HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-11-2007 Planning Commission PacketPLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner C i
MEETING DATE: July 10, 2007
SUBJECT: Proposed two -story residence -15400 Peach Hill Road
Application #07 -396 (APN 517 -22 -072)
STUDY SESSION REQUIREMENTS:
The Study Session is a fact finding meeting where the Commission may discuss the item
and ask questions from or hear statements from members of the public attending the
meeting. During the Study Session, the Planning Commission may only discuss items
related to the project. The agenda does not allow any formal votes or motions on the
proposed project or other matters.
No comments made during the Study Session by the Planning Commission are binding or
required to be carried through to the formal public hearing where actions will be taken on
the proposed project.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the proposed architectural
design and project plans on a preliminary basis and provide input to the applicant and
staff on the following categories:
o Neighborhood compatibility
o Bulk
o Height
o Design
PROPOSED PROJECT:
Background
The applicant is requesting Design Review Approval to construct a new 6,713 two -story
single family residence with a basement garage on a vacant 1.6 net acre lot in the R -1-
40,000 zone district (The Project). The maximum height of the proposed residence will
not be taller than 29.5 feet.
The applicant's architect has identified the proposed architectural style of the project as
"Country Manor It would include traditional architectural features including: a stucco
exterior finish with stone accents on the west (front) and south (right) building elevations,
Planning Commission Study Session A-temorandur 2
Design Review 07 -396, 15400 Peach Hill Road
slate roofing material, a recessed entry porch, arched windows, pre -cast stone columns,
wood frame windows and patio doors, and decorative wrought iron window railings
Building Height
The maximum height of single family dwellings is 26 feet and the proposed height of the
project is 29.5 feet. However, additional height can be approved pursuant to a Use
Permit and Design Review by the Planning Commission (Commission) if the
Commission finds the additional height to be necessary in order for the project to adhere
to a specific architectural style. Per section 15- 12.100(a) of the Saratoga Municipal
Code, the Commission is to use the book entitled the "Field Guide to American Houses"
and other resource material approved by the Commission as resource documents to assess
the purity of architectural design. Staff will have copies of the book available the
meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Reduced Plans (Commissioners Only)
ROLL CALL
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
AGENDA
1. APPLICATION #07 -319
2. APPLICATION #07 -160
3. APPLICATION #07 -396
4. APPLICATION #07 -233
5. APPLICATION #06 -118
P:\PC SITE VISITS \Site Visits\2007\SVA 071107.doc
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
SITE VISIT AGENDA
DATE: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 Approximately 3:30 p.m. 5:00 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
19358 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road
Adams
15211 Bellecourt Drive
Labio
15400 Peach Hill Road
Arimilli
20640 3rd Street
Sam Cloud Barn
Canyon View Fourth Street
Hashemich /Sarnevesh
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.
ROLL CALL
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION AGENDA
DATE: Tuesday, July 10, 2007, 5:00 p.m.
PLACE: Administrative Conference Room located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on July 5,
2007.
1. APPLICATION #07 -396 (517 -22 -072) Arimilli, 15400 Peach Hill Road;- The
applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a new two -story single family
residence, including a basement, and a height exception to allow the project to exceed
the 26 foot height limit to 29.5 feet. The total floor area of the proposed residence and
garage will be approximately 6,713 square feet. The net lot size is approximately 1.6
acres and the site is zoned R -1- 40,000.
2. APPLICATION #07 -319 (510 -06 -069) Adams, 19358 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road;
The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a new two -story single
family residence, including a basement, a height exception to allow the project to exceed
the 26 foot height limit to 29 feet. The total floor area of the proposed residence and
garage will be approximately 5,013 square feet. The lot size is approximately 1.9 acres
and the site is zoned R -1- 40,000.
The Study Session is a fact finding meeting where the Commission may discuss the item and ask
questions from or hear statements from members of the public attending the meeting. During the
Study Session, the Planning Commission may only discuss items related to the project. The
agenda does not allow any formal votes or motions on the proposed project or other matters.
No comments made during the 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
proj ect.
Adjournment To Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Wednesday, July 11, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers /Civic Theater
13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
irl-%4
jJ -9
1
a_
I
tom'
is
W
VICINITY MAP
u,
4
a
£g
iE' 44 LL
a
1
a
El
I S:
i
wy
Ed
wa
9 314 ii.
D i;iiI5i 1 r
g 141
L a
gem 8�
4 II; h
ri; pro 11111
3A 321 El
P H I• 1 i tgg 66 I ij
c
g E
:11
U
o.
49,423 SO. FT. ROUNDED UP TO
v
v
v
Notavati
3.1.V0
0 Z06 B 0 I nal.
OZIS61/0 '3.901`NVS 'U 3134081VMM 0980Z
S1:133NION3 ON11111SNOO
loHnz V 13
NVld 30VNIVItIO ONV ONIOV80
0L096 V3 `e6o1eieS
Pe IIH LI 0017g1. 'I. lowed
30N301S3U 11110111:IV YES 'R OV1:1
A
II
1
111:-7
111E111E11 r
H
it-
I ILE
I Ell1E111 I IE 23
17-_-1111:_=-111
111:111
I I
M.W<Uk,t,
ij
el:
gi
bpm, i
al hi
x i 1 I pi
ri
.v i ,5 d 1 F
NI !od Riiii.y
1" 29 46
.11.1g :Hi hill
Ili L r iki i 111 i I 1 i
1 wi i vi !I ilh 1 l i l l
zli 1Y 1 i t A hi 11
E a/ .,.i 1 p i4 R
II ii 1 X lb i
11 1:11 141 4
i
ig g i x 0 13! i 11' I Id 1; 1 1
1 ir ni i il 13:, ':x h
,t 11 trg i !I v(0 gli p V, il d ib
1 P X PI 5 al 91! SI il W
l 111 1 x, ah h i
i il gill` 1 1
iiii 0 NI j g mi
ii 11: 1 III
i 2 1 11 x1 q h I:
1 .i ..§01 .11
m
0
OLOS6 VO VD0.11.1nIVS
OV021 111E4 HOV3d 00P91. `1 133HVd
W i r i lnaraV VOWS WW OVIZ
4:10ma analaCCISMIT
Ot761:ZMTS30i7 OL096 e!u..
aumidalaj. ReM 4aL 17£061
Noisaci Pere SNINNtrild
S3IVIDOSSV pue A3731V0
1
fcx
a
11 4
0
m
0
a
m
a
4
1—
O
Z
1
0
H
W
J
W
W
0
0
a
d
h
K
0
O
0
2 2
tu
2'Z(1)
Otel
o[
2 6 8
•O3
u
o 2 3 p o
0
w
0
OLOS6 1/3 4 VOO1VIJVS
WON 111H H3VBd OOtS L `L 133 IVd
WqMINV WAS !VW* WWII
1104 SIDIMULUEIE
Ob6l'ZL8'gat' OLOG6 e!uaof!!e0 'e603.e.ieg
auoyda!al feM lauuog ti8061,
NJIS3O PUe SNINIWirld
S31b73OSSV PUe A3731VO
L 1 v
1 1 a3Haauo
1 L 1IWW 1
31bO
1 d
oe
1 L LZ7 I
•oN ear
B1a3H9 6 ao
133NB
m
z
0
()Loss V3 ‘vocurays
avoti 11IH 143173d OM'S' `1 133/111d
WM§ Inre Vt712
IROA ROME1218E11
Otr6V2L4Te0t, OLOg6 011-LwIlle3 'Oi-l
Nem 1.auuoci
Noma° Flue ONININtild
S3.111130SSV Pue A37)IVO
1
5
8 0
0 o n 0 x
1- o o U
D p la Z
9
IL 0 r ,2 2
Lt.
0 W(00-0 Z 2
0 pc z e cy ,r, 0
OL 02 <D7oLz
DJ -----R. §-0-1 6 :41.1- M-
c' t3.0
<oda n000
0 Dz 0 z1.1.120‘) PC
Dz 0 la ui th tn., 0
oRZZLLI f0C1MZ
-IWO() I.I.100 0
0 1. V V M 0 0 Di I
0 DL 0- 2M§Lgat
U 1.1.1000 a_111
O-
F
F- <oomniaao
zozzy uutnau
1—
0
(i)
2
0
1-
-J
C)
1—
M
1—
LIJ
2
w
-J
LU
ca ,CC
0
FINI5H GRADE ELEV. 508.0i
0
0
0
0
a
4
oa0000000000000
n n nu u n n 11 11 11 0 11 11 11 11 1! 11
RW 9
m C C N N C N C C N C NI N N O
x x x x x x x x x x x x
99 99 999 49 9 999'9 9
ve, N
F-
z
w O ZQ
N D OW
O W N O
OJ 0 C J i
W D u_
00 IX 1
N
to
0 0
1—
O'
."0.0.
r 7
n u u n n n n
N
W 2? W
N 0 N V N h
*0(00000
oo6tgo4o
0;-.00 a.00
Oi G N th `Y
�.'NNNNN
w
a
N
FF FF z
LL LL 0
gSggg
O
0N$m U
n; J
U
w
0
0
LL
m >j o 0 Jto W
www m �n3 9
w z rm a N ao W
?ri ri ri Oo� °F0 J
Q o m
w
0
0
0
co
0
z
0
V
w
N
0
O
z Q W
O
0
a o zzQ a
u]W�
00J
00A
w LL J
J J R
3
J J O
MW
w
000
6
re
a
0
<(U0(00,
u
u_
0
N
0
N-
N N N
co
01
O N
N N m
700121
01
(111.1011111• ■31
Immin ■1
'I••■■ ■■I ■■•rI
lammu■■■■■n d
Z
J
0
1�
0
0
OLOS6 '2/O `1/OO11/HYS
IMIZIAWaV OV021 111H HOV3d O `6 1302N
110a NOMMUISEla
afrereLT53017 OL096 e!1.4.l0}ile0 `e6ol.e.aeg
auoydaial Rem lauuog {72061.
NJISSO pue 01\111\0\ntici
SaLVI3OSSV pug' A37MVO
z=
a
o�
a
U
v M
wa
u
m
m
0
1
OLOS6 1/0 VOO1V111/S
CH/011 111H H0V3d OOpSL `6 130H1fd
ZWICSEIWIT VMS VI= OVII
Ecanserasuna
Ob6l'ZL8'80b OLOG6 elua0411e9'e6o1eae6
auoydalal R M lauuog
N015a0 pue ONINNV 1d
S31VIOOSSV pue A3731t1O
Ilq�l�a� 19 ly f rg 111
1 ..',q.�lfS 1I;. f II t o a. r
1E MI .11110:1111R101 V:
hSI. 1.1■1 11F. f
I• rs�Il f c
Li.:r1�Bo1i■
N
0)
W
a
2
0
F
U
U
W
ITC
0
O
J
LL
J
uJ
J
MC
w
3
O
J
0
3
Z
O
1-
W
V!
N
0
0
0
0
0
J
8
0
tl
W
0
Q
o.
f
8
A
6
96ZOO990000.0 0:0.0pLun XVd 9951105V01.5
£Z9t441.01!4.IV ath.s00 L8P0061 01.S
1.09S PO VD lum.d
9 01n9 '00=0* 40.0 OM
ONLLOV111.1 9 391110211H0tI9 IN0SON91
03.19130d900N1
SaVIOOSSV NOON
I—
3
1—
Ili
0
0
En
0
0
L
‚10
I CO 1
0
O 0
0_20
X
Ni .0 1 X 1-•
ci -.7,
r) W ai ci
TA/
0
00
.00
t0
g- 43
.71 4
o
1 ‘i'
0 0
epopieo 'eficnales
peo IIIH 113ead 001791.
eoueppezi Hippy eq
ueid edeospuei
:BUOI0jA8J
!mum-op:0u qof
fd:Aq uono..Jp
110-10Z.uVelpoc
LOTL'Teic$P
ov.n 4L.
Lows .44a aoki
R
jJ
1.,
0
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Suzanne Thomas, Assistant Planner S
MEETING DATE: July 10, 2007
SUBJECT: Two -story Residence with 29 -Ft. Height
Application #07 -319 (APN 510 -06 -069)
STUDY SESSION REQUIREMENTS:
The Study Session is a fact finding meeting where the Commission may discuss the item
and ask questions from or hear statements from members of the public attending the
meeting. During the Study Session, the Planning Commission may only discuss items
related to the project. The agenda does not allow any formal votes or motions on the
proposed project or other matters.
No comments made during the Study Session by the Planning Commission are binding or
required to be carried through to the formal public hearing where actions will be taken on
the proposed project.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the proposed architectural
design and project plans on a preliminary basis and provide input to the applicant and
staff on the following categories:
o Height
o Design
PROPOSED PROJECT:
PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
MEMORANDUM
Background
The applicant filed Design Review Application #07 -319 on April 10, 2007. The applicant
requests design review approval to construct a two- story, single family residence with a
basement on a vacant lot. The total floor area of the proposed residence and garage is
5,013 square feet. The proposal also includes a basement, which is not included in the
floor area calculations. The lot size is approximately 1.94 acres and the site is zoned R -1-
40,000. The average slope of the property is 11.3 The property consists of a flag lot
Planning Commission Study Session Memorandum 2
Design Review 07 -319, 19358 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road
with access from Los Gatos Saratoga Road and a remainder parcel that extends from the
rear of the flag lot, across San Tomas Creek, to terminate at Bainter Avenue.
There are 61 protected trees in the vicinity of the proposed construction area. The
landscape plan for the project proposes to retain all but three of these trees. Those three
will be replaced with native species of equal value.
Building Height
The maximum allowable height of single family dwellings is 26 feet and the proposed
height of the project is 29 feet. However, additional height can be approved pursuant to a
Use Permit and Design Review by the Planning Commission (Commission) if the
Commission finds the additional height to be necessary in order for the project to adhere
to a specific architectural style. Per section 15- 12.100(a) of the Saratoga Municipal
Code, the Commission is to use the book entitled the "Field Guide to American Houses"
and other resource material approved by the Commission as resource documents to assess
the purity of architectural design.
Architectural Style:
The proposed structure most closely relates to the style category called Shingle Style
(1880 1900). (Refer to The Field Guide to American Houses by McAlester for
architectural references). The applicant has requested an exception to extend the roof to a
height of 29 feet in order to achieve the more steeply pitched roof line that is traditional
in this style. These homes are typically covered with "wall cladding of continuous
wood shingles" and no corner boards.' (Composition shingles are now being used to
replace the wood shingle roofs of this style. The Shingle Style, along with the Queen
Anne Style on which it is based, typically has a "asymmetrical facade with steeply
pitched roof lines intersecting cross gables and multi -level eaves. The extensive
porches, which may be absent in an urban setting,' are often framed by Romanesque or
Syrian arches' or traditional porch railings, are often under the main roof line, and may
have foundations of heavy masonry or stone.' Simple, slender columns and Palladian,
bay, or multiple windows are characteristic and tower roofs are found in approximately
one -third of these homes.'
The proposed structure is consistent with the style in its use of continuous wood shingle
cladding and composition shingle roof. It incorporates slender columns, multiple
windows, and gables. Although the proposed project would not be considered
asymmetrical, commonly seen in this style, it is similar to a "symmetrical example" of a
shingle house shown in The Field Guide to American Houses (pg. 292, photo #4). There
is a lack of intersecting cross gables (gabled surfaces that are perpendicular to each
other). Although there are eaves at both the first and second floor levels, none extend
Virginia and Lee McAlester, "A Field Guide to American Houses," (Knopf: New York, 2003), 289.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid, 289 -290.
4 Ibid, 289.
5 Ibid, 290.
6 Ibid, 291.
Ibid, 290.
Planning Commission Stunt' Session Memorandum 3
Design Review 07 -319, 19358 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road
from one floor to the next as is seen in many (but not all) of the examples in The Field
Guide. Again, the proposed home more closely related to the aforementioned home
shown on page 292. The use of gable and eyebrow dormers is typical.' Staff expressed
concerns about the proportions of the eyebrow dormers, as shown on both the elevations
and roof plan, but the applicant states that they are mathematically correct for this style.
White trim is proposed for the windows and doors and the applicant has provided
photographs of numerous homes in Saratoga that are shingle -sided with white trim. Staff
has found several online examples of Shingle Style homes that are trimmed in this way.
Several copies of the book, "A Field Guide to American Houses," will be available
for reference at the Study Session.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Reduced Plans
8 Ibid, 292.
9 Ibid, 291.
1
dE
r
iI
1 1
C
zra
mom 4.3ft Wax. acsAn
x51 ins
1511 P VW
!Vel_«44 5 Z
1 li n ilifillilill 1
D
BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE
&NI 311S
z
roTAL )aa(50. Fr.
5115
OR AREA CALCULATIONS:
teA as8 ea PT.
1405 S0. PT.
ro"x x x
rr7
1 PROJECT IFORMKRON
o. APN: 510-06 -068
b. Address of Project: We propose to assign the address 18568 Saratoga -Los Genoa Rd.
c. Owners: Christopher and Saekia Adams ISkookum Truetl
d. etdsting Use•. There property la vacant at this Nme, le no existing structures.
e. Property consists of Iwo parcel* "Parcel 2" with a gross area of 1.517 acres and Remainders of 0.630 acres per county records.
The house Is to loo constructed on Parcel 2 which has a net area of 1.066 awes t'not area' a* defined in 18- 06.820 of Saratoga code/.
f. Zoning 0160406 R1- 40,000
g. Age of all StruoNros: Not applicable.
h. Allowable Plow Area 6000 eq ft.
I. Average slope of site 11.3%
IL Percentage of net site area to be deducted: 1414 16601 sq f11
i. Plow Area of Structures:
I. exlefng: Not apptieoble
il. Proposed First flow 2870 sq ft tlnaluding 434 sq ft of garage, and some porch area with three &dee/.
Second floor 2246 sq tt. Total 8126 sq ft. There wilt be o basement.
J. Impervious Site "Coverage
L First flow, Including garage and portion of from porch surrounded by three wolfs, covers 2870 sq ft
U. West light well 110 sq ft
III. east tight well 87 eq ft
Iv. Back porch 649 eq ft
v. Dock deck including stairs 832 eq ft
vi. Front porch, excluding the section included in first floor, covers 422 eq ft
H. Front walkway 264 eq ft
viii. Driveway and -fire truck turnaround, excluding the flog lot access corridor, is 4884 sq fl, but constructed with permeable paver stone.
Ix Proposed future pool, Including dock, 1196 sq ft
x TOTAL 11,223 sq ft 138% of net would be 16,252 eq ft)
k. Slope at Building Site: 8%
I. Average Slops of Site
1. Contour Interval I 2 feet
U. Aggregate contour length L 3220 feet, per Westfall engineering
111 Net elte area A 1.304 awes, per county records
N. Slope 6 11.3%
m. HoIGM Information
1. Lowest existing elevation of building edge•. 547 feet 10 Inches
II. Highest existing elevation at building' edge: 565 feet 2 Inches
Average N pt of 1 and 11: 550 feet 6 inches
N. Top most etevallon point of structure: 678 feet 6 inches (281, alternative 576 feet 6 Inches 1261
firma, Peet of exi.Nne exterior walls: Nat aoolicable
iui
1351
1
dE
r
iI
1 1
C
zra
mom 4.3ft Wax. acsAn
w
o O 2.t7 C a 0 0
C O -0 d U U
c 0 •5 E 0 R U O 1 o t N m _T C q 1 a
C V O D L O O C y C O, N E 2
O M 0 a
m c fi
00.0" E n' C 013 O0 'ON ND V ,Y y
,co 0o C`p• D DE C o. Um V .0 m
OTC o n u o °'moo
m m c€ o y °a o a'G m E a o v c o o c E
E6 .E cw g
mm Ea o t=m /U if y o o =;C �p 0.
0.00 a .cm_ `c 8 of 2d °fr°' 0 0
0 o' .r vnn 0 0 !_^o s Sa a o
v� aoy D n$. o a 1 5 C O _N C O� Lee 0� y
0 N °I VI C 't!'''' r 01) L O E n N 0 L C O
W° 0 r« U 0 O j N 0 c O T m m t.: p J y M
,r_. 0 2 U 0 C O O O V 6 C p O C 2Q O O O O T
0 0 0, D, a` 0 p0 Li! tm L ra n Z.
o6 u g m OE 2 c m C u a E z o 0 0 a L
'h28.2 s 3 o c
'''43261 a 3�'n Tn vio, E °oo 2
O 3 0 yY 0 m C. ;),C2 S O
p V G O X" N L .0 f O W V C L
0 C° 0 C G W= '1''g 0 C C7 L` E 0> O
O L O 0 T c"- m O N L d 0 Ip 1 E o a L O 0 d =1 0
N m la
C Y' D ,c z 0 N 1515_ 0 a ..L' 0 0 y 0 1 ,5 :2=2 p O
C
Dy 0, y O m o C d Y N y a C 4 -Q7- 3 0a
C 5: r-D- C- E S.m T O p O C L a -c 0 3
O C u —0' -0-
41 Gam V- -C _0->��11
E 1� m u y m d E w `C .0 5-0: 'O- 0> s o
0 E� c0;5 ac o 5 a u wq °Et 4 0:p ��5
z 8867,2:5' °i2c m a c v —c 0, 01 cE PEI p
0c_D° cD oa E,Ya L E° mE ya m
a E c E ov a d N 3 c m o m« u5 g g' `a p
2 o n mo o c cwv v ;a m
C� O d 0 3•-';'S' C w C p 0 0 c Y c C p
ET, -c woo cc Do 8Ec U rn 't..' ,n5
p c c o m c o°
lilf zv, Pi! o, a o. a o,° o, coiuo a y ,o L H m D, v. o° C a j L. Q.L n Q 4 dN F O� 0
2 dQo.> 5o —.3 41 2.0 t 0 5 D
4% I ri a vi ,o r °d of
t 1331AS 33S 3NI1 H31VIN
J
v)
IIJ I.;:1
J J
d
U U
1n
J J
d
U
Z
I—
W
>t
0
S
8 p N N
6
cL
U
z
H
W
z
0
z
w
cc
e,
a
0
0
W
a
0
II
,2 11
O>
J
1
W
a
Y
W
U
U
1
Z
W
0
a
14583 BIG BASIN WAY, SARATOGA, CA 95070 (408)867-0244
ENERGY DISSIPATOR
WESTFALL
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
I'
w
I
8
I
0
u 1333
L45 1333
30"/HO
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
AV
I
I
1
LI Ci
0
30780 03SOd
r 8Y8V9
1
i
T"
ti
I
I
1
ONE O ON11
0
0
OS'ISS 13 AA
OS'L1S 1333
7 0 1S 11 3J
30tl>A 1 J
iss 13 3'd
IS 715 1333
I
dONd
ONf10e10 '%ILLS
L
I
ONf10N9 '%ILL
I
I
1
U
1 1
W
CC
a
1
R
In
N 13
in
in
7 1
in
in
o O 2.t7 C a 0 0
C O -0 d U U
c 0 •5 E 0 R U O 1 o t N m _T C q 1 a
C V O D L O O C y C O, N E 2
O M 0 a
m c fi
00.0" E n' C 013 O0 'ON ND V ,Y y
,co 0o C`p• D DE C o. Um V .0 m
OTC o n u o °'moo
m m c€ o y °a o a'G m E a o v c o o c E
E6 .E cw g
mm Ea o t=m /U if y o o =;C �p 0.
0.00 a .cm_ `c 8 of 2d °fr°' 0 0
0 o' .r vnn 0 0 !_^o s Sa a o
v� aoy D n$. o a 1 5 C O _N C O� Lee 0� y
0 N °I VI C 't!'''' r 01) L O E n N 0 L C O
W° 0 r« U 0 O j N 0 c O T m m t.: p J y M
,r_. 0 2 U 0 C O O O V 6 C p O C 2Q O O O O T
0 0 0, D, a` 0 p0 Li! tm L ra n Z.
o6 u g m OE 2 c m C u a E z o 0 0 a L
'h28.2 s 3 o c
'''43261 a 3�'n Tn vio, E °oo 2
O 3 0 yY 0 m C. ;),C2 S O
p V G O X" N L .0 f O W V C L
0 C° 0 C G W= '1''g 0 C C7 L` E 0> O
O L O 0 T c"- m O N L d 0 Ip 1 E o a L O 0 d =1 0
N m la
C Y' D ,c z 0 N 1515_ 0 a ..L' 0 0 y 0 1 ,5 :2=2 p O
C
Dy 0, y O m o C d Y N y a C 4 -Q7- 3 0a
C 5: r-D- C- E S.m T O p O C L a -c 0 3
O C u —0' -0-
41 Gam V- -C _0->��11
E 1� m u y m d E w `C .0 5-0: 'O- 0> s o
0 E� c0;5 ac o 5 a u wq °Et 4 0:p ��5
z 8867,2:5' °i2c m a c v —c 0, 01 cE PEI p
0c_D° cD oa E,Ya L E° mE ya m
a E c E ov a d N 3 c m o m« u5 g g' `a p
2 o n mo o c cwv v ;a m
C� O d 0 3•-';'S' C w C p 0 0 c Y c C p
ET, -c woo cc Do 8Ec U rn 't..' ,n5
p c c o m c o°
lilf zv, Pi! o, a o. a o,° o, coiuo a y ,o L H m D, v. o° C a j L. Q.L n Q 4 dN F O� 0
2 dQo.> 5o —.3 41 2.0 t 0 5 D
4% I ri a vi ,o r °d of
t 1331AS 33S 3NI1 H31VIN
J
v)
IIJ I.;:1
J J
d
U U
1n
J J
d
U
Z
I—
W
>t
0
S
8 p N N
6
cL
U
z
H
W
z
0
z
w
cc
e,
a
0
0
W
a
0
II
,2 11
O>
J
1
W
a
Y
W
U
U
1
Z
W
0
a
14583 BIG BASIN WAY, SARATOGA, CA 95070 (408)867-0244
ENERGY DISSIPATOR
WESTFALL
8
a
O
t 133HS 33S 3NI1 HO1YV
oq
m
N
O
8
N
N N
LU
1
1
r
J
i
i
ti
IuI
a
0
c
4B
4.
h,a
1
fan
z
W
IL
W
tog
e
1
1
m u w ro w s w mVM UnrOry] IMXI
0
d,st
1 1.
Aiii,‘,
A
0
I;I
1
17 I
1':1
II
d,09
\I
III\
.tt,e
.e,L
AF
—J
11 of Lit
fl
d,81
i
a..
4f-R
0
I
0
Q
rk
I
I I
O[
.(11 l I I
�P! d-dt
I a
V
I
1
.o,9. 1
Mama
IuI
a
0
c
4B
4.
h,a
1
fan
z
W
IL
W
tog
e
1
1
m u w ro w s w mVM UnrOry] IMXI
II
x R�
9 �8
N
4D
A-M
4®
0
CO
1
1 g
1
1
a
tvg
1
1
1
1
CNI
r
t
A-r1.1
of3n0i
A-0
int
fo� uric r
110-a d-109 r Al-,L
I
.S.
s
k
i
i
I
_h_ i
.4..
.s.,z
.zz
41.4
iii
1.
i
P If
b.
..\N-,------1
k
1
ti_
A i
A
6i.-- 4 pb.
4, iikt,
IMP"
!MIL_
a
t oC•iL
ofnCL
i
04 eO-tL
II
x R�
9 �8
N
4D
A-M
4®
0
CO
1
1 g
1
1
a
tvg
1
1
1
1
CNI
r
t
r,a
r
.0-At
0
0
0
-H
i
W
0
0
0
1,8
X
u
N
r
I
i
I
I
i
t
*ION p.14/ ..11.0..1,,.,„
C
1
1
r
1
1
1
1
N D
1!
1
1
1
I
x
ers
h
1
Q V I
1
1
1
1
f
N D
v
M
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
qtr
Q
1
1
1
1
1
z
la I
imes
x p 1.
0
1
9
1
1
1
ig
1
1
1
to
1
N D
0
0,
1
1
1
1
j
1
1
1
1
1
•VI ht
044
-ft r i-
gg g g
gggg
g3Rz
g
gg g
g
gh
iigi
a
0
cc
Q
a
0
J
2
0
U
b
SQUARE FOOTAGE
0 e
r
I
LP
0
I
i$
t.
9_
4
i
svt
'I
o
i
7.
'I
1
1
N D
0
0,
1
1
1
1
j
1
1
1
1
1
•VI ht
044
-ft r i-
gg g g
gggg
g3Rz
g
gg g
g
gh
iigi
a
0
cc
Q
a
0
J
2
0
U
b
SQUARE FOOTAGE
11
406 11
I/
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
cv)
its
Q 1
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION AGENDA
DATE: Wednesday, July 11, 2007, 5:00 p.m.
PLACE: Administrative Conference Room located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting
ROLL CALL
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on July 5,
2007.
1. APPLICATION #07 -233 (APN 503 -24- 071/073) Sam Cloud Barn L.P. (owner)
20640 3 Street; The applicant requests Design Revi and Variance approval to
construct a new commercial building attached to the historic Sam Cloud Hay and Feed
Warehouse currently undergoing renovation. The proposed structure is three stories with
a full basement. Total square footage of the addition is 7,506 square feet and the
maximum height is 35 feet. The maximum building coverage is 77% of the site. The
gross lot size is 4,187 square feet, and the site is zoned CH -1. The Variance application is
necessary to allow development on a lot with a 48% slope.
2. APPLICATION #06 -118 (APN 503 -28 -008) Hashemich /Sarnevesh, Canyon View
Fourth Street Application for Design Review and a Variance to construct an
approximately 3,312 square foot two -story home with a daylight basement on a vacant lot
on Canyon View Drive Fourth Street. The average slope of the lot is 39.7% sloping
downward toward Canyon View Drive. Pursuant to City Code Section 15- 12.061, the
average slope beneath a structure shall not exceed 30% slope. Therefore, in addition to
Design Review approval, the applicant is requesting approval of a Variance as specified
in City Code Section 15- 12.061(a).
The Study Session is a fact- finding meeting where the Commission may discuss the item and ask
questions from or hear statements from members of the public attending the meeting. During the
Study Session, the Planning Commission may only discuss items related to the project. The
agenda does not allow any formal votes or motions on the proposed project or other matters.
No comments made during the 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.
Adjournment To Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Wednesday, July 11, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers /Civic Theater
13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
Planning Commission Study Session Memorandum 1
Design .Review 07-233, 20640 3' Street
MEETING DATE: July 11, 2007
SUBJECT:
STUDY SESSION REQUIREMENTS
HISTORY
RECOMMENDATION
PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
MEMORANDUM
Item 1
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: John Livingstone, AICP, Community Development Director
Heather Bradley, Contract Planner j
20640 3 Street
Design Review and Variance Application #07 -233 (APN 503 -24-
071/072); applicant Sam Cloud Barn L.P.
The Study Session is a fact finding meeting where the Commission may discuss the item
and ask questions from or hear statements from members of the public attending the
meeting. During the Study Session, the Planning Commission may only discuss items
related to the project. The agenda does not allow any formal votes or motions on the
proposed project or other matters.
