Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-28-2007 Planning Commission Packet,61 ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. APPLICATION #07 -017 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION SITE VISIT AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 3:30 p.m. PLACE: City Hall Parking Lot, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Site Visit Committee SITE VISITS WILL BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Aaggarwal 20865 Wardell Road 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. P:\PC SITE VISITS \Site Visits\2007\SVA 022707.doc CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, February 28, 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 February 14, 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 22, 2007 10 REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS: If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Resolution for Application #07 -207; 14451 Oak Place 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 /ADDRESS: #05 -035 (517 -08 -026) 20626 Komina Avenue: The applicant requests design review approval to construct a two -story, single family residence, including a basement and detached garage. The existing house was damaged by fire and will be demolished. The total floor area of the proposed residence and garage is 2,868 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. The lot size is approximately 7,817.6 square feet and the site is zoned R- 1- 10,000. (Heather Bradley/Deborah Ungo McCormick) 2. APPLICATION #06 -206 (403 -28 -069) NGLIEM, 18344 Baylor Avenue; The applicant requests Design Review Approval to remodel the first floor with an approximately 321 square -foot addition and construct a second -story addition consisting of approximately 753 square -feet. The total floor area of the proposed residence will be approximately 2,974 square- feet. The maximum. height of the proposed P:\PC Agendas\2007\Agn 022807.doc residence will not be higher than 26 -feet. The net lot size is 7,840 square -feet and the site is zoned R -1- 10,000. (Therese Schmidt) 3. APPLICATION #07 017 (366 57 001 002) Aaggarwal, 20865 Wardell Road; The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct a two -story single family residence with an attached garage, basement, swimming pool, and detached bathroom. The maximum height of the proposed residence will not be higher than 26 -feet. The net lot size is 1.2 -acres and the site is zoned Hillside Residential (HR). (Therese Schmidt) DIRECTORS ITEM: None COMMISSION ITEMS: None COMMUNICATIONS None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Wednesday, March 14, 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 22, 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 planninanu,saratoga.ca.us P:\PC Agendas\2007'Agn 022807.doc DATE: Wednesday, February 14, 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 Present: Commissioners Cappello, Hlava, Kundtz, Rodgers and Zhao Absent: Commissioner Nagpal Staff: Director John Livingstone, Associate Planner Therese Schmidt. Assistant Planner Shweta Bhatt and Assistant City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION 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 February 8, 2007. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular Meeting of January 24, 2007. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Zhao, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of January 24, 2007, were adopted with edits to pages 2, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10. (4- 0 -1 -1; Commissioners Nagpal was absent and Commissioner Cappello abstained) 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 February 14, 2007 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #07 -063 (397 -10 -020) Arramreddv, 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) Associate Planner Therese Schmidt presented the staff report as follows: Advised that the applicant is seeking approval of a Modification to an approved Design Review Approval granted by the Planning Commission on December 14, 2005. The original approval allowed the construction of a new single family detached structure consisting of one story. Explained that the property has since been sold to a new owner who is asking to add a basement, cabana and to make minor changes to the footprint of the structure. There is no proposed change to the overall design or materials. Reported that geotechnical clearance has been secured for the basement. Suggested that the project be found Categorically Exempt under CEQA and that a resolution approving this Modification be, adopted. Chair Rodgers asked Planner Therese Schmidt if any of the conditions are proposed for recordation as permanent Planner Therese Schmidt replied no. Chair Rodgers opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Chris Spaulding, Project Architect: Stated that he is present together with his client and they are available for questions. Reported that essentially this is the same house design wise from the exterior while there are lots of changes on the interior including an added basement. Commissioner Hlava asked if the pool area is being moved to ensure that it is located outside of the drip line of a Redwood. Mr. Chris Spaulding replied yes. Commissioner Hlava said that the wrought iron rails for the light wells look very fussy and busy and she thought it was important to bring that concern up. Mr. Chris Spaulding said that his client is willing to make these railings simpler in design. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for February 14, 2007 Page 3 Commissioner Hlava said that this is a big house with a lot going on already. Chair Rodgers pointed out that there are four fireplaces and questioned which one was going to be wood burning. Mr. Chris Spaulding replied that there are three interior fireplaces and one exterior, all of which are gas. Chair Rodgers asked if staff is okay with the number of fireplaces. Planner Therese Schmidt replied yes. Chair Rodgers closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Zhao said that this is a very nice design for which she can make all required findings to support. Commissioner Cappello said that there are no increased impacts on the neighboring properties, on the aesthetics, etc. This project is fine and he is supportive. Commissioner Kundtz said that this request is very straightforward. Commissioner Hlava said that she would like to see a change in the design of the wrought iron railings. She added that this is a nice design and agreed that there is not much change from before except for the addition of a basement. Chair Rodgers expressed agreement with the suggestion by Commissioner Hlava for a more simple wrought iron design for the railings for the light wells. She said she appreciates the fact that all of the fireplaces are gas. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Cappello seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, the Planning Commission approved a Modification to a Design Review Approval to change the approved footprint of the residential structure, allow for construction of a cabana and relocate the swimming pool on property located at 19358 Monte Vista Drive, as amended including the review and approval of a revised more simple design of the wrought iron railing for the light wells prior to issuance of zoning clearance and that no wood burning fireplaces are included, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kundtz, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: Nagpal ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 2 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for February 14, 2007 Page 4 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 district. Design Review approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15- 45.060. (Shweta Bhatt) Assistant Planner Shweta. Bhatt presented the staff report as follows: Distributed a material board, explaining that the project incorporates many high quality materials such as wood windows, slate roofing and stone veneer. Explained that the existing home would be demolished and a new single -story house consisting of approximately 5,840 square feet and with a maximum height of 24 feet, 10 inches would be constructed. Reported that a required permit by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) has been obtained as well as arborist and geotechnical clearances. Stated that the arborist: visited the site several times. Seven trees are approved for removal, four at this time and three that are not protected by City Code. The arborist is recommending that those three trees (6, 7 and 13) could be removed. Said that neighbors within 500 feet were notified and no issues have been raised. Added that the applicant held a neighborhood meeting and obtained signed templates. Stated that this project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Recommended that this Design Review Approval be granted. Chair Rodgers asked if language needs to be added to the conditions of approval. Planner Shweta Bhatt said that staff is recommending a condition of approval requiring the applicant change their plans to reflect all of the trees proposed for removal including Trees 6, 7 and 13. Chair Rodgers clarified that staff is not recommending any conditions of approval be recorded as permanent. Planner Shweta Bhatt said correct. Chair Rodgers asked if there are changes to the proposed height. Planner Shweta Bhatt said that there was an error in her staff report but the plans accurately reflect the proposed height. Chair Rodgers said that there was language on the geotechnical clearance that is not clear including the reference to "as- build" conditions. Is the intent to remove liability for the City? Director John Livingstone explained that they do borings on site. Additionally, in the field "as- built" conditions can be discovered. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for February 14, 2007 Page 5 Chair Rodgers asked if any changes would be brought back to the Commission. Director John Livingstone said if necessary although it is usually not necessary. Chair Rodgers opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Steve Douglas, Applicant: Gave a brief overview of the project. The basic elements are a 5,010 square foot house with an attached 830 square foot, three -car garage. This is a one -plus acre lot that is essentially flat. No significant grading is proposed. Advised that some statements on a geotechnical report are simply boilerplate. Reported that the lot is bounded by Quito Road, Avon Lane, the creek and a neighbor to the rear. It is well screened by existing mature trees. The lot sits between 10 and 16 feet below Quito Road and between 4 and 10 feet below Avon Lane. Explained that the proposed architecture incorporates features that include gabled pop out areas, bays, natural stone, heavy timber, copper gutters and downspouts and custom wood shutters to break up the elevation plane and create interest. Added that the slate roof is broken up by these pop outs and changes in form. Said that the architectural details continue on all four sides of the residence. Stated that they are within all design guideline criteria including height limitations, setbacks, FAR and site coverage. Described the proposed tree removals authorized by the arborist as including one dead pine on Quito Road; a dead small oak and a dead small liquid amber on Avon Lane and a small tree located in the back out area in the existing garage. Additionally, the arborist recommends removal of Tree 7 (an 8.5 -inch diameter redwood), Tree 13 (a 6.5 -inch diameter oak; and Tree 6 (a 9.5 -inch diameter redwood). Said that he is pleased to accept the planner's proposed condition to modify the plan to show removal of those trees as well. Said that the landscape plan has been reviewed by SCVWD and a permit has been issued. The plan was also reviewed by the City Arborist and by Planning staff. Reported that an asphalt driveway in front of the existing house will be eliminated and replaced with a landscaped courtyard and guest parking area. Added that the rear yard features a swimming pool, spa, lawn areas and significant planting. The 30 -foot Water District easement has never been landscaped to date. They are allowed to install groundcover and small shrubs in that easement. Explained that there are three neighbors in reasonable vicinity of this site and all have been contacted. Assured that this proposal responds to the land, the natural environment, the City, the neighbors and the Water District. Stated that they are excited about the architectural style of the residence and the landscape improvements to the existing setting. Asked for approval and said he was available for any questions. Commissioner Kundtz thanked Mr. Steve Douglas for the story poles as they were most helpful. He said that he likes the design very much. He asked if there would be any problem with the neighbor's use of the access road during construction. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for February 14, 2007 Page 6 Mr. Steve Douglas replied no. Chair Rodgers asked which fireplace would be wood burning. Mr. Steve Douglas said that fireplace located in the family room and one located by the pool, which could be either gas or wood burning. Chair Rodgers pointed out that there are four fireplaces in total. She asked how far the fireplace located by the pool is from the property line. Mr. Steve Douglas replied 41 feet. He added that the existing neighbor to the rear's home is far back from the common property line. Chair Rodgers asked Mr. Steve Douglas if he would consider a gas fireplace by the pool. She asked staff if they are okay with four fireplaces, including two wood burning, one inside and one outside. Director John Livingstone replied that one per dwelling unit is allowed. The outdoor ones are typically not restricted. Commissioner Hlava said that Saratoga is trying to be a more green City and should be looking at restricting that more in the future. Chair Rodgers said that this issue would be considered soon as it is on the agenda for the Study Session on March 13 Commissioner Cappello asked where the driveway gate would be located. Mr. Steve Douglas replied that it would be at the further entrance near the guest parking. Chair Rodgers closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer advised that the draft resolution needs to be modified. One of the NOW, THEREFORE clauses belong after the findings. Additionally, Item 1 should be amended to state that "plans shall be amended to show removal of trees #6, #7 and #13." Chair Rodgers asked if the restriction allowing just one wood burning fireplace could be added to the conditions of approval. Planner Shweta Bhatt replied yes. Director John Livingstone reminded that this provision is already including in the Code. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer suggested adding it into the conditions of approval as a standard condition. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for February 14, 2007 Page 7 fb Commissioner Cappello pointed out that the plans already show just one wood burning and questioned the need to include that as a condition. He said it seems redundant. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer deferred the decision to the Commission. He added that staff is creating boilerplate conditions of approval and will consider whether to include things that are already covered by Code. Commissioner Hlava suggested allowing just one wood burning fireplace per property rather than one per dwelling. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer suggested condition 10A to deal with a limit to one wood burning fireplace. Commissioner Zhao: Said that this is a pretty big house but due to the lower elevation of the property it is not visible to neighbors. Added that there are a lot of trees and the site is well screened. There are no privacy issues. Stated that she likes the architectural style and detail that makes it not so bulky. Advised that she can make all the findings and support approval. Commissioner Cappello said he too likes this design and agrees with the comments of 4, Commission Zhao. He stated that this project is quite beautiful and fits into the neighborhood very well. Commissioner Kundtz said he likes the project as well. He said he did not support making it a condition to disallow a wood burning fireplace outdoors but rather simply ask the applicant to consider gas versus wood. Commissioner Hlava agreed that this is a big and beautiful house. It is absolutely lovely. She said she can make the findings but would really like to see just one wood burning fireplace per property. Chair Rodgers said she too could make all findings. There are no privacy or view impacts. The natural landscape is preserved and new trees are being added. The bulk has been reduced by articulation of the design. This is a nicely designed house for this location and shows sensitivity to this lot. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Cappello, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval to construct a new one -story single family dwelling on property located at 18596 Avon Lane, with modifications: Requiring amended plans to reflect removal of Trees 6, 7 and 13, Adding the standard condition limiting one wood burning fireplace; and Reformatting the draft resolution to relocate one of the WHEREAS clauses; by the following roll call vote: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for February 14, 2007 Page 8 AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kundtz, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: Nagpal ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 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) Assistant. Planner Shweta Bhatt presented the staff report as follows: Reported that the appellant wishes to demolish a home on his property and construct a new single family residence on the property. However, no land use entitlements are being requested tonight. Explained that the owner has filed an appeal to the determination of the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) to deem the property historically significant and add it to the City's Historic Resources Inventory. Added that that determination was made by the HPC due to the property's location on Oak Place and its apparent age. Said that staff had requested that the applicant secure the services of a qualified architectural historian and submit a report to the HPC for review. The architectural historian has completed the analysis and concluded that the property does not appear to have historical significance and appears to be ineligible for listing at local, state and /or federal levels. Advised that this analysis was submitted to and reviewed by the HPC at their December 12, 2006, meeting. Added that after conducting a site visit and studying materials, the HPC found the property to have historical significance based upon two criteria in Chapter 13 of the Code. One is the property's apparent association with the Foothill Club and lumber industry. The second is the fact that the structures are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in style and overall appearance and embody an eclectic architectural style. Pointed out that the approved minutes from that HPC meeting have been included in the Planning Commission packet. Advised that the owner disagrees with the HPC determination and has provided his reasons in a letter attached to the staff report. The owner states that the property owner who had an association with the lumber industry had already sold the property by the time the structures were built and that the structures have been remodeled several times. Informed that there are two options available to the Planning Commission. o The first option is to uphold the appeal by the owner and thereby overturn the decision made by the HPC. The structure would not be placed on the Inventory and proposed alterations or•demolition of structures on the property would not require review by the HPC. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for February 14, 2007 Page 9 4 o The second option is to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the HPC. The structure would then be placed on the Inventory and proposed alterations and /or demolition would be subject to HPC review. Reported that the property owner and the architectural historian are available as is a member of the HPC. Commissioner Kundtz asked if HPC had the chance to see and rebut the architectural historian's report. Planner Shweta Bhatt explained that the architectural historian's report was submitted to the HPC so they did have the opportunity to review it. Commissioner Kundtz asked if they made any comments about it. Planner Shweta Bhatt said that she did not know if they made any direct comments about it but they obviously disagreed with it. She said she would defer to the HPC Commissioner that is here tonight. Commissioner Zhao asked how many houses in that neighborhood are on the Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) currently. Planner Shweta Bhatt said that there is another property on Oak as well as the Saratoga Federated Church. She added that it depends on how far out one looks. Chair Rodgers asked about the criteria and how it is used to place a structure on the HRI. Planner Shweta Bhatt reported that there are seven criteria in Chapter 13 of Code, including architectural significance and historic significance based on association with persons that are historically significant to Saratoga or the region. The HPC chose criteria B and E to make their determination. They are required to pick one and in this case chose two. Chair Rodgers opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Darryl Dukes, Appellant and Property Owner: Reported that he is a 29 -year owner of this property (since 1978). Thanked the Commission for the opportunity to appeal this decision. Advised that his architectural historian, Ms. Leslie Dill, is present this evening. Stated that the decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission is not based on historic fact. This house does not identify with any person or event or local, county, state or national history. Recounted that in the early 1900's, Mr. Wood gave the Foothill Club half of the property. The Foothill Club was built in 1950 and Mr. Wood did not have any connection to the construction of the building. Added that the Foothill Club is famous because of Julia Morgan. Said that Mr. Wood subdivided six acres in 1923 and sold this lot in June. He had no further involvement with the property. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for February 14, 2007 Page 10 Continued by stating that in June 1923, Mary and Oscar Durbin purchased the lot and in 1930 erected some sort of building but there are no records or descriptions of the building. Added that there were no permits before 1945 in Saratoga. Stated that in 1947 Margarita Kitt purchased the site and applied for building permits. She did a major remodel to the tune of $2,000, which is equal to between $225,000 and $250,000 in today's dollar. Said that in 1956, Ms. Ethel Strickland, Mrs. Kitt's sister, inherited the property. Reported that in 1962, the property was purchased as the residence for twin sisters, Ruby and Ruth Ferris. In 1976, after the death of one of the twins, Mr. Dukes reported, he purchased the property. Advised that in the last 29 years, his family has done major remodeling including replacing the roof, enlarging and redesigned both porches, changed the style of the front door, added an overhang to protect the front door, changed windows and added a window to the cottage when adding a shower to it. They have completely landscaped and fenced the property and painted the structures from a dark brown to firehouse red with white trim. Agreed that the house has been meticulously maintained. While they had thought their son might want to move into it after college, he instead elected to stay in New York. Pointed out that his neighbors don't want to see this become a rental unit. Said that the neighborhood consists of mixed architectural designs most of which have been remodeled. Reported that Leslie Dill says that it will not qualify for the National Registry or California Registry as it lacks a strong correlation with a specific type of architecture and is not associated with any significant person and /or historical impact. Concluded by saying that Ms. Leslie Dill is available for questions. Commissioner Kundtz asked Ms. Leslie Dill to outline her background and experience. Ms. Leslie DiII, Architectural Historian, Los Gatos: Reported that she has a Master of Architecture and is a licensed architect with a specialty in historic preservation. Her graduate degree includes a historic preservation certificate. Added that she has training in the field and is qualified with the National Criteria and is listed with the State as both an architectural historian and a historic architect. Commissioner Cappello asked Ms. Leslie Dill if she had received any comments back from HPC regarding her report on this property. Ms. Leslie Dill said that she has read the staff report and the minutes from the HPC meeting. She added that it seems clear that there was some confusion about how closely associate the Woods were to this property. While the Wood family is historically significant in town, they are not represented by the structures on the property now. Commissioner Hlava: Read from the finding, saying that it talks about a structure embodying or contributing to the unique physical character representing an established and familiar feature of a neighborhood or district within the City. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for February 14, 2007 Page 11 Said that she is trying to figure out exactly what that means and how the HPC applied that finding. Asked Ms. Leslie Dill to explain what that is supposed to mean and if she can provide another property that is a clearer example of that finding. Ms. Leslie Dill: Offered the La Paloma area as an example, saying that the houses in that area were built at approximately the same time. They are of a certain era for sure including Craftsman architecture. Added that the language in Saratoga's Ordinance seeks to determine if a particular house fits into its neighborhood and helps understand the character of a neighborhood in scale and class distinction, size and setbacks. Said that in this case, this eclectic neighborhood is not supporting a specific character of a neighborhood. Added that in some cases, removing one house from a neighborhood could create a "gap in the smile" if it were to be removed. It is meant to identify one of a neighborhood of others. Director John Livingstone said that if it is just an individual house certain criteria might not apply. However, if other architectural significance can be determined other criteria can kick in. Chair Rodgers clarified that Criteria E stands for the neighborhood and the visual characteristic of the neighborhood. Mr. Peter Marra, Member of the Heritage Preservation Commission: Explained that there is a process to determining historical significance. Added that there is not an extensive inventory. Said that if a home is over 50 years old it comes before the HPC. During that process, gems can be discovered that might have historical aspects that are desirable for preservation. Reported that the appellant came before the HPC. The HPC conducted a site visit and evaluated the property in terms of its neighborhood. Advised that architectural historian Leslie Dill does not deem the structures to be historic because it does not capture a specific architectural style and he agrees with that determination. Said that it does capture the lifestyle of that particular period of when it was constructed. He added that even if remodeled over time, if a structure is kept in the style originally constructed that fact does not keep it off the Historic Resource Inventory. Said that the house originated at a time when the lumber industry was important to the area. The Woods family was a dominant family in Saratoga. They owned lots of property and donated the land for the Foothill Club along with the Bells. Stated that this piece of property captures a lifestyle of people at the time. Said that when you walk down the block you can see that each house is unique. 40 Reminded that across the alley from the Duke place is the Almond House, which is getting a historic plaque. Also just around the corner is the Foothill Club that is also getting a Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for February 14, 2007 Page 12 plaque. There are two other pieces of property, the Winslow House and Saratoga Federated Church, which are on the list right now although they do not yet have plaques. Stated that this whole section of Saratoga is unique. It is close to the Historic Village. Recounted that the Chamber of Commerce and the Saratoga .Historical Foundation have tours. Reiterated that this property captures the spirit of a special time. There is a lot of history and presence in this neighborhood. Commissioner Kundtz asked Mr. Peter Marra how he would describe this property to people if he were including it on a guided tour. Mr. Peter Marra said that he would say that it reflected a period of time when people were looking to Saratoga as a resort area. They used to have bungalow -style homes. Commissioner Kundtz asked if he were focusing on the time period. Mr. Peter Marra: Replied yes and distributed a tour brochure of the area. Assured that being listed on the HRI does not mean that the HPC will be monsters. Added that preservation is a layering process. Commissioner Cappello .asked Mr. Peter Marra to expand on Criteria B and how it can be used to determine if this property should be included on the HRI. Mr. Peter Marra: Reminded that the Woods family was a dominant family in Saratoga. Added that it was not necessary to have something so historic as "Washington slept here." Agreed that it might be a lose interpretation of Criteria B. Said that other criteria could have been chosen. Commissioner Cappello said that Criteria °B might be more related to the land than to the building. He asked Mr. Peter Marra if the HPC would have come to the same conclusion if this were a decrepit building. Mr. Peter Marra said that he did think so because of the association with the property around it. He added that they have gone to other properties where they have been decrepit. Commissioner Cappello said that if there were a really run down building with a tight connection to a historic event or person, he could see that as something HPC could make a more clear finding on. However, this is a- property with a loose connection whose owners have kept it up in a fabulous fashion. Mr. Peter Marra agreed that the property was well maintained. Commissioner Cappello said that he could see where the HPC would want to keep that sort of structure in Saratoga because of the spirit of the historic aspects. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for February 14, 2007 Page 13 Commissioner Zhao said that this house might capture a time period that reflects a lifestyle. However, looking at the criteria, it doesn't really say that but rather seeks to reflect a unique physical character. Mr. Peter Marra said that this is a matter of interpretation. Chair Rodgers: Said that there are quite a few cottages around town, older houses where orchard workers used to live. Added that they are being torn down because when people buy Tots they really want to have a place for their family to live. Some of those structures are just too old and not well suited to families. Said that it may be difficult to ask a family to live in a house that was designed for an orchard worker or someone coming from another area to Saratoga as a resort. Asked Mr. Peter Marra if HPC considers that when making their decisions. Mr. Peter Marra said that it would require a site review. Chair Rodgers pointed out that this is a one bedroom house. She asked for clarification that HPC is not proposing that it stay as a one bedroom cottage. Mr. Peter Marra replied no, not at all. The HPC has no say on the inside of the structure. He mentioned one home with a historic dining room that was allowed to extensively remodel in recent years. Commissioner Cappello advised Mr. Peter Marra that the new project kept that dining room intact. Chair Rodgers said that there are not too many people who would want to buy a one bedroom house. What kind of changes would HPC suggest they make. Mr. Peter Marra: Said an owner would be asked to keep to the spirit of the neighborhood and not build some palatial thing that is going to stand out like a sore thumb. Added that he did not believe that the Dukes would do that just based on the integrity with which they have kept this house as it is now. Stated that is why the HPC loved it. Chair Rodgers asked the appellant for any rebuttal comments. Mr. Darryl Dukes: Questioned what style or great area was there in 1947. Reminded that this house was built in 1947. Added that he did not realize that HPC made determinations based on land. Suggested that if that is the case nothing should be built in Saratoga as the Ohlone Indians once used the land. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for February 14, 2007 Page 14 Pointed out that this is but a one bedroom house. It has no insulation and does not meet today's standards. Stated that other homes in the neighborhood have had large additions including second stories. Every house on the street has been changed. Said that in the next few years hundreds of houses in Saratoga will be over 50 years in age. Assured that they would not build a monster house on this property. Reiterated that this house has to be demolished as it is no longer livable. Chair Rodgers closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Zhao: Thanked architectural historian Leslie Dill for the chronologic history on this house. Said that she cannot see that this house is associated with any significant person. Stated that she cannot make Criteria B and struggles to make Criteria E, which requires that the house reflect a certain style or era. Agreed that this is a lovely, well maintained house but it has no significant architectural style. Stated that she cannot make Criteria E either. Said that she agrees with the appellant and will vote to uphold the appeal. Reminded that the house is a one bedroom with no insulation. With the need to conserve energy today, it is a good idea to rebuild something that is more energy efficient. Commissioner Kundtz: Stated that he respects the efforts of the HPC and what their work is all about. Reminded that 50- year -old homes these days were built in the late 1950's. Said that reviewing them for significance is a pretty remarkable challenge. Added that these owners did a remarkable job with this property. Said that he cannot support the criteria used to list this home and will support the appellant's position and grant an appeal of the historic designation. Commissioner Hlava: Said that this is a tough issue for this Commission. Agreed on the need to preserve historic structures. Reported that she walks in this neighborhood often and understands Mr. Dukes' point regarding renovations that have already occurred in the area. Said that the fact that someone historic owned land at one time is no reason to say the house built later on that land is itself historic. Stated that she did not think that this particular house fits into Criteria E. Said that she believed she would vote in favor of the appellant but asked that whatever is built on site should be brought back to the Planning Commission out of sensitivity to the neighborhood. Asked if there is a way to make that happen. Director John Livingstone said a nexus is necessary to require that review. Mr. Dukes is simply applying for a demolition permit at this point. That is an administrative action and not a Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for February 14, 2007 Page 15 discretionary action. There is no nexus to add a special discretionary body review as a condition of this appeal. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer explained that during a Design Review process the historic resource aspect is not considered. Compatibility with a neighborhood is considered. Director John Livingstone said that if the new home were proposed as a two -story or over 18- feet in height it would be brought before the Commission. If not, staff conducts an Administrative Design Review and the Planning Commission does not see it. Commissioner Hlava said that she would like to see it come back. Commissioner Cappello said to require this appellant the expense and delays is significant and is a tough thing to do. Commissioner Hlava said that she understands and that she has been persuaded and is okay with not having it come back after all. Commissioner Cappello: Agreed with everything that has been said. Pointed out that no house on Oak Place is on the list or tour. Said that current aesthetics are what the HPC is responding to. Added that despite that he will vote against this appeal. Reminded that HPC members are volunteers and that he understands the spirit of what they are trying to do here. Said that he would hate to see a modern style home here. Director John Livingstone asked Commissioner Cappello to be specific on which action available he is supporting. Commissioner Cappello said that he is denying the appeal and deciding in favor of the HPC decision to include this property on the HRI. Chair Rodgers: Stated that all Planning Commissioners respect the work of the HPC. Said that the Commission must look at the interests of all parties involved. Said that in this case, there is a nicely done house and beautiful gardens. Added that this property would make a great park in that it looks that good. Said that instead it will be a new single family home in the future and she hopes that it will be architecturally sensitive to its neighborhood. Advised that she would vote to uphold the appeal and overturn the HPC without any disrespect to HPC. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, the Planning Commission granted an appeal and overturned the decision Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for February 14, 2007 Page 16 by the Heritage Preservation Commission determining property located at 14451 Oak Place as historically significant, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Hlava, Kundtz, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: Cappello ABSENT: Nagpal ABSTAIN: None DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Director John Livingstone advised that Council would consider the Springer Tree appeal at its next meeting. He added that the Council Study Session on the General Plan would be held on March 6 A copy of the draft can be reviewed at the Planning Counter and /or it is also included on the City's website. COMMISSION. ITEMS Director John Livingstone advised that the Planning Commission would hold a Study Session on March 13 to discuss how to improve the City's environmentally friendly atmosphere. Commissioner Hlava suggested that one of the best ways is to increase the use of solar power. She asked if staff might research available regulations in place at other similar cities. She questioned if PG &E might not have an expert that could be present at this session. COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Kundtz, seconded by Commissioner Hlava, Chair Rodgers adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of February 28, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk RESOLUTION 07 -036 Application No. 07 -207 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Darrell and Angelin Dukes; 14451 Oak Place; APN 397 -22 -041 Resolution Upholding Appeal and Overturning Recommendation of Heritage Preservation Commission WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an appeal of a recommendation made by the Heritage Preservation Commission "HPC regarding a proposal to demolish or alter the existing structures located at 14451 Oak Place based on HPC having recently determined the property to be qualified for inclusion in the Historic Resources Inventory; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing on the appeal at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and WHEREAS, after reviewing the HPC recommendations and other all written and verbal material provided, and considering as required by Section 13- 10.050 the criteria for historically significant properties set forth in Section 13- 15.010, the Planning Commission finds that the subject property does not qualify for inclusion in the City's Historic Resources Inventory and hence that its demolition or alteration does not require a Heritage Preservation Permit. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows: 1. To uphold the appeal by the owner and overturn recommendations made by HPC. The structure shall not be placed on the Historic Resources Inventory and proposed alterations or demolition of structures on the parcel shall not require review by the HPC. 2. To require all applicable requirements of the State, County, City or other governmental entities be met. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 13- 20.060(b) of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. Applicant agrees to hold the 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 the 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 request and or appeal. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, February 14, 2007 by the following roll call vote: AYES: KUNDTZ, HLAVA, ZHAO, AND CHAIR RODGERS. NOES: CAPELLO. ABSENT: NAGPAL. ABSTAIN: NONE. Darrel Dukes and. Angelin Dukes Property Owners Linda R. Rodgers Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: John F. Livingstone, AICP Secretary, Planning Commission Item 1 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No/Location: 05/035 20626 Komina Avenue Type of Application: Design Review Owner: Bob Baratta Lorton, owner Staff Planner: Meeting Date: APN: Deborah Ungo- McCormick Contract Planner February 28, 2007 517 -08 -026 Department Head: John Livingstone, ICP BIG BASIN 500' SARJCOGA SCHOOL 0I3 T SUBJECT: 20626 Komina Avenue APN: 517 -08 -026 500' Radius •ALOHA Cf MYS 1491p Pt TOG/. Pc 1. 1:111•L. NCI 20626 Komina Avenue CASE HISTORY: Application filed: 05/10/05 Application complete: 04/05/06 01/02/07 (revised) Notice published: 02/17 /07 Mailing completed: 02/10/07 Posting completed: 02/06/07 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests design review approval to construct a new two- story, single family residence with a basement and a detached garage. The total floor area of the proposed residence and garage is 2,868.5 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is approximately 26 feet. The lot size is approximately 7,818 square feet and the site is zoned R -1- 10,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the application for Design Review with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. Application No. 05 -035; 20626 Komina Avenue STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R -1- 10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Residential Density MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: 7,818 gross and net square feet SLOPE: approximately 3.5% average site slope and 2% at building site GRADING REQUIRED: Minimal grading required since most of the construction is at grade. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed new single family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single family residences. MATERIALS AND COLORS: Materials and colors include stained wood cedar shingles, wood clad windows with wood trim, painted wood soffit, presidential composition roof, stone veneer base and built up trim band. A colors and materials board is available on file with the Community Development Department and will be presented at the site visits and public hearing. Application No. 05 -035; 20626 Komina Avenue PROJECT DATA: Proposal Code Requirements Lot 51% Maximum Allowable 60% Coverage: (impervious) Residence and Garage 1,800.80 sq. ft. Porches 627.00 sq. ft. Deck at Garage 362.00 sq. ft. Walkways 638.40 sq. ft. Driveway 684.30 sq. ft. Floor Area: TOTAL 4,112.50 sq. ft. 4,690.6 sq. ft. First Floor Second Floor Basement (not included in Floor Area) TOTAL Maximum height 1,311.80 sq. ft. 1,136.70 sq. ft. (1,237.80 sq. ft) At the topmost point of 122.3' the structure Maximum Allowable 2,868.5 sq. ft. 2,880.00 sq. ft. Setbacks: Minimum Requirement Front 25 ft 25 ft. Rear 10 ft lO ft. Interior Side (1 floor) 6 fl. 6 ft. Interior Side (2 floor) 12 ft.. 11 ft. Street Side (1 floor) 15 ft. 15 ft. Street Side (2 floor) 20 ft. 20 ft. Height: Maximum Allowable Lowest elevation pt. 94.7' Highest elevation pt. 99.6' Average 96.9' 26 ft. 26 ft. Application No. 05 -035; 20626 Komina Avenue PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant requests design review approval to construct a two -story, single family residence that includes a basement and a detached garage. The total floor area of the proposed single family residence and garage is 2,868.5 square feet. The proposal also includes a basement, which is not included in the floor area calculations. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. The lot size is approximately 7,818 square feet and the site is zoned R- 1- 10,000. The average slope of the property is 3.5 Consideration of this application was continued from the Planning Commission meeting on April 15, 2006. Background: On April 15, 2006, the Planning Commission considered a request for approval of a two story home for this site with an attached garage and basement. The proposed architectural style of structure most closely related to the style category called Eclectic, using elements from the Colonial Revival period (1880 -1955) and the Tudor period (1890 -1940) and some elements from the Colonial Revival Style. The Planning Commission continued the application to a date uncertain and asked that the applicant revise the project to reduce its sense of bulk and in a style that is more compatible and consistent with the architectural period and style of homes in the immediate vicinity, particularly along Oak Street (See attached Minutes). The applicant has submitted revised plans for the house and is now proposing a two -story home in the Craftsman Style with a basement and a detached garage. The project also includes front yard landscaping and a 36 -inch wood fence along the Oak Street frontage. Site conditions: The site is currently vacant. It formerly contained a two -story residence with a small basement and a detached carport. However, the residence was demolished on April 3, 2006. The original structure was constructed in circa 1900 and was damaged by a fire in 2004. Because of it's age, staff notified the applicant during the processing of this design review application that a historic resource evaluation would be required for review by the Heritage Preservation Commission to process a demolition permit. The applicant was in the process of retaining a historic consultant when a second fire occurred and further damaged the structure on September 2005. At this stage, Staff directed the applicant to proceed with the historic evaluation as part of the request for demolition of the fire damaged structure. Historic Review: The applicant retained the services of Carey Co., a qualified historic preservation consultant with the California Office of Historic Preservation. Carey Co. prepared a historic resource evaluation on December 12, 2005 (attached) and assigned the property a "6Z" rating, indicating that the property does not appear individually eligible for National Registry of Historic Places (NRHP)) or California Registry of Historic Places (CRHR) or a local resources list based on criteria set forth in City Code Article 13 -15. On January 14, Application No. 05 -035; 20626 Komina Avenue 2006, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the historic resource evaluation by Carey Co. and recommended approval of the demolition of the structure. Architectural Style: The proposed new house design is consistent with the Craftsman style of architecture and contains the following elements: 1. The dominant use of wood shingles 2. Wood brackets used above the Kitchen windows on Komina Ave. 3. Large wood trim accents throughout 4. Shallow roof pitch w/ wide overhangs 5. Use of natural colors materials Taupe body, white accents, asphalt shingle roof in the color of wood shake. These elements are carried throughout the residence and the garage. In addition, the residence includes covered porch area along the side facing Oak Street and wraps around to the side facing Komina Avenue to include the front entry. A smaller covered porch is located to the rear side area of the house that also faces Komina Avenue. Compatibility with adjacent homes: The project site is located at the corner of Komina Avenue and Oak Street, in a residential area near the downtown, which consists of structures that are varied in use. Directly across Oak Street there are apartments, and directly across Komina Avenue is Saratoga School. Oak Street consists primarily of early 20 century two -story structures, while Komina Avenue consists of newer construction with more eclectic architecture and a combination of one and two -story residences. The homes on either side of the project site are two -story homes. The home immediately adjacent to Oak Street has a narrow two -story facade with 'symmetrical windows. Because it is located on a corner lot and the street side setbacks are greater than for an interior lot, the site is faced with additional design challenges. Typically, the setback limitations for corner lots result in homes that have a narrow and long configuration. The proposed new home consists of a two -story facade with a narrow facade facing Oak Street. The bulk has been minimized with the use of a covered porch, second story walls are at different planes, and wide overhangs are used on both stories. This makes the residence appear similar in character to the adjoining house on Oak Street, which is a narrow two story structure with gable roof facing the street and has symmetrical windows with a porch running the full length of the house (facing Oak Street). The elevation facing Komina Avenue is longer and has the potential for appearing massive and bulky. This was one of the main concerns expressed at the first Planning Commission meeting with the previous architectural style proposed for the site. The new elevation, however, includes various techniques that help minimize the potential bulk, such as varying roof lines, recesses along the face of the building, stepping back the second story and covered porches. Large wood brackets are used above the kitchen windows and wide 7 Application No. 05 -035; 20626 Komina Avenue overhangs are used along this elevation, as well. The garage structure has been detached which helps reduce the sense of bulk and architectural elements are consistent with those of the main residence. The project also includes a landscape design along Komina Avenue and Oak Street that includes a combination of open fencing and solid stucco walls to help create visual interest from different angles. The proposed home has been designed to minimize interference with views and privacy in relation to adjacent properties. The location of the garage allows for privacy with the adjoining parcel on Komina Ave. Second story windows facing the adjacent property are proposed in Bedrooms 1 and 3. The window in Bedroom one is, while directly facing the adjacent two -story home, is not large and is not anticipated to create privacy issues. In addition, the applicant proposes to install a new tree in the interior side setback to provide screening for more privacy. The wall of Bedroom 3 is recessed an additional 4 feet and faces an existing 52.5 inch Oak on the adjacent lot. In addition, the orientation of the house and main public area of the yard are designed to have the open play areas in the front yard facing Oak Street and in the rear area between the residence and the garage. The project has been designed to preserve and protect all of the existing mature landscaping on the adjacent properties. Trees The Arborist Report identified six trees regulated by City Ordinance that will be exposed to potential damage. They include one Coast Live Oak #1), three Valley Oaks #3, 5, 6), one Pittosporum #2) and one Privet (#4). Trees #3 and #4 are located on the adjoining property. Tree #3 is one of the largest and mature Valley Oaks in Saratoga. It has a trunk diameter of 52.5 inches and its canopy spans approximately 100 feet across. Specific guidelines for redesigning the plans were presented in the `Recommendations' section of this report to achieve a reasonably high assurance of their survival. The applicant revised the plans accordingly in the most recent resubmittal shown in Exhibit A. In addition, the project driveway was carefully 'geed to ensure preservation and protection of the existing Oak trees on Komina Avenue e Arborist Report includes specific design recommendations that are included as conditions of approval of the project to ensure that all ordinance size trees will be protected during demolition and construction. As a condition of demolition, the construction fencing was installed and monitored by the City Arborist in accordance with the original Arborist Report. The City Arborist is also recommending additional protective fencing during construction to ensure protection of trees #3 and #4, details for retaining walls beneath trees #1 and #6, and a condition that no excavation shall occur under the canopy of tree #6, and that a planting bed in that location shall be removed. These measures have been added as conditions of approval of the p ect and will be monitored by the City Arborist during the construction phase of the projec G S i hsw reg1exoe.d Oa. YIN is a dn.iv�eui«� �.o■ o•w� hwA o.,pp a.'1'ropaSa Based on the proposed plans and locations of trees, the tree protection bond will have a combined value of $56,090. Application No. 05 -035; 20626 Komina Avenue Geotechnical Clearance: This application requires geotechnical review. Geotechnical Clearance was granted with conditions. The geotechnical conditions have been incorporated in the attached Resolution. Neighbor Correspondence The applicant has provided the City's neighbor notification templates for four adjacent properties with the initial submittal. In addition, the applicant provided a list of neighbors beyond the adjacent neighbors to whom he presented the revised plans. None of the notification letters received have listed concerns or continents regarding the revised plans (See attached neighbor correspondence). The applicant has installed story poles on the site to help show the height of the proposed structure. Design Review Findings: The proposed project is consistent with all of the following Design Review findings stated in City Code Section 15- 45.080: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The project has been designed in a manner that minimizes interference with views and privacy to adjacent properties. This includes setbacks that meet the minimum required by Code, design and placement of windows in the second story of the home in a manner that minimizes privacy impacts and locating outdoor play areas in the front and rear areas of the site. Additionally, the project has been designed to preserve and enhance most of the existing mature landscaping along perimeter of the site. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The proposed residence and landscape plan incorporate the existing mature vegetation on the site. The use of stained wood shingles and Presidential composition roofing in earth tone colors will blend with the natural environment. These measures serve to preserve and enhance the natural landscape of the site. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees.. The Arborist Report identified 6 trees regulated by the City Code that could be exposed to potential damage. Of these, one 52 -inch Oak tree is located on the adjacent lot. The applicant is proposing to retain all ordinance size trees while implementing recommendations by. the City Arborist to ensure protection of the trees, including trees on the adjacent site. All Arborist Report recommendations have been made conditions of approval of the project to ensure a high degree of survival for all trees retained on the site. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. Architectural details such as varied rooflines, varied and recessed wall planes and architectural detailing have been incorporated in the design. In addition, the elevations include wood shingles, wood brackets above the Kitchen windows on Komina Avenue, large wood trim accents throughout, shallow roof pitch with wide overhangs, covered porches on both sides facing the street, and a carriage style garage door to create architectural interest and reduce mass and bulk. Application No. 05 -035; 20626 Komina Avenue (e) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed residence is located at the corner of Komina Avenue and Oak Street, across from a school and an apartment complex. The two -story residence has been designed in a manner that minimizes the appearance in height and bulk and in an architectural style is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, particularly with traditional homes built on Oak Street. In addition, the home will not exceed the maximum height allowed in the area and zoning district. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposal will conform to the City's current grading and erosion control methods. (g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above. GENERAL PLAN /AREA PLAN CONFORMITY The proposed project is consistent with the following General Plan goals, policies and obj ectives: 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 proposed site coverage, setbacks and height of structures are consistent with requirements of the R -1- 10,000 District, and the residence and garage are of an architectural style that is compatible with the traditional styles of the surrounding single family neighborhood. Conservation Element Policy 6.0 Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The proposal, consisting of a a two -story single family home with a maximum height of 26 -feet, will not block the views of the surrounding hills from neighboring parcels. The proposed Craftsman style of architecture will blend with the character of the surrounding area. All ordinance size trees that could be affected by this development are being protected and preserved, including two Oak trees on an adjacent lot. Conclusion Staff concludes that the Design Review findings can be supported. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the application for Design Review with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. Application No. 05 -035; 20626 Komina Avenue ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval. 2. Neighbor Notification templates 3. Minutes from Planning Commission Meeting on�pni 15, 2006. to 200(40 4. Arborist Report by David Babby dated February 3, 2005 and Arborist Report Memo by City Arborist Kate Bear dated April 12, 2006 and January 2006. 5. Historic Evaluation Report by Carey Associates. 6. Affidavit of Mailing Notices, Public Hearing Notice, Mailing labels for project notification. 7. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A" APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 05 -035 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Baratta Lorton; 20626 Komina Avenue WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review for a new 2,868,5 square foot, two -story home with an detached garage and basement, and with a maximum height of 26 feet; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the project, which proposes to construct a new single family home, is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 3 exemption applies to construction of a single family home in an urbanized area; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for design review approval, and the following findings specified in Municipal Code Section 15- 45.080 have been made in the affirmative: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The project has been designed in a manner that minimizes interference with views and privacy to adjacent properties. This includes setbacks that meet the minimum required by Code, design and placement of windows in the second story of the home in a manner that minimizes privacy impacts and locating outdoor play areas in the front and rear areas of the site. Additionally, the project has been designed to preserve and enhance most of the existing mature landscaping along perimeter of the site. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The proposed residence and landscape plan incorporate the existing mature vegetation on the site. The use of stained wood shingles and Presidential composition roofing in earth tone colors will blend with the natural environment. These measures serve to preserve and enhance the natural landscape of the site. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees.. The Arborist Report identified 6 trees regulated by the City Code that could be exposed to potential damage. Of these, one 52 -inch Oak tree is located on the adjacent lot. The applicant is proposing to retain all ordinance size trees while implementing recommendations by the City Arborist to ensure protection of the trees, including trees on the adjacent site. All Arborist Report recommendations have been made conditions of approval of the project to ensure a high degree of survival for all trees retained on the site. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. Architectural details such as varied rooflines, varied and recessed wall planes and architectural detailing have been incorporated in the design. In addition, the elevations include wood shingles, wood brackets above the Kitchen windows on Komina Avenue, large wood trim accents throughout, shallow roof pitch with wide overhangs, covered porches on both sides facing the street, and a carriage style garage door to create architectural interest and reduce mass and bulk. (e) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed residence is located at the comer of Komina Avenue and Oak Street, across from a school and an apartment complex. The two -story residence has been designed in a manner that minimizes the appearance in height and bulk and in an architectural style is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, particularly with traditional homes built on Oak Street. In addition, the home will not exceed the maximum height allowed in the area and zoning district. (1) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposal will conform to the City's current grading and erosion control methods. (g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above. NOW, THEREFORE, the P lanning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, Application No. 05 -035 for Design Review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" (incorporated by reference, date stamped February b 2007, and in compliance with the conditions stated in this Resolution. Any proposed changes, including but not limited to facade design and materials to the approved plans shall be submitted in writing with a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Proposed changes to the approved plans are subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. 2. A maximum of one wood burning fireplace per residential structure may be installed. All other fireplaces shall be gas -fired fireplaces (natural or proposed) with gas jets, direct venting, convection chambers, heat exchanger, variable heat output, and flame control, and permanently affixed artificial logs. 3. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the Arborist Reports dated February 23, 2005, April 12, 200 as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division. 4. Landscaping along both street frontages shall be installed prior to final occupancy inspection. A landscape bond may be submitted along with the applicable filing fee in lieu of this requirement. 5. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 6. A grading and drainage plan stamped by a registered civil engineer combined with a storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on -site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction Best Management Practices, shall be submitted along with the complete construction drawings. An explanatory note shall be provided if all storm water cannot be maintained on site. 7. Water and/or runoff from the project site shall not be directed toward the adjacent properties. 8. The construction set shall include a final landscape, irrigation and utility plan. The utility plan shall show locations of air conditioning units and pool equipment enclosures. Any proposed undergrounding of utilities shall take into account potential damage to roots of protected trees, and shall follow the recommendations included in the Arborist Report. 9. The owner /applicant is responsible for all damages to curb, gutter and public street caused during the project construction by project construction vehicles at the public right away areas at /near the property frontage. Public Works Inspector will determine if any repair is required prior to Final Occupancy Approval. 10. Applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the City Public Works Department for any work in the public right -of -way including construction and curb, gutter and street repair. 11. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped areas especially along any hardscaped area. 12. 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. 13. Property maintenance of landscaping with minimal pesticide use, shall be the responsibility of the property owner. 14. All processing fees, in the form of deposit accounts on file with the community development department, shall be reconciled with a minimum $500 surplus balance prior to building permit issuance until final occupancy is granted. CITY ARBORIST 15. All recommendations contained in the City Arborist Reports dated February 23, 2005, April 12, 2006 and darn? as applicable, shall be followed. 16. Tree protective fencing and other protective measures, as specified by the City Arborist in review of the final plans, shall be installed and inspected by Planning Staff prior to issuance of City Permits. 17. The submitted final landscape and irrigation plan shall be consistent with the Conceptual Landscape Plan (Sheet L -1 and L -2), and recommendations stated in the City Arborist Report. .18. Prior to issuance of City Permits, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount of $56,090 to guarantee their maintenance and preservation. 19. Prior to Final Building Inspection approval, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. The bond shall be released after the planting of required replacement trees, a favorable site inspection by the City Arborist, and the payment of any outstanding Arborist fees. Geotechnical Clearance: 20. 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, retaining walls, pool and driveway) to ensure that the plans, specifications and details accurately reflect the consultants' recommendations. 21. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to issuance of permits. 22. 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. 23. The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project shall be described by the geologic and geotechnical consultants in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to Final Project Approval. 24. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to issuance of a building permit. 25. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other related and/or erosion related conditions. FIRE DISTRICT 26. Applicant shall comply with all Fire Department conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 27. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. Section 2. A Building Permit must be issued and construction shall commence within 36 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga. Planning Commission, State of California, the 28th day of February 2007 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date Attachment 2 Komina Avenue 20620 left flier 20606 20589 20574 20560 20550 20545 20540 Oak Street 14739 14724 14701 14700 14690 14683 14684 14678 14666 14655 Lomita 20670 20665 20660 20655 20650 20633 20630 20621 20620 20611 20601 ok ok ok ok ok ok left flier left flier ok ok ok ok ok ok ok ok ok Avenue ok ok left flier ok ok left flier left flier ok ok left flier left flier St Charles 20731 left flier 20729 left flier 20723 ok 20719 ok 20713 ok 20711 ok 20705 left flier Komina Neighborhood Homes visited Saturday 13 January 2007 36 homes visited 25 direct contacts, fliers delivered personally 5 forms signed 20 to discuss with others in family Positive (ok) comments from all 25 No negative comments from anyone 11 fliers left under door mats PROJECT ADDRESS: 2 K e Dear Neighbor, I am proposing a project at the above stated address and would like to provide you with an opportunity to review the proposal and provide comments. All of the adjacent neighbors and the neighbors across the street from the property are being provided this notice as a courtesy in advance of the standard City Notice which will be sent out prior to a decision being made on the project. I ask that you familiarize yourself with the preliminary plans for the project. These plans are PRELIMINARY ONLY and may be changed as the project moves forward. You may contact the City of Saratoga 's Planning Division at any time to review any changes that may occur. The City of Saratoga asks that this form and a reduced set of plans be signed by each neighbor to indicate that they have had an opportunity to review the proposal. Please be advised that these plans are preliminary and may change. If you have further interest in the project, you may contact the City of Saratoga at 408 868 -1222 and speak with the assigned project planner. My signature below certifies that I am aware of the proposed project and have reviewed the preliminary project plans. r. l Neighbor Name:, n Date: f Signature: Neighbor Address: i v 5 0(0. Y:. S City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Neighbor Phone J (1 If I have any initial concerns with the project I may list them below. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): 11 Applicant Name: c 2.e Yr.'• c l ,Date: Application Number: City of Saratoga Revised 10/29/06 P: (Forms Procedureslneighbor notification.doc Planning Department PROJECT ADDRESS: City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form 1- .n Dear Neighbor, I am proposing a project at the above stated address and would like to provide you with an opportunity to review the proposal and provide comments. All of the adjacent neighbors and the neighbors across the street from the property are being provided this notice as a courtesy in advance of the standard City Notice which will be sent out prior to a decision being made on the project. I ask that you familiarize yourself with the preliminary plans for the project. These plans are PRELIMINARY ONLY and may be changed as the project moves forward. You may contact the City of Saratoga 's Planning Division at any time to review any changes that may occur. The City of Saratoga asks that this form and a reduced set of plans be signed by each neighbor to indicate that they have had an opportunity to review the proposal. Please be advised that these plans are preliminary and may change. If you have further interest in the project, you may contact the City of Saratoga at 408 868 -1222 and speak with the assigned project planner. My signature below certifies that I am aware of the proposed project and have reviewed the preliminary project plans. Neighbor Name: 1 i vv, cal Date: X 113 /t7 Signature: Neighbor Address: Neighbor Phone `3l 7 y 7 27 If I have any initial concerns with the project I may list them below. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Applicant Name: 73 ya 7 .0 o It Date: 1 Vb% Application Number: City of Saratoga Revised 10/24/06 P: (Forms Procedureslneighbor notification.doc Planning Department PROJECT ADDRESS: P- 0 Co K) 4` ..1 Dear Neighbor, I am proposing a project at the above stated address and would like to provide you with an opportunity to review the proposal and provide comments. All of the adjacent neighbors and the neighbors across the street from the property are being provided this notice as a courtesy in advance of the standard City Notice which will be sent out prior to a decision being made on the project. 1 ask that you familiarize yourself with the preliminary plans for the project. These plans are PRELIMINARY ONLY and may be changed as the project moves forward. You may contact the City of Saratoga's Planning Division at any time to review any changes that may occur. The City of Saratoga asks that this form and a reduced set of plans be signed by each neighbor to indicate that they have had an opportunity to review the proposal. Please be advised that these plans are preliminary and may change. If you have further interest in the project, you may contact the City of Saratoga at 408 868 -1222 and speak with the assigned project planner. My signature below certifies that I am aware of the proposed project and have reviewed the preliminary project plans. i4 O 14 l Z 1' Neighbor Name: Signature: Neighbor Address: If I have any initial concerns with the project I may list them below. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Applicant Name: P-Z" Date: 1 1 7 Application Number: City of Saratoga Revised 10/29/06 P: (Forms Procedureslneighbor notification.doc City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: 17/ 07 Neighbor Phone Planning Department PROJECT ADDRESS: c 1) 7 (o 6 kb IA t'/ Ai Dear Neighbor, I am proposing a project at the above stated address and would like to provide you with an opportunity to review the proposal and provide comments. All of the adjacent neighbors and the neighbors across the street from the property are being provided this notice as a courtesy in advance of the standard City Notice which will be sent out prior to a decision being made on the project. I ask that you familiarize yourself with the preliminary plans for the project. These plans are PRELIMINARY ONLY and may be changed as the project moves forward. You may contact the City of Saratoga's Planning Division at any time to review any changes that may occur. The City of Saratoga asks that this form and a reduced set of plans be signed by each neighbor to indicate that they have had an opportunity to review the proposal. Please be advised that these plans are preliminary and may change. If you have further interest in the project, you may contact the City of Saratoga at 408 868 -1222 and speak with the assigned project planner. My signature below certifies that I am aware of the proposed project and have reviewed the preliminary project plans. Neighbor Name: c- D l't c I'` Date: Signature: Neighbor Address: Neighbor Phone If I have any initial concerns with the project I may list them below. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Applicant Name: City of Saratoga Revised 10/24/06 P: (Forms Procedureslneighbor notification.doc City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: Application Number: Planning Department PROJECT ADDRESS: Dear Neighbor, I am proposing a project at the above stated address and would like to provide you with an opportunity to review the proposal and provide comments. All of the adjacent neighbors and the neighbors across the street from the property are being provided this notice as a courtesy in advance of the standard City Notice which will be sent out prior to a decision being made on the project. I ask that you familiarize yourself with the preliminary plans for the project. These plans are PRELIMINARY ONLY and may be changed as the project moves forward. You may contact the City of Saratoga's Planning Division at any time to review any changes that may occur. The City of Saratoga asks that this form and a reduced set of plans be signed by each neighbor to indicate that they have had an opportunity to review the proposal. Please be advised that these plans are preliminary and may change. If you have further interest in the project, you may contact the City of Saratoga at 408 868 -1222 and speak with the assigned project planner. My signature below certifies that I am aware of the proposed project and have reviewed the preliminary project plans. Neighbor Name: Date: 3 J 7 Signature: Neighbor Address: i-4 G 1' City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form /1 a`O 6 .J G' �1 l'd�l �'1 Gl f t i e Neighbor Phone 4- c cl If I have any initial concerns with the project I may list them below. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Applicant Name: 3 r,2 t Date: i o Application Number: City of Saratoga Revised 10/24/06 P: (Forms Procedureslneighbor notification.doc Planning Department 0 o 0 r 'Q z W O z Z 0 1= Z I- g z O 0 w co w 1 W 0 U u. Z I- 0 z W 'Q W o m W F 0 G i la m Z Z I- 0 W Z V 2 n W =O F m 1-- Y y 2 O'' W 2 O Z d W= W m d m Q W I W N W W 20 1--0 a 0 z re OW JZ 0 U) U) 3m I- W 4t x to ix O a d U W Z 0 ct W u. Na O W p te 0 0 U U 0 d Ce O Z J Z re 0 g I.- 0 00 0 iii rG E- 0 m Z Z Y Z W 1 J F- I- L 00 0 D0 z Z in fa re W m la 0 H O G ZW J 2 U) W W W 0 J m w 1_ Q z wZ a a. la w 1- 0z z1 w d o. 0 0 I•- a W 0(A g= 0 0 d O 5o a.< Z z Z I W W Ix Z m O� D> U O 0 W d= rew ixm o. z W 1 I-- BIG BASIN :s- �ee t seam i I 81 r4 .12 Kt.• f Kt.0 I MM. sta.1 4. I t of {{44I044 1, wr ,irr c i SUBJECT: 20626 KominaAvenue rr siE 14 APN: 517-08-026 A.% �ee.c s„ 1 500'Radius N ALOHA A "r OH p• *ALOHA I P M. 485 r38 o �a� Kolti,l P o s t-i e rise- r2S) Ffife Ee --4 oi. do s'kp CI 1) O pa,{.- -is-.evils mot- Cbv,ctas no4 RATOGA I.Zi4C. NCI OF MAPS F6 47P1 P C L. 4 Attachment 3 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006 Page 5 correction to depict approved plans dated April 12, 2006, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 2 APPLICATION #05 -035 (517 -08 -026) BARATTA LORTON, 20626 Komina Avenue: The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct a two -story, single family residence, including a basement and attached garage. The existing house was damaged by fire and will be demolished. The total floor area of the proposed residence and garage is 2,706 square feet. The. maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. The lot size is approximately 7,817.6 square feet and the site is zoned R -1- 10,000. (Deborah Ungo- McCormick) Contract Planner Deborah Ungo- McCormick presented the staff report as follows: Stated that this item was also continued from the April 26 meeting to allow proper mail notification. Said that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to allow the construction of a two -story single- family residence with basement and attached garage. The total square footage is 2,705.9 not counting the basement. The maximum height is 26 feet. The lot is 7,818 square feet. Reported that the previous two -story residence was demolished on April 3, 2006. It was a circa 1900 structure that was destroyed by fire in 2004. Advised that a Historic Evaluation Report was required after a first fire. Then a second fire struck. Stated that the Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed this Historic Evaluation Report on January 14, 2006. The HPC recommended the adoption of the report and approved the demolition of the structure. The home was subsequently demolished. Informed that there are four Ordinance protected trees on this property. One off -site 52- inch diameter Oak tree has its drip line on this site. Described the proposed architectural style as eclectic Colonial Revival and Tudor. The dominant style is Tudor including cross gables, hipped roof and use of stucco. Said that the project's compatibility with the adjacent homes needs to be looked at. This residential area is near the Downtown. The area consists of varied architectural styles and ages of structures. Some homes are early 20 century and some are newer construction. Adjacent homes include some two -story. Explained that this is a corner lot with two different eras of construction on each street, Komina and Oak. It is a narrow lot. Reported that corner lots have greater setbacks required under the Zoning Ordinance. The original house encroached on the current Code setbacks. The replacement home must comply with current standards. r Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006 Page 6 Added that there is a formula to determine the setbacks on this non conforming lot, which results in constraints in the design of the house. This is a tall, skinny, narrow house with most of its frontage on Komina. While 26 feet is the maximum height, it tapers down to a single -story element on Komina. Said that a color rendering has been prepared. Advised that several Oak trees are to be retained. Said that there is minimal interference with views and /or privacy of adjacent owners. Explained that the design has varied rooflines, different planes and elements along walls to break up that elevation and to minimize bulk and mass. Said that some letters from the public have been included in the staff report, others were provided at the site visit and still more tonight. There is opposition to the project due to bulk issues and historic significance. Said that a Geotechnical report was required and clearance was granted. Advised that staff finds this project to be consistent with Design Review findings. Commissioner Hlava asked Planner Deborah Ungo- McCormick if she knows what the original square footage of the house was compared to what is proposed. Planner Deborah Ungo- McCormick replied no. Commissioner Hlava said that the applicant could likely provide that information. Commissioner Nagpal asked staff for clarification that the Design Review guidelines are the only thing this project is being evaluated against not anything about being located within an historic neighborhood. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer: Advised that there is a distinction between a designated historic resource and what we have here, which is not a designated historic resource. Said that what is before the Commission tonight is a Design Review application. There are specific Design Review findings that must be addressed by the Planning Commission. There is no language in those findings regarding historic preservation. Stated that the Commission should focus the design decision on Design Review findings. Said that the Heritage Preservation Commission did consider the demolition request and approved it in January with the conclusion that this home was not historic. That decision was not appealed and the home was subsequently demolished. A professional historic evaluation was done that was focused on the house and again it was found not to be an historic resource. Added that evidence of a historic neighborhood cannot be taken into consideration in this house that was deemed not to be historic. Reiterated that the Commission must apply the standard Design Review findings. Commissioner Nagpal questioned the eclectic architectural design. She pointed out that the side backs on Oak Street and questioned whether any effort had been made to change that facade. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006 Page 7 Planner Deborah Ungo- McCormick said that she first saw elements of Tudor architecture and then Colonial Revival. Features included leaded glass windows and louvered shutters. On the other hand, she does not see any elements of a Mediterranean architectural style here. Chair Rodgers reminded that the resource book cited by staff is also cited in the Code itself as the appropriate architectural reference resource. Commissioner Hunter said that there is no inkling from the report that this home is located within an historic area. She asked staff if this is not, in fact, an historic area? She added that the Heritage Preservation Commission only looked at the demolition of the old structure and did not look at the proposed new structure. Director John Livingstone said that she is correct. The City does have a generic designation as an historic area. Also, the Heritage Preservation Commission did not act Design Review on the new house, as it was not within their purview to do so. HPB was charged with evaluating only the historic value of the original structure. Commissioner Hunter said that in the past when an historic home was to be torn down it was rebuilt in the original architectural style, such as Victorian, etc. She pointed out that there are no Tudor homes nearby. Director John Livingstone said that he was not aware of a policy of that nature. Commissioner Hunter said that she knows that from being involved in the community for so• long now. Commissioner Nagpal asked how Landmark #435 translates to the homes in this area. It appears staff is saying it does not but rather this project simply falls under the standard Design Review criteria. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer: Reminded that the house was evaluated to see if it should be designated historic. It was found not to be historic and demolition of the structure was allowed. Advised that if the house had been designated historic, it would have had to be replaced in historic style. Added that demolition of designated historic structures is usually discouraged. Commissioner Nagpal asked what Landmark #435 designation means. Is it an area? This street? Director John. Livingstone replied that staff researched it and found nothing specific. It simply identifies Saratoga as a historic landmark. He reiterated that the review of this particular application must be based upon issues such as bulk, privacy and the Design Review guidelines. Commissioner Cappello sought clarification that this historic designation is not specific but more so general of Saratoga overall. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006 Page 8 Director John Livingstone replied that the focus is mainly the Downtown area and not specific for just a street or just the Village. Commissioner Cappello restated that the bottom line appears to be that the Design Review findings are what the Commission has to use to evaluate this project and that this proposal is nothing different from the previous project. Director John Livingstone reiterated that issues of privacy, appearance and compatibility could be considered. Commissioner Hlava: Pointed out the numerous letters expressing concern over this project and its historic impact. Added that lots of people are saying that a mistake was made in not including this house on the Historic Resources Inventory. Reported that she called a friend who was involved in the original inventory. That friend advised her that this house had so changed over the years. Advised that her friend assured her that it was not an oversight that this house was not included on the Inventory. Chair Rodgers opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Ms. Cindy Brozicevic, Project Designer: Stated that she is very familiar with this neighborhood and area. Described it as a traditional neighborhood. Listed three key issues with this proposal, Zoning, bulk and compatibility. The questions she worked through included how to retain the existing structure, how to meet her client's needs and how to meet the Zoning Ordinance. Reported that the original structure was non conforming and required a more than fifty percent rebuild. Said that reduction of bulk was considered. Added that the context of being on this prominent corner in Saratoga was also important. Pointed out that there are apartments nearby as well as a school and several stucco homes. Said that one means of reducing appearance of bulk was setting the 80 -foot long elevation back 43 feet. This elevation includes the 22 -foot long garage. The original structure was 58 feet. While the overall feeling changes the frontage did not actually change too much. Advised that the original house was 1,300 square feet and what is proposed is 2,700 square feet. 0 Added that the setbacks have been exceeded. On the first floor, where 15 feet is required, their setback averages at 20 feet. Said that while the maximum height of the building is at 26 feet, the second half steps down to 24 and then to 15 -foot heights. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006 Page 9 Addressing the issue of compatibility, she pointed out that this corner property is at the entrance to two streets with different character. With the original house, it was not clear where the front door was. The new house will have an obvious front entrance on Komina. Questioned the statement that this home has any Mediterranean influences. A lot of people seem to feel that a stucco home with any arches is automatically categorized as being a Mediterranean style. Added that this design has a lot of elements from Traditional, Colonial and Tudor architecture. Opined that tall, thin structures do not equate well with the Mediterranean architectural style. Said she is available for any questions. Commissioner Hlava asked for further comparisons between the old and proposed homes. The original home had no garage and had a 1,300 square foot footprint. It was also a two -story home. Ms. Cindy Brozicevic said that the new home is 2,700 square feet with garage and is also a two -story. Commissioner Hlava asked Ms. Cindy Brozicevic how tall the old house was. Ms. Cindy Brozicevic said that it was close to the maximum and was built high off of the ground. Commissioner Hunter said that a substantial basement is planned and there are huge Oak trees nearby. She asked what steps would be in place for digging so as not to damage tree roots. Ms. Cindy Brozicevic reported that they relocated the building two feet to meet the Arborist's report requirements. Assured that it is very important for them to keep all trees on the lot. Commissioner Hunter asked if the basement would be hand dug. Ms. Cindy Brozicevic said that any portions where it is required would be hand dug. She added that Kate Bear has also reviewed the. Arborists report although she did not prepare it originally. Chair Rodgers asked City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer if he wanted to say anything. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer cautioned that any comments made from those in the audience must be made from the podium in order to be included in the record. Commissioner Nagpal asked if any attempt to reduce the mass at the Oak Street side had been made. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006 Page 10 Ms. Cindy Brozicevic reminded that the setback is further than required and that any additional reduction causes loss of square footage in the upstairs bedroom. She advised that the plate height is only seven feet high on the second floor with vaulted ceilings to conceal that from inside while also serving to minimize the appearance of height from outside. Commissioner Zhao said that the elevation on Oak Street seems to be big and overpowering of the porch area. The columns seem skinny. Ms. Cindy Brozicevic said that they felt these columns were appropriate as they don't want to obstruct the view from the porch with too large of columns. However, this feature could be modified if the Planning Commission wishes. Commissioner Zhao pointed out an area on the elevation that does not appear on the plans. Ms. Cindy Brozicevic said that this is non habitable storage space that is accessible only from the garage. This space is there to create a gradual step down from the garage. Commissioner Zhao asked if this square footage is counted against the total allowed. al Ms. Cindy Brozicevic replied no. It is not habitable space as it is only five feet tall and a person cannot comfortably stand in it. Chair Rodgers asked Ms. Cindy Brozicevic if they had considered squaring off the arches. Ms. Cindy Brozicevic said that the arches are used to soften lines of the house. It is the best solution and helps minimize the appearance of bulk and helps tie in the first and second floors. Commissioner Nagpal asked to see the color board. Planner Deborah Ungo- McCormick distributed the project color board. Mr. Bill Brown, Oak Street Resident: Stated he is a 30 -year resident who has watched this neighborhood change quite a bit. Advised of a neighborhood meeting that was held recently at which approximately 20 people participated. Spoke to the historic aspect of this subject property and assured that this house was historic albeit pretty ugly for years because it was ill kept. Stated that he had hoped to see this house replicated with a wraparound porch. Expressed concern that this was one of the last vestiges of real historic value in town and for the erosion in the historic feel of Downtown. Assured that he is all for this house happening and has no problem with its proposed size. Added that he does have a problem with the architecture that appears like a tract house. Saratoga Planning Commission. Minutes for May 10, 2006 Page 11 Described this proposed home as being a miss -mash of styles including Mission and Tudor. Said that the original design was more Victorian but this owner did not like that style. Urged the Commission to reject this design outright or continue this process to allow neighbor input. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Bill Brown what understated stucco means. Mr. Bill Brown said the rooflines are brought down lower. This house right now has big high walls. Questioned where the big arched windows came from. Commissioner Hunter reminded that Mr. Bill Brown appeared before the Commission before. He elected to put in a basement and lifted his entire house above that new basement. Mr. Bill Brown said that this was a great way to get additional square footage. Ms. Lynne Gurley, Oak Street: Said that she has been a resident of the area for 37 years. Stated that this corner house serves as the gateway to our historic section of Oak Street. Advised that there are many historic homes on this street (Oak) and that it is a special and valued place. Said that she does not understand the architecture of eclectic Tudor. Pointed out that there are many charming smaller wooden homes including Craftsman and Victorian architecture. Cautioned that this home would be an imposing addition to this neighborhood. Stated her opposition to the proposed size of the new structure. Mr. John-Teeter, Oak Street: Identified himself as a 28 -year resident of the area. Stated that he has compatibility and bulk concerns with this proposal. Agreed that this is .a prominent corner in the neighborhood that serves as the gateway to Oak Street. Said that what is proposed consists of a very large vertical wall from Oak Street that will not fit in with the subtlety of the other homes in the neighborhood and will change the nature of this street. Mr. John Holt, Oak Street: Said that he is not concerned with the size of this proposed home but is with the exterior style. Stated he does not think this home fits into this neighborhood and will not improve the neighborhood at all. Said that he would like to see a style that blends with the rest of the homes in this neighborhood. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006 Page 12 Ms. Jenni Young Taylor, Oak Street: Said that she lives in a 136- year -old house that has been in her family for 42 years. Gave an overview of the history of the area and this subject house. Said that this home had a lovely and historic past before its recent neglect. Said that the porch is probably from the 1920's with the brick perhaps being newer than that. Stated that Oak Street in its entirety is historic. Called this proposal an overbearing design that is a gaudy and out of place mansion that is a disgrace. Opined that the historic review performed was based upon inadequate and erroneous information and that a failure occurred here. Suggested this request be denied and that the applicant be demanded to provide an historically correct design. Urged the Commission to think of the consequences and to stop this outrageous ostentatious folly. Commissioner Cappello asked Ms. Jenni Young Taylor for more information on the historic nature of this home and porch. Ms. Jenni Young Taylor: Reported that the home was part of Saratoga's first church community, the Congregational Church. The house was moved from its original location to this site. The home was owned and lived in by an important pioneer. Said that this house burned twice. Pointed out that the 1993 Inventory left out lots of important things. It has lots of mistakes and needs to be corrected and updated. Stated that the porch was original when the house was built or soon thereafter. The World War II part is simply the brick veneer added to the porch at that time. Reiterated that this house was built as a farmer's farmhouse and later moved on this property. Chair Rodgers thanked Ms. Jenni Young Taylor for her historic overview. Mr. Ray Persico, 6 Street: Stated his concern that this proposed home does not fit in and /or does not compliment the character of this neighborhood. Said that it would appear like a massive piece on Oak that is out of character, Expressed his hope that this request not be approved tonight so that more work can be done on the design so that all will be happy with the final design. Ms. Sue Persico, 6 Street: Advised that she too is opposed to this proposed design as it is not in keeping with this neighborhood. Added that lots of homes on Oak have wood siding. Asked that changes be required before approving this project. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006 Page 13 Mr. John Hollingsworth, Oak Street: Stated that he is happy that this house is being replaced as it was an eyesore. Said that he does not feel that this new design meets the design guidelines but rather represents a miss -mash of architectural styles. Asked that this project be continued so that the design can be redone to be more consistent with the neighborhood. Chair Rodgers asked. Mr. John Hollingsworth if he thinks this home should match materials with Oak or Komina. Mr. John Hollingsworth replied both but particularly Oak Street since there are more different styles on Komina. Ms. Gay Crawford, Aloha: Advised that she is a 38 -year resident of Saratoga. Thanked Planner Deborah Ungo McCormick and the Planning Commission for their work. Agreed that this project might meet Tots of the criteria. Recounted that she has walked past this house for many years when it was blight. The neighborhood has had hardship with this house for many years. When it burned down, neighbors begged Council to have the rest removed as it was too sad for the school and neighborhood to live with the burned out shell. Stated her disappointment that neither this applicant nor his architect made the effort to attend the recent neighborhood meeting. Said that it is everyone's desire to make this house the best it can be for that corner. Added that some people felt that this structure was historic. Said that this proposal is too massive and that this is an important corner for this City and that the home should be made to appear Tess massive. Mr. David Katz, Lomita Avenue: Stated this his issue is compatibility. Said that while this house may technically be located on Komina Avenue, it is geographically located on Oak Street, which consists of turn -of- the century or earlier houses. Informed that he is a 12 -year resident of the area and when he remodeled he made every effort to keep his home compatible with the area. Stated that he came before the Commission two years ago when he built his Victorian home. Said that compatibility is part of the ambiance of this area and that this proposed design does not keep up. Added that while this proposal may meet the guidelines it does not when looked at from the community perspective. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. David Katz whether his neighbors attended his hearing when he brought his home to the Commission.for review. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006 Page 14 Mr. David Katz replied yes, they came to support him. He added that he took his design plans to his neighbors early in the planning stages. Ms. Megan van Krieken, Lomita Ave: Advised that she is a 12 to 13 -year resident of the area. Said that she came to this area because of its charm and community feeling. Added that there has been a renaissance in this neighborhood with a lot of building and investment. However, people take into account the character of the neighborhood when planning improvements. Said that this site is truly a gateway corner lot. Both sides of this proposed house will be visible from the street. Asked that this fact be considered when making decisions. Suggested the importance of considering the historic perspective versus the letter of the law and help preserve the unique character of this area. Recommended that a design be developed that better fits into this neighborhood and that is not so bulky. Stressed that what is proposed does not fit. Commissioner Cappello told Ms. Megan van Krieken that he agrees with her assessment of the unique charm and character of this neighborhood. In pointing out the stucco apartment development across the street, he asked her how this project can be called incompatible while that apartment building is not. Ms. Megan van Krieken replied that it is an issue of critical mass. They need to downplay that and reinforce the better character of this neighborhood. Mr. Jeff Barco, Komina Avenue: Informed that his home is located four houses from this corner. Stressed that this neighborhood is an amazing place. Pointed out that this is a visible corner where between 200 and 300 cars pass each day as children are brought to the nearby school. Said that he wants to maintain the charm of this neighborhood and this proposal just does not work. Said that he wants to reach out and work with this applicant. Reported that last Thursday (May 4 he tried to facilitate a meeting between this applicant and the neighbors at an evening meeting at his home. Twenty -five people showed up but neither the applicant nor his architect did. Stated that this is a showpiece location. Delivered a petition that has been signed by 52 neighbors asking for more time, perhaps 60 days. Said that they collectively are asking that this design not be allowed to happen. Take time to pause and think. There is no reason to be rash. Let's do it right. Assured that this petition is not intended to be a legal document but rather reflects the spirit of 52 people who care. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006 Page 15 Commissioner Hlava asked Mr. Jeff Barco what the intention is in a 60 -day waiting period. Do they want to talk to the owner and ask for redesign? Do all 52 petitioners want input on the redesign? Mr. Jeff Barco replied all of the above. They want the City to pull back and give everyone 60 days to find a way to make this work. More time is needed. A decision is not needed tonight. He said that this is a reasonable request. Commissioner Nagpal questioned the impacts of a delay on permit streamlining requirements. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer: Reminded that this evening is a noticed public hearing. Added that the Planning Commission should be making a decision as a Commission and not taking a time out. Advised that the Permit Streamlining Act requires the processing of permits in a reasonable time. Informed that the Commission can consider requiring design modifications if it has concerns with design, bulk and /or privacy impacts. Said that the request for a 60 -day delay is not what is before this Commission. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that recently two projects came back before the Commission that had been sent back to the drawing board for redesign. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that the Commission needs to make any requirement for modification based upon the Commission's Design Review concerns. Chair Rodgers restated that from what the City Attorney is advising this project should be evaluated by this Commission in order to make some sort of decision. It is up to the Commission to say yes or no to the proposed design. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that the Commission could elect to ask for redesign if it finds problems with the proposed design. Thereafter, it is up to the applicant to decide if they want to redesign or request a decision for denial that can subsequently be appealed to Council. Mr. Jeff Barco asked if the petition has become a part of the public record. Chair Rodgers replied yes, any item provided to the Commission at public hearing becomes a part of the public record. Mr. Bob Baratta- Lorton, Applicant: Informed that he had originally been told that the. neighborhood meeting was set for May 11 Said that he is a 35 -year resident of Saratoga. Reported that his godsons lived in this house before it burned. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006 Page 16 Advised that he interviewed four experienced Saratoga architects before he selected Cindy to design this home for them. Said that he considers this to be a Komina Avenue property and Komina homes are about 80 percent stucco. Stated that he loves this design. Said that this property serves as a gateway to Komina, not to Oak Street. Reiterated that this is a beautiful home that he is looking forward to living in together with his godsons. Commissioner Kundtz asked Mr. Bob Baratta -Lorton about his efforts to discuss his project with his neighbors. Mr. Bob Baratta -Lorton said that he hand carried the notification to each house and provided contact information and an invitation to come see the plans. Commissioner Kundtz asked Mr. Bob Baratta -Lorton if he implemented any of the suggestions made by neighbors. Mr. Bob Baratta -Lorton said that only one neighbor came and he tried to meet her requests. ip Commissioner Nagpal expressed concern about the 40 -foot length of the home that is at the maximum allowed 26-foot height. She asked if there is not an opportunity to reduce that height. Mr. Bob Baratta -Lorton said that height reductions would impact the interior living space and would lose two bedrooms behind that wall. Chair Rodgers closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Chair Rodgers suggested that the Commission discuss this proposal using the Design Review criteria and design guidelines. Commissioner Hlava: Said that two things said disturb her. Agreed that she too does not want to see a mistake on this corner and can appreciate that concern. Said that on the other hand, it seems as if the neighbors are saying that this project should be evaluated by the historic flavor of this neighborhood and to retroactively apply those constraints. Reminded that it is not easy to get houses through the Design Review process to public hearing. Added that consideration of historic implications for a non designated house is not a part of the legal structure of the Design Review process. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006 Page 17 Said that this issue might need further discussion with Council to set up additional Design Review findings to accommodate historic implications. She would be more than happy to see that happen but when this applicant applied, that didn't exist. Said that the Commission must go back to the basic findings required under Design Review. Stated that given the size of house, size of lot and shape of this corner lot, it would not be economically feasible to put something smaller on this lot. Said that she likes the Oak Street facade as it has a friendly look. Reminded that the school and most houses on Komina are stucco. Stated that she can make the necessary findings to support this application. Commissioner Kundtz: Said that while this is not a historic neighborhood, the emphasis in Design Review is the concept of compatibility and character. Stated that he is sensitive to the passion expressed by the neighbors. Said not much neighbor input appears to have been sought by the applicant. Opined that this design creates excessive bulk and is not compatible to the neighborhood. Said he would vote against this design but is open to a delay of the vote. Commissioner Hunter: Pointed out that she is a former member of the Heritage Preservation Commission who continues to receive the meeting agendas and attend their meetings. Said that she feels very strongly about this area. Said that over the past four to five years there has been discussion about making Oak Street a Heritage Lane and stated that Oak Street is very historic. Urged the neighbors to get together to work on obtaining Historic Lane designation like Austin Lane and Saratoga Avenue. Advised that this is her sixth year on the Planning Commission as she is in her second term. Stated that she has never experienced so many neighbors coming to a hearing to protest a house. Usually two or three show up asking for minor changes. Expressed appreciation that 52 people cared enough to sign a petition and said that this Commission needs to reflect those neighbors. Agreed that this is a unique neighborhood. Signing that petition means they care about Saratoga and their neighborhood. Stated that this proposal either needs to go back to the drawing board or needs to be appealed to Council. It is not appropriate or compatible with its neighborhood. Commissioner Nagpal: Recounted that she comes to every meeting wanting to support staffs recommendations. Explained that she too came before the Commission as an applicant in the past. A lot of people attended her hearing saying they didn't like her initial proposal. They went back to the drawing board and redesigned their home. Stated that she wants to be able to make the findings to support but cannot make Findings D or E in the affirmative. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006 Page 18 Said that it is not a size issue but she does have trouble with the 80 -foot long frontage on Komina with 40 feet of that at the maximum 26 -foot height. This creates excessive bulk. Said that she cannot support this design as it stands. Said that there is an historic aspect to this neighborhood and that compatibility is an issue. Added that it is not fair to compare this house to the school and apartment. Assured that she has no problem using stucco. However, something can be built of stucco that is more compatible. Reiterated that this home appears bulky from Oak Street. Commissioner Zhao: Agreed that this home does not fit into this neighborhood. Pointed out that the Oak Street elevation lacks architectural details. The top portion is big. It is too much and overpowers the porch area. Stated that she too cannot make Findings D and E or support this project as designed. Commissioner Cappello: Said that his key issue is bulk and the maximum height roofline that runs the length. Said that this is a home that will have a major contribution to the homes on Oak Street. Stated that if redesigned, it should be more consistent with the neighborhood. Said that the architect has done a good job blending architectural styles from two very different streets. Pointed out that the applicant will have to live next to these neighbors. If they are not happy, he won't be happy either. Stated that he cannot make Finding D. Chair Rodgers: Advised that she has lived in neighborhoods with historic characteristics where ways were found to commemorate historic significance. Said that there is some appropriate way to work with this street. Added that this issue will likely be discussed with Council at an upcoming joint meeting. Said that she shares concerns with other Commissioners. Stated that this is a unique neighborhood that is charming and interesting. There are historic homes of many different styles. Added that there is a lot of discord here regarding fitting into this neighborhood. While several features proposed do meet styles in the area, we want to keep the character and charm of this historic part of Saratoga intact. Said that there is a bulk issue. The roofline is long and unaltered along Komina. Said that she would vote no based upon character and bulk issues as well as an inability to make Findings D and E. Commissioner Cappello asked if the recommendation is to continue consideration or reject this design. Chair Rodgers said that there are options. The applicant can be consulted as to whether he wants an up or down vote tonight. He could subsequently appeal that decision to Council. Otherwise, this application can be continued to allow redesign and return with revised plans to Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006 Page 19 this Commission. She asked Mr. Bob Baratta -Lorton for his preference amongst those options. Mr. Bob Baratta Lorton said his preference is for specific guidelines from the Commission as to what he must do to get a design approved. Commissioner Nagpal sought clarification from Mr. Bob Baratta Lorton. Does he support a continuance with a request for additional guidance from the Commission? Mr. Bob Baratta Lorton: Expressed frustration that he followed the City's established guidelines but still his project was found not to be acceptable. Said he simply wants clear and specific guidelines on what he needs to do in order to move forward. Said that he can see that any vote would be for denial. Added that he does not want to have to build his home based upon a committee of neighbors. Commissioner Hlava said it appears Mr.. Bob Baratta -Lorton does not clearly understand his options. If the project is turned down, he can appeal that decision to Council. Chair Rodgers reiterated that a denial could go to Council on appeal. Mr. Bob Baratta- Lorton asked if he is being asked for a complete redesign. Commissioner Cappello: Said it appears that Mr. Bob Baratta -Lorton may not be interested in a continuance. Gave suggestions for improvements that include reduction in bulk by finding ways to articulate the roofline and reduce its expanse. Stated that all required findings are met except for bulk. Suggested that the project be designed to be more aesthetically compatible to Oak Street. Said that this is a large structure for the property itself. Commissioner Zhao: Suggested the use of some sort of wainscoting, stone or brick veneer along the Komina Avenue elevation as the wall is kind of plain of architectural details. Said that the Oak Street elevation has compatibility, bulk and height issues. It also needs architectural details to make, it more interesting. Commissioner Nagpal agreed that the Oak Street elevation is short on architectural details. City Attorney Attorne Jonathan Wittwer advised that compatibility is a finding that can be discussed. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006 Page 20 Commissioner Nagpal said that it is not one style or another. Commissioner Hlava: Pointed out that the neighbors are most concerned on the issue of architectural style. Said that while people should be able to pick the architectural style of the home they want to live in, most take the area they are in into consideration when selecting an architectural style. Said this design needs a more old- fashioned look and a break up of the stucco wall. Commissioner Kundtz said that bulk and compatibility are his two sensitivities. The home should reflect a more rural character. Commissioner Hunter: Agreed that compatibility and bulk are also her chief concerns with this design. Said that the problem with the Oak Street elevation is that it is very imposing. Urged the applicant to do something other than Mediterranean or Tudor, perhaps more of a farmhouse feel. Chair Rodgers: Said that she has a problem with an eclectic style. NV Stated that she does not see Tudor in this design. Added that the significance of this neighborhood requires a little more sensitivity. Said that she likes the porch on the Oak Street side but thinks the Oak Street elevation needs to be blended more with a reduction in the bulk of the long straight roofline. Commissioner Zhao pointed out that the chimney is out of proportion. It is too skinny in terms of the design and too tall. Commissioner Hunter agreed with Commissioner Zhao about the chimney. Chair Rodgers asked Ms. Cindy Brozicevic how she and her client prefer the Commission to proceed this evening. Ms. Cindy Brozicevic: Asked the Commission if it has a preference between wood and stucco. Advised that this design cannot be changed easily by simply changing material. Said that they chose not to detach the garage as a Use Permit would be required to accommodate a detached garage. Explained that a reduced setback would have to be approved by the Commission from the 10 -foot setback required to six -foot setback that could be provided with a detached garage. erector John Livingstone cautioned the Commission to simply provide general direction rather than such a specific issue. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006 Page 21 Commissioner Hlava said that the material does not have to be wood. Stucco with trims and things are reflected in the area. Commissioner Kundtz said that use of wood, stucco or a combination is not the solution. What is required is a redesign. Commissioner Hunter said that she thought use of wood was important. She added that stone should not be used at all but that she loves shingle houses. Commissioner Cappello agreed, saying he prefers wood. Commissioner Zhao said that it does not have to be wood but must fit into the style of this neighborhood. Commissioner Nagpal stressed that the key is compatibility. She agreed that these changes require a redesign. Chair Rodgers said that the house does not have to be wood but a design with wood elements is more likely to be supported on the Oak Street side. However, the house does not have to be all wood. Commissioner Nagpal said that Study Sessions have been utilized in the past for such complex or controversial projects. She stressed that everyone wants to see a good project. Chair Rodgers said that she is willing to offer a Study Session. Commissioner Hunter said that she thought a Study Session is in order here and she urged the applicant to consider that option. Chair Rodgers asked staff for its recommendation on the issue of a Study. Session. Director John Livingstone said that staff could guide the applicant on the redesign to incorporate the Planning Commission's recommendations. Again, the applicant can ask the Commission to take a vote tonight or can accept a continuance. Ms. Cindy Brozicevic said that they would prefer a vote and redesign. Chair Rodgers said that they could withdraw this application. Director John Livingstone said that the project could also be denied without prejudice that allows the applicant to bring back the redesigned home. Additionally, a Study Session could be set. Commissioner Hlava pointed out that if the project is denied, the applicant must pay fees again. If it is continued, the applicant deals with staff and the fees paid are still good. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006 Page 22 Ms. Cindy Brozicevic asked the Commission to continue consideration to allow redesign. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hlava, the Planning Commission CONTINUED TO A DATE UNCERTAIN consideration of Design Review (Application #05 -035) for the construction of a two- story, single family residence on property located at 20626 Komina Avenue to allow for redesign of the proposed residence. (7-0) Director John Livingstone advised that staff would renotice the neighbors of the next hearing or Study Session date once scheduled. Chair Rodgers called for a break at 10:00 p.m. Chair Rodgers reconvened the meeting at 10:10 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 3 APPLICATION #UP -06 -282 (APN 386 -60 -001) BALASUBRAMANIAN, 12280 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road: The applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit to establish a dental office in an approximately 1,400 square -foot tenant space in the existing office building located at 12280 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road (Saratoga Square). The site has a Commercial- Visitor (CV) zoning designation. (Shweta Bhatt) Assistant Planner Shweta Bhatt presented the staff report as follows: Advised that the applicant is seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the establishment of a dental office in an existing office building. Informed that a Use Permit is required to establish a medical use in a commercial zoning district. Described the tenant space as consisting of 1,400 square feet. The space will accommodate four patient areas, a waiting room and office. Said that staff finds the application appropriate for this location. Advised that there are three parking areas serving this building. Staff made several site visits and it appears that parking is adequate to serve this use. Recommended approval. Chair Rodgers opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Vijay Balasubramanian, Applicant: 40 Advised that he has nothing to add to the staff report but he is available for any questions. Informed that his wife, Dr. Arathi R. Tiruvur, is the dentist who will occupy this new dental office. Attachment 4 20626 Komina Avenue ARBORIST REPORT APN 517 -08 -026 Owner: Baratta Lorton Introduction Findings Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Califomia 95070 Application 05 -035 April 12, 2006 Prepared by Kate Bear ISA Certified Arborist WE 2250A A set of plans dated March 13, 2006 has been submitted for planning review prior to the planning commission hearing. The existing house has been demolished. Sheet T -1 is missing page 6 of the arborist report dated February 25, 2005 and is also missing the tree inventory and appraisal data. Also missing is page 2 of the arborist report dated February 17, 2006. These must be added to the plan set. Concrete and asphalt that was designated to remain as a staging area has been removed. As a result, additional tree protection fencing is required. It is shown on the attached map. This map shall replace the one currently in the plan set. The following items were listed in the report dated February 17, 2005 and have not yet been addressed on the plans: Sheet Al, the Site Plan, does not show the location of protective fencing as identified on the attached map. Include locations of protective fencing on the site plan. There is no detail for the retaining walls beneath trees #1 and #6. Retaining walls must be established on top of soil grade and consist of a post and beam construction. Details shall be included in the plans. Sheet L1 shows a planting bed beneath the canopy of oak #6 within 10 feet of the tree's trunk. No excavation shall occur under the canopy of the oak and the planting bed in this location should be removed. Attachment: Map showing tree protection fencing and placement of wood chips for construction traffic Page 1 of 1 7 :11 .1N10r A XQ7 OAK STREET ARBIt RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting Tree Care A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF A PROPOSED NEW RESIDENCE AT 20626 KOMINA AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME: Barrata -Lorton APPLICATION 05-035 APN 517-08 -026 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 February 24, 2005 P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 Email: arborresources @earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351 Fax: 650.654.3352 Licensed Contractor #796763 II David L. Babby, Registered Insulting Arborist SUMMARY Six trees of Ordinance -size were reviewed for this report. All are planned for retention. Plan revisions are necessary to the building and landscape design for promoting the trees' protection and can be viewed within the `Recommendations' section of this report. Additional project components must also be submitted to the City and reviewed to fully ascertain the anticipated impacts to trees, such as the existing conditions, grading and drainage. The tree protection bond amount required for this project is determined to be $56,090. INTRODUCTION The City of Saratoga Community Development Department has requested I review the potential tree impacts associated with the demolition of an existing residence and construction of a new one at 20626 Komina Avenue, Saratoga. This report presents my findings and recommendations. Plans- reviewed for this report include the following by Interhouse Design: Sheet A -1, dated 12/29/04, and Sheets A -2 thru A -6 and L -1, dated 1/31/05. The trees' locations, numbers and approximate canopy dimensions are presented on an attached copy of Sheet A -1 (Site Plan). Please note all references to bearings within this report regard `plan north' as being towards Komina Avenue. Tree #3 is situated on the southern neighboring property and is not shown on plans reviewed. It has been included as its root zone is exposed to damage from the proposed project. Please note its location as shown on the attached map is approximate and should not be construed as being surveyed. FINDINGS February 24, 2005 The proposed project exposes six trees regulated by City Ordinance to potential damage. They include one Coast Live Oak (#1), three Valley Oaks #3, 5, 6), one Pittosporum #2) and one Privet (#4). Specific data compiled for each tree is presented on the attached table. Each tree is shown on the plans to be removed. However, trees #3, 5 and 6 will be adversely impacted and revisions to the building and landscape design are essential to This value represents the sum of the appraised tree values shown on the attached table for trees anticipated to be retained. The values are calculated in accordance with the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9" Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture, 2000. 2 The canopy dimensions shown on the plans are not necessarily accurate; all references to canopy size should be derived from the attached table. Barrata- Lorton Property, 20626 Komina Avenue, Saratoga Page 1 of 6 City of Saratoga Community Development Department David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 24, 2005 achieve a reasonably high assurance of their survival. Specific guidelines for redesigning the plans are presented in the `Recommendations' section of this report. Regarding tree #3, it is one of the largest and mature Valley Oaks within Saratoga. It has a trunk diameter of 52.5 inches and its canopy spans approximately 100 feet across. My assessment of this tree reveals it has structural defects of concern that should be further investigated by the owner of the neighboring property. For planning purposes, however, this tree must be regarded as extremely valuable and the plans revised accordingly. In doing so, the proposed basement must be redesigned so a minimum clearance of 22 feet is established between the trunk and nearest excavation. This may require the basement being designed at least 27 feet from the trunk so a five -foot overcut can be achieved for constructing and sealing the walls, as well as installing drainage components. Additionally, the first -floor foundation shall be established at least 22 feet from the tree's trunk and any overcut minimized to 18 inches. The proposed plans do not show all existing site features, such as the residence, hardscape, walls, carport or shed. I recommend a plan be designed that shows these features and identifies which will remain, be removed and/or improved. Sheet A -1 indicates "minimal" grading of the site will occur. Though minimal, grading can expose the trees to significant damage. As such, the existing and proposed grading contours must be shown to accurately assess the project impacts. RECOMMENDATIONS All recommendations presented below are based on the proposed plans. Should the plans be revised, the recommendations may require modification. Design Guidelines 1. The proposed basement must be redesigned so the nearest excavation between tree #3's trunk and the basement walls is at least 22 feet. This may require designing the basement and light wells at least 27 feet from the trunk. 2. The first -floor foundation must be designed to be at least 22 feet from tree #3's trunk. The overcut or trenching beyond the foundation should not exceed 18 inches and the any drainage or trenching around the perimeter must be designed accordingly. 3. With the exception of the area within 18 inches from the first -floor foundation, any trenching (such as for drainage, utilities, services, lighting, irrigation, etc.) should be designed at a distance from the trees' trunks of 10 times their diameter. If irrigation lines are designed inside this distance, the trenches must be in a radial direction to the trunks and be no closer than five times the diameter of the nearest trunk; if this not be 3 Any reference to `basement' within this report is intended to also include `light wells'. Barrata Property, 20626 Komina Avenue, Saratoga Page 2 of 6 City of Saratoga Community Development Department David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 24, 2005 possible, the lines can be placed on top of existing soil grade and covered with wood chips. 