Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-09-2007 Planning Commission PacketMay 9, 2007 CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO. / DATE r rN 7 v I � vim. _ A-TO64 (/Z Iq g) TELEPHONE NO. Y15' 3 99 4F < TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT 1:0 O F-114— (Please read instructions on reverse side) i ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and process to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. • 40 DATE: PLACE TYPE: ROLL CALL CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION SITE VISIT AGENDA Tuesday, May 8, 2007 — 3:30 p.m. City Hall Parking Lot, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Site Visit Committee SITE VISITS WILL BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. APPLICATION #07 -275 2. APPLICATION #07 -239 PEET'S COFFEE AND TEA 12148 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road McAFEE 14494 Nutwood Lane The Site Visit Committee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The committee conducts site visits to properties that are new items on the Planning Commission Agenda. The site visits are held on the Tuesday preceding the Wednesday hearing, between 3:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. It is encouraged that the applicant and/or owner to be present to answer any questions that may arise. Site visits are generally short (10 to 20 minutes) because of time constraints. Any presentations and testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the Public Hearing. During the Site Visit, the Planning Commission may only discuss items related to the project. The agenda does not allow any formal votes or motions on the proposed project or other matters. The Site Visit is a fact - finding meeting where the Commission may discuss the item and ask questions from or hear statements from members of the public attending the Visit. No comments made during the Site Visit by the Planning Commission are binding or required to be carried through to the formal public hearing where actions will be taken on the proposed project. RTC SITE VISITS \Site Visits\2007\SVA 050807.doc CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION 9 AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, May 9, 2007 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Manny Cappello, Joyce Hlava, Rishi Kumar, Robert Kundtz, Susie Nagpal, Yan Zhao and Chair Linda Rodgers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ELECTION OF NEW CHAIR: MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 25, 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 May 3, 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 -275 (386 -01 -026) PEET'S COFFEE AND TEA (tenant)/ K & S CO. (property owner); 12148 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road; - The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to establish a restaurant in an existing approximately 2,400- square foot vacant tenant space, which was formerly occupied by a title company. The site is zoned C -V. 2. Ordinance Correction to Section 15- 29.010(b) of the Saratoga City Code relating to height restrictions for fences, wall and hedges. P:\PC Agendas\2007Wgn 050907.doc 3. APPLICATION #07 -239 (397 -17 -021) McAfee (property owner), 14494 Nutwood Lane; The applicant requests design review to add a 2,177 square foot single -story addition t6 and existing 3,833 single -story single - family residence for a total square footage of 6,010 square feet. The maximum height of the residence will not exceed 23 feet. The net lot size is approximately 40,128 square feet. Zone District: R -1- 40,000. DIRECTORS ITEM: None COMMISSION ITEMS: None COMMUNICATIONS None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Wednesday, May 23, 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 May 3, 2007 at the office of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.saratoga.ca.us If you would like to receive the Agenda's via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to planningAsaratoga.ca.us NOTE: To view previous Planning Commission meetings anytime, go the City Video Archives at www.saratoga.ca.us P:\PC Agendas\2007Wgn 050907.doc `o MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Rodgers called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cappello, Hlava, Kumer, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao Absent: None Staff: Director John Livingstone, Assistant Planner Suzanne Thomas, Contract Planner Heather Bradley, City Arborist Kate Bear and Assistant City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of April 11, 2007. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hlava, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of April 11, 2007, • were adopted with an amendment to page 6. (5- 0 -0 -2; Commissioners Cappello and, Kundtz abstained) ORAL COMMUNICATION Ms. Jolie Houston: • Identified herself as the attorney for St. Michael's Church. • Advised that she is here this evening because they have just been informed that City Council has directed a review of St. Michael's Use Permit by the Planning Commission in May. • Said that she is seeking some kind of clarification on what that review will cover. Is it just a review of the current uses or is it potentially a revocation hearing? • Reminded that they had been under the impression that this review of St. Michael's was going to occur on June 27tH City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer: • Clarified that Council did not take action but rather the City Manager asked that the Planning Commission move forward with this review that had been initially set for June 27th to a date as early as possible, which is May 23rd • Added that the Commission has a wide range of authority over Use Permits from review, change in conditions or revocation. • Suggested that the Planning Commission direct staff to publish a notice that includes all options available. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 2 Chair Rodgers asked if the Commission should set this item for accelerated hearing as requested by the City Manager. Commissioner Nagpal asked for clarification that the discussion would be on the Use Permit and not on the -pending Design Review Approval. Chair Rodgers replied yes. Commissioner Nagpal said that she had thought that both could have been brought together in June. Chair Rogers pointed out that :there has been a great deal of neighborhood emotion brought to us and to Council. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the Commission's direction should be to agendize this item sooner than originally proposed. Chair Rodgers replied yes, the request is that this Use Permit be considered earlier than. June 27th. Commissioner Cappello asked for the impact and /or downside to scheduling this item for May. Is there room on that agenda? Director John Livingstone advised that there is currently just one project penciled in on ,that agenda, which is a single - family Design Review Approval application. Commissioner Cappello asked, if there is sufficient time to notice this item for May. Director John Livingstone replied .yes, the ad would need to go into the paper next week. Commissioner Kundtz asked if both sides would have sufficient time to prepare with the earlier date. Chair Rodgers said that either side could ask for an extension. Director John Livingstone pointed out that the neighbors have asked to move this item forward. Commissioner Nagpal said that this is an old Use Permit that apparently needs review. Several neighbors have concerns over the conditions of approval. Commissioner Zhao asked if the church wants this item moved up. Chair Rodgers clarified that it is the neighbors who do. Director John Livingstone suggested asking the church's representative. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 3 Commissioner Cappello reminded that this request has been forwarded to the Commission b pP q Y the City Manager. Commissioner Zhao said that the church might not be ready. Jolie Houston, Attorney for St. Michael's Church: • Stated that they prefer a June hearing. An earlier meeting is difficult for them. • Added that they have had no chance to rebut the letters submitted and were not represented at the Council meeting where this came up. • Reiterated that she is here this evening to obtain clarification on where this is going. Commissioner Kundtz suggested a compromise on the meeting date by going with June 13tH He asked staff if that meeting date would be available for this item. Director John Livingstone said that the June 13th meeting date is clear right now. Commissioner Hlava: • Advised that she would be back from Italy in time for the May 25th meeting. • Pointed out that a lot of Use Permits were issued years ago when conditions were not as specifically outlined as they are today. • Said that she is uncomfortable pulling out this one church's Use Permit. • Added that she would still like for staff to do a report on what other churches do (activities, etc.) and identify what is different here from what occurs at other churches. • Stated that different religions have different things they do and this process needs to be fair to everybody. • Suggested a survey be prepared by staff on what is actually going on. Chair Rodgers reminded that there is a specific complaint about this specific church. The Use Permit needs to reflect what they actually do on site. Commissioner Nagpal: • Said that the decision this evening is whether or not this Commission wants to agendize this item sooner. • Added that it is important to make sure that everyone is given enough time to prepare. • Stated that the compromise date of June 13th is a good suggestion. Chair Rodgers agreed that both sides need time to prepare. She added that there might not be the staffing available to do an extensive study of all churches in the City of Saratoga. Director John Livingstone said that staff would try to come up with something to help the Planning Commission on this. Commissioner Kumer said that he liked the compromise date. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 4 City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer suggested that the Commission take a vote to change the hearing date for the review of the Use Permit for St. Michael's Church to June 13tH PLANNING COMMISISION DIRECTION TO STAFF ON ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner. Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission set a public hearing date of June 13, 2007, for the review of the Conditional Use Permit for St. Michael's Church. (7 -0) Ms. Jolie Houston, Attorney for St. Michael's Church said that she is willing to help with the preparation of the survey information. Ms. Diane Drewke, Resident on Serra Oaks Court: • Said. that there have been problems with the activities at this church. • Advised that the church has recently obtained a restaurant permit. • Pointed out that no other church has that. • Stated that she is simply asking that the Community Development Director enforce the Conditional Use Permit currently in effect for St. Michael's Church. Director John Livingstone said that the City does not get involved with County Health permits. He added that whenever a kitchen facility is used for the preparation and. selling of food, that kitchen be certified as a commercial. grade kitchen. Commissioner Cappello said that it is helpful to keep in perspective that most churches have to have a health permit when serving food. Commissioner Kundtz said that in addition to the upcoming review of the existing Use Permit the instant issue is enforcement. He asked if staff would take.an enforcement stance. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that the enforcement issue is already being discussed between the Community Development Director and the City Attorney's Office. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on April 19, 2007. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Rodgers announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to. Municipal Code.15- 90.050(b). CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. • • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #06 -182 (517 -10 -014) McCready, 20430 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road; - The applicant requests Design Review Approval for an illuminated sign in the CH -1 district. The wooden sign will be painted maroon and will be trimmed in white. Sandblasted white letters will spell out "Saratoga Kitchen and Bath Design Center." (Suzanne Thomas) Associate Planner Suzanne Thomas presented the staff report as follows: • Explained that Code requires that the Planning Commission review and approve any illuminated signs. • Advised that Saratoga Kitchen & Bath Design Center has relocated from Big Basin Way to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. • Added that they are requesting signs on both the front and side of their building. • Stated that the sign from their original location is being relocated to this site and a second sign that is the same but slightly smaller is also proposed for the side elevation. • Said that gooseneck lamps will be used to illuminate the signs. • Described one sign as being 12 square feet and the other 10 square feet. Both signs read Saratoga Kitchen & Bath Design Center. • Said that neighbors within 500 feet have been notified. One call was received concerning illumination. Positive feedback was received by others. • Stated that this proposal is compliant with Code and with the Village Guidelines. The findings can be made to support it. • Recommended approval and stated that the applicant is present and available for questions. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the comment received was verbal or written. Planner Suzanne Thomas said that it was via a phone call. Chair Rodgers opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Chair Rodgers closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Kumer asked for details on how the light fixture would be situated, as he was concerned about the potential for glare impacts on the second floor tenants in this building. He asked if that had been considered. Planner Suzanne Thomas assured that the Community Development Director would approval final location and placement of the lighting. She added that the light fixtures would be pointed downward. 0 Commissioner Zhao asked the hours of operation for this sign. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 6 Planner Suzanne Tomas advised that the sign would be illuminated during operational hours. She added that this is not an evening type of business. 10 Commissioner Kundtz said that it has a clean, look and is consistent with the sign approved recently for Starbucks. Commissioner Hlava reminded that it is the same sign approved for this business 10 years ago. Motion:. Upon motion of Commissioner 'Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval for an illuminated wooden sign that will be painted maroon, trimmed in white with sand- blasted white letters reading, "Saratoga Kitchen and Bath Design Center" on property located at 20430 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumer, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO.2 APPLICATION #06- 017 (397 -27 -030) JS_M Enterprises, 14234 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road; The applicant requests Design Review/Tentative Map Approval to construct twenty town home units. Each town home unit is. a three - bedroom unit with a two -car garage. Some units include . basements. The maximum building coverage is 39.3 percent of the site. The maximum height of the proposed buildings is 30 feet. The lot size is approximately 2.08 net acres or 90,515 square feet and the site is zoned RM -3000. (Heather Bradley) Contract Planner Heather Bradley presented the staff report as follows: • Provided two corrections to the Design Review resolution as follows: o Condition 20 should be amended to include the text, "Said fence shall be constructed prior to demolition or construction on site." o Add Condition 22 to read, "A qualified consultant shall be retained to conduct soil sampling to evaluate the potential presence of pesticides as recommended in the Phase I site assessment. This evaluation shall be completed prior to the issuance of building permits. All recommended. actions of the soil evaluation shall be complied with. • Stated that this applicant is seeking approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review Approval and a Tentative Subdivision Map to allow the construction of 20 new townhome units on the site currently developed with the Brookside Glen Apartments. • Described the proposed townhomes of consisting of three bedrooms and two -car garages as well as basements. Unit 20 has a three -car garage. • Said that building coverage consists of 39 percent. Open space consists of 37 percent. As proposed, the density is 10 units per gross acre. The maximum height is 30 feet. The Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 7 homes range in size between 2,700 and 4,800 square feet excluding basements. The architectural style is Craftsman. • Reminded that on September 13, 2006, the Commission held a public hearing on this project. It was continued to a date uncertain so that more surveys and studies could be done. Included in those studies was the evaluation .on the potential presence of red - legged frogs on site. Additionally, the potential for direct access to this development from Saratoga - Sunnyvale road was to be studied. Traffic counts and ground water levels were also to be reviewed. • Advised that an Initial Study was done and a Mitigated Negative - Declaration drafted as a result. The review period was between March 14 and April 14, 2007. Comments were received and commented on in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Review comments include those from the Water Quality Board and Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). • Stated that mitigation for the monitoring and reporting of the California Red Legged Frog is to be in place but that this frog is not expected to be found on site. • Informed that the Mitigated Negative Declaration must be approved before the project can be approved. • Described the site as consisting of two acres that are currently developed with a 20 -unit apartment complex, 17 one - bedroom units and three two- bedroom units. The apartments were construction in 1962. The site has three single -story buildings and one two -story building. Access to the site currently is through a driveway through Neal's Hollow. • Said that this project was originally submitted in July 2005. A Study Session was held on December 14, 2005, for a proposed 25 -unit project. The applicant was directed to reduce the number of units and to maximize guest parking as well as evaluate the potential for direct vehicular access from Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. • Stated that initially site access from Neal's Hollow was evaluated as the safest access. However, direct access is more desirable to Neal's Hollow and to the residents in the existing developments located above this project site. • Said that a revised traffic study was prepared to evaluate the direct access alternative. It was determined that the traffic effect of a direct access would be insignificant. • Said that with the new access three additional trees. are affected and need to be removed to accommodate the direct access proposed. • Said that a staggered wall that is four -feet high and fronted by landscaping is proposed. • Said that several studies and ecological consultants reviewed the impacts on any species. • Advised that basements were raised as a concern. Each unit proposes to have one. Sump pumps and drains are designed into the project. The project has received both geotechnical and hyrogeologic clearance. • Said that the project is compatible as far as architecture, bulk and mass. The project is screened from view by the site's changing elevation and proposed trees. A good neighbor fence will be installed between the project and the adjacent neighbor at Victor Place. • Informed that several letters from residents of Brookside Glen Apartments have been received. Oe Added that draft resolutions have been provided. • Recommended approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration followed by approval of the Design Review and Tentative Subdivision applications. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 8 Chair Rodgers suggested discussion on the Mitigated Negative Declaration first, followed by issues of density, traffic, hydrology, slope, geotechnical, Phase I, biologic and biotech issues. Contract Planner Heather Bradley advised that City Arborist Kate Bear has an added comment this evening. Ms. Kate Bear, City Arborist: • Advised that she has one - recommended added condition, in the event that the direct access option is chosen, to replace the three trees that must be removed to accommodate the direct access with trees of equal value. Chair Rodgers asked if any Commissioner had a density question for staff. Commissioner Nagpal asked if questions about the Mitigated Negative Declaration itself could be posed at this time as she has a couple. Chair Rodgers asked for any questions about traffic. Commissioner Nagpal: • Pointed to Page 10 of the report that stated that direct access was not a safe solution for a variety of reasons. It was deemed not as safe as access from Neal's. Hollow but is still reasonably safe.. Contract Planner Heather Bradley explained that the City's traffic consultants from Fehr & Peers reviewed the proposal with direct access and concluded that since necessary U -turns required would be beyond peak travel times, this access could be deemed an acceptable alternative. Commissioner Hlava pointed out that reasons why the direct access was initially deemed unsafe was due to limited site distance. She asked if removal of the three trees solves that concern Chair Rodgers asked if lowering the wall prior to the access point mitigated the pedestrian safety concern. Contract Planner Heather Bradley replied yes. She advised that the' applicant has agreed to revise the design of the wall to accommodate that site distance view of pedestrians and traffic. Commissioner Zhao asked if the Fire Department looked at the new proposed U -turn. Contract Planner Heather Bradley replied yes. Chair Rodgers asked the Commission if there are comments on the issues of hydrology, slope or geotechnical issues. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the conditions of approval would need to become part of the mitigation- monitoring program too. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 9 Contract Planner Heather Bradley replied lied Y es. She said that it is also a part of the Building plan check process. Chair Rodgers asked for questions on biological /wildlife, neighbor concerns, lights, parking, noise, fire hydrants, mail boxes, the subdivision map and /or design review. There were no such questions. Chair Rodgers opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Jim Morley, President of JSM Enterprises: • Thanked the Commission and staff for their time over the last three years, especially Director John Livingstone and Planner Heather Bradley and previously Deborah Ungo- McCormick. • Said he would now turn this over to Colin Gray, Vice Present of Development for JMS Enterprises. Mr. Colin Gray, Vice President of JMS Enterprises: • Said that. he thinks this is a top -notch project here. • Expressed appreciation for the interaction with the public. • Said that original arborist who originally reviewed this project for the City was Barrie Coates. • Stated that they are saving the majority of the oaks on site. • 'Advised that geotechnical analysis, hydrological analysis as well as two traffic studies have been completed for this project. • Said that a direct access option has been developed and that they support either option. If the direct access were selected, direct access from Neal's Hollow would be. shut off. • Said that a consultant is present who can address questions on sub - surface drainage. • Stated his hope that they have done everything they need to have done and said he is ready for any questions. Commissioner Hlava: • Said that she wanted to talk about density. • Reported that she understands that 30 units would have been possible on this property. • Pointed out that these proposed units are big units. • Asked Mr. Colin Gray to address the decision to chose to develop 20 large units over 30 smaller units. What where the considerations? Mr. Colin Gray: • Replied that there is a mixture of reasons. • Said one reason is the demographic that they are trying to reach. • Said that these units include three bedrooms with decent sized living areas. • Added that targeted buyers are people who are moving down from larger Saratoga homes but still want similar living spaces but with little to maintain outside. These homes are at a comfortable density with 25 feet between buildings. They offer a very nice design. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes. for April 25, 2007 Page 10 Commissioner Hlava asked if one building was moved with the creation of the alternate direct access to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. Mr. Colin Gray replied that two - buildings were relocated slightly, a negligible amount. Chair Rodgers asked if there are questions for the applicant on the issue of traffic. Commissioner Kumer asked if traffic volume is somewhat consistent with today's level. He also asked if parking within the subdivision has 'met the minimum standards. Mr. Colin Gray advised that while 2.5 spaces per unit are required under Code, they are providing 4.75 spaces per unit. This project is very adequately parked. Planner Heather Bradley added that three additional compact spaces on site were not counted because they did not meet the minimum standard. Commissioner Nagpal asked about parking for guests. Planner Heather. Bradley,replied that there are 14 guest spaces. 'Commissioner Nagpal said that it might require valet parking to accommodate a larger party. Commissioner Kumer said that even with the new access there is still parking available at Neal's Hollow for overflow parking. Mr. Colin Gray said that there is no access and no parking available there for this project. Commissioner Kumer reminded that a portion of this parking belongs to the City and suggested leaving some sort of access open between this project and this parking. Mr. Colin Gray agreed that a walkway might.be possible. Commissioner Kumer said that with only 14 guest parking spaces he did not want to see parking end up along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. Mr.. Joy Bhattacharya, TAM, Project Traffic Consultant, advised that with the alternate access there is no significant impact on level of service on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. Commissioner Nagpal .asked about the potential of vehicular /pedestrian conflict the alternate access may create. Mr. Joy Bhattacharya, TJKM, Project Traffic Consultant, said that there was an initial concern over site distance but with the removal of two trees this concern was resolved. He added that the conflict between vehicular /pedestrian traffic was resolved because of the reduced slope that offers a better view for drivers of oncoming pedestrians. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 11 Commissioner Zhao asked about the slope reduction from 12 percent to 8 percent. Mr. Pete Carlino, Project Engineer, Lea & Braze: • Said that the initial option that would have linked Neal's Hollow to the project site equaled. a 12 percent slope. • Added that with the direct access that slope could be reduced to 8 percent. A landscape berm will help bring up the grade. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the ground water level. Mr. Ming Lee, TRC Wiley, said that the ground water is at 17 feet and they have designed at 13 feet. Commissioner Nagpal asked if they tested for contaminates while testing the ground water levels. Mr. Ming Lee replied no. Chair Rodgers asked about the 100 -year flood plane. Mr. Ming Lee replied that it doesn't affect this project site. He added that if the City wants them to design around that it could be accommodated. He added that the basement wall has been designed to deal with the conditions. Mr. Colin Gray advised that the 100 -year flood plane does not come into this project. He advised that two different waterproofing barriers are being used in the basement design. Commissioner Zhao asked how many different floor plans there are in this project. Mr. Colin Gray replied that most are unique. Mr. Peter Ko, Project Architect: • Said that each of the 20 units has its own unique footprint and has a different character using entries, covers, window trim, colors, etc. Mr. Colin Gray thanked staff for its help and said he looks forward to the Commission's vote. Commissioner Hlava: • Inquired about the vacancies at the apartments, as it appears several units are now vacant. • Asked if there is some plan in place to help the current tenants find alternate places to live. • Requested a status update on where they are at with that aspect of the project. Mr. Colin Gray said that they have agreed to aid the current tenants in finding similar apartments in the area. He advised that there are some secondary living units coming up that might be potential rental units. He assured that they would help in every way they can. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 12 Commissioner Kumer asked about the sidewalk along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. 0 Mr. Colin Gray said that they are rebuilding the sidewalk from the entrance at Neal's Hollow to Read. They are recreating what is there and making it new. Mr. David .Welton, 'Resident on Glen Brae: • Identified himself as a nearby resident as well as a real estate broker with Alain Pinel. • Stated that this is a nice project that will fill a void in Saratoga, specifically empty nesters that need to downsize their homes but want to stay in Saratoga. • Said that this is a tasteful project that will fill a need for Saratoga. Ms. Jane Elizabeth Linn, Resident on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road: • Thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak. • Said that she would defer many of her comments to the 16 -page opposition document prepared by Mr. Gupta. • Pointed out that direct access was not part of the. original application and opposition comments. • Read aloud from the City's Mission Statement for the Planning Commission that includes maintaining the unique character of Saratoga. Suggested that white pasty buildings in a concrete garden are not within the character of Saratoga. • Said that there exists problematic parking and traffic problems in this area. Stressed the need to preserve beautiful natural environments. • Asked that careful and diligent consideration be given. • Stated that she loves living in Saratoga. • Added that this project is located near the heart of the Village. • Urged the Commission not to set precedent nor ignore the environment or it will go away. Commissioner Hlava asked Ms. Jane Elizabeth Linn if she is one of the residents of the apartments. Ms. Jane Elizabeth -Linn replied yes and reported that all 20 apartments are currently inhabited. Mr. JR Ellis, Resident on Victor Place: • 'Said that he is on the Board of Directors for the Chamber of Commerce as well as being a neighbor to this project. • Said that he likes to watch wildlife such as deer in his area as well as the historic quaintness of the Village. • Stated that this project will only minimally impact the area. • Added that parking has been addressed here. • Said that this project will be an improvement to the apartments on site now. Mr. Neal Gupta, Resident on Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road: . • Said he is a resident of Brookside Glen Apartments. • Stated that there has been no traffic study that makes sense. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 13 • Stated that there are 23 bedrooms on site now that will increase to 60 with the new development. There are 34 parking spaces that will increase to 95. • Said that they are being told that there are negligible impacts even though there is a 50 percent increase in traffic. • Called that analysis to be a selective use of statistics and gave several quotations on the meaning of statistics. Passed along a data sheet he had prepared to the Planning Commission. • Said that different stats can be applied here. • Stated that going from 20 apartments to 20 townhomes is being called a negligible difference in traffic. • Suggested that a per - person statistic would be a better one to use and said he believes that 60 persons is a reasonable one to use. Commissioner Kumer asked Mr. Neal Gupta if he knows how many bedrooms these units have. Mr. Neal Gupta replied three. Commissioner Kumer asked Mr. Neal Gupta if he were assuming that there would be people in each bedroom. Mr. Neal Gupta replied yes. Commissioner Kumer pointed out that he has a four - bedroom house, two kids and two cars. He'asked Mr. Neal Gupta to elaborate on his reasoning. Mr. Neal Gupta said that the project would increase the number of people who can live in this area. Far more trips are likely than the applicant is saying. Commissioner Kumer said that the site has 20 units now. He asked if two cars per unit currently is a reasonable assumption. Mr. Neal Gupta said that there are 17 one - bedroom units and three two- bedroom units. currently. Commissioner Kumer asked Mr. Neal Gupta to take into account the number of cars per unit. Mr. Neal Gupta pointed out that the project proposed four parking spaces per unit. Commissioner Nagpal expressed appreciation to Mr. Neal Gupta for his response letter. Mr. Neal Gupta stated that there is a requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis if a development increases the net number of trips by 50. Commissioner Kumer asked Mr. Neal Gupta what the biggest impact or negative factor this project creates for him. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes.for April 25, 2007 Page 14 Mr. Neal Gupta replied traffic. He said that with a significant increase in the number of people there are increased vehicles, trips and congestion. Commissioner Kumer pointed out that the traffic consultant has indicated that the impact is negligible. Commissioner Hlava pointed out that the applicant could do four 5,000 square foot houses with no traffic impact; however, Mr. Neal Gupta would still be moving out of this apartment. She asked him in terms of impact what is the greatest on him personally as a result of this development. Mr. Neal Gupta said that nobody wants or likes to have to move. He ,added that other residents would discuss the lack of available rental units and overall lack of housing stock in Saratoga. Commissioner Hlava asked Mr. Neal Gupta how long he has resided in Saratoga. Was he raised in Saratoga? Mr. Neal Gupta said he moved into this apartment in September 2003. Commissioner Nagpal: • Said that Mr. Neal Gupta has concerns about the alternative access than access from Neal's Hollow. • Asked Mr. Neal Gupta if he has had the opportunity to look at the alternative access proposal. Mr. Neal Gupta:. • Replied no. • . Advised that, he just learned of the direct access alternative two hours prior to this evening's hearing. It came as a complete surprise and wasn't expected. • Pointed out that all the information available as of April 13, 2007, stated that direct access was dangerous so he presumed that it wasn't going to happen. Commissioner Nagpal asked from what has been heard today, what is Mr. Neal - Gupta's perspective now that this project would not be accessed from Neal's Hollow. Mr. Neal Gupta said he is not sure, as he has not been able to evaluate it. He added that he has not seen the April 18th traffic study. He reminded that as of April 13th this option had been considered too dangerous. Chair Rodgers said that was in one respect but now it is believed that it is feasible with right turn only onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and U -turns to turn around and come south. Mr. Neal Gupta said that he has not seen a full Traffic Impact Analysis and he believes one is required. Planner Heather Bradley: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 15 • Said that the requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis kicks in once there are 50 vehicular trips added during a.m. or p.m. peak hours. • Advised that this project has an estimate of 10 to 11 additional trips during peak hours. Mr. Neal Gupta disagreed saying that the requirement for the TIA is when there are 50 net trips added by a new development. Mr. Sorhab Rashid, City's Traffic Consultant, Fehr & Peers: • Advised that he wrote the City's Traffic Circulation Element. • Said that this is an arbitrary number. • Said that when there are five single - family homes or more equals the requirement for a traffic study. • Informed that in this case, there are only 8 to 12 additional trips at peak times, which is negligible and not an issue. • Reported that the original study used townhome rates that are less than apartments. Now single - family rates are.used. Commissioner Kumer asked about a traffic safety study Mr. Sorhab Rashid, City's Traffic Consultant, Fehr & Peers: • Stated that a traffic safety study was not necessary. • Advised that there are few private driveways accessing Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. Usually access comes from intersections. • Added that they usually try not to have new access points. However, with adequate site 'distances it can be accommodated here. • Reminded that drivers would be competing with non - commute traffic directions when making U- turns. Commissioner Kumer asked why the change in recommendation. Mr. Sorhab Rashid, City's Traffic Consultant, Fehr & Peers, replied that site distance, a change in grade and the removal of trees helped improve conditions to support this access alternative. Mr. Martin Lettunich, Attorney for Neal's Hollow: • Said that most of their concerns have been mitigated by the use of the alternate access. • Expressed his hope that the alternative access would be approved as it offers a reasonable compromise. • Said that cars versus trips are not related. Cars is parking while trips is traffic. Mr. Paul Clarke, Resident on Victor Place: • Advised that he submitted a letter. • Said he lives adjacent to this project site. • Stated that his big concern is the road that runs adjacent to his property that. could result in reduced property value. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 16 Pointed out that this road only serves one building and suggested a rearrangement of the site so that road could be eliminated. • Added that he does not know why that road is even needed. • Stated that he does not think that the streets in this development meet City requirements. • Expressed concern about the possibility of a lighting fixture at the property line, which he does not want to see installed. He said he prefers the elimination of streetlights that might run all night long, as they seem unnecessary. • Said that Tree #40 is his and he saw that tree proposed for removal on one diagram he saw. He added that he is concerned that the proposed road would encroach on the root systems of his trees. • Said that the inclusion of his tree for removal may have been a mistake but it was careless to show it for relocation and he wants an explanation for that error. • Pointed out that he will be looking down on this development and see roofs and 30 -foot tall buildings. The view will be buildings, concrete, streets and driveways. • Added that this development seems bulky and not in keeping with Saratoga. • Advised that he moved here from Sunnyvale in September to get away from this 'kind'of development. Mr. Michael Green, Resident on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road: • Said that he guesses.that he will have to get out. • Asked why current residents cannot be guaranteed residency in the new development where there are three times the apartments there. Commissioner Kundtz questioned his believe that there are three times the units when the total number remains the same at 20. Mr. Michael Green corrected himself to say that there is three times the number of bedrooms. Ms. Mahnaz Khazen, Resident on Victor Place: • Explained that she lives above this development and also owns property in downtown Saratoga. • Stated that she is not objecting to this project as the owner has the right to maximize the usage of his property. • Added that she just wants them to understand that we are their neighbors. • Expressed concern over a new driveway and roadway of.traffic that is 3.5 feet away from her deck. • Asked for a little modification to this aspect of the project, as she does not want cars driving along her back yard.. Commissioner Hlava advised that Fire requirements call for circular access. She added that Fire has never been happy with the available access to the development located above this project site. W. Mahnaz Khazen: • Asked if the Commission could support a modification if Fire were supportive of the alternative. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 17 • Suggested a preference to have private yards behind her back fence instead of a road. • Assured that she has no problem with having neighbors but she does not want cars in her backyard. Chair Rodgers asked about inclusion of additional trees. Ms. Mahnaz Khazen said she would like to have her privacy too. Ms. Erin Nolan, Resident of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road: • Said that she is a current resident of the apartments. • Stated that she works as a store manager for a major retailer and makes a decent living but it is substandard for Saratoga housing costs. • Said that she would like to take advantage of the offer of assistance to find comparable housing. • Advised that she is due to give birth in September. • Said that if adequate housing were not located she would have to leave this area, which makes her sad. • Said this situation is scary for them. Ms. Deni Green, Resident on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road: • Said that she has had a business in Saratoga for 23 years, originally in the Village on Big Basin Way. Due to construction and redevelopment, she had to move her business. • Advised that she has lived at the Brookside Glen Apartments for three years. • Said that quality of life is important to her and it is disheartening to see it go. Said that there has been no help in finding housing that she can afford although she looks daily. There are many slumlords and few apartments available. • Informed that the new apartments pending in the Village over retail will cost between $3,000 and $5,000, which won't help her. • Stated that it is important to listen to her side of the story. • Pointed out that townhome traffic includes taking kids to school, etc. • Expressed concern about the entrance and .exiting as traffic already backs up in the morning to Neal's Hollow. Mr. Colin Gray advised that the rents charged for the units at Brookside Glen right now are below- market and range between $975 and $1,000. He added the current rents in San Jose are $1,577 per month. Commissioner Kumer asked about efforts underway. to help these tenants relocate. Mr. Colin Gray said that staying in Saratoga may be difficult but there are several thousand apartments in the surrounding areas that his company has an interest in. Commissioner Kumer asked if any discussions have been held with these tenants. • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 18 Mr. Colin Gray replied yes, a year ago. He added that it would be more appropriate when a decision on the project is made. He said that the requirement for them to assist these tenants with finding new apartments has.been added as a condition of approval. Commissioner Kumer suggested that they work with . these tenants even before the transaction is complete. Mr. Colin Gray said without question. He cautioned that they couldn't guarantee exactly what they like. Commissioner Kumer asked Mr. Colin Gray how he defines area. Mr. Colin Gray said the South Bay. Commissioner Nagpal asked what condition of approval Mr. Colin Gray is referring to that requires tenant assistance in locating new housing. Commissioner Cappello asked what could be done about the concerns raised about the road access at the back of the property. Mr. Colin Gray explained that this is a fire loop with required turning radius. He added that trees are of importance. He said that the lighting mentioned is one streetlight as there needs to be some constant light in the back area where people walk. Commissioner Hlava said that she saw the wall during the site visit. She said that it seems like the ground level of this project is well below where other homes are located at the top. She asked for the relative heights. Mr. Colin Gray said that the homes are 30 feet only at the peak. Mr. Pete Carlino, Project Engineer, Lea & Braze, said that the, site drops down six feet from the development above it. He added that the driveway width requirement is 30 feet for a dead -end street and 20 feet for a loop street. Commissioner Nagpal asked if this is per Code. Mr. Pete Carlino replied yes. Commissioner Kundtz asked for the distance of the houses from the property line and if landscaping is proposed. Mr. Colin Gray: • Said that the houses have to be 20 feet from the property line. • Added that several trees would be relocated. • Offered redwood fencing along the property line where chain link fencing is currently in place. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 19 • Reiterated that these homes would be located well below the existing residences and the peak is at 30 feet height not the windows. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the notation for removal of Tree #40 was an error. Planner Heather Bradley said that it is not indicated for removal on the plan. Mr. Peter Ko said that the finished floor of the first floor is 15 feet below grade. Chair Rodgers said that means that it would be less than a story as viewed from the adjacent project. Mr. Paul Clarke asked about the grade level of the road adjacent to his property. He pointed out that his yard slopes down and he plans to use that space. Mr. Peter Carlino said they plan to replace the wall in the same location. Chair Rodgers asked about a taller wall. Mr. Colin Gray said that they are happy to work with landscaping and a fence. Commissioner Zhao asked.how many properties are adjacent to the back road Mr. Colin Gray replied three. p Commissioner Zhao asked how far the property line is to the center of the road. Mr. Peter Ko said that it is 15 -feet to the property line from the center of the road. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the Traffic Engineer could defend the use of his numbers and his thoughts on why those numbers were used. Mr. Joy Bhattacharya, TJKM, Project Traffic Consultant: • Said that it is a case of units versus trips. • Advised that the analysis was based upon as much information as they had. • Added that it is hard to say what number of people will actually occupy these units. • Said that an average rate is commonly used. Commissioner Nagpal said an increase in bedrooms equals more people, which equals more trips. Mr. Joy Bhattacharya said that they also counted traffic for a new nearby six -unit townhome development that provided three additional trips during peak or .5 trips per unit. Chair Rodgers asked for verification that direct access to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road can accommodate more cars than can access from Neal's Hollow. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Mr. Joy Bhattacharya replied yes. Mr. Neal Gupta advised that he found an error in the raw data provided on traffic. Commissioner Zhao.asked Mr. Neal Gupta for his professional background. Page 20 Mr. Neal Gupta said he studied statistics in college. He happened to see the analysis and was just interested in this project and did his homework. Commissioner Kumer said that more trees and vegetation are easy solutions. Chair Rodgers closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 Commissioner Hlava: • Stated that the Mitigated Negative Declaration document is extremely thorough. Said that lots of public testimony was taken at the first hearing and the applicant responded to the issues raised. • Said that she can make Design Review findings and likes the design and Craftsman architecture. • Said that she has a three- bedroom home and is an empty nester. • Informed that some people have told her that they are interested in a project like this. • Added that she thinks this development will primarily be empty nesters that are downsizing from larger homes. • Said that she was not originally supportive of the alternative direct access but has since come around to view a separate access as better. • Agreed that this situation is difficult for those folks living in the apartments having to move but the owner has property rights. • Said that it, is a terrible thing to lose a home and that she asks the developer to offer assistance, saying she thinks they will do so in good faith. • Reminded that this is an old property that is getting run down. It is time to do something with what is there, which equals higher rents. • Stated her support for this project and said it is time to move ahead with it although she feels bad for those living there now. • Said this is a beautiful project that suits a need in Saratoga. Commissioner Kundtz: • Agreed with Commissioner Hlava's comments that this property is going to be developed and having a sensitivity to those being displaced. • Urged.the applicant to fulfill his commitment to helping tenants find alternative housing. Supported screening for those on Victor Lane. • Said he also supports the new road and sealing off access from Neal's Hollow. He said he does not think a walkway is practical. • Said that the existing sidewalk would be available and more than ample way to reach Neal's Hollow. • Said that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is fine and the findings can be made for Design Review approval. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 21 • Commissioner Kumer: • Said that concerns came from three directions. The concerns of Neal's Hollow have been resolved with the new access directly from Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. The issues from the adjacent neighbors on Victor Lane can be resolved with vegetation. The current residents were the big issue and still are very concerned. • Stressed his hope that the applicant will work to help these residents secure replacement housing. • Said this is a tough situation. • Reminded that lots of concerns were raised in September 2006 but that due diligence on the part of the applicant has addressed most of them. • Added that change is one of the biggest concerns of most residents. • Stated that he likes the new plan with the direct access to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. He said that a separate access makes a lot of sense over the shared path from Neal's Hollow. • Suggested that mailboxes not be centralized but rather each unit have its own box. • Reiterated the desire for a sidewalk that is consistent in look and feel. Commissioner Cappello: • Said that the last time the Commission saw this project direct access was not seen as possible. • Added that he is now pleased to see that it was indeed possible. Traffic and safety issues have been assessed and this access will work nicely. • Reported that he was happy with the original project and is happier now with the changes. Said he can make the findings to support this project. Commissioner Zhao: • Agreed that concerns have been addressed. • Said that two traffic engineers have reviewed this and she feels better about traffic and safety. • Expressed support for the alternate direct access, as it is a better way of access. This is a very grand project that needs its own entrance. • Said that she can make the findings on the Mitigated Negative Declaration and for Design Review Approval. • Wished everyone good luck. Commissioner Nagpal: • Thanked everyone for his or her participation. • Said that she appreciates the concerns and comments of the neighbors and knows they would prefer not to see this project. • Stated that she is pleased with the level of effort done on the environmental review. • Assured that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is a strong document that she is comfortable with and can support. • Stated that the design of the project is good using a Craftsman architecture that is appropriate for the area. • Agreed that it is time to move on with this project. . Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 22 • Said that it is depressing that more can't be done for the people living there and that she hopes they all find places close by. 0 Chair Rodgers: • Agreed with all of the Commissioners. Said that the questions raised at the September 2006 hearing have been answered and concerns resolved. • Said that design issues can be met. • Reminded that one person has privacy issues that can be addressed with fencing and vegetation and will ask that this be done as part of this approval. • Said that other areas of concern have been taken care of. • Agreed that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is a substantial document that she is happy to support. • Said this is a thoughtfully designed project and that a direct access /separate entrance sets this development apart. Traffic engineers support.it' as a safe alternative that is practical and aesthetically works. • Said that she feels for the current residents and wants them to continue to be a part of this community. • Added that this is private property and has come to a point where the property needs to be renovated. • Assured that she will remind the applicants of their obligation to current residents and pointed out that these residents have been given a fair amount of notice. Commissioner Nagpal asked if she should provide a list of things to add or amend for the motions. Chair Rodgers suggested doing this document by document, starting with the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Commissioner Hlava pointed out that Mitigation #1 mentions an arborist report date that needs to be updated as well as the reference to it. in the Mitigated Negative. Declaration. Commissioner Nagpal asked how the alternative entrance is addressed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Commissioner Hlava said that she is with Commissioner Kumer on the issue of individual mailboxes. Commissioner Nagpal asked if mailboxes would better fall under Design Review. Commissioner Hlava replied probably. Director John Livingstone cautioned that the Postmaster has the control over that decision. Commissioner Nagpal asked if that is included in the Design Review or Subdivision Approval. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 23 • Planner Heather Bradley replied the Design Review Approval. Additionally, staff can provide a letter for the applicant to give to the Post Office in support of individual mailboxes. Commissioner Kumer asked about his suggestion for a connection to Neal's Hollow parking through the use of a gate to allow use of overflow parking. Chair Rodgers said using the existing sidewalk is preferable to an opening between the two sites. Commissioner Cappello said that Neal's Hollow may have a problem with a connection between the two sites. Commissioner Nagpal reminded that there is some public parking on the Neal's Hollow site. Chair Rodgers said that people can walk over there on the public sidewalk. Commissioner Cappello said this access to Neal's Hollow creates issues and no one has asked for it. Chair Rodgers said that it appears there are parking issues with the development above this one and that should be taken up with their own development. 0 Commissioner Hlava said that a gate won't work. Chair Rodgers said that she doesn't see a gate or path there but prefers landscaping. Commissioner Nagpal agreed. She said that the wall near the access will be lowered and that the sidewalk is already on the plan all the way down to Read._ Chair Rodgers said that the access is less of a concern since the slope has been lowered and the wall will be lowered at the access. Commissioner Nagpal suggested leaving this to the discretion of the City's Traffic Engineer. She asked if this needs to be a part of the Design Review resolution. Planner Heather Bradley replied yes. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that it should be a part of all three resolutions. Chair Rodgers asked if the sidewalk and fences need to be part of all three. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer replied just the subdivision and Design Review resolutions. He recommended a condition to read, "...changes to landscaping or to the wall are subject to approval by the Community Development Director." Commissioner Nagpal said this should include the additional landscaping between neighbors. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 24 Chair Rodgers asked if the monument at the entrance is subject to approval by the Community Development.Director. Commissioner Nagpal said that she would rather see an attractive entrance and not a stone monument. Chair Rodgers said that the address would need to be reflected somewhere. Planner. Heather Bradley said that this would need to come back to the Commission as a Consent Item for any signage. Chair Rodgers asked City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer for his amendments to the resolution for the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer: • Suggested the following amendments to the Resolution for the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration as follows: • Page 2, paragraph 4— revise to read. "Analysis of changes to the project subsequent to the development must demonstrate that those changes do not raise any new significant effects of the project or require new mitigation measures." • Paragraph 5 should read, "The Planning Commission was present and. has had the opportunity to review all of the information in the administrative record." o End of the NOW, THEREFORE clause add the text, "attached hereto as Exhibit A for . -.the project." • Changes to the Mitigated Negative Declaration itself as follows: • To be added in a' number of places following the date of June 15, 2006, "as supplemented by a letter by the City Arborist dated April 16, 2007, and her testimony to the Planning Commission on April 25, 2007." • Mitigation #6, page 3, add text drafted above "as supplemented..." Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hlava, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 20 -unit townhome development proposed for property located. at 14234 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, as amended by the City Attorney, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumer, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao , NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chair Rodgers asked about changes and discussion for the Subdivision Map. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the landscaping changes and about the arborist's added recommendation. Chair Rodgers asked about Exhibit A or B. Page 14 limits the use of a ressive /invasive 9 g 99 species within 100 feet of the riparian corridor. She suggested eliminating them altogether. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 25 Commissioner Nagpal cautioned that the existing language was pulled directly from the biotic study and that it is better to leave it as it is. Chair Rodgers said that she would like to ask that no invasive species be planted in that area. Commissioner Nagpal said she is fine with that. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer:. • Suggested the following amendments to the Resolution for the approval of the Subdivision as follows: o Page 2, WHERAS CLAUSE, "... because the findings for denial were not supported." o Item 1, "the proposed pafsel map ..." o Item 3, "...may hinder the proposed development of the site." o Page 4, Community Development Department Condition1, "The subdivision and development shall be located..." o Condition 2A, add text after date, "..., as supplemented by a letter by the City Arborist dated April 16, 2007, and her testimony to the Planning Commission on April 25, 2007." o Page 4 -D, "...red legged frogs, if any, and their habitat shall be protected as follows..." o Page 6 -F, add text after date, "..., as supplemented by a letter by the City Arborist dated April 16, 2007, and her testimony to the Planning Commission on April 25, 2007." o Page 8, #5, adds text, Conditions 2K and 12 require "all water or runoff to be contained on site. In no event may..." o Page 9, new Condition #19, Direct Access Clause: The landscape plan shall be prepared and submitted to the Community Development Director with regard to the direct access and also with regard to the screening in the area between the road and. Victor Lane properties. Changes to the wall or improvements made in relation to direct access are subject to Community Development Director approval." • Said that any signage would be placed on the Planning Commission Consent agenda for approval. Commissioner Nagpal said that reference to Exhibit B needs to be added. Planner Heather Bradley clarified the April 1, 2007 update. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer: • Continued with amendments to the Resolution for the Subdivision: o Page 4, Condition 1, ...dated September 1, 2006, "as supplemented by Exhibit B presented to the Planning Commission on April 25, 2007. The subdivision and development will incorporate a direct access to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road as shown on Exhibit B." o Page 9, City Arborist, Paragraph 2 at the end of the page, "...to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of all trees recommended for preservation by the City Arborist." o Page 6 -E, planting o Page 13, The #e owner Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 26 K Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution approving a Tentative Subdivision Map for the 20 -unit townhome development proposed for property located at 14234 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, as amended by the City Attorney and Planning Commission, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumer, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chair Rodgers asked the Commissioners for any changes, clarifications for the Design Review Approval Resolution. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer: Suggested the following amendments to the Resolution for the Design Review Approval as follows: o CDD 1, Same changes as Subdivision Resolution. o CDD 3A — as supplemented.... o CDD 3D — same as Subdivision Resolution. o CDD F — as supplemented... o #6 — same water runoff condition as Subdivision Resolution o New Condition 23 Direct Access ... (same as Subdivision Resolution) o Arborist 1 as supplemented... o Arborist 3, same as Subdivision. Commissioner Nagpal asked about a letter of support for individual mailboxes. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer: • Added Condition #24 to provide the applicant with a letter to the Post Master in support of individual mailboxes. • Asked Planner Heather Bradley for language for a new Condition #25 that requires the applicant-to provide tenants with assistance in relocating. Planner Heather Bradley suggested the following for a new Condition. #25, "The applicant would provide assistance to the residents of Brookside Glen to find suitable rental housing in nearby communities." Commissioner Kundtz said he wants to beef it up to read "...make every effort reasonably possible..." Chair Rodgers said that alternate housing can be in Saratoga or neighboring communities. Commissioner Hlava: said that, ,if possible, these residents should be kept in Saratoga. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution granting Design Review Approval for the 20 -unit townhome development proposed for property Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 27 • located at 14234 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, as amended by the City Attorney and Planning Commission, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumer, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chair Rodgers said that the Commission has approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Tentative Subdivision and the Design Review Approval. She said that she looks forward to seeing this new project and hopes it is a good asset for the City. PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 3 Resolution adopting Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams; - The City of Saratoga Community Development Department is proposing adoption of a resolution that would adopt the "Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams" as recommended by the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative in 2006. The resolution would direct that the Guidelines and Standards be applied to streamside developments in the City of Saratoga to the extent feasible and appropriate and to the extent that the Guidelines and Standards are consistent with Saratoga's General Plan, Specific Plans, Design • Guidelines and Zoning Ordinance. (John Livingstone) Director John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Explained that in 2003 the Santa Clara Valley Water District, with the County of Santa Clara, 15 local municipalities, businesses, community members and environmental groups, formed the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative. • Stated that this Collaborative developed guidelines to protect the streams and creeks to protect these watershed resources in a consistent manner throughout the County. • Advised that these guidelines build upon the City's current requirements and serves as an easy reference tool for cities. • Said he is available for questions. Commissioner Hlava asked if these guidelines are to be included in the Land Use Element or simply serve as a checklist for staff. Director John Livingstone said that they serve as a guideline and only pertains to discretionary projects along protected creeks. He said that Saratoga already has a lot of requirements of its own. These would be in addition to the existing City requirements. Commissioner Hlava asked if this creates extra work. Director John Livingstone said a little bit but it is a user - friendly guidebook.. Commissioner. Nagpal said that this is a good approach for now. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 28 Chair Rodgers asked about its potential impacts to tonight's project. Director John Livingstone said that most projects have already gone through Santa Clara Valley Water District approval. SCVWD will still help cities and give conditions. . . Chair Rodgers said that these guidelines offer a unified approach and suggested that they be placed on line. Chair Rodgers opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Chair Rodgers closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Hlava said that the Resolution is from Council. Is the action of the Commission this evening to forward a recommendation of approval? Director John Livingstone replied yes. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation that Council adopt a Resolution that would adopt the "Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams as recommended by the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative in 2006, to the extent feasible and appropriate and to the extent that the Guidelines and Standards are consistent with Saratoga's General Plan, Specific Plans, Design Guidelines and Zoning .Ordinance, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumer, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Director John Livingstone provided the following updates: • Council held a Study. Session last evening on the General Plan and felt comfortable setting their public hearing for June 6, 2006. Reported - that fee schedule changes will take effect in July. Appeal fees have gone up and flat fees will be used instead of deposits for development applications. It was found that the recordkeeping for the - deposit method was labor intensive so the City is going back to its old way of charging a flat fee. • Said that on May 2 "d, Council will be considering *the concept of a Blight Ordinance to deal with issues such as peeling paint, deteriorating roofs, etc. They have asked staff to bring back an Ordinance draft. Chair Rodgers asked if the Blight Ordinance would come to the Planning Commission. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for April 25, 2007 Page 29 Director John 'Livingstone said that it is going to Council for the initial review. It could be brought back to the Planning Commission but this Ordinance does not fall under the Zoning Code. Commissioner Hlava asked how blight is defined. Director John Livingstone said it deals with unkempt landscaping, peeling paint, and general disrepair. Chair Rodgers asked if this too would be complaint driven. Director John Livingstone said that enforcement is currently enforced upon complaint as there is only one Code Enforcement Officer where there used to be two. Commissioner Kundtz asked about fee increases and the issue of waiving appeal fees, which the Council recently declined to do despite the Commissions recommendation. He asked if there is any mechanism for hardship. Director John Livingstone said this has been discussed and the issue is still out there. Chair Rodgers reminded that only Council has the option to waive fees. Commissioner Kundtz said that if there is no option to waive fees it should be clearly stated that appeal fees are not optional. Chair Rodgers said that the changes made by Council to the draft updated General Plan were not many, less than one page. Director John Livingstone asked about vacation schedules as not all Commissioners have yet replied to the email seeking the unavailable dates for each Commissioner. Thus far, it appears there are at least six Commissioners available for each meeting this summer. Chair Rodgers suggested that if fewer than four or five Commissioners are present only Design Review issues should be considered and not Use Permits. Director John Livingstone: • Advised that staff is filling up the summer PC agendas without a summer break. (After some discussion among the Commission, it became clear that four Commissioners were unavailable for the July 25, 2007, meeting so that meeting date will serve as a summer recess.) • Announced that he would like to conduct training with City Attorneys Richard Taylor and Jonathan Wittwer on the Brown Act and other issues and asked for suggested dates. June 12th was tentatively selected and will be confirmed by email. Commissioner Kundtz said he would prefer such a training session immediately following a site visit. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes, for April 25, 2007 Page 30 COMMISSION ITEMS Chair Rodgers announced that she and Commissioner Nagpal have been reappointed for another term on the Planning Commission. She expressed her pleasure at continuing to serve on the Commission. She advised that the new Chair and Vice Chair would be se!ected. at the next meeting in May. COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Cappello, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, Chair Rodgers adjourned the meeting at approximately 12 a.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of May 11, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk is • Item 1 0 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION • Application No./Location: 07 -275; 12148 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd., Bldg. B Type of Application: Conditional Use Permit, Design Review, and Sign Permit Applicant/Owner: Peet's Coffee & Tea (tenant) / K & S Company (owner) Staff Planner: Suzanne ThomarAssistant Planner Meeting Date: May 9, 2007 " APN: 386 -01 -026 Department HeadKAICP4 John F. Livingsto t a , i w I' �'• r A?:�... ...�• � 1. G � .Y 1`y. ii i u P � QI �i 4 •. All rl i - C r _ SUBJECT: - 12148 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd i • „ y_,,, r, a7 ° i o i APN: 388.01.026 500 Radius 12148 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road Peet's Coffee & Tea CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 02//28/07 04/16/07 04/25/07 04/27/07 05/03/07 The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review to establish a coffee and tea shop within an existing approximately 2,400 - square foot vacant tenant space in the Park Saratoga complex at the intersection of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and Prospect Road. The site was formerly occupied by a title company and is zoned C -V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review and Conditional Use and Sign Permit application with . conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. PERMANENT CONDITIONS There are no permanent conditions recommended for the design review portion of this project. • • 07 -275; 12148 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road; Peet's Coffee and Tea PROJECT DATA ZONING: C -V District. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: The General Plan designates this area as PDM — Planned Development. MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 123,730 square feet SQUARE FOOTAGE OF TENANT SPACE: 2,400 square feet AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Not applicable GRADING REQUIRED: Not applicable ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of the conversion of an existing small structure from one use to another is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures ", Class 3 (c) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). PROPOSED EXTERIOR MATERIALS AND COLORS: The applicant proposes changes to the exterior, which will include replacing the existing single door and windows with two new single exit doors and new window glazing. The materials will match the existing building. The proposed signage meets all City Code requirements and the criteria for the approved Park Saratoga sign program. • 07 -275; 12148 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road; Peet's Coffee and Tea PROJECT DISCUSSION Site Description and Project Summary The applicant is proposing to establish a coffee and tea shop in a currently vacant tenant space between Park Saratoga Dental and Chicago Title. The space in located in the Park Saratoga commercial complex, in close proximity to the intersection of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and Prospect Road. The 2,400 square foot tenant space faces Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and has been vacant for over a year. Residential duplexes are located behind the commercial center. The proposed floor plan includes both interior and exterior seating areas, with 25 seats located inside and 15 seats located outside. The outdoor seating area will be located where the pedestrian area widens toward the parking lot to allow for unobstructed passage through the complex. Photographs of this area are attached to this staff 'report ( #3 and #4 in Attachment 2). The applicant has obtained permission from the property owner to occupy this area for patrons of the coffee and tea shop. The shop will have 18 employees, with 4 per shift. Requirements for a Conditionally Permitted Use The proposed coffee and tea shop is classified as a restaurant pursuant to the City Code. Establishing and operating a restaurant in any of Saratoga's commercial. zoning districts requires the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit from the Planning Cmmission. This process acknowledges that this use may be permitted if findings can be made, and allows the Planning Commission to impose conditions to ensure that a project is compatible with surrounding land uses and in compliance with applicable City regulations. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit shall be based on the findings stated in City Code Article 15 -55. A discussion of these findings is provided in this staff report. Correspondence and Neighbor Review All neighbors within 500 feet of the project site were notified (Attachment 3): Staff has received no comments from the public at the time of composing this staff report. The applicant has notified adjacent business owners and neighbors regarding the proposed use. That correspondence is also attached to this staff report (Attachment 4). The applicant has also submitted a petition in support of the project (Attachment 5). Hours of Operation The proposed operating hours are from 5:00 am to 10:00 pm, daily. In an effort to ensure that the .applicant has flexibility for the operation of the coffee and tea. shop, staff has not added a condition, of approval regarding hours of operation. The applicant has indicated that products, such as baked goods, are typically delivered in the early mornings using small vans or trucks. As these deliveries will be made to the front of the shop, there should be no impact on neighbors. In addition, all employee access to the shop will be through the front door. Circulation and Parking is 07 -275; 12148 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road; Peet's Coffee and Tea The applicant has provided Staff with a traffic study analyzing the potential increase in trip generation due to the proposed use (Attachment 6). The report was conducted by Pang Engineers, Inc., Traffic and Transportation Consultants. The report differentiates between traffic that would already be on the road, prior to stopping at the restaurant, and "primary' trips, in which the coffee and tea shop would be the destination. The report concludes that the proposed project will generate an estimated 22 and 12 new primary trips during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively and, therefore, have an insignificant impact on traffic. The threshold for requiring a focused Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), as set by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority guidelines, is 100 peak hour trips for both the AM and PM peak hours. The Zoning Code stipulates that parking requirements be assessed at the time of initial occupancy or change in use of a site. The proposed establishment of a restaurant qualifies as an intensification of use, as an office was previously located within the tenant space. This change would result in a requirement of 22 additional spaces.. A traffic study and parking demand survey, which was conducted on April 11 and 25, 2007, showed an excess of available parking. The actual parking demand showed an 8:00 to 9:00 AM peak of 23 vehicles, a 12:00 to 1:00 PM mid -day peak of 56 vehicles, and a 4:00 to 5:00 PM afternoon peak of 36 vehicles. With approximately 175 parking stalls in the lot, there was always sufficient parking available. Several scenarios were conducted by the traffic consultant and, in the worst case condition, approximately 48 percent of the parking stalls would remain vacant. Staff has also visited the site numerous times and seen ample parking availability. Based on data from other Bay Area Peet's Coffee & Tea shops, forty percent of the business will be conducted before 10:00 in the morning. Much of the parking demand generated by Peet's will take place before the other restaurants open. Therefore, Staff finds that the available parking will be sufficient. Signage The proposed signage meets all City Code requirements and the criteria for the approved Park Saratoga sign program in regards to illumination, size, and color (Attachment 7). Design Review Two new exit doors, which are required by the Fire Department, will match the existing entry door. New window glazing and wood siding will be added in order to accommodate this change. The wood trim around the doors and windows and the wood siding around the windows will match the existing building in material, finish, and color. Metal mesh Bistro tables and armchairs and wood -framed market umbrellas are proposed for the outdoor dining area. The color, style, and specifications will match those shown in Attachment 7. Planters with flowering plants will be installed around the outdoor dining area. This landscaping, along with the furniture and umbrellas will provide an inviting focal point for visitors as they enter from Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. The management of Park Saratoga will work with Staff regarding the specification and location of the planters and the possible installation of an arbor. Economic Impacts 07 -275; 12148 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road; Peet's Coffee and Tea General Plan Land Use Policy LU 7.1 states, "The City shall consider the economic impacts of all land use decisions on the City." If approved, this project will enhance the pedestrian environment and commercial visibility through the location of the outdoor dining. It will expand the hours during which this commercial center acts as an economic destination and, with its location near the City boundary, may generate business from neighboring communities. The project will provide a good balance of different uses in the center and provide a nearby coffee shop for those residents in the immediate vicinity. Use Permit Findings The proposed project supports the findings for Conditional Use Permit approval: • That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. Findings can be made in the affirmative in that a restaurant may be a conditionally permitted use in the designated zoning district (C -V). The City Code encourages a variety of uses within the commercial zone "to promote stable, attractive. commercial development." The proposed use will join other restaurants that are already located in the complex. By expanding the hours of the commercial complex, offering a destination during non -peak hours, and providing outdoor dining that will be visible to passersby; the proposed business has the potential to enhance the economic development of the Gateway district. • That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the. vicinity. Findings can be made in the affirmative in that appropriate conditions have been placed on the use permit to ensure compliance with all applicable health and safety codes. The proposed restaurant will not be detrimental to the public health, as it has been conditioned to meet all applicable Building Codes. Employee and customer access will be through the front of the store, thereby minimizing any impact on the residential area located behind the complex. Cleanliness of the outdoor dining area will be maintained by the applicant. • That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this chapter. Findings can be made in the affirmative in that appropriate conditions have been placed on the use permit to ensure compliance with code requirements. Any intensification of this use will require an amended Conditional Use permit. • The proposed conditional use will not adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the immediate neighborhood, and will not adversely affect surrounding properties or the occupants thereof. Findings can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed coffee and tea shop may attract more visitors to the Gateway District and therefore may-result in additional customers for other businesses in • the general vicinity of the subject property. Although there is a residential area 07 -275; 12148 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road; Peet's Coffee and Tea located behind the center, there should be no significant impact from the proposed business as employee access and product and supply deliveries will be made through the front door, facing Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. Commercial Structure Design Review The proposed project supports the criteria for Commercial Structure Design Review: • The architectural features shall be harmonious. Materials and colors used in the modifications to the windows, doors, and siding will match those of the existing building. • Multiple signs shall have a common or compatible design and locational positions and shall be harmonious in appearance. The two signs will be compatible in color and design with the existing signs in the complex, pursuant to the Park Saratoga sign program, and will be comparably located above the entry and in the window. Gateway Design Goals The proposed project supports the Gateway Design Goals: • Enhance the Neighborhood Quality of Life. The project will provide a service to the neighborhood and will minimize impacts to the residential neighborhood located at the rear of the complex by positioning its activities toward the front of the property along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. • Successful Business Environment in the Saratoga - Sunnyvale Corridor. The location of the outdoor dining will enhance business visibility and help to attract customers to the complex. The patio dining and landscape will provide a focal point as visitors enter from Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. General Plan Land Use Policy The proposed project supports the General Plan Land Use Policy: • The City shall consider the economic impacts of all land use decisions on the City. If approved, this project will enhance the pedestrian environment and commercial visibility through the location of the outdoor dining. It will expand the hours during which this commercial center acts as an economic destination and, with its location near the City boundary, may attract business from neighboring communities. Conclusion SThe project satisfies all of the findings required within Section 15- 55.070 of the Saratoga City Code. The proposed restaurant is. not expected to be detrimental to the public health, 07 -275; 12148 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road; Peet's Coffee and Tea safety or welfare nor is it expected to be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposal further satisfies all other zoning regulations applicable to restaurant uses, commercial design review, and signage and supports the General Plan Land Use Policy and the Gateway Design Goals. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed coffee and tea shop (Application 07 -275) by making all required Conditional Use Permit and Sign Approval findings in the affirmative and adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution of Approval for Conditional Use Permit 07 -275 2. Site location and photographs 3. Affidavit of mailing notices, public hearing notice, and copy of mailing labels 4. Neighbor notification letters 5. Petition in support of the project. 