No comments made during the Study Session by the Planning Commission are binding or
required to be carried through to the formal public hearing where actions will be taken on
the proposed project.
This is a continued item from the May 22 study session. At that time the Commission
determined that they would like to see a design with less bulk and informed the applicant
that they needed to visit the property again in order to form a clearer opinion on the
proj ect.
There were several interested persons at that meeting including Bill Cooper of Bella
Saratoga, Kwan Lee and Jack Hickling representing the Inn at Saratoga, and Katherine
Kraemer a resident on Brookwood Lane.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the architectural plans for the
commercial building with changes proposed by the architect including the addition of
windows and balconies, and provide comments to the property owner and architect.
Planning Commission Study Session Memorandum
Design Review 07 -233, 20640 3' Street
PROPOSED PROJECT
This application was submitted on January 25, 2007. The applicant requests Design
Review, and Variance approval to construct a new commercial building attached to the
historic Sam Cloud Hay and Feed Warehouse currently undergoing renovation. The Sam
Cloud building is located on an approximately 1,800 square foot parcel. The proposed
addition is located on a separate 2,786 sq. ft. adjacent parcel. When the two parcels are
merged the total site will be 4,586 sq. ft. The site is located in the CH -1 zoning district.
As a condition of any project approval the applicant will have to file a lot merger
application with the Public Works department.
The addition proposed to the original barn is in keeping with the original architectural
style and is also three stories with a full basement. The proposed square footage has been
reduced by 381 square feet from the previous plan that was reviewed by the Planning
Commission. The proposal is currently for a 7,125 square foot addition and the maximum
height would be 35 feet. The total square footage of the existing barn is 7,120 square feet.
Therefore, the total combined square footage on site would be 14,245 square feet. If the
basements in both structures were deducted then the total would be 10,681 square feet.
The maximum proposed building coverage would be 77% of the combined site. The
average site slope on the vacant lot is 48% and it is estimated that the average site slope
would remain close to 48% if the lots were merged.
Pursuant to City Code Section 15- 19.020 (d), the average slope beneath a structure shall
not exceed 30% slope and no structure shall be built upon a slope that exceeds forty
percent natural slope at any location under the structure between two five -foot contour
lines. Therefore, in addition to Design Review approval, the applicant is requesting
approval of a Variance as specified in City Code Section 15- 19.020(d).
The style of the proposed addition to the Sam Cloud Barn is in keeping with the
architectural style of the barn. The addition will utilize materials and decorative elements
that match the original structure. However, pursuant to Secretary of the Interior standards
for additions to historic structures, a three -story glass feature, including an entry door,
will separate the addition. Staff has recommended the addition of divided lites to the
glass entry and the glass elevator to resemble those that would be found on windows in
warehouse /industrial buildings of the time period.
Horizontal shiplap siding will be used as well as wood window trim and a metal roof to
match the original structure. The applicants intend to re -stripe the existing parking spaces
abutting the building and provide a small amount of landscaping in the areas of the site
not occupied by buildings. The architect has indicated in a letter that the grading
quantities will include approximately 339 cubic yards of cut.
The City Arborist has not reviewed this application. There is one tree located in the far
south corner of the site that will not be removed.
Planning Commission Study Session .111einorandum 3
Design Review 07 -233, 20640 3 ,,t Street
Parking and Circulation
The subject site is located in Parking District Number 1 of the Village. The City has
adopted a zoning text amendment relaxing all parking requirements in the Village.
Specifically no off street parking shall be required for applications that are deemed
complete between March 1, 2006 and February 28, 2009. While this application has not
been deemed complete, it is expected to be deemed complete sometime within the next
few months.
Geotechnical Review
This application has received a geotechnical clearance.
Environmental Review
Staff has recently sent out a Request For Proposal to several environmental consultants to
prepare an Initial Study and associated environmental documents. This review will be
completed prior to deeming this application complete.
Neighbor Notification
Staff has not requested neighbor review forms, but will ask the applicant to submit them
prior to deeming the application complete.
Public Noticing
Notice for this Study Session has been published in the Saratoga News, sent to property
owners within 500 feet and properly posted at the recommendation of the Planning
Commission chair. Additionally the notice was sent to approximately 140 business
owners on Big Basin Way.
STUDY SESSION DISCUSSION:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission provide the applicant with comments
concerning the following:
The Design Review Findings as they relate to this proposed design.
Appropriateness of the proposed project in the Village and the proposed use of the
building.
Desired improvements made to the parking area between the proposed building and
the rear of the Bella Mia restaurant.
Variance Findings as they relate to the grading and construction of the proposed
project on a slope that exceeds 30
Planning Commission Study Session A./eunorwulunu
Design .Review 07 -233, 20640 3 Street
The applicable variance findings are:
(a) That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size,
shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified
regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of
other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district.
(b) That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified
in the same zoning district.
(c) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Affidavit of Mailing Notices and lables
2. Reduced Plans
addresses shown above.
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 19th day of June 2007, that I
deposited 203 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:
Address: 20640 3rd Street
APN: 503 -24 -071, 073
that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the
Denise Kaspar
Advanced Listing Services
tune 19, 2007
•wnership Listing
Prepared for:
503 -24 -071, 073
3AM CLOUD BARN
W640 3 STREET
3ARATOGA CA 95070
503 -23 -025
?VELYN JOHNSTON
?O BOX 53
3ARATOGA CA 95071 -0053
503 -23 -053
DAVID S JOHNSTON
DR CURRENT OWNER
?0616 BROOKWOOD LN
3ARATOGA CA 95070 -5831
iO3- 24 -016, 018, 026, 035, 036, 047, 074, 076 503-
!5-031 503 -6 -044 517 -09 -078, 083
2ITY OF SARATOGA
3777 FRUITVALE AVE
3 TOGA CA 95070
503 -24 -027
vIITCH TRACY CUTLER
[4480 OAK PL
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5929
503 -24 -046
NN AT SARATOGA INC
DR CURRENT OWNER
?0645 4TH ST
3ARATOGA CA 95070 -5867
503 -24 -054
CONY A JULIET JARRAMI
30 OAK GROVE AVE
IOS GATOS CA 95030 -7021
503 -24 -063
�NY PROPERTIES INC
[2504 SARATOGA AVE
SARATOGA CA 95070 -4145
If 067, 080, 081
S I ARLENE ROSENFELD
[4219 OKANOGAN DR
3ARATOGA CA 95070 -5549
503 -23 -049
NANCY E KESSLER
OR CURRENT OWNER
20626 BROOKWOOD LN
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5831
503 -24 -008
RLJ LLC
19510 GLEN UNA DR
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6018
503 -24 -020
RUTH LONG
PO BOX 2095
SARATOGA CA 95070 -0095
503 -24 -029
GLEN A BRADFORD YOUNG
1027 LUCOT WAY
CAMPBELL CA 95008 -6408
503 -24 -049, 050
GEORGE PAYNE
15940 ROCHIN TR
LOS GATOS CA 95032
503 -24- 060,61
BLOXHAM FAMILY LP
4010 MOORPARK AVE 111
SAN JOSE CA 95117 -1804
503 -24 -064
SOO G LEE
1138 NORVAL WAY
SAN JOSE CA 95125 -3434
503 -24 -070, 072
JOSEPH HELEN BROZDA
235 LINDEN ST
SANTA CRUZ CA 95062 -1019
503 -23 -052
PATRICK BROCKETT
OR CURRENT OWNER
20620 BROOKWOOD LN
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5831
503 -24 -009
ROBERT SHIRLEY CANCELLIERI
14860 CODY LN
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6018
503 -24 -023
CHARLES J ELSBETH STAUSS
PO BOX 1848
LOS GATOS CA 95031 -1848
503 -24 -030
MAHNAZ KHAZEN
OR CURRENT OWNER
14519 BIG BASIN WAY
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6052
503 -24 -051
YVES G ANNETTE CASABONNE
PO BOX 247
EL VERANO CA 95433 -0247
503 -24 -062
BERNARD A WALLACE
PO BOX 1060
DISCOVERY BAY CA 94514 -7060
503 -24 -066
JOSEPH C MICHELLE MASEK
OR CURRENT OWNER
14467 BIG BASIN WAY
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6093
503 -24 -071
SAM CLOUD BARN
85 SARATOGA AVE 100
SANTA CLARA CA 95051 -7300
503 -24 -073
IOSEPH HELEN BROZDA
475 W SAN CARLOS ST 10101
SAN JOSE CA 95110 -2633
503 -25 -008, 028
DONALD C HUNT
14583 BIG BASIN WAY
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6804
503 -25 -025
V1 J C PETERSEN
45 MONTGOMERY ST
LOS GATOS CA 95030 -5314
503 -25 -034
DETLEF ALBRECHT
DR CURRENT OWNER
20650 4TH ST 1
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5893
503 -25 -037
CLAUS W YVONNE PACHE
DR CURRENT OWNER
20650 4TH ST 4
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5893
503 -26 -043
MICHAEL OHEARN
115 NEW ST
SANTA CRUZ CA 95060 -4324
503 -63 -003
t1NN MCGRATH
DR CURRENT OWNER
10810 4TH ST 3
SARATOGA CA 95070 =5844
503 -63 -006, 112
CATHRYN B WARREN
501 CLIFFSIDE CT
UCHMOND CA 94801 -3766
503 -63 -009
ELSIE M COCHRANE
13615 VAQUERO CT
SARATOGA CA 95070 -4804
503 -63 -012
WILLIAM DIANA ROGERS
DR CURRENT OWNER
10812 4TH ST 8
ARATOGA CA 95070 -5846
503 -25 -003
SAN JOSE WATER WORKS
ACCOUNTING
374 W SANTA CLARA ST
SAN JOSE CA 95113 -1502
503 -25 -021
SCVWD
5750 ALMADEN EXP
SAN JOSE CA 95118
503 -25 -026
SHARON STOKES
676 CAMELLIA WAY
LOS ALTOS CA 94024-3116
503 -25 -035
RONALD VERDOORN
OR CURRENT OWNER
20650 4TH ST 2
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5893
503 -25 -038
ALLEN W SAUNDRA HILL
OR CURRENT OWNER
20650 4TH ST 5
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5893
503 -63 -001
GATEHOUSE CONDOMINUM
HOMEOWNERS
550 DIVISION ST 1
CAMPBELL CA 95008 -6906
503 -63 -004
SANDRA KAMIAK
OR CURRENT OWNER
20810 4TH ST 4
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5844
503 -63 -007
RICHARD L PATRICI
SCHWENDINGER
12724 PLYMOUTH DR
SARATOGA CA 95070 -3958
503 -63 -010
STANLEY A MIRIAM DEMARTINIS
21315 SARATOGA HILLS RD
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5376
503 -63 -013
ROBERT M JAKOB
PO BOX 6214
SAN JOSE CA 95150-6214
503 -25 -007
BIG BASIN LLC
OR CURRENT OWNER
14573 BIG BASIN WAY
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6801
503 -25 -022
THOMAS E PARKER
PO BOX 756
CARDIFF BY THE SEA CA 92007 -0756
503 -25 -032
PLUMED HORSE PROPERTY LLC
OR CURRENT OWNER
14555 BIG BASIN WAY
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6013
503 -25 -036
K Y LIMITED
14555 BIG BASIN WAY
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6013
503 -26 -018
ANN D BARBER
14471 SPRINGER AVE
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5827
503 -63 -002
ANTHONY YUNG
13731 BEAUMONT AVE
SARATOGA CA 95070 -4917
503 -63 -005
DAVID W MANTELLI
OR CURRENT OWNER
20812 4TH ST 1
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5845
503 -63 -008
MARCELLINE E HOUDE
OR CURRENT OWNER
20812 4TH ST 4
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5845
503 -63 -011
JAMES J ANTOINETTE SHUMA
OR CURRENT OWNER
20812 4TH ST 7
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5846
503 -63 -014
BRIAN R ANITALYNN TIGHE
6374 CANDLEWOOD CT
CUPERTINO CA 95014 -4610
117 -09 -060
'ATRICK KIRK
W ONTALBAN DR
SE CA 95120 -4829
;17 -09 -069
'OLLACK PROPERTIES II LLC
4500 BIG BASIN WAY
ARATOGA CA 95070 -6076
;17 -09 -073
;AY D REDMON
)R CURRENT OWNER
4589 OAK ST
ARATOGA CA 95070 -6075
17 -09 -076
AMES P LALLY
18 -1050 MAUNA LANI POINT D D304
;AMUELA HI 96743 -9781
:17 -09 -081
'IONG C CANDICE ONG
)R CURRENT OWNER
:0582 3RD ST
;TOGA CA 95070 -6053
17 -09 -086
:HARLES M DIANE SKINNER
)R CURRENT OWNER
:0661 5TH ST 3
ARATOGA CA 95070 -6803
.17 -10 -047
;ARATOGA UNION S D
:0460 Forrest Hills Drive
ARATOGA CA 95070
17 -34 -003
;AMUEL SCOTT
22 BICKNELL RD
DS GATOS CA 95030 -2112
17 -34 -006
3ARY D ALFORD
)R CURRENT OWNER
4543 OAK ST
;ARATOGA CA 95070 -6074
F SARATOGA
.TTN: Heather Bradley
3777 FRUITVALE AVENUE
ARATOGA CA 95070
517 -09 -061
PETER LA BARBERA
PO BOX 26190
SAN JOSE CA 95159 -6190
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 -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 -34 -001
TRUDY GRABLE
1238 CORDELIA AVE
SAN JOSE CA 95129 -4212
517 -34 -004
BRIDGET M ROMAN
OR CURRENT OWNER
14545 OAK ST D
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6074
517 -34 -007
CHUCK B KASPAR
OR CURRENT OWNER
14527 OAK ST
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6074
Advanced Listing Services
P.O. Box 2593
Dana Point CA 92624
517 -09 -068
CALI INVESTMENTS
14510 BIG BASIN WAY
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6090
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 -080
RICHARD ANGELA JOHNSON
OR CURRENT OWNER
20578 3RD ST
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6053
517 -09 -085
DERALD R KENOYER
OR CURRENT OWNER
20661 5TH ST 2
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6803
517 -09 -088
MICHAEL J AL1NA MORETTI
530 IRVEN CT
PALO ALTO CA 94306 -3950
517 -34 -002
PRASENJIT BARDHAN
1648 MARIPOSA AVE
PALO ALTO CA 94306 -1026
517 -34 -005
JAMES A ELLS
OR CURRENT OWNER
14537 OAK ST
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6074
517 -34 -008
DAVID J SPLAWN
OR CURRENT OWNER
14525 OAK ST H
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6074
:03 -63 -108
AMES R GAIL CARATOZZOLO
:0435 CHALET LN
ARATOGA CA 95070 -4926
.03 -63 -111
3ERT VIVIAN BURGER
3575 OLD TREE WAY
ARATOGA CA 95070 -5415
.03 -76 -003
:ATHERINE Y KWEI
125 HUMBOLDT RD
3RISBANE CA 94005 -1728
;03 -76 -006
)VIDIO WENDY CALVO
)R CURRENT OWNER
.4595 BIG BASIN WAY
;ARATOGA CA 95070 -6069
.03 -76 -009
UNE F CHEN
'O BOX 2963
ARATOGA CA 95070 -0963
.17 -09 -013
3KOFAMERNT &SA
'O BOX 2818
LPHARETTA GA 30023 -2818
17 -09 -026
tICKY RUBINA RATRA
597 TURRIFF WAY
;AN JOSE CA 95132 -2351
17 -09 -032`
ICHARD J LAUREL HESS
)R CURRENT OWNER
4563 OAK ST
;ARATOGA CA 95070 -6027
17 -09 -053
ACQUELYN GLASS
4110 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN
;ARATOGA CA 95070 -5418
17 -09 -056
'ONY SHARON CHANG
)R CURRENT OWNER
4603 OAK ST
>ARATOGA CA 95070 -6015
503 -63 -109
RICHARD F PATRICIA BADER
21120 MICHAELS DR
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5319
503 -76 -001
FENG -YING LIN
603 FOREST AVE
PALO ALTO .CA 94301 -2623
503 -76 -004
CATHERINE B HIRSCHMAN
OR CURRENT OWNER
14591 BIG BASIN WAY
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6069
503 -76 -007
MARK W HIRTH
OR CURRENT OWNER
14597 BIG BASIN WAY
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6069
517 -09 -011
RICHARD SERMONE
14620 BIG BASIN WAY
SARATOGA CA 95070 -2446
517 -09- 014,015
FRANK BURRELL
4010 MOORPARK AVE 111
SAN JOSE CA 95117-1804
517 -09 -027
THANH LUONG
OR CURRENT OWNER
14515 OAK ST
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6025
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 -09 -058
GREG L TYLER
459 TROY LN
SONOMA CA 95476
503 -63 -110
NATALIA JIMENEZ
OR CURRENT OWNER
20780 4TH ST 4
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5849
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 -09 -012
MARTE FORMICO
14480 BIG BASIN WAY
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6095
517 -09 -025
JAVID J SALEHIEH
OR CURRENT OWNER
14501 OAK ST
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6025
517 -09 -031
GIOVANNA R SCHENINI
OR CURRENT OWNER
20576 3RD ST
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6053
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 -059
PP &EKIRK
PO BOX 2080
GILROY CA 95021 -2080
;03 -63 -075
)ENNIS C GRACE LEUNG
)R CURRENT OWNER
`4THST5
OGA CA 95070- 5843CA 95070 -5843
;03 -63 -078
OAN C GOLDMAN
624 LYLE DR
;AN JOSE CA 95129 -4810
'03 -63 -081
OHN K SUE TANAKA
)R CURRENT OWNER
;0800 4TH ST 11
ARATOGA CA 95070 -5861
;03 -63 -084
NITA A LEDBETTER
)R CURRENT OWNER
;0800 4TH ST 10
;ARATOGA CA 95070 -5861
03 -63 -087
KYLE ERIKA SMITH
)R CURRENT OWNER
:0800 4TH ST 5
;.TOGA CA 95070 -5861
.03 -63 -090
AIIN HU
)R CURRENT OWNER
:0800 4TH ST 4
ARATOGA CA 95070 -5897
03 -63 -093
;ARL DIERKES
'O BOX 495
ARATOGA CA 95071 -0495
03 -63 -099
;AI TING
)R CURRENT OWNER
0790 4TH ST 1
ARATOGA CA 95070 -5896
03 -63 -102
QICHELE S CASTILLO
636 VILLARITA DR
;AMPBELL CA 95008 -1520
105
IN
TINE M ZAK
)R CURRENT OWNER
0780 4TH ST 7
ARATOGA CA 95070 -5849
503 -63 -076
MARK C LIANIDES
OR CURRENT OWNER
20700 4TH ST 6
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5843
503 -63 -079
GARY G CHIAVETTA
2326 FATJO PL
SANTA CLARA CA 95050 -4016
503 -63 -082
MABEL KAO
OR CURRENT OWNER
20800 4TH ST 12
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5861
503 -63 -085
DAN D DOUGLASS
OR CURRENT OWNER
20800 4TH ST 7
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5861
503 -63 -088
JOSEPH A MILDRED PLICKA
9267 DOVE CT
GILROY CA 95020 -7771
503 -63 -091
FRED L DORINE ALVORD
13782 CALLE TACUBA
SARATOGA CA 95070 -4921
503 -63 -095
DENNIS A LINDA DUMONT
OR CURRENT OWNER
20790 4TH ST 5
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5859
503 -63 -100
DONALD S KATHLEEN MANZAGOL
12078 SADDLE RD
MONTEREY CA 93940 -6655
503 -63 -103
JOY C YOUNES
OR CURRENT OWNER
20780 4TH ST 9
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5801
503 -63 -106
PETER H RHEE
1150 SCOTT BLVD D2
SANTA CLARA CA 95050 -4547
503 -63 -077
SYLVAN E LEPIANE
15890 SHANNON RD
LOS GATOS CA 95032 -5729
503 -63 -080
BRETT C HOLMES
OR CURRENT OWNER
20700 4TH ST 2
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5843
503 -63 -083
LINDA RONALD LAWSON
14090 ELVIRA ST
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5815
503 -63 -086
ROBERT A YVONNE DUNCANSON
OR CURRENT OWNER
20800 4TH ST 8
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5861
503 -63 -089
JOSEPH SUSAN LONG
PO BOX 2095
SARATOGA CA 95070 -0095
503 -63 -092
MATHEW T FLENNIKEN
OR CURRENT OWNER
20800 4TH ST 2
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5897
503 -63 -097
JENNIFER L PAOLI
16280 LOS SERENOS ROBLES
MONTE SERENO CA 95030 -3026
503 -63 -101
ELIE YOUNES
OR CURRENT OWNER
20780 4TH ST 11
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5801
503 -63 -104
ALAN KORGAV
OR CURRENT OWNER
20780 4TH ST 10
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5801
503 -63 -107
KATHLEEN GALE
3720 CAPITOLA RD
SANTA CRUZ CA 95062 -2048
iO3 -63 -045
NDREY A KHARISOV
)R CURRENT OWNER
',0740 4TH ST 7
ARATOGA CA 95070 -5853
iO3 -63 -048
LOSE S KOOT
)R CURRENT OWNER
'.0740 4TH ST 6
ARATOGA CA. 95070 -5852
>03 -63 -051
;RIC J KARLA EARNST
)R CURRENT OWNER
!0740 4TH ST 1
ARATOGA CA 95070 -5852
;03 -63 -054
OHN P CHRISTINA BLACK
)R CURRENT OWNER
;0720 4TH ST 16 ;ARATOGA CA 95070 -5895
;03-63-057
IN W MIN PARK
)R CURRENT OWNER
:0720 4TH ST 11
ARATOGA CA 95070 -5855
.03 -63 -060
ISUEH H HUNG TAI
:1315 LUMBERTOWN LN
;ARATOGA CA 95070 -5712
.03 -63 -063, 098
IIEHRAN AVIDEH SAMARDAR
:555 LITTLE FALLS DR
AN JOSE CA 95120 -4050
03 -63 -066
LICHARD E BARBARA STRAW
4179 SUMMIT WOODS DR
,OS GATOS CA 95033 -9229
03 -63 -069
,INDA A BARCOMB
)R CURRENT OWNER
0700 4TH ST 11
ARATOGA CA 95070 -5803
03 -63 -072
TATALIE J WEISKAL
)R CURRENT OWNER
0700 4TH ST 10
ARATOGA CA 95070 -5803
503 -63 -046
DAVID M FRADIN
OR CURRENT OWNER
20740 4TH ST 8
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5853
503 -63 -049
SHELBY A LAWSON
OR CURRENT OWNER
20740 4TH ST 3
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5852
503 -63 -052
AREVIG ANTABLIAN
OR CURRENT OWNER
20740 4TH ST 2
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5852
503 -63 -055
BAKTYGUL ZHUMABAYEVA
OR CURRENT OWNER
20720 4TH ST 15
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5855
503 -63 -058
SALVADOR BORJA
OR CURRENT OWNER
20720 4TH ST 12
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5855
503 -63 -061
SHELLIE WILLIAMS
11951 BROOKRIDGE DR
SARATOGA CA 95070 -3463
503 -63 -064
KELLY A WALSH
OR CURRENT OWNER
20720 4TH ST 6
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5854
503 -63 -067
HUNG BANG
3421 SAVANNAH LN 2112
WEST SACRAMENTO CA 95691 -5969
503 -63 -070
LESLIE DAVIS
OR CURRENT OWNER
20700 4TH ST 12
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5803
503 -63 -073
WAYNE C SU -TI CHANG
PO BOX 3791
LOS ALTOS CA 94024 -0791
503 -63 -047
JAY M STEARNS
OR CURRENT OWNER
20740 4TH ST 5
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5852
503 -63 -050
VICTOR REGINA VELTON
4662 BLUE RIDGE DR
SAN JOSE CA 95129 -4301
503 -63 -053
HIROSHI TAKAKO FUJIGAMI
OR CURRENT OWNER
20720 4TH ST 17
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5895
503 -63 -056
KATHLEEN SODERSTROM
12908 PIERCE RD
SARATOGA CA 95070 -3714
503 -63 -059
JANICE R GAUTHIER
OR CURRENT OWNER
20720 4TH ST 9
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5855
503 -63 -062
GEORGE E NANCY KIRK
20270 LA PALOMA AVE
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5960
503 -63 -065
DEBRA D JACKSON
OR CURRENT OWNER
20720 4TH ST 3
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5854
503 63.068
KATHERINE A FORTE
OR CURRENT OWNER
20720 4TH ST 2
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5854
503 -63 -071
NOVELLE KELLY
OR CURRENT OWNER
20700 4TH ST 9
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5803
503 -63 -074, 094, 096
MICHAEL E GAYLE ARCHER
PO BOX 7367
INCLINE VILLAGE NV 89452 -7367
503 -63 -015
JENG ZEUU CHYI
15 4 BELLECOURT
TOGA CA 95070 -6407
503 -63 -018
DLGA N LVOV
DR CURRENT OWNER
20812 4TH ST 14
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5847
503 -63 -021
ZARECKY FAMILY 2004 TRUST
DR CURRENT OWNER
20812 4TH ST 19
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5847
503 -63 -024
IORRAINE A WHEELER
DR CURRENT OWNER
10812 4TH ST 20
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5848
503 -63 -027
?ATRICK HYUN KUGLER
18481 MONTPERE WAY
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5200
50-030
ANET M GRANITO
)R CURRENT OWNER
!0760 4TH ST 12
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5851
;03 -63 -033
TIKTOR SCHRANZ
)R CURRENT OWNER
:0760 4TH ST 7
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5851
;03 -63 -036
ANARDHANAN S AJIT
,7 FIGTREE 44
RVINE CA 92603 -0646
03 -63 -039
H LILLIAN SILBERSTEIN
)R CURRENT OWNER
0760 4TH ST 1
ARATOGA CA 95070 -5850
042
T EN ANNE BOBORICKEN
1870 FRANCEMONT AVE
,OS ALTOS HILLS CA 94022 -4443
503 -63 -016
BRIAN B TIGHE
337 JUNIPERO PLZ
SANTA BARBARA CA 93105 -3603
503 -63 -019
COURTNEY CRASE
20061 CHATEAU DR
SARATOGA CA 95070 -4309
503 -63 -022
GUANGHUI QIAN
OR CURRENT OWNER
20812 4TH ST 18
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5847
503 -63 -025
THOMAS M PAULA BRENNOCK
OR CURRENT OWNER
20812 4TH ST 23
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5848
503 -63 -028
TIM LISA ARNETT
OR CURRENT OWNER
20812 4TH ST 24
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5848
503 -63 -031
LAURA BRASH
OR CURRENT OWNER
20760 4TH ST 9
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5851
503 -63 -034
RONALD A ANDERSON
OR CURRENT OWNER
20760 4TH ST 8
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5851
503 -63 -037
VERONICA CRUZ
OR CURRENT OWNER
20760 4TH ST 3
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5850
503 -63 -040
HOSSEIN AZITA SOBHANI
OR CURRENT OWNER
20760 4TH ST 2
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5850
503 -63 -043
CYNTHIA A ROESSLER
OR CURRENT OWNER
20740 4TH ST 9
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5853
503 -63 -017
MEHRDAD AGHAEBRAHIM
OR CURRENT OWNER
20812 4TH ST 15
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5847
503 -63 -020
DORSA LIVING TRUST
OR CURRENT OWNER
20812 4TH ST 16
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5847
503 -63 -023
MIKE J LINDA BODEN
OR CURRENT OWNER
20812 4TH ST 21
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5848
503 -63 -026
RICHARD W SZE
OR CURRENT OWNER
20812 4TH ST 22
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5848
503 -63 -029
THOMAS E SASCHA LALE
OR CURRENT OWNER
20760 4TH ST 11
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5851
503 -63 -032
TUNG Y EVELYN LEE
2182 36TH AVE
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94116-1645
503 -63 -035
ROGER B ROSALEE EGGLESTON
12487 ARROYO DE ARGUELLO
SARATOGA CA 95070 -3010
503 -63 -038
KENNETH J CZWORNIAK
OR CURRENT OWNER
20760 4TH ST 4
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5850
503 -63 -041
TOM T CHEN
OR CURRENT OWNER
20740 4TH ST 11
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5853
503 -63 -044
LESLIE A BINDER
OR CURRENT OWNER
20740 4TH ST 10
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5853
7
fl
Mkt41414.4
9
t 4mua.Ng
gsLC-L98-sot INA os6 yotxvilgket
r!96-490-80I MOM NISNA pc9rx.
tnantaxa zoraulouv viYQxaa a Owati
1
mavlowsv env. vtvjOzalv:14 icalcovic.
4
e '44
iliiii
w..,...
7 F4i ""a
g i3iiiP
l.i
8
eteee eeeete i l 1
m E g
4, FF iLzninq
ggg.g gggg g
l
2'0 V 1
q
a
0
R
FZ.,i"88 4..,-4,
V s '4 1
qt t,1 g=
gari Ea t 4i t N
'8 1L 4. r1 i i
t 101i A4.1.1 Es 05 i
N.
C'''
e7a-i is
KA 4 0....
i i 'At KR 01 9 li/
g :g8g h GRIEORV". 8 mg zzA 8E/
V-411":84.---V-2g-14 14 1VtiV 0 kr 1;111U2- "i
Ro!HgAil:M111.0tkliii,g1;;I;n0P3 ..9 gggb .00
u 0
1 '''1"til.tc8/AgztAageOggItfflill g glOgPLE
11111WEINI1
'-'1
M8g8v8i k ik ms.JA1 nu 1 8
4
S I
NA 0 0. 0 4 74 ..,..4.000AW
Isos Y3 'vuvzo vutiti voo4vvis
z4va4 op 1 =taw
vo '4eatvitve,'ANim mil114e'org 1 .mf Pratig'adxs4H
NITV! OillOJAIH 40 forrimomiu
a
1
5,C=41
.7===r
17.=•=7=7.77
7
.0-,..