4. The location of tree #3's trunk must be surveyed and shown on all site related plans (to include Sheets A -1 and L -1). 5. The canopy sizes shown on Sheets A -1 and L -1 must correspond with sizes presented on the attached map. 6. A plan should be prepared that shows all existing features, such as the residence, hardscape, retaining walls, carport, shed and lawn area. Additionally, the retention, removal and/or improvement of each feature must be identified. 7. A grading and drainage plan must be prepared that shows the existing and proposed topographical contours and any proposed drainage features. 8. Grading shall not occur beneath the trees' canopies. The exception to this is where the new home and basement will be designed beneath tree #3's canopy as well as south of the designated fenced area for tree #6 (approximately 10 feet from its trunk). 9. Any new retaining walls proposed beneath the trees' canopies must be established either entirely on top of soil grade. (i.e. a no -dig desi€ n) or a post and beam design (i.e. no soil excavation except for the posts). If the latter is used, the beams shall span over and above existing soil grade, and the posts minimized in diameter and established as far apart from a tree's trunk and another. Details regarding the walls should be shown on the project plans. 10. The proposed driveway (including any curb or edging) and other hardscape beneath the trees' canopies shall be established on top of existing soil grade and require no excavation (i.e. a no -dig design; the hardscape must not exceed the depth or width of the existing). Plans should also show this detail. 11. The landscape plans must be revised so no grass or other plant material requiring regular water use is proposed beneath the canopies of trees #1, 3, 5 and 6. Only drought- tolerant plant materials shall be installed. 12. The portion of planting beds within 10 feet of tree #6's trunk must be removed from the design. 13. The following recommendations should be incorporated into the landscape design and implemented by the landscape contractor: a. Lawn or plant material requiring regular watering should comprise no more than 20- percent of the area beneath a tree's canopy. Plant material installed beneath an Oak's canopy should be drought tolerant and compatible for planting beneath Oak trees; contact the California Oaks Foundation at www.californiaoaks.org for obtaining a list of suitable plants. Barrata- Lorton Property, 20626 Komina Avenue, Saratoga Page 3 of 6 City of Saratoga Community Development Department a II David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 24, 2005 b. Irrigation should not spray beneath an Oak's canopy or within five feet from the trunks of all other trees. Please note this may require converting the existing irrigation system. c. Stones, mulch or other landscape features should be at least one -foot from the trunks of retained trees and not be in contact with the trunks of new trees. d. Tilling beneath the canopies must be avoided. e. Bender board or other edging material proposed beneath the trees' canopies must be established on top of existing soil grade. Protection Measures during Demolition and Construction 14. 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 18 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction process until final inspection. 15. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the fenced areas (even after fencing is removed). These activities include, but are not limited to, the following: demolition, grading, surface scraping, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials, and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 16. To allow for sufficient site access (such as for staging areas and routes of access), the following existing hardscape must remain intact throughout construction and removed just prior to landscaping commencing: [1] the section of concrete pad within 20 feet north of tree #3's trunk and 50 feet in all other directions, [2] the section of concrete pad beneath tree #4's trunk, [3] the portion of walkway within 13 feet of tree #6's trunk, and [4] the section of existing asphalt within 10 feet of tree #5's trunk (to include the portion below the existing carport structure). When the hardscape is removed, it must be first broken into small pieces using a jackhammer. The pieces should be manually lifted onto a loader that must remain on pavement at all times and off exposed soil and roots. Within one hour after hardscape removal, a four -inch layer of clean sand or coarse wood chips from a tree company shall be spread over the exposed areas and remain moist until the overlaying materials are installed; the placement and removal of the chips or sand must be by hand. Should soil be placed within the voids created by the hardscape being removed, it should have a percolation rate of approximately 0.5 inches per hour. 17. Prior to construction, a four -inch layer of coarse wood chips from a tree company should be manually spread within the designated fenced area for trees #1 and 6. The mulch should not be in contact with the trees' trunks. 18. If the wall within the designated fenced area for tree #6 is to be removed, a small and temporary opening in the fence can be created to allow for foot and wheelbarrow Barrata- Lorton Property, 20626 Komina Avenue, Saratoga Page 4 of 6 City of Saratoga Community Development Department David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 24, 2005 access only. The removal of the wall must be manually performed, such as by using a jackhammer. Immediately after the work is performed, the fence must be closed. 19. Should any future walls be constructed of a post and above -grade beam design, the post footings must be manually dug to the required depth and width using shovels. Any roots with diameters of one -inch and greater that are encountered during the process shall be cleanly severed at the soil cut line. The freshly cut end of roots two inches and greater in diameter shall be immediately wrapped in a clear, plastic sandwich bag and tightly sealed with a rubber band or electrical tape. Prior to digging the footings, plywood or plastic tarps shall be placed on soil grade around the footing perimeter. All soil dug shall be placed on the material and either hauled from the site or spread outside from beneath the canopies of retained trees. Access within the designated fenced areas shall be by foot and wheelbarrow traffic only. 20. Prior to excavating soil for the basement, a one -foot wide trench shall be manually dug where excavation is planned nearest to tree #3's trunk. The trench should include the entire length of the wall within 50 feet of the trunk and be at least three- and -a -half feet below existing soil grade. All visible roots encountered during the process should be cleanly severed at the soil cut line (on the tree side of the trench). The freshly cut ends of roots with diameters of two inches and greater should be immediately wrapped in a clear sandwich bag and tightly sealed with a rubber band or electrical tape. 21. Any unused, existing underground utilities or pipes beneath the trees' canopies should be abandoned and cut off at existing soil grade. 22. The removal of any existing plants or brush material beneath the trees' canopies shall be cut to grade and the roots left intact. The stumps can either be axed away or ground below grade. 23. Throughout construction during the months of April thru November, water should be supplied every three to four weeks to tree #1. I suggest 10 gallons of water per inch of trunk diameter is applied using soaker hoses placed beneath the trees' mid- to outer canopies. 24. Upon availability, plans showing all existing conditions, proposed underground utilities and services, proposed grading and drainage, and proposed landscaping (both planting and irrigation) should be reviewed for tree impacts prior to implementation. 25. Trenches for any new drainage features or underground utilities must be designed outside from beneath the canopies of retained trees. 26. Discharge from any drainage features, including downspouts, should be directed away from the trees' canopies. Downspouts shall be situated at least 15 feet to the side and directed away from the trunks of retained trees. 27. Ivy should be removed from and remain two feet away from tree #6's trunk. Barrata Lorton Property, 20626 Komina Avenue, Saratoga Page 5 of 6 City of Saratoga Community Development Department David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 24, 2005 28. Herbicides should not be applied beneath the canopies of retained trees. Where used on site, they must be labeled for safe use near trees. 29. Any tree pruning must be performed under supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist (not by construction personnel) and according to ISA standards. Information regarding Certified Arborists in the area can be obtained at http://www.isa-arborcom. The pruning should be limited to the removal of dead branches one -inch and greater in diameter, establishing sufficient clearances from the home and paths of travel, and reducing any heavy limb weight. Attachments: Tree Inventory Table Site Map (a copy of the Site Plan) Barrata- Lorton Property, 20626 Komina Avenue, Saratoga Page 6 of 6 City ofSaratoga Community Development Department TREE NO. 1 4 5 ARB RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting Tree Care TREE INVENTORY TABLE TREE NAME Es F-4 co 0 CD o Coast Live Oak Quercus agnfolia 1 16, 12, 11 35 40 100% 25% Pittosporum I (Pittosporum eugenioides) 6, 6, 5, 5 40 25 75% 25% Valley Oak (Quercus lobata) 52.5 70 100 75% 25% Glossy Privet (Ligustrum lucidum) 1 7, 6.5, 5, 4 25 25 175% 25% Valley Oak (Quercus lobata) 9.5 30 30 100% 50% Fair Fair Valley Oak (Quercus lobata) 13 40 35 100% 50% Sue: 20626 Komina Avenue, Saratoga Prepared for: City of Saratoga Community Development Depart. Prepared by: David L Babby, RCA w a at Q a4 k ow I Hi 1 4 1 Good I Moderate I 1 REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 15- allon $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 1 February 24, 2005 1 $4,420 1ND JO N0U7710110 Dt ,fC'DGD 5 pg, Whitt EDGE IT ASPWLT ri AspHALI 4 0 o! bgt 1 111 :0 i 1 gri !I I loti 1- p ei4w 1% 4 1 a L. r° CEN OAK AND LOINT INTERSCCDON A N43100'0 51.59' PE sasOO'W 204# Attachment 5 December 12, 2005 Bob Baratta -Lorton P.O. Box 2070 .Saratoga, CA 95070 -0070 RE: 20626 Komina Avenue HRE Dear Mr. Baratta- Lorton: Carey Co. has been retained to prepare a Historic Resource Evaluation of the building at 20626 Komina Avenue in Saratoga, California. Carey Co. is listed as a qualified historic preservation consultant with the California Office of Historic Preservation. The president of the firm, Alice Ross Carey, and I meet and exceed the United States Secretary of the Interior's Qualifications Standards' educational and experiential requirements for historic preservation professionals. Additionally, Carey Co.'s Director of Preservation Planning, Hisashi B. Sugaya, meets and exceeds the United States Secretary of the Interior's Draft Revised Qualifications Standards' educational and experiential requirements for historic preservation professionals. Enclosed you will find the Historic Resource Evaluation, consisting of DPR 523 A, B, and L forms. To prepare this Historic Resource Evaluation, Carey Co. made site visits to the subject structure and we conducted archival research at various local and regional repositories, including the Saratoga Historical Foundation, the Saratoga Library, the Califomia Room at the San Jose Library, the City of Saratoga Community Development Department, and the online collections of University of Califomia/Berkeley Earth Sciences and Map Library. Representative site visit photographs and a complete list of the documentary sources we consulted are included on the attached DPR 523L forms. Carey Co. has assigned property a "6Z" rating, indicating that the property does not appear individually eligible for NRHP, CRHR or local listing. Sincerely, Cam Carin Petersen, Architectural Historian Preservation Specialist Enclosure CAREY CO INC. ARCHITECTURE 20626 Komina Avenue Saratoga, California HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION December 12, 2005 Prepared by Carey Co. Inc. San Francisco Page 1 of 16 Resource Name or (Assigned by recorder) 20626 Komina Avenue P1. Other Identifier: "P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County: Santa Clara County, Calif. •b. USGS Quad: Date: T: R: S: c. Address :20626 Komina Avenue City Saratoga, Calif. ZIP 95070 d. UTM (Give more than one for large or linear resources) Zone mE/ mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g. parcel directions to resource, elevation, etc. as appropriate) APN: 517 08 026 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) This residence, sited at the comer of Oak Street and Komina Ave, has recently suffered two fires leaving only foundation, forms and openings distinguishable. Prior to these events, a two -story wood framed structure stood on a brick faced concrete foundation above a basement. The building was dad in v- groove horizontal wood siding with comer boards and a half -round watertable, and topped by a composition shingle covered hip roof. Moderate roof overhangs featured exposed soffit and rafter tails. Projecting from the roof were two parged chimneys. The primary (east) entry was composed of a brick stair flanked by brick pillars at the sidewalk, leading to a covered wood wrapping porch with brick side walls. Windows were mostly wood double -hung with shaped stile ends and simple wide trim. Single -story additions appear to have been made to the south facade. Interior remnants indicate that materials and finishes included lath and plaster walls and ceilings, hardwood flooring, and molded baseboards and opening trim. The site also features a three -car carport composed of concrete masonry units, brick walls and a wood framed roof. 'P3b. Resource Attributes:(List attributes and codes) HP2. Single Family Property 'P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other P5b. Description of Photo (view,date,etc): Oak Steet facade, view looking southeast, 11/4/05 11. Report Citation:(Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none a rey Co., "20626 Komina Avenue Historic Resource Evaluation," November 2005. *Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map 0 Continuation Sheet (J Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record ❑I Artifact Record Photograph Record U Other (list): •P6. Date Constructed /Age /Sources: Historic Prehistoric Both 1900 (estimated), County of Santa Clara Assessor records •P7. Owner and Address Bob Baratta Lorton P.O. Box 2070 Saratoga, CA 95070-0070 *P8. Recorded By Carey and Co. Inc. 460 Bush Street San Francisco, CA 94108 *P9. Date Recorded: 11/4/05 *P10. Survey Type: Intensive survey DPR 523 A (1/95) *Required Information Page 2 of 16 B1. Historic Name: B2. Common Name: 20626 Komina Avenue B3. Original Use: Residential *B5. Architectural Style: PioneerNemacular *B6. Construction History: (construction date, alterations, date of alterations) Originally` constructed in 1900. Alterations include early additions to the southeast elevation, seismic repair /upgrades, concrete foundation with brick veneer, electrical and plumbing upgrades, and interior alterations. The building has suffered two recent fires. "B7. Moved? 0 No 0Yes 0 Unknown Date Original Location "B6. Related Features: Three -car carport southeast of house. B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder. Unknown NRHP Status Code: Resource Name or (Assigned by recorder) 20626 Komina Avenue *B10. Significance: Theme: Residential Development Area: Saratoga, California Period of Significance: 1900 Property Type: Residence Applicable Criteria: (Discuss importance in terms of historical-or architecgtural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) Evaluation Summary: Carey Co. has assigned the residence at 20626 Komina Avenue, Saratoga, Califomia, a "6Z" historic status code, indicating that though survey evaluation it has been found ineligible for listing on the National and Califomia Registers, and that it has been found ineligible for designation at the local level. In our professional opinion, the property does not possess sufficient historic significance or integrity under any of the National Register of Historic Places or Califomia Register of Historical Resources Criteria for Evaluation, and it does not qualify for listing as a City of Saratoga local landmark under criteria listed in the Municipal Code, Sec. 13- 15.010. See attached continuation sheet for Background History and Evaluation, and appended summary of Califomia Historical Resources Status Codes updated August 2003. B11. Additional Resource Attribute (Ust attributes and codes) B12. References: See attached continuation sheet for References. B13. Remarks: Historic Resource Evaluation *B14. Evaluator. Carin Petersen, Carey Co. Inc. "Date of Evaluation:- 11/4/05 (This space reserved for official comments) B4. Present UseResidential W 1- N 0 20626 5Th STREET KOKINA AVENUE SARA TOGA SCHOOL KOMINA AVENUE CEUU Li r DPR 523 B (1/95) *Required Information DPR 523L (1/95) Oak Street (northwest) facade, 11/4/05 Komina Avenue (northeast) facade with primary entry, 11/4/05 State of California The Resources Agency Primary DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION I3RI# Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Page 3 of 16 *Resource Name or (Assigned by recorder) 20626 Komina Avenue (HRE) *Recorded by: Carey Co. Inc. P5a. Photos/P5b. Description of Photos Continued *Date: 11/4/2005 Continuation Update *Required information State of California The Resources Agency Primary DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# CONTINUATION SHEET Page 3 of 16 *Resource Name or (Assigned by recorder) 20626 Komina Avenue (HRE) *Recorded by: Carey Co. Inc. P5a. Photos/P5b. Description of Photos Continued Oak Street (northwest) facade, 11 /4/05 Komina Avenue (northeast) facade with primary entry, 11/4/05 DPR 523L (1/95) Trinomial *Date: 11/4/2005 Continuation 0 Update *Required information State of California The Resources Agency Primary DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 4 of 16 *Recorded by: Carey Co. Inc. Northeast facade looking west, 11/4/05 Primary entry stair and opening (northeast facade), 11/4/05 DPR 523L (1/95) *Resource Name or (Assigned by recorder) 20626 Komina Avenue (1-IRE) *Date: 11/4/2005 Continuation Update *Required information Mate of California The Resources Agency Primary DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial *Resource Name or (Assigned by recorder) 20626 Komina Avenue (HRE) Page 5 of 16 *Recorded by: Carey Co. Inc. Southwest facade showing additions, 11/4/05 DPR 523L (1/95) *Date: 11/4/2005 Continuation 0 Update Detail showing horizontal wood siding, curved watertable, and sill (southeast facade), 11/4/05 *Required information State of California The Resources Agency Primary DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION IIRI# CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 6 of 16 *Recorded by: Carey Co. Inc. 0 Interior ceiling structure, 11/4/05 Interior wood flooring, 11/4/05 DPR 523L (1/95) *Date: 11/4/2005 *Resource Name or (Assigned by recorder) 20626 Komina Avenue (HRE) Continuation D Update *Required information END. .Nfornia The Resources Agency Primary ,P.ARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# NTINUATION SHEET Triinomial age 7 of 16 *Resource Name or (Assigned by recorder) 20626 Komina Avenue (1 -IRE) *Recorded by: Carey Co. Inc. Carport at southwest end of property, 11/4/05 *Date: 11/4/2005 Continuation 0 Update DPR 5231.(1/95) 'Required information 1 lah of California The Resources Agency Primary EPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 8 of 16 *Resource Name or (Assigned by recorder) 20626 Komina Avenue (HRE) *Recorded by: Carey Co. Inc. *Date: 11/4/2005 Continuation 0 Update B10. Significance: CON'T Background History: The following section provides a general overview of the early history of Saratoga followed by a more specific history of the property at 20626 Komina Avenue. The Saratoga history statement was excerpted from "Saratoga's Heritage," A Survey of Heritage Resources, published by the City of Saratoga in 1992. The property history was compiled by Carey Co. from archival sources and visual observation. Summarized History of Saratoga "Saratoga's setting, against the eastern foothills of the Santa Cruz mountains, seems such an ideal location for a pleasant late 20th century suburb that one might think it has always been this way. But suburban Saratoga is only the latest stage in a rich history that goes back before the gold rush, a history which has left its traces in our historic resources. Among the homes and shops of the modem town, the buildings remaining from these earlier eras are clues to that past. "The first settlers in Saratoga, ancestors of the Ohlone Indians, arrived thousands of years ago, and have left traces which are visible only to the trained eye of the archeologist. The oldest remaining buildings in Saratoga date from around the middle of the nineteenth century, a. few years after the first European- Americans settled near the banks of Arroyo Quito. The community they built followed a pattern quite different from most areas in the United States, for Saratoga began as an industrial town and then evolved as an agricultural center and finally into the residential suburb of today. "Although the De Anza expedition of 1776 camped in or near Saratoga, it wasn't until the 1840s that William Campbell saw the potential of the local redwood trees as lumber to build homes for the settlers coming west from the United States to Alta California. In 1847 he signed a contract with Manuel Alviso, owner of the Rancho Quito, to build a mill on the banks of what is now Saratoga Creek to process the lumber he planned to remove from the steep sides of the canyon. A small community formed at the foot of the canyon, called informally, Campbell's Gap. "The end of the Mexican- American War, the discovery of gold, and the admission of California to the Union in 1850 all stimulated interest in the industrial potential of the small community. Flour milling was added to Campbell's enterprise, and soon other lumber and grist mills were established along the creek. The growing settlement was surveyed for the first time in 1852, and when it acquired its first Post Office, it was named not for Campbell, who had sold out his holdings, but for another early settler, Martin McCarty. McCarty, an Irish immigrant, had realized the need for better transportation into this growing area, so he built a road through the tiny town and set up a toll gate at what is today Big Basin Way at 3rd Street. The town .came to be know as Tollgate (or Toll Gate), but officially it was McCartysville. "These first settlers built simple pioneer cottages for themselves, a few of which survive, such as the McWilliams house, now the office of the Chamber of Commerce in the Historical Park, and the John Henry house, at the comer of Big Basin Way and 6th Street. They also began to develop community institutions, such as the Sons of Temperance, whose meeting hall on Oak Street served as the site of Saratoga's first public school. They DPR 523L(1/95) *Required information State of California The Resources Agency Primary DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 9 of 16 *Resource Name or (Assigned by recorder) 20626 Komina Avenue (HRE) *Recorded by: Carey Co. Inc. *Date: 11/4/2005 ICJ Continuation Update established churches, a Post Office, and Madronia cemetery, and despite the active Sons of Temperance, McCartysville was reported to be well supplied with saloons. "Industry continued to be attracted to the small community where the creek provided a ready supply of power. Lumbering also continued to be important, and the main street of McCartysville was called Lumber Street by the inhabitants. In 1871 the Saratoga and Pescadero Turnpike was opened, improving the lumber routes to the little town of Felton over the hill. The flour and lumber mills were joined by a tannery and by a successful paper milling industry. One of the most colorful and visionary of these early industrialists was Charles Maclay, who bought up one of the mills, renaming it Bank Mills, and then had the Post Office rename the small town after his enterprise. Although he went on to a noted career in finance, real estate and the state legislature, he never succeeded in convincing the settlers of McCartysville to call their town Bank Mills. "Milling was not the only industry to excite the early city fathers. There was great hope for Saratoga as a mining center, first from copper, and then silver, but the only successful extractive industry was lime quarrying for use in brick building and in processing quicksilver. More successful was the exploitation of the healthful water which came from several springs above the town. The springs had been located in the 1850s, and in 1864 the townspeople, hoping to emphasize the similarity of their water to that of the famous New York spa, voted to rename their town Saratoga. So it was that a California town came to have an Iroquois Indian name. "Shortly before the name change, a corporation had been formed to develop the springs, and in 1866 the Congress Hall resort hotel opened, its name echoing a site at Saratoga Springs, New York. The original hotel was later expanded, and became the center of the large Pacific Congress Springs resort area, surrounded by vacation homes, trails and picnic spots. Saratoga's reputation as a resort center spread in the 1880s and 90s, and other mineral spas, picnic areas and resorts began to attract visitors. One of the most popular of these new resorts was at Long Bridge, on Congress Springs Road, where the Saratoga Springs resort is today. The hotel at the Pacific Congress Springs resort burned down on June 15, 1903, but Saratoga's reputation as a vacation site, both for day trips and for long stays, was firmly established. "As Saratoga was developing as a resort, it was also being transformed from an industrial center to an agricultural producer. There had always been farmers in the area, but as the easy supply of timber began to give out and the mills moved away, ranching became the economic core of Saratoga. Early farmers had produced mostly grain, but in the 1880s fruit ranching began to replace it. The problems with successful fruit production are preservation and transportation. The fruit that launched Saratoga's industry was the French prune, which could be inexpensively dried and thus preserved and reduced in bulk. The demand for dried fruit grew rapidly, and large tracts around Saratoga were planted to fruit trees. Soon prunes were followed by apricots and grapes and to a lesser extent by pears and apples. "As fruit ranching grew, the community continued to focus on its core around Lumber and Oak streets. New and larger schools were built near the site of the Sons of Temperance hall in 1869 and again in the 1890s. Two churches built during this era remain, now adapted to different uses: the Methodist- Episcopal church building which now serves as a photography studio and St. John's Episcopal church, whichhas been remodeled into a private home. Many of the shops in the central business district also date from our agricultural era. Two which are easily identifiable are the Cloud store building and the Hutchinson building which flank 3rd Street at Big Basin Way, at the site of Martin McCarty's toll gate. New commercial buildings continued to be mixed with DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information Page 10 of 16 *Recorded by: Carey Co. Inc. State of California The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Primary HRI# Trinomial *Resource Name or (Assigned by recorder) 20626 Komina Avenue (1 *Date: 11/4/2005 0 Continuation Update residences on Lumber Street into the new century, including the Saratoga Bank building with its reassuring brick strength, (1913) and the Kerr building, built in 1910 and remodeled many times over the years. "Saratoga's reputation as a beautiful spot for an outing or vacation continued to grow with the fruit orchards and the first Saratoga Blossom Festival in 1900 drew new visitors. The festival was conceived by the Reverend Edwin S. 'Sunshine' Williams, a retired Congregational minister, as a thanksgiving for the end of a drought. It brought dozens, and in later years thousands, of visitors to Saratoga to ride through a sea of pink and white fruit blossoms. "Early visitors to the Blossom Festival had come by train to Los Gatos and were then transported by wagon to the orchards of Saratoga. The festival's popularity led the Southern Pacific Railroad to print special excursion tickets for the guests, and after 1904 they could travel all the way to Saratoga in modem cars of the San Jose and Los Gatos Interurban Railway, whose tracks carried passengers along Saratoga Los Gatos Road, up Lumber Street to the resorts of Congress Springs, and down Saratoga Avenue toward San Jose. "One-clay excursions to the Blossom Festival brought many to town, but it also became popular as a longer vacation site. Small hotels like Lunblad's Lodge, still located on Oak Street, or the Saratoga Inn catered to guests from the San Francisco area. Wealthier visitors began to build imposing second homes in Saratoga, many of them echoing historic architectural styles, with Greek columns or Mediterranean arches. "The 1930s were a difficult time in Saratoga, as elsewhere, although agriculture continued to be the firm foundation of the area's economy. For a few years the programs of the Blossom Festival had to be cut back because of hard times, and it was eventually abandoned with the coming of World War II. Although fruit ranching continued as the center of Saratoga's economy into the early 1950s, the forces that were to change the town were already working. The interurban railroad was abandoned in 1933, a victim of the growing popularity of the automobile. "Saratoga had always served to a small extent as a bedroom community for the larger San Jose, for many members of ranching families made a part of their living from commercial and professional lives in the city. With the easy availability of the automobile Saratoga became a more attractive commuter haven, and when the Silicon Valley economy of the post -war years began to explode, Saratoga's desirability grew. Acres of fruit orchards were tom out beginning in the 1950s, to be replaced by neat tracts of single family homes, as well as churches, schools and shops to support the growing population. Much of this new development took place away from the traditional center of the town, which had changed its name from Lumber Street to Big Basin Way in 1926. As it grew toward the north and east, it met the rapidly expanding San Jose, and to protect itself from being swallowed up Saratoga became an incorporated city in 1956. In an effort to keep a tie with the past, one of those new schools was named Congress Springs. It too is now gone, a victim of a declining population of young people in the 1970s." Summary History of the Property The residential area of Saratoga located southeast of Big Basin Way began its development in the mid to late 19 century and included pioneer residences, the Congressional Church, and Madronia Cemetery along Oak Street.' Elizabeth Ansnes, introduction to Saratoga's Heritage, A Survey of Heritage Resources, (Saratoga, CA: Heritage Preservation Commission, 1993): 5 -7. 