6. Pang Engineers, Inc., Traffic and Parking Analysis (dated April 30, 2007) 7. Bistro tables, chairs, and umbrellas for outdoor dining area 8. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A" • • • Attachment 1 r U RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 07 -275 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Peet's Coffee & Tea; 12148 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road (Property Owner: K & S Company) WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Conditional Use Permit, Sign Permit, and -Design Review approval to establish a restaurant in an existing tenant space located at 12148 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, which is located in the CV (Commercial- Visitor) 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 includes establishment of a restaurant is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 of. the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This exemption consists of the conversion of an existing small structure from one use to another; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for use permit approval, and the following findings specified in Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15- 55.070: • That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. Findings can be made in the affirmative in that a restaurant may be a conditionally permitted use in the designated zoning district (C -V). The City Code encourages a. variety of uses within the commercial zone "to promote stable, attractive commercial development." The proposed use will join other restaurants that are already located in the complex. By expanding the hours of the commercial complex, offering a destination during non -peak hours, and providing outdoor dining that will be visible .to passersby, the proposed business has the potential to enhance the economic development of the Gateway district. • That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Findings can be made in the affirmative in that_ appropriate conditions have been placed on the use permit to ensure compliance with all applicable health and safety, codes. The proposed restaurant will not be detrimental to the public health, as it has been conditioned to meet all applicable Building Codes. Employee and customer access will be through the front of the store, 07 -275; 12148 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road; Peet's Coffee and Tea thereby minimizing any impact on the residential area located behind the complex. Cleanliness of the outdoor dining area will be maintained by the applicant • That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this chapter. Findings can be made in the affirmative in that appropriate conditions have been placed on the use permit to ensure compliance with code requirements. Any intensification of this use will require an amended Conditional Use permit • The proposed conditional use will not adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the immediate neighborhood, and will not adversely affect surrounding properties or the occupants thereof. Findings can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed coffee and tea shop may attract more visitors to the Gateway District and therefore may result in additional customers for other businesses in the general vicinity of the subject property. Although there, is a residential area located behind the center, there should be no significant impact from the proposed business as employee access and product and supply deliveries will be made through the front door, facing Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to meet the following criteria for Commercial Structure Design Review specified in Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15- 46.040: • The architectural features shall be harmonious. Materials and'colors used in the modifications to the windows, doors, and siding will match those of the existing building. • Multiple signs shall have a common or compatible design and locational .positions and shall be harmonious in appearance. The two signs will be compatible in color and design with the existing signs in the complex, pursuant to the Park Saratoga sign program, and will be comparably located above the entry and in the window; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support the Gateway Design Goals: • The project will enhance the neighborhood quality of life. The project will provide a service to the neighborhood and will minimize impacts to the residential neighborhood located at the rear of the complex by positioning its activities toward the front of the property along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. • The project will help to create a successful business environment in the Saratoga- Sunnyvale Corridor. The location of the outdoor dining will enhance business visibility and help to attract customers to the complex; and 0 WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support the Land Use Policy of the General Plan: 07 -275; 12148 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road; Peet's Coffee and Tea • The City shall consider the economic impacts of all land use decisions on the City. If approved, this project will enhance the pedestrian environment and commercial visibility through the location of the outdoor dining. It will expand the hours during which this commercial center acts as an economic destination and, with its location near the City boundary, may attract business from neighboring communities. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows:. Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, application number 07- 275 for Use Permit, Sign Permit, and Design Review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Conditional Use Permit and may, at any time, modify, delete, .impose any new conditions of the permit to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare. 2. The restaurant shall operate as represented on the plans marked "Exhibit A." 3. Any intensification of this use shall require an amended Conditional Use Permit. 4. The proposed use shall at all times operate in compliance with all regulations of the City and/or other agencies having jurisdictional authority over the use pertaining to, but not limited to, health, sanitation, safety, and water quality issues. 5. The owner /applicant shall contact Santa .Clara County Health Department and verify required permits. The owner /applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department verification from the Santa Clara County Health Department showing proof of compliance of the proposed facility with the Health Department's requirements. 6. Prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for the proposed tenant improvements, the owner /applicant shall submit to and obtain approval from. the Community Development Department for a business license. 7. , The owner /applicant shall maintain the cleanliness of the outdoor dining area at all times and shall install an additional garbage can in close proximity to the outdoor dining area, subject to approval of the Community Development Director. 8. The location and appearance of the patio landscaping shall be subject to prior approval by the Community Development Director and shall be in place prior to final inspection. 07 -275; 12148 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road; Peet's Coffee and Tea 9. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. FIRE DEPARTMENT 12. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Santa Clara County Fire Department. PERMANENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 13. There are no permanent conditions of approval for this project. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 36 months from the date on which this Use Permit became effective or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements , of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. • 07 -275; 12148 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road; Peet's Coffee and Tea PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 9th day of May 2007 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Linda R. Rodgers, Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: John F. Livingstone, AICP, Secretary, Planning. Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Applicant (Authorized Agent for Peet's Coffee and Tea) Date Property Owner (Jeff Rohrer; K & S Co. Date or Authorized Agent) EI • Attachment 2 • • • • Fl- 0 C ) n rug zo Q=D PHOTO KEY PLAN „,& mo Q o DNOR�j _ G� m z .... � , ..r � tl.. �' ,. '�. r � E S, F,t k N �"' .*yj 'kr .'t "Y� 9 a % � ��• �%r �i F 4 1 .r ' 4i{ 4 lot- i out s� I 5, 1 TT c _ h i,t`v 54R - r % �. .. t � � �•. � �,� � Wit? .�, � ° c� r MCA Ax i - •`S .,��, 'j T "ate i. C . '� d i j, s k �4 f yi t 001 w t F *F a b f Ji i �t V J t 9•. E r r • A Its k q�} ol ti • A r r'�. a r•, P - _;�!"�� +;: fit^ �. a' 'k ., ak - ,• � 4 A �' :,: ,r� �" I t' -."€ � �, a �`. y„ �`�1 nx,., `�, .� � :• - � ,,.sty' 'v",�' �" - .� ,�'�+ yyn � r,�q s x ` .. *��•47an [�. � �� � i "1 P 'Y1�N, ',� Yuw. �.:,,... 3 I^;a� h Y ,�� � i '�� �� � Epp � x' �•�ri i ix f � iii d ar � H Y'c iPtkn q , me u P r • ., i r, r ran „R a T.......... . Ala. INTO 7jjl 3t14lZttl j w I 4,0A h I Y ww y M ka � _ - 4¢,s -1�• # � .'4 fi � tip. q � �sy •Y j,a' I* Cr f. 4P 4 f'w - s r ?V p^t' i it jj R 4r_ �• Ydl.� i.+if3�4. � . � �J 0 0 Ir (� • Attachment 3 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES • I, Denise Kaspar , being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City, of Saratoga Planning Commission on the 23rd day of April , 2007, that I deposited 188 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 per are the owners of said property who are entitled to a. Notice of Hearing pursuant to Section 15- 45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property described as: APN: 386 -01 -026 Address: 12148 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road that on said day there was regular. communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. enise Kaspar Advanced Listing Services is City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408- 868 -1222 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on: Wednesday, the 9th day of May 2007, at 7:00 p.m. The public hearing will be held in the City Hall theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. The public hearing agenda item is stated below. Details of this item are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. — 5:00 p.m. Please consult the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us regarding Friday office closures. APPLICATION /ADDRESS: #07 -275 —12148 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road APPLICANT: Peet's Coffee & Tea (tenant); K & S Co. (property owner) APN: 386 -01 -026 DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to establish a restaurant in an existing approximately 2,400- square foot vacant tenant space, which was formerly occupied by a title company. The site is zoned C -V. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before Monday, April 30, 2007. A site visit will be held on the day preceding the hearing date listed above as part of the standard Site Visit Committee agenda. Site visits occur between 3:30 and 5:00 p.m. The site visit is open to the public. The Site Visit Committee will convene at the City Hall parking lot at 3:30 p.m. on the day preceding the hearing and visit the site listed above. They may visit.other sites as well. For more information, please contact the Community Development Department at 408 868 -1222 or review the Site Visit Agenda on the City website at www.sarato ag ca.us. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor's office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out -of -date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. Suzanne Thomas Assistant Planner 408- 868 -1212 APRIL 24, 2007 500' OWNERSHIP LISTING PREPARED FOR: 386 -01 -026 PEET'S COFFEE & TEA 12148 SARATOGA SUNNYVALE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 366 -10 -054 366 =10 -061 BLUE HILLS MED CENTERS ASSOCS LABARBERA FAMILY TRUST . or CURRENT OWNER 930 SPRINGFIELD DR 20555 PROSPECT RD CAMPBELL CA 95008 -0915 CUPERTINO CA 95014 -5212 366 -22 -022 DANNA BLUE HILLS LLC PO BOX 5367 SAN JOSE CA 95150 -5367 366 -22 -031 SUJAI HAJELA or CURRENT OWNER 12095 SARATOGA VILLA PL SARATOGA CA 95070 -3023 366 -22 -023 BERTO DEVELOPMENT 150 BROOKE ACRES DR LOS GATOS CA 95032 -6454 366 -22 -032 PATRICK L & SONIA KENNEDY or CURRENT OWNER 12113 SARATOGA VILLA PL SARATOGA CA 95070 -3023 366 -22 -034 366 -22 -035 LINH •D NGO SIVAKUMAR MANICKAM or CURRENT OWNER or CURRENT OWNER 12176 SARATOGA VILLA PL 12158 SARATOGA VILLA PL SARATOGA CA 95070 -3023 SARATOGA CA 95070 -3023 366 -35 -001 JAMES R NOWLIN 884 TYNER WAY . INCLINE VILLAGE NV 89451 -8518 366 -35 -004 ANITA PALLI or CURRENT OWNER 20563 OAK CREEK LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -3038 366 -35 -007 JEM K LIN or CURRENT OWNER 20575 OAK CREEK LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -3070 366 -35 -002 CAROL S TUCKMAN or CURRENT OWNER 20555 OAK CREEK LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -3038 366 -35 -005 BRIAN & KRISTI SACKETT or CURRENT OWNER 20567 OAK CREEK LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -3038 366 -35 -008 PAGANI 2006 2700 WROXTON RD HOUSTON TX 77005 • 366 -10 -120 ATAM P SANDHU 6514 CAMDEN AVE SAN JOSE CA 95120 -1804 366 -22 -030 TAKASHI YOSHIOKA or CURRENT OWNER 20570 PROSPECT RD CUPERTINO CA 95014 -5203 366 -22 -033 MAJID & AMIRNAZ NOVID or CURRENT OWNER 12143 SARATOGA VILLA PL SARATOGA CA 95070 -3023 366 -22 -036 RADHAKRISHNAN & USHA SUNDAR or CURRENT OWNER 12128 SARATOGA VILLA PL SARATOGA CA 95070 -3023 366 -35 -003 BECKY C LEE or CURRENT OWNER 20559 OAK CREEK LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -3038 366 -35 -006 C SALLAN or CURRENT OWNER 20571 OAK CREEK LN. SARATOGA CA 95070 -3038 366 -35 -009 VISHWAMBER YELSANGIKAR or CURRENT OWNER 20605 OAK CREEK LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -3070 366 -35 -010 366 -35 -011 366 -35 -012 DAVID A DALTON GREG SMITH WILLIAM A & DEBORAH RAWLIN or CURRENT OWNER - or CURRENT OWNER or CURRENT OWNER 20609 OAK CREEK LN 20615 OAK CREEK LN 20619 OAK CREEK LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -3070 SARATOGA CA 95070 -3070 SARATOGA CA 95070 -3070 366 -35 -013 BYEUNG LEE or CURRENT OWNER OAK CREEK LN TOGA CA 95070 -3028 366 -35 -016 HEMANT R & URMILA HABBU or CURRENT OWNER 20572 OAK CREEK LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -3036 366 -35 -014 KENNETH K YAMADA or CURRENT OWNER 20580 OAK CREEK LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -3028 366 -35 -017 HARUHIRO H GOTO or CURRENT OWNER 20568 OAK CREEK LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -3036 366 -35 -015 NASSER MAHALLATI or CURRENT OWNER 20576 OAK CREEK LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -3028 366 -35 -018 CUDDALORE & SATHYABHAMA SUNDAR or CURRENT OWNER 20564 OAK CREEK LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -3036 372 -20 -007, 008, 010,.021, 022, 021, 366- 372 -20- 011,'013 366-35-019,20,21 366 -36 -001 35 -022 366 -22 -024 ANNA SO OAK CREEK INVESTMENTS S C V W D 1746 RIDGETREE WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -3082 5750 Almaden Exp SAN JOSE CA 95131 -1945 San Jose CA 95118 372 -20 -014 372 -20 -015 372 -20 -020, 24,25 BUFORD TONEY LEE SANG D & UN S YOUNG C & KATHERINE KIM or CURRENT OWNER 566 ADDISON AVE PO BOX 2818 PALO ALTO CA 94301 -3203 ALPHARETTA GA 30023 -2818 SAN PROSPECT RD C SAN JOSE CA 95129 -4602 372 -34 -001 372 -34 -002 372 -34 -003 RAGHUNATH RAMAN VIJAY UBHAYAKER WALTER MACDONALD or CURRENT OWNER or CURRENT OWNER 1290 PINE AVE 7151 BRISBANE CT 7153 BRISBANE CT SAN JOSE CA 95125 -3957 S JOSE CA 95129 -4648 SAN JOSE CA 95129 -4648 3 - 4 -004 372 -34 -005 372 -34 -006 SHIRLEY P LIN ZBIGNIEW J & URSZULA SUFLETA STANLEY N & DONNA THOMAS or CURRENT OWNER or CURRENT OWNER or CURRENT OWNER 7157 BRISBANE CT 7159 BRISBANE CT 7161 BRISBANE CT SAN JOSE CA 95129 -4648 SAN JOSE CA 95129 -4648 SAN JOSE CA 95129 -4648 372 -34 -007 372 -34 -008 372 -34 -009 CHEE H CHU ALAN & MARINA KAUFMAN IRENE & FAYE YANG or CURRENT OWNER or CURRENT OWNER or CURRENT OWNER 7163 BRISBANE CT 7165 BRISBANE CT 7167 BRISBANE CT SAN JOSE CA 95129 -4648 SAN JOSE CA 95129 -4648 SAN JOSE CA 95129 -4648 372 -34 -010 372 -34 -011 372 -34 -012 SHOGGY & SEONG PARK BHASKER S NALLAPOTHULA HEEJAE KIM or CURRENT OWNER or CURRENT OWNER or CURRENT OWNER 7169 BRISBANE CT 7171 BRISBANE CT 7173 BRISBANE CT SAN JOSE CA 95129 -4648 SAN JOSE CA 95129 -4648 SAN JOSE CA 95129 -4649 372 -34 -013 372 -34 -014 372 -34 -015 BOBBY & DONNA JOHNSON SARAVANAN SUNDARAM LARRY C LAM or CURRENT OWNER or CURRENT OWNER or CURRENT OWNER 7175 BRISBANE CT 7177 BRISBANE CT 7185 BRISBANE CT SAN JOSE CA 95129 -4649 SAN JOSE CA 95129 -4649 SAN JOSE CA 95129 -4649 016 372 -34 -017 372 -34 -018 JNWY WONG WALIA TRUST CHANDRA GELLI c)r CURRENT OWNER or CURRENT OWNER or CURRENT OWNER 7183 BRISBANE CT 7181 BRISBANE CT 7179 BRISBANE CT SAN JOSE CA 95129 -4649 SAN JOSE CA 95129 -4649 SAN JOSE CA 95129 -4649 386 -01 -008 386 -01 -025 386 -01 -026 ADD INVESTMENT INC NAJWA S SAAH JF PLAZA PARTNERS L P 961 HILLSBORO AVE 5852 TEXAS CT 50 CALIFORNIA ST 1500 SUNNYVALE CA 94087 -1175 SAN JOSE CA 95120 -3856 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 -4612 0 386 -01 -027 386 -30 -001 386 -30 -002 SARATOGA NATIONAL BANK N A STUART P & BEVERLY FITZPATRICK ESTHER & ALEXANDER KO or CURRENT OWNER or CURRENT OWNER 20703 GREENLEAF DR 12000 SARATOGA SUNNYVALE RD 20410 KIRKMONT DR CUPERTINO CA 95014 -1907 SARATOGA CA 95070 -3024 SARATOGA CA 95070 -3120 386 -30 -004 386 -30 -005 386 -30 -039 RICHARD J & BARBARA, BRENDLEN GORDON R SMART RICHARD G & MARIETTE WILLIAMS or CURRENT OWNER or CURRENT OWNER or CURRENT OWNER. 12200 KIRKDALE DR 12222 KIRKDALE DR 12230 SARATOGA SUNNYVALE RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -3149 SARATOGA CA 95070 -3149 SARATOGA CA 95070 -3079 386 -33 -009 JANET W FALCO or CURRENT OWNER 20377 MERIDA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3123 386 -33 -012 KENNETH & SONIA HSU or CURRENT OWNER 12055 NATOMA CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3143 386 -33 -015 ATI MANAGEMENT INC 3110 W GLENDALE AVE VISALIA CA 93291 -6529 386 -33 -018 JOHN & JAMIE CHANG or CURRENT OWNER. 12166 NATOMA CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3124 386 -33 -021 BARRETT C BREUCKMAN or CURRENT OWNER 12100 NATOMA CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3124 386 -33 -061 HAU -YUNG CHEN or CURRENT OWNER 20377 KIRKMONT DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3119 386 -56 -001 GENE JU or CURRENT OWNER 20430 ATRIUM DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3109 386 -33 -010 CHEN TRUST or CURRENT OWNER 20399 MERIDA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3123 386 -33 -013 HWAI HSU or CURRENT OWNER 12077 NATOMA CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3143 386 -33 -016 BO WAHLGREN or CURRENT OWNER 12133 NATOMA CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3124 386 -33 -019 SAI WONG or CURRENT OWNER 12144 NATOMA CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3124 386 -33 -022 HANNA NGAI or CURRENT OWNER 12088 NATOMA CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3142 386 -33 -062 HSI HUANG or CURRENT OWNER 20389 KIRKMONT DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3119 386 -56 -002 EDITH ARD 7547 DE LA FARGE DR CUPERTINO CA 95014 -4360 386 -33 -011 EDWARD J & ESSIE WHITE or CURRENT OWNER. 20401 MERIDA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3123 386 -33 -014 JAMES C & BARBARA BROWN or CURRENT OWNER 12099 NATOMA CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3143 386 -33 -017 WEN -JEI HO or CURRENT OWNER 12155 NATOMA CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3124 386 -33 -020 SRIKUMAR R & SUBHASHINI CHANDRAN or CURRENT OWNER 12122 NATOMA CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3124 386 -33 -023 DENNIS D & ROBYN SWAN or CURRENT OWNER 12066 NATOMA CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -3142 386 -33 -063 MAY -I CHO or CURRENT OWNER 20401 KIRKMONT DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3119 386 -56 -003 YOSHINORI & HIROKO MURAK or CURRENT OWNER 20410 ATRIUM DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3109 386 -56 -004 NANDAKUMAR S PALANISWAMY or CURRENT OWNER ATRIUM DR TOGA CA 95070 -3161 386 -56 -007 JINGBO GAO or CURRENT OWNER 12099 ATRIUM DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3161 386 -56 -010 FENWICKE HOLMES or CURRENT OWNER 12137 ATRIUM DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3162 386 -56 -013 GE BAO L & LI JING or CURRENT OWNER 12143 ATRIUM DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3162 386 -56 -016 MELANIE R HARRIS or CURRENT OWNER 12151 ATRIUM DR TOGA CA 95070 -3162 3 -56 -019 LOUIS A RUNFOLA or CURRENT OWNER 12159 ATRIUM DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3105 386 -56 -022 ANN M LERONE or CURRENT OWNER 20415 KIRKMONT DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3144 386 -56 -025 MARGARET M & DONALD DRENTH PO BOX 20852 SAN JOSE CA 95160 -0852 386 -56 -028 CHARLES & ANN BLACKWELL or CURRENT OWNER 12192 ATRIUM DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3145 * 031 AEL C & SUSANA ZIEGEL or CURRENT OWNER 12170 ATRIUM DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3145 386 -56 -005 VIKRAM & TANU KOHLI or CURRENT OWNER 12093 ATRIUM DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3161 386 -56 -008 KIRAN B & HARPREET VITTAL or CURRENT OWNER 12133 ATRIUM DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3162 386 -56 -011 PEW CHEN or CURRENT OWNER 12139 ATRIUM DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3162 386 -56 -014 ELLEN YANG or CURRENT OWNER 12147 ATRIUM DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3162 386 -56 -017 RUI LIU or CURRENT OWNER 12153 ATRIUM DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3162 386 -56 -020 JINBO & JIAJING LI or CURRENT OWNER 12175 ATRIUM DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3105 386 -56 -006 NATARAJAN & SANDHYA VISWANATAN or CURRENT OWNER 12097 ATRIUM DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3161 386 -56 -009 PINGHUA YANG or CURRENT OWNER 12135 ATRIUM DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3162 386 -56 -012 SCOTT C REESE 3129 WOODMONT DR SAN JOSE CA 95118 -1454 386 -56 -015 CHANGCHUAN A LEE or CURRENT OWNER 12149 ATRIUM DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3162 386 -56 -018 ARKADI & REGINA GALICKI or CURRENT OWNER 12157 ATRIUM DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3105 386 -56 -021 KENNETH M & ELIZABETH SILVERMAN or CURRENT OWNER 12179 ATRIUM DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3105 386 -56 -023 . 386 -56 -024 GNANALAKSHMI VANNINSEGARAM WALTER N SZE or CURRENT OWNER 17255 CANYON DR 20427 KIRKMONT DR LAKE OSWEGO OR 97034 -6709 SARATOGA CA 95070 -3144 386 -56 -026 LEON D KOWALESKI or CURRENT OWNER 12198 ATRIUM DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3145 386 -56 -029 MARLENE C SCHMID or CURRENT OWNER 12190 ATRIUM DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3145 386 -56 -032 INYEOL & HAEYOUNG LEE or CURRENT OWNER 12158 ATRIUM DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3145 386 -56 -027 YOUNG LEE or CURRENT OWNER 12196 ATRIUM DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3145 386 -56 -030 CYNTHIA 'Z UESATO or CURRENT OWNER 12172 ATRIUM DR' SARATOGA CA 95070 -3145 386 -56 -033 NMI -LONG KAO or CURRENT OWNER 12156 ATRIUM DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3108 386 -56 -034 GIUSEPPINA DIEHL 1532.LOS RIOS DR SAN JOSE CA 95120 -4826 386 -56 -037 HUBERT B & JANE GRABAU or CURRENT OWNER. 12136 ATRIUM DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3108 386 -56 -040 DEBRA NISHIMURA, or CURRENT OWNER 12116 ATRIUM DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3103 386 -56 -043 SHIRLEY SIPOREN or CURRENT OWNER 12096 ATRIUM DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3103 386 -56 -035 HAIMIN & HONG ZHANG or CURRENT OWNER 12150 ATRIUM, DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3108 386 -56 -038 MAN F XU or CURRENT OWNER 12132 ATRIUM DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3103 386 -56 -041 JOHN W DAVIES PO BOX 2039 SARATOGA CA 95070 -0039 386 -56 -044 HSUEH.CHU 20435 WALNUT AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5426 386 -57 -002 386 -57 -003 EDWARD C & VIVIAN MCLAUGHLIN WANG MAN 2171 MANZANITA AVE or CURRENT OWNER MENLO PARK CA 94025 -6539 12239 ATRIUM CIR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3102 386 -57 -005 386 -57 -006 KATHARINE H WALKER MAHENDRA & JAYMATI RANCHOD 2010 W CLIFF DR 2220 WAVERLEY ST SANTA CRUZ CA 95060 -6253 PALO ALTO CA 94301 -4141 386 -57 -008 RALPH R VANHINE or CURRENT OWNER 12269 ATRIUM CIR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3107 386 -57 -009 ROSELLE DANCE or CURRENT OWNER 12275, ATRIUM CIR SARATOGACA 95070 -3107 386 -57 -011 386 -57 -012 MANJUNATH RAMAIAH SALVATORE R & ONORINA FURIOSI or CURRENT OWNER 12792 MILLER AVE 12287 ATRIUM CIR SARATOGA CA 95070 -4029 SARATOGA CA 95070 -3.107 386 -57 -014 .386.57 -015 CHAMBERLAIN SRIDHAR & VISHALI TIRUMALA or CURRENT OWNER or CURRENT OWNER 12296 ATRIUM CIR 12290 ATRIUM CIR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3,101 SARATOGA CA 95070 -3101 386 -56 -036 CHARLES P & RUTH EGGEN 12646 PLYMOUTH DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3933 386 -56 -039 SHU- CHIUNG CHIN PO BOX 2425 SARATOGA CA 95070 -0425 386 -56 -042 MARY TALLIS or CURRENT OWNER 12098 ATRIUM DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3103 386 -56 -045 KATHARINE J JEN or CURRENT OWNER 12090 ATRIUM DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3103 386 -57 -004 IREIVE & MIKE ROTHBAUM PO BOX 810490 DALLAS TX 75381 -0490 386 -57 =007 AWINASH SINHA or CURRENT OWNER 12263 ATRIUM CIR . SARATOGA CA 95070 -3102 386 -57 -010 JOHN M THOMPSON or CURRENT OWNER 12281 ATRIUM CIR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3107 386 -57 -013 GAIL SHEIRBON or CURRENT OWNER 12299 ATRIUM CIR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3107 386 -57 -016 YEH TRUST or CURRENT OWNER 12284 ATRIUM CIR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3101 386 -57 -017 386 -57 -018 386 -57 -019 MILDRED S BLINK DONGJAE LEE _ URSULA ANDERSON PO BOX 3452 or CURRENT OWNER or CURRENT OWNER SARATOGA CA 95070 -1452 12230 ATRIUM CIR 12224 ATRIUM CIR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3 101 SARATOGA CA 95070 -3101 • • • 386 -57 -020 FRANCES REIGELMAN or CURRENT OWNER ATRIUM CIR TOGA CA 95070 -3101 366 -10 -133 DOLLINGER DE ANZA ASSOCS 555 TWIN DOLPHIN DR 600 REDWOOD CITY CA 94065 -2130 366 -36 -004 HELEN FELLER OR CURRENT OWNER 12339 JULIE LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -3043 366 -36 -007 JONATHAN M & MARI KAPLAN OR CURRENT OWNER 12327 JULIE LN . SARATOGA CA 95070 -3043 366 -36 -010 JAY C GILLIS OR CURRENT OWNER 12316 JULIE LN TOGA CA 95070 -3042 3 -36 -013 CURTNER INVESTORS OR CURRENT OWNER 12300 JULIE LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -3042 366 -36 -016 LIDA L KON OR CURRENT OWNER 20631 OAK CREEK LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -3039 366 -36 -019 BIND JOHN OR CURRENT. OWNER 20643 OAK CREEK LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -3039 366 -36 -022 YU -DE LIOU OR CURRENT OWNER 20657 OAK CREEK LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -3039 025 OJ JAYADEVAN OR CURRENT OWNER 20644 OAK CREEK LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -3037 386 -57 -021 386 -57 -022 JOHN H HEINDEL SACHI E & TATSUKO ADACHI 12468 PARKER RANCH CT 20431 CUNNINGHAM PL SARATOGA CA 95070 -6501 SARATOGA CA 95070 -4327 366 -36 -002 366 -36 -003 LORI -A ELLINGBOE CHANG -LEE CHAN OR CURRENT OWNER CHAN,CHANG -LEE LILY TR 12347 JULIE LN 12343 JULIE LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -3044 SARATOGA CA 95070 -3044 366 -36 -005 366 -36 -006 GERALD R HARP ROBERT & DEBORAH RODIN OR CURRENT OWNER 1390 INVERNESS DR 12335 JULIE LN PASADENA CA 91103 -1117 SARATOGA CA 95070 -3043 366 -36 -008 366 -36 -009 MERCEDES F TAN JAMES W & BARBARA MOORE 3144 KERMATH DR OR CURRENT OWNER' SAN JOSE CA 95132 -1225 12320 JULIE LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -3042 366 -36 -011 366 -36 -012 ALICE TANG JOSEPH G & VALERIE MARVIN 7033 VIA SERENA OR CURRENT OWNER SAN JOSE CA 95139 -1162 12308 JULIE LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -3042 366 -36 -014 366 -36 -015 LARRY L WEST LINN N & CAROLYN HONG OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 20623 OAK CREEK LN 20627 OAK CREEK LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -3070 SARATOGA CA 95070 -3039 366 -36 -017 366 -36 -018 LESLIE MAHAN EDDIE N & LEANNE LEE OR CURRENT OWNER 708 IRIS GARDENS CT 20635 OAK CREEK LN SAN JOSE CA 95125 -1642 SARATOGA CA 95070 -3039 366 -36 -020 366 -36 -021 MOHAN C KANTHAPPAN WILLIAM A & ATSUKO BAGLEY OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 20647 OAK CREEK LN 20653 OAK CREEK LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -3039 SARATOGA CA 95070 -3039 366 -36 -023 366 -36 -024 RANGACHARI & RANJANI AMAL K BHATT NARASIMHAN OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 20665 OAK CREEK LN 20661 OAK CREEK LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -3039 SARATOGA CA 95070 -3039 366 -36 -027 366 -36 -026 YUHSHENG TSUEI YOUNG E & ANGELA RHEE OR CURRENT OWNER 21037 BANK MILL RD 20636 OAK CREEK LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5704 SARATOGA CA 95070 -3037 366 -36 -028 366 -36 -029 SRINIVASAN & LATHA SEKAR ERH -FAN CHAO OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT .OWNER 20632 OAK CREEK LN 20628 OAK CREEK LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -3037 SARATOGA CA 95070 -3037 366 -36 -031 366 -36 -032 C T U PING -CHIN WU OR CURRENT OWNER 20656 CRAIG 12305 JULIE LN CUPERTINO CA 95014 -2912 SARATOGA CA 95070 -3043 366 -36 -034 372 -19 -029 XINBI CHEN WEN -LUNG CHOW OR CURRENT OWNER 13634 HOWEN DR 12319 JULIE LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5453 SARATOGA CA- 95070 -3043 386 -30 -006 386 -30- 036,038 CHAO YE JOHN OLIVER OR CURRENT OWNER PO BOX 729 12236 KIRKDALE DR MENDOCINO CA 95460 -0729 SARATOGA CA 95070 -3149 CITY OF SARATOGA Advanced Listing Services ATTN: SUZANNE THOMAS P.O. Box 2593 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE Dana Point CA 92629 SARATOGA CA 95070 366 -36 -030 KWANG & SHU LIN OR CURRENT OWNER 12301 JULIE LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -3043 366 -36 -033 BARBARA K ROMANDIA 125 CARNEROS AVE AROMAS CA 95004 -9738 372 -20 -028 MARINA PLAZA LLC 4546 EL CAMINO REAL LOS ALTOS CA 94022 -1099 386 -33 -008 FLORENCE V ZUPANCIC OR CURRENT OWNER 20355 MERIDA DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -3123 • • Attachment, 4 • 1 City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form FEB 2,8 ZU07 _ Date: CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ADDRESS: 1 2- ( L4 A Sunrl�Va�-, Applicant Name: Application Number: TED 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 1 reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods. V(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. 