OSLE-L98-801 x 04056 VD 'VDOSVIIV8
59E6-L913-801 MOM r MEM D/U 6E9VT
War lam U H3IY -VTV 013H 13 NMAIVA
esiVroosev Met .vry aIu •ci 10tret4ia
Tsosa vo 'VHVIO WNW; 'mammy voarvsve SB
MMO:, LNIENWIXAMG AMISMV
vo %Wm RIB va ors av ISMS masa
NY oilmen! so oarlsaopay
R
N
T
0
OSLC -498 -806 XVd OLOS6 VO 'VDO
S9E6-08-80, 1I H8 .AVM HIM DIH OE97T
tamp: ams •SOaSIHOSY a -YIY 0I3H '8 NatRiYM
SZSYIO0SSY QNY YIY QISH •8 NatRIYM
TSOS6 YO '11UY'I0 YSNY$ 'swam YV0JYHYS 58
AYlydtco SNaWdazaABQ Y soar
YO 'YWSYHYS 'AVM NI8Y8 OIS yY Sa$a58 0 IHS
Nose oINOSBIH $O €1NI'iamstat
7
1
;i
4
lr
m
OSLE-498-80► XY3 bLOS6 VD 'YOO,LY8.YS
S9E6-L98 -80P SNOW NISIB 0£91,1 SCLRI8m z03IIBOlIY YB `J
3 -YIY aims H kamtvm
SBIYIOOSSY UNY YIY CI H N3TRIYM
t9OS6 YO 'YUUZO Yaizr$ '8nN8AY YDQLYH s se
204Y0103 INalifOR$ABO AZ MY WA
115 'Y•JOSY?IYS 'xYl1 AIWA OlE zY MILTS asI_&L
IONS W= LO ONIRS QOTi&{ r
1
"sr
ostittse-so, mu °costs 'vocardve
S9E6-1.98-801 MOW AVM mgvabra OC9VI
srammvxmouraomy a-viv Mfg '31 MUM%
exavioosaV 'dm YIY OR R mmemvm'
,T24p6 AO 'VWV70 tams 'zmuzmv woman Me
AAVasiX5 7,1433,3913Cniq mummy vod
VD 'voppreve 'xvm KIM Dig mv xamummVmnix
mmVe aNclent 40 otavagoMma
0
yo
OSLE -498 -80P XYA OLOS6 '3 NVO.IVEVE
E9E6 -L98 -80t MEW AVM KIM DIE 0E9$1
scurama XOSSIRDSV -VIV MSS 'S MIMS
SUVIDOSSV GRY YIY cap 'S NIKNOI
TSOS6 vz 'VSV70 Igkve p0.mvvvityl
JUMA100 ppsomisci xpWW 1104
V3 'vecvivs 4 Pet Nips DX e P. pipe pip
mpeopopla O ouripoWail
r.;
st W
IE
it J
miaansiu
OSLE -L98 -BOP XY! *Loss V0 '160614)
S9E6- 498 -80,D BNONE SYY NIBOB 028 OE94
8lunise i08sIialm B- YIY'' -02an a N91174AO1
suatoQiiBY du! YIY'OIYM B N'40,1M,-ti
TSO$6' YJ <YNYIO'Y *may YOOSYHY9 SB
4040wxyAmmummura 18YHily vp4
VD 'YDOSY s. !,pis OIIBY$'DIH iY.i98Ni8 0u2p0
maw .7I.BY.16B2 -i0 E1tQ'IBOGN81i
O
S
1
z
0
5
OSLE-L98-800 )CV .1 OL096 V 'Nffloavrts
59£6-490-80S 3t(Oild Alai MISYU DX8 0E90T
Strumna LORZIEDUV a-YIY alga tt manim
slivroossir cirri lay am .13 maemm
VO 'Welo VSNMS '00143AY V00V03101 ge•
7.9063003,14:0001842GAZUBRVUOd
VO 'VDOIV2003 'AVM HIM DIG SY =MS alamt
NSW DIVOISIH d0 0017300PM
4
V
4
va
1
4
OgLE—L99-80t XY 01.096 VO !NOOSVvVS
59E6—L98-008 8100E4 X821. *um 020 0C9PT
samma aomumwx.. =Xs R tomoym'
t3�4& Wit aft(
.1t1;421 rim •ankitiv
ssriamoo461Nd1712IAMIXOTitilfra
VD 1e004tVOS xvm kisVa sxa =its' OtHT
MVO DIVOSSIR SO mairown
4
r
3
Je
A
t
CA
a
OSLE golf xvi 040 NO
09V6-1.49-841,.**4 Pim4013:-,!
sazzugod .,togiz#00vy:Orilr4tElb“*.
sior ay vry tannen!C;,
4 tOss Y 'Igurto VINve 'anNatiV veozwys
,splyagom impwrim$a =met al04
Nea! 'Impilyevs roLvmsvIrigupt atoms 1100a-
HW 31100 0Clo tarizadkgog
1
1
a
r
Pl!
*7-
Cr
Arn
w
07-
°SCE-Lae-BOP /Ca OLO96 VD '�ya
S9E6-498-0op MOW rem NI 8Va Oia OEPPI
siunisai =LIMP/ a-vry alaa imaarta
SalY130aSli mar viv aim 'a mamma
1
tt
-41
"laos6 Aro lama •antarnv vtoozvava se
Aro ',vo0.rearta NISYS-15±E tit .Lzscus aluaL
/OWE' ontozins LO otiriaaromaa
VA0
:4\ '"•41k
il
'1
0
1
u.
2
1111:45' ,4
044 -L46 -80V est.( L94 -04! 44a,
0661**0
•sin alv4i4-.4x0Hif
1Z,
1:4666 46 'WV70 W1048 8ANIWV884V8V8 g8
.400W40 0 ,40048q74AWASNOW.V0A
1 466nun 'n*Nins un Y &nun cam
Kau ononn to OstrtiOOKdo
1
1
i•
I I
OSLi-L9110-800 MU °cosi d6 •lepozvapor
v9t6- 498'.8 iniOnd XS DX DEOW
911-1r1V QOM 8 10211064
mo-L9�-sot oLess Nr4 '-avaram
:,4701 EqFV
.3mI cm Trtctimov
.60 ineuvissum zippuHtv
NP 'Nmosvays !,414FNIA8
runts .3X4 04 m
razz *maw= abartugaintO
1 3 1": 2 i
i
i
.6. 28
h I 0
1 1 A q 1 48
2" 8 g 1 111
3 8 1
1. 2 E i 1 01.4
s
t A:
1 14
1 ll Plii
e
21 2 6.4.
"Iv E 1..0
1 21.11i 0111
a 18 1 1 4 allq.
111.1
lilled11;111g111
.4 w; s; .4
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: John Livingstone, AICP, Community Development Director 9L
Heather Bradley, Contract Planner j
MEETING DATE: July 1lth, 2007
SUBJECT:
STUDY SESSION REQUIREMENTS
The Study Session is a fact finding meeting where the Commission may discuss the item
and ask questions from or hear statements from members of the public attending the
meeting. During the Study Session, the Planning Commission may only discuss items
related to the project. The agenda does not allow any formal votes or motions on the
proposed project or other matters.
No comments made during the Study Session by the Planning Commission are binding or
required to be carried through to the formal public hearing where actions will be taken on
the proposed project.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission should review the proposed design of the home and provide
input to the property owner and architect.
HISTORY
PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
MEMORANDUM
Item 2
This application was submitted on September 22, 2005 and was discussed at the Planning
Commission's Study Session of October 25 2006. At that time the applicant was
proposing a 3,880 square foot modern Mediterranean-style house. The Commission
directed them to change the architectural style, reduce the bulk and mass of the house,
and bring down the overall square footage and grading quantities. Since that time the
Planning Division staff have held several meetings with the applicant and architect to
work on revisions to the plans.
Canyon View Drive Fourth Street (no address);
Design Review and Variance Application #06 -118 (APN 503 -28-
008); applicants Hashemieh and Sarnavesht
The Mediterranean style design of the original plans showed a flat roof, terraced floor
levels and stucco exterior. Retaining walls were proposed in the front yard to
Planning Commission Study Session Memorandum
Design IZeyiew 06-118, Carrnron View Drive (ii 4 Street
accommodate a circular driveway and swimming pool and terraced yard area were
proposed at the rear. A rendering of that plan will be available at the Study Session.
PROPOSED PROJECT
The current project proposes to construct an approximately 3,542 square foot two -story
home with 1,790 sq. ft. basement. The average slope of the 32,670 square foot lot is
approximately 39.7% sloping downward toward Canyon View Drive. Pursuant to City
Code Section 15- 12.061, the average slope beneath a structure shall not exceed 30%
slope. Therefore, in addition to Design Review approval, the applicant is requesting
approval of a Variance as specified in City Code Section 15- 12.061(a).
Since the previous Study Session, the architect has been developing plans with a
Craftsman architectural style to be more consistent with the neighborhood, and has
brought the overall square footage down by several hundred square feet from the
previous proposal. He has stepped the floors back farther than the previous proposal in
order to break up the mass and bulk of the structure and has eliminated the proposed
grading and landscaping at the rear of the house. There is a small area off the right side
of the house where the applicant is proposing a pool and associated landscaping. This
area was actually part of the footprint in the original design but since the design has been
substantially shortened in length they are now taking advantage of this space as their
outdoor area. This has also helped bring the grading quantities down from 5,383 cubic
yards (house: 3,889 c.y. basement: 928 c.y. landscape: 566 c.y.) in the original
proposal to 3,950 cubic yards in the current proposal (a breakdown was unavailable at the
time of this writing). While the grading quantities still sound high, Staff believes the
architect has made every effort to reduce them by eliminating all of the rear yard grading
and designing the house to step into the steep hillside.
Variance
The Planning Commission can grant a variance if the following findings can be made:
2
That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size,
shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified
regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of
other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district.
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified
in the same zoning district.
That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
Planning Commission Study Session Memorandum 3
Design Review 06 -118, Canyon View Drive (a? 4 Street
Arborist Report
An Arborist Report was prepared for this project on October 3, 2005. Since then the
footprint has changed only slightly, but the City Arborist will need to prepare an updated
report prior to the application being deemed complete. Staff expects that the findings of
the original report would still apply. The Arborist found that nine trees were in direct
conflict with the original project and recommended allowing their removal with
mitigation by planting replacement trees equivalent to the combined appraised value of
$2,430.
Geotechnical Review
This application has undergone significant geotechnical peer review given the
characteristics of the subject lot. Geotechnical Clearance with conditions was granted by
the consulting City geotechnical engineer on May 4, 2006.
Neighbor Notification
Staff has requested that the applicant obtain completed neighbor review forms from
adjacent property owners. The applicant has indicated to Staff that attempts to contact
neighbors have been made with no success. Prior to deeming the application complete
Staff will request that the applicant make another attempt to notify adjacent neighbors to
complete the Neighbor Notification forms.
Public Noticing
Notice for this Study Session has been posted.
STUDY SESSION DISCUSSION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission provide the applicant with comments
concerning the following:
The Design Review Findings as they relate to this proposed design.
Variance Findings as they relate to construction of the proposed home on a slope that
exceeds 30
ATTACHMENTS:
1. City Arborist Report dated October 3, 2005
2. Affidavit of Mailing Notices and lables
3. Reduced Plans
ARBOR RESOURCES
Professional ArboriculturalConsulting Tree Care
A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF A
PROPOSED NEW RESIDENCE AT
8 CANYON VIEW DRIVE
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA
OWNER'S NAME: Hashemieh Sarnevesht
APN 503 -28 -008
APPLICATION 06 -118
Submitted to:
Community Development Department
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Prepared by:
David L. Balky, RCA
Registered Consulting Arborist #399
Certified Arborist #WE -4001A
October 3, 2005
P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 Email: arborresources @.comcast.net
Phone: 650.654.3351 Fax: 650.240.0777 Licensed Contractor #796763
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist October 3, 2005
INTRODUCTION
The City of Saratoga Community Development Department has requested I review the
potential tree impacts associated with the proposal to construct a residence on a vacant lot
at 8 Canyon View Drive (Canyon View Drive at 4 Street), Saratoga. This report presents
my findings and recommendations.
Plans reviewed for this report include Sheet G &D -1 (Grading and Drainage Plan by
ADCO Engineering, dated 9/15/05) and Sheets L -1 and L -2 (Landscape Plans by HLD
Group, dated 9/05). The trees' locations, numbers and approximate canopy dimensions are
presented on an attached copy of Sheet L -1 (Landscape Site Plan).
The trees are sequentially numbered from 1 thru 22 and are identified on site by numbered
ribbons attached to the canopies or trunks. Please note that this report includes only those
trees deemed to be of Ordinance -size. In doing so, the numbers shown on Sheet L -1 do not
reflect those within this report.
FINDINGS
There are 22 trees inventoried for this report that are regulated by City Ordinance and
exposed to potential impacts during site development. They include nine Coast Live Oaks
#2, 8, 9, 12 -16, 19); six Monterey Pines #10, 11, 17, 18, 21, 22); two Olive trees #3, 4);
and five fruit Trees #1, 5 -7, 20). Specific data compiled for each is presented on the
attached table.
Trees #2, 11, 13 -15 and 21 are not presented on the proposed plans and must be added.
Their locations as presented on the attached map are approximate and should not be
construed as being surveyed.
The proposed design requires the removal of nine trees that include #1, 3 -8, 19 and 20.
Given their species, size and/or overall condition, I recommend their removal be permitted
for development and mitigation include the installation of trees (of native origin)
equivalent to their combined appraised value of $2,430.
By implementing the proposed design, tree #22 would be severely damaged and expected
to decline. As this tree is situated on the neighboring property and appears worthy of
retention, revisions to the grading design are necessary to achieve a reasonable assurance
of its survival. In doing so, I recommend the wall is established at least 12 feet from its
tree's trunk to allow a 10 -foot minimum setback from its trunk for any soil cuts or
disturbance.
The bond amount required for adhering to the recommendations presented in this report is
determined to be $13,990.
This amount represents the combined value of trees being retained and is calculated in accordance with the
Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9 Edition, published by the Intemational Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2000.
Hashemieh Sarnevesht Property, 8 Canyon View Drive, Saratoga Page 1 of 4
City of Saratoga Community Development Department
David L. Babby, Registered ConsultingArborist October 3, 2005
RECOMMENDATIONS
All recommendations presented below are intended to serve as measures to mitigate the
foreseeable impacts to Ordinance -sized trees on site and adjacent properties. They should
be carefully followed and incorporated into construction plans. Should the plans be
revised, the recommendations may require modification.
Design Guidelines
1. The trunk locations and canopy dimensions of trees #2, 11, 13 -15 and 21 should be
surveyed and presented on Sheets G &D -1 and L -1. Additionally, trees being retained
should be shown on Sheet L -2 (Proposed Landscape Plan).
2. The numbers assigned to trees within this report should be shown on the
aforementioned plans. I also recommend the `Existing Tree Legend' presented on
Sheet L -1 is either omitted or revised to reflect information presented on the attached
table.
The proposed retaining wall beneath tree #22's canopy shall be revised so no grading
or trenching occurs within 10 feet from tree #22's trunk. In doing so, and to comply
with the following recommendation, the wall should be established at least 12 feet
from the trunk.
4. The proposed retaining walls within 10 feet of tree #2 and 12 feet of tree #22 should
require no more than a two -foot overcut for drainage purposes.
5. The drainage design for the project, including downspouts, must not require water
being discharged beneath the canopies or towards the trunks of retained trees.
Additionally, swales, drain lines and dissipaters should be established outside from the
designated fenced areas presented on the attached map.
6. All underground utilities and services should be designed outside from beneath the
canopies of retained trees. I should be consulted in the event this is not possible.
7. Plans for landscaping the backyard should be reviewed for tree impacts prior to
implementation.
8. This entire report should be incorporated into the set of final building plans and be
titled Sheet T -1 (Tree Protection Instructions). Additionally, the Site Plan should show
the location of protective fencing as identified on the attached map.
9. The notes shown on Sheet G &D -1 should be revised, if needed, to conform with
recommendations specified within this report.
10. The scale presented on Sheet G &D -1 slightly differs from its reported scale of 1 =20'.
The plan should be adjusted accordingly.
Hashemieh Sarnevesht Property, 8 Canyon View Drive, Saratoga Page 2 of 4
City of Saratoga Community Development Department
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist October 3, 2005
11. Mitigation for the removal of trees #1, 3 -8, 19 and 20 shall include the installation of
new trees approximately equal to their combined appraised value of $2,430, which is
roughly equivalent to six trees of 24 -inch box size. Replacement tree values are
presented on the bottom of the attached table. Acceptable replacement species include
Quercus agrifolia, Quercus lobata, Quercus kelloggii, Quercus douglasii, Quercus
dumosa, Acer macrophyllum, Aesculus californica, Pseudotsuga menziesii and Sequoia
sempervirens. The trees should be planted prior to final inspection and, as necessary
for support, be double- staked with rubber tree ties. Irrigation should include a drip or
soaker hose system placed on the soil surface and not in a sleeve.
12. The following additional recommendations should be incorporated into the landscape
design:
a. New plant material should be avoided or limited towards the outer portion of the
area beneath the trees' canopies; it should comprise no more than 20- percent of the
canopy area. Plant material installed beneath the Oak canopies shall be drought
tolerant and compatible with Oaks.
b. Irrigation should not spray beneath the Oak canopies or within five feet from the
trunks of all other trees.
c. Any trenching for irrigation, lighting, plumbing lines or drainage should be
designed beyond the trees' canopies. If irrigation or electrical lines for lighting are
designed inside this distance, the trenches should be in a radial direction to the
trunks and established no closer than three to five times the diameter of the nearest
trunk; if this not be possible, the lines can be placed on top of existing soil grade
and covered with wood chips or other mulch.
d. Stones, mulch or other landscape features should be at least one -foot from the
trunks of retained trees and not be in contact with the trunks of new trees.
e. Tilling beneath the canopies must be avoided, including for weed control.
f. Bender board or other edging material proposed beneath the trees' canopies should
be established on top of existing soil grade.
Protection Measures during Demolition and Construction
13. Tree protective fencing shall be installed precisely as shown on the attached map and
established prior to any demolition, grading, surface scraping, construction or heavy
equipment arriving on site. It shall be comprised of six -foot high chain link mounted
on eight -foot tall, two -inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground
and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain
undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction process until final
inspection.
14. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the
designated fenced areas (even after fencing is removed) and outside from beneath the
canopies of Ordinance -sized trees not inventoried for this report. These activities
include, but are not limited to, the following: demolition, grading, surface scraping,
trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill),
and equipment/vehicle operation and parking.
Hashemieh Sarnevesht Property, 8 Canyon View Drive, Saratoga Page 3 of 4
City of Saratoga Community Development Department
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist
October 3, 2005
15. Each recommendation presented within the `Design Guidelines' section shall be
followed.
16. All approved grading and trenching beneath a tree's canopy shall be manually
performed using shovels. Roots encountered during the process shall be cleanly
severed on the tree side of where the cut occurs; roots with diameters of two inches and
greater shall be wrapped in a plastic sandwich bag that is sealed with a rubber band. In
the case of any approved trenching, roots two inches and greater in diameter should be
retained and tunneled beneath.
17. Tree pruning must be performed under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist and
according to ISA standards. Information regarding Certified Arborists in the area can
be obtained at http: /www.isa- arbor.com.
18. Throughout construction during the dry months of April thru October, supplemental
water should be provided to trees #2, 21 and 22 every two to three weeks. In doing so,
I suggest 10 gallons of water per inch of trunk diameter is supplied to the soil areas
beneath the trees' canopies through low pressure soaking (the water should not be
poured against the trunks).
19. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited
beneath canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath canopies. In
addition, fuel should not be stored nor shall any refueling or maintenance of equipment
occur within 100 feet of the trees' trunks.
20. Herbicides should not be applied beneath the canopies of retained trees. Where used
on site, they must be labeled for safe use near trees.
Attachments: Tree Inventory Table
Site Map (a copy of Sheet L -1)
Hashemieh Sarnevesht Property, 8 Canyon View Drive, Saratoga Page 4 of 4
City of Saratoga Community Development Department
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
TREE
NO.
1
1
Flowering Plum
(Prunus cerasifera
—8, 6, 5
25 30 50% 25% Poor Low
X
$240
1
Coast Live Oak
(Quercus agrifolia
f —8
20
20
75%
25%
Fair I
Low 2I 1 X 1 X 1 $410
3
Olive Tree
(Olea europaea
I (3), 2, 21 20 30 1 100% 25%
Fair
Low
I $500 I
4
Olive Tree
(Olea europaea)
multi
stem
20
20
100%
25%
Fair
Low
X
$500
5
Flowering Plum
(Prunus cerasifera
multi
stem
15
20
25%
25%
Poor
Low
X
0
Flowering Plum
(Prunus cerasifera
Apricot
(Prunus armeniaca)
multi
stem
—14
20
15
15
20
25%
25%
25%
0%
Poor
Poor
Low
Low
X
X
$0
0
8
Coast Live Oak
(Quercus agrifolia
6
20
15
100%
50%
Good
High
X
$550
9
Coast Live Oak
(Quercus agrifolia
—14
20
20
100%
100%
Good
High
$3,580
10
Monterey Pine
(Pinus radiata)
—19
45
30
50%
75%
Fair
Low
4
X
$630
11
Monterey Pine
(Pinus radiata)
—22
50
40
50%
75%
Fair
Low
4
X
X
$840
12
Coast Live Oak
(Quercus agrifolia)
—12
35
35
75%
100%
Good
High
4
X
$2,260
13
Coast Live Oak
(Quercus agrifolia
8
25
15
100%
75%
Good
High
5
X
$1,040
14
Coast Live Oak
(Quercus agrzfolia)
9
25
15
100%
75%
Good
High
5
X
$1,300
15
Coast Live Oak
(Quercus agrzfolia)
—4, 2.5,
2.5
10
10
1
50%
Good
Moderate
4
X
$370
15- gallon $120 24 -inch box $420 36 -inch box $1,320 48 -inch box $5,000 52 -inch box $7,000 72 -inch box $15,000
Site: 8 Canyon View Drive, Saratoga
Prepared for: City of Saratoga Community Development Depart.
Prepared by: David L..Bobby, RCA
REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES
1 of 2
10/3/2005
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
TREE
NO.
16
Coast Live Oak
(Quercus agrifolia
8,7,6,
5,4,3
15
20
100%
25%
Fair
Low
3
$2,150
18
Monterey Pine
(Pinus radiata)
—12
40
25
50%
75%
Fair
Moderate
3
$260
20
I 21
22
Monterey Pine
(Pinus radiata)
—13
35
35
75%
75%
Good
High
X
$370 ill
REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES
15- gallon $120 24 -inch box $420 36 -inch box $1,320 48 -inch box $5,000 52 -inch box $7,000 72 -inch box $15,000
Site: 8 Canyon View Drive, Saratoga
Prepared for: City of Saratoga Community Development Depart.
Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA
2 oft
10%3/2005
Monterey Pine
(Pinus radiata)
—13
40
35
75%
100%
Good
High
4
100%
X
640
$420
17
X
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
TREE
NO.
16
Coast Live Oak
(Quercus agrifolia
8,7,6,
5,4,3
15
20
100%
25%
Fair
Low
3
$2,150
18
Monterey Pine
(Pinus radiata)
—12
40
25
50%
75%
Fair
Moderate
3
$260
20
I 21
22
Monterey Pine
(Pinus radiata)
—13
35
35
75%
75%
Good
High
X
$370 ill
REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES
15- gallon $120 24 -inch box $420 36 -inch box $1,320 48 -inch box $5,000 52 -inch box $7,000 72 -inch box $15,000
Site: 8 Canyon View Drive, Saratoga
Prepared for: City of Saratoga Community Development Depart.
Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA
2 oft
10%3/2005
-6, 5, 3,
3
15
30
100%
25%
Fair
Low
X
100%
75%
640
19
Coast Live Oak
(Quercus agrifolia)
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
TREE
NO.
16
Coast Live Oak
(Quercus agrifolia
8,7,6,
5,4,3
15
20
100%
25%
Fair
Low
3
$2,150
18
Monterey Pine
(Pinus radiata)
—12
40
25
50%
75%
Fair
Moderate
3
$260
20
I 21
22
Monterey Pine
(Pinus radiata)
—13
35
35
75%
75%
Good
High
X
$370 ill
REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES
15- gallon $120 24 -inch box $420 36 -inch box $1,320 48 -inch box $5,000 52 -inch box $7,000 72 -inch box $15,000
Site: 8 Canyon View Drive, Saratoga
Prepared for: City of Saratoga Community Development Depart.
Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA
2 oft
10%3/2005
Flowering Plum
(Prunus cerasifera)
Monterey Pine
(Pinus radiata)
—12
30
30
100%
75%
Good
High
3
X
X
$360
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
TREE
NO.
16
Coast Live Oak
(Quercus agrifolia
8,7,6,
5,4,3
15
20
100%
25%
Fair
Low
3
$2,150
18
Monterey Pine
(Pinus radiata)
—12
40
25
50%
75%
Fair
Moderate
3
$260
20
I 21
22
Monterey Pine
(Pinus radiata)
—13
35
35
75%
75%
Good
High
X
$370 ill
REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES
15- gallon $120 24 -inch box $420 36 -inch box $1,320 48 -inch box $5,000 52 -inch box $7,000 72 -inch box $15,000
Site: 8 Canyon View Drive, Saratoga
Prepared for: City of Saratoga Community Development Depart.
Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA
2 oft
10%3/2005
Flowering Plum
(Prunus cerasifera)
multi-
stem
20
25
50%
25%
Poor
Low
X
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
TREE
NO.
16
Coast Live Oak
(Quercus agrifolia
8,7,6,
5,4,3
15
20
100%
25%
Fair
Low
3
$2,150
18
Monterey Pine
(Pinus radiata)
—12
40
25
50%
75%
Fair
Moderate
3
$260
20
I 21
22
Monterey Pine
(Pinus radiata)
—13
35
35
75%
75%
Good
High
X
$370 ill
REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES
15- gallon $120 24 -inch box $420 36 -inch box $1,320 48 -inch box $5,000 52 -inch box $7,000 72 -inch box $15,000
Site: 8 Canyon View Drive, Saratoga
Prepared for: City of Saratoga Community Development Depart.
Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA
2 oft
10%3/2005
5P,C•
1 IN,
4
'S 650 1--------
A i'... ...n,
0 1%.) i f‘
1 ici
i
411:\ j
2,31 4:„, dP
f' CZ
a'-.
7
';.20 1 ----7
i
NM
1 t t cs ._..4. 11 1'.. ./Mmimimmg/M/a. W
0.4
'00
P.....
l''
1
k••••
--4 65C
f i
i
1
i
17 11 c... 1 62:'
•...f.■ -1,...-±i'l N.
A 7
f 1.1
I.:
=c=
k...
,:l. en ..M:04 mor.....,P .;m2. 7 n
.7-,tofi-.------i
11, i
r-n= sl= L----i' 7
...1
t' y
1 11 ...1: a I
t
I c•-.1 :7
j
1 1
tT11 .r 1 l,
2 1 Ih.) i '''',.■7:-...
fht:
t`..)
Inma
1.1.f
ni
1
W
t
.P.
--I------- /7.--
.5......—
.,..../.5-:
7--
570 I r S'
4
C.,,
....1
i _x___,.......... ...1
-t...,
74 ril
z., 1.4 ii•
1
k 0.01 :.....--7 ip It
...,...--vi Z
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 18 day of June 2007, that I deposited 88 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:
Address: CANYON VIEW DR 4 STREET
AP N 503 -28 -008
that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses
shown above.