2 Ibid. DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information State of California The Resources Agency Primary DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# CONTINUATION SHEET. Trinomial Page 11 of 16 *Recorded by: Carey Co. Inc. *Resource Name or (Assigned by recorder) 20626 Komina Avenue (HRE) *Date: 11/4/2005 Continuation Update Throughout the early 20 century residential growth continued including the addition of public schools into the neighborhood. In keeping with the tree species theme which included Oak Street and Pine, Komina Avenue was originally Elm Street, remaining so into the mid -20 century.' The subject building, currently located at the corner of Oak Street and Komina Avenue (Elm Street), was constructed in 1900.' Archival research was inconclusive as to whether the building was constructed at this site or moved from the east comer of the public school lot on Oak Street near 3' Streets The 1918 Sanborn map illustrates the current building, a two -story residence with a single -story rear portion and a corner wrapping single -story porch. The updated 1930 map shows little change. Permit history, as well as visual observation, indicate that although the interior was greatly altered, the building retained a majority of its original exterior physical fabric and characteristics over the past 100 years. During the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, the building suffered some structural damage resulting in the addition of a new concrete foundation and brick veneer base. Most recently, the residence has endured two separate interior fires, the latest rendering its historic fabric virtually unrecognizable and unsalvageable. The foundation and masonry work are among few elements that remain intact. Although conclusive ownership and occupant information was not found for the building's first 30 years, oral history links the Fred Gardner family, a branch of the Saratoga pioneer David Gardner family, to the structure However, city directories, as well as census records indicate that orchardist/carpenter Fred Gardner and family resided on Fr Avenue throughout their alleged period of association with the property. Archival research was unable to confirm this connection. The first conclusive ownership information dates to 1929 -30, when J ack Clarke and his wife, May, purchased the property. Mr. Clarke worked for Standard Plumbing and Heating and resided in the house with his wife and two sons, John and Henry. Henry Clarke later became the Saratoga fire chief and continues to reside in the city. The Clarke family maintained the property until the 1940's when they sold it to Al Bosworth, a brick mason/contractor.l More recent owners include John Felsingea and Robin Huber. The property's current owner is Robert Baratta Lorton. Mr. Baratta -Lorton co -owned the property with Ms. Huber for several years before becoming the sole owner. The architectural style of the house located at 20626 Komina Avenue is best classified as Pioneer/Vemacular. Many of the surrounding residences have been labeled Pioneer style as examples of early Saratoga settler architecture. However, 20626 Komina Avenue was constructed upwards of thirty years later than many of these buildings and does not appear to have exemplified any particular established style. 3 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Maps. "Saratoga, Calif." 1918, map 1 2; 1918 updated to 1930, maps 1 2. 4 "517 -08 -026 Characteristics Inquiry," Santa Clara County Assessor's Records. 5 Henry Clarke. Oral History. Saratoga Historical Foundation, Henry Clarke file, November 2001. 6 Ibid. Polk Husted Directory Co.'s San Jose City and Santa Clara County. (San Jose, Calif.: Hillis and Co. Press/Mercury Publishing Co., 1930). DPR 523L (1/95) "Required information *Date: 11/4/2005 State of California The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Primary HRI# Trinomial Page 12 of 16 *Resource Name or (Assigned by recorder) 20626 Komina Avenue (HRE) *Recorded by: Carey Co. Inc. Evaluation: The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) evaluates a property's historic significance based on the following four criteria: Criterion A (Event): Properties that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. 0 Continuation 0 Update Criterion B (Person): Properties that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. Criterion C (Design /Construction): Properties that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. Criterion D (Information Potential): Properties that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. In addition to historic significance, an NRHP evaluation includes a determination of physical integrity, or the property's ability to convey its historic significance. Integrity consists of seven aspects: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The residence at 20626 Komina Avenue in Saratoga, CA, is currently not listed on the NRHP. In Carey Co.'s professional opinion the building does not appear to be individually NRHP eligible. To be potentially eligible for individual listing on the NRHP, a building must usually be over 50 years old, must have historic significance, and must retain its physical integrity. Since this building was constructed approximately 105 years ago, it meets the age requirement. However, it does not appear to possess sufficient significance or integrity for individual listing. Archival research yielded no conclusive evidence indicating an association with historic events, individuals or entities "significant to the broad patterns of our history" (NRHP Criteria A and B). Under NRHP Criterion C, the building does not sufficiently embody the distinctive characteristics of its style, type, or period to be individually eligible. Finally, archival research provided no indication that the building has the potential to yield exceptionally important information (NRHP Criterion D). The issue of integrity is only considered if a property is found to possess historic significance. Therefore, the integrity of the structure at 20626 Komina Avenue has not been evaluated. However, Carey Co. would like to note that the building has suffered two fires, destroying a majority of the buildings structure, architectural elements and finishes. Portions of the building less affected by these fires are largely additions and recent alterations. The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) evaluates a resource's historic significance based on the following four criteria: DPR 523L(1/95) *Required information State of California The Resources Agency Primary DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION H[RI# CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial *Recorded by: Carey. Co. Inc. *Date: 11/4/2005 Page 13 of 16 *Resource Name or (Assigned by recorder) 20626 Komina Avenue (HRE Continuation Update Criterion 1 (Event .1: Resources associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. Criterion 2 (Person): Resources associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history. Criterion 3 (Design/Construction): Resources that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master or possess high artistic values. Criterion 4 (Information Potential): Resources that have yielded or have the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation. In addition to historic significance, a CRHR evaluation includes a determination of physical integrity, or the authenticity of an historical resource's physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource's period of significance. Any resource listed in or determined eligible for listing in the NRHP is automatically eligible for listing in the CRHR. Since 20626 Komina Avenue was constructed 105 years ago, it meets the CRHR age requirements. However, it does not appear to possess sufficient historic significance or integrity for listing. In Carey Co.'s opinion, under CRHR Criterion 1 archival research yielded no information indicating association with significant historic events. Under CRHR Criterion 2, archival research yielded no conclusive information indicating an association with significant historic individuals or entities. Under CRHR Criterion 3, the structure's vernacular style does not sufficiently embody the distinctive characteristics of the style, type, or period or possess sufficient integrity. Archival research provided no indication that the property has the potential to yield exceptionally important information (CRHR Criterion 4). Since physical integrity is based on historic significance, and the building does not appear to possess historic significance, its physical integrity was not be evaluated. The City of Saratoga, Municipal Code, Sec. 13- 15.010, gives the City Council authority to by ordinance designate "a historic landmark, heritage lane or historic district if it satisfies any two or more of the criteria listed below and also retains a substantial degree of architectural and structural integrity with respect to the original design, as determined by the Heritage Commission. (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; or (b) It is identified with persons or events significant in local, county, state or national history; or (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; or (d) It is representative of the notable design or craft of a builder, designer, or architect; or (e) It embodies or contributes to unique physical characteristics representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood or district within the City; or (0 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; or DPR 5231- (1/95) *Required information Page 14 of 16 *Recorded by: Carey Co. Inc. END. *Date: 11/4/2005 State of California The Resources Agency Primary DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial *Resource Name or (Assigned by recorder) 20626 Komina Avenue (HRE Designated structures are regulated under procedures outlined in the Municipal Code. Continuation Update (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." Archival research and visual observation yielded no conclusive evidence that the structure at 20626 Komina Avenue is associated with any events or persons of local, state, county or national significance. Nor does it exemplify any cultural elements or distinctive architectural character, design or method of construction. While the building is part of a historic neighborhood, it was not identified in the 1992 survey of heritage resources, when neighboring residences, including 14666 Oak Street, were featured. The building may have been a contributor to the neighborhood aesthetic; however it no longer possesses "a substantial degree of architectural and structural integrity with respect to the original design." The building received rear additions, a new foundation, and brick veneer base over the years. It also suffered from two separate fires recently, rendering its historic fabric and character unrecognizable and unsalvageable. In Carey Co.'s professional opinion, 20626 Komina Avenue does not satisfy two or more of the local designation criteria or the integrity requirement set forth by Municiple Code to be designated a local historic landmark or contributor to a district. Carey Co. recommends assigning the building at 20626 Komina Avenue the status code of "6Z" indicating that the property does not appear individually eligible for NRHP, CRHR or local listing. DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information State of California The Resources Agency Primary DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION IIRI# CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 15 of 16 *Resource Name or (Assigned by recorder) 20626 Komina Avenue (HRE) *Recorded by: Carey Co. Inc: *Date: :11/4/2005 Continuation Update B12. References: CON'T 1920 U.S. Federal Census, Census Place: Saratoga, Santa Clara California; Page: 9B. JPEG image, (Online: MyFamily.com, Inc., 2005), subscription database, [Digital scan of original records in the National Archives, Washington, DC], <http: /www.ancestry.com accessed November 2005. 1930 U.S. Federal Census, Census Place: Saratoga, Santa Clara, California; Roll: 277; Page: 11A. JPEG image, (Online: MyFamily.com, Inc., 2005), subscription database, [Digital scan of original records in the National Archives, Washington, DC], <http: /www.ancestry.com accessed November 2005. Ansnes, Elizabeth. Saratoga's Heritage, A Survey of Heritage Resources. Saratoga, Calif: Heritage Preservation Commission, 1993. Cunningham, Florence R. Saratoga's First Hundred Years. San Jose, Calif.: 1967. Bennett, Mardi, Ed. Images of Long Ago: A Century of People, Places f? Progress in the Town of Los Gatos and the Cities of Saratoga and Monte Sereno. Los Gatos, CA: Marben Assoc., 1987. Clarke, Henry. Oral History. Saratoga Historical Foundation, Henry Clarke file, November 2001. DeMers, Donald 0. and Ann M. Whitesell. Santa Clara Valley: Images of the Past. San Jose, Calif.: San Jose Historical Museum Association, c.1977. Foote, H.S. Pen Pictures from the Garden of the World, or Santa Clara County, California. Chicago: The Lewis Publishing Co., 1888. McAlester, Virginia and Lee McAlester. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1986. National Park Service. How to Complete the National Register Form, National Register Bulletin 16A. Washington D.C.: National Park Service, 1991. Payne, Stephen M. Santa Clara County, Harvest of Change. Northridge, CA: Windsor Publications, 1987. Polk- Husted Directory Co.'s San Jose City and Santa Clara County. San Jose, Calif.: Hillis and Co. Press/Mercury Publishing Co., 1911-1930. Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Maps. "Saratoga, Calif." 1918, map 1 2; 1918 updated to 1930, maps 1 2. Santa Clara County Assessor records, Characteristics Inquiry for APN: 517-08 -026, accessed from Santa Clara County Assessor on November 16, 2005. Santa Clara County and its resources historical, descriptive, statistical. A souvenir of the San Jose Mercury. San Jose, Calif.: San Jose Mercury ublishing and Printing Co., 1896. DPR 523L (1/95) *Required infonnation State of California The Resources Agency Primary DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION mu# CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 16 of 16 *Resource Name or (Assigned by recorder) 20626 Komina Avenue (HRE) *Recorded by: Carey Co. Inc. Santa Clara County Heritage Resource Inventory. San Jose, Calif: Santa Clara County Historical Heritage Commission, 1999. Saratoga History clippings file, Saratoga Library, Reference Desk. Sawyer, Eugene T. History of Santa Clara County California. Los Angeles: Historic Record Co., 1922. Thompson West. Historical Atlas of Santa Clara County, California. San Francisco: Thompson West, 1876. END. DPR 523L(1/95) *Date: 11/4/2005 Continuation 0 Update *Required information 1D 1S 1CD Listed in the CR as a contributor to a district or multiple resource property by the SHRC ICS Listed in the CR as individual property by the SHRC. id Automatically listed in the Califomia Register Indudes State Historical Landmarks 770 and above and Points of Historical Interest nominated after December 1997 and recommended for listing by the SHRC. Properties eteetmrned eligible fo listi in_the N ational Reg ...(NR) or.tthe California.Regisbt:ts CR) 2B Determined eligible for NR as an individual property and as a contributor to an eligible district in a federal regulatory process. Listed in the CR. 2D Contributor to a district determined eligible for NR by the Keeper. Listed in the CR. 2D2 Contributor to a district determined eligible for NR by consensus through Section 106 process. Listed in the CR. 2D3 Contributor to a district determined eligible for NR by Part I Tax Certification. Listed in the CR. 2D4 Contributor to a district determined eligible for NR pursuant to Section 106 without review by SHPO. Listed in the at ZS Individual property determined eligible for NR by the. Keeper. Listed in the CR. 252 Individual property determined eligible for NR by a consensus through Section 106 process. Listed in the CR. 2S3 Individual property determined eligible for NR by Part I Tax Certification. Usted in the CR. 254: Individual property determined eligible for NR pursuant to Section 106 without review by SHPO. Listed in the CR. 3CB 3CD 3CS 4CM Pro pertfes`hste m the National; Reg er {NR)'ot the 0166i4 R�eg�s er (CRS Contributor to a district or multiple resource property listed in NR by the Keeper. Listed in the L.K. Individual property listed in NR by the Keeper. Listed in the CR. California Historical Resource Status Codes 2CB 'Determined eligible for CR as an individual property and as a contributor to an eligible district by the SHRC 2CD Contributor to a district determined eligible for listing in the CR by the SHRC. 2CS Individual property determined eligible for listing in the CR by the SHRC Appears, ehgb) for,Jatronai Register (N R. or,�alffo Re {C�t )trough S u v 3B Appears eligible for NR both individually and as a contributor to a NR eligible district through survey evaluation. 3D Appears eligible for NR as a contributor to a NR eligible district through survey evaluation. 35 Appears eligible for NR as an individual property through survey evaluation. Appears eligible for CR both individually and as a contributor to a CR eligible district through a survey evaluation. Appears eligible for CR as a contributor to a CR eligible district through a surrey evaluation. Appears eligible for CR as an individual property through survey evaluation. Appears ehg ble for National Register (NR) or. Calif Register {CR) through der evaluation..,;: Master List State Owned Properties PRC §5024. 11/21/2003 ropertres Rec3ognued as Hlstoncally Significant;by Local G!Wemm 5D1 Contributor to a district that is listed or designated locally. 5D2 Contributor to a district that is eligible for local listing or designation. 5D3 Appears to be a contributor to a district that appears eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation. 551 Individual property that is listed or designated locally. 5S2 Individual property that is eligible for local listing or designation. 5S3 Appears to be individually eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation. 5B Locally significant both individually (listed, eligible, or appears eligible) and as a contributor to a district that is locally listed, designated, determined eligible or appears eligible through survey evaluation. Not El grble_ o1r l i g on n�i,as apeca( 1 Determined ineligible for or removed frorn California Register by SHRC 63 Landmarks or Points of Interest found ineligible for designation by SHRC. 6L Determined ineligible for local listing or designation through local govemment review process; may warrant special consideration in local planning. 6T Determined ineligible for NR through Part I Tax Certification process. 611 Determined ineligible for NR pursuant to Section 106 without review by SHPO„ 6W Removed from NR by the Keeper. 6X Determined ineligible for the NR by SHRC or Keeper. 6Y Determined ineligible for NR by consensus through Section 106 process Not evaluated for CR or Local Listing. 6Z Found ineligible for NR, CR or Local designation through survey evaluation. Not.Evaluated:for N ational, Register (NR)or. Cahfornra Register (CR) or;N 7J Received by OHP for evaluation or action but not yet evaluated. 7K Resubmitted to OHP for action but not reevaluated. 7L State Historical Landmarks 1 -769 and Points of Historical Interest designated prior to January 1998 Needs to be reevaluated using current standards. 7M Submitted to OHP but not evaluated referred to NPS. 7N Needs to be reevaluated (Formerly NR Status Code 4) 7N1 Needs to be reevaluated (Formerly NR SC4) may become eligible for NR w /restoration or when meets other specific conditions. 7R Identified in Reconnaissance Level Survey: Not evaluated. 7W Submitted to OHP for action withdrawn. a a a a s 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 2662.& KomiNA Attachment 6 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 9th day of February 2007, that I deposited 118 Notices in the United States Post Office, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to -wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing pursuant to Section 15- 45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property described as: APN: 517 -08 -026 Address: 20626 Komina Avenue that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. r Dense Kaspar Advanced Listing Services City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408 868 -1222 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on: Wednesday, the 28th day of February, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. The Planning Commission continued this item at the meeting of May 26, 2006 to allow the applicant to redesign the house plan and elevations.. 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 17:30 a.m. 5:00 p.m. Please consult the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us regarding Friday office closures. APPLICATION /ADDRESS: #05 -035 /20626 Komina Avenue APPLICANT: Baratta -Lorton APN: 517 -08 -026 DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests design review approval to construct a two -story, single family residence, including a basement and detached garage. The existing house was damaged by fire and will be demolished. The total floor area of the proposed residence and garage is 2,868 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. The lot size is approximately 7,817.6 square feet and the site is zoned R- 1- 10,000. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you 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 19, 2006. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor's office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out -of -date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. 110 FEBRUARY 7, 2007 WNERSHIP LISTING P PARED FOR: 517 -08 -026 ROBERT BARATTA LORTON 20626 KOMINA SARATOGA CA 95070 503 -25 -003 SAN JOSE WATER WORKS ACCOUNTING 374 W SANTA CLARA ST SAN JOSE CA 95113 -1502 503 -25 -025 VI J C PETERSEN 45 MONTGOMERY ST LOS GATOS CA 95030 -5314 503 -76 -001 FENG -YlNG LIN 503 FOREST AVE PALO ALTO CA 94301 -2623 503 -76 -004 CATHERINE B HIRSCHMAN DR CURRENT OWNER 14591 BIG BASIN WAY 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -6069 503 -76 -007 vIARK W HIRTH DR CURRENT OWNER 14597 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6069 ;17 -08 -001 'WALTER S MARILYN MARCHETTI )R CURRENT OWNER !0701 SAINT CHARLES ST ;ARATOGA CA 95070 -6032 ;17 -08 -004 MICHAEL CAROL MAULDIN 5345 BOHLMAN RD >ARATOGA CA 95070 -6356 011 RLES J ELSBETH STAUSS 'O BOX 1848 ,OS GATOS CA 95031 -1848 503 -25 -007 BIG BASIN LLC OR CURRENT OWNER 14573 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6801 503 -25 -028 DONALD C HUNT 14583 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 503 -76 -002 EUGENE CHOW 1125 HUMBOLDT RD BRISBANE CA 94005 -1728 503 -76 -005 MICHAEL RUBENSTEIN OR CURRENT OWNER 14593 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6069 503 -76 -008 VADIM D STEPANCHENKO OR CURRENT OWNER 14599 BIG BASIN WAY H SARATOGA CA 95070 -6069 517 -08 -002 LOUISE PALLA 8350 RAINTREE AVE RIVERSIDE CA 92504 -2861 517 -08 -005 RUTH LONG PO BOX 2095 SARATOGA CA 95070 -0095 517 -08 -012 DORIS K FRANK BEHNKE 13691 BEAUMONT AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -4968 503 -25 -008 DONALD C HUNT 14583 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6804 503 -25 -032 PLUMED HORSE PROPERTY LLC 14555 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6013 503 -76 -003 CATHERINE Y KWEI 1125 HUMBOLDT RD BRISBANE CA 94005 -1728 503 -76 -006 OVIDIO WENDY CALVO OR CURRENT OWNER 14595 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6069 503 -76 -009 JUNE F CHEN PO BOX 2963 SARATOGA CA 95070 -0963 517 -08 -003 LOUISE PALLA 8350 RAINTREE AVE RIVERSIDE CA 92504 -2861 517 -08 -010 FRANK BEHNKE 14510 BIG BASIN WAY 161 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6090 517 -08 -017 CRAIG AMBROSE OR CURRENT OWNER 14683 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6029 517-08-018 JEANNE ALEXANDER OR CURRENT OWNER 14701 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6029 517 -08 -023 RINGSRUD 2005 OR CURRENT OWNER 14706 6TH ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6055 517 -08 -026 ROBERT BARATTA LORTON PO BOX 2070 SARATOGA CA 95070 -0070 517 -08 -029 CHERI JEANNE KINLEY -BARCO OR CURRENT OWNER 20588 KOMINA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -6022 517 -08 -032 JOHN J ALEDA COOK OR CURRENT OWNER 20550 KOMINA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -6022 517 -08 -035 DEBORAH BIONDOLILLO OR CURRENT OWNER 14771 ALOHA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -6006 517 -08 -038 ALAN H ROSENUS OR CURRENT OWNER 20621 LOMITA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -6023 517 -08 -041 ROELAND P MARGARET VAN KRIEKEN OR CURRENT OWNER 20655 LOMITA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -6023 517 -08 -044 LUPE COMPEAN 936 HARRIET AVE CAMPBELL CA 95008 -5120 517 -08 -047 MICHAEL J DEBRA CUMMINS OR CURRENT OWNER 14666 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6030 517 -08 -021 JON LINDA KRAIN OR CURRENT OWNER 14730 6TH ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6055 517 -08 -024 PAUL T GINOUVES OR CURRENT OWNER 14700 SAINT CHARLES ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6096 517 -08 -027 JOHN K HOWARD OR CURRENT OWNER 20620 KOMINA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -6022 517 -08 -030 ARTHUR HAZELMARI ANDERSON OR CURRENT OWNER 20574 KOMINA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -6022 517-08-033 VEIS FAMILY TRUST OR CURRENT OWNER 20540 KOMINA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -6022 517 -08 -036 GLORIA N MANNING OR CURRENT OWNER 20601 LOMITA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -6023 517 -08 -039 KEITH G RIEKEN OR CURRENT OWNER 20633 LOMITA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-6023 517 -08 -042 DAVID A KATZ OR CURRENT OWNER 20665 LOMITA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -6023 517 -08 -045 GEORGE MC KENZIE PO BOX 184 SARATOGA CA 95071 -0184 517 -08 -048 GLADYS P HERNANDEZ 19641 CHARTERS AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -4407 517 -08 -022 G ANN COVELL PO BOX 1202 CARMEL CA 93921 -1202 517 -08 -025 MARGUERITE BURKET 14200 WOODVIEW LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5556 517 -08 -028 CLARENCE E CAROLYN SCHULTZ OR CURRENT OWNER 20606 KOMINA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -6022 517 -08 -031 ROY S HELEN CAMERON OR CURRENT OWNER 20560 KOMINA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -6022 517 -08 -034 BYONGMOO HYEJEONG HAN OR CURRENT OWNER 14755 ALOHA AVE SARATOGA. CA 95070 -6006 517 -08 -037 STEVEN HEATHER METZ OR CURRENT OWNER 20611 LOMITA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -6023 517 -08 -040 ROBERT ELIZABETH NAST OR CURRENT OWNER 20645 LOMITA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -6023 517 -08 -043 JOHN &KATHRYN HOLT OR CURRENT OWNER 14690 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6030 517 -08 -046 JENNIFER TAYLOR OR CURRENT OWNER 14672 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6030 517 -08 -053 KETAN A SHILPA PADWEKAR OR CURRENT OWNER 20713 SAINT CHARLES ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6032 517 -08 -054 MARC HOFFMAN OR CURRENT OWNER SAINT CHARLES ST TOGA CA 95070 -6032 517 -08 -058 CHARLES DORIS BEHNKE 13691 BEAUMONT AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -4968 517 -08 -062 WILLIAM E BROWN OR CURRENT OWNER 14755 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6029 517 -08 -065 DELOS KNIGHT OR CURRENT OWNER 14602 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6041 517 -08 -068 JEFF GAYLENE WYATT OR CURRENT OWNER 14598 BIG BASIN WAY A TOGA CA 95070 -6077 517 -08 -071 TRAFALGAR INC 247 N 3RD ST SAN JOSE CA 95112 -5209 517 -08 -079 HORMOZ ROUSSANA NAZARI 15492 MONTE VISTA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6278 517 -09 -013 BKOFAMERNT &SA PO BOX 2818 ALPHARETTA GA 30023 -2818 517 -09 -045 BONREALTY COMPANY INC 12591 SARATOGA CREEK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3538 9 -053 JACQUELYN GLASS 14110 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5418 517 -08 -055 OSCAR ELAINE HARDISTY OR CURRENT. OWNER 20729 SAINT CHARLES ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6032 517 -08 -060 DORIS BEHNKE OR CURRENT OWNER 14655 OAK ST 1 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6050 517 -08 -063 SRINIVASAM TRUST 400 HAMILTON AVE PALO ALTO CA 94301 -1833 517 -08 -066 TSAOYU WANG OR CURRENT OWNER 14608 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6041 517 -08 -069 JEFFREY L GAYLENE WYATT OR CURRENT OWNER 14598 BIG BASIN WAY C SARATOGA CA 95070 -6077 517 -08 -077 JOSEPH LISA MORIARTY OR CURRENT OWNER 20711 SAINT CHARLES ST5 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6032 517 -08 -080 NAHM H LEE OR CURRENT OWNER 14618 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6041 517 -09 -031 GIOVANNA R SCHENINI OR CURRENT OWNER 20576 3RD ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6053 517 -09 -051 MIHAI T MIHAE POPESCU- STANESTI OR CURRENT OWNER 14613 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6015 517 -09 -054 MAGDALENE LAVINE OR CURRENT OWNER 14607 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6015 517 -08 -056 SIVARAM FAMILY 18300 TWIN CREEKS RD MONTE SERENO CA 95030 -2128 517 -08 -061 JOHN HOLLINGSWORTH OR CURRENT OWNER 14739 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6029 517 -08 -064 SRINIVASAM 400 HAMILTON AVE PALO ALTO CA 94301 -1833 517 -08 -067 ALDEN T MARCELLE BLOXHAM 300 ORCHARD CITY DR 104 CAMPBELL CA 95008 -2947 517 -08 -070 JEFF GAYLENE WYATT 14577 BIG BASIN WAY A2 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6804 517 -08 -078 GREGORY L QUESNEL PO BOX 555 SARATOGA CA 95071 -0555 517 -08 -081 RICHARD SERMONE OR CURRENT OWNER 14620 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6041 517 -09 -032 RICHARD J LAUREL HESS OR CURRENT OWNER 14563 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6027 517 -09 -052 LEXIE A SMITH OR CURRENT OWNER 14611 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6015 517 -09 -055 JOSEPH A FITZPATRICK OR CURRENT OWNER 14605 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6015 517 -09 -056 TONY SHARON CHANG OR CURRENT OWNER 14603 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6015 517 -09 -060 PATRICK KIRK 1546 MONTALBAN DR SAN JOSE CA 95120 -4829 517 -09 -071 EUGENE ZAMBETTI PO BOX 34 SARATOGA CA 95071 -0034 517 -09 -074 WALTER MILLER OR CURRENT OWNER 14591 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6075 517 -09 -077 PATRICK MCGILL OR CURRENT OWNER 14597 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6075 517 -09 -085 DERALD R KENOYER OR CURRENT OWNER 20661 5TH ST 2 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6803 517 -10 -047 SARATOGA UNION S D 20460 Forrest Hills Drive SARATOGA CA 95070 517 -09 -088 MICHAEL J ALINA MORETTI 530 IRVEN CT PALO ALTO CA 94306 -3950 517 -10 -025 DANIEL L CAROLYN CASAS DR CURRENT OWNER 20545 KOMINA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -6021 517 -12 -007 2OBERT C PATRICIA HIMEL DR CURRENT OWNER 20670 LOMITA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -6024 517 -09 -058 MISCHEL K POSTAS 438 W CAMPBELL AVE CAMPBELL CA 95008 -1953 517 -09 -061 PETER LA BARBERA PO BOX 26190 SAN JOSE CA 95159 -6190 517 -09 -072 JAMES B SCHREMPP OR CURRENT OWNER 14587 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6075 517 -09 -075 GARY D ALFORD OR CURRENT OWNER 14593 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6075 517 -09 -078, 083 SARATOGA CITY OF 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga CA 95070 517 -09 -086 CHARLES M DIANE SKINNER OR CURRENT OWNER 20661 5TH ST 3 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6803 517 -10 -023 PERRY G PATTY CONSTANTINE OR CURRENT OWNER 14725 ALOHA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -6005 517 -10 -027 MICHAEL A OLIVER OR CURRENT OWNER 20589 KOMINA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -6021 517 -12 -005 GERALD LYNNE GURLEY OR CURRENT OWNER 14724 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6058 517 -12 -008 LEANNE R EDWARD POPA OR CURRENT OWNER 20660 LOMITA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -6024 517 -09 -059 MIKE G MONICA SALINAS PO BOX 2080 GILROY CA 95021 -2080 517 -09 -068 CALI INVESTMENTS 14510 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6090 517 -09 -073 RAY D REDMON OR CURRENT OWNER 14589 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6075 517 -09 -076 JAMES P LALLY 68 -1050 MAUNA LANI POINT D D304 KAMUELA HI 96743 -9781 517 -09 -084 WILLIAM LORRAINE WRIGHT OR CURRENT OWNER 20661 5TH ST 1 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6803 517 -09 -087 DAVID SHEN OR CURRENT OWNER 20661 5TH ST 4 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6803 517 -10 -024 YAOLUN JIANG OR CURRENT OWNER 14735 ALOHA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -6005 517 -10 -036 SARATOGA TENNIS CLUB PO BOX 202 SARATOGA CA 95071 -0202 517 -12 -006 GENEVA HOWARD BAKER OR CURRENT OWNER 14700 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 -6058 517 -12 -009 HOPKINS LIVING TRUST OR CURRENT OWNER 20650 LOMITA AVE SARATOGA CA. 95070 -6024 517 -12 -010 JEAN BOGOSIAN O CURRENT OWNER LOMITA AVE IliFiTOGA CA 95070 -6024 517 -12 -011 MICHAEL J SUSAN MCCHESNEY OR CURRENT OWNER 20620 LOMITA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -6024 517 -12 -012 DON TIRADO OR CURRENT OWNER 20610 LOMITA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -6024 oily or .0 w.. 000,0 500' ::AFt..TODA SCHOOL O I S T n I M IN ST NIP. .i SUBJECT: 20626 Komina Avenue APN: 517 -08 -026 500' Radius 1._ se "1 n. �C. w✓ 4 4444. HIG BASIN i.