0My 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): 9 Neighbor Name: S / 77t Neighbor Address: od���9 `ivy ✓%� �- . Neighbor Phone Number: Signature: Printed: 5 of5 9 • City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: ,2 i t PROJECT ADDRESS: Z I L4 A SQ SuVlhLA V.) , Applicant Name: Application Number: TED FEB 28'tUU1 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 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. )kAy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. OMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: Ll �A S��s�az� S�� 1 CA- `t f-z % Neighbor Phone Number: Signature: Printed: 5 of 5 City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: a / 1 i —/C4-. PROJECT. ADDRESS: 11 1 L4 A Srara 6a a su—yh' Applicant Name:_lpagi S CO�e, C � � `J Application Number: T K) FEB 2.8 �UU7 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 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. QMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. OMy'signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: Neighbor Phone Number: t% ✓ c�E�? -r� Z Signature: Printed: 5 of 5 • • r� u • • • City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: -21 -1 � (137 PROJECT ADDRESS: 114 A 5rd rairtia a .Suy1nU Val, Applicant Name: TAG S co� ,e, T2 - Application Number: TIED • .FEB 2:8 2UU7 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 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. Amy 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: L Neighbor Phone Number: It Signature: 1 17" Printed: l wS 5of5 City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: ;2 2 /O � PROJECT ADDRESS: 12-14 A I ra sunriq halt, Applicant Name: Application Number: Tbr) FEB 28 2001 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 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: L�-n u ni 'j or ;.LL— Neighbor Address: I.aC I $ XD- - Neighbor Phone Number �3 Signature: Printed: - SuarTlc L, .,9/ ✓��� Z 5 of 5 U� E • 1�1 u U City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: �a b3 I /D -,4— PROJECT ADDRESS: 17 I L4 8Ia ra p a Suylncl va jt, Applicant Name: p �S C04 e, � TP J Application Number: TED • FEB 28 2UU7 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 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 scone of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. OMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): i Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: Neighbor Phone Number: ����/'Y Signature: Printed: ley sir � � << V 5 of 5 City of Saratoga iv Neighbor Notification Form FEB 2 8 200 Date: CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ADDRESS: 12.1 L4 A Sca ra�-r�et a Suvin�l Ua , Applicant Name: Application Number: T 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: ty signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of k; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public he on the proposed project. 0My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the stove of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: 5ara�0GG suno uo l e Pd SaYafiOo�a CA Neighbor Phone Number 4Qz 1 46 — `1 f S ) Signature: Printed: a -a► 09- 5of5 • • City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: PROJECT ADDRESS: I chi SQ ra ^� SftVlht� L "��e, 1 Applicant Name: Application Number: TbD 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. 6NIy 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: A-1 G07 o Neighbor Phone Number: (q u b Signature: Printed: 5of5 • City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: PROJECT ADDRESS: 12.1 L4 A Sunnya�, Applicant Name:P `J Application Number: Ib • ((�� E C U V E L' FEB 2 8 IUU7 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 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. AMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ❑My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been ad es ed. M oncerns ar the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): if Neighbor Name: it i t Neighbor Address: Si h J?,- !. Neighbor Phone Number: Signature: Printed: 5 of 5 • City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: 1 + �. FEB 2.8 200 PROJECT ADDRESS: 12-1 L4 A S{a,r� SuVt►'i�t �a�, CITY OF SARATOGA y� J COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Applicant Name: `�0J S G04e'e' F- T a Application Number: T6D 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 ork; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. OMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name:�GY C� Neighbor Address: ` (� Neighbor Phone Number: Signature: Printed: k 2,4� 5of5 • City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: - l';�-1 PROJECT ADDRESS: 12-14A ar-a6a d Sunr)q vat—,, Applicant Name: lace Ls C0�- a�, ��mp - �J FEB 2-8 2007 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Application Number: T &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. 1VIy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of rk; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the. applicant prior to the-City's-public hearing on the proposed project. 0My 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: �` to Neighbor Phone Number: Signature: Printed: yFI 5 of 5 • City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: 1 ! , - P R O J E C T ADDRESS: 1 Z 1 L} Sca rtL �d a Suylnut �a; Applicant Name: 'P S GO'%�ep, F- T, - J Application Number: T(D BD E C E �,V�E FEB 28 2001 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 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. 0My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. DMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: Su.ntt (�. 'RU . y va S a.��.-i o CC) CtS;D -7D Neighbor Phone Number: `[VO- qQ�b - Signature: 1 Printed: 5of5 City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Up 2.8 1UU 1 Date: -14)1 1 CITY OF SARA II 00i-\ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ADDRESS: 12 I L4 8 Sgca�24 SunnU Va�, Applicant Name: %V —� s Co4e�, F- TP J 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. I�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. DMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work; and I4have 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: SkJL4tCr0&A CAL— Neighbor Phone Numbe f 44t s 7iS:-_ S$ �v Signature: Printed: 5 of 5 C7 • • • February 21st, 2007 Neighbor 12149 Atrium Dr., Saratoga, CA PROJECT Peet's Coffee & Tea located at 12148 SARATOGA SUNNYVALE RD. SARATOGA, CA 95070 PROJECT NUMBER: TBD Dear Neighbor, 7 Peet's Coffee & Tea . 1400 Park Avenue D Emeryville, CA 946o8 FFA 2 8 YUU7 t: 510.594.2100 CITY OF SARATOGA f: 510.594.2122 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Peet's Coffee & Tea is proposing a project at the above stated address and would like to provide you with an opportunity to review the proposal and provide comments. All of the adjacent neighbors and the neighbors across the street from the property are being provided the attached notice as a courtesy in advance of the standard City Notice which will be sent out prior to a decision being made on the project. The City of Saratoga asks the attached form and a reduced set of plans be signed by each neighbor to indicate that they have had an opportunity to review the proposal. Please be advised that these plans are preliminary and may change. If you have further interest in the project, you may contact the City of Saratoga at (408)868 -1222 and speak with the assigned project planner. Known as the "grandfather of specialty coffee;' Peet's Coffee & Tea has been a Berkeley institution since opening its doors more than forty years ago. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, Peet's Coffee & Tea was a pioneer among other food purveyors in Berkeley's "gourmet ghetto" - a collection of European style shops and restaurants. Today, traditional values are maintained through the hard work and attention to detail that is essential to creating coffees of distinction. The roasting facility is in Emeryville, just a few miles from the original location on Vine Street in Berkeley, which still attracts a large, loyal following, including many who are proud that they have been customers since the store opened in 1966. Thank you for your interest in the development of this project. Please contact me with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Margaret Trujillo Peet's Coffee& Tea Construction Manager 1400 Park Ave., Emeryville, CA 94608 510.594.3226 Direct /510.225 -5645 Cell/510.594.2122 Fax mtruiillo @peets.com Pe* ofie &-ka- Page 1 of 1 /`' . .,. a 2,1, 1 , rLx- S • February 21 St, 2007 Neighbor 12147 Atrium Dr., Saratoga, CA PROJECT Peet's Coffee & Tea located at 12148 SARATOGA SUNNYVALE RD. SARATOGA, CA 95070 PROJECT NUMBER: TBD Dear Neighbor, Peet's Coffee & Tea 1400 Park Avenue Emeryville, CA 946o8 t: 510.594.2100 f: 510.594.2122 U L5 Ly l5 � U L5 f . Ii FFR 2.8 2007 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN, Peet's Coffee & Tea is proposing a project at the above stated address and would like to provide you with an opportunity to review the proposal and provide comments. All of the adjacent neighbors and the neighbors across the street from the property are being provided the attached notice as a courtesy in advance of the standard City Notice which will be sent out prior to a decision being made on the project. The City of Saratoga asks the attached form and a reduced set of plans be signed by each neighbor to indicate that they have. had an opportunity to review the proposal. Please be advised that these plans are preliminary and may change. If you have further interest in the project, you may contact the City of Saratoga at (408)868 -1222 and speak with the assigned project planner. Known as the "grandfather of specialty coffee," Peet's Coffee & Tea has been a Berkeley institution since opening its doors more than forty years ago. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, Peet's Coffee & Tea was a. pioneer among other food purveyors in Berkeley's "gourmet ghetto" - a collection of European style shops and restaurants. Today, traditional values are maintained through the.hard work and attention to detail that is essential to creating coffees of distinction. The roasting facility is in Emeryville, just a few miles from the original location on Vine Street in Berkeley, which still attracts a large, loyal following, including many who are proud that they have been customers since the store opened in 1966. Thank you for your interest in the development of._this project. Please contact me with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Margaret Trujillo Peet's Coffee& Tea Construction Manager 1400 Park Ave., Emeryville, CA 94608, 510.594.3226 Direct /510.225 -5645 Cell/510.594.2122 Fax mtrujillo @oeets.com Page 1 of 1 • • • • February 21 st, 2007 Neighbor 12143 Atrium Dr., Saratoga, CA PROJECT Peet's Coffee & Tea located at 12148 SARATOGA SUNNYVALE RD. SARATOGA, CA 95070 PROJECT NUMBER: TBD • Peet's Coffee & Tea 1400 Park Avenue Emeryville, CA 94608 510.594.2100 510.594.21 FEB E C E �.y E J� . 2 8 TUU7 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Dear Neighbor, Peet's Coffee & Tea is proposing a project at the above stated address and would like to provide you with an opportunity to review the proposal and provide comments. All of the adjacent neighbors and the neighbors across the street from the property are being provided the attached notice as a courtesy in advance of the standard City Notice which will be sent out prior to a decision being made on the project. The City of Saratoga asks the attached form and a reduced set of plans be signed by each neighbor to indicate that they have had an opportunity to review the proposal. Please be advised that these plans are preliminary and may change. If you have further interest in the project, you may contact the City of Saratoga at (408)868 -1222 and speak with the assigned project planner. Known as the "grandfather of specialty coffee;' Peet's Coffee & Tea has been a. Berkeley institution since opening its doors more than forty years ago. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, Peet's Coffee & Tea was a pioneer among other food purveyors in Berkeley's "gourmet ghetto" - a collection of European style shops and restaurants. Today, traditional values are maintained through the hard work and attention to detail that is essential to creating coffees of distinction. The roasting facility is in Emeryville, just a few miles from the original location on Vine Street in Berkeley, which still attracts a large, loyal following, including many who are proud that they have been customers since the store opened in 1966. Thank you for your interest in the development of this project. Please contact me with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Margaret Trujillo Peet's Coffee& Tea Construction Manager 1400 Park Ave., Emeryville, CA 94608 510.594.3226 Direct /510.225 -5645 Cell/510.594.2122 Fax mtruiillo @r)eets.com n :.�--�r Pis Coffee &-ka. Page 1 of 1 • February 21 st, 2007 Neighbor 12141 Atrium Dr., Saratoga, CA PROJECT Peet's Coffee & Tea located at 12148 SARATOGA SUNNYVALE RD. SARATOGA, CA 95070 . PROJECT NUMBER: TBD Dear Neighbor, • Peet's Coffee & Tea Park AvenuE Emeryville, CA 946 t: 510.594.21 f: 510.594.2122 FEB 2 8 LUUI CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Peet's Coffee & Tea is proposing a project at the above stated address and would like to provide you with an opportunity to review the proposal and provide comments. All of the adjacent neighbors and the neighbors across the street from the property are being provided the attached notice as a courtesy in advance of the standard City Notice which will be, sent out prior too decision being made on the project. The City of Saratoga asks the attached form and a reduced set of plans be signed by each neighbor to indicate that they have had an opportunity to review the proposal. Please be advised that these plans are preliminary and may change. If you have further interest in the project, you may contact the City of Saratoga at (408)868 -1222 and speak with the assigned project planner. Known cis the "grandfather of specialty coffee;' Peet's Coffee & Tea has been a Berkeley institution since opening its doors more than forty years ago. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, Peet's Coffee & Tea was a pioneer among other food purveyors in Berkeley's "gourmet ghetto" - a collection of European style shops and restaurants. Today, traditional values are maintained through the hard work and attention to detail that is essential to creating coffees of distinction. The roasting facility is in Emeryville, just a few miles from the original location on Vine Street in Berkeley, which still attracts a large, loyal following, including many who are proud that they have been customers since the store opened in 1966. Thank you for your interest in the development of this project. Please contact me with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Margaret Trujillo Peet's Coffee &.Tea Construction Manager 1400 Park Ave., Emeryville, CA 94608 510.594.3226 Direct /510.225 -5645 Cell/510.594.2122 Fax mtrujillo @peets.com 06e&TM- Page 1 of 1 .110 • • • • February 21 n, 2007 Neighbor 12139 Atrium Dr., Saratoga, CA PROJECT Peet's Coffee & Tea located at 12148 SARATOGA SUNNYVALE RD. SARATOGA, CA 95070 PROJECT NUMBER: TBD Dear Neighbor, • Peet's Coffee & Tea 1400 Park Avenue Emeryville, CA 94608 t: 510.594.2100 f: 510.594.2122 fEA 2 8 [U07 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Peet's Coffee & Tea is proposing a project at the above stated address and would like to provide you with an opportunity to review the proposal and provide comments. All of the adjacent neighbors and the neighbors across the street from the property are being provided the attached notice as a courtesy in advance of the standard City Notice which will be sent out prior to a decision being made on the project. The City of Saratoga asks the attached form and a reduced set of plans be signed by each neighbor to indicate that they have had an opportunity to review the proposal. Please be advised that these plans are preliminary and may change. If you have further interest in the project, you may contact the City of Saratoga at (408)868 -1222 and speak with the assigned project planner. Known as the "grandfather of specialty coffee," Peet's Coffee & Tea has been a Berkeley institution since opening its doors more than forty years ago. Throughout the. 1.970s and 1980s, Peet's Coffee & Tea was a pioneer among other food purveyors in Berkeley's "gourmet ghetto" - a collection of European style shops and restaurants. Today, traditional values are maintained through the hard work and attention to detail that is essential to creating coffees of distinction. The roasting facility is in Emeryville, just a few miles from the original location on Vine Street in Berkeley, which still attracts a large, loyal following, including many who are proud that they have been customers since the store opened in 1966. Thank you for your interest in the development of this project. Please contact me with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Margaret Trujillo Peet's Coffee& Tea Construction Manager 1400 Park Ave., Emeryville, CA 94608 510.594.3226 Direct /510.225 -5645 Cell/510.594.2122 Fax mtruiillo @peets.com i` A 1 - ­7 l._ . — i ,cL-1i Page 1 of 1 Atta' • rr above O- MIME ADDREss AND PHONE WIN V jig �;jIll - �� .� /�. .► . ' F&Jj WO 9 _mw,9 MEWS, - - M-1 An 13 10mv / f ..��� 11101 .► �� ► r ' 19 ; mvi Ell 22 2 � � tI � A WMIA [ .� , ''� : i.::� * ).. i!' !.:'- X1 S 5, ��. "Xy Yx. y�F £. sf,; S: 4 -... {:} i ...F� 3 .y YF., T' S. Pxf ar_ ✓ Q.E7�fTION FA1/0:;� OxF� PFEET,S COFFE MQUrNG � A .IN :�'NT � wAR�C . LOCATED AT�12148 SARATOGA- SUNNINALE�ROAD ��SARATOGA CA �� ' � � ; .:'' .. .. We, the undersigned hereby sign this petition in favor of Peet's Coffee moving into the above stated location. - # NAME ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER /4l e�� 0 n^ G s 10 4u _t'), a << 11 c�i �/ (M^ �/ Z 12 2-t�c ` ,ci �'Ti�—�� lc ...mot' 14 15 16 _.� ;� LC.� �., 7-7<' 17 a I oo `� 18 ,/�• 19 DD C r�,rrct�c, 20 14. ;7, r ;� JQr� 22 ' 1 4 r) v�l - Sc " fD IL ��T 70 0 ent 6 • • • APR -30 -O7 03:33 PM PANG ENGINEERS INC. 650 9417264 P-02 PANG ENGINEERS, INC. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS 0704 . April 30, 2007 Ms. Margaret Trujillo Construction Project Manager Peet's Coffee & Tea 1400 Park Ave. Emeryville, CA 94608 Re: Park Saratoga Shopping Center _ 12140 and 1214$ Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road Saratoga, CA Dear Mg. Trujillo: Pursuant to your recent request, we have reviewed the applicable project informatio , . and visited the existing Park Saratoga Shopping Center site on the east side of'Saratoga Sunnyv4lc Road, between Prospect Road and Kirkmont Drive. + We have afro cominudicated with the City of Saratoga, CA regarding the proposed scope: bf .. professional Traffic and Transportation Engineering and Parking services desired. The proposed. project consists of replacing a Title Company office land' use with s.' Peet's Coffee & Tea restaurant use within the identical 2,400 square feet of.gross flg6t eta (CT A). The project site is within a complex of land uses in what is known. + Building B in the Park Saratoga Shopping Center. The objective is to provide an appropriate Trip Generation Comparison of the proposed ; land use and compare it with the existing 2,400 square feet of office use. Additi6il )y, the City` of Saratoga is desirous of a comment regarding whether the existing parking stalls will be sufficient with the proposed project in place. =.STING CONDITION The project site contains the Park Saratoga Shopping Center or Building l3. Building g. is occupied with several businesses e.g. Crepe Daniele restaurant, Quizno's testaurant, "a title conipany to be replaced with feet's Coffee & Tea, North American Title Cor*4, Park Saratoga Dental, Chicago Title Company, Chef Wong's restaurant, #r(d' .•` Countrywide Home Loans. Immediately to the north is the Santa Clara Valley N. f T1 IN YIE-w I A CW Bank building, and to the south the Washington Mutual bank building. .These.'tNV6 ANN e''9 {04° buildings, while on separate parcels, are connected with travel aisles, and vehicles nib ' traverse'the parking lot in front of and to the west of Building B, 948-1030 4i-PANG APR_30_07 03:34 PM PANG ENGINEERS INC. 650 9417264 To the'east of the Santa Clara Valley National Bank building and its parking lot ;'.is Atrium• Drive. Immediately to the east of Atrium Drive and fronting ontp Prospect.: " Road, a four lane major cast -west street with a posted speed of 40 rules per•hour 666), are the .Christian Righteousness Education Center, and Prospect Dental Care, To the east ofIBuilding B are residential duplex units. To the south of the Washington'M%44. bank building is Kirkmont Drive,.a two lane east -west residential collector Street Willi a posted _speed of 25 mph. To the south of Kirkmont Drive are additional residential ..; duplex'. units, as well as a building occupied with Shaw Chiropractic ;Clinic,• 0). _. Republic Title Company etc. -- To the -west of Building B is Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, a four lane major north -south street with a posted speed of 40 mph. Saratoga- Sutttiyyl::. Road has recently been improved with a median landscaping project: To. ttte we;;Y pf: Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road and near Prospect Road are a Union 76 gas stittiion, "a Chickon . Salsa restaurant, Coldwell Banker real estate office, etc. Further southerly in: a separate:" building are a Jake's restaurant, United Real Estate office, a computer repair facility; a` L.earnirlg Center, etc. Northerly of the project site is an existing traffic signal at the Saratoga- '$unnyv4le'.'. Road/Prospect Road intersection. Immediately southerly of the project Site is tie tutsignalized intersection of Saratoga - Sunnyvale RoadMrkmont Drvo, where "tbc minor Cross street is controlled with a STOP sign. Further southerly of:Kirkmoht Drive . along Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road is a traffic signal at Seagull Way. FUTURE CONDMON The 2,400 square feet of office space will be replaced with a Peet's Coffee &. Tea.. p restaurant within the identical 2,400 square feet plus an additional outdoor .seating of approximately 126 square feet, and is known as the "proposed project ". TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON Several- sources were investigated which would provide a reasonable estirtiate of the trip generation for the AM and PM peak hours. These include the Itistiiuie 'of Transportation Engineers . (rrE) and San Diego Association of :Govet7irrie6.ts' (SANE'AG) trip generation references for a Fast Food restaurant wit> but &.drive -i *_ window. Feet's Coffee & Tea has also collected information from an internal survey*of., seven South Bay sites. The "proposed project" as a Fast Food restaurant without a drive -thru window iticltt cs: " and is expected to generate approximately 105 AM and, 63. . the coffze shop . use, a� p 15 pp peak hour trips based on the ITE Trip Generation reference. A percentage of.thest:•�%..; hour trips are already on the street network and may be. considered as "pas5V, ai ..ror "diverted" trips. A "passby" trip is defined as traffic already on the street network aril , b' �i a APR-30-07 03:35 PM PANG ENGINEERS INC. 650 9417264 • 1. "passing by" the site, Usually, the trip is about equal to or less than one. mile in lehgth. A "diverted" trip is a "linked" trip having one or more stops along the prl!AOX y destination route, and usually is equal to or greater than one mile in 1e'q' . gth. . e.'. "primary" trips are the new trips on the street network after deducting the "passby" aild p b "diverted" trips. Pang E> gineers, Inc. has previously performed studies at a Fast Food :restaurant aqw the Dewknza Boulevard and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road corridor which r is ul: -approximately an 857o "passby" rate. Peet's Coffee & Tea internal; 8)LirvPyVAr.:- "passby'' traffic range between 70% and 80%. Since the project site is.,on the e0t a .of S s Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road within the City of Saratoga, with driver he'ad'ffi-g- during the AM peak hour, it appears that a passby rate of about 75% would be a reasonable assumption. When 75% "passby" trips are deducted from the, oii irW estimate, the new primary trips would be at 26AM and 16 PM peak hour trips.. The existing 2,400 square. feet for a title company office has a "Lraf.PC Credit". which was estimated to'generate 4 AM and 4 PM peak hour trips. The expected net project trips are obtained by subtracting the existing title compaty office lind use from the "proposed project" of a Fast Food restaurant wiitfio' t.' a driv' t7 �dow. The net project is expected to have an increase of 22AM primary dim w1 y peik hour trios, and an increase of 12PM primary peak hour trips (Table 1). The trip' generation estimates may also be analyzed utilizing the Peet's Coffee & TCr4 ' ihtemal survey data. During the 7AM to 9AM peak period, the avemge number 6f evistomeXs is 53 per hour. For the 4PM to 6PM peak period, the average hurnber :J customers is 36 per hour. Thus, the PM peak hour generates about 6ko (36/53).01 toe*. AM peik hour customers. Saratoga has an average of about 7% of its vchialm designated as carpools based on their internal surveys. If the assumption is'. that t& � mpployq.,es would arrive prior to the commencement of the street peak boor, that a#, deliveries were to occur outside of the street peak hour or replaced by 18'n* dring t4e- empoolirig factor, then the estimated trip generation would be calcujated.. Witb..t numberof customers x 2 for the inbound and outbound trips for the AM apd. PM pe,11 hours. Thus, this simplistic check would Yield about 106 (53 x 2) vs 105 for the. peak hopr, and 72 (36 x 2) vs 63 for the PM peak hour in Table I before the "p-assby" trips areldeducted. These calculations are quite close to the estimates shown on Ta6la -thru window. Thus, the'trip t for the Fast Food restaurant without a drive i* �)). estimated shown on Table I appear to be reasonable. Thus, the "proposed project" is expected to add new primaty trips. totaling les6 than'' 100. ffi' peak hour trips for both the AM and PM peak hours, and a focus ed Traffic IM pact' Aiialysis (M) is not required based on the Santa Clara Valley Transportation: Authority (VTA) guidelines. -3- P.04 APR -30 -07 03:36 PM PANG ENGINEERS INC. 650 9417264 P.05 PARKING The pOking analysis for the Park Saratoga Shopping Center includes a aikin su 1 ` dem164 and accumulation for the existing condition and for the future" "propoS ;?.