Denise Kaspar
Advanced Listing Services
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES
i ine.l8, 2007
11 Ownership Listing
'repared for:
;03 -28 -008
ULIA HASHEMIEH
:ANYON VIEW DR 4 STREET
;ARATOGA CA 95070
.03 -26 -003
:AYE A WILSON HOLBROOK
)R CURRENT OWNER
:0980 CANYON VIEW DR
ARATOGA CA 95070 -5810
03 -26 -006`'
'AUL D KASS
)R CURRENT OWNER
0870 4TH ST
ARATOGA CA`95070' 5839
03 -26 -009
JET TRAN
'O BOX 3
TOGA CA 95070 -1754
03 -26 -013, 57, 58
RNEST KRAULE
4433 SPRINGER AVE
;ARATOGA'CA 95070 -5827
03 -26 -046
.ENNETH P CAROL SCHULZ
)R CURRENT OWNER
5001 SPRINGER AVE
ARATOGA CA 95070 =5874
03 -27 -001
4ARJORIE FOOTE
411 MELODY LN
'ULLERTON CA 92831 -2032
03 -27 -004
:ING OF STARK 1996
)R CURRENT OWNER
0880 CANYON VIEW DR
ARATOGA CA 95070 -5887
011
LEEN SPEARS
)R CURRENT OWNER
4351 ELVA AVE
ARATOGA CA 95070 -5813
503 -26 -004
DORIS BRONZICH
OR CURRENT OWNER
20896 4TH ST
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5839
503 -26 -007
MASOUD JAFARI
OR CURRENT OWNER
20860 4TH ST
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5839
503 -26 -010
SCHROEDER 2006
OR CURRENT OWNER
14425 SPRINGER AVE
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5827
503 -26 -014
TODD A LISA BEATTY
OR CURRENT OWNER
14461 SPRINGER AVE
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5827
503 -26 -048
SHAO -HUNG LIU
OR CURRENT OWNER
14491 SPRINGER AVE
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5827
503 -27 -002
RASSOUL POURANI
OR CURRENT OWNER
20900 CANYON VIEW DR
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5810
503 -27 -009
ROGER D KATHLEEN ARNO
OR CURRENT OWNER
14343 ELVA AVE
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5813
503 -27 -012
HAMID R SARRAMI
OR CURRENT OWNER
14361 ELVA AVE
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5813
503 -26 -005
PATRICK K LAM
OR CURRENT OWNER
20880 4TH ST
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5839
503 -26 -008
ERIC 0 KRAULE
OR CURRENT OWNER
20850 4TH ST
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5839
503 -26 -011
ERNEST 0 PAULA KRAULE
OR CURRENT OWNER
14433 SPRINGER AVE
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5827
503 -26 -035
MICHAEL W ROSALIA WARREN
OR CURRENT OWNER
14481 SPRINGER AVE
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5827
503 -26 -055, 56
PHILLIP JACKLIN
OR CURRENT OWNER
14436 ESTERLEE AVE
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5825
503 -27 -003
REZA MAZAHERI
OR CURRENT OWNER
20890 CANYON VIEW DR
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5887
503 -27 -010
RANDOLPH M GRANADO
OR CURRENT OWNER
14341 ELVA AVE
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5813
503 -27 -013
KAI ZHANG
OR CURRENT OWNER
14371 ELVA AVE
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5813
.03 -27 -016
MARIA E GARCIA
)R CURRENT OWNER
:0845 4TH ST
ARATOGA CA 95070 -5838
03 -27 -020
,LOYD G STEPHENS
)R CURRENT OWNER
4350 ELVA AVE
ARATOGA CA 95070 -5814
03 -27 -023
HESTER STANARO
)R CURRENT OWNER
4320 ELVA AVE
ARATOGA CA 95070 -5814
03 -27 -047
'AE KUMMI KIM
)R CURRENT OWNER
4365 PAUL AVE
ARATOGA CA 95070 -5820
03 -27 -085
'INA AMIRKIAI
►R CURRENT OWNER
4303 ELVA AVE
ARATOGA CA 95070 -5813
03.27 -091
'AVID A YVONNE FORCIER
iR CURRENT OWNER
4401 ELVA AVE
ARATOGA CA 95070 -5813
03 -27 -094
JDITH E POUTRE
R CURRENT OWNER
4360 ELVA AVE
ARATOGA CA 95070 -5814
B- 27.098
UANG N HSIAO
0 BOX 610544
AN JOSE CA 95161 -0544
)3 -27 -111
AJASEKAR VENKATESAN
0 BOX 2759
ARATOGA CA 95070 -0759
)3 -28 -005
RUCE F SCHAEFER
R CURRENT OWNER
)905 SULLIVAN WAY
ARATOGA CA 95070 -5738
503 -27 -017
TERRANCE BROWN
OR CURRENT OWNER
14390 ELVA AVE
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5814
503 -27 -021
PRISCILLA F DONALD POOLE
OR CURRENT OWNER
14340 ELVA AVE
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5814
503-27-024
JAMES L HESTER
OR CURRENT OWNER
14310 ELVA AVE
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5814
503 -27 -048
ROSS SUSAN HANNIBAL
OR CURRENT OWNER
14375 PAUL AVE
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5820
503 -27 -086
MICHAEL J SUSAN MC CHESNEY
20620 LOMITA AVE
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6024
503 -27 -092
JOSEPH JANET BOURDET
1151 COTSWALD CT
SUNNYVALE CA 94087 -7918
503 -27 -096
JAMES D JUDITH HILLMAN
OR CURRENT OWNER
14387 PAUL AVE
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5820
503 -27 -099
WILLIAM M JOCELYN MERZ
OR CURRENT OWNER
14391 ELVA AVE
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5813
503 -28 -003
RAYASAM S SITA PRASAD
OR CURRENT OWNER
20881 CANYON VIEW DR
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5888
503 -28 -006, 139
KENNETH S SWARAN BAHL
14645 BIG BASIN WAY
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6081
503 -27 -018
MICHAEL G SHEILA PENUEN
OR CURRENT OWNER
14380 ELVA AVE
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5814
503 -27 -022
SHUN W QUON
OR CURRENT OWNER
14330 ELVA AVE
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5814
503 -27 -045
BRUCE ROBERTA MARSHALL
OR CURRENT OWNER
14341 PAUL AVE
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5820
503 -27 -082
JAMES R KATHLEEN ARENA
OR CURRENT OWNER
14294 ELVA AVE
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5812
503 -27 -090
KI H YOON
OR CURRENT OWNER
14291 ELVA AVE
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5811
503 -27 -093
SAMUEL U SUSAN KIM
OR CURRENT OWNER
14370 ELVA AVE
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5814
503 -27 -097
YOUSSEF MALIHEH AMIRKIAI
OR CURRENT OWNER
14399 PAUL AVE
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5820
503 -27 -110
JONATHAN SUNNY CHO
OR CURRENT OWNER
14361 PAUL AVE
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5820
503 -28 -004
ANN M WOROBEY
OR CURRENT OWNER
20895 CANYON VIEW DR
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5763
503 -28 -007
LOC TRAN
OR CURRENT OWNER
20931 CANYON VIEW DR
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5809
i133- 28=008
ULIA HASHEMIEH
INTZ CT
ATOS CA 95032 -5036
;03 -28 -011
3IJAN ABACHIZADEH
)R CURRENT OWNER
:0981 CANYON VIEW DR
ARATOGA CA 95070 -5809
;03 -28 -014
RED RENATE FENSTER
)R CURRENT OWNER
;1027 CANYON VIEW DR
ARATOGA CA 95070 -5717
03 -28 -017
'IETRO TAMARA COSTA
1 34 NEVADA AVE
;AN JOSE CA 95125 -2434
03 -28 -020
3ENJAMIN S DORA TING
)R CURRENT OWNER
1120 SULLIVAN WAY
;,TOGA CA 95070 -5723
03 -28 -023
AMES D ELENA SOLOMON
)R CURRENT OWNER
1142 SULLIVAN WAY
ARATOGA CA 95070 -5723
03 -28 -032
MBAS ASHRAF HOSSEINIAN
)R CURRENT OWNER
1107 CANYON VIEW DR
ARATOGA CA 95070 -5719
03 -28 -064
'AUL W WALLAY GARDANIER
)R CURRENT OWNER
1110 CANYON VIEW DR
ARATOGA CA 95070 -5724
03 -28 -089
:DWIN S VICKY LAW
)R CURRENT OWNER
0867 CANYON VIEW DR
ARATOGA CA 95070 -5888
.134
OGA OAKS HOMEOWNERS
,SSOC
935 DRY CREEK RD 203
:AMPBELL CA 95008 -3631
503 -28 -009
N LA TAM
PO BOX 2174
SARATOGA CA 95070 -0174
503 -28 -012
JAY S NEENA SHARMA
OR CURRENT OWNER
20995 CANYON VIEW DR
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5809
503 -28 -015
SWENSON LIVING TRUST
OR CURRENT OWNER
21043 CANYON VIEW DR
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5717
503 -28 -018
RAMESH RADHAKRISHNAN
OR CURRENT OWNER
21100 SULLIVAN WAY
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5723
503 -28 -021
NIKO JASNA GLUMAC
OR CURRENT OWNER
21130 SULLIVAN WAY
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5723
503 -28 -030
NORMAN S MARIA HAROON
OR CURRENT OWNER
21201 SULLIVAN WAY
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5746
503 -28 -033
JEN WENG
OR CURRENT OWNER
21121 CANYON VIEW DR
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5719
503 -28 -065
QUAN SHUMAY SHANG
OR CURRENT OWNER
21090 CANYON VIEW DR
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5718
503 -28 -100
RICHARD A WOTIZ
OR CURRENT OWNER
21170 SULLIVAN WAY
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5723
503 -28- 135,137
STEPHEN E FRANCESCA RUFF
OR CURRENT OWNER
21040 CANYON VIEW DR
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5718
503 -28 -010
EUGENE HELLAR
OR CURRENT OWNER
20971 CANYON VIEW DR
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5809
503 -28 -013
JERRY J BANKS
OR CURRENT OWNER
21011 CANYON VIEW DR
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5717
503 -28 -016
SHU -YU CATHERINE SUN
OR CURRENT OWNER
21053 CANYON VIEW DR
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5717
503 -28 -019
PATRICIA A BERGE
OR CURRENT OWNER
21110 SULLIVAN WAY
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5723
503 -28 -022
BRIAN H BERKELEY
3655 N 1ST ST
SAN JOSE CA 95134 -1707
503 -28 -031
JOSEPH SANDRA CICHANOWICZ
OR CURRENT OWNER
21131 SULLIVAN WAY
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5741
503 -28 -034
MICHAEL A ANNIE TITUS
OR CURRENT OWNER
21131 CANYON VIEW DR
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5719
503 -28 -069
GLENNA J JOHN COLISTRA
1565 THE ALAMEDA
SAN JOSE CA 95126 -2326
503 -28 -101
PHYLLIS A JOHN BELL
OR CURRENT OWNER
21204 SULLIVAN WAY
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5723
503 -28 -136
WILLIAM PATRICIA ABBOTT
OR CURRENT OWNER
21030 CANYON VIEW DR
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5718
iO3 -28 -138
3ALDEV SASHI MALIK
1583 CHELSEA LN
3LOOMFIELD HILLS MI 48301 -3617
kdvanced Listing Services
'.O. Box 2593
Cana Point. CA 92624
503 -28 -140
JAMES N LOUISE WHOLEY
OR CURRENT OWNER
21020 CANYON VIEW DR
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5718
City of Saratoga
Attn: Heather Bradley
13777 Fruitvale Ave
Saratoga CA 95070
0406'45£ (804) red `605615£ (806)
0£056 VD `80884) 801 `anuany znip 8 8u 8 S'N SSS
alnpauya/y adnospun7
dnozp Q. 1. H
NVId 33211
..note
338LL
om0
31Vo
SNOISN321
z
0
i
1
1
11 €1ii €111111111]ii
rcrc rc I I a:e n
0
U aLL nlIu LLa ¢a ¢IL ¢a G:a a LLLL °u. LLu u LL
tq
t'.1 Is to to to ;7.J.Z3 m bit. b% bto btolib b bt to
0
T 1g W
W E'er "L. .E'9� 'pEg E4)}' S^ "9' E'S P 'S�^ LI,
V is HAllilhig o68Aga ifil
y C R 2 C Y R R i 0 Y! C O!! Y;; e i N N N N c l
el Wo;uIe° 'e8oieJe5
enp4) melA uo(ueO g
aouepiseJ JepeN
800 n6nv
040Q
'4
:Aa
W
:Au uMe+o
w.os
ueld axis edeospuei
311LL 133HS
woo tuotoeypa mmm UO/SJOA ep) J2otoeJJpd 419 patea10
o
Z
W
0
_4.
J
6
7
0
n
r
0
IEEE
IEEE
E■
■■IEEE
EINE
E■■E■
■■E■■■
■E■■■
z
0
z
0
z
a_
0
DATE: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
ROLL CALL:
Commissioners Manny Cappello, Rishi Kumar, Robert Kundtz, Susie Nagpal, Linda Rodgers, Yan Zhao and Chair
Joyce Hlava
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of June 27, 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 July 5, 2007
REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS:
If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk
within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15- 90.050 (b).
CONSENT CALENDAR:
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants /Appellants and
their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public
may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant /Appellants and their representatives have a
total of five minutes maximum for closing statements.
1. APPLICATION #07 -319 (510 -06 -069) Adams, 19358 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road; The applicant
requests Design Review approval to construct a new two -story single family residence, including a
basement, and to allow a height exception of approximately three feet. The total floor area of the proposed
residence and garage will be approximately 5,013 square feet. The lot size is approximately 1.9 acres and
the site is zoned R -1- 40,000. This item will be continued to a date uncertain. (Suzanne Thomas)
2. APPLICATION 07 -342 (386 -10 -043) McDonald's USA, LLC, 18578 Prospect Road: The applicant is
requesting Design Review approval and modification to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit to
occupy an existing 4,090 square foot vacant commercial building previously occupied by 'Crispy Kreme
doughnuts. Design Review approval is necessary to allow minor exterior modifications to the building.
The lot size is 2.14 acres and the site is zoned CN (Commercial Neighborhood). This item will be
continued to a date uncertain. (Heather Bradley)
P:\PC Agendas\2007\Agn 071107.doc
3. APPLICATION 07 -160 (510 -03 -012) Labio, 15211 Bellecourt Drive: The applicant requests Design
Review approval to construct a new two -story residence of approximately 6,008 sq. ft. (including garage) with
an approximately 2,267 sq. ft. basement. The proposal includes demolition of the existing 2,364 sq. ft.
residence. The maximum impervious coverage is approximately 34.4% of the site. The maximum height of the
proposed buildings is 26 feet. The lot size is 45,784 square feet, and the site is zoned R1- 40,000. (Heather
Bradley)
DIRECTORS ITEM:
None
COMMISSION ITEMS:
None
COMMUNICATIONS
None
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Wednesday, August 8, 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 July 5, 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 planning @saratoaa.ca.us
NOTE: To view previous Planning Commission meetings anytime, go the City Video Archives at
www.saratoga.ca.us
PVC Agendas\2007\Agn 071107.doc
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for June 27, 2007 Page 1
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ORAL COMMUNICATION
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, June 26, 2007
PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Chair Hlava called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Present: Commissioners Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao
Absent: Commissioner Kundtz
Staff: Director John Livingstone, Senior Planner Chris Riordan, Planner Suzanne
Thomas and Assistant City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer
APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular Meeting of May 23, 2007.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner
Cappello, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of May
23, 2007, were adopted as submitted. (6 -0 -1; Commissioner Kundtz was
absent)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 13, 2007.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner
Cappello, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of
June 13, 2007, were adopted with corrections to pages 6,7,9,28.30,32,33
and 35. (6 -0 -1; Commissioner Kundtz was absent)
Mr. Don Whetstone, Resident on Vickery Avenue:
Reported that he sent several emails recently on two topics.
Explained that in the early 90's rounds of discussions about antennas in the Village were
held at which he was involved.
Said that consensus was reached on the issue but that that consensus appears to have
fallen out of the City's institutional memory.
Added that since 2005, it has been like a brand new day.
Asked that policy be set and followed on this issue.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for June 27, 2007 Page 2
Chair Hlava asked whether a discussion should be held or whether staff should be asked to
review past policy. She asked staff if there are existing rules in the Code.
Director John Livingstone:
Advised that the current Zoning Ordinance is very weak on the topic of antennas.
Added that two Commissioners are very interested in working on a Telecommunications
Ordinance.
Informed that there are a number of ordinances that have to be updated on a more urgent
basis. While this issue of antennas is always in the top 10, it has not been ranked on the
top of the list yet or made it onto the department's work plan.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if there is a set of guidelines out there for the Village.
Director John Livingstone replied that he is not aware of any written material.
Commissioner Rodgers asked if past databases have or can be searched.
Director John Livingstone said that there are tapes of past meetings if anyone wants to go
through them. He added that the composition of Commissions changes and staff follows what
the current Planning Commission directs.
Commissioner Cappello added that there are also technical changes that have occurred over
the last 10 plus years.
Director John Livingstone agreed and pointed out that last year a new system was processed
that didn't require large panels.
Commissioner Kumar suggested that ordinances from other cities be reviewed.
Director John Livingstone said that if staff were directed to create a new Telecommunications
Ordinance that is what would be done first to see what other cities have got in place.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if this is not currently on the list of priorities as directed by
Council. She pointed out that the Commission several times has put it on the list.
Director John Livingstone reminded that other ordinance updates have been ranked higher on
the list.
Chair Hlava said it appears that if the Commission really wants to do something that means
that something else is dropped from the work plan because of limited staff resources. She
asked if it would be possible to have a Study Session on a Tuesday night where an informal
discussion could be held on the topic.
Commissioner Rodgers:
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for June 27, 2007 Page 3
Said that she takes issue with that.
Pointed out that this Commission looks at all viewpoints when evaluating antennas.
Added that in terms of need, there are other ordinances that are more in need of updating.
Suggested that next year, perhaps this issue will make the priority list and work program.
Chair Hlava said she still believes the Commission could get together at a Study Session to
give staff direction.
Commissioner Nagpal said that, while this Study Session might not result in an Ordinance,
perhaps procedures could be established that may be helpful. She added that she is happy to
re- discuss this topic, as there are now two new members of the Commission.
Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that ideas come and go on how to obscure antenna
installations. First there was the tree and later there was the flagpole. She said that the
Commission must be open- minded.
Chair Hlava asked Commissioner Rodgers if she is not in favor of a Study Session.
Commissioner Rodgers said she was not against one.
Chair Hlava said that the subject could be let go for right now and in the spring when the City
looks at its priorities, perhaps an Antenna Ordinance will be higher on the list.
Commissioner Rodgers reminded that it is already on the list but just not high up on the list.
Chair Hlava asked what is the wish of the Commission.
Commissioner Cappello said that it would be worthwhile to have a Study Session format
discussion and pointed to some procedures already established by the Commission that have
resulted in the provision of coverage maps, background information on long -range plans by
carriers and the introduction of distributed systems.
Chair Hlava said it appears that consensus has been reached.
Commissioner Nagpal added that the Study Session would be open to the public.
Chair Hlava asked staff to make sure that Mr. Whetstone is noticed but cautioned that this
Study Session would probably not be set until September or later.
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the
agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 21, 2007.
REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for June 27, 2007 Page 4
Chair Hlava 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).
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 1
Application #07 -237 (503 -24 -079) METRO PCS, 14407 Big Basin Wav: The applicant
requests a Conditional Use Permit to install a wireless facility on the roof of the existing office
building at the above location. The proposed facility includes panel antennas, a screen for the
antennas and an equipment cabinet. (Shweta Bhatt)
Director John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows:
Explained that the applicant is seeking to place three antennas on a building located at
14407 Big Basin Way. The installation includes equipment housing for the antenna
operations.
Advised that the equipment would not be exposed over the parapet any more than two
feet.
Added that the installation is also located toward the rear or Creek area.
Reported that a faux chimney was proposed but that the green painted antennas were
preferred over the chimney option.
Said that staff feels that this proposal meets Use Permit findings.
Informed that a neighbor has provided more information this evening.
Recommended approval.
Commissioner Cappello asked if the equipment housing is separate from the antenna.
Director John Livingstone replied yes. He said that the antenna is in the corner while the
equipment is more in the back. The antenna will stick up above the roofline. He added that
the equipment cabinet would also be painted a dark forest green to blend with the trees
behind versus being painted to match the structure.
Chair Hlava asked how the City would know if the use of this antenna installation were to be
discontinued so that the conditioned removal of the equipment would occur. How is this
condition enforceable?
Director John Livingstone said that normally someone lets the City know. He added that the
condition simply offers staff the tool needed to require removal.
Commissioner Nagpal asked how staff believes this application meets the objectives of the
Zoning designation. Is it seen as a community service?
Director John Livingstone replied correct. He added that it is always somewhat of a
compromise. He added that antennas are what they are but they do provide a service to the
community.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for June 27, 2007 Page 5
Commissioner Zhao asked if the proposed antenna is the same height as the existing Nextel
antennas and the same diameter.
Director John Livingstone said he does not recall but the applicant may know and be able to
answer.
Commissioner Zhao asked about the impacts of two antennas being so close.
Director John Livingstone reported that there must be a 25 -foot distance between them or
interference results.
Commissioner Nagpal cautioned that this is not a Design Review Approval application but
rather a Use Permit. She added that some design elements are looked at.
Commissioner Rodgers asked about other design options considered.
Director John Livingstone suggested that if a faux chimney is used that the chimney matches
the building. He said that the Commission could discuss options this evening.
Chair Hlava opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1.
Mr. Tom Spaulding, Applicant and MetroPCS Representative:
Reiterated that what is proposed is a three -panel antenna with one equipment cabinet.
Added that there are a couple of options.
Said that they have worked with staff and members of the community, including Mr.
Whetstone, and it was decided that painting the panels green was what the community
preferred to see.
Advised that this is a critical site for MetroPCS as it serves an area that has no or poor
coverage.
Pointed out that they are asking for 75 percent less than what others have or three
antennas where others have 12.
Added that the three antennas are mounted on a single pole pointed in three directions.
Thanked Mr. Whetstone for his involvement.
Responded to Commissioner Zhao's question and advised that the diameter of their
antennas is eight inches while the Nextel antennas are 12- inches in diameter.
Explained that installing lattice with screening vines won't work, as that would interfere with
the signal.
Assured that they are flexible with the design.
Commissioner Nagpal:
Said that she understands that this is a crucial site for MetroPCS and for the City.
Added that she is very concerned.
Explained that she was on the Commission that approved the other site and is perturbed
with how it looks.
Asked Mr. Tom Spaulding just how crucial it is to have this new installation on the same
site.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for June 27, 2007 Page 6
Mr. Tom Spaulding replied very crucial. He added that they also evaluated installation on the
Fire building.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if that was the only other site evaluated.
Mr. Tom Spaulding:
Said that the setback was not right on Big Basin Way.
Added that their proposed location is behind two banks.
Pointed out that other buildings are much more visible.
Assured that this is a superior and more screened site.
Added that other sites are more overloaded.
Reminded that they need height and that a one -story building would not meet their. needs.
Commissioner Cappello asked about other technological options.
Mr. Tom Spaulding:
Agreed that there are Tots of options including distributed fiber.
Explained that a mixture of types of sites is required.
Stated that this proposed site under discussion this evening is their largest type of
installation a macro site. It consists of three antennas and an equipment cabinet.
Said that the next type of location is a mini, which is like what is at the ,Library. That
consists of an 8.5 -inch diameter flagpole.
Concluded that a combination of both types of sites is necessary.
Commissioner Cappello said that it seems there is still a lot of uncovered areas on the
coverage map.
Mr. Tom Spaulding said that it is the best that they can do right now and will need infill later.
Commissioner Cappello said that it seems like distributed fiber system might work to extend
coverage. He added that his concern is that they might have to come back with more.
Mr. Tom Spaulding:
Said that they did consider their options.
Added that they build each site as best they can
Advised that distributed fiber will not work in this area, as the coverage area needed to
serve here is too large.
Reiterated that they must use a combination of macros, minis and distributed fiber sites.
Informed that they have to build the network first and work around it.
Commissioner Cappello said it seems they have the network in place and are now filling in the
area.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for June 27, 2007 Page 7
Mr. Tom Spaulding said that they do not have a complete network yet. He added that some of
the sites depicted on the coverage map are proposed sites not yet installed. He added that a
macro site covers approximately one square mile.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if the macro site could be replaced with two minis.
Mr. Tom Spaulding replied no.
Commissioner Cappello asked when the other sites would be installed.
Mr. Tom Spaulding:
Reported that Site #1816 was submitted to the City of Saratoga at approximately the same
time as this one was submitted.
Added that he is working with Planner Heather Bradley on #1816.
Advised that Site #1818 and Site #1819 have already been approved.
Reiterated that he needs a macro site here.
Commissioner Zhao asked if there are plans to upgrade the current technology in the future.
Mr. Tom Spaulding replied no, there is no plan to upgrade the technology (TDMA) beyond
where it is at now.
Commissioner Zhao pointed out that this technology is almost phasing out.
Mr. Tom Spaulding said that it is still being used by some other carriers and added that it
allows the provision of low -cost service.
Commissioner Zhao said that it might soon be obsolete technology.
Mr. Tom Spaulding said that this would be a stockholders decision.
Commissioner Zhao said that they are probably the only provider left using TDMA.
Chair Hlava cautioned that this is not the Commission's problem.
Commissioner Zhao cautioned that they would need to come back.
Mr. Tom Spaulding said that if so it would be a like- for -like switch out and they would have to
process Use Permits for any changes.
Commissioner Kumar asked if they had considered locating the new antennas at the far back
where Sprint and Nextel are located.
Mr. Tom Spaulding said that while they did consider that placement, they must keep a 25 -foot
separation between the carriers or there would be interference.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for June 27, 2007 Page 8
Commissioner Rodgers asked if they had considered other buildings including the Whetstone
building.
Mr. Tom Spaulding said that other buildings could be considered but a similar design would be
required.
Commissioner Rodgers asked about the suggested flagpole. She added that the only
potential location for that would be the gas station and that is not permitted.
Mr. Tom Spaulding said that a flagpole is only a micro installation and not macro. He added
that they do not do sites at gas stations due to the more extensive environmental review
required for such sites.
Commissioner Rodgers said that one carrier proposed three small flagpoles instead of one
larger one.
Mr. Tom Spaulding agreed that it is possible to do that but it would not result in anything that
is less visible or more advantageous than what is proposed here. He added that he prefers to
keep to their proposal.
Chair Hlava said that the intent is to provide coverage for the entire Village area. She pointed
out that people lose coverage on Highway 9 beyond the Village.
Mr. Tom Spaulding replied yes the intent is for coverage in the Village. He added that their
intended service area targets are urbanized areas.
Mr. Don Whetstone, Resident on Vickery Avenue:
Said that it has been a pleasure talking with Mr. Tom Spaulding.
Advised that he has no problems with antennas on buildings in the Village if they blend in
and are as small as possible.
Cautioned the Commission to take care in what it considers its purview in terms of
antennas. The purview is just the aesthetics and not the technology used.
Stressed the need to keep the installations small as they can be and colored to blend in
with the surroundings.
Pointed out that a "pig with lipstick is still a pig."
Asked that the Commission please approve the little green antennas.
Commissioner Nagpal said she is surprised that the little green antennas are okay. She said
that she is struggling with this concept and feels that there is a more appropriate design for
the Village. She questions whether this might simply be the lesser of two evils.
Mr. Don Whetstone:
Said that the City is legally required to allow antennas as they serve a useful community
purpose: The more .antennas the better so that good reliable communication is a reality.
Said that this proposal is not that obtrusive.
Reiterated that antennas are a fact of life in the 21 Century.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for June 27, 2007 Page 9
Ms. Jenni Young Taylor, Resident on Oak Street:
Said that she has an ignorance regarding engineering concepts but is just offering an
emotional reaction.
Stated that the Village is one of the most unique and lovely downtowns in the Valley.
Added that it is shameful to have modern equipment in the Village.
Said that she understands that it is unavoidable but that she wants to be on the record as
against this sign being illuminated.
Commissioner Rodgers mentioned that there are different options to the green poles including
having the antennas located within a faux chimney. She asked Ms. Jenni Young Taylor if she
has a preference.
Ms. Jenni Young Taylor replied no, she would defer to Mr. Don Whetstone who knows more
than she about this technology.
Chair Hlava closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1.
Commissioner Cappello said that while the City cannot restrict sites, it does have a say in how
they get installed. He asked the City Attorney if this assumption is correct.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer replied yes.
Commissioner Cappello expressed his curiosity about the upcoming installation #1816 and
asked if there is some value in considering the two project sites for this carrier together rather
than separately.
Commissioner Rodgers said that in the past the Commission has asked carriers to provide an
outline of future plans and this applicant has done so.
Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that there would be different audiences of concern for both
locations.
Commissioner Cappello said a question he has is if Site #1816 were to be denied in the near
future what is the potential for other choices for use on this site.
Commissioner Nagpal reminded that this is a full site (a macro installation) while the other is a
micro site.
Commissioner Cappello:
Asked whether the other site would become a macro site if this evening's location were
denied.
Questioned whether reviewing the two locations separately might not restrict the City and
the applicant in a significant way.
Said that he has concerns with the Village and how antenna installations are implemented
there.
Added that he does not like to see the Village cluttered with more and more antennas.
Reiterated his belief that distributed sites are a good option.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for June 27, 2007 Page 10
Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that Crown Castle had made it clear that they were not
planning to go down Big Basin Way.
Commissioner Nagpal:
Said that she is also concerned about the additive effect of antennas in the Village.
Stated that she did not think that the Commission has to accept this application as the best
location with the best design.
Said that she is not comfortable with this being the final answer and feels that there is a
better design and location possible.
Added that this doesn't feel right.
Said that she cannot make the finding that this application is meeting the objective of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Chair Hlava:
Reported that she lives downtown and spends a lot of time in the Village.
Pointed out that she had not previously noticed the antennas there now.
Added that she is really interested in Mr. Whetstone's comments and feels that this
application offers the least obtrusive way to do this installation.
Stressed the need to come to grips with the fact that this is the technology needed.
Commissioner Nagpal stressed the need to best determine how to make that technology fit
into the Village.
Chair Hlava reminded that the building is in the back.
Commissioner Nagpal:
Said she means that both an alternate design and location might be necessary.
Suggested that it is time for the City. .to push a little bit to limit the impacts on how the
antennas look:
Added that the Village is the perfect place to ask for the best design.
Stated that she wished there were better procedures and guidelines in place.
Commissioner Cappello:
Said that he tends to agree.
Stated that he is not certain if this installation specifically has to be located on this site
especially when another nearby location for this company is pending future consideration
by this Commission.
Said that as a result, he has a hard time being comfortable with this project.
Commissioner Rodgers:
Stated that she believes most citizens want to be connected, as cell phones are a part of
our lives.
Said that she needs to be reachable by cell
Suggested going the extra step in giving latitude in terms of design that is sensitive to the
Village.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for June 27, 2007 Page 11
Said that she would like to see a cluster of three flagpoles somewhere.
Added that the Commission has to rely on the carriers when they say a proposed location
is the best possible location.
Commissioner Nagpal said that if all cell companies come in what that practice it would pose a
dilemma. She said that she struggles with this.
Commissioner Rodgers:
Said these types of concerns reflect one reason why Federal law was established
mandating local jurisdictions to allow cellular antenna sites.
Pointed out that allowing some carriers and not others within a community to create their
networks it would create a situation with advantaged carriers versus disadvantaged
carriers in terms of service they can provide locally.
Questioned what might look better as seen from the street.
Stated her belief that the faux chimney would look better than the green painted poles.
Added that she is not sure where else to suggest they look for a viable site.
Commissioner Zhao:
Said that she feels slightly different and can make all of the necessary findings to support
this application.
Said that she understands the historic significance of the Village and the need to be
sensitive to design.
Pointed out that this site is so far behind both Big Basin Way and Saratoga Sunnyvale
Road and would not be very intrusive.
Agreed with Commissioner Rodgers that a faux chimney would look better than the green
poles.
Reminded that people in Saratoga will benefit.
Added that her only concern is their dated technology.
Commissioner Kumar:
Expressed thanks to MetroPCS and Mr. Tom Spaulding for working with staff and the City.
Agreed that there is a tough call here.
Stated that he hadn't noticed the antennas already in place until the site visit.
Said that when driving by one does not notice these antennas.
Stated that MetroPCS has done its due diligence and this is the site that they have come
up with.
Stated his support for the findings made by staff.
Chair Hlava asked Commissioner Kumar if he prefers the faux chimney or the painted poles.
Commissioner Kumar replied the faux chimney.
Chair Hlava:
Said that she agrees with Mr. Don Whetstone regarding the plan for green painted poles.
Added that as she thinks this application should be approved this evening she will support
the alternative plan for the faux chimney.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for June 27, 2007 Page 12
Asked if the chimney should be painted brown or white.
Commissioner Nagpal said that while she won't support the chimney she felt it would be
important to discuss further issues of color and foliage or landscaping.
Commissioner Kumar said that he was thinking that the chimney could be camouflaged with
roofing shingles to match the existing roof. However, as he is not sure of the height it is hard
to comment right now.
Commissioner Rodgers asked staff for suggestions.
Director John Livingstone:
Said that staff found that matching the parapet wall was the best alternative.
Added that the applicant provided chimney designs using different materials.
Reiterated that with this style of building, the chimney matching the siding is the best
option.
Chair Hlava asked if anyone was prepared to make a motion for a chimney design.
Commissioner Cappello questioned the wisdom of going away from the design that was the
result of community input to go with the chimney design.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer asked that a reference to "Exhibit A" be incorporated into the
resolution. He also proposed modifications to the text for Finding B.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Rodgers, seconded by Commissioner
Zhao, the Planning Commission granted a Conditional Use Permit
(Application #07 -237) to install a wireless facility that includes panel
antennas, a screen for the antennas and an equipment cabinet on the roof
of the existing office building with an amendment to Condition 4 requiring
that the antennas be mounted on the rooftop camouflaged as a chimney
and painted to match the building's siding, on property located at 14407
Big Basin Way, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Hlava, Kumar, Rodgers and Zhao
NOES: Cappello and Nagpal
ABSENT:. Kundtz
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 2
APPLICATION #07 -281 (393 -25 -028) Saint Andrews Parish, 13601 Saratoga Avenue:
The applicant requests Design Review Approval to install a 36 square foot illuminated
monument sign. The proposed sign would be 4.5 feet tall and 8 feet wide and be located near
the entry driveway. Zone District: R -1- 40,000. (Chris Riordan)
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for June 27, 2007 Page 13
Senior Planner Chris Riordan presented the staff report as follows:
Distributed the applicant's material sample board for review.
Advised that the applicant is seeking sign approval for a freestanding illuminated sign for
Saint Andrews Episcopal Church and School.
Said that the proposed sign would be located 20 feet southwest of the entrance driveway.
Added that the sign would consist of 24 square feet in sign area and be 4.5 feet tall. It
would consist of a double -sided aluminum cabinet faced with beige. The text would read
"Saint Andrews Episcopal Church and School."
Stated that this sign would be externally illuminated with two lights located at the base of
the sign.
Recommended approval.
Chair Hlava asked about the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) review required as
Condition 4 in the resolution.
Planner Chris Riordan:
Advised that the need for HPC review was determined late in the review process.