• •44 11T IO,n 4‘. •0.22M. Hrl Ift •u111C.N.I 61 d �Y. f1 1- ►C L. VCL. •J •SSK.NE' •C L. K -a CITt ri••,OGA wp a2 .M• y; �o Pg X3, 1•,, 0 4r ALOH A 1 r p� 4 4 >•4 ti V e AVE 02.4*. LOT VV •ALOHA OF MAPS FG 43P I 1f0 L IAA O. NET O.Ee•C.NEI CL B Jae A SAG•TOCr -11 L F1.AT0( A Pet. A 2? fit I L•••— P. M, 48S-M38 7! .wee ry PCL. D PCL. C 1 L0 L 9 LZ(OE9)A3riVl�SSVHO 9:48 frI S9NIaline lb' 11N341S321 MUICUI O b O (0 0) 0 Q 0 O W c0 Q Q z O O N O O N z 0 Q 0 0 J w (n eer-- (0 to co Otn V oi co N N000)O)0) r II W Q 030 0 0 00 H C7 0 0 LL M CO CO O Q Q c z W F- W W W 0 U)cWw 0<WW Y LLI D00 0 WJ� h LL LL LL LLw 0) U) CO cn U) M 7 c o V CO N O N- 0007c0oN c0 07 Co co (0 W o CC <w 0 0 0 O O co w o N 0 O LL LL LL w U 9ZO (n U CnU)(1) i co w 0 (0 CD co rCO (n r O0 (o N W N 07 W W Q cc CC 0 0 fl 0o o Lu w�N D —I000 -<0 0 00 Z (OZ� J0 a 00JCC¢ CE <WNJQaw0_ Q W CC J Q O Q W CC Q 0 J o II LL W 0 O O) O� <0 co Q 0 0 u: 0 o) OJ CL N Q ci 00 W 0= 0 0 0 vO Q Z WZ LL w (0 m co z Q J z Q L1 Q Ij w a Q Z 0 Q 0 w Q 0 O W Z Q w Q 0 W W L� CO CO 10 (0 N Q Q L0 /0G :31dQ1NIad SO /S 1-/S 31b4 103(`Oad V N .31.V0 O310N Sd :31b'0S 0L096 VINEIOdflVO `VOOlVaVS 2f1N3AV VNI1A1O>1 9Z90Z glkq CcT 03 0 Z w z .0 Q N H CC N Z o 1 m 0 z D 0 N. Z }o w o z C�� o 0) Who d zF--a w0<rj u_ Q �U O W 0 J Q W –N p0 0 F C 111- .4 o o (n ¢73 a v Z >C[Do{n0 Tr Tr QN :o< '3 O:O0 z vv Q Z 00 >(c°O(°°0 W (n WO NN W ZO mm F- r COQcoroc0 pU)Q'Tr V JO2z_O(o (0 Wwo< Ommzr� 5 00 6 c o co Tr �Z O't1. 3r 0 m J Q 0 03 0 rn 2 0 0) z �0 u Ow0N o T Q r r w m LL Uv co TO OUND IRON BAR AT CENT INTERSECTION i__________________- OF OAK AND LOMITA ik. T, r7 T T S Zr V S43'00'00 "W �L �3 Q �L.i I! Y uNi' r 20.00' EDGE OF ASPHALT G 3 40 ,p'? °y aP� ASPHALT <9 III a a >I0'd8 S •DA 3015 0S HOIFJ 1X7 XIS 1 tl1INO1 OW WO .5 NOI133SM31N1 O1 ,4S•9S2 d qq z m z �w p g cy \O+ OJdOPyP/ 543'00'00 "W 342.44' N43'00'00 "E 51.89' (52') 1N3Wd013A30 51.910( (52' ):':i r at'' e cc O uJ 0 U 0) Z w co LL >000 Q Q Z W N Y 0 0. 6 Y W I O. 0 a0 F- 0 (.5 0 Q 3❑0o Z Q Z¢ Q W a e W W to I z� z m v 3 a 0 0 T2 S` gZ o 3 O PAW, T6F t r� ZN 0 h co z 0 w Q 8. z 1 w O a z z 8 5 1 toot e �3� U111110111 1 L945-t LZ(0 E$) A311VA SSYSO 9L9 B- 999(909) VCC1Y1,1VS 777 SONIO1Inne LO /O L/ L 31V0 1NIHd £0 L/£ 31V0 103f Oad b N 31V0 n3a ORLON SV :31VOS OL096 VINUUOdflVO VOO LVdVS 2flNGAV VNIWON 9z9O C a 14OIiH 2119VMOTY.O �1 •U1 a cZ r 1 HO13H 71W MOTW .O .1-01 .l CLSV3) NOLLVA313 dV8N {-x;.7^1:. T:' (16M) NOLLVAT13 _La aaLs NVO 8 S- 1G21oss)A21VASBVtle. SL 6•e 9619 o 71 V °01VtlVB (Aims ap .S N I O 11(18 II I. N 7I1 3 O I S 321 LO /O L/1- :31VO LNIUd £0 L/£ 31VO ±O3fOad V'N 31VO ASH 0L096 VINdOdI IVO `VOO±VdVS 311N3AV VNIWO°990Z O310N SV :3 zo Q 0 5 J W ._..e ---r-- _I 1 i 0 Fag 6 c•Ci 3.f:due 31ev0I /A% Tiam .09r1 •77y-,, IM SzHE.130IS 58001 1-101.10'H a 0 8 V 0 6 d CC b 11BM .04011 0 g I 0 cc w ',,)6. x o CE,_, 3.1 L Y_ -z 0 00 r ^"q. 0 0 j 1 1 0 Y f atvuo alf3V>F1vM /AA 113N, 111011 2: o I, 1- i Cr_D I m 0 CL 2 ii 0 D b th K a 0 b c Z 1 D 6 x 0 2 a. 6 IP 1 us■ia L AID -0 L L (..3 C A311VA SSte'd9 o 17 (8 0 V) 1 "VI A/2LE_ SI\1101M8 "IVI.LN5GIS21 3 (1) .0,0Z L0/0 L/ L :31.VC) 1.NIUd CO/C L/C :31VC3 io3roidd N 31V0 ADd C3210N SV :31V3S 0L096 VINUOAFIVO 'VeaLVEIVS 311N3AV VNII/NO>1990 01K1 Cd HOX3f_CTEIDWLLWE'cfnl (.6 0 _J 0 0 2 0 w 0 (r) U) oz CID L 1 SECOND FLOOR PLAN FIRST FLOOR PLAN REVISIONS: L 8Lg- (0 E A3TIVA SSVId9 L 9 Ci (8 0 V)E "5711 ATaucu_ seNtaiine 1V11N3CIIS32J L0/0 L/ aLVCI ±NIdd O/C /C :31VO io3road 'V'N :31VO AU OaJON SV :T1VOS OLOS6 VINHOAFIVO 'VOOIVEIVS 21 VNI1A10>1 9903 Oft IC0 NEU HOLY C3 NWE 8 2 z 0 0 4 v LJ MION* 3,32 31, N1061318WIVM ft, 1,AINSil ETD -J w _J 0 3 1 0 Q 0 Cl. LIVING ROOM FOYER .1. N3HO1171 MUD ROOM LBLB-t LE (0 ES) A3llVA SSVNO S L4B B9 B(80 of V001VNVS Mal S10rine 1vIIN01S 1H913N 3lBV lu40'i1v .0 9Z LO /O 1./ L 31V0 1NIHd £0 L/£ 31vO 1031'01:dd 0L096 VINEIOdflVO `VJOLV8VS 21 VNIWOy1 9E90 z O O LJ LJ E Oa 1 EI lJ LJ O L_J O L_ 2 CC 0 0 LL 0 Z N LL CO (0 N LL 7 N r W f /2 N CC r w 0 W O U- 0 Q 0 0 0 LL 0 Q Q N O 67 k V N 31V0 A3H 031ON St/ 31vOS V LJ LJ V V 0 ('A E ZL q 6 V) 4 e zz� W LLg ��E 0 o wNZ I- Iu¢Z ww iom� J ,aa ,T, V `��fai 55�jj�'Ow VJ �u�i¢oa °a�O25a2 0 8 0 Z Z Q 2 O 0 J FLOOR AREA DIAGRAM OP OF 2P40 FLOOR 109 O. 1 L919 t LZ toe S) 927 8 99(9 0 7(80018879 7r1 S9N10�InS1VIJN30IS321 a 8 L0 /OL /L 31V01NIad OL096 VINUJOdflVO VOOIVEIVS 211N3AV VNIWO>1 990E c Ow Q Z z 0 H W J W H z 0 LL P W Wv F Ec P (1) W z 0 W J W W 0 U) W J £0 /E L/E :31V0 103f Oad a 3 1 E C DL OO 'O DWAAW V 31VO A31::1 031ON SV 3 1VOS w 1 0 (1) LBCS 9(1 jn S5NIG11118 1VIIN3GIS521 AMU 90/0V0 L 31A/C1 INIUd CO/C L/C :31\1C 1.031'08d V NI :31VCI A3171 0310N Sb' :31VOS OL096 VINt=10drIVO V001.V8VS 31 VNILAIO>1990 ETLIC7 Mn3,1 z 55 w cc t L L 9- I. LZ(004) A3TIVA SStflriD 898(000 %/COD/LYS snocrline 1VIIN5C1IS3t1 z <7, p.m t E l ig is 2 P H: 1 M '41 1 5 g hg 51 I P 5 m w8 6 8 .g5 0! gi w° g 0 g R P An .4nit, vl n1 1 '2> e 60n 0 egP g011iDngg ET1 45g esex gE g VA o g a 493 g z„). hp raR r a g u u6„,ug al 0 W.9i '5 C40 Llg OP 0 (92EiestB A L75." L0/0 VI- :JO ±Ndd WE I./C :aLVO loaf OL096 VINUOdflVO `V00.1V8VS 3C1N3AV VNIINON 99C) OH HOL''.9_CD=0°C7LAU 54.300 342.44' TO FOUND IRON BAR AT CENTERUNE INTERSECTION OF OAK AND LOMITA iggYLLS pt 543'0000*W 20.00' t m, 84 a 0. r, cri co 0 0.- w UJ c) F: c) 0 Liu 2! UL CC 2! CL CD CD z UJ cc LJ 0 D -cc CD Lu z 1— CD 0 0 W 2! 00 O O D CL =1 W w U..1 cc 0 CC 7.D EE di GO (5 <t [11 CD CL 27. or) 0 9 c 0 EDGE OF ASPHALT ASPHALT 1 N430000 51.89' (52') 'V'N :31.V0 AEI GaLON SV ,ogeQ4WW4Q0k,, 00 o o oot 0 0 QQQQQ0 0 PA 0 cc w o cp O _J ILI I-- 2 O E zZZ 0_ E 0 0 LIJ 03 0 CD Z CD 07 LU UJ 0 0_ Z W z Z Z a cc 2 w C7) 0 2 w HD1 liZOO O 0 0I-L j w 0 Z CC 0 U) 0 --I 0 0 Z D cc H cc 0 w u) R C u j 0_ .s CD 0 _J 0 UJ CD di 2 H�HZ 0 D _j z 4. e sons -sea (1£8) 09096 'V9 'zny3 VINVE V .',LIES 'YAV 1H9121fIVJS 604,1 ONIAJAX111S QUV.M 1�Ir�121 OL.11 �I 0 `V ,90,4, V 2V 7111\[.111 V ViV1:AT0 920 902 0 •q 0 L. h I 00 I2 .00'00 I uOiu M..00.00. t.vs -1< 1 0e 6E C`0 3..00.00. EVN (.25) li 0 Cs 01I001 ONO A00 JO NOI1375N3JNI 3NI0H71N73 10 1,06 NOW 014104 01. .VVdVE M..00.00.EVS 1101(0>00 30 2003 l,d N�iStl 1100000 JO 39111 ,1_;,7:7U NV L "J F73 0 o a.< 01.1 0 10. 0 (r s• OLl f R R. w U 0 vCJ Jr C1 NN n W a No ivm mo 1 .0 0 .0 <ry 1.0:0 r�r, H� 3 be _J10 0 u1W UI L11t1 T 'Ll1 LlJ U.11 012 U.11 iia to. JT r S f lwCJ OF -4,110 1r -rlfR 0111101 any 0(00 .10 001.133011319I. 01 -000 0 in n i VI; n. -J [JCL: 01 1' N 1 LLI Z. O ll Cn C1 aUJ 11J N of ulo riR (o uJ D LO _J L 9LS LL.Z(DES)A3111.1ASSV170 SLrE1 "5 n u soma I1N CIIS 321 i 1911111 gg 1 1 1 li f 1 dwtilq niql i 1/ 1 0 11 P °WW1' 1 111 1 1 0 1,0 1 l 1 11 Ilii 1"i/ 4 1 1 1 1 h 1 11 ,111411 1 k 11. iil f 1, 1 f !`A 41 14111 vell 1 ,1' el 1 I r I h g -r01 Ili pi .1 1.; mi, otril .1, I- w hi p gui 1! plil jimil 4 il Ali ill 1 F 4 11 8; 1 1,141:11.! il 4 1 4 4 A d I 1 1 11 I1 1 11 14 11 hi l il 1., 1 1 il t °4 PIATIlell'ilf 11 1 gt_ e 1 ii 1 11 Ili I iq 1 p i il galiailinil A =.,F.IM AAAI7, 4e 4 n Ig11 A3TA, 0 .0 I lq I" 741 1 1 1, ,A 7g Ill. q gi 1 14 111 11. 107MP g I 11 11 111.11 Pal 1$1111111j1! !I B 14 97.9. 9 1 ta MIL 1 i" k t ti 1101 A A 1 '1 g m 1 D OW g 11 s efstg E 4 1 WO 1111111 e401.4,1 k olv I. li; ii l t 1 1! 11. WP:4 i rirp I Itugagl 12 q 1 1!.ilig- pa 4 p111 !Mt tgolliiLmii 111 !I RI ON 'gi°g g 811 41'i r aJI ill tql :.1 11 4 1 al 1 t 1 Ili P :11 11 .4 1 ‘.1 l' 1 i ili PP 1 J1 L !I. III -0 1 R16 Q'a II P I g14 „1 4 ti q i 1 151 q 1 -:F 12 1 tqt f Al 1 i i ili ill i_ .i. u 1 t' 'gl il 1.1 7. N c i 1 1 1 1 i IP il 'PI ii li a 2 lY 'E l I i 2! lill 111 41 !I ili 11 1 ai ii 1 liA 4:6 14' .NgA II dtAl VI r8H 0' jil i AW 1' 1 1 !I 4 1 1 101P il 8 .81 i al2 Og IP: i l lli 1 1 1 1°4 4:=11 li§ g= li li il 1 A i,i' 411 1 0 Hil iii!! i H oh 1 Pl!I il L0/01-/ 3.1V0 INId O/E1-/E :31V0 1031'01:Id 02_096 VINUOdliVO `VOO_LVEIVS Drlf\JAV VNI1A10>i 93903 ©1H A it 1; H1CD,Fla ,L3,76 Xtro ...nn 021■4951 0 0.0 pooded.,MW.O.1 1.Patm) 0 1.11,901' RrPatt CRIt CV .140‘1 a 8 IA i it 31 1111 ll lw I 11 ii 11 Ini I ii li -1 I i 4 I iii h I 1 Is If i 1111 i ,!i 1: 1 q i 1 I 1 RI 1 il tl N 1 1 1 1 1 LH i P.- A 1 If I 1 I g 1 I E W 11 11_ b- 1. 1 A'N 1 i i 91 2 l 4 il 1 11 I 1 all q 1 1 1 1 le 1 1 I ilg i 41 9 1 1 1 Ill 1 I; ;1 P To il ll I; i 1 1 Ifif t Ida 4; ,fi 1 1 1 !1g oml Li H ,Iii 1 1 1 1 'V'N :31V0 /\38 0310N SV :31VOS C)= I 184 5 A,§9A 11 4 i! 11 d a 0 1 it gft 111 11 1 !I i j D li i 6ki „AA 3 .11 „t1 1 1 i ,1 II rg 1 Hil 11! 11: ;-1 1 1 W 18 ql p it Ap ;1 t Ai 1 g k 12 g Ian 1 W 1] R Hi! kip I oii! if ill kill 111 L1.1 LU w I LIJ 0 D CC UJ 1-- o Lij Ct 2 0 woo•sJeeu o 6 ued0 ue uodo (XVd) ®b£ (0S9) .0 It 1 (731) 9PPP —Zt£ (0S9) 0101 V0 '3WVON1121116 60Z 311115 '3(1N3AV OJVMOH 4ZZ1 N01N01 V11V8V8 808 :83NM0 V3 VOOlV2IYS 3 f1N3nd b'NIWOJI 9Z90Z 3 0 N 3 a I S 3 J M 3 N 133( �1'1 NMOHS SV e100S w T-- c 1 U o 4 o E �ooZ,ol to :8 +00 0 suo,,Ae •0 aaoaam55130 $°o1.21,gcWamftted2 c m 7 fa'gt °49vCCC41m/INNf�/IVNIIN/1 X333 (N111 „Zl) 531201 F 01 woo'eeul6ued000lueluodo sJ (xvd) 6 -L WO II 1, (731) 9 -i s' (0s9) 010$'6 VO '3VYVON1llf19 60Z 311(15 '3f1N3AV 021VMOH OZZ1 NO1dO1- V'11V7/V'8 808 :d3NM0 Y3 'YO 1 \18 V S 3 (1 N 3 A V 'MINION 9 Z 9 0 Z 3 0 N 3 Q I S 3 V\ 3 N S 11 d13 4 Q N d S 31 O N TN `e'on SHEET C--2 OF 4 SHEETS s£o—so '80f Lowoo0 .e e suo .oN rk z J z w z J Z i 0 W J dAl ,Bt STORM DRAIN CLEANOUT DOWN SPOUT DETAIL AREA DRAIN END OF LINE END OF LINE END OF LINE NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE woo XYd) 6YiV ®Y£B (069) a (131) 91.1'1• -LO£ (0g9) oLove YO '311Y0Nnan8 0Z 6 311ns '3fN3AD' 02021010H OZZ! HC1 N0 Y 1 1 1 0 11 1 Vlld2iV'8 BOB :213NMO Y O Y OOl V S 3f1N3AV VNIWON 9Z9OZ 7 3 J 0 N 3 a I S 3 V\ 3 N N V y 1 a 3D VN I' 0 0 N V `0 N I 0 b'6 0 NMOHS SY elon SHEET C--3 OF 4 SHEETS JOB 05 036 ,../.00 :a {oa END() SUOISJA9 'ON 1,17Y,LS XVO NY 000 10 N0103503101 01 ,1S'000 1 110N3iS0 J0 3003 1100J10 A 3003 Z 1 1NHdsz 1, d L5 ,69 .,00,00.0 0 1 rc 0 011001 000 4100 40 001133503111 3011031033 10 000 0091 00001 O1 .11'000 m.00,00.000 Pi il a° 0 N 5. O as U� p= J K 0 11 N S 6 2 G�O 1, GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN KO.A1INA AVENUE NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE 1 65.00' TO FOUND PIPE woo•sjoeu)6ued000l.eluodo (xvi) 63'04 -L0£ (os9) (l31) 9000 —LO£ (0S9) 01006 VO '3WVONIlMfl9 60Z 311!15 '311N3AV ONVMOH OZZI al r 1 ''I l l N0Th0T- V11V21V8 808 d0 6 eOOlVIvS 3f1N3AY VNIINON 9Z9OZ 7 7 3 c NI 3 a I s l e M J N NV 1d 1Oi1NO0 NOISO83 :213NM0 NMOHS SV :elan 1— W i y 0 m o 0 LOOL /Ol /l0 :e a suo 'a 1L1V TJS XVO 1114H05V JO 3912 1111101 044! 110 40 M00.316431M1 01 ,t5'0S0 11VHJSV f0 3953 V111 MV0 10 NO11735431N0 3NI1U31N30 10 0140 14001 Nl01 O1 ,H'Zt M „OO H!(3) '1SIX3 Z 1- 1- z W z 0 1- 0 H N Z 0 0 �4 ijiwa. , WA • - • ♦ efW ♦�,• • , Form Now wr 1 i.w y�pS'��H• p } � Ai' 4 ��� I' �} Fi ��;. F ^k •1i" w.z: a.- F.:Ax?ksE 'i1L.i '.1: .r,. "�"*ts+.a..di'P- %'.r3' x�# �iTaI A `� f - is �� � i ;rw "R�'iaRys�_s^--•. ",•y't�t�',s*'� �2.�3• t 4�. � t�y� t , 1�M11,11 1� a) aP! .�i f h. i �y #T �alaiatX. hi+�u` s'3 I i e:,i '" _ � c ,iatl : uS Z: �:=s +� ""zip "�s' v�7r� - `4• i — � - - � �b�ai• ,a ra�ano °. A _� --_��: :1h�1� �1t6.3�1 :MOff 0 �� w ,i r i fiL A TO: Planning Commission PLANNING COMMISSION MEMORANDUM FROM: Therese M. Schmidt, AICP Associate Planner MEETING DATE: February 28, 2007 SUBJECT: Request for a Continuance Application No. 06 -206; Design Review 18344 Baylor Avenue, Saratoga, California Item 2 This project was continued to a date uncertain at the Planning Commission's September 13, 2006, hearing to provide the applicant with an opportunity to work with the neighbors to resolve concerns regarding the proposed second -story addition. The applicant scheduled a neighborhood meeting on February 10, 2007, and requested staff to place their proposal on the February 28, 2007, agenda. As a result of the neighborhood meeting the applicant is requesting additional time to tour multiple single family additions in the surrounding area as requested by the neighbors and to incorporate some of the neighbors' suggestions into the plans. The applicant is requesting a continuance to March 14, 2007. REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: Type of Application: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Date: APN: 07- 017/20865 Wardell Road Design Review Grading over 1,000 CY in HR District Alok Aggarwal (Owner /Applicant) Therese M. Schmidt, AICP, Associate Planne February 28, 2007 John Livingston CP, Dir ctor 366 -57 -01 and 02 Department Head: T. Subject: 20865 Wardell Road APN: 366 -57 -001 002 500' Radius I j 37 5 .;it 2.2 1 38 17.EC2 i 23 S C E N E S M 2.96 AC. PCL, i N Z 2 s •1 56 s MILLMOOR e 1.05 AC. 1. 106 tit -1'J °A 7+r 67 yelp Item 3 Application No. 07- 017/20865 Wardell Road CASE HISTORY: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Application filed: 08/17/06 Application complete: 01/11/06 Notice published: 02/14/07 Mailing completed: 02/07/07 Posting completed: 02/22/07 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct a two -story single family residence with an attached garage, basement, swimming pool, and detached pool bathroom. The maximum height of the proposed residence will not be higher than 26 -feet. The net lot size is 1.2 -acres and the site is zoned Hillside Residential (HR). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the Design Review Application with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. Staff is not recommending any permanent conditions of approval. 2 Application No. 07- 017/20865 Wardell Road STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: HR Hillside Residential GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD (Residential Very Low Density) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 81,760 sq. ft. (gross) and 52,249 sq. ft. (net) AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 8.6% GRADING REQUIRED: 1,015 CY of cut and 132 CY of fill PROJECT DATA: 3 Proposal Code Requirements Lot Coverage: TOTAL PROPOSED 13,044 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable 25% or 15,000 sq. ft., whichever is less 13,062 sq. ft. Floor Area: Residence and Garage: Pool House TOTAL PROPOSED 6,179 sq. ft. 54 sq. ft Maximum Allowable 6,260 sq. ft. 6,233 sq. ft. Setbacks: Front Rear Left Side Right Side 1 -story 2 -story Min. Requirement 1 -story 2 -story 68.54 ft 72.31 ft 60.00 ft 60.68 ft 125.14 ft 130.54 ft 29.82 ft 33.92 ft 30 ft. 30 ft 50 ft. 60 ft 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. Basement: 2,574 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable (Foot-Print of 1 Floor Garage) 3,460 sq. ft. Fence Wrought Iron 5 ft. Tall 3,983 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable 4,000 sq. ft Height: Proposed Residence 26 ft. Maximum Allowable 26 ft. Application No. 07- 017/20865 Wardell Road STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: HR Hillside Residential GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD (Residential Very Low Density) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 81,760 sq. ft. (gross) and 52,249 sq. ft. (net) AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 8.6% GRADING REQUIRED: 1,015 CY of cut and 132 CY of fill PROJECT DATA: 3 Application No. 07- 017/20865 Wardell Road 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 DISCUSSION The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct a two -story single family residence with an attached garage, basement, swimming pool, and detached pool bathroom. The maximum height of the proposed residence will not be higher than 26 -feet. Zoning Code Section 15- 45.060 states any new multi -story structure or whenever, as a result of the proposed construction, reconstruction or expansion, the gross floor area of all structures on the site will exceed 6,000 square -feet Design Review approval is required by the Planning Commission. The proposal consists of a new multi -story structure and exceeds 6,000 square -feet; therefore, Planning Commission review is required. The architectural style proposed is Italian Renaissance with traditional architectural features including: stucco exterior, recessed entry porch arched windows on the first floor, columns, low pitched hip roof, and tile roofing material. The applicant is proposing to add a decorative stone along the base of the front facade. 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 Terrasearch Inc. prepared a Geotechnical Investigation, dated October 23, 2007, which was reviewed by the City's Geotechnical Consultant for the proposed project. As conditioned, the proposal has received geotechnical clearance to proceed. Trees An arborist report was prepared by the City's Arborist, dated July 27, 2006, and a revised report was prepared on September 5, 2006. There are five trees of Ordinance size on the subject site. They include: three (3) coast live oaks, one (1) valley oak and one (1) California pepper. Three of the five trees are not proposed for removal; two of the five trees were initially proposed for removal by the applicant, both of which are coast live oaks. The Arborist has determined that both trees are far enough from the house that they would not be impacted and that appropriate redesign of the swimming pool could avoid removing them. The applicant agreed to redesign the swimming pool and will not be removing the trees. The arborist determined that the bond amount required for adhering to the recommendation of the Arborist Reports is $90,290.00, which includes the appraised value of all five protected trees. 4 Application No. 07- 017/20865 Wardell Road Proposed Building Materials The applicant is proposing "peach mist" stucco with white trim accents around the windows and for the gutters with white columns at the entrance. Red concrete tiles are proposed for the roof. Decorative stone is proposed along the lower portion of the front facade. Staff has expressed concerns that the color pallet may create excessive reflectivity since it is in the hillside. The applicant has indicated that he is willing to provide an alternative color pallet at the Planning Commission site visit and during the Planning Commission hearing and is willing to take direction from the Planning Commission regarding appropriate colors for a hillside home. Grading over one thousand cubic yards The applicant is requesting a combined cut and fill of 1, 147 cubic yards. Zoning Code section 15- 13.050 states that the combined cut and fill of any grading shall not exceed one thousand cubic yards, including any excavation for a swimming pool, unless a larger quantity is approved by the Planning Commission upon making all of the following findings: The additional grading is necessary in order to allow reasonable development of the property or to achieve a reasonable means of access to the building site. The natural land forms and vegetation are being preserved and protected. The increased grading is necessary to promote the compatibility of the construction with the natural terrain. The increased grading is necessary to integrate an architectural design into the natural topography. The grading for the house takes advantage of the natural topography by locating the majority of the structure in an area already grade area. The increased grading is necessary to integrate the architectural design of the proposed rear yard into the natural topography. The increased grading is necessary to reduce the prominence of the construction as viewed from surrounding views or from distant community views. No building site shall be graded so as to create a flat visible pad surrounding the main residential structure. Staff is unable to make a recommendation of approval based on the above findings. The majority of the grading requested is to level a rear -yard area to accommodate a swimming pool and patio, which is not necessary in order to allow reasonable development of the property or achieve a reasonable means of access to the building site. Staff has incorporated a condition of approval in the attached resolution requiring the applicant to redesign the rear -yard to reduce grading to less than 1,000 cubic yards. 5 Application No. 07- 017/20865 Wardell Road General Plan Findings The proposed project is consistent with the following General Plan Policies: 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. Hillside Specific Plan The proposed project is consistent with the following Hillside Specific Plan Policies: Geology and Soils Policy 5 In locating building sites, preference should be given to areas designated as stable (Sbr, Sis, Sun, Sex) on the Ground Movement Potential Map. Especially sites on potentially moving slopes (Pmw, Ps, Pd) and moving slopes (Ms) shall not be approved unless geologic and soils engineering analysis and design provided by the developer clearly demonstrate the long -term stability of such sites to the satisfaction of the City, its Geologist and other professional consultants. The subject parcel is located within two designated areas, Sbr and Ps, on the Ground Movement Potential Map. A geotechnical report was prepared by the applicant's consulting firm and was peer reviewed by the City's contract consultant. Geotechnical Clearance has been issued, subject to adherence to recommended conditions of approval, which have been incorporated into the attached Resolution. Sanitary Sewer Service Policy 1— Require all new residences on newly created lots to hook up to a sanitary sewer system to avoid groundwater contamination problems. The applicant -is hooking up to the local sanitary sewer system and is not proposing to use leach fields. Design Review Findings The proposed project is consistent with all the following Design Review findings stated in MCS 15- 45.080: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The proposed home will be situated on a relatively large parcel with surrounding parcels also in excess of an acre. The maximum height of the proposed single -story dwelling is 26 feet. The proposal will meet minimum side -yard setbacks and will provide additional front and rear -yard setbacks greater than required by the Municipal Code. The proposed home will not unreasonably interfere with neighboring views or privacy. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. A majority of the proposed residence is located in an area where a barn once stood; therefore, minimal natural landscape will be disturbed. 6 Application No. 07- 017/20865 Wardell Road (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The proposal is not requesting removal of Native and/or Heritage Trees. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The applicant is proposing neutral color pallet for the exterior building, window trim and roofing materials as well as incorporating varying rooflines, arched wood windows, and columns to reduce the perception of excessive bulk. (e) Compatible bulk and height. Residences in the area are spread out given the minimum lot size requirements and are generally larger in size. The proposed structure is compatible in bulk and height with other homes located in the hillside area. (1) Current grading and erosion control methods. The applicant is proposing grading in excess of 1,000 CY, which requires Planning Commission review and approval in Hillside areas. The applicant has submitted a grading and drainage plan, which incorporates appropriate grading and erosion control methods. In addition, the proposal shall conform to the City's current grading and erosion control standards. (g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above and staff report. Conclusion Staff finds that all of the Design Review findings can be made in the affirmative and the proposal is consistent with the General Plan and Hillside Specific Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staffs recommends the Planning Commission find this Application exempt from CEQA and approve the application for Design Review with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval. 2. Affidavit of Mailing Notices. Public Hearing Notice, Mailing labels for project notification. 3. Neighbor Notification Letters 4. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A." 7 Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 07 -017 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Aggarwall: 20865 Wardell Road WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for grading in excess of 1,000 cubic yards on a hillside lot and Design Review Approval to construct a two -story single family residence with an attached garage, basement, swimming pool, and detached bathroom on a vacant lot. The maximum height of the proposed residence will not be higher than 26 -feet. The net lot size is 1.2 -acres and the site is zoned Hillside Residential (HR); and WHEREAS, Zoning Code Section 15- 45.060 states any new multi -story structure or whenever, as a result of the proposed construction, reconstruction or expansion, the gross floor area of all structures on the site will exceed 6,000 square -feet Design Review approval is required by the Planning Commission. The proposal consists of a new multi -story structure and exceeds 6,000 square -feet; therefore, Planning Commission approval is required prior to issuance of building permits; and Whereas, Zoning Code section 15- 13.050 states that the combined cut and fill of any grading shall not exceed one thousand cubic yards, including any excavation for a swimming pool, unless a larger quantity is approved by the Planning Commission upon making all of the following findings: The additional grading is necessary in order to allow reasonable development of the property or to achieve a reasonable means of access to the building site. The natural land forms and vegetation are being preserved and protected. The increased grading is necessary to promote the compatibility of the construction with the natural terrain. The increased grading is necessary to integrate an architectural design into the natural topography. The grading for the house takes advantage of the natural topography by locating the majority of the structure in an area already grade area. The increased grading is necessary to integrate the architectural design of the proposed rear -yard into the natural topography. Application No. 07- 017/20865 Wardell Road The increased grading is necessary to reduce the prominence of the construction as viewed from surrounding views or from distant community views. No building site shall be graded so as to create a flat visible pad surrounding the main residential structure. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission was unable to make the Findings required to approve grading in excess of 1,000 cubic yards; thereby, denying the applicant's request; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, The proposal is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single family residences; and 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: 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. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review, and is consistent with the following Hillside Specific Plan Policies: Geology and Soils Policy 5 In locating building sites, preference should be given to areas designated as stable (Sbr, Sis, Sun, Sex) on the Ground Movement Potential Map. Especially sites on potentially moving slopes (Pmw, Ps, Pd) and moving slopes (Ms) shall not be approved unless geologic and soils engineering analysis and design provided by the developer clearly demonstrate the long -term stability of such sites to the satisfaction of the City, its Geologist and other professional consultants. The subject parcel is located within two designated areas, Sbr and Ps, on the Ground Movement Potential Map. A geotechnical report was prepared by the applicant's consulting firm and was peer reviewed by the City's contract consultant. Geotechnical Clearance has been 2 Application No. 07- 017/20865 Wardell Road issued subject to adherence to recommended conditions of approval, which have been incorporated into the attached Resolution. Sanitary Sewer Service Policy 1 Require all new residences on newly created lots to hook up to a sanitary sewer system to avoid groundwater contamination problems. The applicant is hooking up to the local sanitary sewer system and is not proposing to use leach fields. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following fmdings have been determined: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The proposed home will be situated on a relatively large parcel with surrounding parcels also in excess of an acre. The maximum height of the proposed single -story dwelling is 26 feet. The proposal will meet minimum side -yard setbacks and will provide additional front and rear -yard setbacks greater than required by the Municipal Code. The proposed home will not unreasonably interfere with neighboring views or privacy. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. A majority of the proposed residence is located in an area where a barn once stood; therefore, minimal natural landscape will be disturbed. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The proposal is not requesting removal of Native and/or Heritage Trees. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The applicant is proposing neutral color pallet for the exterior building, window trim and roofing materials as well as incorporating varying rooflines, arched wood windows, and columns to reduce the perception of excessive bulk. (e) Compatible bulk and height. Residences in the area are spread out given the minimum lot size requirements and are generally larger in size. The proposed structure is compatible in bulk and height with other homes located in the hillside area. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The applicant is proposing grading in excess of 1,000 CY, which requires Planning Commission review and approval in Hillside areas. The applicant has submitted a grading and drainage plan, which incorporates appropriate grading and erosion control methods. In addition, the proposal shall conform to the City's current grading and erosion control standards. 3 Application No. 07- 017/20865 Wardell Road (g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above and staff report. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this :matter, the application for 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 January 30, 2007, 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 February 28, 2007. 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. The applicant shall redesign the grading and drainage plan reducing the combined cut and fill to less than 1,000 cubic yards for review and approval prior to issuance of Final Zoning Clearance. c. The following note shall be included: "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." 4 Application No. 07- 017/20865 Wardell Road d. The following note shall be included verifying building setback: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per approved plans." 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. 7. 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. 8. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. 