane APN: 410-40 -003 500' Radius L. t 'T li a b cI ar 1 u g Application No. 07 -058; 18595 Avon Lane CASE HISTORY: Application filed: 08/14/06 Application complete: 01/19/07 Notice published: 01/31/07 Mailing completed: 01/23/07 Posting completed: 02/08/07 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a new one -story single family dwelling. The dwelling will consist of approximately 5,840 square feet. The height of the structure will not exceed the 26 -foot height limitation. The gross lot size is approximately 47,678 square feet and the site is located in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. Design Review approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15- 45.060. This project does not have any permanent conditions of approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve this design review application by adopting the attached resolution with conditions. Application No. 07 -058; 18595 Avon Lane STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R -1- 40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD (Residential Very Low Density) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 47,678 gross square feet and 37,137 net square feet SLOPE: Level GRADING REQUIRED: There will be minimal grading required for this project. 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 proposed materials and colors consist of exterior stucco in a cream color, complemented by stone masonry veneer, slate roofing, and wood windows stained in "English walnut." The design also features copper banding details over windows and doors. A color and materials board will be available at the public hearing. R -1- 40,000 Zoning Proposed Required Site Coverage Residence: Other Impervious Areas: TOTAL Site Coverage 5,840 SF (15.7 7,143 SF (19.2 12,983 SF (34.93 Maximum Allowable 12,998.0 SF (35 House Area 5010 SF Maximum Allowable 5,844 SF Garage Area TOTAL Floor Area 830 SF 5,840 SF Setbacks Front (Quito Road): Rear Exterior Side (Avon Lane): Interior Side: 50 Feet 6 Inches 40 Feet 61 Feet 41 Feet 30 Feet 20 Feet 50 Feet 20 Feet Height Lowest Elevation Point Highest Elevation Point Average Elevation Point Proposed Topmost Point 385.78 388.74 387.26 412.09 (26 Feet 10 Inches) Maximum Height 413.26 (26 Feet) Application No. 07 -058; 18595 Avon Lane PROJECT DATA PROJECT DISCUSSION Site Characteristics and Project Description The applicant is requesting design review approval to construct a new 5,840 square foot home. The existing home is proposed to be demolished. The subject site is adjacent to a residential parcel to the south, Quito Road to the west, Avon Lane to the north, and San Tomas Aquino Creek to the east. Current access to the site is via one of two driveways, one branching from Avon Lane and the other from a private driveway. A dense row of trees screens the property from neighbors across Avon Lane and from vehicular traffic on Quito Road. The proposed home is rustic in appearance, as it features stone veneer on several accent walls, copper downspouts, wooden windows, and shutters. Characteristic architectural elements include eyebrow roofing, wooden and/or stone detailing over prominent doors and windows, and slate roofing material. The structure is proposed at 24 -feet 10- inches. Neighboring residences are substantially setback from the project as a two -story home currently exists across Avon Lane, and neighbors across the creek and across Quito Road are remotely visible. A single story residence is located directly south of the site. Additionally, the site has a lower elevation when compared to the other properties within vicinity. Varying rooflines and accent walls help to break up mass and bulk of the structure, and the overall design of home softens the appearance. Staff is able to make Application No. 07 -058; 18595 Avon Lane design review findings for the proposed structure, particularly given the thoughtful choice of materials and detailed design. Neighbor Review The applicant has informed neighbors of the project and notification letters have been attached to this staff report to reflect these efforts. Prior to obtaining these neighbor notification letters, however, the applicant held a neighborhood meeting with neighbors in immediate vicinity of the project. No issues were identified. Staff has not received any further comments as of the preparation of this staff report. Trees The arborist has inventoried a total of thirty -one (31) trees for this project. Eight (8) trees proposed for removal, four (4) are not protected by City Ordinance and do not require a permit. The other (4) trees have either decay or cannot be relocated without impacting other trees. The remaining twenty -three (23) trees will be protected through the construction process with fencing. Additionally, a bond equal to 100% of the value of the protected trees will be required prior to issuance of City permits. The proposed grading and drainage plans have been reviewed by the arborist and the applicant has made required changes. Geotechnical Clearance Geotechnical Clearance was required for this project due to the fact it is located within a liquefaction hazard zone. It has been conditionally granted and the conditions have been incorporated in the attached resolution. General Plan Findings The proposed project is consistent with the following General Plan Policies: Conservation Element Policy 6.0 Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The project consists of a new one -story single family residence. Proposed building materials consist of earth tone colors and the design is rustic in appearance. The overall visibility of the site is limited due to having street frontage on two sides and a creek along another property line. Land Use Element Policy 5.0 -The City shall use the design review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. As conditioned, the application meets the Findings required for Design Approval. The home is well designed with detailed architectural features and the site is well screened from adjacent properties. Application No. 07 -058; 18595 Avon Lane Design Review Findings The proposed project is consistent with all the following Design Review findings stated in City Code Section 15- 45.080: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The project meets this finding in that the structure is proposed on a site that is substantially screened from adjacent neighbors, as streets provide buffer on two sides, a creek provides buffer on a third, and the structure as proposed provides a greater setback from the neighbor to the rear than does the existing home. Additionally, the home is single story and is below the height limitation for the zoning designation. Many of the larger windows on the structure are on the front facade, where there is substantial distance and a street (Avon Lane) between the proposal and the existing two -story home. Additionally, rows of trees along the north and west property lines assist in providing screening. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The project meets this finding in that a majority of the trees on site are proposed to remain. The project has been revised to reflect removal of only those trees necessary for removal. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The project meets this finding in that 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. Of the four (4) protected trees proposed for removal, three (3) have significant decay and the fourth may not be relocated on the site without adverse impact on the remaining trees. These remaining trees on the property will be protected during the construction process with tree fencing and the applicant will be required to post a tree bond prior to issuance of City permits. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project has been designed with carefully selected materials that accentuate architectural details. Additionally, high quality materials such as stone accent walls and wooden windows embellish the facades, and in conjunction with varying rooflines, break up massing of the structure and provides for visual interest. (e) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed residence will be located on a site that is substantially setback from most neighboring properties. A two -story residence across Avon Lane appears to have been recently remodeled and other homes in the neighborhood are two -story. The proposed home is single -story and is under the maximum allowed height for the zoning designation. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposal would conform to the City's current grading and erosion control methods. The applicant is required Application No. 07 -058; 18595 Avon Lane Conclusion to maintain stormwater on site where feasible and therefore this finding may be made in the affirmative. (g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above and therefore this finding may be made in the affirmative. Staff finds that the Design Review findings can be made in the affirmative. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve design review application 07- 058 with conditions by adopting the attached resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval for Design Review. 2. Arborist Reports, dated August 30, 2006 and November 29, 2006. 3. Affidavit of mailing notices, public hearing notice, and copy of mailing labels for project notification. 4. Neighbor review letters. 5. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A." Attachment 1 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 07 -058 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Bob Taylor Homes Inc; 18595 Avon Lane WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review to construct a new single story 5,840 square foot home. The new home will be less than 26 feet in height and will be situated on a 37,137 (net) square foot lot. The lot is situated in the R -1- 40,000 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 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 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 have been determined: NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The project meets this finding in that the structure is proposed on a site that is substantially screened from adjacent neighbors, as streets provide buffer on two sides, a creek provides buffer on a third, and the structure as proposed provides a greater setback from the neighbor to the rear than does the existing home. Additionally, the home is single story and is below the height limitation for the zoning designation. Many of the larger windows on the structure are on the front facade, where there is substantial distance and a street (Avon Lane) between the proposal and the existing two -story home. Additionally, rows of trees along the north and west property lines assist in providing screening. b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The project meets this finding in that a majority of the trees on site are proposed to remain. The project has been revised to reflect removal of only those trees necessary for removal. Application No. 07 -058; 18595 Avon Lane c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The project meets this finding in that 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. Of the four (4) protected trees proposed for removal, three (3) have significant decay and the fourth may not be relocated on the site without adverse impact on the remaining trees. These remaining trees on the property will be protected during the construction process with tree fencing and the applicant will be required to post a tree bond prior to issuance of City permits. d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project has been designed with carefully selected materials that accentuate architectural details. Additionally, high quality materials such as stone accent walls and wooden windows embellish the facades, and in conjunction with varying rooflines, break up massing of the structure and provides for visual interest. e) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed residence will be located on a site that is substantially setback from most neighboring properties. A two -story residence across Avon Lane appears to have been recently remodeled and other homes in the neighborhood are two- story. The proposed home is single -story and is under the maximum allowed height for the zoning designation. This finding can be made in the affirmative. f) 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 maintain stormwater on site where feasible and therefore this finding may be made in the affirmative. g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above and therefore this finding may be made in the affirmative. Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, application number 07 -058 for Design Review Approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: Application No. 07 -058; 18595 Avon Lane PERMANENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL There are no permanent conditions of approval for this project. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The proposed home shall be constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" incorporated by reference. 2. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this signed Resolution, Arborist Reports, dated August 30, 2006 and November 29, 2006, and permit from the Santa Clara Valley Water District (or agency having jurisdiction over San Tomas Aquino Creek) 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 take into account 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. Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolong exposure to water shall be specified. 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 trees 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 11 of plans highlighting the changes. No downgrading in the exterior appearance of the Application No. 07 -058; 18595 Avon Lane approved residence will be approved by staff. Downgrades may include but are not limited to garage doors, architectural detailing, stonework, columns, shutters, driveway materials, etc. Proposed changes to the approved plans are subject to the approval of the Community Development Director and may require review by the Planning Commission. 6. Prior to issuance of City permits, the applicant shall furnish a current permit from the Santa Clara Valley Water District (or agency having jurisdiction over San Tomas Aquino Creek) regarding development. Applicant shall follow all conditions of this permit. 7. 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." 8. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on -site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction Best Management Practices, shall be submitted along with the complete construction drawings. 9. Water and/or runoff from the project site shall not be directed toward the adjacent properties. 10. 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 11. All recommendations contained in the City Arborist Report dated August 30, 2006 and November 29, 2006 shall be followed. 12. Tree protective measures, as specified by the City Arborist, shall be installed and inspected by Staff prior to issuance of City Permits. 13. Prior to issuance of City Permits, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security equivalent to 100% of the total appraised value of trees to be retained to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees. 14. The City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. The bond shall be released after the planting of required replacement trees, a favorable site inspection by the City Arborist, and payment of any outstanding Arborist fees. Application No. 07 -058; 18595 Avon Lane GEOTECHNICAL CLEARANCE 15. 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. In addition, the consultant should address the following: The Consultant shall review the drainage plan and evaluate the design and location of the proposed dry wells, including their anticipated effect on the adjacent sewer easement. Any appropriate design modifications should be recommended. 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. 16. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for fill keyways, and foundation construction prior to placement of fill, steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final project approval. 17. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to project Zone Clearance. FIRE DEPARTMENT 18. The applicant shall comply with all Fire Department (Santa Clara County Fire Department) conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 19. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. Section 2. Construction must commence within thirty-six (36) months or approval will expire. Application No. 07 -058; 18595 Avon Lane 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 February 2007 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date 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. Attachment 2 18595 Avon Lane ARBORIST REPORT APN 410-40-003 Owner: Carmel Meadows INTRODUCTION Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 'J Application 07 -059 August 30, 2006 Prepared by Kate Bear ISA Certified Arborist WE 2250A The property owner of 18595 Avon Lane has submitted plans to the city to demolish their existing house and build a new house on the property with new landscaping. A total of 31 trees protected by City Ordinance 15 -050 were inventoried for this project. They include one Colorado blue spruce #1), sixteen coast live oaks #2, 10, 12 -21, and 23 -26), two Douglas firs #3 and 4), four redwoods #5 -8), one tree of heaven #9), one Monterey pine #11), one eucalyptus #22), three Canary Island pines #27 -29), one valley oak #30) and one cherry #31). Data for each inventoried tree is compiled in a table at the end of this report. For ease of identification on site, numbered tags were attached to each tree. Tree locations are noted on the attached copy of the Site Plan. Plans reviewed for this report include Sheets L1 L10, Landscape Design, dated June 26, 2006, by Michael Tebb Design, and Sheets 1 -3, Grading and Drainage dated August 7, 2006, by Nelson Engineering. SITE OBSERVATIONS, PLAN REVIEW AND TECHNICAL DISCUSSION Sheet L -3 of the plans shows 13 trees to be removed. Of these, 4 are not protected and do not require a permit to remove. They include one liquidambar, one pine (dead), one small dead oak, and another small oak between trees 18 and 19. Another 2 trees, protected by ordinance, would be appropriate to remove as proposed. They include redwood #7, which has a significant trunk wound indicating possible decay, and oak tree #13, which is too close to two other oaks for good forestry practices, and cannot be relocated without impacting the other two trees. Seven of the trees marked to be removed #2, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, and 23) are in good health and it is not clear why they are scheduled for removal. This should be clarified, especially with regard to redwood #8 and oak tree #15, which are very good specimens. I also recommend pruning the oaks on site to remove dead wood from the mature oaks and to develop the structure of the younger trees. Two trees not indicated for removal should be removed. They include pine #11, which is dead, and redwood #6, which has a significant wound on the trunk indicating likely decay. The remaining trees in the vicinity of the project can be adequately protected during construction with protective fencing as described below. Sheet 1, Grading and Drainage, shows tree protective fencing of welded wire mesh on T- posts. This is not acceptable and should be deleted. Required fencing is chain link on galvanized posts (see below). Page 1 of 3 18595 Avon Lane Sheet 2 is difficult to read as there is too much information on one page. This should be clarified by separating information onto more than one page or graying out some information. The water and sewer lines for the house should be shown. Drainage should remain away from under tree canopies, specifically pines #27 -29) and oaks #24 -26). Sheet L -3 shows a bench under the canopy of the valley oak #30). It is not clear if the bench will be anchored to the ground or free standing. If anchored, it should be on piers, rather than on a concrete slab. No excavation may occur within the drip line of the tree's canopy. Sheet L -8, Detail 1, shows cement added to the decomposed granite for the pathways. No cement should be included in the portions of the pathway that are under tree canopies. Excavation for the pathway should be no more than three inches when under the canopies of trees as well. Sheet L -4 shows a plant palette including a tree called a "Saratoga baylander Please provide information on this species, as it is not familiar to me. It appears that lawn is proposed under the canopies of oaks. Only the outer 20% of the area under an oak may be planted and only with drought tolerant plants. Existing trees should be shown on Sheet L -4 for context. It is acceptable to have them grayed out as a background layer. Sheet L -5 shows irrigation valves under the canopy of pines. They should be relocated away from the trees. It is not clear how close to oak tree #21 the backflow preventer is. It should be located midway between the oaks #20 and 21 and as far away from both as possible. Sheet L -9, details 21 -23 show planting holes excavated deeper than the root ball. This should be corrected so that the planting shows the bottom of the root ball resting on native soil. Per City Ordinance 15- 50.080, a bond amount equal to 100% of the total appraised value the trees to be retained, is required. The bond amount will be determined once the number of trees to be removed is clarified. Appraisal values are calculated according to the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 0 Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2000. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. This entire report, including the Tree Inventory Table and the map showing locations of trees and protective fencing, shall be incorporated into the set of final building plans. 2. Tree protective fencing shall be installed as shown on the attached map and established prior to any grading or the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site. It shall be comprised of six -foot high chain link fencing mounted on eight -foot tall, two -inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction process Page 2 of 3 18595 Avon Lane until final inspection. If work must occur within fenced area, contact arborist at (408) 868 -1276 and arrange for a site meeting to discuss the situation. 3. Owner shall provide a tree protection bond, to be determined, which is equal to the value of trees to be retained. Owner shall obtain bond prior to obtaining building division permits. 4. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the designated fenced area (even after fencing is removed). These activities include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: demolition, grading, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 5. Any approved grading or trenching beneath the trees' canopies shall be manually performed using shovels. 6. Following are landscape requirements: 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. Plant selection under tree canopies must have similar water requirements to the trees under which they will be placed. Lawn must not be installed up to the trunks any tree; it must be a minimum of two feet from any tree trunk. No lawn may be installed under any oak tree. trees. 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. Do not allow tilling or stripping of the topsoil beneath the trees' canopies, including for weed control. 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). 7. Any pruning of trees on site must be performed under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist and according to ISA standards. a. b. c. d. e. f. g. Only drip irrigation may be used under oak 8. 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 20 feet of the tree's trunks. 9. 