Explained that such review is necessary because the site is on a Heritage Lane.
Added that with the placement of the Heritage Lane sign further down Saratoga Avenue it
was not clear to staff initially where the Heritage Lane designation began. It was
determined to include this property.
Assured that if there are any substantial changes to what the Commission approves by the
HPC, this sign would be brought back to the Commission for follow up consideration.
Director John Livingstone explained that the Heritage Lane sign is much further down
Saratoga Avenue but it has been determined that everything proposed on the Lane would
need to go to HPC.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if the sign would be illuminated all night.
Planner Chris Riordan deferred this question to the applicant.
Commissioner Rodgers asked if the referral to HPC would impact the timing of the appeal
period.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer advised that the appeal period starts after the Planning
Commission decision is made.
Commissioner Nagpal asked when the HPC would get this project.
Planner Chris Riordan said that the next HPC meeting is in July.
Commissioner Nagpal said that the appeal period should not begin until after the HPC review.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that a provision could be added to the resolution that
requires the appeal period to begin after the HPC review is complete.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for June 27, 2007 Page 14
Chair Hlava opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 2.
Mr. Scott Sheldon, Saint Andrews Representative:
Stated that they have worked with staff on the design and location of the sign.
Said that on the issue of illumination, the parking lot lights are left on overnight and they
propose that the lights on the sign also remain on throughout the night.
Advised that they agree with the imposed conditions.
Commissioner Kumar asked if the older redwood sign would be eliminated.
Mr. Scott Sheldon said that it would be taken out and archived somewhere.
Mr. Don Carr, Resident on Merribrook Court:
Identified himself as a member at Saint Andrews Church.
Pointed out that this proposed sign is smaller and more attractive than others in the area.
Expressed his support.
Chair Hlava closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 2.
Commissioner Nagpal said that this is an attractive sign and she is prepared to make a
motion.
Chair Hlava said that most churches are in residential areas. However, this one is located on
a very busy street, which is the reason why the illumination can be supported in this case.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner
Kumar, the Planning Commission recommended granting Design Review
Approval (Application #07 -281) to install a 36- square foot illuminated
monument sign near the entry driveway on property located at 13601
Saratoga Avenue.
Commissioner Rodgers suggested adding a provision that the appeal period does not kick in
until after the HPC review is complete and successful.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if this means that work on the sign cannot begin until after the
appeal period.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer replied yes.
Chair Hlava pointed out that that is no one from the public here that is against this sign.
Commissioner Nagpal suggested conditioning the approval so that if the HPC denies the sign
it would be brought back to the Planning Commission.
Chair Hlava suggested running the appeal period simultaneously with the HPB review.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for June 27, 2007 Page 15
II I Commissioner Nagpal asked if the HPC meeting would be held within the 15 -day appeal
period.
Planner Chris Riordan replied no.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Rodgers, seconded by Commissioner
Zhao, the Planning Commission recommending granting Design Review
Approval (Application #07 -281) to install a 36- square foot illuminated
monument sign near the entry driveway on property located at 13601
Saratoga Avenue, with the modification to Condition #4 that the appeal
period begins only after HPC reviews and supports the sign or after the PC
reviews it a second time if the HPC does not support the sign, by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Rodgers and Zhao
NOES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar and Nagpal
ABSENT: Kundtz
ABSTAIN: None
The motion failed.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner
Kumar, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval
(Application #07 -281) to install a 36- square foot illuminated monument
sign near the entry driveway on property located at 13601 Saratoga
Avenue, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao
NOES: None
ABSENT: Kundtz
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Hlava said that she expects that the Heritage Preservation Commission will review this
sign carefully and if there is a problem it will come back to this Commission. She added that it
is her hope that the HPC will think the Planning Commission did a wonderful job.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 3
APPLICATION #06 -214 (503 -24 -034) Graff, (Conoco Phillips/Tosco Marketing), 14395 Big
Basin Way: The applicant requests approval to replace the existing signs at the 76 gas
station. The project will include an illuminated freestanding gasoline price sign. The site is
located in the Commercial Historic (CH -1) zoning district. The project was continued from
December 13, 2006. (Susanne Thomas)
Planner Suzanne Thomas presented the staff report as follows:
Distributed a color and material board that she advised was for both of her items, this one
and the one to immediately follow.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for June 27, 2007 Page 16
Explained that the applicant is seeking approval for signage for a 76 gas station located at
Big Basin Way and Saratoga Sunnyvale Road.
Reported that this item was first considered in October 2006 and was continued to a
meeting in December 2006. At the December meeting, the matter was continued to a date
uncertain so the applicant could revise their proposal.
Explained that the request is for a single new gasoline price sign and signage along the
canopy.
Said that the one freestanding price sign is proposed to be located eight feet back from the
property line at the corner of Big Basin Way and Saratoga Sunnyvale Road.
Added that the landscaping there would be extended toward the building to accommodate
the sign placement.
Described the sign as being three feet high and three feet wide.
Advised that it has been conditioned that the project complies with the Saratoga Village
Design Guidelines.
Said that the sign shall include stained versus painted wood.
Stated that lighting would be provided via low- wattage and screened floodlights.
Said that the proposal also replaces two existing rectangular signs on the canopy with
smaller signs. Stripes will be painted on the building but the proposed stripes for the front
canopy and roof have been removed from the proposal.
Informed that the findings can be made, that the project is consistent with the Zoning and
that property owners within 500 feet were notified and no negative comments were
received.
Advised that Condition #4 has been modified to require that the two portable price signs
and LP price sign will be permanently removed.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if the addition approved a year ago was ever built.
Director John Livingstone replied he did not believe so.
Commissioner Nagpal asked what if there is a need for additional or changed signage in the
future.
Planner Suzanne Thomas said that the total proposed signage is 20 square feet so they have
the potential allowance for an additional 30 square feet in signage area available.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that they would have to get an amendment to their permit
to get that additional square footage in sign area.
Chair Hlava opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 3.
Mr. Mark Graff, Applicant:
Said that he is not certain of the status of the addition mentioned.
Said that he appreciates the time spent over the last year or so.
Stated that they now want to get this application done and are ready to go.
Apologized for the fact that some work got started before it was properly permitted and
said it resulted from having so many different people involved in different aspects of the
project and the communication not being as effective as it should have been.
Assured that they want to comply with City regulations.
410
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for June 27, 2007 Page 17
Commissioner Cappello said that he can understand big organizations and communication
problems but asked why it took so long to correct problems once they were made aware of
them.
Mr. Mark Graff said he is not sure why it took so long to stop work.
Commissioner Cappello said that it is important to offer assurances that this project will be
done per the approval.
Mr. Mark Graff agreed and pointed out that they would not be able to obtain their final
approval if the project is not correctly built according to the approved plans.
Commissioner Cappello asked who is responsible for construction.
Mr. Mark Graff said that Ms. Sandy Matthews is responsible for construction for this company.
He added that it is his job to make sure the plans are drafted to the approval standards and
Ms. Matthews is the one to make sure the construction matches the approved plans.
Commissioner Cappello said that it appears that the work that was improperly carried out was
done to the original plan. He asked what would prevent this from happening again.
Mr. Mark Graff said that if construction is not to approved plans the City's Building inspectors
will not finalize the project.
Commissioner Nagpal cautioned that several Commissioners live near this site.
Commissioner Cappello added that this is a visible corner and the entrance to the Village.
Chair Hlava said that Mr. Graff is lucky that Commissioner Kundtz is not here this evening as
he was especially upset by how long it took to stop work.
Ms. Jenni Young Taylor, Resident on Oak Street:
Stated that this is a very unique Village.
Pointed out that it had the loveliest Christmas tree this past Christmas as well as lighted
street trees.
Opined that blazingly bright gas price signs are abhorrent.
Added that she protests this application, as it is obviously a poor idea due to this being an
historic district.
Said that it is a shame this Commission is even considering this proposal and that the time
spent on it is absorbing time of both the Commission and staff.
Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that the lighting is not internal illumination.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for June 27, 2007 Page 18
Planner Suzanne Thomas added that it is screened low- wattage lighting and was taken
directly from the Saratoga Village Design Guidelines. It will be lit from dusk to closing.
Ms. Jenni Young Taylor said she does not understand the term "screened" lighting.
Chair Hlava said it is directed lighting to illuminate the gas prices only and not the surrounding
area.
Ms. Jenni Young Taylor said that such lighting does not belong in the Village.
Commissioner Nagpal explained to Ms. Jenni Young Taylor that the gas price sign has to be
visible to the public by State law. She asked for any suggestions to improve the situation.
Ms. Jenni Young Taylor said perhaps landscaping. She added that she is just protesting
lighted signs in the Village in general to the Village.
Director John Livingstone said that the Business Professions Code is a State requirement.
Gas price signs have to be visible from the roadway so some kind of light is required. This
Tight would be off when the station closes at 10 p.m.
Chair Hlava asked how to be sure it gets turned off at closing.
Director John Livingstone suggested by the use of a timer.
Commissioner Cappello asked what wattage would be used.
Director John Livingstone said it would be to the discretion of staff.
Mr. Darvin Awe, Account Representative, Conoco /Phillips, explained that the approval last
year for the coffee kiosk fell through and is a dead issue at this point.
Commissioner Kumar asked if an internally illuminated sign was considered.
Planner Suzanne Thomas reported that the original sign proposed was internally illuminated
however the Saratoga Village Design Guidelines do not permit such signs.
Chair Hlava closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 3.
Commissioner Nagpal:
Said that a nice conclusion has been reached here with how the Village Design Guidelines
are being followed. The sign is now wood- framed and faced. It has external illumination
through low- wattage floodlights and the canopy is not illuminated.
Added that the City and this applicant have worked hard to get to this point and she
wanted to make note of that fact.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for June 27, 2007 Page 19
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Zhao, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal,
the Planning Commission approved the replacement of the existing signs
(Application #06 -214) at the 76 gas station on property located at 14395 Big
Basin Way, as modified:
Amend Condition #4 to require permanent removal of the portable sign.
Amend Condition #5 to read, lights shall be on a timer to go off
when the station is not open."
Amend Condition #7 to require white numerals on the stained -wood
background,
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao
NOES: None
ABSENT: Kundtz
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 4
APPLICATION #06 -216 (366 -22 -023) Graff, (Conoco Phillips/Tosco Marketing), 12015
Saratoga Sunnyvale Road: The applicant requests approval to replace the existing signs at
the 76 gas station. The project will include a variance for two illuminated freestanding
gasoline price signs. The site is located in the Commercial- Neighborhood (CN) zoning district.
(Suzanne Thomas)
Planner Suzanne Thomas presented the staff report as follows:
Explained that the applicant is seeking approval for signs at the 76 gas station located at
Prospect Avenue and Saratoga Sunnyvale Road.
Described the proposed signs as including two new gasoline price signs and two canopy
signs. The freestanding price signs would be located four feet from the property line and
would be three feet by three feet in size. They are double -sided signs that will be internally
illuminated. The sign faces are white with red numerals. The cabinet is a silver matte
finish with a stone veneer base that matches the City's gateway entrance.
Said that the applicant proposes to replace two existing canopy signs with smaller signs.
Reminded that the Business Professions Code requires clearly visible gasoline price
signs. If a gas station is located on a corner, the signs must be visible from both streets.
Explained that two Variances are requested. One Variance is to move the freestanding
sign placement forward into the front setback on Saratoga Sunnyvale Road to improve
visibility. This results in a four -foot setback distance. The other Variance is to allow a
second freestanding sign along Prospect to comply with State Code requirement for gas
price signs.
Advised that the required findings can be made and no special privilege is extended as a
result of the Variances.
Said that the existing diesel price sign could be retained, replaced and /or reduced and
changed in color. The existing portable sign and monument sign would be permanently
removed.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for June 27, 2007 Page 20
Informed that no negative comments were received.
Recommended approval with the amendment to Condition #4 that requires the permanent
removal of the existing signs.
Chair Hlava asked if the condition to allow a diesel fuel price sign still falls within the allowable
maximum sign area square footage.
Planner Suzanne Thomas replied yes.
Commissioner Rodgers asked if the calculation includes the Lotto signs.
Planner Suzanne Thomas said the area calculated includes the identification and price signs.
Commissioner Nagpal said that while this is not the Village, it is an entrance into Saratoga.
She asked if any consideration had been given to not having this sign self illuminated.
Planner Suzanne Thomas replied no. She pointed out that there are two other gas stations at
two of this intersection's corners with internally illuminated signs. She added that the
monument and canopy signs would be illuminated at this location.
Commissioner Nagpal replied that she was just curious.
Chair Hlava opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No 4.
Mr. Mark Graff, Project Applicant:
Stated his agreement with the staff resolution.
Said that they had some concern over the growth of the flowers there right now as they
tend to obscure the prices.
Reiterated the need to have these signs internally illuminated.
Said he is available for questions and again apologized for the work done on site prior to
approvals being obtained.
Commissioner Nagpal said that since Variances are being sought here, would this business
be interested in pursuing signs that are not internally illuminated.
Mr. Mark Graff pointed out that one reason that the Variance is required for placement of the
freestanding price sign on Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road within the setback is because this
property owner allowed the City to place its gateway wall on his property, which reduces
visibility of his signs.
Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Mark Graff if they are amiable to the low- wattage flood light
option at this location. She suggested that it would be a unique opportunity for both this City
and this applicant to set a high standard at this entrance point to the City.
Chair Hlava asked who plants the flowers in front of the gateway wall.
Mr. Mark Graff replied the City.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for June 27, 2007 Page 21
Planner Suzanne Thomas added that the flowers are within a City easement and it is her
understanding the Public Works staff does the maintenance of the landscaping there.
Chair Hlava:
Agreed that what is planted there may be a bit tall and that perhaps something with shorter
foliage might be planted there.
Said that the lack of visibility creates a disadvantage for this station owner over his nearby
neighbor stations.
Asked about the diesel sign and whether a bigger monument sign might be utilized in order
to include the diesel price on the monument price sign too instead of using the ugly orange
price sign located on the building with diesel pricing.
Mr. Mark Graff said that this is one option to consider. A taller sign would allow the fourth
price to be included on the monument. Or a new sign diesel price sign could be created for
placement on the building.
Chair Hlava sought clarification that it would require an additional six to eight- inches in height
to accommodate a fourth price.
Mr. Mark Graff replied correct.
Mr. Darvin Awe said that they are not in control of the foliage that obstructs their existing signs
as well as their proposed signs. He reminded that they must be able to meet State signage
visibility requirements.
Chair Hlava closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 4.
Commissioner Zhao asked how many additional inches taller the sign needs to be for
inclusion of the fourth (diesel) price.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if this would result in exceeding the sign area allowed.
Planner Suzanne Thomas said that the required triangle of visibility for a corner becomes a
factor with a taller sign.
Commissioner Nagpal suggested a smaller simpler sign on site with the diesel price.
Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that if the sign height is raised to accommodate a fourth
price (diesel), the prices of the three main types of gasoline would become more visible as
they would be higher off the ground.
Chair Hlava reminded that this station provides sales and gasoline taxes for the City of
Saratoga while the stations at the other two corners do not as they are outside Saratoga's city
limits. She didn't want to see this station at a disadvantage over the other two stations.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for June 27, 2007 Page 22
Commissioner Nagpal said in her opinion it would be preferable to have this sign look more
like the sign that was approved for the Village location. She stated that there is an opportunity
here to create an advantage.
Commissioner Zhao said she does not have a strong opinion one way or the other. The
applicant can consider matching the Village sign if it wants to do so.
Commissioner Cappello said that the sign as proposed for this location is nice and clean
looking. He said that he is pleased with what is being proposed by the applicant.
Commissioner Rodgers said she is happy with the signs either being internally illuminated or
externally illuminated. She said that the sign on the kiosk worries her more as it is more
offensive than having an internally illuminated sign. She said there is a need to find a way to
get the fourth price posted.
Commissioner Kumar said he likes the idea of a freestanding sign that includes all four prices.
Chair Hlava said there appears to be some interest in raising the maximum height of the sign
and asked staff if there is a problem with doing that.
Director John Livingstone said that a 10 -foot by 10 -foot visibility area is necessary and they
have a 16 -foot by 18 -foot area available here. This additional sign height will n of create a
safety problem in this situation.
Commissioner Zhao asked if a Variance for sign area would be required.
Planner Suzanne Thomas said that the extra eight square feet of signage would come from
the site signage allowance and no Variance would be required as far as sign area.
Chair Hlava said it appears it is no problem adding an additional 8- inches in sign area on each
sign face.
Commissioner Nagpal said it appears the solution is having all four prices posted on the
freestanding price signs.
Chair Hlava asked how this is accomplished. She suggested amending Condition #2 so that it
reads that the height shall not exceed four feet and the sign area not exceed 12 square feet.
Commissioner Nagpal stressed the importance of conditioning the removal of the existing
diesel price sign.
Hlava agreed that the diesel price sign as well as existing price signs must be removed.
Commissioner Rodgers said that the sign on the kiosk should not be replaced with anything
else.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for June 27, 2007 Page 23
Commissioner Nagpal said the language in the conditions calling for "permanent" removal
would take care of that concern.
Chair Hlava agreed and pointed out that the Commission is not approving anything to replace
that removed diesel wall sign.
Commissioner Kumar suggested that the existing neon diesel sign also be removed from the
kiosk as a part of this condition.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that Condition #1 needs to be revised to refer to Exhibit A
as modified by the Planning Commission.
Chair Hlava:
Restated the proposed Commission recommendations:
o Signs as shown on Exhibit A as revised to comply with the Planning Commission
decision.
o Height not to exceed four feet and sign area not to exceed 12 square feet.
o The existing portable signs, two diesel signs from the kiosk (wall and neon signs) and
the price sign on Saratoga Sunnyvale Road shall be permanently removed prior to
issuance of permits.
Motion: Upon motion of Chair Hlava seconded by Commissioner Kumar, the
Planning Commission approved the replacement of the existing signs
(Application #06 -216) at the 76 gas station on property located at 12015
Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, with the amendments as follows:
Signs as shown on Exhibit A as revised to comply with the Planning
Commission decision;
Height not to exceed four feet and sign area not to exceed 12 square
feet;
The existing portable signs, two diesel signs from the kiosk (wall and
neon signs) and the price sign on Saratoga Sunnyvale Road shall be
permanently removed prior to issuance of permits,
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao
NOES: None
ABSENT: Kundtz
ABSTAIN: None
DIRECTOR'S ITEMS
There were no Director's Items.
COMMISSION ITEMS
Chair Nagpal asked if there have been any appeals of Commission items.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for June 27, 2007 Page 24
Director John Livingstone advised that the Zambetti project was appealed and will be heard by
Council on July 18
Chair Hlava:
Advised that Council wants to set a joint session some time in August with the Planning
Commission to discuss proposals for the North Campus.
Announced her attendance at a Green Building Seminar that she found to be very
interesting and informative.
Described a website called builditgreen.com and offered to email information to the other
Commissioners on what she learned and how to access this website.
COMMUNICATIONS
There were no Communications Items.
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Upon motion of Commissioner Rodgers, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, Chair Hlava
adjourned the meeting at approximately 10:10 p.m. to a Study Session on July 10tt' and
subsequently to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of July 11, 2007, at. 7:00
p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Suzanne Thomas
Planner
MEETING DATE: July 11, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Application No. 7 -319; Design Review and Height Exception
19358 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, Saratoga, California
Item 1
This project will be continued to a date uncertain, due to a noticing error. The notification
was published in the paper, but letters were not sent to the neighbors. However, the
project will be reviewed at the Study Session on July 10, 2007.
TO: Planning Commission
FROM:
Heather Bradley
Contract Planner
MEETING DATE: July 11, 2007
SUBJECT:
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEMORANDUM
A.63
Request for a Continuance
Application No. 07 -342; Design Review modification to a
previously approved Conditional Use Permit
18578 Prospect Road, Saratoga, California
Item 2
The applicant is requesting Design Review approval and modification to a previously
approved Conditional Use Permit for a McDonald's restaurant with a 24 hour operation
to occupy an existing 4,090 square foot vacant commercial building previously occupied
by Krispy Kreme doughnuts also with a 24 hour operation. Design Review approval is
necessary to allow minor exterior modifications to the building. The lot size is 2.14 acres
and the site is zoned CN (Commercial Neighborhood).
Staff recently received a request from the City Traffic Consultant for additional
information to be provided by the applicant's traffic engineers. This information will
need to be provided and analyzed prior to any action being taken by the Planning
Commission on this item. Staff recommends opening the public hearing to allow any
interested persons to speak and continuing the item to a date uncertain.
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application No. Location: 07/160; 15211 Bellecourt Drive
Type of Application: Design Review
Applicant/Owner: Labio
Staff Planner: Heather Bradley, Contract Planner 4
Meeting Date: July 11, 2007
APN: 510 -03 -012
Item 3
Department Head:.
John F. Livia g sto a AICP
SUBJECT: 15211 Bellcourt u4TOs
APN: 510 -03 -012
500' Radius
tl
18
4
2AC
27
t
J
15211 Bellecourt Drive
Application No. 07 -160; 15211 Bellecourt Dr.
CASE HISTORY
Application filed: 10/26/06
Application complete: 06/11/07
Notice published: 06/27/07
Mailing completed: 06/22/07
Posting completed: 07/05/07
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a new two -story single
family dwelling. The dwelling will consist of approximately 6,008 square feet of floor
area. The existing residence and accessory structures will be demolished. The maximum
height of the proposed building will not exceed the 26 -foot height limit. The maximum
impervious coverage will not exceed the allowable 35% of the net site area. The lot size
is approximately 45,784 square feet, and the site is located in the R -1- 40,000 zoning
district. Design Review approval is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code
Section 15- 45.060.
STAI+ RECOMMENDATION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve this design review application
by adopting the attached resolution with conditions. Staff is not recommending any
permanent conditions of approval for this project.
Application No. 07 -160; 15211 Bellecourt Dr.
PROJECT DATA
ZONING: R -1- 40,000.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: VLDR (Very Low Density Residential)
MEASURE G: Not applicable.
PARCEL SIZE: Approximately 45,784 gross and net square feet
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Approximately 5.9
GRADING REQUIRED: Approximately 101 cubic yards of fill and approximately 841
cubic yards of cut plus approximately 1,382 cubic yards of basement excavation.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposed single- family residence is categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 (c) New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures. This exemption allows for the construction or conversion
of up to three single family dwellings.
PROPOSED EXTERIOR MATERIALS AND COLORS
The proposed colors include beige stucco walls painted in Kelly Moore's "Spanish
Sand with windows in Anderson's "Sandtone and gutters and trim in white. Materials
include ledgestone veneer wainscoting, and a slate -type roof in a gray -green palette. A
color and material board will be available at the public hearing.
Application No. 07 -160; 15211 Bellecourt Dr.
PROJECT DATA
Proposal
Site Coverage Residence. 4,881 sq. ft.
Driveway/Walks 4,512 sq. ft.
Sport Court 4,850 sq. ft.
Patio 1,514
TOTAL 15,757 sq. ft.
34.42%
Floor Area First Floor 3,011 sq. ft.
Second Floor 2,115 sq. ft.
Garage 882 sq. ft.
TOTAL 6,008 sq. ft.
(Basement) (2,267 sq. ft.)
Setbacks
Height in feet
Front yard
Rear Yard
Right Side
Left Side
Lowest elevation
Highest elevation
Average Elevation
Topmost elevation
Maximum height
First Second First Second
56.2 ft -67.8 ft. 30 ft. —30 ft.
175.3 ft. -175.3 ft. 50 ft. —60 ft.
24.0 ft. 26.8 ft. 20 ft. 25 ft.
38.4 ft. —63.0 ft. 20 ft. —25 ft.
205.3
208.3
206.8
232.8
26.0
Code Requirements
Maximum Allowable: 35%
16,024.40 sq. ft. max.
6,120 sq. ft.
Maximum height 232.8
elevation (26 ft.)
Application No. 07 -160; 15211 Bellecourt Dr.
PROJECT DISCUSSION
The applicant is requesting design review approval to construct a new two -story home.
The existing residence, accessory structures and pool will all be demolished. A sport
court is proposed at the rear of the parcel.
Project Design Characteristics
The proposed two -story home is a contemporary Mediterranean style with a stucco
exterior, ledge stone veneer wainscoting on the front facade and accents on other facades.
The exterior will be beige with white trim. A slate -type roof is also proposed and a paver
driveway will replace the existing circular drive.
Sports Court
Pursuant to City Code Section 15- 80.030(C) there are nine specific requirements for
recreational courts.
1 The recreational court shall not exceed seven thousand two hundred square feet in
area.
2. The recreational court shall not be illuminated by exterior lighting.
3. No direct opaque screening shall be utilized around any portion or the recreational
court.
4. No fencing for a recreational court shall exceed ten feet in height
5. No recreational court shall be located in a required front or side setback area.
Such courts may be located within a required rear setback area, but no closer than
fifteen feet from any property line.
6. The natural grade of the area to be covered by the recreational court shall not
exceed an average slope of ten percent unless a variance is granted pursuant to
Article 15 -70 of this Chapter.
7. The recreational court shall be landscaped, in accordance with a landscape plan
approved by the Community Development Director, so as to create a complete
landscaping buffer from adjoining properties within two years from installation.
8. The recreational court shall be designed and located to minimize adverse impacts
upon trees, natural vegetation and topographical features and to avoid damage as
a result of drainage, erosion or earth movement.
9. The recreational court shall be designed to preserve the open space qualities of
hillsides, creeks, public paths, trails and rights -of -way in the vicinity of the site.
The proposal is consistent with the above requirements except #8. As currently designed
the sport court will impact two trees that the City Arborist has recommended be saved
(see further discussion below). The proposal meets all the other requirements in that; the
court will be 4,850 sq. ft., less than the 7,200 sq. ft. allowed, the court will not be
illuminated, no opaque screening will be used, the fence height will not exceed 10 feet,
the court is located in the rear yard, not in a required front or side yard, the natural grade
of the area is less than 10 the recreational court will be landscaped, the recreational
court will preserve the open space qualities of hillsides, creeks, public paths, trails and
rights -of -way in the vicinity of the site.
Application No. 07 -160; 15211 Bellecourt Dr.
Nine trees are proposed to be removed within the boundaries of the court itself and
another four are proposed for removal around the outer vicinity of the court. The total
value of all these trees is $38,500. However, two of the most valuable specimens, trees
#45 #74 will be retained, and the City Arborist has approved the removal of trees #66
#67 due to overcrowded conditions in that area.
There is some excavation and fill proposed to accommodate the sports court and the City
Arborist has recommended that excavation for the sport court be no closer than 10 feet to
the trunks of tree 45 (a 26 -inch diameter coast live oak) and tree #74 (a 23 -inch
diameter deodar cedar) both of which are located approximately five feet from the
proposed court. Currently a retaining wall is proposed around most of the court, which
varies in height from four feet at the southwest corner to two feet at the northeast corner.
This means that grading work will occur closer to the trees than the Arborist is willing to
allow.
The neighbors to the rear have also expressed concern over the noise impacts of the
proposed sports court and the loss of trees along the portion of the property line that they
share with the applicant. They would like to see tree #66 (a 13.5 -inch diameter coast live
oak valued at $3,850) and tree #67 (a 10 -inch diameter coast live oak valued at $1,690)
saved. These trees are located in a group of 11 coast live oaks that the City Arborist has
said are overcrowded, therefore the City Arborist has recommended allowing the removal
of these trees. This neighbor did sign a Neighbor Notification form supporting the
project, but was of the understanding that no trees would be removed to accommodate the
sport court. The neighbor has since expressed to Staff that they wish to rescind their
approval, although they did not do so in writing.
Staff would like to note that there is a substantial amount of existing screening along the
property lines adjacent to the proposed sports court, and the applicant has proposed a
landscape plan to fill in those areas that need additional screening.
Staff has discussed designing a smaller court with the applicant, to accommodate the City
Arborist's concerns, but they feel their proposal is for the smallest design they can utilize.
They also have hired their own Arborist who believes that the court can be constructed as
designed without any significant impact to trees #45 and #74.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution of
approval with the condition that the sport court be re- designed so that is does not require
any grading within ten feet of trees #45 and #74 as recommended by the City Arborist.
Fencing
The plans show conflicting information with both a six -foot wrought iron fence proposed
and an existing chain link fence to remain. Staff has asked the applicant for clarification
and they have said that they actually wish to have a solid wood fence all around the
property. Therefore, staff has included a condition of approval within the attached
resolution that the plans be modified to show the existing chain link fence replaced with a
wood good- neighbor fence incompliance with the City's fence regulations.
Application No. 07 -160; 15211 Bellecourt Dr.
Correspondence and Neighbor Review
Staff has received ten Neighbor Notification forms from neighboring property owners.
The applicant did attempt to get a response from the neighbor across the street but could
not (see the first letter of attachment #3). One form has been rescinded from the
neighbors to the rear due to proposed removal of trees #66 and #67 adjacent to the sport
court.
Geotechnical/Grading
The project has obtained a geotechnical clearance. The project proposes 841 cubic yards
of cut and 101 cubic yards of fill. The applicant is also proposing 1,382 cubic yards of
basement excavation that is not counted toward total grading quantities.
Arborist Review
The City Arborist has identified 86 ordinance protected trees on the property. Of these,
32 are proposed for removal, and of these ten are considered to be in fair or poor
condition. The City Arborist is supporting the removal of the trees due to the already
overcrowded conditions on the property. Removal of the selected trees will promote the
vitality of the existing larger trees that are being preserved. In general, good forestry
practices indicate appropriate spacing of trees to be 30 feet to 35 feet apart. Based on the
size of this property that would mean between 38 to 50 trees on site. The applicants are
proposing to maintain 54 trees, consistent with good forestry practices.
There are eight redwoods proposed for removal, seven coast live oaks, four canary island
pines, three cedars, three deodar cedars, two eucalyptus, two douglas firs, one stone pine
and one green wattle located on the neighboring property to the north. This neighbor has
given permission for this tree to be removed. Please see letter in attachment #4. Of the 32
proposed for removal 17 trees are worth less than $2,500, an additional nine are worth
less than $5,000, four are worth less than $10,000 and an additional two trees are valued
at less than $20,000. The total value of all trees planned for removal is $119,190. The
City Arborist has recommended that replacement trees equal $30,000 be planted on site,
rather than equivalent replacement value, to maintain good forestry practices. Staff is
recommending that the remaining $89,190 be contributed to the City's tree fund. The
Planning Commission does have the authority to require a lesser amount if they
determine that would be more appropriate.
All retained trees will be protected throughout construction with tree protective fence
and a bond equal to 100% of the appraised value of protected trees will be required prior
to issuance of building permits.
Landscaping
Proposed landscaping consists of ornamental landscape and lawn within the front yard
and rear yard and screen shrubs along the side and rear property lines to block the view of
the sport court from the neighboring properties. Staff has added a condition to the Design
Review Resolution requiring the applicant to submit a full landscape plan including tree
Application No. 07 -160; 15211 Bellecourt Dr.
replacement as recommended by the City Arborist subject to the review and approval of
the Community Development Director and the City Arborist.