< Project condition. The analysis initially appeared to be straight forward, b�l.bec j �Ornetvifiat complicated due to a review of the parcel lot lines shown on reco.,2 e .fib,.• ' ` Which Ore not discernable• on the ground. A parking supply count was perf- °rii.e S: i compared with the ALTA'survey by Kier & Wright, Inc. Civil Engineers. �'he': s; included three- primary parking areas or lots: The first is the parking ,stalls ir�,tb6d , .e,y to the �est of Building 13 the second is the stalls adjacent to and surroufh as :t Washington Mutual building southerly of Building 13, and the third is the stalls ' cast of the Santa Clara Valley National Bank building which is ltieattrd, nor�.h.,. .. ; .. x, Buildin• B. The cornplication is, that the Washington Mutual stalls arc itnteitwined wl those oBuilding B. The stalls for the Santa Clara Valley National Bank building are. appare.iitly identifiable on the ground. The existing parking supply is as follows: Location Parking Stalls 1. Building B and Washington Mutual building 125 r: 2. Santa Clara Valley National Bank 48 . Total 173 ' y The ALTA survey as pointed out by the Architect, yields a somewhat differ�w par 14. �[ sul ply.: Because of the existence of Atrium Drive to the north and east of $uil. ing the parking stalls, located along Atrium Drive east, Atrium Drive west, and An in '. Ddye south are actually part of the parking supply for Building B. This was` unble r• ' vVhen 6rforming the veld review. There are a total of 32 stalls adjacent tsi Atriu p.. Drive With 8 stalls within the 48 stalls that were assumed to be part of the Sang Clara.; .. Valley National Bank lot and near Atrium Drive west, 14 stalls near Atriium`�.rive. eall. , <: an d 10 stalls near Atrium Drive south. Additionally, with a separate parcel for Washington Mutual building, there are 33 parking stalls that should belong to that facility. Thus, the parking supply with the parking stalls adjacent to Atrium` Driye: included, is as follows: Parkin Stalls Location- g 1. Building B 92 , 2, Washington Mutual 33 3, Sang Clara Valley National Bank. 4, Building B near Atrium Drive 32 Total 197 -4- APR-S0 -07 03:37 PM PANG ENGINEERS INC. M.-i , • • 650 9417264 there is a difference of 24 (197-173) parking stalls when inclu' along , ate a] d, Atrium Drive east and Atrium Drive south near the r4l • --he Orking dem6nd survey were perforned on April 11 and 15,, jdays, �dne and included the parking arms in front of Building B. ,ghi on Mutual; building, and the area east of the Santa Clara ValleZ B,i gb�vey did riot court the parking stalls along Atrium Drive cast ail tho those areas appeared to be part of the residential duplex de &A" er f the hqurly counts are utilized in the analysis. The actual aii 8A.M to 9AM morning peak with 23 vehicles, a 12noon t'j W h 56 vehicles, and a 4PM to 5PM afternoon peak with 36 vehic Ps. kg abve parkin -demand did not include the title company office$.'"; j og� requires a restaurant to have a parking stall for each 75 s qu '*a, plus "a parking stall for any outdoor area square footage. ect Is exp, tp A_cW. , to occupy the 2,400 square feet formerly * occa p ,and aid t of outdoor seating -area.* Per. ' u 11 about 126 square fee '"** n be'r of p"ng stalls required would be 34 stalls (2,5205), e... ed and all 34 utn parking stalls were required for every hou W ail then the future parking demand would be increased by a unlfp... S. owevef based oh othe r surveys of coffee shops, it is assuniW.: 1. , A s _:ute is the aVerage time during any peak period for a vehicle to o* cpti , the estimated 105 AM pe ak hour trips is divided by 2 for kn", ,.our d trip, there would be 53 vehicles desiring to park. I If the Alite then there will be an AM peak hour demand for 13 parkiC 9 . . ....... Z- NMI g that all four of the anticipated employees per shift drive alori -h ur. parkin :demand is 17 (13 + 4), and not the 34 stalls r '0 er e eless, the* worst case condition is depicted on Plate I with the e 4p of 90 vehicles during the 12noon to IPM peak hour. F. p le .2 'shows the prking accumulation for several scenarios, e.g. ex 'king supply, with a worst case parking '173 stalf pqr deitand th IN. V V ng'supply, and With a worst case parking demand and the 197 stall ...Val:ea c sceriAijo, the parking accumulation shows a maximum of' -Op fstirl condition, $2% for the 173 stall parking supply condition an'.. Sta pai -king condition during the 12noon to 1PM peak hour. Thiul .-N cot dition, 48% or 83 out of the 173 parking stalls will be vacant. PALN 0 11 5 P-06 k 4: n; 0 APR -30 -07 63:38 PM PANG ENGINEERS INC. 650 5417264 P.07 y S: is � ,`r ' The above parking analysis may then be compared with the parking stalls � aire . p p g �. q .'' ;r ..:., . the City of Saratoga zoning code for the existing and proposed land uses. 'I'he; existlitj ; land uses included the following: a4 1. Carpe Daniele with 1,928 square feet; 2. Qw4no's restaurant with 1960 square feet; ' Y 3. Former Title Company offices with 2,400 square feet.; 4. Nofth Amerlean Title Company with 2,800 square feet; 5: Pack -- Saratoga Dental with 1,440 square feet; ?: 6. Chkaga Tide Company with 2,640 square fe;t:t; 7. Chef Wong's restaurant with 1,400 square feet; 8. Copntrywidc' Home Loans with 3,440 square feet; 9. Washington Mutual building with 4,600 square feet; 10. Santa Clara Valley National Bank with 6,000 square feet. ' '• f .,. The fiat eight land uses above are contained within Building B. With three :restaurants, containing 5,28$ square feet and a parking stall required for each 75 square.' feei;'there . �.: Alt 71 stalls required. For the five office land uses containing 12,720 square feet An, A .. arkin $ stall required for each 200 square feet, there are 64 stalls r6 , uired. Thlzs p. "�� ��. q e9 4 ' Building B is required by code to have 135 (71 + 64) parking stalls. ;..: Similar }y, the Washington Mutual building is required to have 23 stalls (46U0/201), :. and th' Santa Clara Valley National Bank building is required to have 30. sita�ls (6000/00), The total existing parking required is 188 stalls (I35 + 23 + 30). " When the title company is replaced with Peet's Coffee and Tea, the 12 required exist' ; stalls (1400/200) will be replaced with 34 stalls (2526/75). The difference'of 12'..st.8 Is should.,be added to the existing requirement. and the. total for the future is 210 Cl g . b 22) stalls per the zoning code. With the total of 173 stalls or 197 staffs if •:the Atri.ttr6 ; Drive tills are included, there is an apparent parking deficiency of 13 to 37 s'Wls,per ' the zo g) code. Howevcr, based on the actual parking survey. and assirmiri'• the wo St ..• � g 1? $ Y � .: case sc,enarlo with the addition of a maximum of 34 required parking st4ls fpr t e, :^ pr,opos�d project, the parking accumulation will yield a maximum of 52% of the lQw,'irr '. z 173 stIlI parking supply. Thus, the, parking demand 'for Building B, Washialpton' Mutual, and the Santa Clara Valley National Bank building, will be weI1 avaiIabje existing parking supply based on the parking demand survey, with.'tS' . ' estimatgd 48% of the parking stalls or 83 out of 173 stalls vacant. -6- R APR-30-07 03:39 PM PANG ENGINEERS INC. 650 9417264 J 11 CAA P.08 Thus, the conclusion is that the parking requirements for Building B.. Washin t 0 Mutual, and the Santa Clara Valley National Bank building are overstated in code b' about 48%, and that there should be adequate parking with the Y pr project. In sunihiary, the trip generation comparison indicates that the proposed proj&t 'PM' g enera p an estimated 22 and 12 new primary trips during the a t" AM and by itspect illy, and well below the VTA mandated 100 peak hour trips requir6d 0" 3t a focused TIA. Additionally, with the pat-king supply, demand and ac6nlvt—j' AnAlys4 for the worst case condition, there should be adequate par&`ng i Santa parking areas in front of Building B, Washington Mutual, and the V4 9 Nat*ionil Bank lots, which are all interconnected on the ground. Thus, the project is considered to have an insignificant traffic impact with the, wo generation comparison and the parking accumulation analyses. Very Truly YO'urs,. Pang; CE, Y awrened Pang, CE, T�t Enclosurt; Table I-Trip Generation Comparison Plates I and 2 Customers per hour survey, Peet 's Coffee & Tea ALTA Survey (under separate cover) PANG AM 1 44 1 APR =30 -07 03:40 PM PANG ENGINEERS INC. 650 9417264 P.09 9.. Table I TRIP GENERATION .AND USE UNIT TRIP AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR .' RATE. TRIPS 'TRIPS IN OUT IN _ OUT ° PROPOSED p)ZOJECT: a W, !r Fast Food 1. d ithput Drive Thru Window ' 2400 sg.ft. 60% 40% 51% 49% ` AM ..... 43,8 7 63 s: .'S.• 105 PM 26.1 S �� ..... 32 31 APR -30 -07 03:40 PM PANG ENGINEERS INC. 650 9417264 P.10 T' Y.. . •'n ,I , Table I `• ' ` TRI P GENERATION (continued..,) i5 ..J LAND USE UNIT TRIP AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR : .: RATE TRIPS • 4' .7 TRIPS 'Ik.� . ,;....: .. OUT IN OUT .',1. r ' C1 DIT FOR EXISTING LAND USE ,,,.. ' General office :.. '. ' -! 2,400 sq.ft, 88% 12°Ic 17 %, 83 %n . AM .......... 155 ' (3) (4) c�) ..., , PM .......... 1.49 ......... ....:: (1) (3) t 4 i. NAT TOTAL;PRIMARY TRIPS: 2. r� 13 9 AM ... .... .. ....... 2 P,.,., .. ....... ....... ......... 5 rye... a 12 pM = Iv orni�g Peak Hour 3' PIv1— vening peak Hour �_. ;, 'y, sq -ft squa4 feet ` s Ref: (I) Institute of Transportation Engineers, "Trip Generation ", 4 . Seventh Edition, 2001 7590 passby per Peet's Coffee & Tea internal survey. Page 2 of 2 ' 4 -26 -07 0 r .; -.:fi APR -30 -07 03:45 PM PANG ENGINEERS INC. •R BEET'S CQFFEI' TEA �Y AREA ApE'TAIL STORES' ustomors Per Hotlr' - :....,..•.nrn Der Llnr. 650 9417264 P.13 t�l APR -30 -07 03:46 PM PANG ENGINEERS INC. • • L IT jr ry 7i I il t JA L t j rj (VA /ACM LAND ME SURVEY IdA KIER & • 9 OWA CIVI,. MIN 65e 9417264 f IUr j1p i1i if? str f, g :J III 'JZI P. 14 lr 1-A fill pp1i1i HIM I Jill . [fit! U? a Mf f IUr j1p i1i if? str f, g :J III 'JZI P. 14 lr 1-A R ECEIVE Peet °s Coffee & Tel U 1400 Park Avenue APR 10 2007 L=/ Emeryville, cA 946o8 CITY OF SARATOGA t: 510.594.2100C111UNITY DEVELOPMENT f. 510.594.2122 PEET'S COFFEE & TEA OUTDOOR FURNITURE Smith & Hawken Dolce Armchair & 31" Bistro Table Special Information: Load the airy mesh surfaces of these Italian tables with platters of food and bottles of food and bottles of wine, and they remain rigidly flat. Industrial quality steel skin is welded to the rim and the center anchorage for support without ungainly center spokes. The Bistro table seats four; the Dining, six. The flowing mesh of the armchair takes easily to the human form. All pieces have tubular steel frames and are powder - coated for limited weather protection. • Physical Characteristics: perforated steel welded to a tubular, powder- coated steel frame color: aluminum and gunmetal What Makes It Great: Mesh seat and back allow increased air flow and comfort; stackable for storage. Simple assembly required for tables. Life & Care: May be hosed clean. Protect during inclement weather. Dimensions: Table is 31" Round and 29.5" High and 26 lbs., Chair is: Depth: 20 • Width: 22.5 Height: 32.5 Lbs: 12 �.. �, -... -� f _ �� i .� J k !. I ��_ - -. _,.. i a� I ii Aa P 5 . �� ��; �. ��� `-- __ .�: -� ` � � ,� _ ._ �� ". � ��� �4 �, x ��°� ,, �Ir �; Sep 02 05 02:12p Michael Gompertz 925 -258 -9908 MARKET UMBRELLA SPECIFICATIONS FOR Sunbrella # 6021 True grown Peet's Coffee & Tea (April 25, 2005) Air vent Laminated hub Reinforced corner Pockets 9 Ash K.D. pole, manual Steel plate base 1.5" diam. sleeve '/2" plate, 24" dram. Natural wood finial Hardwood frame Solid Brass chain & positioning pin Brass connector Aluminum non- expansion sleeve SPECIFICATIONS: 1: SIZE & SHAPE: 60" square, with 8" valance. Shipping wgt. approx. 30 lbs. Arm end clearance off ground, 84 ". 2. FRAME CONSTRUCTION: Hardwood (Ash) frame. Hubs are vertically laminated of Ash & Oak hardwoods. Ash Poles is K.D. with brass connector sleeve. Poles offer three adjustment holes for fabric tautness. 3. HARDWARE: Stainless steel screws & nuts connecting upper and lower arms with nylon washers between arms at arm connection. Stainless steel arm attachment wire; Brass hub positioning registration pin and chain. Aluminum non - expansion sleeve on bottom of pole to prevent swelling. 4. FABRIC: SunbrellaTrue brown # 6021, Marine grade. Pocket corners reinforced with extra material and stitched over main fabric panels. Silk screen per spec. on center of each of the four valence panels. Main panels are secured with SS screws, to eliminate top from slipping off arms when closed. 5. AIR VENT: Standard air vent, secured by stainless steel screws at end of each comer. 6. BASE: Steel plate, approx. 70lbs, 1/2" thick, 24" diam. , 15" x 1.5 "diam. sleeve. Overall height is 15 ", primed and powder coated black color. Three drilled holes in plate for bolting down to appropriate surface with glides. Base is equipped with straight pin to go through the sleeve, pole and other side of sleeve for quick installation. Pin is not lockable! Shipping wgt. approx. 75 lbs. �J p.2 ill 2 4.4 G. 77 '9999M C • Attachment 8 • C'. • Attachment 8 • • • Attachment 8 • 0 • PROJECT SITE • S- CONDITIONAL- USE PERMIT FOR FEET'S COFFEE S TEA 12148 5,4RATOGA- 5UNNI'VAL-E RD, 5ARATOGA, CALIFORNIA A.F ,N 38(o- 01 -02/o ZONING DISTRiGT. C -V 'I etlowliilrtn — ``daMW� 1L. _ -.� \�� `.• ..._�GeIICD , `—M ,il .__. - . _ I PRELIMINART FLOOR PLAN _. lial3aw Dr "- P -3 R"�n5niv Dr - Orange Biasaom -Dr 9 � I 1e C x I Di, �INawcaste Pach-Mmcao %0 N IO _.TUfiMer $� (_.. SIie#'P:: WaY.': "- t 't'AldAoiwlrWaY - D .1 _ N §WNerfmd Or l� It Slwrsn Dr : DartmdbrWey m =' e Himmor Or a� det {ve F xrn ° 4.,.or @ } [VI Ln m -- se �kqY V Pro W A d MOda:Dr � — I �,• I pa cbW7 -.. APR 3-0 2007 CITY OF SARATOGA 1yOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LIST OF DRAWINGS: C5 -1 COYER SHEET c ea SITE PLAN F-1, PRELIMINART FLOOR PLAN a EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS P -3 OUTDOOR SEATING PLAN N }` ��` \Morn -. ,$'.NOdhemplon Golelq � I Himmor Or a� det {ve I fns "°Lj F xrn ° 4.,.or @ } Yuba APR 3-0 2007 CITY OF SARATOGA 1yOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LIST OF DRAWINGS: C5 -1 COYER SHEET 5P -1 SITE PLAN F-1, PRELIMINART FLOOR PLAN P -2' EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS P -3 OUTDOOR SEATING PLAN PROPERTY OWNER: JEFF ROHRER K d 5 COMPANY 1035 5AN PABLO AVE, "12 ALBANY, CA 94106 PHONE: (510) 528 -1900 PEETS PROJECT MANAGER: PEET'S COFFEE a TEA 1400 PARK AVENUE EMERYVILLE, CA 94608 FAX: (510) 594 -2180 CONTACT: MARGARET TRUJILLO PHONE: (510) 594 -3226 ARCHITECT: THE CHARLES DOERR GROUP 611 VETERANS BLVD. 0211 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063 FA >;: (650) 366 -0837 CONTACT: EL15E SOLA PHONE: (650) 366 -8215 EXH I = I�T A A&Rb * ►ac»sn h FOLOW �< CA��F CL gal W a m all lvft—,*IN u NQN 0. Li ,r1 z U w D x �N� > Uog O N wN a. CV CS -1 5� EXISTING LANDSCAPE I EXISTING LANDSCAPE AN'6 • EXISTING LANDSCAPE EXISTING PARKING PROPOSED EXISTING PARKING OUTDOOR SEATING, A TYP. EXISTING PARKING EXISTING LANDSCAPE EXISTING CONCRETE WALK EXISTING LANDSCAPE SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE ROAD EXISTING PARKING EXISTING LANDSCAPE EXISTING CONCRETE WALK EXISTING LANDSCAPE EXISTING LANDSCAPE EXISTING PARKING EXISTING PARKING EXISTING PARKING EXISTING SITE PLAN eK7 PROJECT NORTH • IlL W ct QQ J L1] Z F" Z Q a mz� U)Ua z° WAN w w� 0-00 N I SP1 EXISTING BUILDING 790' - EXISTING LANDSCAPE EXISTING EXISTING ELECTRICAL EXISTING (E) CONCRETE WALK METERS GAO METERS TRASH ENCL. - -- _- I EXI TCRNG I uwx EXISTING I LANDSCAPE EX15TING CREPE BUILDING % / DANIEL ASTAUMT PROPOSED p LOCATIdJFOR Q PETA'9 COFFEE // / 41 \ \V(E7 CONK. YANCANT &JITE \ WALK \ CH ) y� `+C TITLE TITLE \\ NORTH CHEF (E) CONC. \ (2UIZNOS AMERICAN TITLE DENTAL (E) CONCRETE UIRY WALK / \ WALK / <EJ GIB. EXISTING (E) PAVERS "TER EXISTING PIWITER r (E) TRELLIS ABY. I (E)COLUMN TYP. @ -- --G---- - -8 -- - -- @---- ---AQ-^p-- - -B - -- ---- @J---- {------ EXISTING LANDSCAPE 0 o EXISTING (EJ CONCfd<TE WALK LANDSCAPE EXISTING PARKING PROPOSED EXISTING PARKING OUTDOOR SEATING, A TYP. EXISTING PARKING EXISTING LANDSCAPE EXISTING CONCRETE WALK EXISTING LANDSCAPE SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE ROAD EXISTING PARKING EXISTING LANDSCAPE EXISTING CONCRETE WALK EXISTING LANDSCAPE EXISTING LANDSCAPE EXISTING PARKING EXISTING PARKING EXISTING PARKING EXISTING SITE PLAN eK7 PROJECT NORTH • IlL W ct QQ J L1] Z F" Z Q a mz� U)Ua z° WAN w w� 0-00 N I SP1 • • 0 OUTSIDE FACE OF STUD TO OUTSIDE FACE OF STUD a DEMISING WALLS L._._._.J ; l rr.. II FT II I! II iL._.- - . -. -.- J L._._.- ._._._- _-� -I r - - -_ -- rr! ui III ili rT / Nil lil \ 0w1 o l?� L. _._._. ...... ---------------- _.J fT / TENANT SPACE: n ii 2,403 50. FT_ `Lr CO i II F I I COLUUMN MN TO REMAIN I 1 ii !! (E) CCN5TRUCTICN TO M REMOVED, II r _.- ._._._._._._._._ TYPICAL III ---------- II \! IIII ii !! ii !! II u` :_ _ _.J (E) COLUMN TO REMAIN I I li r IIII \ I I — 1D -------------------- --- -0----- --------- -- - - - - -0— WALL LEGEND: EXISTING WALL5 TO REMAIN _._._.= Ex15TING CONSTRUCTION TO ESE REMOVED PROPOSED FULL HEIGHT WALL TnTrrrrrrrrffrr PROPOSED LOW WALL w (E)LANDSCAPE (E) CONIC. WALK E) DOOR WH 7M0 74" 7160 7MO STORAGE SHELVING, TYPICAL EXPRESSO STOCK ROOM HALL 7M� 0011 DRINKS RETAIL SALES m 211•0 518' LE55 THAN 117 LONGEST DIAGONAL GREATER THAN I/7 LONGEST DIAGONAL BEANS 's, a SEATING (75 SEATS) PROPOSED WINDOW WON O EXISTING DOUBLE ENTRY DOORS TO REMAIN -- -------- --- ------ - -- - -- -- - -------- -- - - -Ir -- - ----- (E1 GLD ABOVE J (E/ SLUMP STONE COLUMNS PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN 40 PROJECT NORTH 7 sill �n 4a CL W g O ��U O LLQ0 u-00 0, P Z � Q Jui uj 00 w a a, It N m P1 Lq- NEW EXI MATCH ENTRY I • EXTENT OF PEET'S SPACE I I ELEVATION AT DRIVEWAY 1/4• . 1' -0- INTERIOR ILLUMINATED WINDOW LOGO SIGN (S.S3 SF) a m NEW WOOD SIDING 1 TRIM TO MATCH BUILDING STANDARD IN MATERIAL, FINISH 1 COLOR EXTENT OF PEET'9 SPACE 1 1 FRONT ENTRY ELEVATION 1/4• . 1• -0• SIGN CALCULATIONS (PER CITY OF SARATOGA 6 -9"I SECTION 15- 30.100: ALLOWED AREA: ONE HALF SQUARE FOOT OF AREA FOR EACH FOOT OF STORE FRONTAGE, BUILDING FRONTAGE 2W' 90 ALLOWABLE SIGN AREA • 149 SQ. FT, PROPOSED SIGN AREA: INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED CHANNEL LETTERS 1413 SQ. FT. INTERIOR ILLUMINATED WINDOW LOGO SIGN: 5.S3 SQ. FT. TOTAL I1.6 SO. FT. Pees A l'V Isom 0 w Z Q `d z U W W LL- O V ,O�s' 0 tW �� - Q. 00 N w 1743 ,lip! 6111 pW� $/14/07 P2 exieilrvv uxc�v oe.r-a, �r. All loll 41 4 EO. SPACES (E) OOUBLE ENTRY I DOORS TO NEW WINDOWS TO HATCH BUILDING REMAIN STANDARD, WOOD TRIM AROUN? EXISTING WOOD SIDING ' DOOR TO DOORS / WINDOWS TO MATCH [E). NEW EXIT DOOR TO E) OBL. �nnQ BUILDING STANDARD MATCH (E) DBL. cuter nnnQ NEW WOOD SIDING 1 TRIM TO MATCH BUILDING STANDARD IN MATERIAL, FINISH 1 COLOR EXTENT OF PEET'9 SPACE 1 1 FRONT ENTRY ELEVATION 1/4• . 1• -0• SIGN CALCULATIONS (PER CITY OF SARATOGA 6 -9"I SECTION 15- 30.100: ALLOWED AREA: ONE HALF SQUARE FOOT OF AREA FOR EACH FOOT OF STORE FRONTAGE, BUILDING FRONTAGE 2W' 90 ALLOWABLE SIGN AREA • 149 SQ. FT, PROPOSED SIGN AREA: INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED CHANNEL LETTERS 1413 SQ. FT. INTERIOR ILLUMINATED WINDOW LOGO SIGN: 5.S3 SQ. FT. TOTAL I1.6 SO. FT. Pees A l'V Isom 0 w Z Q `d z U W W LL- O V ,O�s' 0 tW �� - Q. 00 N w 1743 ,lip! 6111 pW� $/14/07 P2 • / 11 u lr u ADJ. TENANT - ------ -------------------------------- LINE OF EXISTING TRELLIS ABOvE EXISTING PLANTER PEET'S COFFEE & TEA j SEATING f25 9EAT8/ I_ ][At: t zEK11A OI /---- PACE CR BUILDING, TYP. I EXISTING CONCRETE WALK _ <E/PAVERS 7 I EXISTING PLANTER I EXISTING SLUMP STONE COLUMNS, TYP. UMBRELLA ON TABLE, TYp. CURB RAMP EXISTING CONCRETE � - _ � _ — _ - EXISTING O CURD, TYPICAL OUTDOOR BEATING Ibb 9F. � y. -b. � I I EXISTING ACCESSIBLE I I PAWING i b,•S, SPACE EXISTING PARKING TYPICAL EXISTING CONCRETE WALK EXISTING DRIVEWAY I I ((� PROPOSED OUTDOOR SEATING PLAN ('15 OUTDOOR SEATS - 166 S.F.), . OD PROJECT NORTH Peels d n F b Ld Z Q z � a 8 V) 0 0 w v °(I oW O CL d N TP3 EMS JOB F-4-1/4" �r Plex Face Neon Stand -Offs Short Sleeve Electrobit 885 GTO Sleeving 3730 End Cap Wide Electrobit ECW5 Neon Tubes Trim -Caps Aluminum Returns Internally Illuminated Channel Letters 114" x 2112" Screws (Min. 4 Per Ltrs.) Raceway Behind Existing Glu Lam Beam to House Wiring & Transformers 112 "Stand Off for Drainage — Building Wall PAN - CHANNEL LETTERS MOUNTING DETAIL N.T.S. Approved - Sign shall ear ., Labels N.T.S. Standard 120 Volt Primary With Disconnect Switch Neon Images, Inc. 243 N. Escalante Dr. Elk Ridge, UT 84651 P: (801) 423 -3051 F: (419) 715 -6078 Scale 3/4 " =1' 16" x 8'4-1/4" =11.13 SF Part Returns backs I Material PainVFinish .060 "Aluminum MAP Satin Color PMS#412 Additional S ecitication Relums.040" DIM Caps 314" painted to match returns PMS#412 Faces 3116" White Ac is Translucent vinyl overlay Pests #4611 Illumination 10MM 6500 White Remote transformers 30ma1120V Incoming power (one dedicated 20 MA circuit) to be provided by GC Service access must be provided to entire back side of sign for transformer locations and future service Time clock to contain two sets of controls for early morning and evening illumination Client: Peet's Coffee & Tea Approved-- M Address: 12148 Saratoga-Soyvale Rd. City, State: Saratoga, CA Date: February 14, 2007 Revision Date: April 13, 2007 (Revised from 18" letter to 16" letter) 0 o M° OQ N C Client: Peet's Coffee & Tea Approved-- M Address: 12148 Saratoga-Soyvale Rd. City, State: Saratoga, CA Date: February 14, 2007 Revision Date: April 13, 2007 (Revised from 18" letter to 16" letter) • • • 28 -112" 30" Flush mounted J•box i provided by GC Wood blo 51/2" x 114" alum r 1" U GC to provide min of 1/2" flex oonduil Toggle disconnect sv 111? O.D. sleeve bracket and set scr .125" routed alum. 1" alum. cabinet fr 10 clear plex push i 3/16" white plex diffu T5 fluorescent Is Translucent vinyl over Part Material Paint/Finish ) I Area 11 I Additional Specification Cabinet Aluminum MAP satin PMS#412 11/2" an le frame Face anel .125 "Aluminum routed MAP satin PMS#412 attached w/ clips cop Peet's 111" clear acrylic push thru trans/. vinyl Peels #4611 3116" white diffuser, aft. w/ studs Border Coffee and Tea show thru 3M translucent vinyl 3M #3630 -131 Drop shadows show thru 3M translucent *0 3M #3630 -131 Low field 1/2" clear acrylic push thru, trans/. vinyl 3M#3630 -131 translucent di ital vinjd Loo Halo 3M vinyl Tan Coffee CUD 1 14 "ac lic MAP satin PMS#412 Sign to be installed with (2)1" I.D. conduit support pipes and 51/2" dia,1 /4" thick welded alum. plates, painted flat black. General contractor to provide 6" x 36" x 2" wood blocking w / III ush J -box 10" from center of sign @ ceiling where sign occurs. General contractor to provide at least 8 ft of 1/2" flex conduit for the sign's electrical connection. Time clock to contain two sets of controls for early morning and evening illumination Neon Images, Inc. 243 N. Escalante Dr. Elk Ridge, UT 84651 P: (801) 423 -3051 F: (419) 715-6078 H -FLL 4112" S '4 W, z SIZE MATRIX SIGN DESIGNATION A I B I Area 11 Location 30" 128 1/2" 1 5.93 11 Front Elevation Peet's Coffee & Tea TYPO SIGN STANDARDS 1 Ob Illuminated Window Logo Sign Client: Peet's Coffee & Tea Approved: Address: 12148 Saratoga-Sunyvale Rd. City, State: Saratoga, CA Date: February 14. 2007 Revision Date: Ir u • sbsu WINDOWS MATCHUNE -SOUTH HALF OF BUILDING LEGEND L DOOR WINDOW DEMISING WALL EXIT EXIT EXIT I I jWC I WC WC . I L - -� - -J SUPPORT BEAM 14.5• a 14.5-- I i CHICAGO TITLE PEET'S COFFEE I. OFFICE: 2B4O,a1, 1 rI I f I I NORTH IILDING II { �1 1I 1 i EXIT I I I i � I �II f� I I WC WC KITCHEN 2400 s4 It PROPOSED SPACE FOR I WC WC I - PEET'S COFFEE @ TEA. — — — - WATER IHEATER I CUP BY OTHERS COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS I— I OFFICE: 3440 s9 It 1 I I � R00 VSq jINING � 533 SQ. FT.. , WONG' I 400 t ' .ENTRY - it ENTRY I ENTRY V KITCHEN i L mOtPN = Print Dale: Project Location: LCJD c C C �4 t � E a C � Date: A Project: Scale: Drawn by. Sheet tine: AS -BL C - from the city of Saratoga's municipal code, the following parking ratios are required: Professional/Administrative Offices: 1 Space /200 Sq. Ft. Medical Office /Clinic: 1 Space /200 Sq. Ft. - Service/Financial Office: 1 Sp2ce /200 Sq. Ft. "Restaurant": 1 Space/75 Sq. Ft. Indoor space, 1 Space /75 Sq. Ft. Outdoor lSeating. Intensive Retail: 1 Space /200 Sq. Ft. Extensive Retail: 1 Space /500 Sq. Ft. Here are the existing square toot calculations for the various tenants: I 1. Crepe Daniel: 1,928 Sq. Ft. (26 Parking Stalls Required). f 2. Quizno's: 1,960 Sq. Ft. (26 Parking Stags Required). ` 3. EMPTY OFFICE. 2,400 Sq. Ft. (12 Parking Stalls Required). 4. North American Title: 2,800 Sq. Ft. (14 Parking Stalls Required). 5. Park Saratoga Dental: 1,440 Sq. Ft. (7 Parking Stalls Required). G. Chicago Title: 2,640 Sq. Ft. (13 Parking Stalls Required). 7. Chef Wong's: 1,400 Sq. FL (19 Parking Stalls Required). 8. Countrywide Horne Loans: 3,440 Sq. Ft. (17 Parking Stalls Required). , 9. Sillcon Valley National Bank: 6,000 Sq. Ft. (30 Parking Stalls Required) ISep. Parcell. 10. Washington Mutual Bank: 4,600 Sq. Ft.(23 Parking Stalls Required). (Sep. Parcell. TOTAL REQUIRED STALLS based on (E) conditions: 187 Parking Stalls. I WITH Peet's Coffee d Tea: 2,400 Sq. Ft. + 126 Sq. Ft. Outdoor Seating (35 Parking Stalls). S r TOTAL w/Peet's lc place: 210 Parking Stalls Required. I � , - The Building "B" Site currently has 122 Standard Spaces and 3 Accessible Spaces for a total of 125. The Silicon Valley National Bank Site currently has 40 Parking Stalls. The Washington Mutual Bank Site currently has 33 Parking Stalls. 125 + 40 + 33 - 198 Total Stalls provided. 210 - 198 - 12 additional Parking Stalls needed per City of Saratoga Municipal Code. i r- Ia O ATRIUM DR 8 0 ce I I ,1 9 M ---- - -_ —', 9 I� 1 9 10 ./— 2 1 ed BLDG. 