9. Staff shall not approve downgrading to the exterior appearance of the approved residence. Downgrades may include, but are not limited to, garage doors, architectural detailing, stonework, columns, shutters, driveway materials, etc. Any exterior changes to approved plans resulting in a downgrade shall require filing an additional application and fees for review by the Planning Commission as a modification to approved plans. Any other exterior changes to the approved plans, which are not deemed a downgrade by staff, shall require a Zoning Clearance issued by the Community Development Director with payment of appropriate fees. 10. 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 5 Application No. 07- 017/20865 Wardell Road 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 11. Applicant shall comply with all Fire Department conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 12. 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. PUBLIC WORKS 13. Applicant shall comply with all Public Works conditions, including but not limited to, Geotechnical Conditions issued on January 17, 2007 via a memo from Iveta Harvancik, Associate Engineer, to Therese M. Schmidt, Associate Planner. Arborist The City Arborist reviewed this project and prepared two reports dated July 27, 2006 and September 5, 2006. The recommendations contained in these reports are hereby included as conditions of approval and shall be incorporated as part of the plans. Among the recommendations outlined in this report is the following: 14. Prior to issuance and final zoning clearance the two arborist reports shall be incorporated into the plan set. 15. A bond equal to $90,290.00, which is 100% of the trees to be retained, is required prior to issuance of fmal zoning clearance. 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. 6 Application No. 07- 017/20865 Wardell Road Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 28th day of February 2007 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Linda R. Rodgers Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: John F. Livingstone, MCP Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date 7 Attachment 2 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 7` day of February 2007, that I deposited 60 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: that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES enise Kaspar f Advanced Listing Services APN: 366-57-001 366 -57 -002 Address: 20865 Wardell Road February 7, 2007 500' Ownership Listing Prepared for: 366 -57- 001,002 ALOK SANGEETA AGGARWAL 20865 WARDELL ROAD SARATOGA CA 95070 366 -13 -018 PHILIP CHRISTINE CAI OR CURRENT OWNER 20731 CARNIEL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -3746 366 -14 -029 YEUN CHRISTINA LEE OR CURRENT OWNER 20891 WARDELL RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -3722 366 -14 -035 PETER P TERRY LIN OR CURRENT OWNER 20889 VERDE MOOR CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3715 366 -14 -038 RUDOLPH E DONNA DITTRICH OR CURRENT OWNER 20834 VERDE MOOR CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3715 366 -14 -050 HENRY YEN 13630 SURREY LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -4257 366 -14 -058 RAYMOND KLOTH OR CURRENT OWNER 12649 ARROYO DE ARGUELLO SARATOGA CA 95070 -3740 366 -14 -061 RONALD CALI OR CURRENT OWNER 12675 ARROYO DE ARGUELLO SARATOGA CA 95070 -3740 366 -49 -038 BRIAN L CAROLYN HALLA OR CURRENT OWNER 12360 FARR RANCH CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -6527 366 -14- 013, VICKI L WHALEN OR CURRENT OWNER 20901 WARDELL RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -3722 366 -14 -033 ANURAG P GUPTA OR CURRENT OWNER 20845 VERDE MOOR CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3715 366 -14 -036 SANJAY K MADHVI MOONA OR CURRENT OWNER 20878 VERDE MOOR CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3715 366 -14 -039 VINCENT LIANG OR CURRENT OWNER 20800 VERDE MOOR CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3715 366 -14 -051 JOHN C JUNE WONG OR CURRENT OWNER 20868 HILLMOOR DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3002 366 -14 -059 RONG -LONG HSING -FEN JIH OR CURRENT OWNER 12651 ARROYO DE ARGUELLO SARATOGA CA 95070 -3740 366 -49 -015 ANIL K RESHMA NIGAM OR CURRENT OWNER 21451 CONTINENTAL CIR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6505 366 -49 -042 JO -N1NG TA OR CURRENT OWNER 12358 FARR RANCH CT SARATOGA CA 95070 6527 366 -14 -028 DAVID T HIRAI OR CURRENT OWNER 20898 WARDELL RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -3749 366 -14 -034 FRANK S CHRISTINA CHU OR CURRENT OWNER 20867 VERDE MOOR CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3715 366 -14 -037 LAMBROS VASILIKE LOGOTHETIS OR CURRENT OWNER 20856 VERDE MOOR CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3715 366 -14 -041 ARTHUR C LEE OR CURRENT OWNER 20851 WARDELL RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -3722 366 -14 -057 TING -KUANG CHIANG OR CURRENT OWNER 20885 WARDELL RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -3722 366 -14 -060 WILSON PAULINE FONG OR CURRENT OWNER 12663 ARROYO DE ARGUELLO SARATOGA CA 95070 -3740 366 -49 -032 P E LIM 492 DEODARA DR LOS ALTOS CA 94024 -7137 366 -57 -001, 002 ALOK SANGEETA AGGARWAL 689 QUAKER RD CHAPPAQUA NY 10514 -1508 366 -57 -003 DAN NANCY CHEADLE 12499 GREEN MEADOW LN e ATOGA CA 95070 -3032 503 -17 -006 ANDRE ELIZABETH BOGART OR CURRENT OWNER 20800 WARDELL RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -3702 503 -17 -029 503 -17 -031 MARGARET C GUICHARD 21130 WARDELL RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -3749 503 -17 -034 JOSELYN I SAMUEL SCHWARTZ PO BOX 2066 SARATOGA CA 95070 -0066 503 -17 -037 LAURA CHO OR CURRENT OWNER 12781 ARROYO DE ARGUELLO SARATOGA CA 95070 -3705 0 17 -040 JIA CECILIA CHANG OR CURRENT OWNER 12847 ARROYO DE ARGUELLO SARATOGA CA 95070 -3705 503 -17 -043 LINDA C SANDAHL OR CURRENT OWNER 12800 ARROYO DE ARGUELLO SARATOGA CA 95070 -3706 503 -17 -046 JAMES ELLEN REEVES OR CURRENT OWNER 12742 ARROYO DE ARGUELLO SARATOGA CA 95070 -3706 503 -17 -054 YEO B HEE LEE 21097 COMER DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3709 401 IN NAIMI O URRENT OWNER 20696 WARDELL RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -3702 366 -57 -004 TOM LIM 10654 FLORA VISTA AVE CUPERTINO CA 95014 -1607 503 -17 -022 SCVWD SARATOGA CA 95070 503 -17 -030 MATT CHRISTIANO PO BOX 8 PAICINES CA 95043 -0008 503 -17 -035 DEIN WANG OR CURRENT OWNER 12755 ARROYO DE ARGUELLO SARATOGA CA 95070 -3705 503 -17 -038 WEN -LONG SU PO BOX 3682 SARATOGA CA 95070 -1682 503 -17 -041 TAMAS EVA SZEPESI OR CURRENT OWNER 12846 ARROYO DE ARGUELLO SARATOGA CA 95070 -3706 503 -17 -044 HOWARD H DEFAII 24837 OLIVE TREE LN LOS ALTOS HILLS CA 94024 -6455 503 -17 -047 CHARLES E DIANE HOLMQUIST OR CURRENT OWNER 12720 ARROYO DE ARGUELLO SARATOGA CA 95070 -3706 503 -17 -068 PAUL TRACY RUDDY OR CURRENT OWNER 20728 WARDELL RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -3702 503 -18 -037 DOUGLAS R PATTY CASE OR CURRENT OWNER 20695 ASHLEY WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -3745 503 -17 -002 HILDEGARDE C PECSAR OR CURRENT OWNER 20880 WARDELL RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -3749 503 -17 -023 VIRGINIA S CHARLES MARIDON OR CURRENT OWNER 21085 WARDELL RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -3750 503 -17 -033 CALVIN K CATHERINE TANG OR CURRENT OWNER 12721 ARROYO DE ARGUELLO SARATOGA CA 95070 -3705 503 -17 -036 KENNETH W LIANA ROBINSON OR CURRENT OWNER 12767 ARROYO DE ARGUELLO SARATOGA CA 95070 -3705 503 -17 -039 MIN -HUNG MING- HSIANG CHAO OR CURRENT OWNER 12825 ARROYO DE ARGUELLO SARATOGA CA 95070 -3705 503 -17 -042 TIMOTHY J SHERIDAN GOVERS OR CURRENT OWNER 12822 ARROYO DE ARGUELLO SARATOGA CA 95070 -3706 503 -17 -045 LII JOU LEH -YEH TSAI OR CURRENT OWNER 12768 ARROYO DE ARGUELLO SARATOGA CA 95070 -3706 503 -17 -053 STEVEN K CAROL SCIALABBA OR CURRENT OWNER 12878 ARROYO DE ARGUELLO SARATOGA CA 95070 -3706 503 -17 -069 STEPHEN SHELLEY NEWBERRY OR CURRENT OWNER 20760 WARDELL RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -3702 503 -18 -038 RICHARD YUEN OR CURRENT OWNER 20711 ASHLEY WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -3728 503 -18 -039 TOSAKU NAKANISHI OR CURRENT OWNER 20723 ASHLEY WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -3728 503 -18 -042 ERIC ILLEANA BENHAMOU OR CURRENT OWNER 20783 ASHLEY WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -3728 503 -18 -040 DIANE MCDANIEL OR CURRENT OWNER 20745 ASHLEY WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -3728 503 -18 -065 FRANCIS W JANE TANG OR CURRENT OWNER 12803 FOOTHILL LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -3712 503 -18 -041 DAVID WEIBEL OR CURRENT OWNER 20767 ASHLEY WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -3728 CITY OF SARATOGA ATTN: Therese Schmidt 13777 FRUITVALE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 Attachment 3 Date) II :J o/ 8 2o06 PROJECT ADDRESS: ±L 7A,2- Few, g40-7144 C4 S o Applicant Name: t e 5� @7 1 -1.f, CL V 0P- 4-1-41,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. jMy 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 wok; 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: OL/C/ Gll/V L E2/ Neighbor Address: o `Xo/ ,JDEL L S Aei9ir Gi9 .5"Qeo Neighbor Phone Number: D�i' ,s 7/3/ 9" Signature: Printed: City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form 5 of 5 Neighbor Name: City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: -Y 6 2e v C, PROJECT ADDRESS: 1 -DT A, 2086s 4' 4P----6Q.L P tf,, S b 6 A; 4 7 S b O Applicant Name: M-0 K SAW 6Th (-).e 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. 'vly 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): 4,2 /S`SCJ P E t_1M T (Zan vC LImt Neighbor Address: et P ft< 6. m -b c 3 fA L SAS A-, CA 6 41)-7-t ahrYLS OF ft/4 L Neighbor Phone Number: 6 O 57S (26 Signature: Printed: Pc c. L fur Date: JUL,/ 6, 774 c� PROJECT ADDRESS: r A t Wti 64 (4 Applicant Name: ke S Th A y c14e L P 14411—) 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. to y signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of rk; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ❑My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: 4, /fir /r Neighbor Address: Neighbor Phone Number: G.' g K ,T3( Signature: City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Printed: rn 20 ri 5 of 5 Date C LLqc 2 L 'v 6 PROJECT ADDRESS: Ler A Applicant Name:A C I- 944c 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. A vly signature below certifies the following: l 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: Neighbor Address: 2c 'i Wit -41.f ALA:, SAgM06A, CA `Ist., City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Neighbor Phone Number: -0 E3) 1- 88 Signature: Printed: Otht slle-4 is 6-14-nov GF- Hk 5 of 5 Neighbor Name: 7D/ Len Neighbor Address: 8, 6.07 208 Signature: Printed: cgv-, City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Neighbor Phone Number: 4e l v C{ 72w ;4-61-7D6‘,4-, 9.5 (t14i (0frviNs Dat&J 2 PROJECT ADDRESS: 4:-CT 4, 2-e.56-s-- JY M -7L 6 4`, Applicant Name: 1` )2( -.S L riot MC 6 aif IVINs 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. 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. 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: 4 .1d '111r4 Neighbor Address: 8-1 p Wade Li City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: 8, 2-'P PROJECT ADDRESS: LoT Tf, E3 kr kbe L- +o s /MU A- `sq. Applicant Name: Jv- e_ SAW 66.L- I rt C A-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. If signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; 1 understand the scope of o rk; 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 wok; 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/4-- qa?-e Jet Neighbor Phone Number: 40, AY 7- 1---13 2_ Applicant Name: 66/1-tvg of- Neighbor Phone Number: Signature: Printed: City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: ,'�1 t--Y 8, PROJECT ADDRESS: Li; r A 8 6 S VS P S A v A, CA ?.1� 4.13 K .SAINtc (Otab-C 4141 VtgN71 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. N ylMy signature below certifies the following: 1 have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. 'My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; 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): a is, li Neighbor Name: SA Nt h u 1 D L Neighbor Address: L C, 2-o 'S IP.oAi3 A 7te CP /S'v 7 5 of 5 Attachment 4 9002 2013E 49S LO 90N 901 6 190 \7old \60.112 td \VFW \990901998 190.66V \9499(0,d \:0 '4 1 PROJECT DATA i lki Ali hiii LLL :::a Sl 31 Si t il'i gl I u 11111 /!lit S1 Si g g g S1 1 t Pi g g 9� l$ R A A$ a 0 t I; f i. Ig 1 1 9 AH-.---, li i luhlI gli DRAWN BY: NSW, IV CHECKED BY: IBW, IV I PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 b i l RS h r ij 1 Wg ii 4 li LH i ;r 111 F {x �hili it hp l §3 a3 1- il r m2 P i h 0 o hs 1 �ii 1g41 w �a;3� PROJECT TEAM t t ri< lel 1 Y� 3 y y §7 li Q tii 2 �t b! Y a DRAWING INDEX J Vg 1 lid ilz 1111 i 11111 id 1 1 a ��v7 'RRR44 3 "S 3 GENERAL NOTES �y �y Pi de F p I I! D- 1 c I l i I !ij OJ W O v Pi 7 1L' 'm i 4E '1 c n g 1 117 �j �y1 �IZppj �ZQDZy i 1 1 sp a Ki i 6 1y y€ I F0F li W /Ph Fly 4 0' i Sd h ill h �3C AFC frt a s 3 gi Ihil o O Q 5 O 2 1 1 W 8 g Y R CODE SUMMARY b 21 11 1a 1 �i E p 1�p�1,pY 11 111 IF ill o1111 111 I'!�II'Ii 1111,11 Ip1111t11tl 1� I LOCATION MAP Nof TO SCALE r 11 nnn ru.n V rT -Li] o w li co o Z 9002 2013E 49S LO 90N 901 6 190 \7old \60.112 td \VFW \990901998 190.66V \9499(0,d \:0 '4 OL096 VINHO311V0 'VOO1VHVS aVOa rHaUVM 9990Z 1VMHVOOV )IO1V 'Saw '8 'ERN :1:10d 30N3QIS3a M3N V o p 1115 z -gi 1 Q o DRAWN BY: NSW, IV CHECKED BY: IBW, IV 90-90-11 01190 #BOP 31VO ON BOr TO.1 OF SHEETS viva 1O3f Oad OM/ X30NI ONIMVUO 'AEIVWWf1S 3000 '9310N 1Va3N39 'dVIN AIINIOIA 9002 2013E 49S LO 90N 901 6 190 \7old \60.112 td \VFW \990901998 190.66V \9499(0,d \:0 '4 z 0 i;!i r g �8 O a h "1 111 1 h N '0 a4 8 C 1 1 0 F 1 g filikiglilh 1 1 1iiiiili i i l M ;1 ;3341 Ili g l i 111 1111111 VVU 'l �:�GgaS ��((11X ❑�❑pp y M1 �b O 1`1�y� m0 Vu:4 uiX �l mm�//` V�{�/ �o;� 4�❑p� �Uyy1� 4 NNYl V1V11 1 Anifig LI f�71 gJINGIt�G1iig V1 FF .9.”_, .41 sdh ,»500> ki'mhMi2 k 5 I W M g� y 3CI' d 5 11/11 1 ii E k iii FF 1 y �G dd 4� t qW�p<[?{�( NN �y X y p �]1 qqqq J d p py' a Yf i W i r xxxxx 21S2 re 4,4_IZ t �ti Y S S5 ..ii I ithiIigi�I Ydhl g 1 :1 Igha000kfit adiaiaa -i tthg R� iNftC d KR'KD]K KKI�i difiK Z Z 0 9 k 1 a g 121 5i A P 1 ii P I 1 1 W �F Y� E 6 Y 6 iiihihihalniiiliifiliiihhti �Y hantilll e�f� ��{a 333 i m y spy k N J 5�1 Z .,1.... �Y< L <Y mm�W VVV VVJUUVJ Jpp yggpp 5��1jj&p/ �g4 Q44['%mJry �SS�iy ',11�4� p�+ d �y aLL V q W1�I}�4 V N V4f,'+I V� U m r a r y �U��V�V V� UVV OC10 Cl Cl l.l000��0[JO CIO CWW W�WW�LL7������6�Il�W� ILL �LL�LL�����IL rI�� NOD �tU 1�Db�D�����`U Vl 1 1 I 1 INM=I NMI MIN I i i 1 ii i 8 1 1 1; 1 g i' 1 1 i 1 11110 g h i li 11 ll g i .i5 1 1111 155 5ii ii El o W L[ L.i 3 I II 0 it \peg \awapcsay teantfiy \sloataH OL096 VINEI0A11VO 'VOOJ.VI:VS aV0lI TI3auvM 9980Z 1VMtIV9DV NOS/ SIIIN 'tIW 110d 30N3aS3N M3N Vt u1 o o i s 54 3 9 1 a g a a I I 0 S1331-IS 30 Z.01 `e*,+ 's Y aw4viir •I agIluk ��;:,ra::� 'l �N' SNOIlVOIQNI 1VIId31VIN GNV SlOSNAS OIHdVIID 'SNOIIVIA3888V SNOis z 0 i;!i r g �8 O a h "1 111 1 h N '0 a4 8 C 1 1 0 F 1 g filikiglilh 1 1 1iiiiili i i l M ;1 ;3341 Ili g l i 111 1111111 VVU 'l �:�GgaS ��((11X ❑�❑pp y M1 �b O 1`1�y� m0 Vu:4 uiX �l mm�//` V�{�/ �o;� 4�❑p� �Uyy1� 4 NNYl V1V11 1 Anifig LI f�71 gJINGIt�G1iig V1 FF .9.”_, .41 sdh ,»500> ki'mhMi2 k 5 I W M g� y 3CI' d 5 11/11 1 ii E k iii FF 1 y �G dd 4� t qW�p<[?{�( NN �y X y p �]1 qqqq J d p py' a Yf i W i r xxxxx 21S2 re 4,4_IZ t �ti Y S S5 ..ii I ithiIigi�I Ydhl g 1 :1 Igha000kfit adiaiaa -i tthg R� iNftC d KR'KD]K KKI�i difiK Z Z 0 9 k 1 a g 121 5i A P 1 ii P I 1 1 W �F Y� E 6 Y 6 iiihihihalniiiliifiliiihhti �Y hantilll e�f� ��{a 333 i m y spy k N J 5�1 Z .,1.... �Y< L <Y mm�W VVV VVJUUVJ Jpp yggpp 5��1jj&p/ �g4 Q44['%mJry �SS�iy ',11�4� p�+ d �y aLL V q W1�I}�4 V N V4f,'+I V� U m r a r y �U��V�V V� UVV OC10 Cl Cl l.l000��0[JO CIO CWW W�WW�LL7������6�Il�W� ILL �LL�LL�����IL rI�� NOD �tU 1�Db�D�����`U Vl 1 1 I 1 INM=I NMI MIN I i i 1 ii i 8 1 1 1; 1 g i' 1 1 i 1 11110 g h i li 11 ll g i .i5 1 1111 155 5ii ii El o W L[ L.i 3 I II 0 it \peg \awapcsay teantfiy \sloataH til s.. a OL096 VINHOdflVO 'VOOlVHVS avoid ll3UHVM 99802 IVMHVOOV )IOIV 'SEM V 1:111 110A 30N301931:1 M3N V i 51 !h k 1 IS g Mt lit 2 a DRAWN BY MN, P! CHECKED BY: 16W, N S133HS 7 10 L'Zd „I 1IYI LL J ,�,,�::r Y i 1 i±44-••irsir.A.A#44! NV1d U001d IN3WJSV8 a3SOdOHd SNOTS s �L\ ©D .0-,b .c1 .M 0-.a 0-.b .0-.G .4 /0 9-.9 irf b ,*/0 0-,G .4/111 .0-.9 0- p; lR Ori 1 .0-, i i ©D n a Z 5 y id S 0 J LL 1- Z W W co 0 W 0 a 0 cc d 900Z 01: :01 [0 ON 0111 69 P'10V01190 \7ald \F -o2S00000tsay Ien,i..`" 9002 00 01 LO nON ant 6 np'22V01 190 \10(d \fiu1u0e1d \Pe0 \a.aplsatl [enJe6fitl \sl�a COJd\ '0 OL096 VINaodI1d3 'VOOldaVS avoa '113a:VM 99902 1VMHVDOV NOIV 'Saw V 1111 o --a A2.2 OF SHEETS .4.as; F 4:10A 30N301S3a M3N V rvnoa gY;� 1 i G E Olii SNOis 7 s NVId 110013 E1001d 1Sald 03SOdOUId `6 Q 9002 00 01 LO nON ant 6 np'22V01 190 \10(d \fiu1u0e1d \Pe0 \a.aplsatl [enJe6fitl \sl�a COJd\ '0 4 OL098 VINI:10A17V0 V00.1.VLIVS avow Taauvm 99803 1VMHV9DV NO1V 'SM E V 'EN 1:10J 3014301SM:I MN V kNi kq Is tts CLIENT APPROVAL ANSA I N'MBI IAB 03)103HOI N I .AB NMV80 JOB NO DATE: JOBj 06110 II-0606 0133HS/ 7 30 tiV ...I 1* ,,,ili ,ji tti, ,4.4.1— ii NTH HOOld I:10011 CINOOM CI3S0d08d SNOIS 'Ti s 900Z N •9E 'VI 0 ON S EZVOI r 90 10(c10...Ed le..66v\s1.[.d\ :a c rn noN tins Onr ,y0 v 6y \spa[ .0 1 :17 II il 1 a Ei 1161dall i 1 I i 1 6 1 --1' 1 i (Ri)ooNciRers ROCPINS TILE SYSTEM WE COLOR BOARD; Flii :._14_1 1 1 L in {70 1 tr Aino tror ;iii b 6 11 CONr..,PME T1 ROOMS CONCRETE TILE Rooms 1- r II SYSTEM TM. Z: lw°4 0 r (1 i III )1IL__ I A& (5 -A m ri r rir --IT FKWCONCRETE Rooms —1 .....,a....: 1 1 I I .1 I L l_. C.Ctae.2 7 —J 1 lli LIff 1, i cri---- II, 1 I 1 i 101 i Iff 11 1 lirW" SLOPE SLOPE i I II il Ill 011 117M L-.._ 1 ...i, 1 ...lp es 2. Zini al.= 1 y !I r iMiii=lrii =-5.1. t. 7 -Nu 7 -1 CAUFORNIA FRMED 1 I „I Irrf 1..:.1 ROOF FIRST FLOOR M./ ROCCINS SYSTEM Tr. 110 ELEVAIIMS Nk j r t__ f_ --.:=L EMpr. ELEVATIONS irk 0 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN .01■ NORM a 01096 VINUO IflVO 'JO.VU VS avou 1130aYM 9980Z 1VMUVO9V NO1V 'SEW V 'ERN Ho 30N301S3a M3N V o a Q i t 2 il l Q I CLIENT APPROVAL: AAISA N'MB/ :AB 03NO3H0 N 7A0I :AB NMVMO I JOB NO DATE I JOB# 06110 11-0606 SI33HS 7 IO H ;t a S A �i� w }lr�� NV1d dOOU a3SOdOad SNOIS s rn noN tins Onr ,y0 v 6y \spa[ .0 1 :17 II il 1 a Ei 1161dall i 1 I i 1 6 1 --1' 1 i (Ri)ooNciRers ROCPINS TILE SYSTEM WE COLOR BOARD; Flii :._14_1 1 1 L in {70 1 tr Aino tror ;iii b 6 11 CONr..,PME T1 ROOMS CONCRETE TILE Rooms 1- r II SYSTEM TM. Z: lw°4 0 r (1 i III )1IL__ I A& (5 -A m ri r rir --IT FKWCONCRETE Rooms —1 .....,a....: 1 1 I I .1 I L l_. C.Ctae.2 7 —J 1 lli LIff 1, i cri---- II, 1 I 1 i 101 i Iff 11 1 lirW" SLOPE SLOPE i I II il Ill 011 117M L-.._ 1 ...i, 1 ...lp es 2. Zini al.= 1 y !I r iMiii=lrii =-5.1. t. 7 -Nu 7 -1 CAUFORNIA FRMED 1 I „I Irrf 1..:.1 ROOF FIRST FLOOR M./ ROCCINS SYSTEM Tr. 110 ELEVAIIMS Nk j r t__ f_ --.:=L EMpr. ELEVATIONS irk 0 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN .01■ NORM I V OL096 VINEIOdIIVO VOW-VUVS avow 1iaoavM 99803 1VMHYDDV )IO1v 'SEAN 's •aw 110A 3ON3GIS3d M3N V o u, 0 i I E c 2 I CLIENT APPROVAL: AA/SA DRAWN BY: NBW, IV CHECKED BY: NBW, N 90-05-90 01190 /BOr 31V0 :ON BOr S133HS JO L'EV �.,I K n( Vi�i X B, AM Jr�rr 3 (NOIldn313 1i01831X3 1NOlid) NOIlVA313 UO1a31X3 H1 ION 03SOdO>:Id SNOIS ""r s Z ypasa Dr! tr I 4 I 11 pl it t t t tri 58 8 MOON O3151NI4 WOdd 3M1MUS dO 1NIOd 1S3H91H) (.Y /I I-I •'1H'9AY) 3OVM9 IYYfILVN HO&I 3903 9O191V 321110%15 dO 1NIOd 15319IH 01 .U-,QL .O-,01 r, u �r 0 0 0 9002 90 :90.21 90 AN uns 5 \10[d \6u{uue(d \pe3\nuaplsetl tem, a'" T y 01096 VINI IOIIV0 'VJOLWP /S a VOd 1 13aUVM 9990Z 1VMHVD9V NOT/ 'SHIN V 1111 dOd 30N30IS31:1 M3N V o 3 CLIENT APPROVAL AA/8A I Al 'AWN 1 1.8 03)102H3 I N IATIN NMV210 JOB NO DATE: JOB 06110 06a0-06 S.1.33HS 3'EV F.� i •re lal�r�l� 'I i p. +I±W.: (NOLLVA313 UO11:131X3 3a1S 1HO11:1) NQI1VA313 EI011i31X3 1S3M 03SOdO1 Id SNOIS s 1 s 9002 LC :SE 4 90 nON unS 6np 20 \10fd \6u[UUeid \pe0 \a7uap[sau [en,ie66y \sl9a[oJd \:p I FE—I E I E UCCTO CHIALET, TM. CONCRETE RCCP1115! UXOR BOARD cterct4 PVC BUTTERS, TIP. SEE COLOR BOANA 12 _121 4 _TEE- -TiCos■ SECCAO LVL PLATE HT. 4, OVER METAL LATH, RP i I 1 SEE COLOR HOARD 5E51E3 HMI ARTIE VINYL DEcoRAT1VE RAIULLS I CLAD 1 CC ROOFINS 6,16M, TYR SEE 1---- ---4— TILES, TYR SEE I COLOR BOARD C.OLCR BOARD 1 —4-- 1 51LICOO MAD ARCUD P0001 WE I COLOR BOARD 77Frrff 7 '7777 12 CUSTOM PVC 6111113.5, TYR. SEE COLOR. BOARD I S FIRST LV_L,PLATEXT, .__4,_ EL, .41316 1 1 1 THREE-COAT HARD STUCCO OYER LAIR TM dil SEE COLOR BOARD 12 MORAINE DORIC 1 I 1 7-- Eb-aCEIDi= COLURE, TYR SEE 1 i 1 El I \p,,) IRCURIT nxoN GUARD- CCLOR WARD 1 I I I 1 1 M RAIL 61686M, TYP. SIEE'CCLOR BOARD I I t I i I i -4-- LI Oil I 4 -1 L ■r■ 6 ..,sm.y.,-A -,sor, .I 0# M i` 7.11 '60 FINISH BRAVE ,L, '.r. !.=.1 1•1•1111111IN■ L _I L I -entzrzirsrett J 1 1 i 1; I 11 i COLA BOARD H I PRCRILE OF WPC. TYR SZE CML ONE& 11 MOON PELL TYR I r 1 t._ __I c PROFILE CP EASEMENT AREA, TYP. i r i r i 15,51 R7 NEAREST PRCPERTY LHE POW 14141 i IV t i l lr Kat Es1/7 1 g AN la V A in Lie Al t 11 1.11 l i t ,..-..1b; PROFILE OF HEST ELEVATION P.L7....=......7 1 ir...._.3 •1,=1 •=i, a 156.94' TO NEARTMT PROPERTY UTE 10111 TO NEAREST PROPERTY UNE 0 PROPOSED WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATION (RIGHT SIDE EXTERIOR ELEVATION) i hg 0 0 0 W O 0- 9002 L 00 g; 00 AON ur5 6n P EEY01 190 \told \Gun weld \Pea nap! say lenJe66y (odd \.0 1 OLO96 VINUOEI1VO 'V0O1VUVS avoid T13OUVM 999OZ 1VMUVJJV >IOIV 'Saw 'aw V :uod 30N301931:1 M3N V o 0 R N 2 4 t k Q vaw -nnO ddv 1N3n0 N 'MBN :AB 03NO3H0 Al 'PAM :AB NMAO JOB NO DATE: JOB$ 06110 11-0606 S133HS 30 E'Ed 3 ii, n l 1 »1093 y_,.� (NOI1VA313 liOla31X3 1:`131:1) NOIiVA313 UOIa31X3 H1f1OS a3SOdOtid SNOIS E s hg 0 0 0 W O 0- 9002 L 00 g; 00 AON ur5 6n P EEY01 190 \told \Gun weld \Pea nap! say lenJe66y (odd \.0 .w o�oss vlNao�lw0 v�olVay avoid ll3aavM 99902 1VMHVOOV >IO1V 'SHIN 1 8 'aW 1:10A 3ONSGIS3H M3N V o i *1 t Q a a 2 Be' w a o o Tr cri Q N "1. 12iCiI�I t t= (NOLLVA313 aO1�131X3 3 GI S 1431) NOIIVA313 dOIa31X3 19V3 a3SOdOad SNOTS 1- s 900Z 60 :00 :SI 50 AN un5 6np'6EV0I 090 \7u1d \6uiuu6td \pe3\apuaptseu [en- e66V \s7Da{OJd \'.0 sic .111.t'9 01096 VIN :OA IVO 'VOOlVEIVS aVOU 1134liVM 9990Z 1VMUVODV )IO1V '61:1V 'd V W IjOd 30N301931:1 M3N V o 51 i r6 2 a' x a o a CO r r.r5 LdY� i "r," SNOIIO3S DNI0lU19 03SOdO1:Id SNOIS s t ,J 1 1 III 1= III -111. 1 =111 =1 1 11 -11 1- 1- III =11 111 =111_ 1E 111_1' III -III= 11111111/ z 1 111 11 1; 0 1 -11' 0 III- 0) I -111 I 1 Z I III III II' 1 0 III -III III —III- IITII1E w I1 =111= III =11 N 1 1 -111-1 I I_ o III —II 0 11 III= III III =III= -III °C 111 UU 11 -11 I- I 1 =T1 a UU 11 iii 11 hIT_I 1 1 111 1 1 11 iml 1 I 11= II -11 0 3 900e 91 Ae 91 50 AON uns 69p 5EVOTT90Uold \6uruueld \peg \aauapisad IeNa66V \9100[Oad\ U w FO V1wo °004411 zv m m a 3 O2 J� e X w W 2 VI 1Kp F d a O m m 2 Q W p H O l v~ W j O m 4441 Z O O W a1m Q w QK w K m W m° Jm F oW 3 3mV x- Z z oz JJ OO a�� a °ww wa �ir23�� v �'OZw mNN ua.0 zuQO=m 4 m m w Z O m I, W C -D ,p IA L.N. :LZ'66h� 41"1Z6:60-§- J °'A °m S V a ka To J1i 4 K 1 3N W I a o m2 z m m O2 Q 1-j Q- 2VF =2 v 0 Opp a J a 'Ow^. N.d wZ pr p 1 .V_ 3 Y a w F R: 4 S W= Q y1 N[r� JJS m 4 �J j N N 3 O Wh'e O O y 0 1 O 11-- F F wJJp du, <mcla�ca..4i lnm as �dm tS zaa� JJd 'ol ri g wd 6 S 82E 44! o 2 2 2 i 5 0 0 U U 44 m ZW 1�QN F a 'affair ��mi1 °ZaJ a° w ;614 ¢O U W Z -00 N o a�a u, °m °y"m WU2aQJ Owlnjs4mj a !iktmAngiw;.:.-E:ft 442 W s a F m 0 O 3 do= z Z W 0 w J 0 M Z -O i I 1 ZFO m Q 0 Z O SS j Z Z U U O w1 F w 1 j Wft. Z Omw m 11 �ma J w F F JO a..9� 0 �4 0 1�a� Q a <V w Z 0 °¢.4444 w mPTWo ao�coa. a m a p l,Nlw =aoa 0o: a?ooa a �ma ou' 1Fx01O R° 1 F j1 2 0¢Y m a a W1 z5 �oz zR8 3 r� aW4� o 8v a i z 0 o Z 1�yja 1 oz ag C1i °zr �OtnN rc c w m =m J .0 ZJU 4 J �o�No ti�b mrd�mda O 4 3Z?K o a7m �00 !Ni r? 0 W"'.111Z e6 ld vfo?oa RI' d z 11 tft d n a 0 0 h O u 0 F 0, 0 m z w Q a a `O N n 4 0 i O a m 'SONIMV210 ONV SNVId 03Of10O8d38 210 /ONV VIVO OIN0810313 8Od 03ldNI 80 03SS3ddX3 SI A0118V11 NO A 111181SNOdS3N ON 'SONIMVNO ONV SNVId 03dNVIS ONV 03NOIS 1VNIDI80 S39031MONNOV AINO 'ONI ONI833NION3 1W0 SI. :83V0MOSl0 'SONIMV210 ON' SNVId 030110021d38 210 /ONV V1V0 0INO2110313 210d 0311dPII 80 03SS321dX3 SI AIIIIBV11 210 All1I8ISNOdS321 ON 'SONIMV210 ONY SNVId 03d11V1S• ONV 03NOIS 1VNIOI8O S30031MONN0V AINO 'ONI 'ON12133NION3 iW0 S1 :2131.11V10S10 SHEET NO. C -2 OF 4 SHEET POs ON Bor s I n j 1 C I I t it �I 7 i \I I L 901L111 1 31Vo SCALE: 1b29' DRAWN BY SK SURVEYED BY HS PROJ ENGR: MS (CHECK BY TJS ,.T� 1 p aa I .,`X r r j j >L'y jJj d 11 N u N C 1 1 1 x PRELIMINARY GRADING D� LANDS OF AGGARVI 20865 WARDELL RC SARATOGA, CA! r PV Leo' s=ix h OAKS TS CIVIL ENGINEERING, INC. 1776 TECHNOLOGY DRIVE SAN JOSE, CA. 95110 J CIVIL NGINNpING PH: 408.452.9300 TOLL FREE: 888.327.7070 FAX: 408.452.9301 in m m. V m 4' 1 L_T–Y 1 O t >�t\ 1 1114 L,1. .V 1 11 N 1 ,1. AEI °II' b r F. I y 1V C JO hi `mss J n 0 `�-�'`Z�J 1 \^l. i I �Rr, l L� .1 a0 r 1� J d al t 1 1 w_�rr:_, y .,v y 1 �'=1! d el c 1 1" 111'1 4 �yis\)n f ..�f 4 1 1!,1 3 il. a L 9>< 1 0 d 1 0 ,el I Wi n 1 I 1 111 AJ O Fy'. t a,p I U w x 6 r V 0 w 3` J. f n (0 in dr v f rM Z Ur J C hi y b +a My Ur z A l =rcn p a d --mac I al•, i ^a 1 t 1 1'' ors t d a o a w 3 3 a i� v I Y a f I I I 1 r o l m 3 3 o Q J d c 2 d o yr oa nN a I I I` S I dl I f s V ny u 3 O Px I r- IOC w Z N O CO 31V0 SNOISIA3a r 3 y a 1 I o I AB It l Z Jr.,. 3 I' Q\ -`0 'SONIMV210 ON' SNVId 030110021d38 210 /ONV V1V0 0INO2110313 210d 0311dPII 80 03SS321dX3 SI AIIIIBV11 210 All1I8ISNOdS321 ON 'SONIMV210 ONY SNVId 03d11V1S• ONV 03NOIS 1VNIOI8O S30031MONN0V AINO 'ONI 'ON12133NION3 iW0 S1 :2131.11V10S10 ING TREE UST REMARKS: 161 /0F 90 NOIIYDFIdd6 831 00 031 Z Z I IAIN REMOVED PER APPUCA110N 06 -307 N L0£ -90 NOOVDI 1130 6431 O3AOW32 1 Z Z NIYI IAIN REMOVED PER APPUCATION 06 -307 Z Z ¢a NIYI NIYI ZZ 2a NN 106 NOOYDnddY 831 03101138 10£ 90 NO1/V3Tfdd9 83d NIV JO REMAIN 10 BE REMOVED PER APPUCATION 06 -307 NIV018 01 NO/W38 01 F0 REMAIN 10 RFMAIN ZZ ZZ24 a a c a 4 1416198 OJ NIVW38 01 PROPOSED MITIGATED TREES EE r. [TYPE: I SIZE: i iTAL NUM6ErC� MIBGAT�D TREES: 3 7AL MITIGA ILO TREE VALUE: 69,000. 1138 01 1138 0101 30 01 1138 01 3 a 638 01 03/1_1 0� 638 01 63N 01 38 01 1438 01 638 01 038 01 63N 01 038.01 1438 01 1438 0101 1438 01 38 01 YxYxYYYY YYY 8311 ALMOND COAST UVE OAK CAUFORNIA PEPPER .OAST UVL UAK Y O 5 'o s CAUFORNIA PEPPER -UASI UVL UAK N60 3118 IsYOl N60 3An 1060 OAST LIVE 0AK OAST LIVE OAK 831131 8108011143 MVO 318 16603 CAUFORNIA PEPPER r CAUFORNIA PEPPER I NVO 131161 I 160. 1SVO3 CAUFORNIA PEPPER r COAST UVE OAK r N640 31111 mar 631131 YIN804143 VO 3811 10601 6640 3111 11)6001 OAS UVVE AO I OAST UVE OAI COAST UVE OAI COAST UVE OAI WAS) UVL 081 COAST UVE 081 COAST UVE 081 COAST LIVE 0AI IVo 318 Iwo (VQ3An 1sVO31 1C0AST LIVE OAI AUFORNIA PEF _N nYin,o a_ 2 F2g ZZ NvNN 9l nnnv:Ya 64 14 L W (0 Lo .o. z O oW Z a o o x O ao In J a N a i.� F z w z r ,2)t-d! za x N ax i rc� F i °i w 1114 o 0 za za 0 a za °¢7 d 1x/1 O m a'1 W }NWpVNSF N 7N In 1 rcV ti zo '5 vim aN� oN.a O �p4aVi pFwz gw 5 a N 431 z w NN �aQo w :31i a'° i a U OWF� V� w 0 �3 N V.V F OWR ZWwOZ~O QpNN ��w o¢z §i g ,z ;.'"!(`-12 Eo OZgN .Z O -ul: q Q QRI~/_Irc ::!=jiik .00w oF FJ 1114��� FZ l °c6 .I'' W N XLLW a� °�ZW �dN I �4)U�W� k I P i w i m a m� �w �000� o QQZ°LLw Wi �a w� oJWw �cY�w !!'1'!‘c!"i z aw I- °Zaa 'd (`'4 5. L i:4 8S. NZ> z a ffW Qw a°m oN�ai oN w ow� °rcz� °�xom =Jww �m .o zoQ a Z N a °oo4�w�" r z z W V �w w a O OQOaQVyF mwm�il� N a ZlxnKmZmZ> °~VU F a� 8 zv ia v zWbkl z wo Y �aooJ �OZZ =�NN�4za� I r,FFw °Z'x ->m< o a z� O �a�m aa a i�Qw� 1 aciti c ww��oo��scaio °xW z zwo�.ozmx w�� F °a a w a a �ovlW a <W o aS�w auzz a. Va- 1 1"w�o�z2wcaiww cal- �I.'wF !n�z owa7wmxwo 4OI Jw pl �omwUQaOQ��� n °Fm ga�z�v °uxlm a F wUO o� ,T w7zW N ow .w�JF ,ww W O.a OSaN$w0 w o l'ul�z.¢ 1 wlno x w °U¢Nw_ z oz °m¢2m oa� Z O��¢z�ax�v w i rwia wul O i�W iawzm a'mZ o0 7a o a rcrco�a 00U OZOU� w zW oC9 7 j.INni��a_aa¢ <N az�� Ja Wl il wSa V aZw�U W Fw RR.m Od rc.� y �b "00✓ -i0 Z K OmU p 0 °W��� V KZ OO O Wr wwa UNZ w [J�2J m �Z w x q R N d l.Q m, WaW �U n H 4 WOW a�Q1 7 ?HFG� �1 ..___c.,,,,,, YCwi v3m'— 3 l 'aai .0 �3d���a�`Ja.Mrczz?�a�o <c�i v o v� 0 z Z 0 w Q Q a U °a N Q _1 V C9 -J Q Z (D 111 O J LL O 2 ag w 0 Z 0 0 L wloa 1 r z� 0 rc m 'SONIMVaa ONV SNVId 03D00021d321 80/ONV VIVO DIN081D313 80J 0311dell 210 03SS321dX3 SI AlilISVll'2JO ALIl191SNOdS321 ON 'SONIMV210 ONV SNVId 03d1Y1S ONV 03NDIS 1VNIO18O S3D031MONN0V AINO 'DM 'ON1833NIDN3 IIAID_Si :213WIVlOSIO SURVEYED BY: HB CHECK BY: TJS CITY OF SARATOG REQUEST TO DRESS THE PL TING 1 MMISSION NAME ADDRESS t SUBJECT q211-1 AGENDA ITEM NO. ik (HP) DATE TELEPHONE NOS I i 45 07 L A e- TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT 7(( v (Please read instructions on reverse side) ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and process to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. CITY OF SARATOGA RE UEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION NAME it-f fAl ADDRESS v (LO &OP AIM g a//c27/j -96/ SUBJECT /,A2DZ�C AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 DATE l TELEPHONE NO. K'C <Z2.7 TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT 1 (Please read instructions on reverse side) ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and process to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION NAME X74 C/A/S' j 0 ADDRESS /020 W4 Z7 L SUBJECT ,P4'(; ,?4 &D. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 DATE 4y) TELEPHONE NO. 4g `lv `C TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT 7: PlA7 (Please read instructions on reverse side) ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and process to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION NAME�� ADDRESS Arte r SUBJECT i i/ J ita► AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 DATE Z/2 07- TELEPHONE 0.40S 06 ells TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT (Please read instructions on reverse side) ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and process to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. (Please read instructions on reverse side) CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLAN NING COMMISSION NAME n e f cx a t C 40 n ADDRESS 1 Q Ch c a,- 0( cy )9 SUBJECT Q �d K S p o A-, AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE (V e) .D /a `7 TELEPHONE NO. TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT IN r A m ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and process to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION NAME --1 Cff Ig'A W ADDRESS 2.0S-B9' tLorn rr ,/A_ Ave SUBJECT 84-r4 Zv' tali {7 -t-. AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE, TELEPHONE NO. 7W" v ?17 TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT (Please read instructions on reverse side) ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and process to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION NAME C ui {y r�oz► Gevtc ADDRESS 10 1 C r J C Vv S 1 c' I C SUBJECT rrt; l,b V DV1 AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE c).,C a-F 1 01 TELEPHONE NO. TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT (Please read instructions on reverse side) ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and process to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION NAME K ADDRESS 0 V L) C' AL? /L 'i SUBJECT J 3 f A'v AGENDA ITEM NO. r DATE 2/ v� 0y- TELEPHONE NO. TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT (Please read instructions on reverse side) ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and process to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION NAME oil 1 j- ADDRESS `A f e�et. (sac kr L L✓}✓ SUBJECT N 4 0 H ILA �L or G AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE 1 W9TELEPHONE NO. pg---A5Y-‘ Viz TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT e CJ lrJ (Please read instructions on reverse side) ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and process to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will beTecognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. 4 11ENNE Mra MIA- s 40 9475 KOMINA AVENUE ELEVATI NORTP4 IN USE 1DESIGN BARATTA- LORTQN RESIDENCE 20626 Komira Ave. Sa °r•ga, CA