Green Building Techniques
The applicant has submitted a list of materials, systems, and design strategies that will be
utilized in the construction of these buildings. They include but are not limited to the
following: tree preservation and additional landscaping, water efficient toilets and
faucets, recycled plastic lumber and wood composite, energy efficient appliances, passive
solar heating and lighting, energy efficient windows, insulated foundation, and low -VOC
carpeting. Please see the Green Building Strategies (attachment #4) submitted by the
applicant for further reference.
GENERAL PLAN FINDINGS
The approval of the proposed project would be consistent with the following General
Plan Goals and Policies as discussed below:
Conservation Element Policy 6.0 Protect the existing rural atmosphere of
Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The
project will utilize Earthtone colors and materials that will blend with the overall
appearance of the site. Many mature trees will be retained as part of the project
and will help to screen the residence and sport court from neighboring properties
and the street. The proposal has elements such a stone veneer wainscoting that
provides interest to the facade and promotes the rural atmosphere of Saratoga.
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 Review Approval.
Design Review Findings
The proposed project is consistent with all the following Design Review findings stated
in City Code Section 15- 45.080:
a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The project meets this
finding in that much of the existing screening (mature trees along the sides of the
parcel) will be retained as part of this project. The proposed home will be in a
similar location as the existing home. The home is situated with substantial
setbacks and consideration is given to the neighbor's views and privacy through
window placement, and tree preservation. This finding can be made in the
affirmative.
b) Preserve Natural Landscape. Minimal grading and topographical changes are
proposed for this project and the majority of trees on the site will remain. All
preserved trees will be protected with fencing during the construction process.
This finding can be made in the affirmative.
Application No. 07 -160; 15211 Bellecourt Dr.
c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The project is consistent with this finding in
that all the recommendations of the Arborist report have been made conditions of
project approval to ensure a high degree of survival for all of the trees retained on
site. These trees will be protected during the construction process with tree
fencing and the applicant will be required to post a tree bond prior to issuance of
City permits, to ensure that no damage occurs to the protected trees
d) Minimize the perception of excessive bulk. This project conforms to the
maximum height requirement and the architectural massing and style of the home
will reduce the overall appearance of bulk. Additionally decorative elements,
materials and a varied roofline will create interest and add detail to the facades.
This finding can be made in the affirmative.
e) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed home is compatible in terms of size
and height to other homes in the neighborhood. The proposed home will be
constructed of high quality materials and will be in keeping with other two -story
homes in the surrounding neighborhood.
f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed home would
conform to the City's current grading and erosion control methods. The applicant
is required to maintain stormwater on site where feasible and this finding can be
made in the affirmative.
g)
Design policies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to the applicable
design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of
compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views
as detailed in the findings above. The project has taken energy efficiency into
account, without sacrificing the neighbor's privacy, by placing the primary living
spaces and windows on the west side of the home and the garage on the north side
of the home. This finding can be made in the affirmative.
CONCLUSION
Staff finds that all of the Design Review findings can be made in the affirmative and the
proposal is consistent with the General Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the Design Review application by
adopting the attached Resolutions.
Application No. 07 -160; 15211 Bellecourt Dr.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution of Approval Design Review
2. Arborist Reports dated June 27, 2007, June 11, 2007, March 28, 2007, and December
22, 2006
3. Neighbor Notification forms
4. Correspondence
5. Green Building Strategies
6. City of Saratoga Notice, Noticing Affidavit, and Noticing Labels
7. Applicant's Plans, Exhibit "A"
ATTACHEMENT 1
Application No. 07 -160; 15211 Bellecourt Dr.
RESOLUTION NO.
Application No. 07 -160
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Labio; 15211 Bellecourt Dr.
Approval of a new two -story home with attached garage
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an
application for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,008 sq. ft. residence. The
new residence will be not more that 26 ft. in height and will be situated on a 45,784 sq.
ft. lot located at 15211 Bellecourt Drive, which is located in the R -1- 40,000 district; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at
which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present
evidence; and
WHEREAS, the project, which proposes construction of a new single family
residence is Categorically exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant
to Section 15303(c) New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. This
exemption allows for construction of a single family home in an urban 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 Saratoga
Municipal Code Section 15- 45.080 and the City's Residential Design Handbook have
been determined:
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does
hereby resolve as follows:
h) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The project meets this
finding in that much of the existing. screening (mature trees along the sides of the
parcel) will be retained as part of this project. A home exists on the site and the
proposed home will be in a similar location. The home is situated with a
substantial setbacks and ,consideration is given to the neighbor's views and
privacy through window placement, tree preservation and an open style fence.
This finding can be made in the affirmative.
j)
i) Preserve Natural Landscape. Minimal grading and topographical changes are
proposed for this project and the majority of trees on the site will remain. All
preserved trees will be protected with fencing during the construction process.
This finding can be made.in the affirmative.
Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The project is consistent with this finding in
that all the recommendations of the Arborist report have been made conditions of
project approval to ensure a high degree of survival for all of the trees retained on
site. These trees will be protected during the construction process with tree
Application No. 07 -160; 15211 Bellecourt Dr.
fencing and the applicant will be required to post a tree bond prior to issuance of
City permits, to ensure that no damage occurs to the protected trees
k) Minimize the perception of excessive bulk. This project conforms to the
maximum height requirement and the architectural massing and style of the home
will reduce the overall appearance of bulk. Additionally decorative elements,
materials and a varied roofline will create interest and add detail to the facades.
This finding can be made in the affirmative.
1) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed home is compatible in terms of size
and height to other homes in the neighborhood. The proposed home will be
constructed of high quality materials and will be in keeping with homes in the
surrounding neighborhood.
m) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed home would
conform to the City's current grading and erosion control methods. The applicant
is required to maintain stormwater on site where feasible and this finding can be
made in the affirmative.
n) Design policies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to the applicable
design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of
compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views
as detailed in the findings above. The project has taken into energy efficiency
account, without sacrificing the neighbor's privacy, by placing the primary living
spaces and windows to the west facing rear of the home and the garage on the
north facing side of the home. This finding can be made in the affirmative.
Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings,
plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, application number 07-
160 for Design Review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions:
PERMANENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
There are no permanent conditions of approval for this project.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
1. The proposed home shall be located and constructed as shown on "Exhibit A"
(incorporated by reference, date stamped June 25, 2007) and in compliance with
the conditions stated in this Resolution.
2. 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. No downgrading in the exterior appearance of the
approved residence will be approved by staff. Downgrades may include but are
not limited to garage doors, architectural detailing, stonework, columns, shutters,
driveway materials, etc. Proposed changes to the approved plans are subject to the
Application No. 07 -160; 15211 Bellecourt Dr.
approval of the Community Development Director and may require review by the
Planning Commission.
3. The project shall use materials and colors as illustrated on the Finish Materials
Board dated stamped June 8, 2007.
4. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the
Arborist Reports (see Arborist item below), as a separate plan page shall be
submitted to the Building Division.
5. Two final sets of landscape plans shall be submitted for review and approval by
the Community Development. Director and the City Arborist incorporating all
recommendations from the Arborist's reports dated June 27, 2007, June 11, 2007,
March 28, 2007, and December 22, 2006 prior to issuance of a building permit.
6. The proposed sports court shall be redesigned to meet the conditions of the City
Arborist and to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. If a
redesign is not possible the applicant may make an application to the Planning
Commission for approval of a sports court.
7. Front yard landscaping shall be installed prior to final occupancy inspection.
Final landscape, irrigation and utility plans shall be incorporated into the
construction plan set and shall take into account the following requirements:
Landscape plan shall be designed with efficient irrigation to reduce runoff,
promote surface infiltration and minimize use of fertilizers and pesticides
that can contribute to water pollution.
Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm
water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate
runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of
saturated soil conditions and prolong exposure to water shall be specified.
Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the
landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area.
Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics
such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight,
prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological
consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment.
Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and
incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible.
A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction
equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of
any ordinance protected trees on the site.
Application No. 07 -160; 15211 Bellecourt Dr.
9. A fencing plan shall be submitted and approved by the Community Development
Director prior to issuance of a building permit. Proposed fencing shall consist of
a wood good neighbor fence.
10. All fireplaces shall be gas -fired with gas jets, direct venting, convection
chambers, heat exchanger, variable heat output, and flame control, and
permanently affixed artificial logs.
11. 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."
12. A stormwater retention plan shall be submitted to the City for review and
approval indicating how all storm water will be retained on -site, and incorporating
the New Development and Construction Best Management Practices.
13. Water and/or runoff from the project site shall not be directed toward the adjacent
properties.
14. All processing fees, in the form of deposit accounts on file with the Community
Development Department, shall be reconciled with a minimum of $500 surplus
balance at all times. In the event that the balance is less than $500, all staff work
on the project shall cease until the balance is restored to a minimum of $500.
ARBORIST
1. All recommendations of the Arborist Reports dated June 27, 2007, June 11, 2007,
March 28, 2007, and December 22, 2006, and incorporated herein by this
reference shall be followed and incorporated into the plans.
2. Tree protective measures, as specified by the City Arborist, shall be installed and
inspected by Staff prior to issuance of City Permits.
3. A cash payment shall be made to the City's Tree Fund in the amount of $89,190
equal to the value of removed trees that will not be replaced on site. This amount
shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits.
4. Prior to issuance of Building Permits the applicant shall obtain a tree bond, or
similar funding mechanism as approved by the Community Development
Director, in the amount of $73,750.00 to guarantee the maintenance and
preservation of trees.
5. The City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective
measures. The bond shall be released after the planting of required replacement
trees, a favorable site inspection by the City Arborist, and payment of any
outstanding Arborist fees.
PUBLIC WORKS
Application No. 07 -160; 15211 Bellecourt Dr.
1. 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
foundations) to ensure that the plans, specifications and details accurately
reflect the consultants' recommendations. The consultant shall discuss
the benefits and liabilities associated with proposed "bubble up" drainage
discharge.
The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the Project
Geotechnical Consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for
review prior to issuance of permits for project construction.
2. The Project Geotechnical Engineer 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
basement excavation, and foundation construction, prior to placement of
fill, steel and concrete.
The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project shall
be described by the Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted
to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to Final Project Approval.
3. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City
Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to Zone Clearance.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
1. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Santa Clara County Fire
Department.
CITY ATTORNEY
1. Owner and Applicant shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend.the City, its employees,
agents, independent contractors and volunteers (collectively "City") from any and all
costs and expenses, including but not limited to attorney's fees incurred by the City or
held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense in any proceeding
brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the
applicant's project or contesting any action or inaction in the City's processing and/or
approval of the subject application.
expire.
Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 36 months or approval will
Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other
Governmental entities must be met.
Application No. 07 -160; 15211 Bellecourt Dr.
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 1 lth day of July 2007 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Joyce Hlava, Chair, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
John F. Livingstone, AICP, Secretary, Planning Commission
This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall
have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and
Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the
approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms
and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning
Commission.
Property Owner Date
ATTACHEMENT 2
15211 Bellecourt Dr.
ARBORIST REPORT
APN 510 -03 -012
Owner: Labio
INTRODUCTION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Community Development Department
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Califomia 95070
The property owner of 15211 Belle Court submitted revised plans on to the city June 25, 2007 addressing
the comments from the previous arborist report.
Application 07 160
June 27, 2007
Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist
Phone (408) 868 -1276
SITE OBSERVATIONS, PLAN REVIEW AND TECHNICAL DISCUSSION
The initial arborist report and tree inventory table dated December 22, 2006 have been removed from the
plans as directed and replaced with the subsequent arborist reports.
Excavation, trenching, grading and drainage
Drainage issues pointed out in the March 20 and June 11 reports have not yet been completely resolved.
Tree #18 is in conflict with drainage around the house and marked for removal on the most recent set of
plans. This is acceptable.
Excavation for drainage is still proposed only five feet from Douglas fir #21 and only six feet from
redwood #29 with no direction to the contractor on how to preserve tree root zones. No excavation
should occur under the canopy of either tree. Preferably the drain lines should be redesigned to remain
outside of their canopies. If this is not possible, the contractor may tunnel under the trees at a depth of 2.5
feet for the entire distance under the tree canopies and must ensure that roots measuring two inches or
larger are not damaged. If the design requires tunneling under the trees, clear notes need to be included on
the plans so that the contractor does not excavate when installing drain lines.
No excavation or fill for the sport court should occur within 10 feet of the trunk of trees #45 or #74. Tree
#45 may not survive if there is two feet of fill only four feet from its trunk as is currently designed and
tree #74 may not survive with the current proposed excavation only 6 feet from the trunk of the tree.
Drainage for the sport court should tunnel under the roots for all trees whose canopies are hanging over it,
including trees #45 and #74 so that roots measuring 2 inches or larger are retained. Tunnels for drain
pipes should be 2.5 feet below grade. Notes should be clearly marked on the plans to direct the contractor
to tunnel where necessary or the plans should be redesigned so that excavation is not required under tree
canopies.
1. Include this report in the final set of plans.
fruuv
Page 1 of 2
15211 Belle Court
2. Redesign drainage so that it does not impact tree #21 on both sides. Either design the drain line
from the back of the property to connect to the drain line from the front of the property outside of
the tree's canopy, or, if this is not possible, include clear directions for contractor on the plans to
tunnel under the entire canopy of tree #21 at a depth of 2.5 feet. Excavation points shall be outside
of the tree's canopy.
3. Drainage for the retaining wall at tree #29 shall include clear directions to the contractor to tunnel
under the roots of this tree at a depth of 2.5 feet. Excavation points shall be outside of the canopy
of the tree.
4. No excavation or fill shall .occur within 10 feet of trees #45 or #74 for the sport court, either for
the retaining wall, drainage or court itself.
5. No roots measuring 2 inches or larger shall be cut to install drain lines. Roots measuring less than
two inches may be cut with a sharp pruning tool.
6. Tree #18 is in conflict with the drainage around the house and is shown to be removed. This is
acceptable. It shall be replaced with one 36 inch box tree and one 24 inch box tree following
construction.
Page 2 of 2
15211 Bellecourt Dr.
ARBORIST REPORT
APN 510 -03 -012
Owner: Labio
Community Development Department
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Califomia 95070
Application 07 -160
June 11, 200
Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist
Phone (408) 868 -1276
INTRODUCTION
The property owner of 15211 Belle Court submitted revised plans on to the city May 21, 2007 addressing
the comments from the previous arborist report.
SITE OBSERVATIONS, PLAN REVIEW AND TECHNICAL DISCUSSION
The initial arborist report and tree inventory table dated December 22, 2006 report are still included in the
plans along with the revised report and tree inventory table dated March 20, 2007. The plans should
include the arborist report and tree inventory table dated March 20, 2007; the report and table dated
December 22, 2006 should be deleted.
Removals
A total of 29 trees are proposed for removal on the plans. The following trees are listed for removal on
Sheet L.1: #8, 9, 19, 20, 23 25, 26, 31 35, 36, 44, 48 53, 56, 57, 59, 66, 67, 71, 73, and 86. Tree
#22 is shown to be removed, but not listed. Trees #45, 81 and 83 will be retained. Tree #34 is newly
proposed to be removed to accommodate drainage around the house. Tree #18 is not listed on the demo
plan but is in direct conflict with the storm drain around the house. Including tree #18 brings the total of
trees proposed for removal to 30.
The owners propose to plant a total of 3 36 inch box redwoods, 1 36 inch box coast live oak, 2 48
inch box coast live oaks, and 3 48 inch box flowering pear trees for screening and to replace the
removed trees. This satisfies the requirement to plant replacement trees equal to $30,000, based on
replacement values provided in the December 22, 2007 report.
Excavation, trenching, grading and drainage
Drainage issues pointed out in the March 20 report have not yet been completely resolved. Drainage
around the house goes through cedar tree #18 which will cause this tree to be lost, although it is not
proposed for removal. Excavation for drainage is proposed only five feet from Douglas fir #21 and only
six feet from redwood #29. No excavation should occur under the canopy of either tree. Rather, the roots
should be tunneled under for drainage pipes so that all roots measuring two inches or larger are retained.
If trees #21 and 29 are lost due to trenching or root damage, they will be required to be replaced with
native trees equal in value to their appraised values of $7,800 and $23,700 respectively.
No excavation for the sport court should occur within 10 feet of the trunk of tree #45. Drainage for the
sport court should bore under the roots for trees #74 and 45 so that roots measuring 2 inches or larger are
retained. Roots measuring less than two inches may be cut with a sharp pruning tool.
Page 1 of 2
15211 Belle Court
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. This report, as well as the revised report and Tree Inventory Table, dated March 20, 2007, shall be
included in the final plan set.
2. Owner shall plant replacement trees and screening shrubs to mitigate the removal of trees for the
project. A replacement value of $30,000 in replacement trees and screening shrubs is
recommended. Ten of the trees shall be from the following list of natives: coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia), valley oak Quercus lobata), blue oak (Quercus douglasiana), black oak (Quercus
kelloggii), big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), California buckeye (Aesculus californica),
Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens).
3. No excavation shall occur within 10 feet of tree #45 for the sport court.
4. Contractor shall tunnel under roots of trees #21, 29, 45 and 74 for drainage where drain lines are
proposed under tree canopies. No roots measuring 2 inches or larger shall be cut to install drains.
Roots_ measuring less than two inches may be cut with a sharp pruning tool.
5. Tree #18 is shown to be retained but is in the same location as a drain. This shall be clarified on
the final plans.
Page 2 of 2
15211 Bellecourt Dr.
ARBORIST REPORT
APN 510 -03 -012
Owner: Labio
Community Development Department
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Application 07 -160
March 28, 2007
Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist
Phone (408) 868 -1276
SUMMARY
The property owner of 15211 Belle Court has submitted revised plans to the city to demolish their home
and build a new single family home on the property. They have relocated the house approximately eight
feet to the north from the previous position on the lot in order to preserve trees. The owners have hired
Deborah Ellis, consulting arborist, and W. Jeffrey Heid, landscape architect to assist them with the project
and ensure protection of the retained trees.
A total of 86 trees protected by City Ordinance 15 -050 were inventoried for this project. The owners
propose to remove 32 trees, including one that is on the neighbor's property. Of the 54 trees to be
retained, the project potentially impacts trees 15 trees and a tree protection bond of $73,750 will be
required. This bond amount may change with future design changes.
The Tree Inventory Table for the project has been revised and this Table should be included in the final
plans for the project. A map showing fence locations is attached to this report and should be incorporated
into the final plan set.
INTRODUCTION
A total of 86 trees protected by City Ordinance 15 -050 were inventoried for this project. They include 14
Douglas firs (#1 10, 12, 21, 39 and 42), 2 Eucalyptus #20 and 71), 1 green wattle #19), 1 London
plane #37), one Monterey pine #26), 26 redwoods #11, 13, 15, 16, 27 30, 32, 38, 40, 41, 43, 46, 48,
49, 51, 52, 54 58, 73, 76, 84), 15 Deodar cedar #14, 17, 18, 34, 36, 74, 75, 77 83, and 85), 18 coast
live oaks #25, 44, 45, 47, 59 70, 72 and 86), 5 Canary Island pines #24, 31, 33, 35, and 50), and 3
cedars #22, 23 and 53). Each tree has been marked with a numbered aluminum tag for ease of
identification.
Data for each inventoried tree is compiled in a revised Tree Inventory Table at the end of this report.
Revisions reflect changes in the plans and corrections in appraisal values of trees. The revised Tree
Inventory Table attached to this report should be the one included in the final set of building plans.
Plans reviewed for this report include Sheet A -0, Cover Sheet, Sheets A0 -1 and A0 -2, Arborist Report,
41110 Sheet A2, Demolition and Existing Conditions and Sheet A3 New Site Plan, dated February 10, 2007 by
Memarie Associates, Inc. Also reviewed again were Sheet T1 Topographic Survey, dated April 19,
2006, Sheets C -1 and C -2 Cover Sheet and Conceptual Drainage Plan by SMP Civil Engineers, dated
October 12, 2006 and Sheet L -1, Landscape Concept Plan, dated February 7, 2007 by W. Jeffrey Heid.
Page 1 of 5
15211 Belle Court
Included with the revised plans is a letter from Memarie Associates, Inc. dated February 27, 2007
responding to the preliminary arborist report.
SITE OBSERVATIONS, PLAN REVIEW AND TECHNICAL DISCUSSION
Tree survey data
Trees #58, 63 74 and 81 86 have not yet been surveyed and included on the topographic survey in the
revised plans. This should be done prior to submitting the plans to the building division.
Removals
The plans should be reconciled so that the total number of trees proposed for removal is the same
throughout. The letter from Memarie Associates, Inc. states that 23 trees are proposed for removal, but
the count of trees to be removed on the landscape plan and the demo plan adds up to 31 or 32 (depending
on whether acacia #19 is included). Trees proposed for removal include #8, 9, 19, 20, 22 25, 26, 31
33, 35, 36, 44, 45, 48 53, 56, 57, 59, 66, 67, 71, 73, 81, 83 and 86. Sheet A -2, the Demo Plan, does not
clearly show which trees are to be removed in that not all of the trees have a canopy shown on the plan
designating whether they will be retained or removed. For purposes of this report I will consider that 31
trees are proposed for removal, down from 54. Tree #19 appears to be on the neighbor's property
according to the topographic survey (Sheet C -2) and they would need to approve of its removal in writing
prior to taking it. down.
I recommend designating retained and removed trees in the same manner as on the landscape concept plan
by drawing an "x" through proposed removals.
Trees designated to be removed should be clearly marked and included in the new site plan, the drainage
plan and the grading plan so the information can be reviewed for impacts to trees.
Nine trees #8, 9, 19, 20, 36, 53, 56, 57 and 71) are in poor health, have poor structure or crowd trees that
are more desirable. It would be appropriate to remove these trees. Tree #19 will need approval from the
neighbors.
Nine trees must be removed to construct the house and driveway as proposed. They include #26, 31 33,
22 25 and 86. Of the trees to be removed a large redwood #32) is included. The redesign enables the
owners to retain tree #29, a redwood of the same size as tree #32 and with better structure, a second
redwood that is medium sized, and a deodar cedar tree. The house has been relocated farther from trees
#29, 30 and 34 which were previously designated for removal and can be retained. Removal of these nine
trees is therefore acceptable.
The sport court requires the removal of 12.trees as currently designed. They include #44, 45, 48 53, 59,
66, 67 and 73. Oak tree #45 and redwood #73 are a very nice specimens and I recommend retaining at
least one of them. The oak is outside of the court and it could be relocated somewhat farther from this tree
in order to preserve it. Consideration should also be given to a smaller court or reorienting or relocating it
on the property.
Trees #81 and 83 are also proposed for removal and could probably be retained with the proposed design.
It is not clear why they are suggested to be removed.
Page 2 of 5
15211 Belle Court
Trees that are approved for removal will require replacement trees to provide screening from neighboring
properties and mitigate removal of trees. Replacement values for trees can be found at the bottom of the
Tree Inventory Table. The proposed removals have a total appraised value of $119,190. I recommend
planting sufficient trees to meet the screening requirements of the property, and using a mix of natives and
non native species. Replacement trees should equal a minimum of $30,000 in value.
Excavation, trenching, grading and drainage
Excavation for the house and foundation should stay a minimum of 15 feet from the trunk of redwood
#29.
A proposed retaining wall around the house will impact a number of trees on the property. Although
there is a difference in grade between the level of the house and the yard, the retaining wall appears to go
right through some of the trees on the south side of the house. This should be clarified on the final plans.
Drainage around the house should be redirected to remain outside the canopies of trees. Currently it is
designed to go through locations where trees #18, 29, 30 and 34 grow and is very close to tree #21. It
would be better to relocate the drain line closer to the house or farther from the house and closer to the
wall.
Bond
Per City Ordinance 15- 50.080, a bond amount of $73,750, which is equal to 100% of the total appraised
value the trees potentially impacted by construction, is required. This amount includes trees #1 7, 18,
21, 34, 43, 54, 55, 58, and 74. Appraisal values are calculated according to the Guide for Plant Appraisal,
9` Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2000.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. This report, including the attached Tree Inventory Table and map showing locations for protective
fencing, shall be incorporated into the set of final building plans. The preliminary report dated
December 22, 2006 does not need to be included in the final plan set.
2. Tree protective fencing shall be established prior to any grading or the arrival of construction
equipment or materials on site. It shall be comprised of six -foot high chain link fencing mounted
on eight -foot tall, two -inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced
no more than 10 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and be
maintained throughout the construction process until final inspection.
3. Owner shall provide a tree protection bond in the amount of $73,750 prior to obtaining building
division permits.
4. Owner shall plant replacement trees and screening shrubs to mitigate the removal of trees for the
project. A replacement value of $30,000 in replacement trees and screening shrubs is
recommended. Ten of the trees shall be from the following list of natives: coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia), valley oak (Quercus lobata), blue oak (Quercus douglasiana), black oak (Quercus
kelloggii), big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), California buckeye (Aesculus californica),
Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens).
Page 3 of 5
15211 Belle Court
5. Trees #58, 63 74 and 81 86 shall be surveyed and added to the plans.
6. Any grading or trenching under a tree's canopy shall be approved by the city arborist prior to
performing work. If approved, it shall be done manually using shovels. Any roots measuring two
inches or larger shall be retained and tunneled under; roots measuring less than two inches may be
cut with a sharp pruning instrument.
7. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the designated
fenced area (even after fencing is removed). These activities include, but are not necessarily
limited to, the following: demolition, grading, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and
dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking.
8. Plans shall show locations for all utilities including electrical, drainage, water, sewer and gas lines.
The drainage around the house shall be redirected to remain as far from trees #18, 21, 29, 30 and.
34 as possible.
9. The retaining wall around the house shall use pier footings rather than a continuous foundation.
Holes for the footings shall be hand dug for the first three feet if they are under a tree's canopy.
10. Any approved grading or trenching beneath the trees' canopies shall be manually performed using
shovels.
11. A landscape plan separate from the site plan should be submitted for review to evaluate impacts to
trees.
12. Design the landscape plans to show the following:
a. Design irrigation so that it does not spray trunks of trees. Locate valve boxes and
controllers outside of drip lines of tree canopies.
b. Select plants with similar water requirements to the trees under which they will be placed.
c. Design lawns so that there is room between them and the trunk of any tree; confine lawn
areas to the outside 20% of the area under the tree canopy.
d. If oaks are included in the landscape design, plant only drought tolerant plants compatible
with oaks under the outer 20% of the canopy. Do not include lawn within the drip line of
any oak tree on the property. I recommend placing mulch under the canopy instead of a
lawn.
e. Design topdressings so that stones or mulch remain at least one foot from the trunks of
retained trees and 6 inches from the trunks of new trees.
f. Do not allow tilling or stripping of the topsoil beneath the trees' canopies, including for
weed control.
g. Establish bender board or other edging material proposed beneath tree canopies on top of
existing soil grade (such as by using stakes).
13. Any pruning of trees on site must be performed under the supervision of an ISA Certified Abborist
and according to ISA standards.
14. Trees shall be watered every three weeks during the dry summer months or more often as
necessary to ensure their continued good health. Water using a soaker hose or drip line midway
Page 4 of 5
15211 Belle Court
between the trunk and the edge of the canopy. Use enough water so that the soil is moist to a
depth of one foot deep.
Attachment:
Revised Tree Inventory Table dated 3 -26 -07
Map Showing Tree Locations and Protective Fencing
Page 5 of 5
Address:
15211 Belle Court
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
TREE
NO.
TREE NAME
0
N 00
b 3
CA
CLC
Pr U
1
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1
15
16
17
Douglas fir
Pseudotsuga menziesii
Douglas fir
Pseudotsuga menziesii
Douglas fir
Pseudotsu a menziesii
Douglas fir
Pseudotsuga menziesii
Douglas fir
Pseudotsuga menziesii
Douglas fir
Pseudotsuga menziesii
Douglas fir
Pseudotsuga menziesii
Douglas fir
Pseudotsuga menziesii
Douglas fir
Pseudotsuga menziesii
Redwood
Sequoia sempervirens
Douglas fir
Pseudotsuga menziesii
Redwood
Seq uo is sempervirens
Deodar cedar
Cedrus deodara
Redwood
Sequoia sempervirens
Redwood
Sequoia sempervirens
Deodar cedar
Cedrus deodara
32
20
20
Douglas fir
Pseudotsuga menziesii
26
20.5
21.5
17.5
15
27
20.5
11.5
27.5
24.5
16
13
14.5
12.5
40
30
50
50
50
50
35
25
45
45
25
50
35
35
15
15
25
75
50
75
75
75
75
75
25
50
75
75
75
75
25
100
100
50
25
25
50
50
50
50
50
25
50
50
75
50
100
100
50
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Good
Good
50
75
Good
Good
Fair
Good
Good
Fair
High
High
High
Moderate
High
High
Moderate
Low
Low
High
High
High
High
Moderate
High
High
Moderate
3
3
3
3
4
4
3
2
3
2
2
X
X
$3,600
$1,090
$1,810
$2,440
$1,900
$2,100
$1,350 III
$340
$3,100
$2,280
$1,070
$5,200
$10,100
$1,630
$3,450
$4,270
$1,550 el
March 26, 2007
IV
TREE
NO.
TREE NAME
P. H
1.
a
c., a
°b
H c7
b
N
U
p
w
II
c
b 3
p II
y
x .8
II
o
0
o
3
U
0
ti
cn .fl
U
o
$2,630
18
Deodar cedar
Cedrus deodara
15.5
35
50
50
Fair
Moderate
2
19
Green wattle
Acacia decurrens
18
45
25
25
Fair
Low
2
X
X
$360
e
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus rudis
16
30
50
50
Fair
Moderate
2
X
$1,000
Douglas fir
Pseudotsuga menziesii
35.5
60
75
75
Good
High
2
$7,800
22
Cedar
Calocedrus decurrens
12
15
50
25
Fair
Moderate
4
X
$1,110
Cedar
Calocedrus decurrens
18.5
30
50
50
Good
Moderate
4
X
$3,470
0 23
24
Canary Island pine
Pinus canariensis
24
35
75
50
Good
High
3
X
$9,300
25
Coast live oak
Quercus agrifolia
11.5
20
75
50
Good
Moderate
1
X
$3,060
26
Monterey pine
Pinus radiata
35.5
60
75
50
Good
Moderate
1
X
$4,560
27
Redwood
Sequoia sempervirens
19
35
75
20
Good
High
5
$3,510
Redwood
Sequoia sempervirens
32.5
50
75
75
Good
High
5
$15,400
29
Redwood
Sequoia sempervirens
42.5
50
75
75
Good
High
2
$23,700
30
Redwood
Sequoia sempervirens
15.5
25
75
75
Good
High
2
$2,850
31
Canary Island pine
Pinus canariensis
21.5
30
75
50
Good
Moderate
2
X
$4,850
32
Redwood
Sequoia sempervirens
43.5
50
75
75
Good
High
2
X
$19,100
33
Canary Island pine
Pinus canariensis
27
40
75
50
Good
High
1
X
$8,800
34
Deodar cedar
Cedrus deodara
23
35
75
50
Good
Moderate
1
$6,400
Address:
15211 Belle Court
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
March 26, 2007
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
TREE
NO.