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 Map Showing Tree Locations and Protective Fencing Page 3 of 3 1 TREE NO. TREE NAME a h co a a E a E. C7 b En a 0 U co 14 II Q L c 8 y x az TREE INVENTORY TABLE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 I Colorado blue spruce Picea pungens Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii Redwood Sequoia sempervirens Redwood Sequoia sempervirens Redwood Sequoia sempervirens Redwood Sequoia sempervirens Tree of Heaven Ailanthus altissima Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia Monterey pine Pinus radiata Coast live oak Quercus agrfolia Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 8 8.5 7 20 11 21 9.5 8.5 12 6 20 6.5 9, 12 14 13, 13, 2.5, 11, 5, 4 15 15 30 15 30 15 15 15 15, 15.5 14, 11 45 10 0 6 5 30 30 40 10 50 50 75 50 75 25 25 75 75 75 0 75 50 75 75 75 75 50 75 75 50 75 75 75 25 50 50 0 25 25 25 50 25 25 Good Good Good Fair Good Fair Fair Good Good Good Dead Good Good Good Good Good Good High High High High High Low Low High Moderate Moderate Remove Moderate Moderate High High High High 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 X X $1,270 $1,040 $5,100 $2,080 $11,200 $1,560 $1,250 $2,470 $1,540 $0 $1,670 $540 $4,890 $8,300 $5,700 $860 Address: 18595 Avon Lane August 30, 2006 TREE Coast live oak 14.5, 8.5 timated Canopy Spread alth Condition (100% ;t, 0% worst) uctural Integrity (100% ;t, 0% worst) erall Condition itability for Preservation igh/Moderate/Low) ensity of Impacts Highest, 5 Lowest) Conflict with Proposed sign t Shown on Plans cated on Adjacent iperty 18 Quercus agrifolia 8.5 35 75 25 Good High 3 $7,100 Coast live oak 19 Quercus agrifolia 11, 10 30 75 25 Good High 3 $4,110 Coast live oak 20 Quercus agrifolia 22.5 35 75 50 Good High 2 $21,500 Coast live oak 21 Quercus agrifolia 22.5 40 75 75 Good High 3 $25,700 Eucalyptus 22 Eucalyptus rudis 21 30 50 25 Fair Moderate 3 $590 Coast live oak 23 Quercus agrifolia 7.5 10 50 75 Fair High 5 $2,400 Coast live oak 24 Quercus a rifolia 6.5 15 75 25 Good High 2 $1,440 Coast live oak 25 Quercus agrifolia 14, 7.5 40 75 50 Good High 2 $12,500 Coast live oak 26 Quercus agrifolia 18.5 35 75 25 Good High 2 $17,400 Canary Island pine 27 Pinus canariensis 22.5 15 50 50 Fair Moderate 4 $2,590 Canary Island pine 28 Pinus canariensis 19 15 50 50 Fair Moderate 4 $2,460 Canary Island pine 29 Pinus canariensis 16 15 50 50 Fair Moderate 4 $1,750 Valley oak 30 Quercus lobata 46 45 75 75 Good High 3 $72,100 Cherry 31 Prunus avium 8, 6 15 75 75 Good High 4 $1,750 TREE ink Diameter (in,) per tide for Plant Appraisal timated Canopy Spread alth Condition (100% ;t, 0% worst) uctural Integrity (100% ;t, 0% worst) erall Condition itability for Preservation igh/Moderate/Low) ensity of Impacts Highest, 5 Lowest) Conflict with Proposed sign t Shown on Plans cated on Adjacent iperty Appraised Value NO. TREE NAME 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. Address: 18595 Avon Lane TREE INVENTORY TABLE August 30, 2006 18595 Avon Lane Tree Protective Fencing Tree Canopy LEGEND III■ MN OM 18595 Avon Lane ARBORIST REPORT APN 410 -40 -003 Owner: Carmel Meadows INTRODUCTION Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Application 07 -058 November 29, 2006 Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Phone (408) 868 -1276 The property owner of 18595 Avon Lane has submitted plans to the city to demolish their existing house and build a new house on the property with new landscaping. A total of 31 trees protected by City Ordinance 15 -050 were inventoried for this project. They include one Colorado blue spruce #1), sixteen coast live oaks #2, 10, 12 -21, and 23 -26), two Douglas firs #3 and 4), four redwoods #5 -8), one tree of heaven #9), one Monterey pine #11), one eucalyptus #22), three Canary Island pines #27 -29), one valley oak #30) and one cherry #31). Data for each inventoried tree is compiled in a table at the end of this report. For ease of identification on site, numbered tags were attached to each tree. Tree locations are noted on the attached copy of the Site Plan. Plans reviewed for this report include Sheets L1 L10, Landscape Design, dated June 26, 2006, by Michael Tebb Design, and Sheets 1 -3, Grading and Drainage dated August 7, 2006, by Nelson Engineering. SITE OBSERVATIONS, PLAN REVIEW AND TECHNICAL DISCUSSION The plans have been revised and clarified following my report dated August 30, 2006 as detailed below. However, the revised plans show the irrigation main line under trees #3, 18 and 30. This needs to be reconfigured so that it stays outside of the canopies of these trees (see Sheet L -5). Also, the statement on the legend that does not allow trenching under trees is illegible. Sheet L -3 has been corrected to show the removal of one dead pine and two unprotected trees. The seven trees originally marked to be removed #2, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, and :23) will be protected during construction. Tree protective fencing is shown on Sheet L -3 and is shown as chain link. Sheet 2 has been clarified. Drainage has been reconfigured to remain away from trees #27 -29 and 24 -26). Sheet L -1 shows a bench under the valley oak #30). This has been clarified to show the bench as free standing on decomposed granite. Page 1 of 2 18595 Avon Lane Sheet L -8, Detail 1, has bee corrected to remove the cement from the decomposed granite. Excavation for the pathway should be no more than three inches when under the canopies of trees as well. The species previously referred to "Saratoga baylander" has been clarified to refer to Laurus nobilis var. `Saratoga'. The plans have been clarified to show no lawns under oak trees. Sheet L -5 shows irrigation valves relocated to a position outside of the pines' canopies. The backflow preventer has been located midway between the oaks #20 and 21 and as far away from both as possible. Sheet L -9, details 21 -23 have been corrected to show planting holes no deeper than the root ball so that plants rest on native soil. Per City Ordinance 15- 50.080, a bond amount equal to $160,080, which is 100% of the total appraised value the trees #1, 14- 21, 27 -29, 30 and 31, is required. Appraisal values are calculated according to the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2000. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. This report, as well as the previous report dated August 30, 2006, shall be incorporated into the set of final building plans. 2. Owner shall provide a tree protection bond, in the amount of $160,080, which is equal to the value of trees #1, 14 -21, 27 -29, 30 and 31. Owner shall obtain bond prior to obtaining building division permits. 3. Owner shall have architect reconfigure irrigation main line so that it remains outside of the canopies of all trees. Presently main line is shown under canopies of trees #3, 18 and 30. Page 2 of 2 Attachment 3 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 23` day of January 2007, that I deposited 87 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: 410 -40 -003 Address: 18595 Avon Lane that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. enise Kaspar Advanced Listing Services Shweta Bhatt Assistant Planner (408) 868 -1266 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 14 day of February, 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: DR07 -058 18595 Avon Lane APPLICANT /OWNER: Bob Taylor Homes Inc /Carmel Meadows APN: 410 -40 -003 DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a new one -story single family dwelling. The dwelling will consist of approximately 5,840 square feet. The height of the structure will not exceed the 26 -foot height limitation. The gross lot size is approximately 47,678 square feet and the site is located in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. Design Review approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15- 45.060. 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, February 5, 2007. 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. January 23, 2006 Ownership Listing pared for: 410 -40 -004 CARMEL MEADOWS 18595 AVON LN SARATOGA CA 95070 397 -07 -005 JOHN H DENISE COWARD OR CURRENT OWNER 15095 QUITO RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6296 397 -07 -018 MIN -CHAN CHOW OR CURRENT OWNER 15171 MAUDE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -6281 397 -07 -079 SCIMECA 1982 OR CURRENT OWNER 18661 MAUDE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -6215 0 07 -104 LLOYD H KAREN LUND OR CURRENT OWNER 18665 MAUDE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -6215 397 -07 -112 HA CHOI OR CURRENT OWNER 15201 QUITO RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6228 410 -39 -002 MUNIR ALICEANN PUALUAN OR CURRENT OWNER 18429 TWIN CREEKS RD MONTE SERENO CA 95030 -2129 410 -39 -016 ROBERT LLOYD OR CURRENT OWNER 15310 QUITO RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6375 40 -002 AKEN TRUST 0 C URRENT OWNER 18599 AVON LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6227 397 -07 -016 SAMUEL R DEVLIN OR CURRENT OWNER 15160 ORIOLE WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6264 397 -07 -063 STEVE ANNE CUNNINGHAM OR CURRENT OWNER 15001 QUITO RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6296 397 -07 -102 JAMES ALEXANDRA SHOCK OR CURRENT OWNER 18611 MAUDE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -6215 397 -07 -108 JAN A JEANNETTE HINSHAW OR CURRENT OWNER 15227 QUITO RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6228 397 -07 -114 REDFORD 2005 OR CURRENT OWNER 15229 QUITO RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6228 410 -39 -003 RHIND FAMILY TRUST OR CURRENT OWNER 18435 TWIN CREEKS RD MONTE SERENO CA 95030 -2129 410 -39 -017 LEXOR INVESTMENTS INC OR CURRENT OWNER 15585 LOS GATOS BLVD LOS GATOS CA 95032 -2570 410 -40 -003 410 -40 -004 CARMEL MEADOWS OR CURRENT OWNER 15232 QUITO RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6227 397 -07 -017 KRIKOR JULIE BARSOUMIAN OR CURRENT OWNER 18640 MAUDE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -6214 397 -07 -064 JAMES R DIANE JESPERSEN OR CURRENT OWNER 15055 QUITO RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6296 397 -07 -103 WEN H CHIU OR CURRENT OWNER 18615 MAUDE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -6215 397 -07 -111 CHARLES A PATRICIA MARINO OR CURRENT OWNER 15185 QUITO RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6299 397 -07 -115 LARRY E LISSER OR CURRENT OWNER PO BOX 321299 LOS GATOS CA 95032 -0121 410 -39 -005 EDWARD F PATRICIA MALYSZ OR CURRENT OWNER 18459 TWIN CREEKS RD MONTE SERENO CA 95030 -2129 410 -40 -001 ANTONIO R SUSAN ABIOG OR CURRENT OWNER 15276 QUITO RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6227 410 -40 -005, 006, 015 C S OR CURRENT OWNER 5750 Almaden Expy San Jose 95118 410 -40 -009 PHILIP G ANN BLAKEY OR CURRENT OWNER 15254 STRATFORD CT MONTE SERENO CA 95030 -2125 410 -40 -012 CATHERINE L BERNAL OR CURRENT OWNER 15164 STRATFORD CT MONTE SERENO CA 95030 -2125 410 -40 -016 SHAHRIAR MASSIHPOUR OR CURRENT OWNER 18590 AVON LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6206 410 -40 -023 DENNIS J COLLINS OR CURRENT OWNER 18540 BICKNELL RD MONTE SERENO CA 95030-2115 410 -40 -026 STAN P MELINDA FREEMAN OR CURRENT OWNER 15276 STRATFORD CT MONTE SERENO CA 95030 -2125 410 -41 -010 DESMOND JOHNSON OR CURRENT OWNER 15181 BECKY LN MONTE SERENO CA 95030 -2105 410 -40 -010 A TURNER OR CURRENT OWNER 15232 STRATFORD CT MONTE SERENO CA 95030 -2125 410 -40 -013 PATRICIA J GRAHAM OR CURRENT OWNER 15122 STRATFORD CT MONTE SERENO CA 95030 -2125 410 -40 -017 HUMPHREY E WESENHAGEN OR CURRENT OWNER PO BOX 2714 SARATOGA CA 95070 -0714 410 -40 -024 JAMES KIRN OR CURRENT OWNER 18510 BICKNELL RD MONTE SERENO CA 95030-2115 410 -41 -008 ERNA TAMPIER OR CURRENT OWNER 15211 BECKY LN MONTE SERENO CA 95030 -2105 410 -41 -019 KEVIN D MACLEAN OR CURRENT OWNER 15121 BECKY LN MONTE SERENO CA 95030 -2105 410 -40 -011 ALBERT S COLETTE CHOU OR CURRENT OWNER 15208 STRATFORD CT MONTE SERENO CA 95030 -2125 410 -40 -014 ALLA OSETINSKY OR CURRENT OWNER 358 SYCAMORE CT LOS GATOS CA 95032 -3923 410 -40 -018 PAUL HUYNH OR CURRENT OWNER 15120 QUITO RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6229 410 -40 -025 KENNETH J MARTHA IWAGAKI OR CURRENT OWNER 15292 STRATFORD CT MONTE SERENO CA 95030 -2125 410 -41 -009 RALPH PEARSON OR CURRENT OWNER 15155 BECKY LN MONTE SERENO CA 95030 -2105 CITY OF SARATOGA ATTN: Shweta Bhatt 13777 FRUITVALE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 Attachment 4 sar (.1 C 7) Neighbor Phone Number: 9Ok 36 Z 5 i Signature: Printed: A d City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: (1 /o J O c PROJECT ADDRESS: I S9 S' va iv Applicant Name: /36 1 Ty f .i r )46 MFs J'c- Application Number: 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 scope of work: and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. OMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work: and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional :sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: Ph,1 c j r+t C '0'J.P II 441 Neighbor Address: f S Y P}ror, Lan L h: v41■ e-Y) iEgkll NO V 0 0 2006 CITY OF SARATOGA 5 of 5 City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: /l tQy ii3CF PROJECT ADDRESS: S9 ✓'ti' Applicant Name: A er13 I }i (c r' e 2 Application Number: (l ©S 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. X viy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. DMy 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 Address: 0,? Signature: 2), Neighbor Name: 7( C 5 5 4:- ccirt Neighbor Phone Number: S Z Printed: NOV 062006 CITY OF SARATOGA 5 of 5 February 7, 2007 Shweta Bhatt Assistant Planner City of Saratoga Via fax 408867 -8555 Re: 1 8595 Avon Lane Application No. 07 -058 Design Review Dear Shweta, Bob Taylor Homes Confirming our conversation today, I contacted the 3 neighbors on Avon Lane to schedule a meeting last April. That group includes Tony Gisa Abiog, Phil and Christine VanAken, and Shahriar (Shawn) Massihpour. The Abiogs agreed to host the meeting in their home. The Abiogs and the VanAkens live behind our property and derive access from the common drive to Avon Lane. VanAkens arc the contiiguous neighbors to our property. Shawn Maasihpour lives across Avon Lane in the two story home. The meeting was scheduled for Saturday, April 8 at 1:00 pm. and all indicated that they would attend. Of course the hosts, the Abiogs, were present as well as the VanAkens. Mr. Maasihpour did not show up. I do not know the reason why he did not. He does have my office phone number an.d had called me a couple of times last winter concerning a tree limb from my property that fell onto Avon Lane. I reviewed the project plans in detail with. the Abiogs and VanAkens and answered their questions. Both couples were very complimentary concerning the project design and had no issues with our proposal. I did not realize that 1 needed to have them complete and sign a City forrn.acknowledging our meeting at that time. Prior to our formal application with the City in August, I returned to the Abiog and VanAken households and explained what I needed and asked that they complete and sign the forms which they did. I placed another call to Shawn Maassihpour today and he has just called me back. We are planning to meet Saturday morning, February 10. 