'A' SILICON VALLEY NATIONAL BANK "- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - EXISTING PARKING LAYOUT SIGN SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE ROAD I AD B � ! I OU111NE OF SUBJECT PARCEL (PER ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEY PERFOMED BY: KIER 6 WRIGHT DATED:5 12/03) 'C" NGTON kL BANK o E C E V APR 3:0 2007 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEP O Z O Y Y • • Item 2 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda Item: ORDINANCE CORRECTION TO SECTION 15- 29.010(b) OF THE SARATOGA CITY CODE RELATING TO HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS FOR FENCES, WALLS AND HEDGES Prepared By: Chris Riordan and Jana Rinaldi Date: May 9, 2007 Department Head: John Livingstone 9z— RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the City Council to adopt minor corrections to Section 15- 29.010(b). DISCUSSION: During last year's update to the Zoning Ordinance, the word "yard" was removed from the ordinance for consistency purposes in favor of the word "setback ". Prior to the change, both words had been used interchangeably. A consequence of removing the word "yard" from the ordinance, Section 15- 29.010(b) (Fences, Walls, and Hedges), is that the ordinance is no longer enforceable on the height of fences in the front yard setback area of interior lots. Staff initially became aware of the missing text when researching a code enforcement complaint concerning a resident who had built a six foot fence in their front yard setback. The existing ordinance text and the proposed revisions are as follows. Text to be added is indicated in bold double - underlined font (e.g., bold double - underlined). Existing Ordinance Text 15- 29.010 Height restrictions. (a) General regulation. Except as otherwise specified in this Article, no fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height. (b) Front and exterior side setback area of reversed corner lots. No fence or wall located within any required front or exterior side setback area of a reversed corner lot shall exceed three feet in height, except as follows: (1) A fence or wall lawfully constructed prior to March 20, 1987, may extend to a height not exceeding six feet, if such fence or wall does not create a safety hazard for vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic and does not obstruct the safe access to or from adjacent properties; provided, however, that upon the destruction or removal of more than one -half of the length of such nonconforming fence or wall, any replacement fence or wall shall not exceed three feet in height. (2) Wrought iron entrance gates, designed with openings to permit visibility through the same, may extend to a height not exceeding five feet. (3) Safety railings that are required by the Uniform Building Code shall be excluded from the height requirements of this Section. Proposed Ordinance Text 15- 29.010 Height restrictions. (a) General regulation. Except as otherwise specified in this Article, no fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height. (b) Front setback No fence or wall located within any required front setback shall exceed three feet in height. (c) Exterior side setback area of reversed corner lots. No fence or wall located within any exterior side setback area of a reversed corner lot shall exceed three feet in height. (d Exceptions to the above fence height limitations are as follows: (1) A fence or wall lawfully constructed prior to March 20, 1987, may extend to a height not exceeding six feet, if such fence or wall does not create a safety hazard for vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic and does not obstruct the safe access to or from adjacent properties; provided, however, that upon the destruction or removal of more than one -half of the length of such nonconforming fence or wall, any replacement fence or wall shall not exceed three feet in height. (2) Wrought iron entrance gates, designed with openings to permit visibility through the same, may extend to a height not exceeding five feet. (3) Safety railings that are required by the Uniform Building Code shall be excluded from the height requirements of this Section. ADVERTISING AND NOTICING: Pursuant to Government Code Sections 65853 and 65090, a 1/8 size notice was placed in the newspaper and the agenda was properly posted. ATTACHMENTS: A. Proposed ordinance for City Council 2 • y� ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE CORRECTION TO SECTION 15- 29.010(b) OF THE SARATOGA CITY CODE RELATING TO HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS FOR FENCES, WALLS AND HEDGES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Adoption. The Saratoga City Code is amended as set forth below. Text to be added is indicated in bold double - underlined font (e.g., bold double - underlined) and text to be deleted is indicated in strikeout font (e.g., strikeou ). Text in standard font remains unchanged by this ordinance. Section 15- 29.010(b) of the Saratoga City Code is corrected to read as follows: 15- 29.010 Height restrictions. (a) General regulation. Except as otherwise specified in this Article, no fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height. (b) Front setback. No fence or wall located within any required front setback shall exceed three feet in height. (cl Exterior side setback area of reversed corner lots. No fence or wall located within any exterior side setback area of a reversed corner lot shall exceed three feet in height. (d Exceptions to the above fence height limitations are as follows: (1) A fence or wall lawfully constructed prior to March 20, 1987, may extend to a height not exceeding six feet, if such fence or wall does not create a safety hazard for vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic and does not obstruct the safe access to or from adjacent properties; provided, however, that upon the destruction or removal of more than one -half of the length of such nonconforming fence or wall, any replacement fence or wall shall not exceed three feet in height. (2) Wrought iron entrance gates, designed with openings to permit visibility through the same, may extend to a height not exceeding five feet. (3) Safety railings that are required by the Uniform Building Code shall be excluded from the height requirements of this Section. Section 2. California Environmental Quality Act Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, this action is exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 (the amendment is exempt because it assures the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA). Section 3. Clarification of Existing Law. This proposed ordinance will merely clarify language in the City Code relating to the height restrictions for fences, walls and hedges. The proposed clarifications would not cause a change in existing law. This ordinance would instead clarify and reconfirm existing law. Section 4. Publication. This ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Saratoga within fifteen days after its adoption. The foregoing ordinance was introduced and read at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 6th day of June, 2007, and was adopted by the following vote following a second reading on the 20th day of June, 2007: COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: ATTEST: AILEEN KAO MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA Saratoga, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: RICHARD TAYLOR, CITY ATTORNEY 2 CATHLEEN BOYER CLERK OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA Saratoga, California r� • • • • Item 3 I REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 07-239; 14494 Nutwood Lane Type of Application: Design Review Owner/Applicant: McAfee/ Belotti Staff Planner: Therese Schmidt, Associate Planner Meeting Date: May 9, 2007 APN: 391-17-021 Department Head- John F. Livingstone, AICP Cr SUBJECT: 14494 Nuitwood Lane APN: 397-17-021 5001 Radius W %, ET rj 12 80 awa DOUGLA5S 7 17 23 1 So 59 1 PCL. A 2 + —Mdt- 4r Z 21 Z'4 L CK tc 2 if -^7 5001 It, t 4 I L "IAC. J , ;PCL. 6 13 14 T Ins— rr. F tit "N ZN —A 2 L-- A�p 7 I- WET VER WAY • F-1 AC. C jt&A t 1;x L11AC. T o W a Ar- .T .T 7 21 r 27 PS 19 's..aa IT SIC ez 40 CL ll Ka' A C 2 14494 Nutwood Lane Application No. 07 -239; 14494 Nutwood Lane EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY: Application filed: 1/31/07 Application complete: 04/03/07 Notice published: 04/25/07 Mailing completed: 04/24/07 Posting completed: 05/03/07 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Design Review approval to demolish the majority, approximately 59 %, of the existing home and construct a major addition to the existing one -story single - family dwelling. The dwelling will consist of approximately 6,010 square feet of floor area and a 2,873 square foot basement. The height of the structure will not exceed the 26 -foot height limitation. The gross lot size is approximately 41,128 square feet and the site is located in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. Design Review approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15- 45.060. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 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. • El Application No. 07 -239; 14494 Nutwood Lane 9 STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R -1- 40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD (Very Low Density Residential) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: Approximately 41,089 gross square feet SLOPE: Less than 10% GRADING REQUIRED: There will be minimal grading required for this project. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed single- family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures ", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single - family residences. MATERIALS AND COLORS: The proposed colors and materials consist of a slate roof, wood windows and doors, stone accents and cedar siding. A color and materials board will be available at the, public hearing. • Application No. 07 -239; 14494 Nutwood Lane PROJECT DATA R -1- 20,000 Zoning Proposed Re uired Site Coverage. Residence: 5,971 SF Maximum Allowable = Driveway and Motor Court: 4,284 SF 14,045 SF (35 %) Other Impervious Areas: 3,583 SF TOTAL Site Coverage 13,838 SF Floor Area Existing: 3,986 SF Maximum Allowable = New: 2,177 SF 6,020 SF Basement Area (not FAR): [2,873 SF] TOTAL Floor Area 6,010 SF Setbacks First Floor First Floor Front: 30 Feet 30 Feet Rear: 86 Feet 50 Feet Left Side: 20 Feet 20 Feet Right Side: 20 Feet 20 Feet Height Lowest Elevation Point: 47.22 Maximum Height = (26 Highest Elevation Point: _ 49.73 Feet) Average Elevation Point: 48.48 Proposed Topmost Point: 71.2 (23 Feet) PROJECT DISCUSSION Site Characteristics and Project.Description The applicant is requesting design review approval to construct a single -story home with a .basement. The property is surrounded by single - family residences. The residences to each side 'of the property are single -story ranch style homes. There are also two -story homes located nearby in the court. Nutwood Lane is characterized with large mature trees on `all of the properties. The proposed project also has dense vegetation that surrounds the site and provides privacy screening from the adjacent neighbors. Neighbor Review The applicant has informed neighbors of the project and notification letters have been attached to this staff report to reflect these efforts. • Application No. 07 -239; 14494 Nutwood Lane I* Trees The applicant is not proposing to remove any protected trees from the site. The City Arborist has reviewed the proposed project and has recommended conditions to protect all of the existing mature trees on the site. Geotechnical Clearance Geotechnical Clearance has been granted for this project as required for the proposed basement. General Plan Findings The proposed project is consistent with the following General Plan Policies: Conservation Element Policy 6.0 - Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. Proposed building materials will blend in to the surrounding trees and will not create a significant visual impact to the rural atmosphere of Saratoga. In addition, the proposal is maintaining the existing mature trees that surround the site. The proposed project is also incorporating many energy efficient features as listed in Attachment #5. Land Use Element Policy 5.0 -The City shall use the design review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. As conditioned, the application meets the Findings required for Design Approval. The home is well designed with detailed architectural features. Design Review Findings The proposed project is consistent with all the following Design Review findings stated in City Code Section 15- 45.080: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The project meets this finding in that the proposed house is a single -story house well below the maximum height allowed and will be screened by existing mature trees that surround the site. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that minimal grading and topographical changes are proposed in conjunction with this project. All of the existing mature trees on the property will be protected throughout the construction process. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The project meets this finding in that all Arborist report recommendations have been made conditions of approval of the project to ensure a high degree of survival for all trees retained on site. 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. Application No. 07 -239; 14494 Nutwood Lane The applicant has also hired their own Arborist to work with the City Arborist in monitoring the project. (d) Minimize perception of excessive. bulk. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is below the maximum height requirement for the zoning designation which the parcel is located. The design is consistent across each fagade and incorporates various architectural detailing such as dormers, cedar siding and stone accents. Additionally, the home has been designed to follow the topography of the site in order to minimize excessive bulk. (e) Compatible bulk and height. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the structure is well - designed and is overall compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The home is compatible to other homes in the neighborhood with its single -story design and quality materials. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposal would conform to the City's current grading and erosion control methods. The applicant is required to maintain storm water on site where feasible and therefore this finding may be made.in the affirmative. (g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to the applicable, design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above. This finding may be made in the affirmative. Conclusion Staff finds that the Design Review findings can be made in the affirmative. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve design review application with conditions: by adopting the attached resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval for Design Review. 2. .. Arborist Report, dated March 2, 2007, and March 28, 2007- 3. Affidavit of mailing notices, public hearing notice, and copy of mailing labels for project notification. 4. Neighbor review letters. 5. Energy Efficiency Letter 6. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A." • • Attachment 1 • APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 07- Application No. 07 -239 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Eric and Marguerite McAfee; 14494 Nutwood Lane Approval of a new single -story home with basement WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review to demolish the majority of the existing home and construct a one -story single - family dwelling. The dwelling will consist of approximately 6,010 square feet of floor area, and a 2,873 square foot basement. The height of the structure will not exceed the 26 -foot height limitation. The gross lot ,size is approximately 41,128 square feet and the site is located in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public. Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the project, which proposes to construct a new single - family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures'.% Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This Class 3 exemption applies to construction of a single family home in an urbanized area; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for design review approval, and the following findings specified in. City Code Section 15- 45.080 and the City's Residential Design Handbook have been determined: NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: The proposed project is consistent with the following General Plan Policies: Conservation Element Policy 6.0 - Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. Proposed building materials will blend in to the surrounding trees. and will not create a significant visual impact to the rural atmosphere of Saratoga. In addition, the proposal is maintaining the existing mature trees that surround the site. The proposed project is also incorporating many energy efficient features as listed in Attachment #5. 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 Application No. 07 -239; 14494 Nutwood Lane adjacent surroundings. As conditioned, the application meets the Findings required for Design Approval. The home is well designed with detailed architectural features. Design Review Findings The proposed project is consistent with all the following Design Review findings stated in City Code Section 15- 45.080: a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The project meets this finding in that the proposed house is a single -story house well below the maximum height allowed and will be screened by existing mature trees that surround the site. b) Preserve Natural Landscape. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that minimal grading and topographical changes are proposed in conjunction with this project. All of the existing mature trees on the property will be protected throughout the construction process. c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The project meets this finding in that all Arborist report recommendations have been made conditions of approval of the project to ensure a high degree of survival for all trees retained on site. 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. The applicant has also hired their own Arborist to work with the City Arborist in monitoring the project. d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. This finding can be made. in the affirmative in that the project is below the maximum height requirement for the zoning designation which the parcel is located. The design is consistent across each fagade and incorporates various architectural detailing such as dormers, cedar siding and stone accents.. Additionally, the home has been designed to follow the topography of the site in order to minimize excessive bulk. e) Compatible bulk and height. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the structure is well - designed and is overall compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The home is compatible to other homes in the neighborhood with its single -story design and quality materials. f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposal would conform to the City's current grading and erosion control methods. The applicant is required to maintain storm water on site where feasible and therefore this finding may be made in the affirmative. 0 g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed project conforms to the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of Application No. 07 -239, 14494 Nutwood Lane compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above.. This finding may be made in the affirmative. 0 Section 1.' After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, application number 07 -239 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 constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" incorporated by reference. 2. Four sets. of complete construction plans incorporating this signed Resolution and Arborist Reports dated March 2, 2007, and March 28, 2007, shall be included on the plans submitted to the Building Division for permit plan check review. 3. Final landscape, irrigation and utility plans shall be incorporated into the construction plan set and shall take into account the following requirements: • Landscape plan shall be designed with efficient irrigation to reduce runoff, promote surface infiltration and minimize use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to. water pollution. Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolong exposure to water shall be specified. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. • Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as. soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall; air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. • Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. • Application No. 07 -239, 14494 Nutwood Lane • A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. 4. Front yard landscaping shall be installed prior to final occupancy inspection. Any changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. No downgrading in the exterior appearance of the approved residence will be approved by staff. Downgrades may include but are not limited to garage doors, architectural detailing, stonework, columns, shutters, driveway materials, etc. Proposed changes to the approved plans are subject to the approval of the Community Development Director and may require review by the Planning Commission. 6. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 7. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on -site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction — Best Management Practices, shall be submitted along with the complete construction drawings. 8. Water and/or runoff from the project site shall not be directed toward the adjacent properties. The final location of the dissipation trench shall be subject to the Community Development Director Approval. 9. All processing fees, in the form of deposit accounts on file with the community development department, shall be reconciled with a minimum $500 surplus balance at all times. In the event that the balance is less than $500, all staff work on the project shall cease until the balance is restored to a minimum of $500. CITY ARBORIST 10. All recommendations contained in the City Arborist Report dated March 2, 2007, and March 28, 2007, shall be followed. 11. Tree protective measures, as specified by the City Arborist, shall be installed and inspected by Staff prior to issuance of City Permits. 12. Prior to issuance of City Permits, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security equivalent to 100% of the total appraised value of trees to be retained to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees. • Application No. 07 -239, 14494 Nutwood Lane 13. 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. GEOTECHNICAL CLEARANCE 14. The Project Geotechnical Consultant. shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations) to ensure that the plans, specifications and details accurately reflect the consultants' recommendations. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. Shallow fill material appears to be present to the north and east of the existing residence. The consultant shall verify that new foundation footing extends through any weak fill material and into suitable bearing materials. 18. 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 (as- built) Project Approval. 19. 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 20. The applicant shall comply with all Fire Department (Saratoga Fire District) conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 21. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal • Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. Application No. 07 -239, 14494 Nutwood Lane Section 2. Construction must commence within thirty-six (36) months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission. State of California, the 9th day of May 2007 by the. following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Linda R. Rodgers Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: John F. Livingstone, AICP Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. • Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • n U Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Cafrfomia 95070 14494 Nutwood Lane ARBORIST REPORT APN 397 -17 -021 Owner: Eric and Marguerite McAfee INTRODUCTION • Application #: 07 -239 March 2, 2007 Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Phone (408) 868 -1276 The property owner of 14494 Nutwood Lane has submitted plans to the city to add on to and remodel their home, including addition of a basement. The swimming pool and the children's play equipment will be relocated. Ten trees protected by City Ordinance 15 -050 and potentially impacted by construction were inventoried for this project. Data for each tree is included in a Tree Inventory Table at the end of this report. Tree locations are noted on the attached copy of the Site Survey. Plans reviewed for this report include Sheet A -1, Cover Sheet and Sheet A -2, Site Plan, dated January 10, 2007 by Paul Belotti Architecture; the Site Survey dated January 2, 2007 by L. Wade Hammond; Sheet 1, Grading and Drainage Plan, dated January 2, 2007 by Giuliani and Kull, Inc.; and Sheets L -1 to L -4, Landscape Plan, Irrigation, Planting Plan and Notes, no date, by Small Brown Landscape Architects. SITE OBSERVATIONS, PLAN REVIEW AND TECHNICAL DISCUSSION Ten trees are potentially impacted by construction. They include one coast redwood ( #1), one black walnut ( #2) and eight Douglas fir trees ( #3 —10). Tree #2 is not shown on the plans and should be surveyed and included in the revised plans. The basement and new addition in the front of the house will have a significant impact on the redwood ( #1) in the front yard where they extend under the canopy of the tree. The proposed design has both a basement and a first floor addition approximately eight feet from the trunk of the redwood, impacting a significant portion of the tree's root zone. I recommend that this portion of the house be redesigned so that excavation for the basement is not required under the canopy of the tree. That means that the floor plan for the basement plus any over excavation necessary to create it should remain a minimum of sixteen feet from the trunk of the tree.. For best protection of the redwood, the first floor addition to the front of the house also should not extend beyond the existing front wall of the house. If necessary to construct the first floor addition as currently designed it must be constructed so that the root zone of the redwood is not impacted, such as with a cantilevered foundation. The front yard walkway will be reconfigured according to the proposed plans. This will place it under the canopy of the redwood. Materials for the walkway should be pervious rather than concrete, and on top of grade for the portion underneath the redwood tree. No excavation should occur to construct the walkway, and no roots measuring two inches or greater should be cut during construction. Page 1 of 3 14494 Nutwood Lane • • The irrigation main line may be located underneath the redwood tree. The trench for this line, as well as all lateral irrigation lines should be located outside of all tree canopies. In addition, the planter under the 0 redwood shows a number of plants, including trees. There should be no excavation for irrigation or large planting holes (such as for trees) underneath the redwood. Rather, plans should be on drip irrigation that is placed on top of grade under a mulch to avoid trenching. Sheet 1 shows grading and drainage for the house. The plans show one drain line just outside of the planter containing the redwood, and it should be relocated to 20 feet from the its trunk. There is also a cleanout shown on the north side of the property by the dog kennel that appears to be very close to other redwoods. It should be relocated so it is not under the canopies of the trees. Grading is shown to occur under the black walnut ( #2). This species is very sensitive to changes in grade and may die if care is not taken to avoid grade changes under its canopy. The relocation of the play structure appears to require the removal of trees #4 and 5, but this is not shown on the drawings. If it is necessary to remove any protected trees in order to construct the design, this should.be shown on the revised plans. No utilities are shown on the plans and should be included in the revised plans. Utilities should include water, sanitary sewer, gas and electrical. Per City Ordinance 15- 50.080, a bond amount of $53,340, which is equal to 100% of the total appraised value of trees #1 - 10, is required. Appraisal values are calculated according to the Guide for Plant Appraisal,. 9h Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2000. REQUIREMENTS 1. This entire report, including the Tree Inventory Table and the map showing location of tree and protective fencing, shall be incorporated into the set of final building plans. 2. Tree protective fencing shall be installed as shown on the attached map and established prior to any grading or the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site. it shall be comprised of six -foot high chain link fencing mounted on eight -foot tall, two -inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction process until nnarinspection. Tree protective fencing shall be inspected and approved by the City Arborist prior to obtaining building division permits. in the amount of $53,340, prior to obtaining building 3. Owner shall provide a tree protection bond, division permits. 4. City Arborist shall approve any grading or trenching under a tree's canopy 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. 5. Plans shall show locations for all utilities including electrical, drainage, water, sewer and gas fines. Page 2 of 3 14494 Nutwood Lane • �J 6. Trees shall be watered every three weeks duri ng the dry summer months or more often as necessary to ensure their continued good health. Water using a soaker hose or drip line midway 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. 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. Landscape plans should be designed as follows: a. Design irrigation main and lateral lines to remain outside of tree canopies. Show lateral lines on irrigation plan. b. Design irrigation so that it does not spray trunks of trees. Locate valve boxes and controllers outside tree canopies. C. No more than 20% of the area under the tree canopies may be planted. Select plants with similar water requirements to the trees under which they will be placed. d. Design lawns so that there is at least two feet between it and the trunk of any tree; confine lawn areas to the outside 20% of the area under the canopy. e. Plant only drought tolerant plants compatible with oaks under the outer 20% of the canopy of the oak tree. Do not include lawn within the drip line the oak. I recommend placing mulch under the canopy instead of a lawn. f. 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. g. Do not allow tilling or stripping of the topsoil beneath the trees' canopies, including for weed control. h. Establish bender board or other edging material proposed beneath tree canopies on top of existing soil grade (such as by using stakes). 9. Any pruning of trees on site must be performed by a licensed tree contractor under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist and according to ISA standards. 10. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited beneath tree canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath tree canopies. Additionally, fuel shall not be stored nor shall any refueling or maintenance of equipment occur within 20 feet of the tree's trunks. 11. Herbicides shall not be applied beneath the tree canopies. Where used on site, they must be labeled for safe use near trees. Attachment: Tree Inventory Table Map Showing Tree Locations and Protective Fencing E Page 3 of 3 TREE INVENTORY TABLIO NU I — 1 Redwood Sequoia se m e rvirens 53 40 75 75 Good High 2 $32,000 2 Black walnut Ju lans hindsii 21 35 50 50 Good High 3 X X? $3,760 3 Douglas fir Pseudostu a menziesii 12 20 50 50 Good Hi h .3 $2,470 4 Douglas fir Pseudostu a menziesii 6.5 10 25 50 Fair Moderate 3 $560 5 Douglas fir Pseudostugya menziesii 12 20 25 50 Fail Moderate 2 $1,850 6 Douglas fu Pseudostu a menziesii - " 13 20 50 50 Good Hi h 3 $2,900 7 Douglas fir Pseudostu a menziesii 10 15 50 75 Good High 3 $2,150 8 Douglas fir Pseudostu a menziesii 12 15 50 25 Good Hi h 3 $1,850 9 Douglas fir 20 Pseudostu a menziesii 13 50 50 Good _Hi Eh 3 $2,900 10 Douglas fir Pseudostu a. menziesii 13. 20 50 50. Good Hi h 3 $2,900 $53,340 Total Appraised Value " Replacement Tree Values 15 gallon = $1.50 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 2, 2007 Address: 14494 Nutwood Lane 0 _ -`- _ _ 0 14494Nm«wood Lane LEGEND Tree Protective Fencing Tree Canopy • Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 14494 Nutwood Lane ARBORIST REPORT APN. 397 -17 -021 Owner: Eric and Marguerite McAfee INTRODUCTION a Application #: 07 -239 March 28, 2007 Prepared by Kate Bear,. City Arborist Phone (408) 868 -1276 This report responds to a letter dated March 15, 2007 from Mr. Paul Belotti, the architect for the project at 14494 Nutwood Lane, in response to the initial arborist report dated March 2, 2007 noting the changes that will occur in the project as a result of the report. In addition, since the first review of the plans for this project, I have reviewed Debbie Ellis arborist report for the project. SITE OBSERVATIONS, PLAN REVIEW AND TECHNICAL DISCUSSION The main impact of the addition and the basement is to redwood #1 at the front of the house. The owners have hired Debbie Ellis to monitor the excavation at this location to ensure that the tree is protected during construction of the basement. The project proposes that excavation for the comer of the basement bedroom will be ten feet from the trunk of the tree. I recommend that it stay twelve feet from the trunk of the tree even though it is just a corner of the room. This is still closer than what is recommended in Debbie Ellis.' report or my first report, but I feel it can be safely accomplished with her monitoring the excavation. The first floor will be cantilevered over the root system of the'tree and this can be done with minimal impact to the tree. The front yard walkway will be reconfigured and composed of flagstone on sand or similar materials on top of grade underneath the redwood tree. This is acceptable. The irrigation main line is far enough from redwood #l. Lateral lines should be shown on the plans or stay completely outside of tree canopies. Sheet 1 shows a drain line fifteen feet from the redwood, and it should be relocated to a distance at least 20 feet from the tree and preferably farther so as to minimize impacts to the redwood. Trenching for this drain line has the potential to impact up to 50% of the redwood's root system. Between this and excavation for the basement, there can be a significant impact to the tree. Relocating the drain line farther from the tree will mitigate this. Tree protective fencing can protect walnut #2 from grading activities. Plans should show all utilities, including water, sanitary sewer, gas and electrical. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. This report shall be included in the final set of building plans. Page 1 of 2 • • 0 1 14494 Nutwood Lane is 1 2. Excavation for the basement shall remain 12 feet from redwood #1. 3. All utilities shall be shown on the plans so they can be evaluated for impacts to trees. 4. The drain line shall be relocated to a minimum distance of 20 feet from redwood #1. • Page 2 of 2 Attachment..3 • I \� W • • 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 24th day of April ' 2007, that I deposited 43 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) 0 that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing pursuant to Section 15- 45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property described as: APN: 397 -17 -021 Address: 14494 Nutwood Lane that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. 0 Denise Kaspar Advanced Listing Services City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces a public hearing on the item described below on: Wednesday, the 9th day of May 2007, at 7:00 p.m. The public hearing will be held at the Civic Theater at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Details are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. — 5:00 p.m. The public hearing item is: APPLICATION /ADDRESS: #07 -239- 14494 Nutwood Lane APPLICANT /OWNER: McAfee, (Owner & Applicant) APN: 397 -17 -021 Description: The applicant requests design review to add a 2,177 square foot single -story addition to and existing 3,833 single -story single - family residence for a total square footage of 6,010 square feet. The maximum height of the residence will not exceed 23 feet. The net lot size is approximately 40,128 square feet. Zone District: R -1- 40,000. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before Tuesday, May 1, 2007. A site visit will be held on the day preceding the hearing date listed above as part of the standard Site Visit Committee agenda. Site visits occur between. 3:00 and 5:00 p.m. The site visit is open to the public. The Site Visit Committee will convene at the City Hall parking lot at 3:00 p.m. on the day preceding the hearing and visit the site listed above and may visit other sites as well. For more information please contact the Community Development Department at 408 868 -1222 or review the Site Visit Agenda on the City Website at www.sarato ag ca.us. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor's office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out -of date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. Therese M. Schmidt, AICP Associate Planner /408- 868 -1230 April 24, 2007 500' Ownership Listing Prepared for: 397 -17 -021 ERIC A & MARGUERITE MCAFEE 14494 NUTWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5530 397 -16 -080 TUOCHUAN HUANG DR CURRENT OWNER 19689 DOUGLASS LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5519 397 -17 -017 ROBERT J & CHENDA SMEAD DR CURRENT OWNER 14401 NUTWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5530 397 -17 -020 - ROY C & BARBARA IRELAND DR CURRENT OWNER - 14496 NUTWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5530 397 -17 -023 DEVEREAUX C.CHEN DR CURRENT OWNER 14400 NUTWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5530 397 -16 -082 JAY PARR OR CURRENT OWNER 19759 DOUGLASS LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5519 397 -17 -018 JOSEPH C & JENNIFER CHAO OR CURRENT OWNER 14453 NUTWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5530 397 -17 -021 ERIC A & MARGUERITE MCAFEE OR CURRENT OWNER 14494 NUTWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5530 397 -17 -026 JOHN P & CHERYL COLMAN 800 POLLARD RD 1 LOS GATOS CA 95032 -1415 397 -17 -028 397 -17 -029 3IKANDAR R & MAHNAZ NAQVI DAVID W & GRACE YEN DR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER. 19611 VERSAILLES WAY 19653 VERSAILLES WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -5512 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5512 397 -17 -031 397 -17 -032 4-ONGLU D & WANG LIN TZU -MU & CATHERINE LIN DR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 19737 VERSAILLES WAY 19779 VERSAILLES WAY 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -5512 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5512 397 -17 -034 397 -17 -035 -EE CHEN MARVIN B & JOAN FOX DR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 19752. VERSAILLES WAY _ 19680 VERSAILLES WAY 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -5513 SARATOGA CA 95070 -5554 397 -17 -037 397 -17 -042 IOSEPH F DOX DONALD B MILLER DR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 14603 EL PUENTE WAY 14600 WILD OAK WAY 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -5502 SARATOGA CA.95070 -5550 397 -16 -128 CHOWDHURY RAHIM OR CURRENT OWNER 14350 TAOS DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5545 397 -17 -019 PETER V MIROYAN OR CURRENT OWNER 14497 NUTWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5530 397 -17 -022 STEVEN M BLOCK OR CURRENT OWNER 14452 NUTWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5530 397 -17 -027 ALLEN G & GLADYS FONG PO BOX 3058 SARATOGA CA 95070 -1058 397 -17 -030 SIDNEY R & ROSALIE SOGOLOW OR CURRENT OWNER 19695 VERSAILLES WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -5512 397 -17 -033 RAJKUMAR & POONAM JALAN OR CURRENT OWNER 19805 VERSAILLES WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -5512 397 -17 -036 IRENE & ERNEST PESTANA 2225 OAKLAND RD SAN JOSE CA 95131 -1402 397 -17 -043 HARI PILLAI. OR CURRENT OWNER 19800 VERSAILLES WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -5513 • t • 397 -17 -045 FINCH FAMILY TRUST OR CURRENT OWNER ONNA LN AWOGA CA 95070 -5516 397 -17 -048 ELAINE J SIMPSON OR CURRENT OWNER 19742 DOUGLASS LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5523 397 -17 -051 ROBIN HAN OR CURRENT OWNER 14403 BLACK WALNUT CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -5515 397 -17 -054 DEAN R & JUDITH BARTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 14484 BLACK WALNUT CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -5515 397 -17 -057 ELISA A & GARY PAGONIS DR CURRENT OWNER 14448 BLACK WALNUT CT SA TOGA CA 95070 -5515 3 -082 LEONARD J & SHIRLEY MARTIRE DR CURRENT OWNER 14535 WILD OAK WAY 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -5514 :ITY OF SARATOGA ATTN: Therese Schmidt 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE 3ARATOGA CA 95070 • 397 -17 -046 JAMES L & MATILDA STRIEBEL OR CURRENT OWNER 14480 DONNA LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5516 397 -17 -049 RONALD V & JANICE DORST OR CURRENT OWNER 14402 DONNA LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5516 397 -17 -052 ROBERT G & DIANNE GARGUS OR CURRENT OWNER 14455 BLACK WALNUT CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -5515 397 -17 -055 MARY F OBERHAUSER OR CURRENT OWNER 14462 BLACK WALNUT CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -5515 397 -17 -058 IAIN D & ROSALIND ALLAN OR CURRENT OWNER 14426 BLACK WALNUT CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -5515 397 -20 -083 DAVID J & MARISA RIPARBELLI OR CURRENT OWNER 14521 WILD OAK WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -5514 Advanced Listing Services P.O. Box 2593 Dana Point CA 92629 397 -17 -047. ROBERT K & G EVANS OR CURRENT OWNER 14448 DONNA LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5516 397 -17 -050 CHARLIE A & JENNIFER ROBERT OR CURRENT OWNER 19700 DOUGLASS LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5520 397 -17 -053 KENNETH & ANGELIKI FRANGADAKIS OR CURRENT OWNER 14487 BLACK WALNUT CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -5515 397 -17 -056 MILTON J & JOANNE PAGONIS OR CURRENT OWNER 14450 BLACK WALNUT CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -5515 397 -20 -001 FRANCES FLANAGAN OR CURRENT OWNER 14553 WILD OAK WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -5514 397 -42 -015 MQ HERITAGE CORP OR CURRENT OWNER 14337 TAOS DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5567 ent 4 Date 4 - MAY U J NO CITY OF a;irw i OGA Project Address 14494 Nutwood Lane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Saratoga Caifornia Thank you for taking the time to review this proposed residential project. The Saratoga City Planning Department staff and Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take the opportunity to express any concerns or issues regarding a project directly to the owners of the project. Please ensure that 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. I have reviewed the project plans and do not have any major concerns or issues which need to be addressed by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ❑ I have reviewed the project plans and I have major concerns or issues that need to be addressed by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. My concerns are the following: Neighbor: Neighbor's Address U l `i Y 5 2- IV ci -�Wt) cS J-, Neighbor's Phone Number Signature ���-v- p • Date Z Project Address : 14494 Nutwood Lane Saratoga Caifornia D k C I 11, IV k MAY 0:� aw 6 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Thank you for taking the time to review this proposed residential project. The Saratoga City Planning Department staff and Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take the opportunity to express any concerns or issues regarding a project directly to the owners of the project. Please ensure that 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. z I have reviewed the project plans and do not have any major concerns or issues which need to be addressed by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. Q I have reviewed the project plans and I have major concerns or issues that need to be addressed by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. My concerns are the following: Neighbor. Neighbor's Address c, Neighbor's Phone Number Signature • • Date Project Address: 14494 Nutwood Lane Saratoga Caifornia C" r iGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEW Thank you for taking the time to review this proposed residential project. The Saratoga City Planning Department staff and Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take the opportunity to express any concerns or issues regarding a project directly to the owners of the project. Please ensure that 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. [! 1 I have reviewed the project plans and do not have any major concerns or issues which need to be addressed by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ❑ I have reviewed the project plans and I have major concerns or issues that need to be addressed by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. My concerns are the following: Neighbor: Neighbor's Address (y t- S 3 N AU:,-,A Lczti Neighbor's Phone Number Signature • Attachment 5 C7 • P A U L Architecture Jan 10 2007 Planning Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Re: ENERGY STATEMENT The Park McAfee Residence 14494.Nutwood Lane Saratoga, California B E L 0 T T I • Interior Design E C E � V E 0 MAY 0 2 2001 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT We propose several energy saving features in regards to the remodel /addition to the above stated project. a) The windows will be High Performance Low -E and argon gas filled wood construction. b) The heat gain for the majority of the exterior wall and glazing area on the South and West sides of the conditioned structure is mitigated by a covered porch and existing and transplanted deciduous trees. c) On- demand type water heaters are proposed instead of a tank type units. d) A 90% minimum efficient type forced air unit will be used for the ground floor. e) We are investigating the use of a geothermal hydronic type heating system for the basement level with a dedicated exhausting system.. f) Additional insulation has been designed between the basement ceiling and the ground floor dramatically beyond the State requirements. g) 2 x 6 exterior wall construction will accommodate additional wall insulation beyond the State requirements. 19140 Portos Drive, Saratoga, CA 95070 • Ph: 408/867.1370 Fx: 408/867.0791 h) Existing solar panels for heating the swimming pool that are located on the 'South (rear) roof will be replaced to accommodate the new pool. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to call me. Thank you, Paul 6elott ' M A x Wo • 27,1111 E 15 fits mill. SL • Ll LIB l!llllij i'M till � p� Rim � � � � McAfee Residence 0 A U L B E L 0 T T I A-hit-t- . 14494 Nutwood Lane The Park Saratoga CA. 95070 191QPpb.DOMS—� �iva fit IN qg alm- R 11 A McAfee Residence 0 A U L B E L 0 T T I A-hit-t- . 14494 Nutwood Lane The Park Saratoga CA. 95070 191QPpb.DOMS—� �iva I � I r ro1..1 tJof 6, .sue asr „ iM...mM M... Md^�l.Ia. mM Emb >cmYrvcGm. hfpore Me:ee it trocossal • appavrwrer/ 2..eets beroe alYwak W beano ine sW k not meet b a bast 12 irlctas . Eabw Meswtoce ir'cW iWp an bee goinro IMSPgaI strap aH rgtdlpldd- sirmsed so ,. i MWEe beneraaebwmMa am/danapep erperbncei lM beWaKYaM amanrd wan W aeaa+dwm meweama, me donwP ro ra nee. mdrra roe mokn,re norm. rla Rcyect Carerlrn0 Asbarkr W pwide arecfiau W ^Varian. A fasLlO. faKbp dl Me eeea bpm comevcaon betas ary danailianacaebuclpn t%g� iheareo'vape 1M bn �npk Oarrcd Re'ba0 Pobcbn mrle'. Re tendri0 MM be Wrdbd 1 ' het baide Na edge of me rabetl Nava omurO Me bee. so ilgt ea fence paskae la. Nr9 • Me bass ids d Me pons. when Me bmemart eca.orm W occv. me k cro may x - - ,raved bacr sauna rmrrove ea eaenaaa wdanwn wprxeea Ana the excwmwn-e n:,rsea me brlcbp criaadoe pone manse ro aaeeped the e.ca.dien m peslbb � b ban rtK five boor m pestle). me rerrinea.et bB Aimed aouM Me enlbe inked alm+:,p sea nw+:cn xa rme k rocaea. me eamy nova bar ana mxh aan me ee masrinno:rh me kee pmtirpa.a Ira lencMm Am Oebtod nioh M vaare rttYl d/_as•nlB inchc inn Me aurdmPartnc> ' - �+�ar emN bartered. GSade Heart- colortd aaDDn9 raPeMMdbe sswen MroU,glflM _ . wpalM lerlce to ilc*ame �'ebah b�etacleoperam. lM tenc'np dM nd ee wren down . ' - anwedwilhasl me AaiaelCamAhp Ama :Yaoerniaiort Ta ArbeWnwivASa.ke asry raro„oy wort vaide nle tawablC An 1 &b 24iich wide yep apt a fen n me lenvp - �m ¢Ie uiM ale paard ardand lenap cbnbacbrs � row rte Nbdut apes aeon fence - pocaranr. meAMabt mar a:oirwecr bnu:eroapronaria roMesvtadmn al n..eerasen apnoY. srbaaalsdmrne lencrp «ar nte.r v'n eacn caora - d:acrwa Mttiches'akbssl.cbaN PacloirilD Mar Hare: robe no unweaMedwarra _ r � p . rsanewlean Mk nee POlq:aan[aa. no dunpngachmical asroraaed moDawka O gS - ealcmanr. andwrorocmwcrreeadiy irl: we the te.npwte sqn morlrwve provk,eGF.,- . - - Sgnrrbatpe eanarm+,abda meM You may ado brrenokdsipm tom me. fa Hart m �. noose aw reamle »am ra+mm send na bmpab aw mmlanorar veer io:o a•aade F., o ' ban melmosytn carrwanrorave Me apaaPwro nmroa aavoae wr:n..ns� rt,oae - rot me prtja:l. srom a.arbearroaad romererpvpW,pso,ac abet s -I w.e nee soar 0 d trosaanas remPaw tlPe.ipaFarecPbs 00 �Q - may bmpase on Me ronaq o-arwaerroame meta.gm ae neaten bary cme.s�s c / \ n.nr be on tanoq Haas dare. nPwerv>r, ae aces. may mast be epweed sears roans. a m tcnorty,•recarr.nera tnararta:n..avw merar:pbesiaeaoma rare do rot mfkxp - mono» ro ae reproved orta. � - \ - - 41 r,vebob uwarce, p,pelp Aria to caghCGOn snaW be mnYe mpa Leo. arW artly rrlN g :regobed ter demo aldcaaWC(nn aeaanr<. bancrlm that must beslgnaaO YwrAd be ib' b: - � �� cN batYbopprcabbM Aed bMd ErmdasWwmer WmDb.aMrpt bslubt. Aesnaac Purinpanxdora rota.araaessay. bse oawarad nee snots vmmbbmor ra m � Society of Mbaitalure �earAloakt ansrottaa nasuoaNSPy prelim to lre wok. nu � � Iq ' � \ - bee pnmer snaM roaow meicaowip aboRneue baabY StprNadv: - 8 e /�pROfbsepO �p�s el roBO�3129. ehompola.aelt063129. atr�asss4rerrwua�d SacieMdArbaicsAnre. �m r$ / E(a'l/l �• f'irL7• r -i �' b/ r 1IXM Edition. ¢' u .I... To 1-•1/4 P•(P w�e:r �srrorb�w rma�ra Y xiams. c —ftlyr+aeorws+awPatiuwr.. cE,��Jk]q 4"r""`' - �• LL � c)_`=. 1( IOif6bnitif.Kwmbaecaememadaw9VJ. - x '�_, % - �� �1 a�mammWtrl�mwslew cul°`a+ea�+r n.a�tb. mien. rear mMedt�ne IL-11 7d wcod saw. me, ew.l Ia mAaV eta rw tint nova ro capkM aB mct:,ro Me sd W rand / _ _ �t - �•!� _ � REj"� Ta �' /� f�� �p l� : mamas vlP�w na'h'rorw e�m uee�xor -« m' o�bnr a'�prwnaa�ee nP�ry ppa�'m+"re mw''�looels'�o�mrrc�ea�'r�� rate cn�m�wkw stem aw ' panbaemlager recarurended wrdvcJllmwaiw +r9wama.dnmrmk mevcan /� - 1'-(6l �ML FQE -riP reduce ware bss arW maKefMaarmf areal tease 6ebxk bervM Me M. mePkd o bom�m�ld'eco�re tl�ba�la�'r'wdr�arwk,�aw�eml o�rv'om�r nee tae Haman mane raceaary br camw:aan dames. i ..j / 1 I j„11 �j it atpJ�l.c�cf� � /% - !, _ 1- ,, I - ,� \ _ 2cn;N+P. (�na(sL - .... .... _ 1 � `� � Clry! —r �-Tpe GuF--,E I ! (FIR L�e.�a14J� .21 �- - -/ ! I �� _ - 1 1�'fJE / r", ljL-1 CH \ECEC I iNQ 6cLEPioblE CEl rEl.. Foe Lo+4ty tvPC ` 1. a p b! Eti.ux, �Ap, fL kn -j•>( ( I O (k'�. Pi.Ax EZ�IP. ` \ - �wiar• P¢orEC'Rv / a, - � � ' = �. a Prior b the ba dabO kgPedion M Me Cdy. the L S of rxad 8ha provide pa` • Site Plan �r a a p - / F�JCE L3sli'L'•&as certification hliild seNada re 11u bin ' C�, G t400- FIE�jc- /L7e0 Grepr Scab ���G -Thi.p Dd W,.,] n weeeO T W ation knp .me roof aaerwtaakdenraaM maldorweb. 5 to ]o r I 1—�. ' F�pWQ'•t- A WW.ons. b.b.ebd roof g.b.e. Atalger end !atlas reaitlerlce / ( 4rop b._,.roshd�.4 W e e A —2 a im r - - \ \ ;� me fee I�,atmits b-k cwW-. Bate. - f:wh =to y ti ) 1 I .- r24 -T00s cxarwc scau - M01E5 LEGM ' O sW•uwr nr auwv sm.rmwoe sOel p 14.00 wf ,wT ar nn•m rma'I AB6WENATlOyS roe wnn.om �""tlr* ®) .. � v •wr QIIR frm co rr +o. ' r. aru,rae wr rr ��� s.a ar asrm i SANE OOD —Map 277YOY 4200 /. taw) 8 5 4 i 1 I' J i BOUNDARY SURVEY 14494 NUTWOOD LANE L. )We Hmffaw SARATOGA Li—"d Lmd surveyor APN: 397 -17 -021 No. bibs LOT AREA: 41,069 SO. FT. sesso w.wx wya. a n. v � LOT 3, TRACT 4091 ""'Qt LO1Hain1v +4eao T�IA10) TJI -IfM rw,r.rs/o� -ror -ls�o i� i xb w. rsN4+ i S� H � i" GRAPHIC SCALE nR g o^ h_ �> oi3 .zh 0.3, e �3a',�iow•zN 0.3 :zy �> — j /"'��' �° / � �3 W? 20 '�'- o •pJ 7w Kl. �4 �� a ¢?' o. �� �. /'� / %�v� ?3'•�.. 1�.1 ..:_a Gs wo 0 of �.; �` �r,� {s �C.} -' m 1'�; N�P''� - .. 0�' �+''- ..1, j/ • -+i' _ rw op�:'�y rki 3 ,°ten 37 SH AD / __ �. �•:.. ,T .8 y. .x 50.99 l i � _` � 49'w \ � !� J � � o YA +19.39 / �.. art / \/ ` 1.455 / 'a. - K .... // \`<•. °� .><� (G se 49.i }49.5. t9Yn9�x'>• O �. �' + - e \ \' •+\w �,pR — ,i I. 19 6 AD 90P4 b � ����b`'� r '���.. �� I .,/._��r.rf LJ��::7=• $ /� \ � n ..�� M W 29 -9vxr 1. Q ��,r,'.3.� ` \ `. Y �' V i .t- . _S, .��/ pMa„ �Mw• y,2 "\ i,,.,(o�� r =• QZ . s \ l\ t t v ��i1t4 t 545 \t�M1O \)\ D' — y �, ZS Cpl i i v. N' ` :>D' "x � o i i :. - } •ate .:..; t , p3 _ _ �•�°� �, t \T a � N :� AD 49.95 ` ` 1 ! _ a✓ 4 5 _ \ �J �j� �� iV O V W X47.95 //\�� •�m �.`f � // 1, 49 t3 Y ,xg.85 ...r O� � t `a, Z 0-231, �d� �. \ 4-0 .�, HOUSE ° -_ I � ,,J•'� /.��,�\ �sy:a. � � e ��yw e_�. -1\ i� � �'�,% o. u, I t ' � D.�yy +fin .. I, � R lR ' �` ..a,. > / y�OO .� eo� rawt• +� � \ p> • \ \ `� :rt j A'L � l � \ .J5a49 V. Il`Gr ,'y 'r .! Y o �..�✓ %/ y 1 11i / Q d _ 1 . \ � .) •''�1- ss,` "� "'�q. , 1 1 Fi'o 9� 4 � :_, so� 7 \ r`1fc � �v C (7 W , i t Ski }'..$' - t; 59 / # `as'�'� t tW . a °•�M11 r.• 44 -- ,> ro .. wr 4 �. �. 5 013750 W 182.96' 9es 1/2/07 j� :.. 1 roe tw. 06266 Ir F • The Park Demiolition Plan P A U L B E L 0 T T 1 14494 Nutwood Lane Saratoga CA. 95070 19140 PO 0 . Samlop, CA 95070 W 40087.1370 F.; 40VD010791 !Il�NQ IT R. P A U L B E It T I 14494 Nutwood L BasementRoor Plan Architecture -. Interior Design ane Saratoga CA. 95070 ff 1� u 0 � 9f1 Y A p _ s.4 �I rawwu ,j GMPW , Se Ground Floor Plan (m Met) Ikh =a Mel Q a F' Z F o Om a= om a 6.a g F+M O O 'w Ts a 0 LK c r' �o �� v cd 8 v �z� Hao ON M�� A -5 P McAfee Residence Root Plan p A u I L B F L o T m 1 14494 Nutwood Lane - - Architecture Interior Design Saratoga CA. 95070 IP1�O Ppps OrM,8a2Ny,GP°AJO Pn: �OA9fiI.13T0 Pr. 10696),OTet F liiiiiiij i-!7L-kkk1 McAfee Residence Root Plan p A u I L B F L o T m 1 14494 Nutwood Lane - - Architecture Interior Design Saratoga CA. 95070 IP1�O Ppps OrM,8a2Ny,GP°AJO Pn: �OA9fiI.13T0 Pr. 10696),OTet F liiiiiiij i-!7L-kkk1 I • 1 I North Exterior Elevation I AI 6�II 1 v�� �— Y-- r�ee.�. i� f I �L`la•'�' II A " °`..�'E '�it"""r� ?�i I (4Po�ri'�) ryaorb�b yeeoa 11 GMphic Scale �0 2 4 8 14 (m it West Exterior Elevation (i feed 4 1 hick = 4 feet I i� a 0 F P Om ra • m 3 y �i 0 V G� W i-� 0 W 0 a '^ �zcc »I ' -o S' A. -7 a �5 21 =v` �, The Park Exterior Elevations P. A u L B E L o T T t 'A rcn llectu re 14494 Nutwood Lane Interior Design Saratoga CA. 95070 +61M Pnnw 0&s.6 m", CA MM Pal: 9081967.1370 ft �O 7R 0791 III!!! ONE long i GGti_� J s �, The Park Exterior Elevations P. A u L B E L o T T t 'A rcn llectu re 14494 Nutwood Lane Interior Design Saratoga CA. 95070 +61M Pnnw 0&s.6 m", CA MM Pal: 9081967.1370 ft �O 7R 0791 III!!! ONE long ' 1 L 0 N S3 � a. $ S The Park Building Sections P A o t, s E L 0 T T i 14494 Nutwood Lane Architecture inl10,io, Design Saratoga CA. 95070 - 110140 ft— o ", Wrp100p, GA 95010 1—rI 901.1010 iY:40d V.0191 i. i I. II {� GENERAL NOTES 1 �- i. TNIS PLAN Is PaEPARED:ROM sere suRVEr II BY L. WADE HAMMOND LAP,D SURVEYOR 324.05 1 • 1 'LEGEND JA G L,y ! 2° t>r3 ,� b- • . W �_ - mfr:_._ _ - / � \ �_'2-rT(pc16.Qb3P- DJf�}[TI>I.bw rt"T h l I rw i 1 el vp_ oz drwX.�i. r If W LL] ui Qkind CA b�.G ''� ---F'\ II� p' O . CL 41 o Z Q (L W - u� 0 ` -! . 7FIP -+aP�: y --• • �aTN. - (p).'7d scup, :'o u Nirj I .10 V \ ► !�Y�N A � oTvAJ � LAwu i I�a•7 • 40� is L� 2t1 i !ham' TH a3(oJE -9L Ur ije,(ON 1 y�o�weROwNFyq�� T6�.! ?mot• i pL�cuT.. _ I°' I � o i N or Tp - L.(6i.o c5! 1 ANDSCarcnRCansc rs i - +t (u) HI°o fE,JL 1010Chnl• t'tin,fI- k �`gamS Caliloma Nolo F FA-- 650-4mlflso \\3 Haxt7 LJoop — bYxasaAla2 tylQIFJ44 waw 7k�NTU�L y�o �.m.a. 0 \ poLj 6 b (Csy . //' ! ?�J lb W4 ( �j 1 \ O ow�w•• I DBIp+ �/ i%.1� G2LJ f� CE), Aft. ..... ... \ o r■ 5 I�� MASONRY RETAINING WALL EXISTIN.,NEW (PROPOSED) If E,USTINGTPEETOREMAIN +, • PROPOSED TREE I 12 6F -To 'f L.1j rt"T h l I rw i 1 el vp_ oz drwX.�i. r If W LL] ui Qkind CA b�.G ''� ---F'\ II� p' O . CL 41 o Z Q (L W - u� 0 ` -! . 7FIP -+aP�: y --• • �aTN. - (p).'7d scup, :'o u Nirj I .10 V \ ► !�Y�N A � oTvAJ � LAwu i I�a•7 • 40� is L� 2t1 i !ham' TH a3(oJE -9L Ur ije,(ON 1 y�o�weROwNFyq�� T6�.! ?mot• i pL�cuT.. _ I°' I � o i N or Tp - L.(6i.o c5! 1 ANDSCarcnRCansc rs i - +t (u) HI°o fE,JL 1010Chnl• t'tin,fI- k �`gamS Caliloma Nolo F FA-- 650-4mlflso \\3 Haxt7 LJoop — bYxasaAla2 tylQIFJ44 waw 7k�NTU�L y�o �.m.a. 0 \ poLj 6 b (Csy . //' ! ?�J lb W4 ( �j 1 \ O ow�w•• I DBIp+ �/ i%.1� G2LJ f� CE), Aft. ..... ... \ o r■ 5 I�� ppo f c I ` i � D ` ice' ``�_- _._� - -. , �- �._._•`�� _ \ /.i (�(�� J / ` T 7 1 I IRRIGATION LEGEND IRRIGATION METHOD P.O.C. OF CTION EXISI 1- MAIN LINE ® BAQ03.OW PREVENTION DEVICE: WI.10N5, 575-1 -1/2' LAWN -FULL 5U I PRESSURE RE6UA,ATOR: WILKINS 500.1 -1/2, OR EQUAL, AS REQUIRED B GATE VALVE - WATTS. BRASS Z d1 ® pE OONIR6 ALVE& HARDIE. 100 SERIES fJCHAMPI SHRUB BORDER SUN H05E BIB - ON, OR EQUAL MAI NLRNE - SCHEDULE 40 PVC, 1 -1/2• 12 POP UP SHRUB SPRAY CONTROLLER: INTERIOR, WALL MOUNT 36 STATION ORCHARD TREES r IRRIGATION ZONE - INDICATES PLANTINGS OF SIMILAR EXPOSURE AND /OR WATER REQUIREMENTS. ADJUST AS REQUIRED BY FINAL PLANTING LAYOUT. p TREES ,i F • ; Q n _ F' ► i i o ► ZONE pESLRIPTION 4 IRRIGATION TYPE A LAWN -FULL 5U I 6'POP UP SPRAY B LAWN-PARTIAL SUN it -11 6• POP UP SPRAY L' SHRUB BORDER SUN 12 POP UP 514RUS SPRAY SHRUB BORDER SHADE !I, 12 POP UP SHRUB SPRAY E ORCHARD TREES r DRIP RD46S p TREES ,i SPRAY BUBBLERS REFER TO SHEET L4 FOR IRRIGATION NOTES 1 0 8 it C 1 + - - ------- •- - - - - - 1 � :.� i _- � p i I � z LL -► ► Q3 ► l ' W U Ad ICE — i \ / /r► i E -F y�0\\Q0W BROWN �yC - co 4. s66A2], sYOVY24 la IS 11 �� � • • + IeTYISCAPIA ■ourcrs � � E C \, I ems atrh>nn seoro �_ �• )(I Aron¢ 650.}SB9rA0 . � �. :. � � Y \'`•�. 1� ` Z Au 654.�.SA�$fA2 ' � : � �, \ 1. / S .�•` �� � �\ i 1 Ib iy o F <= O Ds38 > L2 I� . gwvmmor4o .a • � - �--i rt�y cto� ppilY>HA.. . �Wo py 2O two I 1 _ � _ PJ E1.YF.LQt?C � ' _-lam fdi^- � � ✓ ado pcfm ), uw.� =Fr :�J GOtZCrx�2 p6]1 !`1T�_ ? i0 _rbKo b -: ftg. v�4 Z 0) fi Q -- pllh:hfsi_ /.ittatk: 1... Ntt[y6 Q O J �B�1zx6 — 2 E��1r411E O — 0 FWIT TKbuS a < Z - X611 Fi_1? D U •'. ;!7� _ �rN aYjc..GoH:- .::.Qr1>iYh_-S�VeI .. ..�!. Z Z rFPS t !q r RWP>-� 1 - i r rY ED �r { ?3 {.o F RUP� :tr . to6 l:.?r�°•Pfs .: • O gFER TO SHeT L4, FOR PLANT LIST AND l' I SMALLBROWN _ - f 1 -ry°I• f - -'� WOO FtkY i NlFZDt✓11 `•__� mv:npt.=sCjbk r saro Ph— 6WO&SIM LI -teap, l cog , IVo • O i a . {4y111111 \ Ib p ft- =i -r. a Vc L3 i e t n A. A L R 9o�Zy a� o �f O 8 O 2 A m N y C A N V C D rt?� A A > S> A A <g r 9 > A 7$ S T C '" F p O= Z s s D .np A >On n C r A C Z Q TD m 2 S C m S A N p A O O D 3 m< Z 2 .. . .. + m -. u -. u A fill I ZV LLA P Zy y N yy , -_ >^_� t> yam -:^ g:�A� m it p uyy'm gA 1 pin? mo igHu 'T N N O f� A7ryii op � �m T yyZyy po FOFO� N $$jj =rwiivN yA, g FI 0 q; o S � � 8 > pr � G p O o N> X 0 ^ `CmmmmmmZ J�! .pp {p��r �m� THE PARK 14494 NUTWOOD LANE SARATOGA,CALIFORNIA 95070 �gR NOTES AND LEGENDS TE G Z -4 r $w A W zzr Jill Up F > NNE F m it p pm 6 >' � =rwiivN m{ N 9 g FI > THE PARK 14494 NUTWOOD LANE SARATOGA,CALIFORNIA 95070 �gR NOTES AND LEGENDS TE G Z -4 r $w A W zzr Jill Up F > NNE F