TREE NAME
0
0
0
0
0
Canary Island pine
35 Pinus canariensis
36
Deodar cedar
Cedrus deodara
37
38
London plane
Platanus acerifolia
Redwood
Sequoia sempervirens
Douglas fir
39 Pseudotsuga menziesii
40
41
43
44
45
47
48
51
Redwood
Sequoia sempervirens
Redwood
Sequoia sempervirens
Douglas fir
Pseudotsuga menziesii
Redwood
Sequoia sempervirens
Coast live oak
Quercus a rifolia
Coast live oak
Quercus agrifolia
Redwood
Sequoia sempervirens
Coast live oak
Quercus a rifolia
Redwood
Sequoia sempervirens
Redwood
Sequoia sempervirens
Stone pine
Pinus pinea
Redwood
Sequoia sempervirens
20.5
11.5
13
44.5
29.5
28.5
11
31
11.5,
7.5
26
15,
29.5
9
11,
14
17.5
30
13,
13.5
35
25
25
60
50_
60
25
60
15
30
50
35
25
30
40
50
35
75
50
75
100
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
50
75
75
50
50
50
50
75
75
75
75
75
75
50
50
75
50
50
50
50
Good
Fair
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
High
Low
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
3
3
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
X
X
X
X
X
X
$4,410
$1,400
$1,630
$26,300
$7,500
$12,600
$1,960 III
$8,300
$850
$3,310
$12,200
$11,300
$1,840
$2,600
$2,410
$9,400
$3,910 40
Address:
15211 Belle Court
March 26, 2007
TREE
NO.
TREE NAME
0
0
0
Y
0 0
-4 3
u
O
Redwood
Sequoia sempervirens
Cedar
53 Calocedrus decurrens
Redwood
54 Sequoia sempervirens
Redwood
55 Sequoia sempervirens
Redwood
Sequoia sempervirens
Redwood
Sequoia sempervirens
Redwood
Sequoia sempervirens
Coast live oak
59 Quercus agrifolia
Coast live oak
60 Quercus a rifolia
Coast live oak
61 Quercus agrifolia
Coast live oak
Quercus agrifolia
Coast live oak
Quercus agrifolia
Coast live oak
Quercus agrifolia
Coast live oak
65 Quercus agrifolia
Coast live oak
66 Quercus agrifolia
Coast live oak
67 Quercus agrifolia
Coast live oak
10 68 Quercus agrifolia
12.5
10.5
21.5
18.5
14
19
11
5.5,
10.5
13
12
4,
11
7.5,
9
6.5
16.5
13.5
10
7
15
15
40
35
20
30
25
20
25
30
25
35
10
35
35
25
15
50
25
75
75
25
25
75
25
25
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
50
50
75
75
25
25
25
75
25
75
50
25
50
25
75
75
50
Good
Fair
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Good
Good
Fair
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
High
Low
High
High
Low
Low
High
High
Moderate
High
High
High
Moderate
High
High
High
High
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
$1,320
$540
$6,900
$5,100
$520
$940
$980
$820
$620
$2,390
$1,130
$600
$420
$3,790
$3,840
$1,690
$600
Address:
15211 Belle Court
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
March 26, 2007
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
TREE
NO.
TREE NAME
0
0
0
U
0)
0
0
0
.0
II
0
r-.
0 0
cn
N
Coast live oak
Quercus agrifolia
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
Coast live oak
Quercus agrifolia
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus rudis
Coast live oak
Quercus a rifolia
Redwood
Sequoia sempervirens
Deodar cedar
Cedrus deodara
Deodar cedar
Cedrus deodara
Redwood
Sequoia sempervirens
Deodar cedar.
Cedrus deodara
Deodar cedar
Cedrus deodara
Deodar cedar
Cedrus deodara
Deodar cedar
Cedrus deodara
Deodar cedar
Cedrus deodara_
Deodar cedar
Cedrus deodara
Deodar cedar
Cedrus deodara
Redwood
Sequoia sempervirens
7.5
13
24
27.5,
13, 17
22
23
13.5,
16.5
21.5
25.5
15.5
22
14
24
12.5
17
15
30
40
50
40
35
45
15
45
50
35
40
30
35
20.
25
75
75
75
75
75
50
50
100
75
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
25
50
75
50
25
100
75
50
75
75
75
25
50
25
Good
Good
Poor
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Fair
Good
Fair
High
High
Remove
High
High
High
Moderate
High
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X?
$680
$2,010
$0
$15,800
$7,200
$5,100
$1,390
$1,080
$6,800
$4,210
$1,970
$3,930
$1,620
$2,800
$1,040
$1,140
Address:
15211 Belle Court
March 26, 2007
TREE
NO.
TREE NAME
0
0
o N
4-- o
3
0 II
0
0
0
0
II
w
dD
0
0
E 00
6
w
6 3
H 0
o
a
a
O
a.
Deodar cedar
Cedrus deodara
85
86
Coast live oak
Quercus a rifolia
12.5
5, 6.5
25
25
25
100
50
50
Fair
Good
Moderate
High
5
5
X
X?
$780
$970
Total Appraised Value
Address:
15211 Belle Court
TREE. INVENTORY TABLE
Replacement Tree Values
15 gallon $150 24 inch box $500 36 inch box $1,500
48 inch box $5,000 52 inch box 7,000 72 inch box $15,000
Should any tree listed above become damaged owner will be required to repair the damage.
Should any tree listed above be removed owner will be required to replace that tree with trees
equal in value to its assessed value.
March 26, 2007
1
1
1
15211 Belle Court
LEGEND
Tree Protective
Fencing
Tree Canopy
65 63
Will
69 68 62
64 g' 1
A, 4 v 7
66>
37 48 1.',''',/^\
r
r
75 'rk
78 76r/s?
77
I r
82
t
33
4 7
1
i '18
LAI
.7
i /1 1
,1
50 4 Ili 45
IIt
1 Y Cr i 4
A
1 i 's 44
—,.4—
=-7,,t
ti ig-i;. ...)F.....e N.
1 1
I ..t7 1
74' ;581-57 55 V
r I ri i)
2
y w 4
41
,,.1. .1
28 27.
•s, 1
_7-7.. 38
1 r
1 r
qt--., s1/4. 39 9 „v.
ri +TT 7
.t.!'
f .......-.::-f-.7-`7.,
111
a
24.
V i
Al N/
It 15 14
2 /frifi
I
I
I SY 4
I
I
f 4 3 !),7.
101
111
i
/s,
I
g 9.d-n- I
1
I p
1. V 1-A-
4.0 7--r
ATTACHEMENT 3
April 15, 2007
Dear Joy Jeng,
I am planning to rebuild the house on 15211 Bellecourt, which is close to your home. As
part of the process, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga has asked me to go
over the project plans with you. This is an opportunity for you to review the project plans
with me and voice any concerns directly.
Please contact me (cell: 650- 224 -5441, home: 408 -564 -4513) so that we can set a time to
meet.
Through this process, I had the pleasant opportunity to meet our neighbors and discuss
any issues they might have had. All of the neighbors that I have met (listed below) were
quite positive and have approved the project plan.
David Yang (15234 Bellecourt)
Susie and Craig Nicholson (15235 Bellecourt)
Oscar Bakhtiari (15181 Bellecourt)
Heather and Charles Goodman (15256 Bellecourt)
Kathy and Robert Maxfield (15261 Bellecourt)
Rick Vierra (15180 Pepper Lane)
Ursula and Helmut Moessner (15200 Pepper Lane)
Julie and Mike Michaels (15230 Pepper Lane)
Gail and Jim Barton (15260 Pepper Lane)
Sasan Teymourie and Romina Davarpanah (19730 Saratoga Los Gatos Rd)
I am looking forward to meeting with you soon. Thank you.
Wilburt Juan Labio
Owner of 15211 Bellecourt
Date:
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1 5 Btu tLou
Applicant Name:
Sa+o
City of Saratoga
City of Saratoga
Neighbor Notification Form
W∎tbu4-{ 3 c., L t
Application Number: O'7
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.
L '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.
_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: 6/3-1-,77.2
Neighbor Address:
1 81 at It co..)v-'
Signature c -Printed:
Neighbor Phone #7.4-0 59S 39
Planning Department
Date: -*Fr -01-
PROJECT ADDRESS: 15111 1.. ,o
Applicant Name: W;113%1 Jucn 1-ge;
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.
understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need
to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project.
My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I
Neighbor Address:
15235 Buie covr1
Sc.rato j c t CA
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: �jv5 6 4, GzAt, IJl(k{oL- o tJ
Signature: Printed:
City of Saratoga
Neighbor Notification Form
Neighbor Phone 9 9 3 54- S v0 q
City of Saratoga Planning Department
Date:
PROJECT ADDRESS: 15 I1� dJ1�.
Applicant Name: W \1b JW'^
Application Number: 0 bb
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.
Vi My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I
understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need
to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project.
_—My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I
understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion
with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please
attach additional sheets if necessary):
Neighbor Name:
Neighbor Address:
1.72. kcv
0,, -q1C5Ci j CA Neighbor Phone
Signature:.
City of Saratoga
City of Saratoga
Neighbor. Notification Form
1Q, 44 —>s
Printed:
Planning Department
Date:
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1 514 Ate.0 A
Applicant Name: l>,1 Mort Sve" 1_4,17 to
Application Number: 01 1 t b
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 1 ter date during the actual public review and appeal periods.
M y signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I
understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need
to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project.
f IM 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: Rick \i ola C.
Neighbor Address:
ISt20 fLct
Signature: Printed:
City of Saratoga
Neighbor Notification Form
R's ck V; f"
Neighbor Phone 458 3Cif 1
City of Saratoga Planning Department
Date:
PROJECT ADDRESS: 151-1l 3e 11tcc�Nt
Applicant Name: W,\b stt.4) Lib; u
City of Saratoga
Neighbor Notification Form
Application Number. O 14 a D
Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express
any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the
signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property.
Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion
at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods.
M My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I
understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need
to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project.
L_My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I
understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion
with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please
attach additional sheets if necessary):
or Name: vk k QS V C
Neighbor 41 e m
Neighbor Address:
15 i-co p c P P z c i
Sa rah
LP
Signature:
Neighbor Phone O 3 5 t I 1362.
rnncea
+16641citi kDessv)ef
411
City of Saratoga Planning Department
Applicant Name:
2y.La
City of Saratoga
Neighbor Notification Form
Date: J 4 I 0
PROTECT ADDRESS: 15 elltcv,$
Application Number: O 1 1
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.
K y signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I
understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need
to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project.
—My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I
understand the 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: G L
Neighbor Address:
5 LLC
50.
Neighbor Phone 4°S b
Signature: Printed:
&A
City of Saratoga Planning Department
Date:
PROJECT ADDRESS: 15 3et\t
Applicant Name:
City of Saratoga rtsci n
Neighbor Notification Form
W;10trA Jvdv\ tx.tP
Application Number. 1 ba
Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express
any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the
signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property.
Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion
at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods.
My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I
understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need
to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project.
C 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: 1 G
Neighbor Address:
15') o Pe..ppe- V.ceNz
Sctr a4 Ct-
Signature: Printed:
City of Saratoga
Neighbor Phone 2 6
Planning Department
Date:
PROJECT ADDRESS: 15 x- 11 P. 1k_co,x+
Applicant Name: UlilboA LAL °4'
Application Number: 01- 1 b b
Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express
any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the
signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property.
Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion
at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods.
My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I
understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need
to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project.
I IM 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: Pci1 °j Yoh `d
Neighbor Address:
j 5234 %elitcouk
SGr-c o CA
Signature: Printed:
City of Saratoga
Neighbor Notification Form
Neighbor Phone ;9 (0---\
n°
City of Saratoga Planning Department
Date:
PROJECT ADDRESS: A 5111 Be.tict,ozr
Applicant Name: w Juc"
Application Number: 01-10
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.
l My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I
understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need
to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project.
My signature below certifies the following: I, have reviewed the project plans; I
understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion
with the applicant, have not been .addressed. My concerns are the. following (please
attach additional sheets if necessary):
Neighbor Name: C (44 L t S
Neighbor Address:
5 LA
4 1-5a0.0 DeIkwori
S c d C
Signature:
City of Saratoga
City of Saratoga
Neighbor Notification Form
Neighbor Phone
Printed:
4 3 7
1 S vk'7
Planning Department
411
Date:
PROJECT ADDRESS: 152,11 ►1e.:100A
Applicant Name: Vjilbori
Application Number: 0
Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express
any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the
signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property.
Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion
at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods.
y signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I
understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need
to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project.
My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I
understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion
with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please
attach additional sheets if necessary):
Neighbor Name:
Neighbor Address:
City of Saratoga
City of Saratoga
Neighbor Notification Form
So. Sa. h I e-7 ovYJ a
R o Nt oA,, .rrfL6
tk q 3 o S 2HTQV -A L-o SCr'db1 ,C
1c9-4 CA 9 S0 Neighbor Phone &DV 3 18 I Z
Signature: Printed:
Planning Department
ATTACHEMENT 4
Date: April 14, 2007
To the Planning Department of City of Saratoga:
I hereby grant permission to Wilburt Juan Labio (owner of 15211 Bellecourt) to remove
the green wattle tree numbered as tree #19 in the arborist report (application #07 -160).
Neighbor Name: Oscar Bakhtiari
Neighbor Address: 4-5
Signature:
Saratoga, CA
ATTACHEMENT 5
June 08, 07
Green Buliding Strategies
Mr. Mrs. Labio residence
15211 Bell Court
Saratoga, CA 95070
JUN 0 8 2007
CITY OF SARATOGA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
1- Tree preservation reduces landscaping and future energy costs and helps
provide winter break or summer shades. Additional landscaping improves
the environment even more: One tree can filter 60 Ibs. of pollutants from
the air each year.
2- New toilets have redesigned bowls an tanks that use less water, but
function more efficiently than first generation low -flow models. Some use
pumps for supplementary water pressure.
3- Advance shower and sink faucet aerators provide the same flow regardless
of pressure to reduce water use the energy required to heat it.
4- Recycled plastic lumber and wood composite materials reduce reliance on
Chemically treated lumber and durable hardwood for decks, porches trims
and fencing.
5- The energy efficiency of refrigerators and freezers has tripled over the last
three decades because they have more insulation, advanced compressors,
better door seals and more accurate temperature controls.
6- Front loading washer use about 40% less water and half the energy of
conventional models. Energy Star -rated appliances save an average of 30
percent over standard models.
7- Incorporating passive solar design features like large south facing
windows helps heat the heat the home in the winter and allows for
increased natural day lighting.
8- Energy efficient windows incorporating advanced technologies like low
4111 emittance (low -E) glass coating, gas fillers between layers, and composite
framing materials keep heat inside in the winter and outside in the
summer.
Selecting more efficient, correctly sized heating, cooling and water heating
equipment save money.
10- Foundation should be as well insulated as the living space walls for
efficient home energy. Use and enhanced comfort, particularly in the
basement.
1
Orient standard board (OSB) is an engineered wood product that does not
require large trees for its manufacture. It is resource efficient and
enhances durability and is used to sheathe roofs, floors and walls.
12- Stucco on exterior walls save money on insulation and maintenance.
Stucco is termite and water resistance.
13- Covered entries at exterior doors helps to prevent water intrusion, reducing
maintance and enhancing durability.
14- Natural wood flooring, flooring choices include low -VOC (volatile
organic compounds) carpets for better indoor quality.
ATTACHEMENT 6
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 18th day of June 2007, that I deposited
44 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:
Address: 15211 Bellecourt Drive
APN: 510 -03 -012
that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the
addresses shown above.
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES
Denise Kaspar
Advanced Listing Services
June 14, 2007
500' Ownership Listing
Prepared for:
510 -03 -012
LABIO FAMILY TRUST
15211 BELLECOURT DRIVE
ARATOGA CA 95070
397 -19 -004
WILLIAM T TSENG
JR CURRENT OWNER
[9751 GLEN BRAE DR
ARATOGA CA 95070 -5015
197 -19 -014
3IOVANNI S REYES BRIGNOLO
)R CURRENT OWNER
19645 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD
;ARATOGA CA 95070 -6436
;97 -19 -017
JICTOR E MAXINE TINSLEY
)R CURRENT OWNER
9699 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD
ARATOGA CA 95070 -6436
;97 -19 -036
CONY YU
)R CURRENT OWNER
5159 ALONDRA LN
ARATOGA CA 95070 -6446
.10 -01 -032
iRIC LISA WARMENHOVEN
)R CURRENT OWNER
9852 PARK DR
ARATOGA CA 95070 -6444
10 -01 -035
RA.B REGINA OLDHAM
)R CURRENT OWNER
9861 ROBIN WAY
ARATOGA CA 95070 -6428
10 -03 -001
ANNIE WU
)R CURRENT OWNER
5310 PEPPER LN.
ARATOGA CA 95070 -6427
10 -03 -004
_OBERT JULIANNE MICHAELS
)R CURRENT OWNER
5230 PEPPER LN
ARATOGA CA 95070 -6461
397 -19 -005
MIKE G CINDY LEONARDI
21423 SARATOGA HILLS RD
SARATOGA CA 95070 -5377
397 -19 -015
JOHN LILI DILLON
OR CURRENT OWNER
19661 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6436
397 -19 -018
RONALD D PATRICIA INMAN
OR CURRENT OWNER
19711 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6436
510 -01 -025
JEAN C KLEIN
OR CURRENT OWNER
15121 PEPPER LN
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6423
510 -01 -033
MYRA REINHARD
OR CURRENT OWNER
15185 PEPPER LN
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6424
510 -02 -008
BYRON J LYNDA ANDERSON
OR CURRENT OWNER
15281 PEPPER LN
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6425
510 -03 -002
CHARLES BARBARA BOCKS
OR CURRENT OWNER
15290 PEPPER LN
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6461
510 -03 -005
HELMUT A URSULA MOESSNER
OR CURRENT OWNER
15200 PEPPER LN
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6461
397 -19 -013.
YOUNG H KYUNGJA AHN
OR CURRENT OWNER
19615 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6436
397 -19 -016
SIDNEY T MARCIA KAUFMANN
OR CURRENT OWNER
19677 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6436
397 -19 -028
GARY P DANA KENNEDY
OR CURRENT OWNER
15155 ALONDRA LN
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6446
510 -01 -026
JAMES A PARDEN
OR CURRENT OWNER
15141 PEPPER LN
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6423
510 -01 -034
DOUGLAS MICHELE HELMUTH
OR CURRENT OWNER
19831 ROBIN WAY
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6428
510 -02 -009
RICHARD E BOCKS
PO BOX 2130
SUNNYVALE CA 94087 -0130
510 -03 -003
JAMES B GAIL BARTON
OR CURRENT OWNER
15260 PEPPER LN
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6461
510 -03 -006
RICHARD D VIERRA
OR CURRENT OWNER
15180 PEPPER LN
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6450
410 -03 -007
DAVID M AMY WILLIAMS
OR CURRENT OWNER
PEPPER LN
TOGA CA 95070 -6450
510 -03 -011
OSCAR SORAIA BAKHTIARI
OR CURRENT OWNER
15181 BELLECOURT AVE
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6406
510 -03 -014
ROBERT MAXFIELD
12930 SARATOGA AVE B3
SARATOGA CA 95070 -4661
510 -03 -019
SASAN TEYMOURI
DR CURRENT OWNER
19730 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6449
510 -05 -003
7-HARLES F HEATHER GOODMAN
DR CURRENT OWNER
15256 BELLECOURT AVE
iA�.C1TOGA CA 95070 -6407
510 -05 -029
rUDY KENNETH HUI
DR CURRENT OWNER
19634 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6437
kdvanced Listing Services
?.O. Box 2593
Dana Point CA 92624
510 -03 -008
JAMES W PAMELA FRANKOLA
OR CURRENT OWNER
15140 PEPPER LN
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6450
510 -03 -012
LABIO FAMILY TRUST
19721 PARKVIEW CT
CUPERTINO CA 95014 -0621
510 -03 -015
RICHARD G WHITE
OR CURRENT OWNER
15285 BELLECOURT AVE
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6406
510 -05 -001
DMITRIY N TANYA VASILEV
OR CURRENT OWNER
15310 BELLECOURT AVE
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6407
510 -05 -004
DAVID D JENNIFER YANG
OR CURRENT OWNER
15234 BELLECOURT AVE
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6407
510 -05 -030
NIX FAMILY
OR CURRENT OWNER
19600 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6437
510 -03 -009
JAMES ELEANOR PERAZZO
PO BOX 2222
SARATOGA CA 95070 -0222
510 -03 -013
CRAIG SUSIE NICHOLSON
OR CURRENT OWNER
15235 BELLECOURT AVE
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6406
510 -03 -016
FRIEDA MCKENZIE
OR CURRENT OWNER
15311 BELLECOURT AVE
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6466
510 -05 -002
JAMES A SONJA PEDICINI
OR CURRENT OWNER
15280 BELLECOURT AVE
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6407
510 -05 -005
CHYI -RONG TZUU -CHYI JENG
OR CURRENT OWNER
15214 BELLECOURT AVE
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6407
City of Saratoga
Attn: HEATHER BRADLEY
13777 Fruitvale Ave
Saratoga CA 95070
ATTACHEMENT 7
OM,__
00 00 r as
0 Ol ,0 it e N N N
rl
N B Y A9 d1-
pp m i n v m
g O O
p 11; Q Ll O°-
O O c 1 LL
LL J IC W r N lu0
LL LL a'
0 r AA ww
4) IL0 1--, mm .13,T)
ii 4 Q=
as JJ
S
�LAZ
8'18' r
rrrrr
w 0 W W
ww ww
821888
NNNNNN
8 a
OO
L
‘4„,,..-k, iiiii:',.00!'''',$.
'-c,--.-',',:*'7.-:-.,-'r, 1711,11,•4i4!
I,;-iii-'T7=' .:',.=,...-riz--(-,..,,--•-•"-:.:
-r -,_•.`,:r.ii..-.71".-*--,-.-,1,,:ht-....t
..::-'''''.:,',1-'.e#-".,i74:1,k1,-4:-..:1-,4:::':,1714::::',:...,-2'.•'-'1'.•
'--Mtiii
i t'ig-'.'i=i1:::,,-.,'-',7..Y:41-..-i--*-fg-:-.*--1.:'€ *I
1 [,l,.iT.J.• :iii!(..c.-4 j
J [•1' J[..e......[4 J[:',4J,44
,111
go 1 1 v.: t a J
I. J. e,'..,
-.J;1 /,giq .-4-. .7--_, 1 J i 1 Ah.....1[,[11■'‘[:. 1
g i '-ij j-- 1 I i A j j "7". ._74: [Fij!: ;2.. A.-.1,14/
0
i i.i. ti„ i,k i i
14Volltir--
...eal. ..l
v f k j Ili, ..wilt i or 7, 6 i ___ciweir h„ ..,-,0...11k fi lim _-„J .,..,7,1)._.--.416
OF 11 0P
PLAN CHECK SUBMI TTAL
0 N
d PLANNI N6 DEPARTMENT 0 FRE L I M I NARY d rPES I 6N REVIEW SUBMITTAL 0 BU I LD I N6 DEPARTMENT
ri APPROVED
(NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) I I
rod
n-p
N too
U v
F
N
J
o 8"
V4UU1 th
O uZ
u O p 6 u J-4
it�
a(DEa Uq
ggqqqWmw
f!!HP!
J J J J u
uuu00 "1-1
1p s
'''t."''Ir• al.—
-----..^-3,--k- 16.,,,-...... 7 WI K. ,i,,
_.....A A r s ■F i 1.' l e! 1. 1 1 -----1-" /11111,11I' 1
1 i
".131 t in ai lli:171111 1 11 11 1 11:1170 '4' '.4111111477:::1.'11. ..-1 1.`,.. '4: /4 c, ,5
vocilil Mb ox A
A r ...am EMU- U ,,,,,,,,I.It ton11,...q•■•1,,,• 1111111 y i r,
A,,, f ,,ol, ,,,n,/., ...„undiialimirmips _Thns ..C..111,___ ...---7=7. ,„,7,.7,7",,,, -,11111 0 T, i lloliiiii,,, ■111111111111„ 1,11,1,11,, 1 i i I I, ',l
1 i 1 I
A‘ 1 III 1, Hil 101 7114711111 .:1 i:
W■ It A. AO, i i; .A-i.s.N,' lipe.,,,,,a; 1 1
i, 1 IH,i,' "n". R:
k ,L „-,r,,,,i,.. _i i i ,1 1
k.Fi 1,' 1 N, i ,...aiiiit I. I 1 I 1
....q... o' 4 ■1
1 l ft '..4111,11 IIIIVIim Iri i
'•--7- 0 3
fl L f H
k •i„,ino gmuiretwo-l-AninnoMmusollillr:jiyIEIVI141•11.49p11114:0,
-..11 11111111Vo
,I 1 i .......:,,iiiing,u1111W:;_-... PI ri
-1 -4 1
tr _...-.::4'11,111,11,11,4,,illit 1111■11■11,.. III
'40,1181PII,111110,1101, 011,41111(.1, II i y1
10111.1•■ IdinMv11111 SIM,
C 41 47 1 1itil=111, t li
e l\'‘
,...i.;: 1 /i,..4...4.1.3.,......in,..
6., 11H1,. •11 III I p
I
1 'ilt0
11111,11101. 1 1 i
I
f 7 7 t T 11/
[11:11,1 11 I I Jj J !III J
Z.Z N r
"m•i: I 'e' In 11,1
1 7
,.s.. i; t I[J o ft t i l l 1 III"
JR,
e LL 4 LL 99.. LL
ra Qd o 2
e�(yNO >0
w
w
3
4 q E
w
urn o
P Q
0
ViitsWi1�k 2
ZNU r
x w
LL
�d�iN�fi
p 'q
8o 2 pp
OLL-
E H
LL
tltl
�'IriO
LL 1
m
0
r
o
„w
z
g g m
rNp ,,pp N N 0 Y}
it)
0
P
w
S
a O i
0
O w
lh OJN
00
I mm
g
O
Nw
k�
0
0
O
N
a=
,n3
s
J
11
A CD
S_LN'T'17(15N
m Ifil it 0 i
C= Sr
0,1 01 0,4 {-LL 0,1
g
q
m
ogI 1 i 4 1 1 3
gii w a 1 1 t go
ii d w$$a
Li§ Lit
w le
r 4 m r
ig
M
><CIN I -LZa-IS
r a
ET 1
I LE z
1
QQ v� a yZ
`L J 4 2 O
m z a F N N N
p yy
JEce te OaQjwW 00t
��!!��3 �LL�COWWW�
J N N
adTd4ia 2 g a
uu�� '°Caa 4
Ug ru>
P� 4 4WZmwwawma
0 m -N N R� V..r N =N
8 6 N Q
444
I
tor
ifi
Willi
gi
nth
k
q cg
o
1
1
1
1
a §S
og
A
4
1
Client Revisions
a
NAP
lthigE
qAr
ill
lbleb
t a lad s e
0
o
^5
1 144
6
gN a C o
ry ry p
p I B �,S
ra
z g -i",1°-;,3A2
B y q
q V u 0 q a yy qq J m' A W Y
S e p O O
6 9s I ry�.SW1 a
x
W
N
Mi
q
0 a
O
5
44
5s w
;V 2
1 a C
AE
A k
7 C
2
n Qg C �gl
Tn {a°P T •8 0. 'p b
'8.8''8889 8 E I2 Ep 5 0 8kybs
.e681-.F40 'u 8
p n9 c °g
p u p d
O a
8 .8 s .O B
S 80!8
l sr r 2°' q B a 0. Y
Spy.1Py, �',.g.?.c 1 •_g 3�
G s O1 1 ij 4 r p 6 l Q 'O 00 O D R 0 .0 1
'u o i3 B g .:1 g E
OH 38. •91 v8 a 4. 4 g
G F W aq B 9
'E o m2 0
8m g Tvo
o m� v L
a4o� w R g a Ha Z 8
8 0 p E $•fi 6 8 q g 6 rn u
0.
CATI
82:g 4i
40 513 5.8
sIgl �9 tl5a .51
T 8 2 9
cgs >C 8 n
'9 d Y
O
8 8.e oa g p a2 s
V A
�TE9 3' p9E6 8
fi x 8 k 5 §n
h G.�
4
C w
o� 'q 3 o go
n B 9.11
811>, u 6 C0
tbg la
9 o
3 b y 0'6A s'O
a m
w p•
L a o' g 1 l -g
R n A9 5a1F
0
6
0
o
8
0
8
a
g F t ,z a
10 i 11] ei r° a ,8 t gil it 216!
Sm& I U .n IEti
.0 S au, u a 0e o i
ga 8 d9 �5°
s° 5 a g d 1 3
C. F v
2` 1 .8 4 s °m°m
8 °8 5 1 59 A °88
M fil ggt' -5
l
mi
81.0. T 3 •9 of .0
11111 E c rn��d >o° B 9t2 '8 °F u v u u o m '$u k p III ill 5 '9 '1 t5p r�
5= i 1 l ae q f ;1 ill °5$ g 3
N Y p I 4 0000 O v a O fillf IA N >IS 2 6..!'6 'O 5... o C
V S O
o.:_F6_ `3 5 �s a qq T WI' s N
u 5 5 0° w c. 8 go k h 16 z ..,§0 b a e y 8
'L .o k'3 "u E. F
Pal' 1� ..8T,-4 e
r �,9.�8 9 1 883 yy O kuW� .4 N m ¢pyycc
F a F a °F z7 111 R G 'C Alb a a Pct w p, W
2 A B R o a 1 1 v y 1 }Op. Ili C A p, F
•C 1 O ^J d0 C3 5 b 0. 1 T U ''Sg T� i .E O O 0.