17705 HALE AVENUE, 11 -1 MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNrA 95037 (408) 779 1945 LIC. NO 282141 FAX: (408) 779-6541 Shweta Bhatt, page two, February 7, 2007, 18595 Avon Lane The homes on Stafford Court are all at a much higher elevation than our property and also are a good distance away. The same is true of the home across Quito Road. Given those facts and the heavy tree screening on our property, 1 have not contacted those neighbors. Sincerely, Steve Douglas Vice President Attachment 5 oggg 11 eg Ili! 1 1:! 1 12110S; z OCO 11111111111 7411 LE056 VD !PH ta I H 'onwad algH SOLLI 0H Act Pandaid suvid V110101r1V3 `1 aNV'l KOAV S6S8I SINIOH 110'IAVI SOH :404 aaNiamsaa (14S0dOlifd 5 S s a •s t, z -tz No) houanauNOo ONLLIAMIS ONN133N10/43 TAO Y 'CON1111.11110 MUM IRDU u ac1au VIN80311V0 `VOOJ.V VS 3N'd1 NOAV 56581 NV1d 3OVNIV2IG ONV ONIGV O 8 8 A e O t� H o o Y� s 5 c z X U m Y pm 02 a F SCiB€ O. E 0 38 t �y u ;11; q g�+< g in i <�LL Wg s 2! z y 'g aaz o o gO! q 1 11 S o &u 'd g Fzaa� o FF $�o g8 F E w 75� am F S2za P gQ gw� B g a W b 1O s 'i o i 3 Q 8 g so! i q 5x-8 £E$ a e 8 z 5 q $1S!gmgzz d� g gQ4,8n4 Se aal e "16 B gE l Via o_$ y $fliiill F ‹E ag 41!! Ell g W 6 T 5 ;g qPW4 o p, L g 3 2 81 2E WirAge rtal MR 4002j. s10:01.4. ,AR o lomW g g1 2! NN9i4f.j,2WWET,R;MmVigxeRpA,Iiigaivgg.TA aZ main=, $jets, i 2 nr4g,t5WW PETION115 !iPlig:g W P A ng,,g 8 g M e 3 a U 8 g i <O 6 4W.20 p F w V-8 2 i W 8 IT mfg 8a il R 1 igli i? eO g :::.EXI!;4 gg.a g3 gT 3 rc ii IlTi $g5 a z$ A 0 2484 2 4 zg ff� 6 0 8 0 a! O F Fd p as a. aa `,8 5 4 13 i �4 fie AT 8W oI f s d a 1 o 1 N m 1'z 8 ggna 2 a 2 i :i0:51_1417 8y o �W<°$�° z 8i 4 0 8 :g §8 i:Ni d6 $58�i� 8 E 8 Ib! LLNd .iivi 8 8 s a 8 S 8 ag RSd 8 8 8 8 8 8 2 8 8 8 8 8 8 L., i 8 8 R 8 UU Z 4 8 g gE 8 rc g o W5a gw $a 1 11 )18 g i 26$ CI L4; N NpSN PES SA 5.F 2 MLF Kim mrcg m �o dog $e ;gW 258.8 g 8 -Q 6 'm a 8b 64 ';gss io $5 1 U N FRB 6o „n 0q):3 IHE Pao all 0 <q� 1 h o 4 g 9 504€ 8 O� F S O J= 00 m U W U ,1 ZZ g N q OZZ O B p D� q 4 W g-5<,,H ri55.4805.008RN.N' N 8 $o ig Ea 8 8 N 3 8 O R A F 8 8 05 E X33 c8 .6 R q 21 8! 88 „rs< a ER j�j$ y S gda Sa F e Ill k: a� 60>. 21g g3' a fa e,5 a g gp LL 2F amd g .p5 8 8' ry N .z 8 o m S 4zrg 28`3 RA! P 6 266 !e. Pa KB.W 8 7 OPR LOKE <aaa. 8 8 8 A 8 a a Z 0' 8 88 aI a 2 30' m a1 6 a &g g go mp a$ g gg 8 03 1 1 N 1 90028E E0 9i {0 .0 PA O p ;Pe.g \31170W\596"\ 9` nve-Lsz (an) vo 'meow° NOILIMLLSNO3 oNuanans ON1113310016 11AKI DU!b33U'DU3 1.130911 VIN?:10J1 VOCUVIVS 3NY1 NOAV Q6Q2 dVIAI 01HdV2:100dal. ONV A3A2111S ONLISIX3 13 CV 6 9002 05 TO:9T ;0 900 ia3 999•09T99-93\SYIN100\9309 r VIN803f1VO 4 VOO1V JVS 3NY NOAV S6S81 NV1d 3OVNIV IO ONV ONIaV O BOOB E070 :B{ TO Dag l +l 6xp'6u {pag\greng0\ gar 01 gLi c. it 0,0 491 ei>10 8 P-05 4 1 8 4 .13 hill 1.11 494 7i 8 _I i 2:15 841 •4. 3 ail i. 1.), 2100. .2 1 t4oi I 1. a ll r a 'pit 11101 .1. t I l i a II 1 lit it 11 1 l 11 1. b' 8 ,I 111111 1 1 fI Ii 1 i.1�1 H I' ..1/11 ili 1111 111 111191 11 111 1 it! JI 1 Ji 1 111 'L i 1.1 it �l b J I z t1 1 1 1 !!11IiiIii 1111 tIIII1iI 111,11I!11I!I I Lilbilit 1 t h i 1 !iii I II 1 i,1 1 11 1 I 11 a 11 1 itiii,� iI I 1, II¢111111i ,A 111 Jil 1Ii i:...+ tif' I IIIIi i 1 1 111 1 11,1 1 I I 1I j. Ii Ri ij 1iJ 1 1111 III li 1 hf i; 1�� 1 1 i 1� 11111111 1 11 1 1 11 1 I o i t 0 1l i l i 1 il i Pill i i a� 13 is1 A t i i 11 obi' thilliiiiiito 141 i s 1 d1 a 1 8 9i 1 1� dill a i lliiitilliiiiiihilli i 1 1 1 111 1 1 1 111.: a b 3 if 11 1 11 11 1 1 11 H Hi jIlt jJJ Jt t i i 111 11 11 111111i 141 !tit opt -I PI 9.1 1 I III 1 i l 11 1 1 DPP 1 11 1 1 1 1 b+ b i g 1 i— 11-0— a f 1 Il Il 1 ,1 I 1 f t JId Jig LE0S6 ID %RI TK I *PH SOLL SOUMH Z I L9 pasedard sIlam Aii $8a e8 s s o AB h xx y pp r '.7POG Nqf e i •O F• Oa tVpCINIfVtVnlVNggTa lgWR. fff 1 :oz'- 44-warm VIAt2IO3I'IV3 `VJO,LVIIVS t- 3NV'I I IOAV S6S8T sawOH 2IO'1AVZ two :IIO3 allsIWEISTd Q3SOJO2Id A LWWS6 VD`ll!H I-H h ntl'Igf[ SOLL S UGH •r i :Xqp m eta YIP1I031IV3 4 V9OIVIIVS aNV I NOAV S6S8I Sd11IOH ?IO'IAVL £Og 1 103 3aM3uSaH a4SOdO2Id 3 N i 1!111 vIN111031 V3 `v90ZVIIVS aNIV'I MOAN S6S81 SalAIOH /IO'IAV1 SOS Q2I03 DyNIaUSaH Q1SOd02Id ht d LEOS6 'VO`111113 oNI I ^V'1 SOU! samoH •yg poardatd saw YINIIOdT'IYD `VOO1VIIVs dl�"I NOAV S6S8I S OH 2IO1AVI S OS �ZI03 uAIdIQSalI QdsoJou4 vusamirrva `VDOIVIIVS 3NYI NOVI S658I SMAIOH 1101AVI11011 :ROA aasmaismi aasoaaaa_ 6 a I ZSZL9 9P64 y owo y 'euoi X S£ U ld Inoh adeosPJBH ub!sa° ggal'V laoyo!W e!ural!IBo `BBOasi$ OU81 UOAA 96981. SOH aflliB.i Qo9 J asZL8 �n 91 /57.6 V3 'owDIY'auo1 aagmg S£ ubIsaa 4gal b' 1aot p!W 'Mo■ _71or OIL 1 k t II 4 1. ii N eiuwaoo 'ebowleg slnoIl Pasod%Jd'g 6uilsix3 uond gSgg i. sGwoH JOCBl qo9 N J at I Z elwoiPPPO 'e srb' -«s /SU mid uo femesaad Jl /Nall Oups!X3 eurl u 56581, yO 'oral*/ 'awlN SE Asa() 4gal'V 19D4o!W S WOH aol/�El q09 I ll titli 11 EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE[EEEE[EEEEEE C C 1e I B I I C IUMUMECO U C000UC EEEEEEEEIIIIIEEEEEEEEIEEEEIIIEE EEEEEEEE[EEEE[E[EEEE[EEEEEEEEE[ EEEELEECECCUMEECUEEEECEMEICEEE r CE000CCC000CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC "mE ECCOCCCCuCBECCE CCECCECECEC E=CEEEEC€€CCEEQCE EEEECEEEECC MOMICCIECCOCCCECCECCCCCEECECECECCCE 4 !I' a (1 1�? C J 8 A 1 8 71; 1 11. is i 1 1 1 1 111 -5 MIST 9101E8 ISTA y3 'maw 'aum eagiD9 CC u qqal N I°4°! mid marl &weld eiwome0 WORM eur LioAV 96591. sewoH .101/k qog ass iHillIhilli41101111111 ff 4 24 fa 2 a a ofl GCPV V ,qF 8 ZSU8P 'oil 9 6P /st6 y3 'OWDIy 9U01 as poe gc upsea laotplyq ueId uori86wI eiwoosto texnates GUr uoty 56981. sewoH JoII B1 Qoe 8 Y GY B IT F It BB I Y 10 J LSZL84 #'31 9V6PLE8 /SU y3'OUR secliD9 S£ A s i a g c l e l N t W mid 64y6n elu011eo 'Oman earl uony 5698 sewOH Jai/WI qoe 1 J 1C 9 76 d E C o 0 e 8 e S F k 3 g g 3 i t'5 er 4 R4 V RN 111 0do0•04,0o® O O O W g 111;01::11 0 d 3 5 S g N R A R 0 S 5 5 1 :6 1: !iX:8!6 0 i R t:g 6 :1 A'W85 iai io 1 9C Aka Nn "_'40,'x°_ .rn 4 W u o g F g �W8 m y a m om il a i 9 M V' o F1° S S i ill l liig NU E g O F 6 a 4 -P n !I =gig c 2282 z .S 08 n o o W sa Mat '�n 9V64 /57.6 yO 'MON 'OUD1 eaCIA S£ u6lsap ggal'd Iao4o5A4 SUO EAGI3 /SUOpp089 awn uoAy gm I. sawoH JoIABI clog A =ft #'3!1 9t6' L£9 /SZ6 'oworo 9e409 S£ ubisea ggal 1ODL OBN sifele0 EWolllso 'Omens auei uony g6981. SawoH qo9 2 A GO J MEM Ii ai E gi ID mar .3n 81W000 `eso1eieg 9t61”28/516 u Oa s6 SIIel� GM uony S%SS t v3 'ow t v y u6isaaaaai.yIao4�W S8WOH Joie el Gob 33 f 6 r' g p g p 8 Fl N tyj =1_a= k rill; b9 .N WI 88 i g ii 0 i i .7-•v•?•.. .0:-.---. .1 2& 2 .471&/ a 0 g.1 il I I i -1 =l� ii OTp T 45 i r 3 Jo S 1 �y ii �g{p ERi 1 g 4 g 9 11: 11 Y Y yy a o e 1 8 6 •ll g 6 a `ai 2 s 2 �a 0— o n? 5 i9 II II 11 1 1 11 II u 2 pp S �l IOW r* 1- I I I) 39 r II II I gg yy p ,m non l_h I: rid A li r b jj' g IL a 2 F1—le II tl C,�b_ I_iil l ¢F 34 Y g 1 Qg -1 tl L 1 �1 1 6 R Y' -II I I 3 s bc 1 b; p "4 R 1 I ill; ,1 1 4.44 zp z b d IIh 1111 �I II �i q z q i± yC L g gN �y Q. G F Fn E, 3 _n= MIL= I 1 II Mile tl Q Milli..110 =II 1Y -1 6 Si12 4 8 3 g Ef4 9 a v 304 l; 1 e 6 5 tIi i F k a e 1 t q s3I q< 5 i Y 2 W 11 g x I I 1 �I 1 ibt i x 6 AA, T 9 i o a JI =11 1111 -11 III 4 F .11 �1 n Iti III' *11 II:11 C'' t 4 F i *IP I I i 1-4-----1— N 1 ry 55 i(S6E F ID •2 MLR '3!1 B!WO w° t5oreles V3 'OWO!y O1 M S£ St!e eQ u0 AV 96581 o a u6!sea QQal'V 100401W 90w0},t J0 81 Q� 1 Ji c 1 t i `1t Viii r Ilk ?Z I 11i o i A lill 1 11 „.„-,5,,, ,.cr j r !l Hit' 1 Lilt i 1� i i t �l A. i i,i F g S! 1 Y F v thPJI i 1 102 66 l r i 5 [iii 1 S 1-- c) H iii \i i 111 YYYp JIiIfltti 1i 11 i V/1 eE4 i 1 11 i E ;II fl 1 IA 1111 le 1i, i Hill th 141 Ij' 1401 1 11 IC 1 11 b g i g i I. 1 1.11 !N °tllt i o ti ill 1 it -r 1 Oil Q ii p all St i1 11 11, 1114 11, t K 7 1, 11 iI flEs1 Ard .ccry: I. ill i 1 s IIPtit i 1 i ✓Y i !i s iiil9 1 1Riie tthiE f 1, s I 1 .,2 li' 1 1 S1 1 .a3 hi 11 it N 1d 4 ;ili IIEDan Q f -ii flak 1! 1 -1 I il R .ore m« IIl.7 III. J fnl 9 IT m g 1. I t, w C IIEII maul y Q� J T SP 11 lei 1 1— R n i I ILI 1 e i 1 1 1 1 A 1: A li; ,i=i ti; 0 1 lei t� an di c� k i i< almosmiral ranmm id Mal ill 'e 1 i E S a O n i t uin ZOL94 946P /57.6 yo 'auoi GOCIJIDg uqsaa qqai v lectippi SOBBJG eiwomeo teomes aufn u0AV 9699 I. sewoH cloe A a 6 d E d g gRggggggfOggg%;2 RiVrigARL§05V7,%0- E g E Item 3 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 07 -207; 14451 Oak Place Type of Application: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Meeting Date: APN: Department Head: Appeal of Heritage Preservation Determination Darrell and Angelin Dukes, Appellant and Property Owners Shweta Bhatt, Assistant Planner, iif ,7 February 14, 2007 397 -22 -041 John F. Livingstone, AICP Subject: 14451 Oak Place APN: 397 -22-0 500' Radius :1. 1111 1 1 W q vC Y,t i. �I 2 1 Z u 14 70 (f- g p x A r n l of 4 AI N N N. HU •DV. OL ;I 1 !1. 1 u o 113N cc oft ttr[t( r 4M1 oYilr1 411 owoo v i v vosz c,. d 4 L� 4 �h shit t•`" ttt•u[ 4 r Volt 4 ti vacs sw. SARATOGA LOS GAT( 14451 Oak Place Application No. 07 -207; 14451 Oak Place EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application Filed: 12/05/06 HPC Determination Issued: 12/12/06 Appeal Application Filed: 12/20/06 Notice published: 01/31/07 Mailing completed: 01/15/07 Posting completed: 02/08/07 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The owner of the property at 14451 Oak Place has appealed the Heritage Preservation Commission's (HPC) decision to list the property on the City's Historic Resources Inventory (Inventory). The project was heard at the December 12, 2006 HPC meeting. The Commission reviewed a report completed by a architectural historian, conducted a site visit, and voted to add the property to the inventory based on criteria "b" and "e" in City Code Section 13- 15.010. The appellant is requesting the demolition of the existing structures. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission review the staff report and make a motion to adopt either option 1 or option 2 outlined in this staff report. A resolution reflecting this motion will be placed on the next Planning Commission agenda for approval. 2 Application No. 07 -207; 14451 Oak Place STAFF ANALYSIS Site Description The subject site is a corner lot at the intersection of Oak Place and Orchard Road. There currently exists a single family dwelling on the parcel and a detached garage. The garage also has a small one bedroom unit attached. The house does not appear to conform to current setback standards, as it is situated primarily on the western half the rectangular lot. The owner is appealing a decision made by the HPC to add the property to the Inventory. No land -use entitlements are being requested at this time. Project Background The owner contacted the Planning Department with a request for historic determination of the property. Staff reviewed the request and determined that the property may have historic significance given the property's apparent age and location on Oak Place. Therefore, staff requested the appellant secure the services of a qualified historian to evaluate the property and submit for review by the HPC. The appellant hired the firm Archives and Architecture, of which architectural historian Leslie Dill prepared a Department of Parks and Recreation, or "DPR523" form (attached to this staff report). This format is industry standard for the evaluation of potentially historic properties. The analysis found that the property did not embody an architecturally significant design and that it was not historic based on people associated with it. Therefore, the report concluded that the property appears to be ineligible for designation to the State or National register. In addition, a letter accompanying the report concluded that the property did not appear to be significant at the local level. Review by the Heritage Preservation Commission The project was taken to the HPC for review at the December 12, 2006 meeting, where the HPC determined that the house is historically significant and recommended that the property be placed on the Inventory. In order to add a property to the Inventory, the HPC is required to select at least one (1) of the seven (7) criteria listed in the City Code Section 13- 15.010 (listed below, emphasis added). The HPC cited criteria "b" and `°e" and the following justification in making their decision (approved minutes from the meeting are attached to this staff report): (a) It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering or architectural history of the City, the County, the State or the nation; (b) It is identified with persons or events significant in local, county, state or national history; The property is associated with the Foothill Club and the lumber industry, both of which are prominent in Saratoga 's history. 3 Application No. 07 -207; 14451 Oak Place (c) It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials; (d) It is representative of the notable design or craft of a builder, designer, or architect; (e) It embodies or contributes to unique physical characteristics representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood or district within the City; The structures are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in style and overall appearance and embody an eclectic architectural style. (f) It represents a significant concentration or continuity of site, buildings, structures or objects, unified by past events or aesthetically by plan or physical or natural development; (g) It embodies or contributes to a unique natural setting or environment constituting a distinct area or district within the City having special character or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value. Since the HPC has determined the property has historic value and has added it to the Inventory, proposed alterations to or demolition of the structure would require HPC approval. Appeal by Property Owner Per City Code Section 13- 20.060(a), the owner is appealing the HPC decision to the Planning Commission. The decision made by the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council per City Code Section 13- 20.060(b). A letter dated January 19, 2007 from the appellant states that the structure was not constructed until 1947, after any person associated with the lumber industry was connected to the property. Additionally, the owner has pointed out that other homes in the neighborhood have been altered and he has altered the exterior appearance of the structures on the subject property. Therefore, some of the current materials are not original. A supplemental letter from the architectural historian addresses the local criteria, stating that persons associated with the property have not made a significant contribution to local history. And while the first known owners of the property, the Wood family, may be of historic significance to Saratoga, they had already sold the property to the Derby family and were not involved with the construction of the structures. Neighbor Notification Neighbors within a 500 -foot radius of the subject property were noticed for this public hearing. Staff has not received any comments at the time of composing this staff report. 4 Application No. 07 -207; 14451 Oak Place Determination by Planning Commission Staff recommends Planning Commission make a motion to adopt one of the two below options and request staff to place a resolution reflecting this motion on the agenda for the next available Planning Commission hearing: 1. Uphold the appeal by the owner and thereby overturn the decision made by HPC. The structure would not be placed on the Inventory and proposed alterations (or demolition) of structures on the parcel would not require review by the HPC. 2. Deny the appeal and uphold the decision made by the HPC. The structure would be placed on the Inventory and proposed alterations (or demolition) would be subject to HPC review. ATTACHMENTS 1. City handout on procedures for historic structures 2. Demolition Permit Application 3. Minutes from December 12, 2006 HPC meeting. 4. Affidavit of mailing notices, public hearing notice, mailing labels 5. Materials from Appellant: a. Letter from property owner dated January 19, 2007 b. Letter from Archives and Architecture dated January 16, 2007 c. Building permit dated July 16, 1947 d. DPR523 form dated November 29, 2006 e. Letter from Archives and Architecture dated November 29, 2006 5 Attachment 1 lncorporai.ed October 22., 1956 G f E VE. i F SARA TOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 %)71,15T- 'c C/ r11\ (408) 868 -1200 MEMBERS: Stem .Sogosian Kathleen King Norman !line Nick Streit Ann Waitonsmith PROCEDURES FOR HISTORIC STRUCTURES The City of Saratoga requires all project applicants to provide information regarding the age of the existing structure. If the structure is over 50 years old, it may be historically significant. The City of Saratoga requires that the applicant hire a Certified Historic Architect to review the history of the structure (see attached list of Historic Architects) if the applicant is proposing any major modifications to the structure or is proposing it to be demolished. If a Certified Historic Architect deems the structure significant, the proposed modifications or demolition of the property would be subject to the California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA]. CEQA states that an impact to an historic resource is an impact to the environment. CEQA Section 15331 allows the modification of the structure to be exempt from the CEQA process if it meets the Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Properties. This exemption does not include demolition. CEQA Article 5 Section 15061. (3) Requires projects conduct an environmental study under the following general rule: "The activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects, which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment." CEQA Section 15064.5 states what constitutes a historic resource. If The City of Saratoga feels that there may be an historic resource it is the responsibility of the applicant to hire a Historic Architect to determine historical significance of the building and if required prepare an environmental study in conjunction with the proposed alteration or demolition of the structure. Public agencies must .treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates it is not historically or culturally significant which can be demonstrated by a report from a Certified Historic Architect. The City of Saratoga's Municipal Code Section 13- 10.050 states that the City of Saratoga's Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) is responsible for reviewing and commenting upon all applications for building, demolition, grading or tree removal permits involving work to be performed upon or within a designated historic landmark, heritage lane or historic district, and all applications for tentative map approval, rezoning, building site approval, use permit, variance approval, design review or other approval pertaining to or significantly affecting any heritage resource. The Commission's comments shall be forwarded to the City agency or department processing the application within thirty days after receiving the request for such comments. If the structure is over 50 years old it may e require ond Tuesday of every month. applicants proposal. The HPC meets the are available at the City of Saratoga Planning Counter. For further information please contact the Heritage Preservation Commission's Staff Liaison John Livingstone at 408.868.1231. Other recommended resources are as follows: State Office of Historic Preservation hhtp: /ohp.parks.ca.gov Attachment 2 DIMOLC17ON PERMIT CBECKLIST may ism a demolition 1.0 as apD1' t The City of Saratoga De the following departments ap l Of when cl Obta sal signature d meted and return this from Ob�i�+ to the Saratoga noun Department. to City °MMarskina pig D pan'tlent 13777 Fruitva{e Avenue, Saratoga, CA (408)8684 Pacific Cyan and Electric Company (4o) 725 -3Blaney, C N CA !—''5'— be Saratoga a ty B1 SaratOP. CA 14330 (408) 867 -9QO 3 County of Santa Clara Fire 14100 VVmchestor B�•> CA (408) 376.4010 [se Wei Valley &vitiation CA NOB, (4010 31 O C Saiiitatinn District 20065 Stevens Creek Blvd, Curtin°, CA (408) 253.7071 f Bay Arca Mr Quest' went Uiap'id 7' lIT ask! Required 939 Street, San Francisco, CA (415) 771 1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPIRTY TO DENIM 1111 �i�k t4,c Address R -.....________±.1 J of Construction p, y/C cation Attachment 3 City of Saratoga HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES Date: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 8:30 a.m. Place: Warner Hutton House, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Type: Regular Meeting I. Routine Organization A. Roll Call PRESENT: Commissioners Gomersall, Kellond, Louden, Marra, McCarty, Chair Koepernik and Vice Chair Wyman. ABSENT: None. GUESTS: Ms. Nancy Anderson, Mr. Darrell Dukes, Ms. Cathleen Casey Coakley. STAFF PRESENT: Assistant City Manager Barbara Powell, Community Development Director John Livingstone, Public Works Director John Cherbone, Engineer Iveta Harvancik, Planner Shweta Bhatt. B. Approval of minutes from November 14, 2006 meeting Approved 7 -0. C. Posting of Agenda Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda was posted on December 07, 2006 Staff announced this item. D. Oral Written Communication Any member of the public may address the Commission about any matter not on the agenda for this meeting for up to three minutes. Commissioners may not comment on the matter but may choose to place the topic on a future agenda. Information Sharing Motions E. Oral Communications Historic Preservation Commission direction to Staff Instruction to staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. None. II. Old Business A. National Registry Saratoga Landmark Plaques Item discussed. Commissioner Louden spoke briefly regarding the current design. The Commission discussed alternatives and approved the design with a large City seal in center by a 7 -0 vote. Chair Koepernik offered to obtain bids. B. Discuss Mustard Walk 2007 Item discussed. Ms. Nancy Anderson (Mustard Walk Event Coordinator) gave an update on proposed activities and informed the Commission that she and Chair Koepernik will be requesting funds for the event from City Council at its December 20, 2006 meeting. The Commission decided to schedule a special meeting on January 04, 2007 at 9 am to discuss this topic further. C. Discuss proposed path around orchard Item discussed. Director Cherbone commented that the decision before the Commission involves deciding whether or not a path is wanted, the route for the path, and the materials that the path will be composed of. This item will be discussed further at subsequent meetings. I11. New Business A. 8:30 am Site Visit 14451 Oak Place Determine whether or not existing home is historically significant Site visit completed. The property owner, Mr. Darrell Dukes, made a short presentation. Commissioner Marra commented that the home appears to be compatible with the style and overall appearance of the neighborhood. Additionally, given the association with the Foothill Club and the eclectic architectural style, the property should be added to the inventory. Commissioner Gomersall concurred with Commissioner Marra and added that the property appears historic particularly given the detached garage is older. The applicant noted that many homes in the neighborhood have been altered and remodeled. Director Livingstone clarified that the decision made by HPC should focus on the historical value of the structure instead of the characteristics of the neighborhood. Commissioner Kellond commented that he sees some of the history associated with the structure but does not share some of the same sentiments as other commissioners. Chair Koepernik said that he does believe it has local significance given its association with both the lumber industry and the foothill club. Commissioner McCarty added that she also believes the structure has historic merit. Staff clarified that the Commissioner would need to select at least one criteria (not two) to add the structure to the City's inventory. Commissioner Kellond asked staff why the structure was never on the inventory to begin with. Director Livingstone responded by stating that the City has never done a comprehensive inventory. Commissioner Marra commented that he believed the structure met criteria "e" listed in the City Code. Commissioner Gomersall added criteria "b." The motion to consider the property historic and add it to the City's inventory based on criteria "b" and "e" was passed by a 6 -1 vote (Kellond). B. Discuss heritage orchard agreement (Informational only) Item discussed. Assistant City Manager Barbara Powell presented objectives of the updated agreement and answered questions from the Commission and the public. C. Discuss orchard sign Item discussed. Chair Koepernik commented that the corner where the