Beg 9q° z. b 1 o a 9 g E$ Q 2�
441 4 3� s
:181 O W Y S CC q 'p Ff 8 E 8 NLa V L" 1 z uAs' 2 0E 9 g i. m
9 o' ug q v2€g E. .9 3 41
1 V 141- g 8 a F S T 4 U p A 3
8 B Si F g r 1kk C E f g' 3• 0 m
a, a a. °i jJ g3 Ss 5s` m I g 5
��5 g •5 �m F
r m B E u m 1 a•o 3' w•� 9 'fit'; oa E
1 p 1 q,°�, wy d L F E s, '5Sg gag 2 V
n 6 w 8' ?o Ls -o k 'o� ..t._,1
8p .o y g
I b S41 o a 0 s 6 1 2o� g.ga� 5o c
o u o, o°5 2 9
N�p �V Gu °$v, °a� "39_A AM MI 2aa
k a 1 3 6B q w yg A •d u w m Tm 1
i° M Q 3. M u E ,^'E� P. Fq x C 5 A ,5 H e
q. a
7.g gig
ao
Z n f g 1
8
CS jilt
cc
W 7. littill
14 1 11 1 11
'a laji1
1
$gg aa�
*i §oseo
a
U
9
2
2-
z
8
aLi
Client Revisions
COOL 9Z 901'1.1 .00B all,sc0
TREE INVENTORY TABLE o
aapA 90010/2/214
Oo9'ES
0900
Ol8'�S
OPPYS
006'1$
001'2f
OSE
00£S
001`ES
o8ZY5
000
002`50
001'012
0E9'IS
050'£5
OLZ'K
us' is
..amid
0aasipy 10 P....11
61a401d
I....(py 0. P'poo1
01
X
(0073luap0 223913
0090,000014 mJ Awmatl
Pow
X
and
...Id ....WS 1.11
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
w0ld0o..ISlop(
X
X
X
-96001) 41002021.000000
x
(Woe -%Olraq
X
x
X
X
x
u2!00p /m 10112...
nm
1111 p0010J 711...".d
x
u8!rap /m 10!12000
011 pn0uel Dm p0sodoJd
i
x
x
x
x
X
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
x
000.11- 5 1.011- 1)
aanAul Jo 4!00001
•a
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
w
e
a
N
n
n
n
n
uop110001< 1) <ppgrims
g194 1
F 7 1 11 14
8
40
Q
P:
»eupop1
t
T
2
2
5
S
4994409
Z
alwpo{1
003 1.0
001!9 1201
poop
0011p00311.000
P
p
P
p
1-
IP
P
P
P
P
P
I
and
(P.... %Q 1.9
%001) ,pue0ul 12009000
SZ
SZ
O S
8
SL I
OS
OS
Si
1
p c
SL
05
SL
O
8
8
OS
(.000 %01.04
%00I) uop!P0031p10H
SL
OS
Ss I
SL l
5' G
�SL
SC
SZ
OS
SL
r SC
S
SL
r SZ
8
8
r e,
(u)
praxis ,1120100 maa,pa3
S
R
'0
Y,
S;
2
r SE
pz
52
SO
I SZ
I OS
_,E
SC
I sz
lapddV id ap!.3
nd- em>o211rtl1
E
oz I
oz I
1
5'02
S'IZ
S'LI
r LZ
I S'0Z
I s'u
S'LZ
I S'K
s'ol
I Szl
L
risafyam vannopnard
.18009
!!00.0000(23111410p4ird
ca18n0a
nnlraam 00`3
sg :018004
Douglas f0
Pseudonu0a menrie$Li
!rn!ruam vannupmrd
1
sg sel8roa
usa!svam vann0pn0rd
,y ee�a00a
1 9!!rua 0 oannop0ard
.1 0
I lrsalirom 0annopnard
Yea
Insrrwala
!J 018noa a, d
p ni uaiu vaonapnasd
09+.1
l
ru.wavmar vlanvaS
a P0oMP0i!
11, m var0rop0ay
na .1 0
r.o.pr1
P
I 0r0p0,p pupa)
.10403 :44044
1.01414.001.1137 nuas
0
rw.waowsr v!vnvay
I v.0poaps0.0J
!spa sspoa0
m
Z
1 01,001000 00000U
9.0 008 0.00
n
n
e
w
r
8
2
2
N
2
2
5
3
Z n f g 1
8
CS jilt
cc
W 7. littill
14 1 11 1 11
'a laji1
1
$gg aa�
*i §oseo
a
U
9
2
2-
z
8
aLi
Client Revisions
L002'92 9.001 1 011 II
ono paauddy
ozc'
OOSS
0900
0069S
I 001'5S
OZSS
I O6S
0860
os
0Z9S
06E`ZS
0£I'lf
0095 I
ozos
06L'ES r
090`ES
069`IS I
0090
<20odam
...My uo p01001
61a401d
I....(py 0. P'poo1
01
X
(0073luap0 223913
0090,000014 mJ Awmatl
Pow
X
and
s uo200045 mH
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
w0ld0o..ISlop(
X
X
X
-96001) 41002021.000000
x
(Woe -%Olraq
X
x
X
X
x
x
x
u8!rap /m 10!12000
011 pn0uel Dm p0sodoJd
i
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
x
x
•a
(1.."1 0 120og -I)
aardml)0 Amami
w
w
w
•.1
w
n
n
n
r
(mw IuaPowM!H)
009.00.0012 00.1 q!pgow
2
x
1
fi
fi
x gg
t
T
1
S
000044090
2
fi
1
2!044090
T
..a..
q6i4
0011p00311.000
p000
,Rd
3
9.4 1
27
p0o0
0490
O
P0
P
p
P
P
Po
0
_I
(i.00 YA Iraq
%001 1112a201 po oo.s
o S 1
05
SL I
I SL
SZ
S2
SZ
SL
SZ
SL
OS
SZ
oS
SZ 1
SG
2
V
(1.00- %000aq
_%ool).01!po00411.H
8
SZ
SC
SL 1
SZ
SZ I
SL
SZ
SC
SC
SL
SL
r SC
I S L
L.SL
SL
(0)
poald0,(musj 900120!93
e
OP
SE
�Z
OE
52
or
SZ
I OE
Sz
SE
r 01
SE
I SE
I SZ
p S.M.; OP: 3
Cm) 0p11n!0,przuy
SZI
I
S'01
S
SI
5'0I
2
a
6
S 'L
I S'9
1 0'91
I 5 c
u
0 00
yy
4
1
1 d
n ,vaows Myna,
u. p000p01
S
400000
1 I
aw ..40009 gym.,_
P
S
107 10420mar 0!000:0
000001
1
i
muwaamar ow,
100.01
01000 5'n —..0
400 .91 0000
1
1
I 090000 00.0' 0U
9co ang 0003
1
O1/J4
000 00410000
0 11JY 00
100 .910.00
1
I
I 0107900 r00000U
Aso am 0.04
1
1
1 ..°^44
110 001 000
1
f
090)1000 rn.r,n,
100 ang 0007
1 I
1
I a!l,vaar,<,nro
100 001 1+100
I
1 09 j050m..n�
Aso ang 000
1 01,001000 00000U
9.0 008 0.00
z 2
2
N
n
n
n
n
8
8
8
e
e
e
3
e
e
3
8
,7
Z n f g 1
8
CS jilt
cc
W 7. littill
14 1 11 1 11
'a laji1
1
$gg aa�
*i §oseo
a
U
9
2
2-
z
8
aLi
Client Revisions
Y
*MA pan.daV
0900
8
8
M
090'ES
0904
S
w
S
S
d
w
009095
<20odam
...My uo p01001
N1adaq
1u000(pV 00900.11
01
X
(0073luap0 223913
0090,000014 mJ Awmatl
Pow
X
and
s uo200045 mH
X
X
X
X
X
-96001) 41002021.000000
(Woe -%Olraq
X
X
X
X
18!..P /m p!12um
oI 100011201 MI pxadald
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
x
X_
x
x
x
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
F
1
C ..0.1.0"..)
0
W
z (1100
F.4
(Iram11• S 1s01 I)
s. o hul )o 4w0101
•a
w
-1
w
w
n
w
n
n
n
w
n
0
(malm''P'M
..9..... A!pgamS
x
z
i
a
d
s
x
fi
5$
81
x gg
2
E
5
xi
1
2
6
2
2
e
2
3varo
u
1
0
1
1
1
2 7
3
5
1
1
27
18
12
1
St
(mom. %0'2004
%00 I) 4 I.10a0oS
P
8
0
01
n
8
2
n
F
ry
2
n
8
n
010 .1.'4
%001) u001P0u3 419
n
r
r
ry
n
2
2
g
n
n
n
2
2
2
2
2
(U)
pw.dS.(dous;l palsul
SL
n
a
w
e
n
e
e
2
n
e
n
n
2
n
pOUddV meld 001 ap!a0
Dad ('1201 mooma .i...1.
I 05
1°'
I 0S
n
n
n
n
S'li
.y
i
l 1
_R 3
a
s
1 i„11.0-1
1
a
w
1
3
$V �s
fl
y
H
H
i sm
j
p
1
8
on
b s
h
I
auc 4 40!9! Anus°
8
1 I'
S
wv!pa 0003
=Id Fasalo090
2
9
9
9 8
I 00tropnu03 rna13
asp 900101 FnnO
9
3
1 .ud4.014 N.rre,D
5
2
2 8
2
9
9
5 a=
n
Z n f g 1
8
CS jilt
cc
W 7. littill
14 1 11 1 11
'a laji1
1
$gg aa�
*i §oseo
a
U
9
2
2-
z
8
aLi
Client Revisions
I Belle 0000 Much 26, 2007
anpA pas!.ddy
OWE
0900
000')0
00'LS
M
OL6'£S
OOE'60
090'ES
0904
Ell S
000'SIS
00L E0S
058 ZS
X
001'610 I
008'80
009095
00amo1- 5 701R0d 1)
aamlaq Jo Am1a101
N1adaq
1u000(pV 00900.11
01
X
(0073luap0 223913
0090,000014 mJ Awmatl
Pow
000 22 0100 0
and
V TI
(Imo. 20 Iraq
slam ao u I
S13
b00
u la
rep
-96001) 41002021.000000
(Woe -%Olraq
8
-%001)=5F1..3 T1.14
0
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
/.1,1U...
of 1 10002010. m) pasod.d
X_
X
x
x
X
x
X
X
1ss!.d4 00)1201309(000
X
X
x
X
i
0ra0101 0lsa0!H 1)
....dull.. ....dull.. .1020001
n
n
n
n
e
e
n
N,
n
n
n
n
n
n
N
N
(ma•1/....P0wnR!IU
0000121) d112.1.1
alerapow
I 001
I s uapo90
1
8
01000909
1 su 90
x
00000090
000P010
4 !H
8
9 !H
fi
0 00909
1
8
:a
x
muap09
009.110311.0^0
ny
I p000
0!`90
P
In'iJ
9
P
P
P0
p
9000
P0
P
P
p00p
P
P.
(M %0 •Iraq
S's001) 44 (00(00 00
OS
°J
r OS
SC
52
05
OS
J
OS
OS
00
SC
SL
SC 1
OS
SL
OS
OS
(20000 91,0 Iraq
20011 411
0 5- 1
SZ
OS
SL
OS
0S
SC
SL
r SC
r SL
SL
00
SL
SC
SC
1 SL
1 SL
(0)
psadS dda003 900120483
00 I
S>
OE
09
I 09
0E
1 SE
OZ I
I 09
fE
I 05
1°'
I SZ
O0
I 0S
06
I SE
1 00201212 V 100112 J 0 <1 0 9
»d- (•20!)10000.!0 ,102014
S'SI
8
S'SE
900
S'li
1 00
I S'SE
I S'ZE
1 5'20
1
I 5'51
j
0'1
I SEO
I EZ
20
0.09009
I
+04..044 0
01000 0000
00d 0 1 000 1
i
graguaut pensoyyrsa,
X 0i904
r0aunxp rnrpar0!0;1
0 0 0 3
I
00000P0 ",1
0 0 0 0
I
auc 4 40!9! Anus°
011°)000 9094.0!
900 001 00003
1 I'
S
wv!pa 0003
=Id Fasalo090
190 wwmar J ",y
4000404
P 00 rn p y,, 7 ,s
suagnravmar J
00004.9
Ina
9000909
I 00tropnu03 rna13
asp 900101 FnnO
I Nalo00 x w.,
3
1 .ud4.014 N.rre,D
0,04004 000 Y
0090099000
z
z n
2
ry
n
n
n
n
2
n
n
n
n
n1
n
n
8
,7
Z n f g 1
8
CS jilt
cc
W 7. littill
14 1 11 1 11
'a laji1
1
$gg aa�
*i §oseo
a
U
9
2
2-
z
8
aLi
Client Revisions
1 I Belle Court March 26, 2007
am., ...muddy
0800
009 00
009 If
dladam
luaas(PV ..1.
0C
009FS
096'10
saki 0o 00000100
X
OIE'£S
00 2'21S
03)0p /1010!120011
.1 (010000.0) 9ssodnyl
090'15
X
011
000'64
0!6'05
00amo1- 5 701R0d 1)
aamlaq Jo Am1a101
w
01
(0073luap0 223913
0090,000014 mJ Awmatl
Pow
000 22 0100 0
and
V TI
(Imo. 20 Iraq
...IV. 000000914
S13
b00
u la
rep
-96001) 41002021.000000
(Woe -%Olraq
8
-%001)=5F1..3 T1.14
0
(0)
X_
900110 Oda mj 901000(03
1
1ss!.d4 00)1201309(000
X
X
.0d- Cu!) /0000010 900014
21
i
r
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
000.01 1 7w11e!1 1)
000050130.4!000201
n
1 napwp••"e I
00400 00000
3
900 Ong pop I
n
W u
e
w
w
F z
0
w
IV..
Z n f g 1
8
CS jilt
cc
W 7. littill
14 1 11 1 11
'a laji1
1
$gg aa�
*i §oseo
a
U
9
2
2-
z
8
aLi
Client Revisions
1 I Belle Court March 26, 2007
00pA 9
I 019090
009 00
009 If
I 00£'92f
I 005'10
009FS
096'10
00£`85
0520
OIE'£S
00 2'21S
o0E 111
090'15
009`25
011
000'64
0!6'05
dlamld
lsaas(py ao 9000011
...IV. 000000914
"8(009 /mm!U0o0
0 na
117 puu 111 0L[.—
X_
X
X
X
X
X
x
r
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
000.01 1 7w11e!1 1)
000050130.4!000201
n
n
n
n
r
e
w
w
n
w
w
w
(..10. 0l)
uopawrald J Faipgmm5
S
fi
fi
1
1
S
1
fi
1
2
T
T
S
1,
9
1
1
1
q8.H I
OH
u0a!puo3 II..00
I p000
0490
0
I P009
0
0000
P
p000
40o0
PO
P0
P
0009
P
P
(mom um baq
%001) I.mo1mS
I S
I 05
SS
1 00
1 SL
SL
SL
SG
SL
SL
Of
05
SL
Of
05
05
05
0.00 -%0 lnq
%d101) 00 019 00 0 1PMH
50
°S
00
8
PL
SL
SL
1 SG
50
50
Si
SC
SC
50
0S
50
SL
(b)
psado &dour) palsool 3
50
0Z
I 09
I 05
I D9
I SZ
S
I O£
OS
I SE
52
OE
00
1 00
1 SE
is d $0ddV lu0d a) 09!110
Cu!) .a.0029XaO3
8
900
S "6z
5'82
0-
ry
15'01
I 0£
auM p0000 Fsmap
w0p0ay,
0040. 0.0009
avid vop org
4000441
I
l90l 000 00000
J nieno9
puhapa1
1
900,001
I
:018004 n
j
PD
i
900 ang mop
04704
A.0 00010000
400004 1
0 0 0 1. 000
0O mg pop
0..100
p 00100211 1
i
smd aims
P
z n
n
n
n n
e
7
e
e 3
9 d
e
e 2
,7
Z n f g 1
8
CS jilt
cc
W 7. littill
14 1 11 1 11
'a laji1
1
$gg aa�
*i §oseo
a
U
9
2
2-
z
8
aLi
Client Revisions
IP 5S
�o'ssoo 0 0
0
U
S
1
1
A
4
a
ill g
pp CC !!1
b jit 6 A agvAl n
E PIA
14 1.140
I l it
i g
111
it of O 4 r7 p
T.g 1114
T411, a
Z b 1 F 1111 I: 5 g 1111 I1 1 H
kd i 118. g
g Ail it i I a l
•A•n Pw..av
R
A
R
n
Ay"
'MP m•a•3P1.1
X...1- 55.491-11
..."1101...{
x
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
x.Pi)NP..Iw•mM5
8
8
A
4 1
5 1
8
8
Yi
8
8
1... -x. 0.q
MM.., P.
8
n
n
2
!I
Hii
g nn
_nn.n
I.^
z
a
R
1
0
Iw
a
aGa; o -roalsiressoet o M7 r 4qcgi eV/ 471
4,04 (309
'va9 %V (i '22 11-)
33N3OISEW OI ®d'1 /NfS
7+
A
a
0
1
1
s
A
a
2
•A.n Pw..a.Y
N.•.".a
Pam xxxl
m!•vnwm�
(m.s,_P .pro
m.•.�Y yNSwmyG
••P!Pw 11.."0
-x at04O..I1mPms
1.1
.44.% mPa.% YP.N
was.l wPs
8
5
k
a
A
a
m
a
a
8
5
3
gs
s
x
z l
a
:I
R
R
z
R
a
S
EIICEE[EL[i
KIM= UM
MEMITEEIEMEREEE
Ji
P
1
d
FAULIUMN
EPIIMELIEEVERIE
CLEMENCECEENCECEE
CEMBENIEBEEMBESMC 1211111111111111211311111 Eli
1,
5
•n•n P•wd+
urrym
sum a m
m•.'.IP NI.m�
+wvw.xM
Xdll)
44
.o. x.
xPa11m.1Pm,
P••W ••m0
•A.n Pwm dv
.Mcv mV.w1
�,mm�wN
1.4411- I1
wmil. N...A
l- on++w.uaAui
moueny q N2gepg
xaou NW.vllmm.ay
Iv)
P••4c Pdmq P...m3
Machw.a nl.Pwo
m l•!1....!a a.P)t
A.n P.9.dav
�•!PY•• P..Tt
..9.mawgS PM
(..In n•1MPN
.....�.a NmamAc
am gl00 a s
xoPO NPn.o(w....vs
5,010.914.8 VIM
Pmt
Ml +m.ma..my
m9vm
.ml[mm..
Pd -xp
xa.I1mPW...1
p•.4g laumj
M+vwxa +l
1 g-
(w.1 P MIN -1
md•IP
•.P.•.•W 9
(.x. 0
x0P114PS.gIw.g
8
p 1
B
7 57757'�77�7�ai va%
3111,3 pp3 1,3 I3 j i j j
a a a
INEMBEI
EEEEEEEEEEMEEELEE
CUMBIZECCEMBEEEE
ECUEECUMMIAMMME
BEEZEICECIZELLEMEM
LECIMEEITELEEM
6
F
R
A.
3
c ai
0
F
a
a
a
8
$i
a
8)• m Zt m« °1®
Z1 :NdV
Vo %501vd
3fN3 V 1 n0o3 ]3 II.
dVW A3/V:111S HdVIOOd01 "9 AIVaNn08
1—
EXPORT (CY)I
w
mc,, 3: 0 ya w
u w og$ '4, m 00
h CnS p
$U Y 3t]ign8 §68gd,
mss¢ x A K
a U U U U U°
S S� O goFm��Z�3�W $'2i$`SwgW ¢W��3z¢
M a 0�_w nin $$o$$z
z°z°zz° in
a KK�n,n fir ter.- n- >5 X 5333
994' L
EXPORT (CY)1
9L9
EXPORT (CY) I
f LZ'Z
IMPORT (CY)
0
IMPORT (CY)
0
IMPORT (CY)]
0
(AO) inn
Z9£'t
90 L
(),D) Ina
l5 Z
£4Z
£4Z
LZL
CUT (CYLI
1.0 I.
FILL (CY)
0
0
0
I I 10t
(A0) 1114
0
0
09
0
FILL (CY)
Z9l'Z
BUILDING
BASEMENT/ LIGHTWELLS
FIRST FLOOR PAD GARAGE
TOTAL BUILDING
T,LIS
TENNISS COURT
BACKYARD (FG= 205.00)
BACKYARD, (E) POOL. FILL AREA (SEE A -A)
BACKYARD (FG= 205.00)
TOTAL SITE
TOTAL PROJECT -I
TOTAL
1 ABBREVIATIONS 1
w
mc,, 3: 0 ya w
u w og$ '4, m 00
h CnS p
$U Y 3t]ign8 §68gd,
mss¢ x A K
a U U U U U°
S S� O goFm��Z�3�W $'2i$`SwgW ¢W��3z¢
M a 0�_w nin $$o$$z
z°z°zz° in
a KK�n,n fir ter.- n- >5 X 5333
g
u a 6
t) r 1, 0 P rn g O W1
is oo3 :a,y o
''ooaggp i mww �sb
c� 5i` ioGm�i�w�� '$��`cyic�i���woYS'�w�
aa°dmfmiic¢abganta.�iw 4246
mmg i ,g`;'fil
¢<¢mmmU 8e4,z, Www�vw TaLeY s 1-d %n
V V
0
Z
J
0
W
0
z
CC
0
0
z
z
0
0
0
Z
0
0
U
U
W Q
r n Q
J W
Q z
W
r J
fr
Z
en0
W
Z
Z m
0T
r
N
1C)
e Ave
PAP
p 1wgri
r
/if
a6
1
1 1
a l
0iJ
i k;:'. I
•v r av f
�.i Z ,1 1
..7 0 4 E
z v°
O W Z
z a Q °w
I O i 0
p ri w
m 80 0 NN
i p p
W
7 O 0
tt 3 U1 O 0
W O w O
2 1-
o a m» Q
a w O z1 F
o
5 p
W
cc
Ant vr_'i O L 1. O F
W Z O
W 2 K K
a S w
m F Z w 1%1 J
.o.- U-- w —IWWL 0_._�._10.
0 EL,'''.) a 6a of
w �Z_ aT Z U
a p a V pp lyl
Z S 7 m
o mw 07d O w
W O w o re W 4 m w
N i- Wp 1w
S Z yr t Q Q
N Q Z Q O 0
o W`�
co i5 0 m yyg ar
W s O O W o c<5
08 U O
O o R 8�
z N m 4 ni o
w
------s
qtr
0
/yeeeypg
it 1. \i 'r vpy4 5
Popper IA
1 J L o
D
0
0)
SNV�d 2OVNIVEId QNV ONIGV8O
VO `VOO1V IVS
3nN3Av 11:11100D1138 LLZSL
.LJSHS I`J3A00
(/1
z
„bZ
a o
a n v a u 42 O
z a z a
3 g w
r,1 vOi o w
a n
z m
z
z
w
0
0
0 0
z w
O
O z
3
W O
4Z
X
m K
w
0w
rs a
zt-
r: 1'12
EN
a
0�z
X08
z
0 0
0 K
0 N
a
a
0
n
NI
F o e
z :II
III: w I
l:
L
0
oo .r
a 0o a z 1
Z x VIaN
o ,Y 4 a 5
0
w
Q
a
0
CI 0
N
0
W
m
J_
o w
a te
W co
rf
0
F
a
O
o
0
oZ
Q
qZ
0
0
Z
0
lL
0
(n
z
LOOZ L0 SLO :0O L1 LPN 001 0MP SNVId \1N30003 \SNVld 1In17 \13 alta0- 6D9Z \PONd nos aanaaS \:Z
(E) TREE TO BE REMOVE
DIRECTION OF FLOW IN PIPE
ENGINEERS
TO
POP-UP EMITER
TREE WITH TRUNK
DESCRIPTION
1
'rz,
E"
Nvo
11
II
r
9
9
1 V 9
L
1
1 0
1
t z
1.0 rai -6
LI 1 on
vn
1- a.
1/d
02a
k
8
9
8
7
8
111
•47,
vo `vooivays
BnNBAv lanooTnDe LLZSL
NV1d gOVNIVEICI aNV ONICIVEID 1V111c120N00
SNV1d BOVNIVEICI CINV ONICIVE10
mew
9a. 'g
el.N7
9
a
130/28 Y3d
i ,..7.=..... ,i';. ri%g
tr.. ,,t, v do MIMI
t
MOM i
I V
:1 -41 1
4 88
g l,\IL 8 2 ilf
A I
x
7 -k 1.7
.2,
8
N
czn,
I
8
gr,
0
8
'T k9
y
;a%
%1 7- J• 1,‘,
4T 1 1
1 C.
-J
1
I I
1 i
4 ,i :1.1 x 7
I ......1.
:g.. 0_ i- 4 'r .----1 1 los I''•
;-/i-r-7 6c ts ,i'
i ---c,—_ 1 s.;
:k, /74.4
i ,9,7
k, t 7 1.),
A 4....1
9.4...-
-.4-
i
1---':,
1-. y
44 ..,.r%
g
A g
9)
8
E
9
8
9
8
5
5
8
9
Oran
0
0
'6 10 co
11.16
1 1 0! t;
0
/OR OS:90 a lea nta. EaD'SNY1d-119\IN3tik83\SNVId 11/113\13 9 11 9 8-6P90 \POW aSOS PPP Ja,uas\
�V'101
1
1
is
W 2
IL
GIP
9®L
L£L
Afg§!47,42gcpJ•s31,1slq
u
2
1
I
ng
L@VI j
et
BL
tCE
71
2
164).
30rer0
24001.1 .1.62ild
LIOC71=1 cswas
A
1
B
s
g
VI '0 I a, g
9
0:
L
a
j
0 9
New Two Story House
2Nr) FLOOR. FLAN
Client Revisions
Ip
Z
5
A
!a� k
2§)§
u
ƒ
1
•1
A
1
1
-.7
1
S 8 8 A
g A A
88A
9
1
1
9
1
5
5
kat elaRIMIRWM SW a.MMI WM 3 &1/4%`WN
11M Ji4911
0
at
UI 6-.L
--4
1
1
l i
I I i
I I
UI I.- .1.9
1124
O
a
JL
I II
J JJ
1
A
L}
0
de
g
s
1
nmM
a
illf ma
mm, YI
MN r
1 w. m. M Moro
MVP Rea MINIIIIVIe
E 191 °41117 1Whilh i rP
Eimil II it III Ise
pm@ 1511111k■ XllIl
nottainiumtumurpiumg
low stagangtem
_0111111N#
1
0
nellyster53.17 444°
Ng 0 1 trailp&
=A iMMIlliN
1014
NE 111111M liri
PRN I a 1 I
iliglitlhilMMUMM I IMUM16 11
40 0111
imimMIMMAmialmi
i 1 mil 1 lir Ex. zuntir I
-a m ig w= VME m
0131;11141T1- 1 9119Lcommr■inmpAISPII2
11 1 1 12 1 411 r 6 2Valta 1:7illa
III UMMISmi.
52" niumPatT4 vim mum*
mew
dritinfiegrizt
Uriage—ti f a aiingignitikiggSMINIEN
,,,,val i cru wi I III I istpgreAlsginalt 1 lineEsaaEi
Inammlin 111Favirongramieli i i 1 1 Tg. _BEag
WigliggialAWARAMAIIIElli" 1 ritillgill
oeffram-A. qedgo+loarlindi
PIP run?. mfflVimagw. r
i i sq km milIPIO P 1
lii
414. ..."p6rmiroesoitill
milummumunio ..11 T.11
piamtazihunmvazw:11154
attionnimmairv
1110kini aliiii
s.h ,.,1 i m tt;
nikal 1
$4
76 LOW
i;
a v B 9e
l;E
g
loq
y
Urn 41141
=S� �r� .101 a
tguiRgi
0
1-�
g
1
0
8
0
6
iill''i! lyilp ZF
VINI NHl;liM
9
m
0
1
t 1: 1
1. 1...1 11..
v
0
O
H d
w§
o o
-4
.m -•21
I
-J
r
0
U
0
a
x
U
z
O
H
Q
U
I
ib_il to
VV J
�I�SL �1
F V L 104g 0 W
1
w
�I I Ip •I
lld�lir11; 11111 ��rl R 1
n 1
1.
W
W
1
m
J
J
..o a
I
a
as flit
l "o 1 i'l lilt
h' it 141 NIg
.11 1E 11
1
1
f i a g$' a
'ss
o$000
A
I
1
Z 4
ti
tAD
z
0
0
Z
0
A
1
tuo
V
1
3
8
9
q� Ifl
ppub i l i iui I
Ilill� ��l�liill�� �ik r
1
WI
1 p l
IF
111F agfer
Ii,�;lUiill9lli,' ■,�fNIE I
!illl�i!'dl!I!I,llli�!f
1
1
X r a h n n m a
A
1
11m If 11111..1 '11iY I I 1 ill i.i1111■O
a,uu Gti t
l yrylWl N dYA 1
lf 61h'rVorigafikir4ti1 i
iilel����Tlillil ul muu u' few f1 1111n u n ;�_:m �i
u I Ip■11lri1■l!lUJil; I 11 L�IY�f��i =�c?
l i "iVilililiSi 1L it ■3
w II1 I ii. i 1 11111...1
11 I uI U h 1 l tI 1 lS 11 1 al 11_I
1 111 I Iu I
App el, al 1uI.I111uI.111'1l.1Il a lu ll
I �1l11■��u l i 1 1' II
G 2 4.1.1ulu111utl M
!fh 1111 ■11111 1 I 1
IU e tl ■11111 a IR I
AI■ 11� 1 lu.u. f- e-m■11 h,........... u i
,ti R:�14_n4C, r t i�■n 4 11 iY i� x l g �i
ri A'� j 1 1 ®iI 11 Mil I I to f
l■1 it I RII, uu itIP@ i 1 1 111■ 11111,1 1 1 1 u u 1u Cig-x I N
ARV, �Ol a lu 7 a� a� a ■uul ■r1 JI u uu 1 iir
1 �i� .G' x' 12
uuuIuIIui 1 u�l 7 1pp��11 p apq -i :R-
J J___ uuui �1�1-, a 11H ull ■1�5�11�5 t!.w =1 =i
e r 111 11 Ip C� u i i i ._a�•z
t fa= G.-� 11 r� u 9,l a af 1��■I'N�1■I'.� ,7 =�l'I
1�5 E.0 �r�• 1 1 111 m p
ini 41 1! '-�117 I 1 111 1 11p1 111 1 ..111 3 9 I
tati nvoilthavilltiA g ge �I ■Illt11 1 111 I�I< _s= 11 ■I II I ItII■I II I 1. 1 U II 1 1 11 1 1 ul 1 1 11 ul1l 1 1
■I uuu.I'i I il 1 uu•. -4'.. u ■IU�W I ■.!uuJ ._lp. I IIIiI■I,1� 11 I1 h ICI• E 11 �1 111 u 1■IIu.,8ii�1 _C I I 1 m Q .■ul� ul ■u Iw Iu1:.- aun�i•1 �I►u- •a- L II ���Y�1■�� qq �•e a 3 1!
a x?a s uiub iiii- i 1 1n gied �.�a a IG�M i�i� i■li� lie,
a Q X11 .11 I■I1 tll '1111.111.1.1/ A r w lll11111A�Y.'�.��14 ���s`
I .ail 1a■r lu■um■`n l l i� �_'s ;A s_
o_ t l 1 1 1 1 �1,��it I 1/ w i= S --a_
■/1 u111uI iV i l wuulu,uu1W :4 11. 1 4 J 3? t-
IN, Iul1 ■I it ■I l ■I Iuuiu■■■
1 �4 ..4 4 1 1 �u` €i' =9
I!�i1IV1 i ,I,Y I�Y�I i�ui�l r ,9, r a Bo
IWI N'INI:G-
r.Ql r ,�l II I ■Ill t
m.l I.IIlul rt'rI.II',,111►e!������.......��s��si
tle`,r�.:i INI■ Itll 11, 111111Wuulu i
r
1