library sign is located is prominent. Commissioner Kellond agreed. Commissioners Gomersall and McCarty agreed with each other in that they both liked the sign proposed to Council in December 2005. Commissioner Kellond volunteered to propose a possible design for the next HPC meeting. Vice Chair Wyman offered to follow -up with the library and request comments of library staff. D. Discuss landscaping for Historic Park and appoint HPC representatives Item discussed. Commissioner Marra agreed to attend an upcoming meeting with Saratoga Historic Foundation representatives. E. Discuss joint meeting with City Council on Wednesday, January 3 2007 Item discussed. The Commission decided to schedule a special meeting on December 21, 2006 at 9 am to discuss this topic further and formalize a work plan. IV. Pending Items A. Historic Resources Inventory B. McWilliams House Renovation C. National Register Applications D. Adopt a Tree Program for the Heritage Orchard E. Update Heritage Ordinance F. Review Oak Street as a Heritage Lane G. Review additional content for Heritage Resources webpage H. Historic Preservation Data Base I. Review list of properties with structures 50 years and over in age V. Adjournment Adjourn to 8:30 a.m. Tuesday, January 09, 2007, Warner Hutton House, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. Attachment 4 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 15` day of January 2007, that I deposited 87 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: addresses shown above. enise Kaspar Advanced Listing Services AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES APN: 397 -22 -041 Address: 14451 Oak Place that on said day there was regular communication. by United States Mail to the 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 14 day of February 2007, 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: Appeal 07 -207; 14451 Oak Place APPELLANT: Dukes (Property Owner) APN: 397 -22 -041 DESCRIPTION: The applicant is appealing a decision by the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC). The HPC determined the subject property is historically significant. 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, February 05, 2007. 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. Shweta Bhatt Assistant Planner (408) 868 -1266 January 13, 2007 500' Ownership Listing Prepared for: 397 -22 -041 DARRELL E ANGELIN DUKES 14451 OAK PL SARATOGA CA 95070 397 -21 -009 DOLORES SMITH OR CURRENT OWNER 14560 WESTCOTT DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5934 397 -21 -025 WILLIAM C PERRY OR CURRENT OWNER 14529 WESTCOTT DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5934 397 -21 -029 RAJENDRA MODI OR CURRENT OWNER 20345 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -5926 397 -22 -003 ROBERT K ANNE LOUDEN OR CURRENT OWNER 14494 OAK PL SARATOGA CA 95070 -5929 397 -22 -006 SASAN TEYMOURI 19730 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6449 397 -22 -027 RICHARD B SINGLETARY OR CURRENT OWNER 20363 PARK PL SARATOGA CA 95070 -5936 397 -22 -031 SARATOGA FOOTHILL CLUB PO BOX 2233 SARATOGA CA 95070 -0233 397 -22 -035 RICHARD MARY SCHUPPERT OR CURRENT OWNER 20350 ORCHARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -5937 397 -21 -011 MARIANNE MARDESICH OR CURRENT OWNER 14571 WESTCOTT DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5934 397 -21 -026 TERI LEE OR CURRENT OWNER 14531 WESTCOTT DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5934 397 -21 -030 MICHAEL D BEVERLY GOLDMAN OR CURRENT OWNER 20360 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -5973 397 -22 -004 BRADFORD J BOSTON OR CURRENT OWNER 14490 OAK PL SARATOGA CA 95070 -5929 397 -22 -007 THOMAS W C DAVIES OR CURRENT OWNER 14478 OAK PL SARATOGA CA 95070 -5929 397 -22 -028 THOMAS A GALVIN OR CURRENT OWNER 20369 PARK PL SARATOGA CA 95070 -5936 397 -22 -033 PETER CHEMERIS OR CURRENT OWNER 20411 PARK PL SARATOGA CA 95070 -5977 397 -22 -036 RICHARD A JEAN YOUNG OR CURRENT OWNER 20340 ORCHARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -5937 397 -21 -021 JOHN E ROBIN MATHIAS OR CURRENT OWNER 14527 WESTCOTT DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5934 397 -21 -028 FRED MARY SCHUMACHER OR CURRENT OWNER 14561 WESTCOTT DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5934 397 -22 -002 KRIS A CAROL SOWOLLA 219 JACKSON ST LOS GATOS CA 95030 -7119 397 -22 -005 NORMAN B JEFFERY PO BOX 453 SARATOGA CA 95071 -0453 397 -22 -008 NEAL J M SMITH OR CURRENT OWNER 14474 OAK PL SARATOGA CA 95070 -5929 397 -22 -029 BRIAN MICHEL STYSLINGER PO BOX 505 SARATOGA CA 95071 -0505 397 -22 -034 DAVID J KATHLEEN LYNCH OR CURRENT OWNER 20360 ORCHARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -5937 397 -22 -037 RAY RUSSO 2888 FORBES AVE SANTA CLARA CA 95051 -5667 397 -22 -039 `GREGORY A DENARI OR CURRENT OWNER 20300 ORCHARD RD O ZATOGA CA 95070 -5937 397 -22 -044 SARATOGA FEDERATED CHURCH 14370 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5953 397 -22 -049 WILLIAM F BRECK OR CURRENT OWNER 20375 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -5910 397 -22 -052 ERIC J HUMMEL OR CURRENT OWNER 14473 OAK PL SARATOGA CA 95070 -5928 397 -22 -056 ANITA SCHILLER OR CURRENT OWNER 14470 OAK PL SARATOGA CA 95070 -5929 0 22 -060 DAVID M SOLOMON PO BOX 3028 SARATOGA CA 95070 -1028 397 -23 -001 JOSEPH M DONOHOE OR CURRENT OWNER 14441 OAK PL SARATOGA CA 95070 -5969 397 -23 -004 THOMAS F JANET GREENLEAF OR CURRENT OWNER 20315 ORCHARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -5938 397 -23 -009 TO H CRISTINA KIM OR CURRENT OWNER 20306 LA PALOMA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5960 Ali?3-012 impliAEL JENNIFER FILICE 16111 VIEWFIELD RD MONTE SERENO CA 95030 -3140 397 -22 -040 JEROME A SMITH PO BOX 3093 SARATOGA CA 95070 -1093 397 -22 -047 PAUL H TERRI SINGER OR CURRENT OWNER 20320 ORCHARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -5937 397 -22 -050 FRANK LETHA MATAS OR CURRENT OWNER 20385 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -5910 397 -22 -053 DALE E CHERYL MARTLAGE OR CURRENT OWNER 14475 OAK PL SARATOGA CA 95070 -5928 397 -22 -058 MICHAEL HUSTON OR CURRENT OWNER 14466 OAK PL SARATOGA CA 95070 -5929 397 -22 -061 LEVENT HEDIYE GUN OR CURRENT OWNER 20385 PARK PL SARATOGA CA 95070 -5936 397 -23 -002 MAUREEN ROGAN OR CURRENT OWNER 20281 ORCHARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -5938 397 -23 -005 MELISSA B ROBERT RYAN OR CURRENT OWNER 20331 ORCHARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -5938 397 -23 -010 CHARLES W MARIANNE SWAN PO BOX 281 SARATOGA CA 95071 -0281 397 -23 -014 GEORGE E NANCY KIRK OR CURRENT OWNER 20270 LA PALOMA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5960 397 -22 -041 DARRELL E ANGELIN DUKES 1156N 4TH ST SAN JOSE CA 95112 -4900 397 -22 -048 WALTON JENNIFER SHORT OR CURRENT OWNER 20312 ORCHARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -5937 397 -22 -051 MITCH TRACEY CUTLER OR CURRENT OWNER 14480 OAK PL SARATOGA CA 95070 -5929 397 -22 -054 ALAN V KING OR CURRENT OWNER 14472 OAK PL SARATOGA CA 95070 -5929 397 -22 -059 MATTHEW BANNICK OR CURRENT OWNER 14458 OAK PL SARATOGA CA 95070 -5929 397 -22 -062 ROBERT M WILLIAMS OR CURRENT OWNER 20379 PARK PL SARATOGA CA 95070 -5936 397 -23 -003 DAVIS FAMILY 2006 TRUST OR CURRENT OWNER 20301 ORCHARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -5938 397 -23 -006 PHILIP H DOLORES STEWARD OR CURRENT OWNER 20345 ORCHARD RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -5938 397 -23 -011 JAVONNE HARWARD OR CURRENT OWNER 20294 LA PALOMA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5960 397 -23 -015 JETTE GARLAND OR CURRENT OWNER 20264 LA PALOMA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5960 397 -23 -016 JANE EVANS -RYAN OR CURRENT OWNER 20260 LA PALOMA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5960 397 -23 -020 JOAN BOSE OR CURRENT OWNER 20289 LA PALOMA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5959 397 -23 -042 TEDD E FARAONE OR CURRENT OWNER 14361 LUTHERIA WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -5914 397 -23 -046' NORA M MASON OR CURRENT OWNER 20282 LA PALOMA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5960 397 -24 -003 CHRISTOPHER K SUZANNE KINN OR CURRENT OWNER 20230 LA PALOMA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5913 397 -24 -008 EMERSON 2006 OR CURRENT OWNER 20221 LA PALOMA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5912 397 -24 -012 ROBERT E JULIE MARSHALL OR CURRENT OWNER 20253 LA PALOMA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5991 397 -24 -040 BOBBY E CHARLOTTE BRAMLETT OR CURRENT OWNER 14440 OAK PL SARATOGA CA 95070 -5929. 397 -24 -049 ROBERT M WILLIAMS OR CURRENT OWNER 20201 LA PALOMA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5912. 397 -24 -079 JESSE CHEN OR CURRENT OWNER 20010 SPAICH CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -5992 397 -23 -017 WARREN B SHEILA HEID OR CURRENT OWNER 20250 LA PALOMA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5960 397 -23 -021 WILLIAM K BARBARA BOND OR CURRENT OWNER 20295 LA PALOMA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5959 397 -23 -043 HAMID LOTFIZADEH 21820 VIA REGINA SARATOGA CA 95070 -4845 397 -23 -047 ASHISH A THANAWALA OR CURRENT OWNER 20276 LA PALOMA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5960 397 -24 -004 ANTHONY CATHERINE WALIA OR CURRENT OWNER 20220 LA PALOMA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5913 397 -24 -009 TELLEP TRUST OR CURRENT OWNER 20231 LA PALOMA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5912 397 -24 -013 WILLIAM E VICKY KAISER OR CURRENT OWNER 20261 LA PALOMA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5991 397 -24 -041 NAREN S PRABHU OR CURRENT OWNER 14434 OAK PL SARATOGA CA 95070 -5929 397 -24 -070 JEFFREY KUHOO EDSON 14035 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5437 397 -24 -080 GWONG Y LEE OR CURRENT OWNER 20018 SPAICH CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -5992 397 -23 -018 KARDACH TRUST OR CURRENT OWNER 20271 LA PALOMA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5959 397 -23 -022 EUGENE ZAMBETTI PO BOX 34 SARATOGA CA 95071 -0034 397 -23 -044 BRYAN KATRINA ROSEVEAR OR CURRENT OWNER 20283 LA PALOMA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5959 397 -24 -001 JACK M LOIS PARAVAGANA OR CURRENT OWNER 14452 OAK PL SARATOGA CA 95070 -5929 397 -24 -007 JAMES F SUSAN JORDAN 25585 SHAFTER WAY CARMEL CA 93923 -8220 397 -24 -011 JOHN R HOWMILLER OR CURRENT OWNER 20247 LA PALOMA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5991 397 -24 -014 DENNIS STIRM OR CURRENT OWNER 14366 LUTHERIA WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -5915 397 -24 -048 JAGADISH S BANDHOLE OR CURRENT OWNER 20195 LA PALOMA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5912 397 -24 -071 THOMAS GALVIN OR CURRENT OWNER 20200 LA PALOMA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5913 397 -24 -102 JUNG -HERNG CHANG OR CURRENT OWNER 20075 SPAICH CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -5992 397 -37 -009 DAVID K LAU OR CURRENT OWNER 14573 CARNELIAN GLEN CT ATOGA CA 95070 -5907 397 -37 -010 TIMOTHY J DIANA REILLEY OR CURRENT OWNER 14595 CARNELIAN GLEN CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -5907 CITY OF SARATOGA ATTN: SHWETA BHATT 13777 FRUITVALE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 Attachment 5 City of Saratoga Attn: Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Commissioners: Darrell Dukes 1156 North Fourth Street San Jose, CA 95112 (408) 288 -9800 BEM ti JAN 2 9 2007 J CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT January 19, 2007 Re: Application 07 -207; Appeal of HPC Decision 07 -186 14451 Oak Place, Saratoga Please accept this letter as my appeal to the Historical Preservation Commissions (HPC) decision to consider the property located at 14451 Oak Place historical and to add it to the city inventory based on criteria "b e" passed by the committee on December 12, 2006. 1. My expert Leslie Dill, an Architectural Historian has evaluated the structure and her report is attached. 2. Also attached is the Santa Clara County Building Permit for construction of the original structure dated 7/16/1947 in the amount of $2,000 by the owner Mrs. Kidd. The dwelling is 890 square feet with 210 square foot, single car garage and a small guest room. 3. The commission felt the property had some significance with the Lumber industry and the Foothill club in this decision. I disagree completely as the house was not built until 1947. The structure is not constructed of redwood and the Foothill club is a block distant from the subject property. Mr. Wood sold the vacant lot in 1923 and had no further connection with the property. The subsequent owners were not significant persons in local, county, state or national history. 4. All of the other neighborhood houses on Orchard Road and Oak Place have been remodeled and changed. I have changed the windows, front door, front door overhang, both porches (front and rear) and the roofing material. All the landscape has been completely changed including the brick path. The house has been significantly altered from the 1947 structure. R spectfully Submitted, arrell D kes Enclosure r.1 if 1 -0 November 29, 2006 Rev. January 16, 2007 Darrell Dukes 15329 Peach Hill Road Saratoga CA 95070 ARCHIVEeS 0 ARCHITECTURE RE: Historical Evaluation for 14451 Oak Place, Saratoga, CA (APN: 397 -22 -041) Dear Mr. Dukes: HERITAGE RESOURCE PARTNERS PO Box 1332 San Jose CA 95109 408.369.5683 VOX 408.228.0762 FAX 4110, 1 111 Please consider this letter a statement of findings considering the potential architectural and historical significance of the property at 14451 Oak Place in Saratoga, California. This letter outlines our evaluation of the property, based on the definition of historical significance pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Preliminary Review of Projects and Conduct of Initial Study, to determine the significance of impacts to potential historical resources according to section 15064.5 of the California Code of Regulations. The historical documentation of the property and elaboration of the evaluation are found in the attached California Department of Parks and Recreation Form 523. For the purposes of CEQA, the City of Saratoga is required to consider historical significance if a property meets the criteria for listing on the California Register. Generally, properties that are at least 50 years old are considered historic and require some level of evaluation by the agency. The City of Saratoga utilizes the research, evaluation, and findings of qualified consultants to help them in determining whether a property might be historically significant in terms of CEQA. The property has not been previously surveyed for or recorded on any local, state, or national registers. We do not believe the property qualifies for listing on the California or National Registers; and that the building does not embody distinctive architectural character or illustrate significant associations with people or event to be considered a local resource under City of Saratoga criteria. Development of this property, to include alteration to the original design would not appear to cause an adverse impact to the environment, as defined by CEQA, because the property is not historically significant according to the minimum requirements for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. With regard to the potential designation of the property according to Saratoga's Criteria, the buildings on the parcel do not embody associations with persons of significance. The Derby family, who built the original house by 1930, Marguerite W. Kidd, the owner who modified the house in 1948, and the current owners, who further altered the house in the 1980s, did not make contributions to the history of their community in such a way that would make the house or detached garage historically significant based on their association. The 14451 Oak Place, Saratoga, California 2 Historical Evaluation Revised Woods, previous owners of the land, are significant in a number of ways to the history of Saratoga; however, the Wood family is not associated with the development of the property in any way other than the original establishment of the property lines, which occurred upon the sale of the property to the Derbys in 1923. The buildings at 14451 Oak Place are not associated with any significant events or cultural history in the City, and the surrounding patterns of historical neighborhood development, such as the uniform subdivision and development of the parcels on the east side of Orchard Road, are not embodied in the parcel or buildings at this address. Although the house's modest size and simple form corresponds in some ways to an earlier era of Saratoga's development, the house's design is not representative of a particular era or style of construction; its original Minimal Traditional style was modified over time and lacks historic integrity in its form, materials, and detailing. We conclude that it is not eligible for designation utilizing the City's seven criteria. Please do not hesitate to contact us with questions or comments. Sincerely, Leg Dill, rc ARCHIVES ARCHITECTURE Page 2 I HOiJiiSNI I Pour No Concrete Until Above Has Been Signed I 1 Do Not Wire 'Until Above Has Been Signed I I ROUGH WIRING 1I 0 Y J"r"� I Cover No Walls, Until Above Has Been Signed' a iva ROUGH PLUMBING I LATH. CORNER BTRIPPINQ —I LOCATION. EXCAVATION• t FORMS. MATERIAL c 0 tr. 8 11110118 0 t en 4 a' 4, CO 0 ct r•x4 Ci) CI 0 II 9 40 —C MIN a. 0:1 ifprnla The, Resources Agency Primary AND RECREATION HRI:# Trinorrtial Other Listings Review Code Reviewer NRHP Status Code Date Page 1 of 8 P1. Other Identifier: *Resource Name or (Assigned by recorder) Derby Cottage 'P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County Santa Clara and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad Cupertino Date 1991 T 7S R 2W; Mount Diablo B.M. c. Address 14451 Oak Place City Saratoga Zip 95070 d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone 10S; 586264 mE/ 4123761 mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) Assessor' Parcel Number: 397 -22 -041; West corner of Oak Place and Orchard Road. 'P3a Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) This property includes two vernacular residential buildings: an "L shaped main house and a separate, rectangular one -car garage that extends into a very small, attached cottage. Both are one story. The parcel is located in a residential neighborhood that includes a variety of house styles and ages. The property is on the western corner of Oak Place and Orchard Road, and a paved service alley runs parallel with Orchard Road along the southwest property line, so streets surround the parcel on three sides. The buildings are set to the side of the lot, providing a large open yard space to the north and east; the yard includes a number of mature evergreens, oaks and fruit trees. The house faces southeast, toward Oak Place, and the garage is tucked in the western corner of the lot, facing southwest toward the alley. The parcel is enclosed by a picket fence. (Continued on page 2, DPR523L) *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2 Single Family Property *P4 Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (View, date, accession View facing west, Nov. 2006 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Intensive *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none None *P8. Date Constructed/Age and. Sources: Historic Prehistoric Both c1930 (Census records) *1 Owner and Address: Darrell Dukes 1156 N FOURTH ST SAN JOSE CA 95112 -4944 *P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address) L. Dill J. Kusz Archives Architecture PO Box 1332 San Jose CA 95109 -1332 `P9. Date Recorded: 11/29/06 Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling State Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List) Page *Recorded by DPR523L 2 of 8 Leslie Dill Jessica Kusz Primary HRI Trinomial *Resource Name or (Assigned by recorder) *Date Derby Cottage 11/29/06 Continuation Update (P3a Description continued from page 1, DPR523A) The main house is very modest in its design; its compact footprint, moderate -pitch gabled roof, limited trim, and raised floor are typical of the Minimal Traditional style that was popular immediately before and after World War II. There are some materials that could be earlier than mid twentieth century, such as interior softwood flooring; however, the house is currently a composition from the 1940s with some alterations that date from the 1980s. The house's asymmetrical form includes a rectangular gabled main mass with a smaller cross gabled rear addition. The addition is offset slightly, creating a modified "L shaped footprint with the outer corner missing. The house is raised on a pony wall and has a small, cantilevered Neo- colonial front portico and simple deck -like front porch that the current owner designed and added within the last twenty -five years. A section of roof extends from the center of the rear elevation to cover a small replacement porch and another small section of roof has been extended over a small, added utility closet. The roof is covered in composition shingles; however, original wood shingles are visible beneath them. The eaves are boxed with applied metal gutters. The soffit consists of flat boards, and there is a thin, shaped crown molding under the soffit and wide ogee trim along the gable bargeboards. The horizontal lap siding is typical of the mid twentieth- century, but the corner boards have been added recently. The concrete foundation is modern (post WWII), with crisp workmanship and standard girders visible under the house. Underfloor venting is provided by a combination of metal screens and screened access hatches built of wood. Attic venting consists of rectangular wooden vents detailed to match the window surrounds. The house fenestration consists primarily of six over -six, double -hung units placed individually and in pairs; there are also two prominent pairs of nine -lite casements at the front (east) corner of the house. Although the rear wing has mostly one -lite windows, including two pairs of casements and two one over -one double -hung windows, the southwest elevation of the rear wing includes a very small four over -four double -hung unit and a smaller 2x3 -lite casement. The original windows have flat board trim with an architrave band on their sides and header, slender, rounded sills, and shaped aprons. These windows have wood framed screens and dog -eared upper sash. The one -lite windows in the addition have flat board surrounds and aprons; two of the main windows have this trim as well, apparently replacement work. The windows were reportedly repaired, including the installation of some custom replacement sash, within the last twenty years, but the original design and use of materials appears to have been matched. The front porch and portico were constructed about 1980; the porch is a simple design, with one end incorporating a bench (a salvaged church pew) and the balustrade being an extremely simple post- and -rail design. An arched, cantilevered hood covers the front door; this roof is supported on carved brackets. The front door has six raised panels and original bronze hardware with a decorative escutcheon plate and knob. The rear steps are a similar, deck -like design with post- and -rail balustrade. Diagonal braces support the rear porch roof. Interiors: Some historic material is evident on the interior of the residence and confirms the house's age, but there are no architecturally significant features. There are built -in shelving units, but these are vernacular and without distinctive character; the wall -hung lavatory in the bathroom is historic; simple flat -board side casings are topped by a slightly thicker and wider flat -board header trim. Doors are single -panel with vintage door hardware (that matches the front door). A recessed fireplace has a plain brick surround. The flooring is unusual for the period of construction; it is painted softwood, likely fir. A seam in the flooring indicates that a wall was removed at some point, opening up the floor plan. The detached one -car garage has a board and batten exterior, including a board -and- batten garage door. Its moderately pitched gable roof steps up slightly to the rear of the garage, where a wider board and batten -clad cottage is offset and attached. The cottage entry faces southwest. The cottage windows are a mixture of one over -one and six over -six double hung units; their interior trim matches the main house, and their exterior trim matches the addition of the main house. The garage has a side door that faces the house; it has a single lite viewing window over one flat panel. The structure includes a concrete slab floor in the garage, widely spaced studs and a single top plate; skip sheathing. The roof has been replaced. The interior of the cottage includes softwood flooring that matches the main house, further illustrating that the cottage and house were either built or modified at the same time. Required information e Resources Agency S TAND REC Primary HRI# Trinomial Page 3 of 8 DPR523J *Resource Name or (Assigned by recorder) Derby Cottage *Map Name: USGS Cupertino *Scale: n. t s *Date of Map: 1991 4471 IMES 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 km 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 mi UTM 10 586180E 4123751N (NAD27) USGS CUPERTINO (CA) Quadrangle Projection is UTM Zone 10 NAD83 Datum M M =14.95 G =0.588 Required information e Resources Agency Primary EKS AN RECREATION HRI AND ABJECT RECORD Page 4 of 8 B1. Historic Name: none B2. Common Name: none B3. Original use: Single family residential B4. Present Use: Single family residential *B5. Architectural Style: Minimal Traditional *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) Construction c1930. Current configuration dates to 1947 permits; some earlier materials may be extant. Alterations within the last thirty years include new front and rear porches, window and trim repair, installation of brick pathways and picket fence. *B7. Moved? No Yes ['unknown Date: n/a Original Location: n/a *B8. Related Features: Detached garage /cottage B9a Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Unknown *B10. Significance: Theme Architecture Area Saratoga Period of Significance n/ a Property Type Residential Applicable Criteria None (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) The subject property sited at 14451 Oak Place in Saratoga is on land that was once part of Quito Rancho. In 1841, Mexican governor Juan B. Alvarado granted three square leagues of land (over 13,000 acres) known as Quito Rancho to Jose Noriega and his father -in -law Jose Zenon Fernandez. In 1844, Jose Noriega ceded all of his interest in his rancho to Ignacio Alviso. In 1848, Ignacio Alviso died and his portion of the Quito grant was willed to his grandson, Manuel Alviso. In 1858, Jose Ramon Arguello, his mother Soledad Arguello and business partner S. M. Mezes became possessors of the remaining eight- ninths of the rancho. In 1858, the property was acquired by Jose Ramon Arguello, his mother, Soledad Arguello and a business partner, S. M. Mezes. The Arguello family was involved in real estate development and sold many parcels to interested farmers and ranchers. In the early 1870s, Levi Crane owned the land on which the property is situated and later sold it to rancher and fruit growers Seth W. and Susie Weed in 1883 (Deeds 70:27). The Weed family owned the land from 1883 until 1909. After Mr. Weed's death, his widow Susie sold the property to George and Caroline Wood on June 1, 1909 (Deeds 347:58). Wood purchased this land along with six and a half acres nearby. George Wood, a lumber dealer originally from Minnesota, commissioned William H. Weeks to build a Georgian style house on the Los Gatos Saratoga Road, calling it 'Woodleigh.' (Continued on page 5, DPR523L) B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) None *B12. References: (References on page 6, DPR523L) B13. Remarks: Proposed alteration and addition or possible demolition *B14. Evaluator: Leslie Dill *Date of Evaluation: 11/29/06 (This space reserved for official comments.) *NRHP Status Code 6z *Resource Name or# (Assigned by recorder) Derby Cottage Primary HRI Trinomial Page 5 of 8 'Recorded by Leslie Dill Jessica Kusz *Date *Resource Name or (Assigned by recorder) Derby Cottage 11/29/06 Continuation Update (B10 Significance continued from page 4, DPR523B) Both George and Caroline Wood were community leaders and Mrs. Wood was one of the donors of land for the Foothill Club. In the early 1900s, around the time when Wood purchased the land, residential development in Saratoga was booming. The small lumber and ranching town was evolving into a vacation destination and a `streetcar suburb' for San Jose. This was spurred on by the development of the San Jose -Los Gatos Interurban Railroad (later the Peninsular Railway Co.), which opened in 1904. The railroad allowed residents to travel quickly between Saratoga and San Jose and as far away as Stanford. Surrounding the property at 14451 Oak Place were two large subdivisions created soon after the introduction of the Interurban Railroad. In 1908, the land adjacent to the subject property to the southwest was subdivided into the Saratoga Park Lots by David C. Bell. The land adjacent to the subject property to the northeast was also subdivided into La Paloma Terrace in 1915, which was owned by T.S. Montgomery. Wood's land was not formally subdivided but instead the parcels were created by deed over time to specific individuals. On June 27, 1923, George Wood sold the property to Mary Derby who was married to Oscar E. Derby (OR 31:326). The Derbys were also sold the adjoining lot to the rear of 14451 Oak Place. Oscar and Mary Derby, who were both born in California, lived in the East Bay first in Oakland and later in 1920 in Berkeley. Oscar Derby was a lumber dealer and was a partner with his father, E.M. Derby under the name E.M. Derby Sons. E.M. Derby Sons operated as early as the 1860s in San Francisco, Alameda and in Brooklyn (now called East Oakland). Oscar and Mary lived in the house at 14451 Oak Place by 1930 along with their daughter, Marian. Although the exact construction date of the house is unclear, oral history and census records indicate that the house was constructed by 1930. Willys Peck, a local historian and newspaper writer /editor, who lived nearby as a young boy, recalls the small cottage on the property by the early 1930s. Census records indicate that by 1930 the Derbys were living on "Oak Way," which was an early name for Oak Place -a fact corroborated with neighbors known to live on Oak Place /Oak Way at the same time period. (This is not to be confused with Oak Street that is located on the other side of the Saratoga -Los Gatos Road and leads into Madronia Cemetery). The house may have been used as a second home for the Derby family, seeing as in 1930, Oscar was almost 70 years old and probably retired. Mary Derby died in October 19, 1945. On February 10, 1947, her estate was executed and she willed the property with the house to her daughter Marian Derby Alexander and the adjoining property to her son, Edward (OR 1435:107). Oscar moved to Contra Costa County where he died in 1951. At some point, Marian either purchased or was given the adjoining property that had been given to her brother, Edward. on April 18, 1947, Marian Derby Alexander sold both properties to Marguerite W. Kidd. Although Kidd owned the property for less than ten years, she made some major changes to the residence in 1947. A building permit taken out in July 1947 indicates an alteration and addition to an existing one -story building. Most likely, Kidd added onto the kitchen and enlarged the living room space of the residence during this time. Kidd also sold a portion of the adjoining property to Roy Vertrees on May 21, 1947 (OR 1434:585). On May 23, 1956, Kidd sold the property to Lloyd and Ethel Strickland. The Stricklands were from Canada and moved to Santa Monica by the 1940s. They only owned the property for a few years and in February 1962, sold the property to three sisters, Ruth and Ruby Faris and Marjorie Faris Digre (OR 5481: 248). The Faris family was originally from Kansas where their family was in the restaurant business. The twin sisters, Ruth and Ruby, moved to Saratoga in the mid -1950s and by the 1960s, operated the Happy Door Children's Shop on Big Basin Way. Later the sisters worked for a local physician at Crestview Medical lab for some time. Ruby Faris died October 3, 1964 and Margorie Faris Digre died a few weeks later on October 21, 1964. Ruth and her brother, Loyd, were willed the property and Ruth returned to Kansas. In November 1978, Loyd and his wife Helen sold the property to its current owners, Darrell E. Dukes and his wife, Angelin M. Dukes (E 166: 350). (Continued on page 6, DPR523L) Primary HRf# Trinomial Page 6 of 8 *Recorded by Leslie Dill Jessica Kusz *Resource Name or (Assigned by recorder) Derby Cottage *Date 11/29/06 Continuation Update (B10 Significance continued from page 4, DPR523B) EVALUATION The main house and detached garage on this property are not architecturally significant. The main house's compact footprint, moderate -pitch gabled roof, limited trim, and raised floor are reasonably representative of the Minimal Traditional style; however, the house has a mix of window types, altered porches and trim, so it does not clearly embody the style in a distinctive way. Also, specific, important character defining features are not original (e.g., the front portico is distinctive, but it of recent design and construction). The garage /cottage building is not a representative example of any particular style of architecture, and its form and detailing do not represent any widespread or local patterns of vernacular construction or development during the early- to mid twentieth century. Because of their lack of strong correlation with a particular style of architecture or significant patterns of vernacular design, the house and garage do not appear eligible for National Register listing under Criterion C or the California Register according to Criterion 3. The people associated with the house did not make a contribution to the history of their community in such a way that would make the house significant historically based on their association. The Oak Place property is not associated with any significant events or distinguished patterns of historical development. Therefore, the property would not be additionally eligible for the National or California Registers based on its association with personages or events or patterns, Criteria A, B and 1, 2, respectively. (B12 References continued from page 4, DPR523B) San Jose City Directories, 1910 -1978. Los Gatos City Directories 1960 -1983 Santa Clara County Clerk- Recorder, Deeds, Maps. Thompson and West Atlas of Santa Clara County, 1876. US Federal Census, 1870, 1880, 1910, 1920, 1930. Cunningham, Florence R. Saratoga's First Hundred Years. San Jose: Harland -Young Press, 1967. City of Saratoga. Saratoga's Heritage. Saratoga: City of Saratoga, 1993. Garrod, R.V. Saratoga Story. R.V. Garrod, 1962. Peck, Willys. Saratoga Stereopticon: A Magic Lantern of Memory. Cupertino: California History Center Foundation, 1998. Maps: 1859 Plat of the Quito Rancho. Surveyed by C.C. Tracy. La Paloma Terrace Subdivision Map. 1915 Saratoga Park Lots Subdivision Map. 1908 Willys Peck, oral communication. November 2006 Warren Heid, oral communication. November 2006. Irma The Resources AgefPy t7 fJ i?ARKS AND RECREATION Primary HRI:# Trinomial Page 7 of 8 *Recorded by Leslie Dill Jessica Kusz *Resource Name or (Assigned by recorder) Derby Cottage *Date 11/29/06 Continuation Update Side of main house, view facing west Fireplace view, illustrating modernist interiors, view facing west 1 Page 8 of 8 *Recorded by Leslie Dill Jessica Kusz *Date Primary HRI Trinomial eiources Agency RECREATION *Resource Name or# (Assigned by recorder) Derby Cottage 11/29/06 Continuation Update NIfp Detached garage at Cottage attached to garage, view facing northwest November 29, 2006 Darrell Dukes 15329 Peach Hill Road Saratoga CA 95070 Dear Mr. Dukes: A R C H I V E 0 A R C H I T E C T U R E G t DEC ca,/ or SAMT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RE: Historical Evaluation for 14451 Oak Place, Saratoga, CA (APN: 397 -22 -041) HERITAGE RESOURCE PARTNERS PO Box 1332 San Jose CA 95 109 408.369.5683 VOX 408.228.0762 FAX www.archivesandarchitecture.com Please consider this letter a statement of findings considering the potential architectural and historical significance of the property at 14451 Oak Place in Saratoga, California. This letter outlines our evaluation of the property, based on the definition of historical significance pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Preliminary Review of Projects and Conduct of Initial Study, to determine the significance of impacts to potential historical resources according to section 15064.5 of the California Code of Regulations. The historical documentation of the property and elaboration of the evaluation are found in the attached California Department of Parks and Recreation Form 523. For the purposes of CEQA, the City of Saratoga is required to consider historical significance if a property meets the criteria for listing on the California Register. Generally, properties that are at least 50 years old are considered historic and require some level of evaluation by the agency. The City of Saratoga utilizes the research, evaluation, and findings of qualified consultants to help them in determining whether a property might be historically significant m terms of CEQA. The property has not been previously surveyed for or recorded on any local, state, or national registers. We do not believe the property qualifies for listing on the California or National Registers; and that the building does not embody distinctive architectural character or illustrate significant associations with people or event to be considered a local resource under City of Saratoga criteria. Development of this property, to include alteration to the original design would not appear to cause an adverse impact to the environment, as defined by CEQA, because the property is not historically significant according to the minimum requirements for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources.