HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-02-1994 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTSSARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.: ,�% AGENDA ITEM:
MEETING DATE: November 2, 1994
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: ¢9XM)d ty Development
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
SUBJECT: Appeal of Design Review approvals to demolish an existing
older home and construct a new t,638.sq. ft. two -story residence in its
place on Parcel 1, and to construct a new 5,434 sq. ft. two -story
residence on the adjacent vacant Parcel 2.
Recommended Motion:
Deny the appellants! request and uphold the Planning Commission's
approval of Design Review #94 -024 and #94 -025..
Report Summary:
Background:
The original 3.05 acre site at the end of Douglass Lane was divided into
two single- family building sites in March of 1993. Parcel 1 has a net
site area of 1.25 acres and contains the original residence. The lower
Parcel 2 is vacant and'is 1.5 net acres in size. The Tentative Parcel
Map approval of the two lots also established environmental protection
measures such as the recorded open space easement along the Wildcat
Creek tributary and a minimum width access road to retain as many of the
existing trees as possible. A pedestrian trail connection was also.
recorded through the property connecting the two ends of Douglass Lane.
The individual applications, to construct two homes on these newly
created parcels were presented to the Planning Commission at the July
27, 1994 and September 14, 1994 public hearing meetings. The attached
staff reports concluded that the Design Review findings could be made to
support the proposals. This was based on the design of the homes, their
location at the end of a relatively isolated cul -de -sac, the diverse
nature of existing homes within the greater area and their conformance
with all applicable Zoning Ordinance requirements. While the homes
along Douglass Lane are smaller than these two proposals, and fairly
homogenous in design, the other surrounding homes vary from the
expansive Goodrich estate to the larger one -acre lot developments along
the Fruitvale Avenue -side Douglass Lane.
Appeal:
As the attached correspondence from neighborhood residents and meeting
minutes reflect, neighborhood opposition to the plans was expressed at
both public hearings. The main concern was that these new structures
would be architecturally incompatible with the existing homes in the
Douglass Lane /Durham Court neighborhood.
The basis for the appeal is that the Planning Commission did not give
due consideration to plan amendments proposed by Mr. and Mrs. Woolsey,
the Durham Court neighbors most directly effected by the proposals. In
response to their appeal, the applicant, Mr. Mark Roberts, has submitted
a revised rear elevation exhibit for Parcel 1 which provides greater
articulation to this side of the proposed residence - the elevation most
visible from the Woolseys' property. The extent of these changes are
outlined in the applicant's attached letter dated October 26, 1994.
Recommendation:
The Planning Commission gave these two applications their careful
consideration at two public hearing meetings. They visited the proposed
building sites and viewed the on -site building height poles from
neighboring properties, including the Woolseys' back yard. Ultimately,
they found that the necessary Design Review findings could be made to
approve the applications with the conditions contained in the approval
Resolutions.
Based on_this, staff recommends that the Planning Commission decision be
upheld and that the appeal be denied. Staff would also recommend
revising the approval Resolution to incorporate the proposed rear
elevation modifications represented per Exhibit "B" and to require a
darker color scheme. The Planning Commission approved Resolutions .
currently provide for neighbor input as to what types of trees will be
planted, and where, prior to their installation in order to protect
existing views. The preliminary landscape plan incorporated in Exhibit
"A" was requested by the Planning Commission to mitigate neighbor
comments that the new homes would be too visible.
Public Notice:
Public notices were mailed to property owners within 500 ft. of the
subject properties and a notice was placed in the Saratoga News.
Follow -up Actions:
If the City. Council upholds the Planning Commission's decision, a
Resolution will be prepared reflecting this action which will be placed
on the agenda of the next regular City Council meeting. If the appeal
is granted, the applicant should be directed to address those items in
the Appeal Application deemed appropriate by the City Council.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motion:
The application will be continued to direct the applicant to address any
design changes recommended by the City Council.
Attachments:
1. Appeal letter
2. Planning Commission minutes dated 7/27/94 and 9/14/94
3. Correspondence
4. Staff reports and Resolutions DR -94 -024 and DR -94 -025
5. Plans, Exhibit "A"
6. Proposed revised rear elevation, Exhibit "B"
Date Received: 2
Hearing Date:
Fee: 450
Receipt No.: ;C o� o
APPEAL APPLICATION
Name of Appellant: 'R OLC t a K tk Am ✓t e -//F'_
t -Uvy 1; e
Address: 1 no's 2
Telephone: �g6f
Name of Applicant (if
different from Appellant: Cad (� L�- �/� V�'� /)�hlCJt2
Project -File Number and Address -W - i Y- 039, DjZ =Sy -22s
Decision Being Appealed: n L
g PP 1� /a�,.�t���,r� Vic' h��w�, ss
to 0 1'.� � r�0 ✓ C- r/I r-1 IN r-el < �l� ��i' f C Z � l)
C% ,�, L., 7 /CUSS Z-a r.) e_
Grounds for Appeal (letter may be attached):.
*Appellant's Signat e
*Please do not sign until application is presented at City offices. If you
wish specific people to be notified of this appeal, please list them on a
separate sheet.
THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERK, 13777 FRUITVALE
AVENUE, SARATOGA CA 95070, BY 5:00 P.M. WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) CALENDAR DAYS
OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION.
4
Saratoga City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
•
19952 Durham Ct
Saratoga, CA 95070
September 29,1994
At the public hearings on July 27 and September 14, our neighborhood expressed
concerns about the development at 14350 and 14360 Douglass Lane. Information
was presented both by correspondence prior to the meeting and orally at the meeting.
The grounds for our appeal are that the Planning Commission did not address the
following specific concerns of the neighbors to the project.
1. The architectural design of any building must stand on its own design merit. We
do not believe that the Design Review Process permits approval of a building by just
screening.. Planting twice as many trees as requested by the City ignores the bulk
and size concerns raised by the neighbors.
2. The neighbors requested softening of the building at certain areas of the residences
(particularly on lot #1) with added horizontal elements, having the bays be true bay
windows, and adding elements to lessen the impact of the lower floor from the finished
grade.
At the presentation the applicant did not provide side and rear elevations of both
residences, which would show the bulk problems. They only provided a perspective
drawing, which is an artist's interpretation, and did not provide an actual view of the
height/bulk concerns. They stressed that these residences were one story from the
street, which was not a problem with the neighbors.
3. There was no discussion by the Planning Commission or staff of future and
allowable structures, or any conditions restricting areas and size of said structures as
requested by public testimony. The residences were designed to be just under the
allowable square footage. Any added accessory structures by the future owners of
these residences will require approval by the City for square footage over the
balance allowable.
y�
4.There was no discussion on the impact of the suggested color of these building as
requested by the immediate neighbors. The suggested colors by the applicants are
off - white, which will produce glare to the neighbors to the rear. The wrong color will
add impact to the height and bulk of the residences.
The applicant has offered to work with the neighbors on the colors, however his offer
must be a condition of approval.
5. The petition with 47 signatures indicated the wide spread neighborhood concern.
This is a long established, unpretentious neighborhood which values their existing
simple, rustic atmosphere. The size and design compatibility of the proposed
structures were questioned. This issue was not given credence by the Planning
Commission.
6.The applicant stated he had. made contact with the neighborhood prior to the
Planning Commission meeting. He wrote to several on the Saturday prior to the first
meeting suggesting that they meet on the Monday night before the first meeting. This
was only a token request as there was not enough time to review the established
design of the residences. Some residents had conflicts and could not respond, let
alone attend.
77he decision was made by only four commissioners. Several were not on the
commission at the time of the July 27 meeting. Even through they read the minutes,
this application should have been heard by a full commission because of the
neighborhood concerns. The request was made by several of the neighbors to have a
Work Session to allow concerns to be worked out with them and the applicant. This
request was not adequately considered.
This appeal is being filed on behalf of the neighborhood by Shanta Loomer,
Dr. Robert and Mary Lohr, Ming -Ching and Leslie Tang, and Robert and Annette
Woolsey.
Sincerely,
��- C�
Robert Woolsey
Annette' Woolsey 4�
0
t r '
O
Fq El B fl
� O
a
O O p
0 0
•
—O
� I
1R'? lic .W rf°an.o!nl
°I
dm
•
•• O
�
0
0
tir ■� _ o
� - o
. G.•L>r `A..1l�lJ ' O U•'O J
- u4'. P•O• � f
0
0
dm
•
•• O
�
0
0
tir ■� _ o
� - o
. G.•L>r `A..1l�lJ ' O U•'O J
- u4'. P•O• � f
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
PLANNING COMMIS N MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 14, 1994
PAGE -2 -
CONSENT CALENDAR
PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR
1. DR -94 -018 - Nigam; 21451 Continental Circle, request for Design Review approval
to construct a new 5,248 sq. ft. two -story residence per Chapter 15 of
the City Code. The property is a 3.06 acre vacant parcel located
within the Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district (cont. to 10/12/94
at the request of the applicant; the application expires 1/20/95).
ON A MOTION BY COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /ABSHIRE, THE COMMISSION
CONTINUED AGENDA ITEM 1 TO OCTOBER 12, 1994. THE MOTION CARRIED
4 -0 (COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR, CALDWELL, AND KAPLAN ABSENT).
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. DR -94 -024 - Roberts, 1430 Douglass Ln. (Parcel 1), request for Design Review
approval to demolish an existing single - family home and construct a
new 5,638 sq. ft. two -story residence in its place pursuant to Article 15-
45 of the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance. The subject parcel is 1.25 net
acres in size and is located within an R -1- 20,000 zoning district (cont.
from 7/27/94 at direction of Planning Commission).
Planner Walgren presented the staff report on both agenda items 2 and 3.
Commissioner Siegfried noted that the extensive minutes of the previous meeting were
included in the packet and reviewed by the new Commissioners.
Vice - Chairman Murakami opened the public hearing on both agenda items 2, and 3 at 7:41
p.m.
Mark Roberts, 13690 Fortuna Court, Saratoga, applicant, commented that he felt that the
concerns of the Commission and neighbors have been addressed (i.e., lot layout and
landscape design). He also addressed the concerns relating to lot #2 and its relationship
to the open space easement.
Glen Cahoon, G &G Builders, 1585 The Alameda, San Jose, architect, stated that the homes
were designed to step down the hill with the' contours of the natural grade as best as
possible. He showed the footprint and property layout to better illustrate how the foot
prints and the homes relate to the neighborhood. He .described the style of the homes in
the surrounding area (Durham Court). He stated that extensive screening exists on Mr.
Tang's property and lot 6. The homes have been setback at least 65 feet from any adjacent
homes. The existing homes average approximately 3,000 square feet. A tremendous amount
of land is associated with the two parcels under discussion. The homes proposed are larger
than those in the neighborhood, but they were well under the floor area ratios as well as
height and setback (well under percentages of coverage). The elevations for the homes
PLANNING COMMISS 1 MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 14, 1994
PAGE -3-
indicate deep overhangs (2.5 feet) which adds a large shadow, creating a very long
horizontal line. In addition to that, some of the horizontal lines are broken up with stucco
channel. The two story homes are to be limited to about a third of the overall footprint of
the entire building. The home was not a stacked, two story residence. He informed the
Commission that Parcel 2 would have the same architectural style and would be compatible
with that of the neighborhood. He presented slides that illustrate that the existing
landscaping and trees assist in screening the sites from adjacent parcels (Tang, Lohr and
Woolsey homes). He felt that the following concerns.have been addressed: modulation
along the rear of parcel 1 has occurred; implementing twice the required amount of tree
replacement (required to install 8, 24 -inch boxed trees, proposes to install 16, 24 -inch boxed
trees), trees to be modulated and not stacked along the property line, and that the riparian
easement would remain undisturbed.
John Teter, 19931 Durham Court, spoke in opposition to the development because of the
size, bulk and incompatibility with the neighborhood. He requested that the size of the
homes be restricted to that of the average home in the neighborhood (i.e., approximately
3,500 square feet).
Bob Woolsey, 19952 Durham Court, agreed that a developer has a right to develop land.
He felt that the issue was whether the homes meet the City's design standards. He
submitted a petition in opposition to the proposed homes from the Douglass Lane /Durham
Court residents. He felt that design review requires that proposed homes be compatible to
that of existing homes in terms of height and bulk. He questioned how a 5,500 square foot
structure would not appear bully? The existing homes in the neighborhood averaged
between 2,700 to 3,500 square feet in size. He felt that the massive size of the structure and
the expanse in walls would be visible to the adjacent residents. He felt that the homes
proposed were designed to the maximum allowed. He stated that Mr. Roberts, at no time,
attempted to meet with the neighbors to address the concerns which they may have.
Jeanne Johnston, 14350. Douglass Lane, concurred with the comments expressed by Mr.
Woolsey. Her comments were relevant to both parcels because she did not see a difference
between the two homes and she felt that both homes were oversized. She conceded that
as they were two lots of record, two homes would eventually be built on them. However,
these homes appear to be ugly, bulky, and do not fit with the character of the existing
neighborhood. She did not understand why Mr. Roberts proposes these homes knowing that
the adjacent residents oppose their design. Also, Mr. Roberts has not met with the
neighbors to address their concerns. She believed that the homes were being built on
speculation and she did not feel that it was fair to the neighbors. She requested that the
Commission allow further meetings with the developer.
Barbara Lulu 14190 Douglass Lane, stated that she did not object to the lots having homes
built. She stated that she did object to the overall size of the homes on parcel 1 and 2. She
understood that the size of the homes were within the city's regulations. She did not feel
that homes averaging 5,500 square feet fit in the neighborhood. She did not want the
neighborhood to turn into the patterns that Cupertino has fallen into whereby large homes
are built to the maximum allowed. She' requested that the homes to be built, be required
PLANNING COMMISS 1 MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 14, 1994 ,
PAGE - 4 -
to .be compatible with the rest of the neighborhood in regards to size.
Dr. Robert Lohr, 14300 Douglass Lane, stated his opposition to the oversized edifice homes
proposed because they were too large and do not fit with the neighborhood. He informed
the Commission that the- backyard contained a neglected orchard. The existing trees that
help screen the development from his property would be removed. He felt that it was
inconceivable that the compatibility of the neighborhood would be allowed to be disrupted
in this fashion. He concurred with the previous comments expressed. He welcomes new
neighbors, but did not feel that the size of the homes fit nor enhance the neighborhood as
far as aesthetics are concerned.
Annett Woolsey, 19952 Durham Lane, commented that she provided the Commission with
a letter listing a number of consideration in architectural ideas to soften the homes. She
addressed. the landscaping proposed to soften the bulk of the home. She felt that the
preliminary landscaping plans lacked important details such as the type of landscaping to
be installed. The location of the trees needed to be carefully planned and designed so that
the view of the hillside are not obstructed.- The developer is proposing to install a number
of redwood trees which would grow tall quickly. She requested that it be stipulated that a
maximum height for the trees be designated by useW substitute trees so that her view could
be preserved. The landscape plans do not indicate the location of other accessory items
(i.e., pool, pool houses). She stated her concern with the impact that these structures would
have on the immediate neighbors, both noise and visual impacts. The homes are proposed
to be built to the maximum square footage. If future owners want to build a pool house,
she questioned if a variance would be required to add square footage. She did not want to
have a future building intrude any further to the privacy of the immediate neighbors. She
requested the opportunity to allow the neighbors to meet with the developer and. the
Commission in a work study session to discuss the issues of compatibility and privacy.
Gary Pastre, 14230 Douglass Lane, concurred with Ms. Woolsey's comments regarding the
landscape planting. He stated that he filed a letter earlier outlining his general concerns
and would expand on them this evening. He understands property rights but opposed this
development. He felt that those who lived in the community would have a greater stake
than the new property owners. He was saddened when he read in the newspaper that the
Julia Morgan Cottage was going to be bull dozed with construction, destroying a Saratoga
heritage. He addressed the environmental issues associated with site development. He
informed the Commission that he was a volunteer for the Santa Clara Creek Coalition and
that Wild Cat Creek was one of the few creeks in the area that runs year round. The creek
has been reviewed by the Creek Coalition and others and has been found to contain native
fish species. The creek has been determined to have a high habitat potential for the red
legged frog which will be placed in an endangered species list. Both the State Department
of Fish Game and local organizations are very interested in habitats like this one. He was
engaged and looking for some proposal to protect this habitat. He recommended that the
language of the Riparian Easement be strengthened in the months to come to add
protection to both the native plants and animals that are in this areas. He expressed
concern with the impact of runoff containing masonry washings, toxic sprays, and lawn
fertilizers to the creek and habitat. He stated his opposition to the development on the
PLANNING COMMISS J MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 14, 1994
PAGE - 5 -
basis of its environmental impact. He questioned if an Environmental Impact Report was
filed for the development that he could review. If the homes are to be approved, he
encouraged that a meticulous management of the construction and planting be those that
do not require toxic sprays, fertilizers, and /or extensive watering. He expressed concern
regarding the existing oak trees with construction traffic and recommended constant
vigilance with this project.
Shanta Loomer, 19974 Durham Court, stated that she has resided at this location for 17
years. Her home was approximately 3,100 square feet. She stated her opposition to the
bulk and incompatibility of the structure with those in the neighborhood. She stated her
disagreement with Mr. Roberts' comments that the existing trees between her home and that
of the Tangs would conceal the new homes. She also felt that the bulk of the. home would
depreciate the value of her home in the future. She requested that the Commission
reconsider the size of the homes.
Kathleen Amezcua, 14110 Shadow Oaks Way, stated her concurrence with the comments
expressed by the neighbors regarding the design problems. She spoke to one comment that
was made at the last meeting dealing with this issue. It was commented that some of the
people who spoke were not directly affected by the construction of these homes. She felt
that it was visually one neighborhood and anything that would happen at the end of
Douglass Lane would have an impact on her property as well. If massive, bulky, mansion-
like homes were approved, they would creep down Douglass Lane and would affect her
directly. She believed that there was a law suit against the city due to its negligence in
protecting the creek. , She recommended that development along the creek be reviewed.
The example of dirt being piled up against the oak tree was a good example of how the city
needs to be vigilant to assure that stipulations are adhered to.
Mr. Roberts responded to comments raised by the neighbors. He stated that he was not
here as a speculator and has lived in Saratoga for 16 years. He felt that he has met all the
conditions and requirements of tentative map approval as well as city ordinances. He tried
to minimize the impact that the homes would have on the land and to the neighbors. The
property was well screened by topography or trees for most of the surrounding residents with
the exception of a few. He did not feel that the Shadow Lane residents would be affected
by the view shed or the actual construction of the homes. The homes to be built are to be
located on a private street. The homes were designed to step down the slope. Extensive
research was conducted and it was determined that the existing home was not the Julia
Morgan home. The existing home was not structurally sound enough to be maintained. He
felt that he did the best that he could to address the concerns of the immediate neighbors
such as the Woolseys and Tangs. He addressed their concerns by landscaping and
modulation of the home. He stated that the neighbors want screening but they don't want
the screening to block their view. The homes located nearby on the half acre lots have 15-
22% lot coverage. He sent out letters to the neighbors prior to the first meeting asking to
meet with the neighbors to show them the plans and informed the Commission that not one
of the speakers tonight showed up to the meeting. He sent a letter to Mr. Tang and met
with Mrs. Tang to inform them that if they had any questions or problems, to contact him
so that they could meet. They did not contact him. He also felt that he has been very
PLANNING COMMISS 4 MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 14, 1994
PAGE -6-
sensitive to the protection of the creek.
COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /ABSHIRE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC
HEARING AT 8:30 P.M.
Commissioner Siegfried questioned what measures have been undertaken during
construction to ensure that there is no run -off or construction near the creek similar to the
discussion on the commercial property located on Prospect Road. Planner Walgren
responded that the concerns on the commercial property were related more to construction
activity such as hosing off of the equipment. A condition could be added to monitor this
project in the same manner. He informed the Commission that the City was in the process
of training its inspectors to monitor and prevent construction equipment from being hosed
down preventing drainage into the creek system. He informed the new Commissioners and
the public that a 60 foot open space easement was recorded cooperatively with the applicant
in order to perpetually preserve the creek (not required by code for a lot split of this type).
The open space easement would not allow development at any time in the future within said
easement. The zoning district would generally allow up to 50 -60% of lot coverage. 'Staff-
felt that the development of the site has been reviewed carefully from an environmental and
creek protection stand point.
Commissioner Siegfried expressed concern with the location of the trees along the Woolsey
property line.as depicted on the landscaping plans. He questioned if staff examined the
landscape plans to determine if the location of the trees were appropriate or do the plans
warrant further review to determine if the trees would dominate the property as they grow.
Planner Walgren responded that staff has had the opportunity to review the landscape plans.
The landscape plans were a result of the previous public hearing with the intent to provide
as much screening as possible. He has spoken with the Woolsey's and discussed was an
alternative of requiring tree species that do not grow quite as tall as redwoods;, that could
be accommodated. Relocation of trees could also be accommodated to preserve views.
Commissioner Abshire stated that he came prepared to the meeting tonight to accept staff's
recommendation and approve the proposal. However, he stated that he was overwhelmed
by the response of the neighbors and appreciated their concerns. He stated that he was less
inclined to approve the application and recommended that a study session be held with the
developer to determine if consensus could be reached with the neighbors and the contractor.
Commissioner Patrick expressed concern that the neighbors have requested tree plantings
to screen their view. But on the other hand, the neighbors do not want their views blocked
nor shadows cast over their yards. She also expressed .concerned with the comments
expressed regarding the bulky appearance of the homes. She stated that she was aware that
four or five homes could be built on the site that would add to the bulk, traffic and noise
concerns. She was not sure if a consensus could be reached between the neighbors and the
developer. At her site visit, it appeared that from the Woolsey's backyard, the homes could
be seen but that the trees could soften the. homes and still provide a view of the hills. She
stated that she could support the request with the stipulation that construction management
PLANNING COMMISS J MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 14, 1994
PAGE -7-
guides be followed to protect the hillside and creek.
Commissioner Siegfried commented that he was inclined to move forward with the
resolution of approval. He understood the neighbors' concern and understood how
neighborhoods changed. However, this project was somewhat unique in that the homes sit
at the end of the cul -de -sac. He felt that the lot coverage was minimized, the height was
four feet under the height limitations, the homes were stepped down the hill, that they met
design review requirements, and provide for a riparian corridor. He recommended that a
condition'be added to require that staff further examine the landscaping to ensure that the
placement and height of the trees make the most sense from both the short term and long
term visibility. He did not feel that anything would be accomplished in a study session that
staff has not already considered. He stated that he would support both agenda items with
the changes in conditions stated and the assurance that the creek is protected from run -off
and construction activity.
Commissioner Murakami stated that he has had more time to analyze these projects since
the last meeting. Regarding the issue of incompatibility to the neighborhood, he believed
that this was a transitional neighborhood. He understood the concerns of the residents,
especially the residents directly to the north of the proposed project. He understood that
the residents have lived there for many years and have enjoyed an unobstructed view. Some
of Commissioners have correctly pointed out the fact that a meeting would not help the
developer nor the adjacent residents to resolve the problems. The City allows 1.5 acre size
lots and he could not find a legal or logical basis to deny these applications. Screening of
the project with twice the amount of trees initially recommended by the arborist should help
to screen the homes. The homes were setback far enough from the ridgeline trees to
mitigate the view. He was satisfied that the 60 foot setback protected the riparian corridor
of the creek. He agreed with his fellow Commissioners that the trees should be modified
from the types that have been selected by the developer..
Community Development Director Curtis responded to the question raised by Mr. Pastre
regarding the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for these applications. He
stated that the construction of a single family residence which involves less than four single
family homes were exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act. Therefore no environmental review was required.
COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION
NO. DR -94 -024 WITH THE ADDITION OF A CONDITION THAT STIPULATES THAT
THE LOCATION AND THE HEIGHT OF THE TREES SHALL BE REVIEWED BY
STAFF WITH THE INTENT TO PROVIDE FOR SHORT TERM AND LONG TERM
SCREENING WITHOUT AFFECTING THE LINE OF SIGHT OF THE ADJACENT
NEIGHBORS. THE MOTION CARRIED 3 -1 AS FOLLOWS: MURAKAMI, PATRICK,
SIEGFRIED; NOES: ABSHIRE; ABSTAIN: NONE; ABSENT: ASFOUR, CALDWELL,
KAPLAN.
3. DR -94 -025 - Roberts; 14360 Douglass Ln. (Parcel 2), request for Design Review
PLANNING COMMISS J MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 14, 1994
PAGE -8-
approval to construct a new 5,434 sq. ft. two -story residence on a
vacant 1.5 net acre parcel pursuant to Article 15 -45 of the Saratoga
Zoning Ordinance. The subject parcel is located within an R -1- 20,000
zoning district (cont. from 7/27/94 at direction of Planning
Commission).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION
NO. DR -94 -025 WITH THE ADDITION OF A CONDITION THAT STIPULATES THAT
THE LOCATION AND THE HEIGHT OF THE TREE SHALL BE REVIEWED BY
STAFF WITH THE INTENT TO PROVIDE FOR SHORT TERM AND LONG TERM
SCREENING WITHOUT OVER AFFECTING THE LINE OF SIGHT OF THE
ADJACENT NEIGHBORS. THE MOTION CARRIED 3 -1 AS FOLLOWS: AYES:
MURAKAMI, PATRICK, SIEGFRIED; NOES: ABSHIRE; ABSTAIN: NONE; ABSENT:
ASFOUR, CALDWELL, KAPLAN.
4. PD -94 -002 - Greenbriar Homes; 13150 Saratoga Ave., request for Planned
Development -Final Plan approval to construct 94 single - family
detached residences at the 24 acre former Paul Masson Winery site.
The subject property is located at the northeast corner of Saratoga
Ave. and Route 85 and is zoned Multiple Use - Planned Development
(MU -PD). An Environmental Initial Study, as required by the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has been prepared.
Based upon review of the Initial Study, staff will recommend adoption
of a "Negative Declaration" for this project.
Pursuant to Section 21091 of CEQA, an extended public review period
is required for the Negative Declaration. Therefore, the project will
be presented to the Planning Commission, public testimony will be
received and the application will be continued to a subsequent 'public'
hearing date for final consideration (staff will be recommending the
item be continued to the September 28, 1994 public hearing).
Vice - chairman Murakami informed the public that no decision would be made tonight on
this item. The extended review period for the negative declaration for the project has not
been concluded. Therefore, public testimony would be taken from both the Commission
and the public.
Commissioner Siegfried commented that at his request, he met with two representatives
from Greenbriar Homes to receive back history on the project.
Commissioner Abshire stated for the record that he also met with representatives with
Greenbriar homes.
Commissioner Patrick commented that she had . been contacted by Greenbriar
representatives and was provided with an informational packet.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JULY 27, 199.4
PAGE - 16 -
Commissioner Caldwell clarified that the spirit of her suggestion was not so much that it
would be a remedy to the problem that she saw, but that it might be one thing to look at
in trying to soften the back elevation and deal with the issue of a continuous structure that
she felt would be seen from the backyards of the down slope neighbors (the applicant to
look at that issue- and develop some ideas, for alternatives that could address the concerns).
Commissioner Kaplan responded that she did not feel that the residents on Durham Court
would have that effect on their property based on her site visit.
Commissioner Caldwell reiterated that the applicant maybe able to develop some ideas for
alternatives that could address the concerns by either moving the home forward, making it
more longitudinal, or some alternate solution.
Commissioner Kaplan commented that if you look at page 4, the left side elevation, she
questioned if that was the one facing the Tang property. Planner Walgren responded that
it was. Commissioner Caldwell responded that it exacerbates the problem of having the two
homes side by side. The space between them is significantly reduced from the line of sight.
She questioned what Commissioner Kaplan's thoughts about the grading issue of lot. 2.
Commissioner Kaplan responded that she had no problem with restricting grading and that
grading should not occur under the tree. One of her concerns in the resolution had to deal
with the fencing. It implied that the fencing had to be there permanently and that was not
the purpose: Yet the resolution permits the applicant to open the fence to move something
in under there. She would not like to see heavy equipment go in there.
COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL /KAPLAN MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC
HEARING FOR PARCEL 1 AND CONTINUED APPLICATION DR -94 -024 TO THE
SEPTEMBER 14, 1994 TO HAVE THE APPLICANT ADDRESS THE BULK AND
COMPATIBILITY CONCERNS THAT WERE VOICED THIS EVENING.
PARTICULARLY WITH RESPECT TO THE REAR ELEVATION AND DEALING
WITH THE EXPOSURE OF THE TWO PARCELS. IT WILL BE ESSENTIAL FOR
THE APPLICANT TO LOOK AT THE TWO LOTS WHEN THEY ARE LOOKING AT
THE PROBLEMS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED WITH LOT 1. IN PARTICULAR, TO
ALLOW STAFF THE OPPORTUNITY TO REDRAFT THE RESOLUTION TO
PROVIDE FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF TREE NO. 23, TO REQUIRE
CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR THE PROPERTY WHICH WILL SHOW
WHERE THE REPLACEMENT TREES WILL BE LOCATED, AND IDENTIFY ANY
ADDITIONAL SCREENING THAT MIGHT BE PROPOSED FOR THE NEIGHBORS.
LOT 1, THE STRUCTURE IS LESS IN CHARACTER WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD
THAN THAT OF THE STRUCTURE FOR LOT NO. 2. IT WAS ENCOURAGED
THAT THE APPLICANT TRY TO DEAL WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD AND BE MORE SENSITIVE WITH THE DESIGN OF LOT 1.
Mr. Roberts stated his concurrence with the motion to continue. He would be willing to
review alternatives although he stated that he was not pleased to have the continuance to
go all the way. to September. But if that was the only available meeting date available, so
be it.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JULY 27, 1994
PAGE - 17 -
THE MOTION CARRIED 3 -0 (CHAIRMAN ASFOUR ABSENT).
COMMISSIONER KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -94 -005,
WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: THE GRADING TO BE ELIMINATED
WITHIN THE RIPARIAN OPEN SPACE EASEMENT; TURF BLOCK BE USED IN
THE DRIVEWAY; AND THAT THE CONDITION REGARDING THE MATERIAL
BOARD BE CLARIFIED.
Community Development Director Curtis expressed concern that the Commission and the
neighbors had question regarding the two projects in similar ways. One question is do you
continue parcel one and approve parcel 2 or do you continue parcel 2 also to see the
resolution of approval. He pointed out that if one is continued to September 14, that was
fine. But if the other one is approved tonight, it is approved subject to a fifteen day appeal
period. The two parcels would be separated in two and are located side : by side. He
questioned if it would make a difference to the applicant.
THE MOTION FAILED FOR THE LACK OF A SECOND.
Vice - chairman Murakami felt that the way that both lots are lined up, it would be'better to
make a decision on both of them.
Commissioner Caldwell concurred with Vice - chairman Murakami's comment. In particular,
if there is a solution that may involve moving the structure on lot number 2 slightly to
address the continuous wall, that the applicant would have the flexibility to do that.
COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL /MURAKAMI MOVED TO _REOPEN THE PUBLIC
HEARING AND CONTINUED THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPLICATION DR -94-
025, LOT 2, TO ITS SEPTEMBER 14 MEETING FOR THE PURPOSES OF HAVING
THE APPLICANT ADDRESS THE DESIGN ISSUES AND LINE OF SITE. ISSUES `
THAT THE COMMISSION RAISED WITH LOT NO. 1 AND FOR THE PURPOSES
OF HAVING STAFF REVISE THE RESOLUTION TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS NO
ACTIVITY THAT WILL TAKE PLACE WITHIN THE OPEN SPACE EASEMENT. TO
PROVIDE FOR A PERVIOUS DRIVEWAY AND TO FORWARD DEVELOPMENT
OF CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE TO ENSURE THAT THE APPLICANT DEALS
WITH THE PRIVACY ISSUES. THE MOTION CARRIED 2 -1 AS FOLLOWS: AYES:
CALDWELL, MURAKAMI; NOES: KAPLAN; ABSTAIN; NONE; ABSENT: ASFOUR.
4. V -94 -011 - McCullough; 15985 Quito Road; request for Variance approval to
allow a. fire destroyed single - family home to be reconstructed at its
original location and configuration in conflict with current Zoning
Ordinance requirements regarding building setbacks, lot coverage and
enclosed parking. The subject property is 1.2 acres in size and is
located within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JULY 27, 1994
PAGE - 3 -
Planner ,Walgren recommended that page 2 of the first finding be amended to read as
follows: -
COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL /KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO.
V -94 -005 AS AMENDED. THE MOTION CARRIED 3 -0 (CHAIRMAN ASFOUR
ABSENT).
2. DR -94 -024 - Roberts, 14350 Douglass Lane (Parcel 1); request for Deign Review
approval to demolish an. existing single - family home and construct a
new 5,638 square foot two -story residence in its place pursuant to
Article 15 -45 of the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance. The subject parcel
is 1.25 net acres in size and is located within an R -1- 20,000 zoning
district. '
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - --
Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He informed the Commission that
a letter-was received from Mr. Robert Woolsey, 19952 Durham Court, expressing concern
regarding the potential incompatibility of the proposed 5,000+ square foot homes with the
existing homes with the existing homes on Douglass Lane and Durham Court. Since the
report has gone out, staff has received several' additional letters from: a resident at 14150
Douglass Lane expressing concern regarding the architectural capability and the size of
homes; Mr. Spencer Azala, 19897 Douglass Lane, expressing concern regarding the
compatibility of the homes and the protection of the riparian corridor; Marilyn Berg, 14191
Douglass Lane, expressed concern regarding the compatibility of these homes (parcel 1 and
2) with the existing homes and the protection of the riparian corridor; and Gary Paster,
14230 Douglass Lane, expressed concerns with tree preservation, architectural compatibility
and riparian protection. He informed the Commission that an. overhead has been prepared
with addresses shown on it to reference the different properties which would likely be
affected by this proposal. Three Monterey pines are proposed to be removed. Two would
need to be removed to accommodate construction and one is being taken out which is
outside of construction. The City's arborist has had the opportunity to review the proposal.
There is a nine inch DBH . coast live oak within the front of the house that Mr. Coate has
given a high rating to. As it stands this evening, staff recommends that it be transplanted
elsewhere on the site rather than be removed. Staff has had the opportunity to discuss this
requirement with the City arborist who felt that the size of the tree and its health could be
a successful candidate for transplanting.
Commissioner Caldwell stated that based on her land use visit and review of the documents
and since the applicant was the same for both agenda items 1 and 2 that; some of the issues
may relate to both items and questioned if the Commission should discuss both agenda
items 2 and 3 at one time. She also felt that the neighbors also may wish to address both
items.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JULY 27, 1994
PAGE -4-
Community Development Director Curtis commented that if the public hearing was to be
opened for both items, that the Commission repeat the agenda item which is under
discussion under the joint public hearing. The Commission should then close the public
hearing on both agenda items and then take action on each agenda item.
Commissioner Caldwell commented that on agenda item 2 and the transplanting of the tree,
she questioned if staff had given any thought as to what would happen if the tree does not
survive the transplanting. Planner Walgren responded that at this point there is no means
to follow up that a tree survives other than the requirement that the transplanting is
overseen by an ISA Certified Arborist. There is no long term provision for checking on the
tree's survival over the years. Commissioner Caldwell stated that in the past, the City had
sometimes required maintenance bonds for a specified period of time where regular
inspections are performed or security deposit required. She questioned if those measures
would be appropriate in this case. She stated that she was leery of the .transplanting of the
tree because she knows that it was difficult to have a successful transplant. Planner Walgren
responded that one way to ensure the trees survival is to require the transplanting up front
before demolishing or construction occurs and then have the arborist check the tree to see
what its status looks like before the house is finaled. It would be a year or so before it is
known how the tree is taking without having to have a restriction that goes to five. years to
be the responsibility of a future owner. Commissioner Caldwell questioned that in that
instance if it was the arborist's opinion that the tree was not going to survive, the city would
have a contingency to provide an equal value replacement. Planner Walgren agreed with
Commissioner Caldwell's statement /question.
Commissioner Caldwell had questions pertaining to parcel number 2. In looking at the
applicant's proposal for additional grading within the riparian corridor in the open space
easement created at the subdivision level, she noted that there was an ordinance sized oak
tree that is very close to the location of the proposed grading. In fact, the grading would
take place within the root zone of said tree. She noted that the original purpose of the
open space easement was to maintain a portion of the property as open space for wild life
use and to protect water quality and other reasons that were cited at time of subdivision
approval. She was wondering if there was any other way of resolving this drainage problem
that staff was aware of and whether staff had any concern about grading in the open space
easement. Planner Walgren responded that staff discussed this issue with the applicant early
on in the application process just because of the fact that there was grading proposed within
the open space easement. Grading is not strictly prohibited but it clearly is not in the spirit
of the open space easement. Planner Walgren stated that the applicant responded that the
grading was a minor one to two feet of contouring to direct drainage from the residence but
that it could be eliminated. Particularly if.work is to occur within the dripline line of the
oak tree, then staff would support merely eliminating the grading which the applicant has
stated can be done and be replaced with a minimum retaining wall outside of the open
space easement
Commissioner. Caldwell also expressed concern which spawned by looking at the additional
drainage proposal about the driveway because it was relatively close to the riparian area.
She looked at the Best Management Practices that was written by the San Francisco Bay
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JULY 27, 1994
PAGE - 5 -
Regional Water Quality Control Board and developed by the staff as well as the Santa Clara
Valley Water District staff. These were best management practices design phase for new
construction and redevelopment and they speak clearly to the fact that the City is
encouraged in planning to limit impervious coverage. Particularly in areas with water
quality benefits and to maintain a natural topography and drainage system, through
vegetation as much as possible. She wondered if staff sees any particular problems with a
condition that would require at least in driveway of parcel number 2 of pervious coverage.
Planner Walgren responded that it could be of pervious coverage but would be a little more
difficult to maintain. But is commonly done particularly if there is another objective (e.g.,
getting oxygen or moisture to the tree). Commissioner Caldwell stated that in this case, she
did not recall any trees in particular that were very close to the driveway but that it was the
proximity of the creek itself. She was concerned with sheeting of the driveway and having
some drainage issues there. She stated that in the past, the city required the use of different
material or conditioned projects to be of pervious material and that it -would be up to the
applicant to decide between turf -block or interlocking pavers. Planner Walgren responded
that there were several different levels. Interlocking bricks are much less pervious than an
open turf block. An interlocking brick that is on compacted gravel or sand functions very
similar to a natural hard surface driveway as far as sheet flowing is concerned.
Commissioner Caldwell stated that the last question she had was raised by many of the
letters that were received tonight. She questioned if staff had looked into the issue of the
size of the homes in the neighborhood where these parcels are to be located. She
appreciated the fact that staff printed out the different zoning districts. Planner Walgren
responded that staff did not review the size of homes lot by lot. But in general, the tracts
north of the property on Durham Court and Douglass Lane are older tracts of primarily one
story, ranch style and older style homes. There have been some renovations on Douglass
Lane and staff would agree that the letters were probably accurate. The home sizes were
much less than the over 5,000 square feet that is being proposed under these applications.
However, as you go around the property to the east, where the R -1, 40,000 designation-is;
that was the recently approved eight lot Sisters of Mercy subdivision. Those were one acre
lots which would permit up to a 6,000 square foot house and would anticipate that the City
would receive applications for homes in the 5,000 to 6,000 square foot range. There were
also larger homes on Douglass Lane, off of Fruitvale. Visually, they appear larger than the
homes off the other end of Douglass Lane and Durham Court. As you go around the
property, there are the end lots and horse shoe drives which are the one acre plus lots and
the Spaich Estates which are much larger homes. The area is a varied community when
viewed in 360 degrees. However, he would agree that the homes off of Douglass Lane and
Durham Court are probably within the range indicated in the letters received.
Commissioner Kaplan questioned if there was a conflict in the resolution as opposed to the
information on the status sheet. Page 6 of the staff report talks about the material and
colors proposed as stucco material painted off -white with composition shake roof per the
submitted material board. The resolution, item 8, page 10, speaks of earth tones as reviewed
and approved by the Planning Commission. Planner Walgren responded that the approved
colors would be those depicted on the material board that is pinned up on the board.should
the Commission find them acceptable with the home being an off -white color and should
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JULY 27, 1994
PAGE 6 -
so stipulate in the resolution. The point of the condition was that the material colors would
be restricted to the approved material board presented to the, Commission. Should the
applicant wish to amend the colors, it would need to be reviewed by the Planning
Commission. Parcel 2 should also be amended to specify the color. Commissioner Kaplan
commented that in the resolution, page % the finding that the proposed main structure be
compatible in terms of bulk and height with the existing residential structures on adjacent
lots, is not accurate based upon what staff has stated. It is partly true depending on where
one is standing and making the 360 degree visual inspection of the neighborhood. She felt
that it has to be stated more clearly in the resolution. She requested that staff adjust the
finding so that it reads more clearly in the resolution.
3. DR -94 -025 - Roberts; 14360 Douglass Lane (Parcel 2); request for Design Review
approval to construct a new 5,435 square foot two -story residence on
a vacant 1.5 net acre parcel pursuant to Article 15 -45 of the Saratoga
Zoning Ordinance. The subject parcel is located within an R -1- 20,000
zoning district.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------VICE-
CHAIRMAN MURAKAMI OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:03 P.M. FOR
AGENDA ITEMS 2 AND 3.
Community Development Director Curtis .requested that the speakers indicate which lot or
house they were addressing.
Mark Roberts, 13690 Fortuna Court, Saratoga, applicant for both parcel, stated that he has
been a resident of Saratoga for over 16 years. He informed the Commission that he has just
completed the off -site improvements for this particular subdivision. All conditions of
approval have been met and felt that he has exceeded the conditions of approval. A couple
of trees were saved that were designated by the arborist to be removed by moving the road
north to allow for the trees. He saved the tree that was in fact designated to come out, but
that he adjusted the road and saved the tree. At this particular time, he is under a program
of irrigating the trees and taking care of them so that they have a better opportunity to
survive. Additionally, he had some work that had to be done in the creek area. He worked
with the City to minimize the impact of the work that was done in the creek. Also,
improvement to the pedestrian easement and the pathway had been made to make it safer.
As far as on site improvements on the property itself, on the back portions of the lot, five
telephone poles were removed along with the high tension power lines so that the eye sore
is removed. He requested approval of the.homes as submitted. The house on parcel 1 is
on a 1.25 acre net parcel and the other house is on 1.5 net parcel. These particular houses
exceed 5,800 square feet in coverage, but also includes the garage. He responded to the
letters received from the neighbors that the homes on Durham Court were smaller. He
commented that there are a number of larger homes there. Sometimes the square footage
that were stated on the letters were actually larger if one was to incorporate and adjust them
according. to the same criteria under what his property were under (adding the square
footage of the living area and the garage). At this time, he has 12% percent lot coverage
on parcel one and 15% lot coverage on parcel 2. Comparatively speaking, this was a
transitional neighborhood and felt that he has worked as best that he could as far as making
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JULY 27, 1994
PAGE -7-
that transition. Primarily surrounding these parcels were larger parcels. In most part, he
has kept under those parcels to the south, east, and west. Regarding the parcels to the
north, comparatively speaking, he has less coverage than any of those parcels if the same
criteria and ratio of the houses covered on the site (ranging from 15% to 22% that is
without having any other coverage such as pools or secondary units). These particular
houses are primarily one story (2/3 of the homes are one story and 1/3 of the homes. are
two story). The 1/3 portion of the two story home has been located away from the
neighbors to the north. The homes have been side stepped down the hill and tucked into
the hill. The maximum height of the homes were 22 feet. The height of parcel 1 is
approximately 15 to 22 feet less than the existing older house that is standing at this
particular time. When you look at the plans as presented, it is difficult to get a picture as
to what is to be built without reviewing a three dimensional drawing. It is not seen how the
homes are to be modulated. In any one case, there is only 13 feet of building line that does
not turn the corner or cut back in or out. A lot of work has been done to modulate the
houses. The height has been kept done so that he tried the best that he could in
considering the conditions of approval under the tentative map. He was under the
requirements as stipulated in the conditions of approval. Additionally, the homes were
oriented away and towards the private areas of this particularly lots, orienting them towards
the creek where there is substantial screening and away from the properties that are on
Durham Court.
Glen Cahoon, G &G Design, 1585 The Alameda, San Jose, stated that he has read through
the staff reports and commented that the reports were well prepared and well thought out
and described the development. He discussed some of the architectural elements and design
process on the two homes. Both of the sites are gentle, down hill slopes away from
Douglass Lane. There ate a lot of mature natural trees existing that help to screen the
entire property. The homes were set down the hill to help decrease the overall elevation
of the entire height of the houses and how they would be viewed from the surrounding
areas. The highest peaks where the height poles the Commission saw on the site were well
under the. adjacent tree lines through the existing mature trees and the trees' canopies
camouflage the backdrop of the design of these homes. The floor plan and the flow of the
design are designed to step down and follow a natural contour so that the homes are semi
split level with a couple of sections in both areas of two story homes splitting. On parcel
1, the two story element is about 25 percent of the overall floor area. The views of all of
these homes either face the bedrooms, living room, family room and are either going out
to the back in the private areas of the deck and patio or up to Douglass Lane. That allows
for more privacy within the area and provides for privacy for the neighbors. Mr. Cahoon
addressed the architectural styles of the homes. The integrity of the design of the house is
carried out throughout all four sides. There is use of a lot of modulation both front and
back of the house. Also, there is stepping of the roof line.
Commissioner Caldwell suggested that Mr. Cahoon share his overhead so that everyone is
able to see them and comment on them.
Mr. Cahoon responded to comments and concerns expressed by the Commission.
Regarding the oak tree referred to by Commissioner Caldwell, he stated that the canopy was
PLANNING COMMISorON MINUTES
JULY 27, 1994
PAGE -8-
larger than what is depicted on the plans. However, that is the location of the oak tree and
is well within the riparian easement and located away from development. As discussed with
staff, he talked particularly about the grading. He felt that the existing vegetation and trees
are a little further away than where the easement line is. It is a little further down the hill.
He felt that gentle grading in the area could be performed without disrupting any of the
vegetation or anything within that area. If the gentle grading did not feel comfortable to
the Commission, a three to four foot high retaining wall could be installed and build up to
it. Also, there was concern expressed regarding drainage coming off of the road. The
length of the driveway is proposed to be a gentle slope coming down the property. There
were two ways to mitigate this concern. Staff has indicated that one way would be to use
a non - pervious coverage which could be accomplished easily by utilizing a turf block or grass
seed. An alternative solution would be to collect all the water in a drain and take it up to
a different location (take it away from where the riparian easement is located). He
informed the Commission that the color to be utilized are those depicted on the color
board. He displayed a transparency of an aerial view showing what is actually developed
in the . area. It shows the relationship of the existing homes, sizes and surrounding areas.
The one thing that makes this site so unique and special is all of the existing vegetation and
trees that help screen, shelter the homes, and maintain privacy as well as views. It also
protects it from any of the neighbors and gives it an excellent backdrop.- , He addressed the
size of the homes in the surrounding area. He stated that the neighbors to the north on
Durham Court have two story and one story homes. He felt that the use of zoning as one
acre home sites would be developed to comparable size homes in the area and makes for
an excellent transition between the smaller homes on the half acre smaller lots to the larger
homes on one acre lots. He depicted the corners of the homes on parcels 1 and 2 as
requested by Commissioner Caldwell.
Commissioner Kaplan questioned the distance in feet to separate the homes. Mr. Cahoon
responded that between the two units, there is approximately 50 feet of separation between
the two homes and that they would not be crammed up against one another.
Commissioner Caldwell questioned if there were buyers for the proposed homes and
questioned why there were no landscape plans associated with the design of the homes. It
'has to do with not only the privacy issue with respect to neighbors but also with respect to
the comments that were made. There is additional impervious coverage that comes along
with landscaping plans that individuals add to their site (e.g., pools, patios, etc.). She
questioned the status of the landscape plans. Mr. Cahoon responded that there is interest
in both of the homes proposed. Regarding Commissioner Caldwell's question regrading lack
of landscape plan submittal, it is always best to allow the buyers for the site to work out
landscaping design for the lot.
Kathleen Amezcua, 14110 Shadow Oaks Way, stated that she appreciated that the
Commission was addressing the concerns expressed by the adjacent residents. Comments
were made by the applicant and the designer regarding transitional zoning. The area was
more a rural neighborhood. The proposed homes were very large, bulky, formal hard and
are not in any way compatible with the gentle rural nature of the site. She felt that the
existing neighborhood had a different character and the existing residents live in this area
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JULY 27, 1994
PAGE -9-
because of the different character. What is likely to happen is that several homeowners will
want to remodel there homes and would be influenced by the architecture of these homes
(the design of these homes would creep down and impact the neighborhood). The brochure
produced to help sell the property stipulate that the homes provide a pastoral view of
Saratoga while providing the perfect site for a home of the future. She felt that the
applicant was going to destroy the pastoral view. She recommended that the homes be
designed to be in tune with the existing homes.
Robert. Woolsey; 19952 Durham Court, noted that he sent a letter . to the Commission
addressing his concern. He stated his opposition to the approval of the design review
findings. When he first reviewed the plans, he requested that Planner Walgren provide .him
with addresses of the homes which were built by Mr. Roberts and homes that were designed
by his architect. He was provided with a list of addresses by staff. He went to view the
homes that were built by Mr. Roberts. The homes he visited that were built by Mr. Roberts
were in keeping of their neighborhood and had a good feel for the neighborhood in which
they were built. He then asked staff of those homes that Mr. Roberts built and the architect
designed, which home most resembled the homes proposed on Douglass Lane. Planner
Walgren gave the address of the home built on 22068 Villa Oak Lane, off of Mt. Eden
Road. Mr. Woolsey furnished the Commission with photographs taken of the homes he
visited. He felt that the homes were well over 5,000 square feet. The home was a large and
massive home. In reviewing the design review criteria, he could not see how these homes
would minimize the deception of bulk and height. He did not feel that the proposed homes
would be an integral part of the environment. He stated that his family is an active one and
spends a lot of time in their back yard. He would be looking up at the southwestern
direction, directly at the path of these two homes. From his vantage point, he did not
believe that he would be seeing two distinct homes. He will see a barrier of massive wall
extending from the south to the far north, a continuance of two homes. He will have a
perception of seeing one large wall home from his backyard. He would be living in his
present home for another 25 or 30 years. He would not be happy in looking at that
abomination for a long time. He would like to see Mr. Roberts and his architect design a
home far more compatible in feel with the surrounding neighborhood. He questioned why
at this point in time when Mr. Roberts has shown that he is a responsible builder in the
past, building homes that are in keeping with the existing homes in the neighborhood, that
he has chosen at this point in time to build two homes that are not compatible with the feel
and style. of the adjacent neighborhood.
Ming -Ching Tang, 14322 Douglass Lane, addressing parcel 1, commented that his concerns
were that of bulk and height. In looking out his bedroom window, he saw the height pole
representing the highest point of the home. When the home is completed, it will create a
big change in what his view will be. Secondly, the home would be moved down and further
block his view and several trees would be removed from the tree line mentioned by the
architect. He also expressed concern with the grading. The nearest point of grading will
be five feet from the property line, approximately fifteen feet. from his existing home. He
has two young children, ages 1 and 3. He expressed concern regarding the security which
will be in place with construction. He is currently suffering with construction noise and
expressed concern for the safety of his children. Regarding the road improvement; PG &E
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JULY 27, 1994
PAGE - 10 -
is trenching less than five feet from the existing pine tree. He expressed concern regarding
construction work impacting the integrity of his home. He pointed out that the compaction
of the primary road is a sharp 90 degree angle. He was not aware of this and questioned
if it could be corrected.
John Teter, 19931 Durham Court, shared photos with the Commission which depict the style
of his home as well as the adjacent homes. He informed the Commission that he currently
resides in the old Douglass Home. He commented that the proposed homes are to be
accessed from Douglass Lane and should be considered as part of the Douglass
Lane /Durham Court neighborhood or the Douglass Lane /Durham Court /Shadow Oaks
neighborhood. He requested that the homes be kept in character with those established in
the neighborhood. New development should be required to maintain the character and
nature of , a neighborhood and should not establish the character and nature of the
neighborhood. The proposed structures are unprecedent in size, bulk and trenching and do
not fit in with the existing nature and character of the neighborhood. The homes have
been placed down hill to reduce their apparent bulk which is good in one direction but bad
in another direction. If a home is allowed to be built with this dimension in the
neighborhood, others of similar bulk and size would be built in the present open space. The
only other significant sized structure noted was the house on the hill that is the residence
of the Seagraves and should not be used as a comparison. He stated his appreciation of
the efforts made to enhance the neighborhood and the improvements of the pedestrian
easements and respecting the open space to remain unbuilt. He welcomes the new homes,
but requested that they be kept to a style and character to the existing nature of the
neighborhood. He submitted a letter to the Commission from Bob and Mary Lohr, 14300
Douglass Lane. Planner Walgren read the letter from Mr. and Mrs. Lohr. The letter
mentions that they were unable to attend the meeting and wished to make their views
known to the members of the Planning Commission. They strongly felt that the proposed
homes were not in keeping with the neighborhood. As proposed, these homes were twice
the size of existing homes. There is not a single home in the neighborhood that one might
call similar in style or character. They believed the design. should not be approved and
urged the builder to redesign the homes to be compatible with the neighborhood.
Jeanne Johnston, 14210 Douglass Lane, informed the Commission that she has lived in this
home for the past 31 years. She has great pride and ownership of the neighborhood. She
addressed the two parcels that Mr. Roberts was designating as part of Douglass Lane.
Douglass Lane is split in two with Wild Cat Creek going through it. She did not feel that
these homes belonged in her end of Douglass Lane. She felt that the proposed homes
belonged with those of the Little Sisters of Mercy parcels. She, concurred. that the existing
homes did not fit with the home proposed because the proposed homes were much too
ornate, much too large and much too bulky. They do not go with the rural atmosphere.
Along Douglass Lane, you see many homes that do not have lawns and have well
maintained orchards. She suggested that Mr. Roberts rethink his plans and get more in
keeping with the average home of 2,800 square feet with the largest home being 3,300
square feet with two car garages. Hers is one of few that have a separate garage. Most
other garages are attached just as they will be in the plans as proposed by Mr. Roberts. The
homes on the east side of Douglass Lane are half acre lots. On the west side of Douglass
PLANNING COMMISbtON MINUTES
JULY 27, 1994
PAGE - 11 -
Lane are 50 foot lots that are quite deep (100 or 200 feet deep). The existing homes are
very old and the existing residents do not make moves easily. She does not want this type
of development because it is not the neighborhood style. The residents request that the
Commission rethink staffs recommendation on these homes. She commented that the oak
tree (NC2) would need to be, removed and replaced to accommodate the home. It takes
five years at a minimum for an oak tree to die. She suggested that these requests be placed
on hold for a while and have Mr. Roberts'rethink his proposal. The existing residents would
be most grateful.
Shanta Loomer, 19974 Durham Court, resides next door to. Mr. Woolsey, provided the
Commission with photographs representing the views from her backyard. She stated that
she had no objections to homes being built. However, she expressed concern with the
height of the homes from her backyard. She requested that the proposed homes be
minimized and in keeping with the compatibility *of the neighborhood as stated by previous
speakers. She informed the Commission that when she had her home built, she was not
permitted to build a two story home because she was not adjacent to two story homes. She
did not know how the homes would enhance the value of her home.
Mr. Roberts stated his appreciation of the comments expressed. He felt that -a three-
dimensional drawing may have helped the residents to understand what was being proposed.
He did not know if you could isolate and make a case to the fact that these parcels are only
part of the Durham Court neighborhood. He also added that a number of speakers tonight
are really not impacted as far as their own particular homes are concerned and are not
adjacent to this particular subdivision. The statement of homogeneity and ranch style homes
on Durham Court is not necessarily true. There exists a number of different style homes.
Some of which back up to these parcels. One being a French Normandy, the one across the
street is a standard two story and the one in the corner is also a French Normandy. He
understands that any type of new development on a site that is used to being seen as open
space, may be disappointing to see disappear. Any type of home whether they are as large
as these homes or not, will be of some impact. He worked hard to come up with these
designs to minimize the impact of the homes on the lots. He stated the he offered to show
Mr. Teter some of the other homes that he built that were much larger that were more
fitting with an environment of an area that he built adjacent to 10,000 square foot lots that
had 2,400 square foot homes on it. He also had half acre sites.and ended up placing 3,500
square foot homes on it. It had a fair amount of screening and it worked. As far as the
Durham Court neighbors that are immediately adjacent to him, he stated his willingness to
work with the Planning Commission as well as the neighbors to provide. the type of
screening that they would want to see. He did not feel that these particular homes were
massive nor bulky. Time and thought was put into the design of the homes. He understood
that this was a sensitive area and felt that the concerns have been addressed.
Commissioner Caldwell questioned the city arborist regarding parcel 1. There exists a 9
inch DBH oak tree that is proposed for removal to accommodate construction of the
property. Staff has suggested to the Commission that it was appropriate for transplanting.
She questioned the likelihood of success for transplanting the tree and the different ways
of handling the situation if the tree does not make it. Mr. Coate responded that it was
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JULY 27, 1994
PAGE - 12, -
within the acceptable size for transplanting if it is done by hand boxing or by using a Big
John tree mover which digs an eight foot ball. Anything smaller than that would not be
worth doing. If the tree's structure is not perfect, the city might be better off to allow its
removal and replacement by the appropriate number of fairly large replacement trees. A
nine inch diameter tree will probably have a 75 -80 percent chance of good landscape growth
if properly transplanted. But there is always a chance that it would not grow well: In which
case, the Commission should require assurance that the transplanting takes hold. The
Commission will know if the tree is not doing what it should within three full growing
seasons.
Commissioner Caldwell questioned if Mr. Coate had the opportunity to review any of the_
trees on that parcel. Mr. Coate stated that on parcel 2, if a protective fence along the
bottom part of the property.was installed, he could not find any trees that would be affected.
Commissioner Caldwell commented that the applicant is proposing grading within the open
space easement. They would need to take down that protective fence to accomplish that.
She expressed concern regrading the tree and recommended additional review by Mr. Coate
because it would be within the dripline of the tree. Mr. Coate stated that he would look
at the plans more closely but grading should not occur within the dripline.
Commissioner Kaplan questioned if there was to be 25% to 30% chance that the
transplanted tree would not make it, she was trying to figure out which tree on the chart it
was and its replacement value and how many trees would it take to replace it. Mr. Coate
stated that he would need to perform the mathematics to determine that. Planner Walgren
noted that the tree under discussion was tree number 23. Mr. Coate equated the value as
being $1,030 and that the value was low because the tree was of rather poor structure, but
its health was reasonably good. Mr. Coate informed Commissioner Kaplan that if she
looked at the chart at the upper corner, it would show her what it converts to (somewhere
between 24 and 36 inch boxed trees). Commissioner Kaplan stated that she and Mr. Coate
have discussed on other occasions on other properties as to whether or not the City does
best at this point to say to the developer to put some new healthy trees. Mr. Coate
responded that since the existing tree is not a very well formed tree, you are transplanting
a tree that is not well structured any how. He felt that it would be a benefit to request the
replacement tree. If the tree was a perfect specimen, he would recommend the opposite.
Mr. Roberts stated that he had an opportunity to take a look at the pictures circulated and
hoped that the Commission discounts those pictures as far as his project was concerned
because he did not feel that they were representative at all.
Commissioner Kaplan questioned if Mr. Roberts was willing to address the issue of the
replacement trees. Mr. Roberts stated that he did not have a problem. with the
recommendation.
COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL /KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC
HEARING FOR AGENDA ITEMS 2 AND 3 AT 9:04 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED
3 -0 (CHAIRMAN ASFOUR ABSENT).
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JULY 27, 1994
PAGE - 13 -
THE COMMISSION RECESSED AT 9:05 P.M. THE COMMISSION RECONVENED
AT 9:18 P.M. _
Commissioner Kaplan thanked staff for having the height pole and the corner markings
outlining the homes so that the Commission could get a good view of what can be seen from
the land use visit. Other than the corrections about modification to the resolution, she
made some comments about what was heard tonight. She appreciated the fact the neighbors
have expressed their feelings. The Commission was here to hear concerns during this
process. On the other hand, it is not a majority vote situation and that the Commission
needs to review other issues, although, the speakers do bring to the Commission's attention
critical concerns. She, at one time, opened her shade to look out into her view shed and
saw something that she had never seen before or even anticipated and called the Building
Department to inquire who put a hotel out there. She stated that it was a home being built
that seemed very large, but there were no trees. Several years later; you. don't see the house
because the trees have taken care of it. It has to look different and it has to look dramatic
because it is a change from nothing to something. Her concern when visiting the Woolsey
.property is what he would be seeing. He would, in fact, be seeing houses. There is no way
to get around it because something will be built on it. The neighbors raised the issue of
how the City allows change. We are in a society that is constantly evolving. Neighborhoods
change. Additions are allowed because people need more room and want .to upgrade their
homes. So we really can't say that every single house that goes into a neighborhood has to
look like every other house. She felt that the neighbors have to realize that there are laws
which permits a builder to make bigger houses. That is why the codes and the design review
process have been written to take into account the fact that change will be coming and to
keep it within certain parameters. .With that in mind, she could not say that she objects to
the houses and cannot find any grounds to ask the developer to go back and redesign the
houses. She would like to see the screen planting and commented that Mr. Roberts has
addressed that by stating that he would install screen planting because on parcel 1, with the
removal of the trees slated for removal, there is going to be a visual hole because the
thickness of canopy will be gone. Something should be installed to replace the trees. She
was inclined to go along with Mr. Coate and ask that the tree be replaced with boxed trees.
Commissioner Caldwell discussed the issues that she felt were most important in her point
of view and responded to some of the comments made by Commissioner Kaplan. There
were a few things with respect to these two parcels that she felt should be non - negotiable
from the City's stand point. One being that in situations where we have infill development,
we have always required at least a conceptual or initial landscaping plans. We do not have
that in this instance. While she understands Commissioner Kaplan's concern with screening
because she shares that concern, she recognized that the Design Review Handbook tells
them that they should not rely on the screening alone to resolve design or privacy issues that
may arise. But she did think that landscape plans were needed to evaluate the application.
That would tell them where the replacement trees are going to be located. It would give the
neighbors a better idea of what kind of screening would be provided to them, we would be
clear on whether or not the significant trees on the property are going to be impacted in any
way from the landscaping, etc. The second thing that she felt was non - negotiable was the
replacement of tree no. 23. With Mr. Coate's input about needing to weigh . the trees
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JULY 27, 1994
PAGE - 14 -
growing seasons to see whether or not the transplanting was successful and given staff s
concerns about being able to successfully monitor that, and given -the structure of the tree,
she did think that providing for replacement of the tree was appropriate in this case.
Thirdly, with respect to parcel number 2, she felt that the riparian corridor in the open
space easement that was created at the subdivision level should be held in its natural state
and that it is inappropriate to permit, grading in that area, particularly with the proximity
of the ordinance sized . oak tree to the proposed grading. She suggested that when this
application does go forward, that the retaining wall be selected as the appropriate remedy
to the drainage problem and that the turf block solution be chosen for the driveway rather
than collecting drainage off the driveway and diverting it somewhere else or into the creek.
She addressed the whole issue of this neighborhood and the infill development situation.
She agreed with many of the statements made this evening that the relevant neighborhood
for this area is the Shadow Oaks /Douglass Lane area. She felt that the neighbors identified
the major issues with respect to neighborhood compatibility which is a. finding that needs
to be made. She wanted to break this into a few categories. She recognized that this is the
size of many of the lots that are located along Durham Court and Douglass Lane. However,
even in cases where we have had significantly different sized lots and infill property
development such as on Oahu Lane off of Wendy Lane off of Allendale, and the
Ravenwood Drive area off of Quito Road where-the lots were large, the Commission
worked hard to keep the size of the homes and the design of the homes much in keeping
with the existing. character of the neighborhood as possible. In the case in the Oahu Lane
homes, that meant continuing the application, working with the applicant's architect to bring
the homes more into character with the neighbors and working on a landscape plan to
address privacy and view concerns that were raised. In the case of the Ravenwood homes,
the Commission was very aggressive at the subdivision level and made it very explicit as to
the design that was appropriate for the area. Her point being was that the Commission has
been conscientious as a, community in addressing infill because it is a very sensitive issue.
She thought that the statement that this is a transitional neighborhood. could be made
perhaps for every neighborhood in Saratoga. But it does not mean that we turn the other
way on design issues and on Bulk issues. For her, the major bulk concern was on the rear
elevation of the homes, not so much the front elevation. For one, the rear elevations have
the most impact on the immediate neighbors. She was particularly concerned with the
continuous structure effect that is going to occur with the proposed location of these homes.
In looking from the Woolsey property and from what she could tell from the Loomer
property, looking up with the construction tape out there and the height pole, there is going
to be a very small gap. That 50 or 60 foot gap that one recognizes when you are right there
where the structures are going to be located is significantly reduced as you move away from
the property. The elevation change where the parcels are located and the structures are
proposed versus the elevations of the neighbors that are much heavily impacted are quite
different. So you do have a sense of greater height. One suggestion she had for the
applicant was that he demonstrate that he accomplished some modulation with the front of
the homes, but there is not much modulation in the back of the homes. She did not think
that he recognized the serious issue of a continuous large structure for these back yard
neighbors. Perhaps moving the home on parcel 1 closer to the front of the property would
help address that problem. She was reticent to accept the postulation that all homes that
will be built in the future in the surrounding open spaces are going to be similar to this one.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JULY 27, 1994
PAGE - 15 -
That is why there is a Planning Commission to recognize the character of the neighborhood
and to recognize that the Design Review findings acknowledge the importance of the
existing character of a neighborhood. The Commission was not here to embrace what the
future of a neighborhood might be but to stand up for what a neighborhood is and what its
character is. Embracing development that is appropriate and that respects the existing
character. It may be appropriate to require a two car and not a three car garage. The
Commission has done that elsewhere with infill development. She did feel that the
neighbors had a good point with respect to the bulk and compatibility issues.
Vice - chairman Murakami appreciated the comments expressed by the neighbors. The
comments helped to give the Commission a clear view of what is going on. He felt that staff
and the applicant have done a very good job in trying to mitigate some of the concerns. At
his site visit of Durham Court, his only. objection was that you can see that the way the
design from the rear of parcel 2 would be that -of a bulky -type appearance and could see
why the neighbors would be concerned. It was very helpful to have staff utilize the height
poles because it gave the Commission a good idea of what the actual outline of the home
would look like. He felt that it would have been nice to have a three dimensional type
model to view to get a better perspective to mitigate some of the fears that the neighbors
have voiced. He would like to see lot number 1, as far as the rear view, be softened.
Maybe something can be done to address the bulky issue and some of the design problems
that the neighbors have voiced. He suggested that there be a continuance on these items.
Commissioner Caldwell questioned Vice - chairman Murakami's stand on other issues (e.g.
landscape plans, requirement of replacement trees versus transplanting of the trees, grading
in the easement). Vice- chairman Murakami responded that he could see that with the
neighbors input, it would be good to view landscape plans. It would be beneficial to have
conceptual landscape plans in a design phase so that the Commission can make a judgement
on them. He stated that he was satisfied with the arborist report and that if Mr. Coate felt
that the survival percentage was very high, a requirement of some sort of a maintenance
bond should be required to be included in the resolution. He agreed with Commissioner
Caldwell that the riparian corridor should be considered very carefully before anything is
done.
Commissioner Kaplan commented that in response to moving the house of the first lot, you
would run into a problem. Looking at the natural grade, if you move the house closer to
the footprint of the existing house that is going to be demolished, you bring it higher on the
terrain. Either you will have to do more cut to set a house in there that will keep the height
to the level that the Commission is speaking of. Mr. Tang will have a greater impact from
his window. Anything that you -put on those lots will impact the lower level of Mr.
Woolsey's view whether or not the builder can reduce the size of the home in square
footage on lot 1. She was concerned that if the Commission tells the applicant to go back
and move the home up the hill, the Commission will be in a situation where we have
something looming even larger, visually from below. She supported the replacement trees
after hearing Mr. Coate's comments
CORRESPONDENCE
19952 Durham Ct
Saratoga
October 27, 1994
Saratoga City Council
City of Saratoga,
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
We are concerned that the two houses proposed for lots 14350 and 14360 Douglass
Lane are not compatible in size and style with the existing homes. We want to
maintain the rural character and atmosphere of this long established neighborhood.
The houses as proposed at 5400 and 5600 square feet are massive and bulky in
comparison with other homes in the neighborhood. We do not believe these houses
meet the intent of the Design Review Criteria, :section 15- 45.080. This opinion is
shared by the forty seven neighbors who signed the attached petition.
In our appeal letter dated September 29, 1994, item #2 requests changes to soften the
building. R &Z Development is proposing some changes to the rear elevation of the
house on parcel #1. This part of the house overlooks our backyard and we are
concerned about our privacy if there is a balcony. However, the issue of bulk and mass
remains. We want to draw your attention on parcel 1 to the left side elevation, and on
parcel 2 to both the rear elevation and left side elevation. We strongly request design
changes to reduce the bulk in these areas.
The developer has offered to work with the neighborhood on color and landscaping.
We suggest a landscaping bond to insure that the landscaping is well maintained
until established. These changes need to be finalized and. made a condition of
approval.
We again ask for a work session -with the planning staff, the developer and the
neighbors. We think this would be the most productive way to make progress on these
issues.
We invite all of you to visit our back yard to review the proposed placement of .these
houses. Please feel free to contact us at any time, 867 -2484.
Sincerely,
Robert Woolsey
nnette Woolsey
- _ -� _•,'��- a ��
N.
09,,E
$ , r F,
S ✓
C : `.�•}�+=-
,rte -•a�qt
� I' i
.�...
® 1
,1+
ti
r't
�;. Or
l
;a
- — =;4 -
dr
�il•.
� t •'
F�
t:
'r 't
r �
RICK E. MARTIN — MERCURY NEWS
Is been not -so- affectionately dubbed "the Treasury Building" by neighbors who complain about its bulk and un -Palo Alto -like style.
r
BY MEUNDA SACKS
V "AD V� De, ba�e_ I/
Mercury News Staff Writer
HEN Avi Meyers tried to build his 7,500- square -foot dream
home in Los Altos Hills, he ended up with $500,000 of debt
and a lot of heartache. The experience was so vile, he said,
that he gave up the large property, which was in escrow, and bought
in Palo Alto instead.
But planning commissioners who voted down Meyers' Los Altos
Hills house felt its size and style would not fit in with the rural
character of the community. It was, they admit, a subjective decision.
The struggle to balance personal taste with community standards
and requirements has become so heated in some cities that lawsuits
have been filed. On one side are builders who want to make their
mark and homeowners who say they should be able to do what they
want with their own property. On the other are planners and
residents determined to' maintain neighborhood character and size +
limitations.
See BIG, Page 6E >
San Tose H441041/1/ we-w_% q/l
C
,1+
ti
r't
RICK E. MARTIN — MERCURY NEWS
Is been not -so- affectionately dubbed "the Treasury Building" by neighbors who complain about its bulk and un -Palo Alto -like style.
r
BY MEUNDA SACKS
V "AD V� De, ba�e_ I/
Mercury News Staff Writer
HEN Avi Meyers tried to build his 7,500- square -foot dream
home in Los Altos Hills, he ended up with $500,000 of debt
and a lot of heartache. The experience was so vile, he said,
that he gave up the large property, which was in escrow, and bought
in Palo Alto instead.
But planning commissioners who voted down Meyers' Los Altos
Hills house felt its size and style would not fit in with the rural
character of the community. It was, they admit, a subjective decision.
The struggle to balance personal taste with community standards
and requirements has become so heated in some cities that lawsuits
have been filed. On one side are builders who want to make their
mark and homeowners who say they should be able to do what they
want with their own property. On the other are planners and
residents determined to' maintain neighborhood character and size +
limitations.
See BIG, Page 6E >
San Tose H441041/1/ we-w_% q/l
Small is
beautiful in
some cities
■ BIG
from Page 6E
money that they can't do what
they want on their own property,
City planners agree. But it's part
of the job.
"These are people with money,
they are educated and they have
resources," Williams said of his
experience in Woodside. "They
can hire high - powered attorneys
and architects and they're used to
getting their way. They've done
much bigger deals than build a
house and they expect to be able
to do what they want to do."
Palo Alto traditionally has
been a favorite place of builders
and: architects who want to do
something unusual. But this ac-
ceptance of diversity can create
problems. When developers and
builders buy small, older homes
and then tear them down to con-
struct large homes, many neigh-
bors are unhappy, in spite of the
argument that property values
will increase.
Neighborhood landmark
One recently finished Palo Alto
home — built after the existing
older house with its expansive
porches and tennis courts was
torn down — is commonly re-
ferred to as "the Treasury Build-
ing" by unhappy neighbors who
feel it looms over their smaller,
more modest houses.
Another developer -built home
within several blocks was given
the name "Tara" after "Gone
` With the Wind," a statement of
neighbors' discomfort with its
size. And it is not uncommon for
One recent hand-painted
........ ...............................
Proclamation tacked to the
............................................ ...............................
cyclone fence of an old
............................................ ...............................
Palo Alto "knockdown"
............................................ ...............................
read, "Coming soon to
............................................ .... ... ........................
Your neighborhood:
.......... . ...................................................... I.........
another big ugly house."
someone to place a sign on mew -
home construction sites objecting
to more change. One recent hand -
painted proclamation was tacked
to the cyclone fence of an old Palo
Alto "knockdown." It read:
"Coming soon to your neighbor-
hood: another big ugly house."
"Otherwise enlightened people
are willing to trample on others
and give up their rights on this
issue," Meyers said. "In the long
run, I think it's terrible for soci-
ety and the economy."
Builders say that as property
values regain strength in the Bay
Area, the desire to build promi-
nent custom homes is likely to
grow. To deal with that pressure
and with the increasingly diffi-
cult task of setting community
standards, city planning depart-
ments are considering several
new tactics.
In Fremont, Johnson has con-
tracted with a computer imaging
consulting service to graphically
evaluate individual cases. The
company measures the lot and
creates a computer image of how
the proposed house will sit on the
site, so planners can determine
whether the project should be ap-
proved.
New restrictions
Los Altos Hills is adding yet
another restriction to its guide-
lines this year — a reduced color
palette for would -be home build-
ers that closely matches that of
Los Gatos. No more light colors
on home exteriors; soon only dark
colors will be acceptable.
"We want the statement to be
the lot, not the house," Niles said
of the change.
Los Gatos moved to a dark -col-
ors -only policy for hillside homes
after realizing its previous errors,
said senior planner Donald Ross.
"If you look up Blossom Hill you
can see where a lot of mistakes
have been made," he said.
Not all of those who want to
build their dream homes are tak-
ing the increasing restrictions in
stride. Some have filed lawsuits
that have led to settlements al-
lowing them more freedom.
"When someone takes legal ac-
tion against us (for not allowing
them to build what they want)
it's human nature to try to set-
tle," Woodside's Williams said.
What happened to Meyers,
Niles said, was a combination of
bad'luck and the fact that the
planning staff was undergoing
changes. "He really had an unfor-
tunate situation," she said.
"I hate to see all the restric-
tions that are taking away our
freedom of choice," said builder
Owen. "They've become a little
too monochromatic in their lim-
its." As an afterthought, he add-
ed: "I suppose they're just trying
to do their job."
D E V E L O P M E N T
October 26, 1994
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: Woolsey Appeal
Design Review Applications #94 -024 & #94 -025
14350 and 14360 Douglass Lane
Honorable Mayor Burger and Members of the City Council:
Please be advised that on Tuesday, October 25, 1994, my architect and I had
an opportunity to meet with all the adjacent neighbors to the north of our homesites
in an effort to resolve certain differences and concerns regarding our proposed homes.
We were also able to expand on explanations of some misconceptions and'practical
matters of construction.
In attendance for the neighbors were Mr. and Mrs. Woolsey, Dr. Loomer, Dr.
Lohr, Mr. Tang, Mrs. Johnston, and Mr. Teter.
The home for Lot 1 ( #94 -024, 14350 Douglass Lane) was the focal point of
our conversation since it is most near the neighbors to the north and the one on
which the neighbors concentrated.
We brought to the meeting a revised rear elevation of Lot 1 that further articulated
the modulation of the rear of the house and its horizontal plane. This was done by
adding an arbor structure together with a deck along the northerly end; changing
window sizes; adding a planter to the deck area to provide an additional break; and
expanding the rear deck along the southerly end of the house. During discussions;
we agreed to eliminate the deck at the northerly end in the interest of privacy. A copy
of the revised plan is included for your review.
We then discussed the matter of landscaping and again offered to consider the neighbors'
input in modifying types of trees and placement plus offering installation of a few more
trees on the Woolsey and Loomer properties that would be of a fast growing nature.
These trees could be removed at such time as they might interfere with view lines while
giving the trees on our sites an opportunity to mature in accordance with goals to provide
BUS: 408-252-1101 • FAX: 408-252-5435
1601 S. Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road • Suite 101 • Cupertino, California 95014
CITY COUNCIL OF SARATOGA
October 26, 1994
Page 2
screening of the elevations of the homes but not the views. We further offered the idea
of a solid good neighbor fence, where allowed, along the Woolsey and Loomer property
line. It is our intent to revise the types of trees and reconsider their placement, and
submit the revision for staff and neighbor review prior to planning clearance.
The final area of discussion had to do with color choice of the homes. We agreed to
tone down the colors of the homes and are. preparing revised color selections for staff
and neighbor review. However, since color is such a. personal choice, we would like
to reserve the final determination for colors. It is our intent to have this matter clarified
prior to plannning clearance as well.
In conclusion, it was our understanding that the above measures helped to alleviate
many of their concerns. We respectfully request that the Council ratify the approval of
these design review applications previously granted by the Planning Commission. We
are willing to incorporate the measures noted in this letter into that approval.
Thank you again for your consideration.
S ce ly,
N�a oberts
b
Encl.
D E V E L O P M E N T
October 24, 1994
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF. SARATOGA
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: Woolsey Appeal Reply
Design Review Applications #94 -024 & #94 -025
14350 and 14360 Douglass Lane
Honorable Mayor Burger and Members of the City Council:
On September 14, 1994, the Planning Commission approved the above referenced
design review applications for two new homes on a private cul -de -sac at the end of
Douglass Lane. Two public hearings were held on this matter, and the applications
were supported by City staff. On September 29, the Woolseys filed their appeal.
Please excuse the length of this reply to the Woolsey's appeal, but the time and effort
spent on responsibly developing the properties has created somewhat of a history.
From the beginning of development we have worked hard to be sensitive to the
.sites and have been successful in cleaning them up; providing a safer access to the
area, saving trees that were scheduled to be removed; and significantly reducing the
final amount of work that was required to be done adjacent to the bridge in Wildcat
Creek.
The architectural design of the homes followed all ordinances of the City codes
as well as the conditions of the tentative map. We either met or were under size,
setback, height, and coverage allowances, and demonstrated, upon direction by
the Planning Commission in response to comments by the neighbors, that any per-
ception of bulk or mass was effectively softened through use of horizontal modulation
of building lines, low and deep overhangs, low roof line, and the use of landscaping
treatments.
The sites are approximately 1.5 acres each and are less in coverage (15% and 12%
respectively where 45% is allowed) than all surrounding properties, with, perhaps,
the exception of the old Goodrich estate. Homes as large, or larger, exist on one or
more acres to the south, west, and east of our properties, while the few adjacent homes
to the north are situated on one -half acre sites with much more of a coverage ratio.
The homes are well designed and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood
considering the diversity that exists, especially to the north, and are one story structures
in the front with 100' and 70' foot front yard setbacks on a private street. For Lot 1,
BUS: 408-252-1101 • FAX: 408-252-5435
1601 S. Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road • Suite 101 • Cupertino, California 95014
CITY COUNCIL OF SARATOGA
October 24, 1994
Page 2
approximately 25% of the home has a two story element in the rear that is tucked into the
slope with a rising grade. Both plans are designed to make the most efficient use of the
land and are situated to be as unintrusive as possible when considering the orientation
of adjacent homes.
Additionally, the two story portions are positioned away from any potential lines of
sight that may exist toward the tree lines and mountains. No prohibitions were made
with regard to two story homes at tentative map approval since there are two story homes
in the neighborhood and the fact that the sites are large and well screened with respect to
the topography and an abundance of mature trees. Both homes' roof lines are well below
the height limitations and well below the distant tree lines and mountain ridge. As a
matter of fact, the roof line for the new home on Lot 1 is approximately 15' below that of
the older existing house.
Our landscaping plan for the sites provides for twice as many trees for purposes of
screening as is required by the City's guidelines. This is in addition to the maturity of
existing trees, bushes, and other vegatation which is significant. We have always
remained willing to continue to work with the neighbors to determine specific types of
trees and their placement.
With respect to the colors of the homes, this is another area in which we have always
been agreeable to using alternative colors similar to those recommended by the
neighbors.
As far as future structures or improvements are concerned, our sites would be sub-
ject to the same City ordinances as neighboring properties.
And, finally, to address the balance of the concerns of the Woolsey's appeal, we
have work hard to address those issues associated with the immediately adjacent
neighbors. This has been done in conjuction with direction from the Planning Com-
mission and staff. I have always been available to meet with the neighbors, have
written letters and made telephone calls to the closest neighbors concerning the homes,
and subsequent to Planning Commission approval again offered to work with them
further on matters of concern. I remain willing to do so. .
CITY COUNCIL OF SARATOGA
October 24, 1994
Page 3
Thank you for your consideration. Should you have any questions or need additional
information, please feel tree to contact me.
s tfull ,
11rkb
PETITION
Saratoga Planning Commission
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Planning Commission Members,
We, the residents of Shadows Oaks, Douglass Lane and Durham Ct., request
the Planning Commission deny approval to build the proposed homes at 14350
Douglass Lane and 14360 Douglass Lane. Our neighborhood consists of a mix of
homes, some are older and some are newer than others. Most homes are a variation
of the California ranch style with a few Mediterranean and French. Over the years
many of the homes have been remodeled. The remodeled homes are tasteful and
very much in keeping with their original design. The neighborhood has evolved and
yet has maintained it's original country style and charm.
The proposed new houses on Douglass Lane are not in keeping with the
neighborhood. Whereas the typical homes in our neighborhood range from 2600 to
3200 sq ft, 'the proposed houses will be 5400 and 5600 sq ft. These houses are
massive by comparison with the neighborhood. The design review criteria are very
specific. Section c and d under 15- 45.080 Design Review Findings state clearly that a
proposed structure minimize the perception of bulk. and be compatible with adjacent
lots and the neighborhood with regard to bulk and height. The proposed structures
do not meet the design review criteria as set forth by the City of Saratoga. These new
houses are not compatible with the neighborhood. We request you to carry out your
responsibilities to protect and preserve the character and integrity of our neighborhood
by requiring the developer to design smaller homes more complimentary to the
neighborhood.
Name Address
14z
/yi
�J
xe� �
Signatures gather by between7-5'--� y and c!
PETITION
Saratoga Planning Commission
Saratoga, CA 95070
,Dear Planning Commission Members,
We, the residents of Shadows Oaks, Douglass Lane and Durham Ct., request
the Planning Commission deny approval to build the proposed homes at 14350
Douglass Lane and 14360 Douglass Lane. Our neighborhood consists of a mix of
homes, some are older and some are newer than others. Most homes are a variation
of the California ranch style with a few Mediterranean and French. Over the years
many of the homes have been remodeled. The remodeled homes are tasteful and
very much in keeping with their original design. The neighborhood has evolved and
yet has maintained it's original country style and charm.
The proposed new houses on Douglass Lane are not in keeping with the
neighborhood. Whereas the typical homes in our neighborhood range from 2600 to
3200 sq ft, the proposed houses will be 5400 and 5600 sq ft. These houses are
massive by comparison with the neighborhood. The design review criteria are very
specific. Section c and d under 15- 45.080 Design Review Findings state clearly that a
proposed structure minimize the perception of bulk and be compatible with adjacent
lots and the neighborhood with regard to bulk'and height. The proposed structures
do not meet the design review criteria as set forth by the City of Saratoga. These new
houses are not compatible with the neighborhood. We request you to carry out your
responsibilities to protect and preserve the character and integrity of our neighborhood
by requiring the developer to design smaller homes more complimentary to the
neighborhood.
Name Address
Signatures gather by
n S_ ; -r _r _and ''— s �
'Z
PETITION
Saratoga Planning Commission
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Planning Commission Members,
We, the residents of Shadows Oaks, Douglass Lane and Durham Ct., request
the Planning. Commission deny approval to build the proposed homes at 14350
Douglass Lane and 14360 Douglass Lane. Our neighborhood consists of a mix of
homes, some are older and some are newer than others. Most homes are a variation
of the California ranch style with a few Mediterranean and French. Over the years
many of the homes have been remodeled. The remodeled homes are tasteful and
very much in keeping with their original design. The neighborhood has evolved and
yet has maintained it's original country style and charm.
The proposed new houses on Douglass Lane are not in keeping with the
neighborhood. Whereas the typical homes in our neighborhood range from 2600 to
3200 sq. ft, the proposed houses will be 5400 and 5600 sq ft. These houses are
massive by comparison with the neighborhood. The design review criteria are very
specific. Section c and d under 15- 45.080 Design Review Findings state clearly that a
proposed structure minimize the perception of bulk and be compatible with adjacent
lots and the neighborhood with regard to bulk and height. The proposed structures
do not meet the design review criteria as set forth by the City of Saratoga. These new
houses are not compatible with the neighborhood. We request you to carry out your
responsibilities to protect and preserve the character and integrity of our neighborhood
by requiring the developer to design smaller homes more complimentary to the
neighborhood.
Name Address
- 0
i M 75
Pt ,
T
Signatures gather -between and -gY and
3
PETITION
Saratoga Planning Commission
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Planning Commission Members,
We, the residents of Shadows Oaks, Douglass Lane and Durham Ct., request
the Planning Commission deny approval to build the proposed homes at 14350
Douglass Lane and 14360 Douglass Lane. Our neighborhood consists of a mix of
homes, some are older and some are newer than others. Most homes are a variation
of the California ranch style with a few Mediterranean and French. Over the years
many of the homes have been remodeled. The remodeled homes are tasteful and
very much in keeping with their original design. The neighborhood has evolved and
yet has maintained it's original country style and charm.
The proposed new houses on Douglass Lane are not in keeping with the
neighborhood. Whereas the typical homes in our neighborhood range from 2600 to
3200 sq ft, the proposed houses will be 5400 and 5600 sq ft. These houses are
massive by comparison with the neighborhood. The design review criteria are very
specific. Section c and d under 15- 45.080 Design Review Findings state clearly that a
proposed structure minimize the perception of bulk and be compatible with adjacent
lots and the neighborhood with regard to bulk and height. The proposed structures
do not meet the design review criteria as set forth by the City of Saratoga. These new
houses are not compatible with the neighborhood. We request you to carry out your
responsibilities to protect and preserve the character and integrity of our neighborhood
by requiring the developer to design smaller homes more complimentary to the
neighborhood.
Nam
Address
1-
L/ G'
y�
l<f y JA /'�r� f 0
r) .
('c.as G/
GAi CA TR' ?v
I W (C4> Cl
Signatures gather by _between and
A
PETITION
Saratoga Planning Commission
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Planning Commission Members,
We, the residents of Shadows Oaks, Douglass Lane and Durham Ct., request
the Planning Commission deny approval to build the proposed homes at 14350
Douglass Lane and 14360 Douglass Lane. Our neighborhood consists of a mix of
homes, some are older and some are newer than others. Most homes are a variation
of the California ranch style with a few Mediterranean and French. Over the years
many of the homes have been remodeled. The remodeled homes are tasteful and
very much in keeping with their original design. The neighborhood has evolved and
yet has maintained it's original country style and charm.
The proposed new houses on Douglass Lane are not in keeping with the
neighborhood. Whereas the typical homes in our neighborhood range from 2600 to
3200 sq ft, the proposed houses will be 5400 and 5600 sq ft. These houses are
massive by comparison with the neighborhood. The design review criteria are very
specific. Section c and d under 15- 45.080 Design Review Findings state clearly that a
proposed structure minimize the perception of bulk and be compatible with adjacent
lots and the neighborhood with regard to bulk and height. The proposed structures. .
do not meet the design review criteria as set forth by the City of Saratoga. These new
houses are not compatible with the neighborhood. We request you to carry out your
responsibilities to protect and preserve the character and integrity of our. neighborhood
by requiring the developer to design smaller homes more complimentary to the
neighborhood.
een9 -/�-- F y and
C.19
1 � 70
S
PETITION
Saratoga Planning Commission
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Planning Commission Members,
We, the residents of Shadows Oaks, Douglass Lane and Durham Ct., request
the Planning Commission deny approval to build the proposed homes at 14350
Douglass Lane and 14360 Douglass Lane. Our neighborhood consists of a mix of
homes, some are older and some are newer than others. Most homes are a variation
of the California ranch style with a few Mediterranean and French. Over the years
many of the homes have been remodeled. The remodeled homes are tasteful and
very much in keeping with their original design. The neighborhood has evolved and
yet has maintained it's original country style and charm. .
The proposed new houses.on Douglass Lane are not in keeping with the
neighborhood. Whereas the typical homes in our neighborhood range from 2600 to
3200 sq ft, the proposed houses will be 5400 and 5600 sq ft. These houses are
massive by comparison with the neighborhood. The design review criteria are very
specific. Section c and d under 15- 45.080 Design Review Findings state clearly that a
proposed structure minimize the perception of bulk and be compatible with adjacent
lots and the neighborhood with regard to bulk and height. The proposed structures
do not meet the design review criteria as set forth by the City of Saratoga. These new
houses are not compatible with the neighborhood. We request you to carry out your
responsibilities to protect and preserve the character and integrity of our neighborhood
by requiring the developer to design smaller homes more complimentary to the
neighborhood.
Name
Signatures gather by_�C_
Address
14au tom, , -K1 uke_
w between .g_i ?- `' and
0
RECEIVED
SE P 8 1994
-lviVING DEPT.
Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
19952 Durham Court
Saratoga, CA 95070
September 8, 1994
Honorable Chairperson and Members of the Commission:
At the Planning Commission meeting of July 27, 1994, we expressed our
concern about the two houses to be built at 14350 and 14360 Douglass.
Lane. We would like to again express our concerns, and those of our
neighbors, regarding the compatibility of these structures with an
existing and mature neighborhood. Our neighborhood consists of homes
which are considerably smaller, and to be more compatible, these new
houses should be reduced in size and bulk. They are designed for the
maximum size permitted by ordinance. Our first request is to reduce
their square footage, even though they do meet your ordinance.
Secondly, to address the design issues and appearance of the proposed
structures, we employed a local architect to review the plans. As
viewed from our rear yard, and those of our immediate neighbors, the
new structures are very overpowering as they appear as two stories..
The facade changes, which the architect developed, are outlined in the
attached document. We ask you to carefully consider all of the points
covered in this document.
At this time the landscaping plans are not available for our review as
stated previously by the developer. We wish to emphasize that the
selection and location of trees needs careful planning and design.,
Planting the incorrect tree in the wrong place will present a problem
in the future by blocking our view of the hillsides.
Finally, future structures such as cabanas, guest houses, pools,
tennis courts, decking, and patios will have a visual and acoustic.
impact on the immediate neighbors. The location and size of these
potiental structures should be designated now when these houses are
being considered by the Planning Commission. Since the two houses, as
submitted, are almost the maximum square footage allowed, any future
square footage with accessory buildings must be considered as a
variance. Anyone who purchases these homes has the right to know what
they can do with their property.that will be permitted by the City of
Saratoga. We only wish to minimize the intrusion of any future
building on the neighborhood, and to protect our privacy, and that of
the immediate neighbors.
We respectfully request that, prior
Planning Commission meet at a Work
designers, and the neighborhood to
for your consideration..
Sincerely,
L
Robert Woolsey
to any final approval, the
Session with the developers, their
discuss these houses. Thank you
Annette Woolsey
PRELIMINARY REPORT OF DESIGN OF RESIDENCES
LOTS NO. 1 AND MO. 2
14350 AND 14360 DOUGLASS LANE, SARATOGA, CA-
Date:. September 1, 1994
The following information is presented as possible changes to the
appearance of the design for these homes after reading the report and
reviewing the application drawings.
Lot No. 1
Size of Residence - 5,638 sq.ft. proposed
,5,753 sq.ft. allowable
Site Slope - 130
Appearance - This residence is directly above the Robert Woolsey
residence and will be quite visible.
The rear (east) elevation is two (2) story with the bedrooms below the
main floor. There is a bay window at the first floor line that
projects and cantilevers beyond the exterior wall with the gutter as
the only overhang at the flat wall of.-the bay. The roof and..gutter,
extend past the bay without extending to follow the bay wall lines.
The lower floor is approximately 36" above the finished grade with no
wide landing or deck. The stairs from the upper patio float infront
of one of the sliding doors from a bedroom. The side (north)
elevation around the corner, which is also visible from the Woolsey
residence and adjacent neighbors is a very plain, two (2) story
elevation.
The height and bulk appear to be very severe from that corner with the
height being accentuated because of the finished grade difference from
the lower floor.
Recommendations - Provide a horizontal structure at the first floor at
the east /north sides to soften the two story height and lessen the
impact of the cantelivered bay window. This structure could be an
arbor the depth of the landing at the patio stairs. It would also
offer weather protection to the sliding doors.
Extend the roof and gutter at the bay window to follow the overhang
depth around the bay.
Add wider deck or patio at the approximate lower floor to compliment
the arbor, and to raise the finish grade height to lessen the impact
of the overall height.
Landscaping - Provide three (3) or four (4) 24" boxed trees near the
Woolsey property line to soften the impact of the new residence.
Preliminary Report - Douglass Lane Residence Design
September 1, 1994 - Page 2
Color - As an established neighborhood, any infill or change of
buildings /landscaping, has an impact to the people living is the area.
The suggested colors, as off - white, will be very bright from the east
and south for the neighborhood. The color given by the applicants as
"graystone" as the wall colors would soften the impact.
Future Structures - Review areas and location of pools, cabanas,
decks, patios, etc. for impact on existing neighbors privacy and
appearance. Provide in the conditions the size and locations that
could be used by owners when residences are occupied.
Lot No. 2:
Size of Residence - 5,434 sq.ft. proposed
.5,772 sq.ft. allowable
Site Slope - 16%
Appearance - Many windows in Living Room, Master Bedroom, Master Bath
Bay at rear and right side of residence. Building above grade
approximately 24 ".
Recommendations - Consider all of the recommendations of Lot No. l for
color, landscaping, and future structures.
14300 Douglass Lane,
Saratoga, CA 95070
867 -6409
July 27, 1994
Saratoga Planning Commission
Saratoga, CA
Dear Planning Members,
Due to a recent knee surgery, I am unable to attend and speak at tonight's hearing for
the two proposed new homes on Douglass Lane. However, I do wish to make our
views known to the members of the Planning Commission. We strongly feel the
proposed homes are not in keeping with the neighborhood. As proposed, these
homes are twice the size of exiting homes in our neighborhood. There isn't one
single home in our neighborhood one might call similar in style or character. We
believe the design should not be approved and urge the builder to redesign their
homes to be compatible with our neighborhood.
Sinter y i
� � J
ob h
Mar ohr
S
M
July 27, 1994
To: Saratoga Planning Commission
Subject: Roberts Development on- Douglass Lane
Dear Commisioners:
I am a resident on Douglass Lane, several doors down from the proposed
development. I will be unable to attend this evening's meeting, but would appreciate
your consideration of these comments.
First let me say that we appreciate the city's efforts to maintain the pedestrian walkway
which leads through this area. It has been in use by many including us for over 20 years,
and indeed has been missed durning the construction period.
My primary concerns are:
I) The trees which have been established on this hill -- especially on parcel 1 -- form
one of the last natural views on this street. This natural surrounding was one of our
primary reasons for moving into this neighborhood. Subsequently many spacious
homes have replaced the orchards and trees that first drew us here. The trees that
are to be removed on parcel 1 include one very sizeable oak, and another that is to
be transplanted. In general, oaks are not famous for transplanting well. And the
larger of these represents perhaps 30 -50 years of growth. These'are irreplaceable,
both as natural habitat and as native trees, and I believe they should be preserved
as they are. Fast - growing screen trees provide some green, but they rarely have either
the inherent beauty nor hardiness of our natives. Also, we have had the experience in
this neighborhood of having builders put on the plan that trees would be planted as
screens, but not DO this. Our true Natural landscape in Saratoga is vanishing in
just this process.
2) The houses as planned appear to be extremenly large, presenting a very bulky
presence, especially for those located directly below them. The new houses should
be kept more comparable with others in the neighborhood.
3) I appreciate the city's establishment of a riparian easement. We regularly have seen
foraging oppossums, racoons, - skunks, etc., all of whom are hard pressed to maintain a
life in this area. The riparian right of way now established needs to be respected.
Your sincerely,
ry L. Pa re
14230 D glass Lane
Q
� o
Q�
1994
��---- -t-e,- DEPT.
XIZ
Alu.
✓ 7 i�
• � ,�-� � -cam
.� ✓ � �� ,,��� � � .ice!''`'- �''2`'�J/
�fia•; j;Nt- ��.
Z,4
j ell r/
July 26, 1994
Mr. James Walgren
Associate Planner
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, Ca 95070
Dear Mr. Walgren,
Spencer Ozawa
19897 Douglass Ln
Saratoga, Ca 95070
867 -6207
My name is Spencer Ozawa and I reside at 19897 Douglass Lane. I am
writing you this letter concerning the two home subdivision being built on the
other side of my property. I would attend the public hearing, but I have made
previous plans and will be out of town on the date of the hearing.
My concern is in regards to my privacy. My property sits on a flood plain
and.therefore I was forced to build my home very close to the property line,
which basically is the stream. Naturally, my preference for any homes built on
the next property be set back as far as possible to insure maximum privacy for
all parties. Unfortunately, other neighbors and the City of Saratoga prefer the
home be built closer to the stream than my preference. I won't argue this point,
but I do ask this:
When the approval for the subdivision was granted a natural riparian
corridor of sixty feet was established as the property setback. The argument by
the neighbors was for a natural easement along the stream, one to protect
natural vegetation and habitat to wildlife. As stated in Saratoga's definition of
Riparian Corridor (15006.575) a "Riparian corridor means intermittent or peren-
nial streams which include all native vegetation and wildlife habitat within the top
of the band delineating the intermittent or perennial stream." Although I didn't
argue for this reparian corridor, I now feel this is the greatest buffer for privacy
for all parties concerned and I would like this condition to be spelled out in the
approval of .a building permit. I've had a discussion with the developer and the
City regarding the reparian corridor and everyone has a different interpretation.
Some feel you just can't built anything in this corridor and others feel, as I do,
that this vegetation must be left in it's natural state and that nothing can be built
or removed from this corridor. If I am correct I would like this spelled out as a
condition of the permit. If you have questions regarding this request please
contact me after Aug 1, 1994. Thar)k you .
Sincerely,
July 22, 1994
Dear Neighbor,
I'm sure you are aware of the proposed two new homes to be build at he end , of
Douglas . s Lane. One home is for 5300 sq ft and the other home is for 5600 sq ft. Plans
for the homes are now on view at the Saratoga Planning office. I hope you will take
the time to look over the plans. The Planning Commission will conduct a public
hearing At 7:30 PM this Wednesday. This hearing is the design review before final
approval to build is granted. This will be your chance to support the proposed plans
as they currently exist or to voice any reservation or concerns.
Sincerely,
Robert Woolsey,
19952 Durham Ct
867-2484
% %
:off
<
.77
1�7
Saratoga Planning Commission
Saratoga, CA 95070,
Dear Planning Commission Members,
19952 Durham Ct
Saratoga, CA 95070
July 21, 1994
867 -2484
JUL 21 1994
F'LHlvlvllvu Utl-'
T,
I live with my wife and three sons at 19952 Durham Ct. Our property backs up to one of
the parcels under development on Douglass Lane. We are the original owners having
lived in this house for 17 years and hopefully with God's blessing for many more
years. As with most residents of Saratoga, we love this community and enjoy living in
the Douglass Ln/Durham Ct neighborhood. This is a special neighborhood. Not only
because of the beauty of the area but for the sense of community. Each Labor Day
there is a large block party which fosters good will and brings everyone together.
I have. realized for many years. that the time would come when this property would be
developed. My wife and I have no objections to the development. We only wish that
the new homes maintain the character and integrity of the existing homes in our
neighborhood. We don't believe these two new homes meet the design review criteria
as listed in the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance, section 15- 45,080.
Douglass Ln has many older homes on the west side of the street. Several of these .
homes have recently been remolded. The remodeling was very much in keeping with
the traditional appearance of the original home and other homes near by. The east
side of Douglass Ln has homes going back to the 60's. These homes probably have
a floor space around 2500 sq ft. Seventeen years ago homes on Durham Ct and two
homes on Douglass Ln were developed, averaging in size from 2800 - 3300 sq ft.
Within the last 8 years two additional home were developed averaging about 3200-
3600 sq ft. The style of the homes in our neighborhood do vary but they are primarily
ranch in character. Most the homes seem to fit and don't appear out of place.
The proposed homes will have a floor space of 5300 sq ft. This is almost twice the
floor space of the typical home in this area. I can best describe the proposed homes
as massive in size. I don't believe these very large homes are in keeping with the
neighborhood. These homes are not "compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i)
existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate
neighborhood ". These two new homes are just out of place with all existing homes.
I don't believe it is possible to describe any of the homes in our neighborhood as
having excessive bulk. But in relation to my home and all other homes adjacent to this
property on Durham Ct and Douglass Ln, the proposed homes can only be seen as
bulky. I find it hard to believe the developer made any attempt to "minimize the
perception of excessive bulk" and made any attempt to integrate these homes into
the natural environment.
Our backyard faces south. We build our home to take advantage of the the low winter
sun to help heat the house and in the summer to provide for pleasurable outdoor
living. We enjoy a very beautiful view especially in the immediate direction of the
proposed new homes. Again, I have no objection to the concept of building new
homes on this property and I do understand that we cannot expect to keep this special
view forever. From our patio area, as the homes are now planned, we will view a
massive wall of stucco from north to south across the entire length of this property.
One of my neighbors described it as a °Berlin Wall ". These homes, as planned, are
so large and massive they will indeed cause unreasonable interference with the
community viewshed of not only myself but of my immediate neighbors.
I invite the planning commissioners to walk the entire length of Douglass Ln from
Saratoga Ave and to walk Durham Ct. You are invited to my back yard to view the
proposed placement of these homes and you will clearly see for yourself the impact
and change these homes will make upon our general neighborhood and the impact
on property owners adjacent to the subject property.
In summary, I wish to see homes compatible with our neighborhood. Homes which
are not so massive that they give the appearance of being excessively bulky. I wish to
see homes which are an integral part of our neighborhood and homes we all can be
proud of. These homes as now planned come closer to being an eye sore.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
�C
Robert Woolsey
STAFF REPORTS AND PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: James Walgre , Associate Planner
DATE: September 14, 1994
COUNCIL AlE1VLBERS:
Ann Mjfie Burae -'
OC :7: .
;1lo a .
SUBJECT: Design Review #94 -024 and #94 -025
Roberts; 14350 & 14360 Douglass Ln. (Lot 1 & 2)
--------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Background:
These applications for Design Review approval to construct a 5,638
sq. ft. and a 5,434 sq. ft. two -story residence at the end of
Douglass In. were first presented to the Planning Commission at the
July 27, 1994 public hearing. Concerns were raised at that meeting
by neighbors that the proposals were not compatible in terms of
architectural style or building mass with the existing older homes
within the area. Two of the three Planning Commissioners in
attendance expressed similar concerns (minutes from the meeting -are
attached).
The item was continued to tonight's meeting with the following
direction to the applicant:
• Address the architectural style and massing incompatibility
concerns raised by the neighbors and the Commission.
• Prepare landscape plans showing the location of the required
replacement trees. It was agreed that tree ##23, a Coast Live
Oak, should be replaced and not transplanted.
• The proposed contoured drainage grading within the open space
of Parcel 2 should be eliminated.
The concerns were primarily related to the new home for Parcel 1,
but it was decided to continue both items to review them as a
whole.
Printed on recycled paper.
Design Review #94 -024 and #94 -025
Roberts; 14350 & 14360 Douglass Ln.
Page Two
Resubmittal:
The applicant's architects have now resubmitted plans which
.eliminate the contour grading within the open space, incorporate a
comprehensive landscape plan which provides planting greatly in
excess of the Arborist's recommended replacement and a perspective
drawing of the proposed new homes looking towards the site from the
northeast corner of Lot 1. The floor plans and architectural
elevations are unchanged.
Robert and Annette Woolsey, neighbors whose. property abuts the
northeast corner of Lot 1, have submitted a new letter expressing
their continued concern over the size and style of the proposed
homes. All previous written correspondence regarding these
applications is also attached.
Recommendation:
Staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission in the reports
presented at the July 27th public hearing was that the Design
Review findings could be made to approve the projects.
If the Planning Commission feels that the homes are incompatible
with the older existing homes within this neighborhood in terms of
style or massing, or that the homes would impose on neighbors
privacy, solar accessibility or views, the Commission should
consider one of the following:
Direct the applicant to modify the plans accordingly. Since
this item has been continued once already, this direction
should be fairly explicit (e.g. reduce one, or both, of the
houses by X sq. ft., design as single story, etc.).
Or, if the applicant is'not amenable to significant changes,
deny one, or both, of the applications based on an inability,
to make the necessary Design Review findings.
Attachments:
1. Resolutions DR -94 -024 and DR -94 -025
2. Planning Commission minutes dated 7/27/94
3. Correspondence
4. Staff Reports dated 7/27/94
5. Plans, Exhibit "A"
RESOLUTION NO. DR -94 -024
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Roberts; 14350. Douglass Ln. (Parcel 1)
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received.
an application for Design Review approval to demolish an existing
older residence and construct a 'new 5,638 sq. ft. two -story
structure in its place; 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 applicant has met the burden of proof required to
support said application, and the following findings have been
determined:
-The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed
main or accessary structure, when considered with reference to: (i)
the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent.lots
and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds will
avoid unreasonable interference with views. and privacy, in that,.the:.
structure is less than the maximum height permitted, exceeds
minimum setbacks and is situated well away from adjoining homes.
-the natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by
designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and
minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized
and will be.in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring
developed areas and undeveloped areas, in that the home would be
cut into the east facing slope, allowing a single -story front
elevation. Tree removal is limited to three Monterey Pines
recommended for removal by the City Arborist.
-The proposed main structure in relation to structures on adjacent
lots, and to the surrounding region, will minimize the perception
of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural
environment, in that the home is cut into the site to reduce its
visual mass and the architecture is compatible with the various
styles of homes in this vicinity.
-The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in
terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures
on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and
within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment;
and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent
properties to utilize solar energy, in that the home is cut into
the site to reduce, its visual mass and the architecture is
compatible with the various styles of homes in this vicinity.
-The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current
grading and erosion control standards used by the City.
File No. DR -94 -024; 14350 Douglass Lane
-The proposed main or accessory structure will conform to each of
the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the
Residential Design Handbook and as required by Section 15- 45.055.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of
Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan,
architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in
connection with this matter, the application of Roberts for Design
Review approval be- and the same is hereby granted subject to the
following conditions:
1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on
Exhibit "A ", incorporated by reference.
2. Prior to submittal for Building or Grading Permit, the
following shall be submitted to Planning Division staff in
order to issue a Zoning Clearance:
a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans
incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page.
b. One (1) set of engineered grading and drainage plans,
also incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan
page.
C. All applicable requirements/ conditions of the Resolution
(e.g. modifications to plans) and requirements/ conditions
of the City Arborist (e.g. tree protective fencing) shall
be noted on the plans.
3. The maximum height of an exposed underfloor area shall not
exceed 5 ft.
4. No retaining wall shall have an exposed height that exceeds 5
ft. In addition, no fence or wall shall exceed six (6) feet
in height and no fence or wall located within any required
front yard shall exceed three (3) feet in height.
5. No structures or built improvements shall.be permitted within
the open space easement.
6. No ordinance size tree shall be removed without first
obtaining a Tree Removal Permit, with the exception of trees
#17, #21, #22 and #23.
7. All exposed slopes shall be contour graded.
8. Exterior colors shall be per. the submitted material board
.reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission.
File No. DR -94 -024; 14350 Douglass Lane
9. Landscaping per Exhibit "A" shall be installed prior to final
occupancy.
10. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance, applicant shall
submit the following for Community Development Director review
and approval:
a. Final landscape plans indicating all of the planting
shown per Exhibit "A" and necessary irrigation.- The
types of trees to be planted, and their exact locations,
shall be subject to the Community Development Director's
approval based on input from affected neighbors with
regard to view preservation.
b. Landscaping shall be of native and drought tolerant
species in conformance with the City's xeriscape
guidelines.
C. Verification that the Heritage Preservation Commission's
conditions of approval adopted on 6/14/94, and
incorporated herein by reference, have been completed.:.
11. All requirements of the City Arborist's Report dated 6/23/94
shall be met. This includes, but is not limited to:
a. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance:
• Six (6) ft. chain link tree protective fencing
shall be shown on plan, with not "to remain in
place throughout construction."
• Existing on -site fill soil and construction debris
shall be removed from under the canopy of tree.-#11.
The grading plan shall also be modified to
eliminate proposed cut within canopy of tree #12.
b. Prior to issuance of a Demolition, Grading or Building,
Permit:
• Tree protective fencing shall be installed and
inspected by the City Arborist.
• If tree #23 is transplanted elsewhere on the site,
it shall be done under the supervision of an ISA
certified arborist.
C. Before, during and following construction, the following
preservation measures for tree #24 shall be performed.
• Inject 100 gallons of water into all areas beneath
the existing canopy.
File No. DR -94 -024; 14350 Douglass Lane
• Make soil cuts at least 12 feet from the trunk with
mechanized equipment.
• Remove soil between 12 feet from the tree and the
final vertical cut with hand tools. Care must be
taken to avoid damage to roots in this process.
• Cut roots with hand shears or saw. Cover root
stubs of 2 inches or larger in diameter with
plastic sandwich bags tied up with tape.
• Place a soaker hose at the margin of the final cut.
Run it everyday for 15 minutes (not longer).
• Cover the soaker hose with old carpet pieces to
reduce evaporation.
• Any questions regarding the above measures should
be directed to staff before work commences. If
necessary, the City Arborist can be available at
the site to.oversee activity.
d. Prior to Final Occupancy, the City Arborist shall inspect
the site to verify that all required tree preservation
measures have been followed.
12. Any portion of the structure located under the dripline of a
tree shall have pier and grade beam foundation with the beam
poured at original grade.
13. All building and construction related activities shall adhere
to New Development and Construction - Best Management
Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing'
storm water pollution.
14. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance, the applicant shall
submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Planning
Director, security in the amount of $1,748 pursuant to the
report and recommendation by the City Arborist to guarantee
the installation, replacement, maintenance, and /or
preservation of trees on the subject site. This security will
be released in whole, or in part, based on the recommendation
of the City Arbori�st following his Final Occupancy inspection.
15. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and
maintained in accordance with the provisions of Article 16 -60
City of Saratoga.
16. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall .have documentation
relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted
File No. DR -94 -024; 14350 Douglass Lane
to the Fire District for approval, prior to issuance of a
building permit.
17. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in garage.
18. Pursuant to the Tentative Parcel Map approval Resolution, the
developer shall install one fire hydrant that meets the Fire
District's specifications prior to the construction of any
building.
19. Applicant agrees, to hold City harmless from all costs and
expenses 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.
20. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall
constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is
impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the
violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this
City per each day of the violation.
Section 2: Applicant shall sign the agreement to these
conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said
resolution shall be void.
Section 3. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or
approval will expire.
Section 4. All applicable requirements of the State, County,
City and other Governmental entities must be met.
Section 5. 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 Commis-
sion, State of California, this 14th day of September, 1994 by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Murakami, Patrick & Siegfried
NOES: Abshire
ABSENT: Asfour, Caldwell & Ka lan /
ClialrmaV, Planning Commi Sion
ATTEST:
File No. DR -94 -024; 14350 Douglass Lane
The regoi �cbnd' do
Si ure cant
Secretary, Planning Commission
are ereby accepted.
SEP 22 7994
Date
I
RESOLUTION NO. DR -94 -025
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Roberts; 14360 Douglass Ln. (Parcel 2)
. WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received
an application for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,434
sq. ft. two -story structure; 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 applicant has met the burden of proof required to
support said application, and the following findings have been
determined:
-The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed
main or accessary structure, when considered with reference to: (i)
the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots
and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds will
avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy, in that the
structure is less than the maximum height permitted., exceeds
minimum setbacks and is situated well away from adjoining homes.
-the natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by
designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and
minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized
and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring
developed areas and undeveloped areas, in that grade changes are
minimal and no tree removal is necessary or proposed.
-The proposed main structure in relation to structures on adjacent
lots, and to the surrounding region, will minimize the perception
of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural
environment, in that the home is located at a lower elevation than
adjacent homes and is screened by topography and vegetation.
-The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in
terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures
on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and
within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment;
and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent
properties to utilize solar energy, in that the home is cut into
the site to reduce its visual mass and the architecture is
compatible with the various styles of homes in this vicinity.
-The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current
grading and erosion control standards used by the City.
-The proposed main or accessory structure will conform to each of
the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the
Residential Design Handbook and as required by Section 15- 45.055.
File No. DR -94 -025; 14360 Douglass Lane
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of
Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan,
architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in
connection with this matter, the application of Roberts for Design
Review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the
following conditions:
1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on
Exhibit "A ", incorporated by reference.
2. Prior to submittal for Building or' Grading Permit, the
following shall be submitted to Planning Division staff in
order to issue a Zoning Clearance:.
a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans
incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page.
b. One (1) set of engineered grading and drainage plans,
also incorporating this Resolution as a separate. plan
page.
C. All applicable requirements /conditions of the Resolution
(e.g. open space protective fencing) shall be noted on
the plans.
3. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance, applicant shall
submit the following for Community Development Director review
and approval:
a. Final landscape plans indicating all of the planting
shown per Exhibit "A" and necessary irrigation. The
types of trees to be planted, and their exact locations,
shall be subject to the Community Development Director's
approval based on input from affected neighbors with
regard to view preservation.
b. Landscaping shall be of native and drought tolerant
species in conformance with the City's xeriscape
guidelines.
4. Prior to issuance of a Grading or Building Permit:
a. Riparian /open space easement protective fencing shall be
installed along the entire south boundary of the open
space easement to protect it from construction activity
encroachment. This fencing shall remain in place
throughout construction.
File No. DR -94 -025; 14360 Douglass Lane
5. The maximum height of an exposed underfloor area shall not
exceed 5 ft.
6. No retaining wall shall have an exposed height that exceeds 5
ft. In addition, no fence or wall shall exceed six (6) feet
in height and no fence or wall located within any required
front yard shall exceed three (3) feet in height.
7.. No structures or built improvements shall be permitted within
the open space easement.
8. All building and construction related activities shall adhere
to New Development and Construction - Best Management
Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing
storm water pollution.
9. No ordinance size tree shall be removed without first
obtaining.a Tree Removal Permit.
10. All exposed slopes shall be contour graded.
11. Exterior colors shall be per the submitted material board
reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission.
12. Early 'Warning. Fire Alarm System shall be installed and
maintained in accordance with the provisions of Article 16 -60
City of Saratoga.
R13. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation
relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted
to the Fire District for approval, prior to issuance of a
building permit.
14. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in garage.
15. Pursuant to the Tentative Parcel Map approval Resolution, the
developer shall install one fire hydrant that meets the Fire
District's specifications prior to the construction of any
building.
16. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and
expenses 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.
17. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall
constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is
impossible to estimate damages the City, could incur due to the
violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this
City per each day of the violation.
File No. DR -94 -025; 14360 Douglass Lane
Section 2: Applicant shall sign the agreement to these
conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said
resolution shall be void.
Section 3. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or
approval will expire.
Section 4. All applicable requirements of the State, County,
City and other Governmental entities must be met.
Section S. 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 Commis-
sion, State of California, this 14th day of September, 1994 by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Murakami, Patrick & Siegfried
NOES: Abshire
ABSENT: Asfour, Caldwell & Kaplan
Chairman, Pla ning Commission
ATTEST:
lit
Secretary, Plannind Commission
The oregoing ! di ions are hereby accepted.
�� SEP 2 2
77 e icant Date
1 ,z ,
A
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application No. /Location: DR -94 -024; 14350 Douglass Ln.
Applicant/ Owner: ROBERTS
Staff Planner: James Walgren
Date: July 27, 1994
APN: 397 -16 -141 Director Approval:
1 L+oov Ljougiass l..n. krarcei 1 I
r
i
File No. DR -94 -024; 14350 Douglass Lane
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Application filed:
5/24/94
Application complete:
6/14/94
Notice published:
7/13/94
Mailing completed:
7/14/94
Posting completed:
7/07/94
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing single
family home and construct a new 5,638 sq. ft. two -story residence
in its place pursuant to Article 15 -45 of the Saratoga Zoning
Ordinance. The subject parcel is 1.25 net acres in size and is
located within an R -1- 20,000 zoning district.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the Design Review request, with conditions, by adopting the
attached Resolution.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Analysis
2. Resolution DR -94 -024
3. Correspondence .
4. Arborist Report dated 6/23/94
5. HPC Minutes dated 6/14/94
4. Plans, Exhibit "A"
File No. DR -94 -024; 14350 Douglass Lane
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING: R -1- 20,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential
PARCEL SIZE: 1.25 acres
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 13%
GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 932 cu. yds. Cut Depth: 6.6 ft.
Fill:,180 cu. yds. Fill Depth: 4.8 ft.
MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Stucco exterior finish painted off -
white with composition shake roofing per the submitted material
board.
PROPOSAL
LOT COVERAGE: 15% (8;244 sq. ft.)
HEIGHT: 22 ft.
SIZE OF
STRUCTURE: Garage: 662 sq. ft.
Upper. Floor: 3,921 sq. ft.
Lower Floor: 1,055.sq. ft.
TOTAL: 5,638 sq. ft.
SETBACKS: Front: 100 ft.
Rear: 100 -320 ft.
Right Side: 16 ft.
Left Side: 33 ft.
PROJECT DISCUSSION:
Background:
CODE REOUIREMENT
ALLOWANCE
45%
26 ft.
5,640 sq. ft.
Front: 70 ft.
Rear: 88 ft.
Right Side: 15 ft.
Left Side: 15 ft.
The original 3.05 acre site was divided into two single - family
building sites in March of 1993. Parcel 1 has a net site area of
1.25 acres and contains the original residence. The lower Parcel
2 is currently vacant and is 1.5 net acres in size. The private
road right -of -way and the lower Santa Clara Valley Water District
easement account for the difference in gross versus net site area.
Though the existing residence was not listed on the City's Heritage
Resource Inventory, staff routed the Tentative Parcel Map to the
Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) for review based on its age
and potential historical significance. The HPC accepted the Map
File No. DR -94 -024; 14.350 Douglass Lane
with the condition that the home be placed on the Inventory and
that any future modifications to the home be submitted for their
review. The Inventory listing is a means to document the home and
does not carry the preservation significance that a Heritage
Resource. Designation would. The HPC did not feel the home
warranted a historic designation.
The HPC has again had the opportunity to review these plans. Their
attached recommendation to.approve the demolition, with conditions,
passed unanimously. . Staff has included their recommended
conditions in the attached Resolution.
A pedestrian trail connection was also recorded through the
property connecting the two ends of Douglass Lane, and a riparian
protection /open space easement was recorded along the Wildcat Creek
tributary.
zoning ordinance Compliance:
The proposal complies with all applicable development regulations,
including allowable building height, lot coverage and-floor-.area
and required setbacks. The project is also consistent with the
Tentative Parcel Map site development plan.
Design Review Findings:
Staff's review concludes that all of the necessary Design Review
findings can be made to recommend approval of the application.
Though the house is relatively large compared to the majority of
existing homes in the area, it is well articulated to minimize the
appearance of excessive mass and bulk. The property itself is
comparatively isolated from public view, with the exception of the
immediately adjacent homes on Durham Court.
Staff has received a letter from Mr. Robert Woolsey, 19952 Durham
Court, raising objections to the proposal. He is concerned that.
the'new home will be incompatible with the predominantly smaller
homes within his neighborhood. He has also stated that the new
structure would obstruct views his family currently enjoys from
their back yard area. Staff has spoken with Mr. Woolsey regarding
these concerns and will be taking the Planning Commissioners to the
site on Tuesday afternoon to further consider his comments. The
building envelope has been staked and height poles constructed to
help assess these concerns.
Regarding the size and architectural compatibility of the proposal,
staff would note that the property abuts one -acre plus lots to the
south, east and.west. This lot is also in excess of one -acre,
though it is zoned R -1- 20,000. The size of the parcel does permit
a larger home than one would find in the half -acre zoned lots on
Durham Court.'
File No. DR -94 -024; 14350 Douglass Lane
Arborist Review:
The City Arborist has reviewed the proposal and feels that the
plans can be supported with the tree preservation measures
contained in the Resolution. Mr. Coate has noted that three
Monterey Pines and a 9 inch DBH Coast Live Oak would need to be
removed in order to build the house as proposed. He is
recommending that the-three pines be removed due to their health
and condition. He has given the oak tree a high health and
structure rating. Based on his assessment, staff is recommending
that:
• The three pines be allowed to be removed and replaced with
.three 24 inch box native and drought tolerant trees. These
replacements could then be planted along the north property
line to provide future screening between this home and the
homes along Durham Court.
• The oak tree be transplanted elsewhere on the site under the
supervision of an ISA certified arborist.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the Design Review request, with conditions, by adopting the
attached Resolution.
i
CITY OF SARATOGA
HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES
DATE: Tuesday, June 14, 1994, 9 a.m.
PLACE: Warner Hutton House
TYPE: Regular Meeting
I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
A. Roll Call
Present: Davis, Dutro, Fine, Peck
Absent: Ansnes, Roepernik, Peepari
Staff: Secretary White
B. Approval of Minutes of 5/10/94
The minutes were approved with minor modifications, MIS Fine / Dutro.
C. Posting the Agenda
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda was posted
at City Hall on Friday, June 10.
D. Oral and Written Communications
Commissioner Peck inquired about specific tree protection measures
pertaining to the Oden Subdivision. Staff indicated that a tree
report had been prepared by the City Arborist and that a copy of
the report would be sent to Commissioner Peck as soon as possible.
Commissioner Davis also reported on the Oden subdivision project.
She indicated that the recommendations of the Heritage Commission,
were represented as conditions of approval.
Staff reported receiving a letter from the Regional Office of the
Historical Resources Filing System Project located at Sonoma State
University. The letter was an invitation to a open house being held
on July 28. Two Commissioners expressed tentative interest in
attending and the Commission asked if Staff could represent the
City instead of or in addition to .the interested Commission
members..
II. OLD BUSINESS
1. Heritage Lane Signs
staff reported on recent events pertaining to the approved Heritage.
Lane Sign project. The Commission acknowledged that the funds to
construct these signs would come from the Preservation Trust Fund
and directed staff to begin working with Commission Roepernik to
complete the project.
2. Heritage Lane Inventory Reports
Commissioner Davis reported on Springer Avenue and recommended that
this street not be considered for a possible Heritage Lane
designation.
3. Follow -up Discussion of the Annual Preservation Conference
The Commissioners who attended the Conference reported on their
experiences in Sacramento. It was decided by the Commission to
attempt to obtain more information on the proposed "California
Register of Historical Resources" and how this register would
affect Saratoga's historical status with the State.
4. Discussion of Work Program Items
a. Video Inventory
b. Book Sales
c. Heritage Orchard
Staff reported on the proposed Parks budget to replant the Heritage
Orchard and the possibility of obtaining grant money from the
County for the same purpose.
It was decided to discuss the production of the Inventory video in
depth at the next meeting.
III. NEW BUSINESS
1. DR -94 -024, 14350 Douglas Lane, R and Z Development
Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing
home on the Heritage Resource inventory and to construct a new
two story residence.
After reviewing the plans, the Commission forwarded a
recommendation, MIS Fine /Peck, to the Planning Commission to
approve the demolition of the inventory house subject to the
following recommended conditions:
1. That all possible efforts be made to preserve mature trees on
the site.
2. That the applicant /owner will provide the City with photographic
documentation of the site prior to any demolition or other
development.
3. That the applicant /owner will allow a representative of the
Heritage Commission access to the site for the purpose of
videotaping the property prior to any demolition or other
development.
IV. ITEMS INITIATED BY THE COMMISSION
None.'
V. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned to .Tuesday, July 12 at 9 a.m..
hpcmjun
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
-Application No. /Location: DR-94-025; 14360 DOUGLAS S LANE
Applicant /Owner: ROBERTS
Staff Planner: James Walgren
Date: July 27, 1994
APN: 397 -16 7141 Director Approval:
14 6OU Douglass Ln. (Marcel Z)
f
File No. DR -94 -025; 14360 Douglass Lane
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CASE HISTORY:
Application filed:
5/24/94
Application complete:
6/14/94
Notice published:
7/13/94
Mailing completed:
7/14/94
Posting completed:
7/07/94
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Request for Design Review approval* to construct a new 5,434 sq. ft.
two -story residence pursuant to Article 15 -45 of the Saratoga
Zoning Ordinance. The subject vacant parcel is 1.5 net acres in
size and is located within an R -1- 20,000 zoning district.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the Design Review request, with conditions, by adopting the
attached Resolution.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Analysis
2. Resolution DR -94 -025
4. Plans, Exhibit "A"
File No. DR -94 -025; 14360 Douglass Lane
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING: R -1- 20,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential
PARCEL SIZE: 1.5 acres
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 16%
GRADING REQUIRED: Cut:
723
cu. yds.
Cut Depth: 4.3 ft.
Fill:
144
cu. yds.
Fill Depth: 2.7 ft.
Lower Floor:
a�
sq.
ft.
MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED:
Stucco exterior finish painted off -
white with stone veneer and
composition
flat tile roofing per the
submitted material board.
sq.
ft.
LOT COVERAGE:
HEIGHT•
SIZE OF
STRUCTURE:
SETBACKS:
PROPOSAL
12% (8,118 sq. ft.)
22 ft.
Front:
Rear:
Right Side:
Left Side:
PROJECT DISCUSSION:
Zoning Ordinance Compliance:
65 ft.
90 -150 ft.
110 ft.
25 ft.
CODE REOUIREMENT
ALLOWANCE
45%
26 ft.
5,847 sq. ft.
Front: 65 ft.
Rear: 83 ft.
Right Side: 25 ft.
Left Side: 25 ft.
The proposal complies with all applicable development regulations,
including allowable building height, lot coverage and floor area
and required setbacks. The project is also consistent with the
Tentative Parcel Map site development plan.
Design Review Findings.:
Staff's review concludes that all of the necessary Design. Review
findings can be made to recommend approval of the application.
Though the house is relatively large compared to the majority of
existing homes in the area, it is well articulated to minimize the
Garage:
668
sq.
ft..
Lower Floor:
3,952
sq.
ft.
Upper Floor:
814
sq.
ft.
TOTAL:
5,434
sq.
ft.
Front:
Rear:
Right Side:
Left Side:
PROJECT DISCUSSION:
Zoning Ordinance Compliance:
65 ft.
90 -150 ft.
110 ft.
25 ft.
CODE REOUIREMENT
ALLOWANCE
45%
26 ft.
5,847 sq. ft.
Front: 65 ft.
Rear: 83 ft.
Right Side: 25 ft.
Left Side: 25 ft.
The proposal complies with all applicable development regulations,
including allowable building height, lot coverage and floor area
and required setbacks. The project is also consistent with the
Tentative Parcel Map site development plan.
Design Review Findings.:
Staff's review concludes that all of the necessary Design. Review
findings can be made to recommend approval of the application.
Though the house is relatively large compared to the majority of
existing homes in the area, it is well articulated to minimize the
� J
File No. DR -94 -025; 14360 Douglass Lane
appearance of excessive mass and bulk. The residence is located at
the end of the private court and is screened from public views by
topography and vegetation.
A portion of the south elevation of the structure and the driveway.
turnaround retaining wall are shown to directly abut the open space
easement. This easement was required as a condition of Tentative
Parcel Map approval to be 60 ft. in width as measured from the
centerline of the Wildcat Creek tributary. Since the creek is
located within the property, the easement is over 120 ft. in width
at the point the residence abuts it. The applicant is also
proposing to construct a contour graded drainage swale partially
within the open space. Staff feels that this proximity to the open
space can be supported so long as construction activity is limited.
to what is shown on the plans. A condition of approval will
require that fencing be installed along the entire south boundary
of the open space easement to protect it from construction
encroachment. This fencing may be removed as needed to perform the
proposed grading. Once the grading has been completed, the fencing
shall be reinstalled.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the Design Review request, with conditions, by adopting the
attached Resolution.
i
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA
MEETING DATE: November 2, 1994
ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Clerk CITY MGR.
(,30 -.?a
ITEM �� 7
APPROVA
SUBJECT: Resolution Declaring Weeds Growing on Certain Described
Property to be a Public Nuisance and Setting Public Hearing
Recommended Motion:
Adopt resolution.
Report Summary:
The attached resolution represents the first step in Saratoga's
annual weed abatement program administered by the County Fire Marshal.
The County has determined that the parcels in Saratoga on the attached list
have excessive weed growth which is a fire hazard or otherwise noxious
or dangerous. The Council should pass the resolution setting the public
hearing for weed abatement -- December 7 this year.
Fiscal Impacts•
None to City. County recovers its costs from administrative portion
of fee charged to property owners.
Follow Up Actions:
The - County sends the owners of the parcels notices informing them that the
weeds must be abated, either by the owners or by the County; when County
abatement will commence; and how they may present any objections at the
public hearing. The public hearing is noticed in the newspapers as well.
After the public hearing, the Council passes another resolution ordering
abatement. on properties whose owners did not object or whose objections the
Council felt were invalid. The final steps take place next summer, when
the County presents the Council with a list of, properties whose abatement
bills have not been paid, and the Council•, after.hearing any objections,
passes a resolution declaring liens on those properties.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
Weed abatement could not be performed by the County. It would be necessary
to depend upon property owners to take care of their own abatement.
Attachments:
1. Resolution
10/27/94
1995 WEED ABATEMENT PARCELS BY THE COUNTY
OF SANTA CLARA
Page 1
FOR THE CITY OF SARAROGA
SITUS
APN
OWNER
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
2220 CALLE DE LUNA
097 -05 -057
BARCELONA JACK J TRUSTEE
54 CHURCH ST
MOUNTAIN VIEW
CA
94041
2200 CALLE DE LUNA
097 -05 -058
ESPINOZA ROBERT AND ROSARMIDA
1650 EBERTS DR
SAN MARTIN
CA
95046 -9741
5103 CALLE DEL SOL
097 -05 -092
COMPEAN LUPE TRUSTEE
14684 OAK ST
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -6030
651 ALDO AV
097 -10 -104
OVERTON E R TRUSTEE & ET AL
4817 TERRA GRANADA UNIT 1A
WALNUT CREEK
CA
94595
3491 LAFAYETTE ST
097 -10 -105
KHAMNEIPUR ABOLGHASSEM
3880 S BASCOM AV UNIT 214
SAN JOSE
CA
95124
3510 /30DE LA CRUZ BL
097 -10 -144
MARTIN FIVE
17461 HIGH ST
LOS GATOS
CA
95032
555 ALDO AV
097 -10 -155
CHRISTENSEN ROBERT W TRUSTEE & ET
15120 BECKY LN
MONTE SERENO
CA
95030 -2106
650 ALDO AV
097 -10 -173
COUGHLIN WARREN J
550 DAVIS ST UNIT 48
SAN FRANCISCO
CA
94111
DE LA CRUZ BL
097 -11 -130
NUTTO ROBERT H TRUSTEE & ET AL
14538 YALE CT
LOS ALTOS
CA
94022
FAIRWAY GLEN DR
097 -16 -041
DOMINGO EMILIO A AND KATHLEEN A
501 W CAMPBELL
CAMPBELL
CA
95008
FAIRWAY GLEN DR
097 -16 -042
DOMINGO EMILIO A AND DIMINGO
501 W CAMPBELL
CAMPBELL
CA
95008
4732 BURKE DR
097 -17 -001
MINAGAWA MICHIKO H ET AL
4732 BURKE DR
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054 -1608
3533 MACINTOSH ST
097 -20 -037
GAVINA ROMEL R ET AL
3533 MACINTOSH ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054 -2246
3593 MACINTOSH ST
097 -20 -043
LORENZO DEMETRIO M AND
2135 ARIZONA AV
MILPITAS
CA
95035
3582 ABERDEEN ST
097 -20 -074
BASQUES RAYMOND M AND JANE S
3582 ABERDEEN ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054 -2201
3501 LAFAYETTE ST
097 -20 -102
LIN JOHN H AND SHARON H
5845 MORAGA AV
SAN JOSE
CA
95123 -3832
973 LAURIE AV
097 -21 -047
VONG CUN S AND RITA H
973 LAURIE AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054 -2242
776 BAIRD AV
097 -23 -084
YAM LAP M AND TO ROSA W
776 BAIRD AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054 -2215
3840 DE LA CRUZ BL
097 -23 -134
GRIFFIN TODD J
3840 DE LA CRUZ BL
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054 -2115
598 OAKWOOD DR
097 -27 -010
HERNANDO CHRIS G AND ANGELICA G
2540 GLEN ALMA WY
SAN JOSE
CA
95148 -4117
3764 EDGEFIELD DR
097 -27 -067
ANNETT DAVID M AND ALICE F
3764 EDGEFIELD DR
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054 -2128
475 WILDWOOD WY
097 -27 -073
CAMANGIAN JOSE P AND PURA C ET AL
475 WILDWOOD WY
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054 -2132
3866 EASTWOOD CL
097 -28 -007
CHEN JASON C ET AL
3866 EASTWOOD CL
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054
3867 EASTWOOD CL
097 -28 -022
GAGARIN PRESCILO P AND GLORIA T
3867 EASTWOOD CL
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054
3723 EDGEFIELD DR
097 -29 -009
LITTON EUGENE H
3723 EDGEFIELD DR
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054 -2129
3766 EASTWOOD CL
097 -29 -068
COTA ARTEMISA D ET AL
3766 EASTWOOD CL
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054
3659 EASTWOOD CL
097 -30 -064
DEBEAUCLAIR GARY W AND SONDRA L
3659 EASTWOOD CL
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054
3661 EASTWOOD CL
097 -30 -065
YAMASAKI LEROY T AND SUSIE S
3661 EASTWOOD CL
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054
401 NELO ST
097 -31 -021
ORBAN JOSEPH F AND ROMANA M
401 NELO ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054 -2145
10/27/94
1995 WEED ABATEMENT PARCELS BY THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Page 2
FOR THE CITY OF SARAROGA
SITUS
APN
OWNER
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
LIE
451 NELO AV
097 -31 -026
MONTEGO DEVELOPMENT CO
14103 G WINCHESTER BL
LOS GATOS
CA
95030
471 NELO ST
097 -31 -028
DIERCKS DANIEL W AND NADINE E ET
6604 MT HOPE DR
SAN JOSE
CA
95120
442 NELO AV
097 -31 -052
GAGLIASSO CHARLES AND MILDRED
PO BOX 4404
SANTA CLARA
CA
95056
411 -23 NELO ST
097 -31 -060
EDWARDS BRUCE C TRUSTEE & ET AL
14103 G - WINCHESTER BL
LOS GATOS
CA
95030
3511 ABERDEEN ST
097 -32 -002
CRISPIN GLADYS
3511 ABERDEEN ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054 -2202
3549 MACGREGOR LN
097 -32 -033
FISHER JONATHAN L AND MICHELLE J
3549 MACGREGOR LN
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054 -2141
531 -35 TRIMBLE RD
097 -38 -001
MO YOKE K AND NGOC U TRUSTEE
2121 OLD PAGE MILL RD
PALO ALTO
CA
94304
481 GIANNI ST
097 -39 -032
LEWIS ANDREW A TRUSTEE
38 AVALON DR
LOS ALTOS
CA
94022 -2315
VACANT
097 -39 -054
OXFORD PARK ASSOCIATES
2001 UNION ST STE UNIT 300
SAN FRANCISCO
CA
94123
4838 AVENIDA DE LOS
097 -41 -031
NARCISO ROMEO JR. AND HELEN E
PO BOX 4146
SANTA CLARA
CA
95056
4879 AVENIDA DE LOS
097 -41 -037
LIND THOMAS P
4879 AVENIDA DE LOS ARBOLES
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054 -1424
2091 CORTE PRIMAVERA
097 -43 -003
RICASA ROGELIO R AND ROSARIO S
2091 CORTE PRIMAVERA
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054 -1440
2101 CORTE PRIMAVERA
097 -43 -004
JAVIER RIZAL I AND CECILIA M
1013 TANZANIA DR
ROSEVILLE
CA
95661
2103 CORTE PRIMAVERA
097 -43 -005
HOSKINS J W
PO BOX 565
MOUNTAIN VIEW
CA
94040
2125 CORTE PRIMAVERA
097 -43 -016
HELLSTROM SCOTT R AND JULIE W
2125 CORTE PRIMAVERA
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054 -1440
GREAT AMERICA PY
104 -04 -145
WELLS FARGO BANK N A
111 SUTTER STREET 9TH FLR
SAN FRANCISCO
CA
94105
4758 GILLMOR ST
104 -05 -065
ARABE EDDIE R AND CORAZON J
4758 GILLMOR ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054 -1324
2336 SILVERIA CT
104 -05 -112
CARTER SCOTT D AND YU YEE L
2336 SILVERIA CT
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054 -1352
2337 SILVERIA CT
104 -05 -113
BERNARDINO VICTORIO G AND
2768 GLAUSER DR
SAN JOSE
CA
95133 -1407
FILLMORE ST
104 -06 -012
ESPERANCA JOSEPH A AND EVELYN J
4503 CHEENEY ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054 -1302
FILLMORE ST
104 -06 -014
ESPERANCA JOSEPH A AND EVELYN J
4503 CHEENEY ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054 -1302
2255 GIANERA ST
104 -06 -047
RAMCHANDANI VFvILESH A AND
809 WHEAT CT
ULYSSES
KS
67880
FILLMORE ST
104 -10 -077
SITLANI KAMAL N AND SHIELA K
636 HAMILTON AV
MILPITAS
CA
95035 -3512
4350 BASSETT ST
104 -11 -004
MACIEL GEORGE A
PO BOX 321
ALVISO
CA
95002
4336 FILLMORE ST
104 -11 -058
JOSEPHSON NORMAN L
4336 FILLMORE ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054 -2547
4326 FILLMORE ST
104 -11 -059
CHOW NEW F ET AL
4326 FILLMORE ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054 -2547
4316 FILLMORE ST
104 -11 -060
SCHUCHMAN TERRY
870 TIMBER COVE AV SPACE 67
CAMPBELL
CA
95008
4390 FILLMORE ST
104 -11 -073
BUENAFE NORMA A
1179 VALOTA ROAD
REDWOOD CITY
CA
94061
4325 FILLMORE ST
104 -11 -075
PHAM KIST T ET AL
4325 FILLMORE ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054 -2546
10/27/94
1995 WEED ABATEMENT PARCELS BY THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Page 3
FOR THE CITY OF SARAROGA
SITUS
APN
OWNER
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
4370 BASSETT ST
104 -11 -079
MILLFELT ROBERT AND FLORA
3856 EASTWOOD CL
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054
DAVIS ST
104 -11 -087
DI VIRGILIO ROGER AND LANETTE ET
4315 FILLMORE ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054 -2546
2057 AGNEW RD
104 -11 -088
PFUND GEORGE AND CRISTINA
511 WOODSTOCK WY
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054 -2158
LAND ONLY
104 -11 -098
SCOREN ROBERT D
568 MT HOME RD
WOODSIDE
CA
94063
2017 AGNEW RD
104 -11 -101
LIEBERT EVELYN C TRUSTEE
524 S TAAFFE
SUNNYVALE
CA
94086
4200 BASSETT ST
104 -12 -009
CLARK MELVIN AND BETTY L TRUSTEE
4023 CHEENEY ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054 -2522
4242 DAVIS ST
104 -12 -021
RAMCHANDANI VIMLESH AND ASHOK P
809 WHEAT CT
ULYSSES
KS
67880
4222 DAVIS ST
104 -12 -022
RAMCHANDANI ASHOK P AND
809 WHEAT CT
ULLYSSESS
KS
67880
4244 CHEENEY ST
104 -12 -032
SCHICK STEPHEN D
4244 CHEENEY ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054 -2527
4200 CHEENEY ST
104 -12 -036
LIBA ROQUE L JR ET AL
4200 CHEENEY ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054 -2527
4060 BASSETT ST
104 -12 -071
NONAN PABLO E AND NELIA B
6 THOMPSON
HOLLISTER
CA
95023
1802 BEECH ST
104 -12 -084
RAMCHANDANI MURLI P AND POOJA
2255 SECOND ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054
1752 BEECH ST
104 -12 -085
LUNA JUAN I ET AL
1752 BEECH ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054 -2519
4022 DAVIS ST
104 -12 -090
WILLEFORD GERALD L AND CAROLYN A
15140 VIA CORFINIO
MORGAN HILL
CA
95037 -6002
4142 DAVIS ST
104 -12 -111
VASWAM PHAL J AND NEETA P
4953 AVENIDA DE LAGO
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054 -1409
4150 BASSETT ST
104 -12 -125
FRYE ROBERT J ET AL
4150 BASSETT ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054 -2514
2006 AGNEW RD
104 -12 -167
MACEDO MANUEL J AND EVA M
2006 AGNEW RD
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054 -2506
4190 BASSETT ST
104 -12 -194
CORPUS DIOSDADO G AND AURORA E
2058 AVENIDA DE LAS FLORES
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054 -1414
2106 AGNEW RD
104 -12 -198
SHIELDS PATRICIA D
2106 AGNEW RD
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054 -2578
2025 ASH ST
104 -12 -203
FIRST FREE WILL BAPTIST CHURCH OF SJ
2025 ASH ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054 -2511
1913 BEECH ST
104 -12 -204
GARCIA VICTOR M JR AND DEBORAH J
1913 BEECH ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054 -2521
4000/20 BASSETT ST
104 -12 -210
MORENO MARIA S
4020 BASSETT ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054 -2513
BASSETT ST
104 -12 -211
MORENO MARIA S
4020 BASSETT ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054 -2513
3591 THOMAS RD
104 -14 -024
IRON WORKERS APPRENT ICESHIP TRNG
13704 BORATE ST
SANTA FE SPRINGS
CA
90670
3531 THOMAS RD
104 -14 -053
LAMB ELMER W JR ET AL
9486 VINECREST RD
WINDSOR
CA
95492 -9163
3750 BASSETT ST
104 -14 -059
MILLER MARILYN J AND MELVIN J
PO BOX 4310
SANTA CLARA
CA
95056 -4310
1375 NORMAN AV
104 -14 -064
AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS INC
PO BOX 538
ALLENTOWN
PA
18105
2151 LAURELWOOD RD
104 -14 -089
KANWELL LODGING GROUP INC
2151 LAURELWOOD RD
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054 -2754
2181 LAURELWOOD RD
104 -14 -090
EXXON CORP
PO BOX 53
HOUSTON
TX
77001
10/27/94
SITUS
THOMAS RD
1850 RUSSELL AV
3660 A /B /F /G THOMAS RD
3550 THOMAS RD
3500/20 THOMAS RD
1185 NORMAN AV
3601 THOMAS RD
RUSSELL AV
RUSSELL AV
RUSSELL AV
2121 LAURELWOOD RD
1650 RUSSELL AV
1441/1515 NORMAN AV
LEONARD CT /NORMAN
RUSSELL AV
LAFAYETTE ST
1595 LAURELWOOD RD
2800 MISSION COLLEGE BL
JULIETTE LN
JULIETTE LN
JULIETTE LN
MISSION COLLEGE BL
FREEDOM CL
FREEDOM CL
FREEDOM CL
3945 FREEDOM CL
2800 MISSION COLLEGE BL
2800 MISSION COLLEGE BL
GREAT AMERICA PY
1995 WEED ABATEMENT PARCELS BY THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Page 4
FOR THE CITY OF SARAROGA
APN
OWNER
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
104 -14 -098
RODRIGUES EMILY AND FRANK P
12625 SARATOGA AV
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -4146
104 -14 -114
WILCOX THEODORE K AND LENORE A
12574 ARROYO DE ARGUELLO
SARATOGA
CA
95070
104 -14 -123
MARCHESE MARY TRUSTEE & ET AL
19413 LISA MARIE CT
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -5100
104 -14 -124
MULLER PEARL F
1521 UNIVERSITY AV
SAN JOSE
CA
95126 -1642
104 -14 -125
P J LMNGSTON FAMILY PARTNERSHIP
2065 MARTIN AV UNIT 108
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050
104 -14 -132
UNIVERSITY NATIONAL BANK & TRT
250 LYTTON AV
PALO ALTO
CA
94302
104 -14 -139
UCOLANO ROSE M TRUSTEE & ET AL
7761 BELTANE DR
SAN JOSE
CA
95135
104 -14 -146
AIR PRODUCTS & CHEMICALS INC
P O BOX 538
ALLENTOWN
PA
18105
104 -14 -147
AIR PRODUCTS & CHEMICALS INC
P O BOX 538
ALLENTOWN
PA
18105
104 -14 -151
AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS INC
P O BOX 538
ALLENTOWN
PA
18105
104 -14 -153
HARRIGAN WEIDENMULLER CO
212 HIGH ST
POTTSTOWN
PA
19464
104 -14 -156
VICKERS MANAGEMENT LTD
404 E MONTAGUE EX
MILPITAS
CA
95035
104 -14 -157
AIR PRODUCTS MGF CORP
PO BOX 538
ALLENTOWN
PA
18105
104 -14 -158
WELLS FARGO BANK NA
111 SUTTER ST
SAN FRANCISCO
CA
94104
104 -14 -159
RMC LONESTAR
PO BOX 5252
PLEASANTON
CA
94566
104 -14 -160
REED AND GRAHAM INC
PO BOX 5940
SAN JOSE
CA
95150
104 -15 -042
IVY JERRY L TRUSTEE
84 W SANTA CLARA ST UNIT #700
SAN JOSE
CA
95113
104 -16 -089
ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF SAN JOSE
2800 MISSIION COLLEGE BL
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054
104 -39 -018
REGENCY PLAZA OFFICE BUILDING 3
2350 MISSTION COLLEGE BL
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054
104 -39 -019
REGENCY PLAZA OFFICE BUILDING 2
2350 MISSION COLLEGE BL
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054
104 -39 -020
REGENCY PLAZA OFFICE BUILDING 2
2350 MISSION COLLEGE BL
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054
104 -39 -021
REGENCY PLAZA OFFICE BUILDING 3
2350 MISSTION COLLEGE BL
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054
104 -40 -018
PEERY RICHARD T TRUSTEE & ET AL
2560 MISSION COLLEGE UNIT 101
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054
104 -40 -021
PEERY RICHARD T TRUSTEE & ET AL
2560 MISSION COLLEGE UNIT 101
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054
104 -40 -023
PEERY RICHARD T TRUSTEE & ET AL
2560 MISSION COLLEGE UNIT 101
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054
104 -40 -030
UNION BANK
4600 LA JOLLA VLGE DR UNIT 900
SAN DIEGO
CA
92122
104 -41 -033
ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SAN
2800 MISSION COLLEGE BL
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054
104 -41 -035
PACIFIC TRUST COMPANY (LAND ONLY)
4243 HUNT RD
CINCINNATI
OH
45242 -6698
104 -42 -016
MARRIOTT CORPORATION
ONE MARRIOTT DR
WASHINGTON
DC
20058
10/27/94
1995 WEED ABATEMENT PARCELS BY THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Page 5
FOR THE CITY OF SARAROGA
SITUS
APN
OWNER
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZJ.E
BETSY ROSS DR
104 -50 -019
BATTON W F AND MARIE A TRUSTEE
1190 EAST MEADOW DR
PALO ALTO
CA
94303
MOUNTAIN VIEW ALVISO RD 104 -52 -006
DAIRY ASSOCIATES L P
5400 BAY FRONT PLAZA
SANTA CLARA
CA
95052
OLD MTN VIEW ALVISO RD
104 -52 -012
DAIRY ASSOCIATES L P
393 VINTAGE PARK DR STE 210
FOSTER CITY
CA
94404
5410 -40 BAYFRONT PLAZA
104 -52 -013
DAIRY ASSOCIATES L P
393 VINTAGE PARK DR STE 210
FOSTER CITY
CA
94404
5410 -40 BAYFRONT PLAZA
104 -52 -014
DAIRY ASSOCIATES L P
5400 BAY FRONT PLAZA
SANTA CLARA
CA
95052
POINCIANA DR
213 -32 -002
TAN CO
3630 EL CAMINO
PALO ALTO
CA
94306
POINCIANA DR
213 -32 -003
TAN CO
3630 EL CAMINO
PALO ALTO
CA
94306
3706 POINCIANA DR
213 -32 -012
TAN CO
3630 EL CAMINO
PALO ALTO
CA
94306
2018 HALFORD AV
213 -32 -013
TAN CO
3630 EL CAMINO
PALO ALTO
CA
94306
KLAMATH AV
213 -33 -009
TAN CO
3630 EL CAMINO
PALO ALTO
CA
94306
KLAMATH AV
213 -33 -010
TAN CO
3630 EL CAMINO
PALO ALTO
CA
94306
KLAMATH AV
213 -33 -011
TAN CO
3630 EL CAMINO
PALO ALTO
CA
94306
KLAMATH AV
213 -33 -012
TAN CO
3630 EL CAMINO REAL
PALO ALTO
CA
94306 -2743
1901 HALFORD AV
213 -33 -013
HALFORD GARDENS PARTNERSHIP
130 E DANA ST
MOUNTAIN VIEW
CA
94041
2767 DONOVAN AV
216 -02 -111
TRAN KHEN V AND HUA HUE K
2767 DONOVAN AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -3020
2530 WARBURTON AV
216 -03 -003
ADAMS VERA O AND CARLETON R
4388 MILLER CT
PALO ALTO
CA
94306 -4412
2602 CABRILLO AV
216 -07 -065
JORDEN VENIE
2602 CABRILLO AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -1805
2445 CABRILLO AV
216 -10 -003
CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE DIST ADV
2445 CABRILLO AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -1801
2495 CABRILLO AV
216 -10 -087
RESURRECTION EVANGELICAL
2495 CABRILLO AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -1801
2493 ELLIOT ST
216 -11 -066
CHEN LI C ROBE ET AL
2493 ELLIOT ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -1858
2601 MONROE ST
216 -13 -002
GOLDBERG SEYMOUR
2601 MONROE ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -1836
2665 SOUTH DR
216 -15 -026
BRACHER ASSCS
505 W JULIAN ST
SAN JOSE
CA
95110
2565 PAINTED ROCK DR
216 -16 -016
EQUILA BERNARDO
725 SANTA SUSANA ST
SUNNYVALE
CA
94086 -3471
2515 PARKLAND CT
216 -16 -029
OCAMPO ALFREDO P AND MARIA C
2515 PARKLAND CT
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -1127
2535 PARKLAND CT
216 -16 -031
FLORES MARIA H
2535 PARKLAND CT
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -1127
2553 PEBBLE BEACH DR
216 -16 -046
COOK RONNIE E AND SHERRIE A
2348 ARGUELLO PL
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -4002
2607 PILOT KNOB DR
216 -16 -083
THONG SANG N ET AL
2607 PILOT KNOB DR
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -1135
2617 PILOT KNOB DR
216 -16 -084
MATHEWS JAMES A ET AL
3099 BARKLEY AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -2324
2640 BOWERS AV
216 -16 -086
AGPAOA RODRIGO D AND LETICIA E
1710 DE KALB AV
BROOKLYN
NY
11237
10/27/94
1995 WEED ABATEMENT PARCELS BY THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Page 6
FOR THE CITY OF SARAROGA
SITUS
APN
OWNER
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
Zjj
2630 BOWERS AV
216 -16 -087
HOBSON NADINE
175 HIGHLAND AV
LOS GATOS
CA
95032 -7115
2590 BOWERS AV
216 -16 -091
LUI DORA Y AND PAUL S
20849 VERDE VISTA LN
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -4830
2253 AUGUSTA PL
216 -17 -033
FETTEROLF CLARA L
1075 E SANTA CLARA ST
SAN JOSE
CA
95116
2908 CHROMITE DR
216 -18 -044
TATUM CAROL A AND KEITH L
2908 CHROMITE DR
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -1110
2911 MONROE ST
216 -18 -083
PEREIRA RONALD J AND VALERIE J
2911 MONROE ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -1754
2589 MORAINE DR
216 -19 -021
SUTHAR KANUBHAI AND VARSHA ET
2589 MORAINE DR
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -1117
2639 MORAINE DR
216 -19 -025
ZABALA CLARO A
2639 MORAINE DR
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -1119
2602 PAINTED ROCK DR
216 -19 -029
RODIL ADORACION I
2602 PAINTED ROCK DR
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -1126
2552 PAINTED ROCK DR
216 -19 -035
TOORANS SUE M
2552 PAINTED ROCK DR
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -1124
2405 AMETHYST DR
216 -19 -052
VALENZANO ANTHONY AND YSELA M
2405 AMETHYST DR
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -1136
2411 AMETHYST DR
216 -19 -054
BOSE EFREN T AND AUGUSTA A
2211 FRANCIS AV
SANTA CLARA
- CA
95051 -1731
2457 AMETHYST DR
216 -19 -061
BLOCK HARRY AND RUTH C TRUSTEE
PO BOX 2577
SUNNYVALE
CA
94087
2503 AMETHYST DR
216 -19 -067
JUNTADO DAISY S
2503 AMETHYST DR
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -1138
2558 MORAINE DR
216 -19 -089
SEUL JOHN T ET AL
2558 MORAINE DR
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -1118
2406 AMETHYST DR
216 -20 -001
WONG FELIX ET AL
2406 AMETHYST DR
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -1137
2532 AMETHYST DR
216 -20 -082
NAGY EVA
2532 AMETHYST DR
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -1139
2502 AMETHYST DR
216 -20 -088
ROSS DAVID M
2502 AMETHYST DR
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051
2466 AMETHYST DR
216 -20 -093
FAHY JAMES K
2466 AMETHYST DR
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -1137
2532 BORAX DR
216 -21 -034
SCHNEIDER DON AND NONA
2532 BORAX DR
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -1143
2502 BORAX DR
216 -21 -039
KING KENNETH
2502 BORAX DR
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -1143
2539 CRYSTAL DR
216 -21 -045
HEATH APRIL M ET AL
2539 CRYSTAL DR
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -1146
2634 LANDSLIDE CT
216 -22 -021
KODANI SUSUMU
4169 COULOMBE DR
PALO ALTO
CA
94306 -3802
2632 MEADOWBROOK DR
216 -22 -030
HENDRICKSON KEITH L AND KAREN P
2632 MEADOWBROOK DR
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -1114
2569 AMETHYST DR
216 -22 -046
MEIER MICHAEL AND HOLLY ET AL
2569 AMETHYST DR
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -1154
2949 AGATE DR
216 -23 -017
STEVENSON PATTI G
18682 ASPESI DR
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -5206
3009 AGATE DR
216 -23 -023
NOLAN PETER AND MARY
3009 AGATE DR
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -1104
3209 AGATE DR
216 -23 -043
STAFFORD DOROTHY L
3209 AGATE DR
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -1107
3219 AGATE DR
216 -23 -044
OAKLEY ROSALIND J TRUSTEE
26120 FAIRLANE DR
SUN CITY
CA
92381
3249 AGATE DR
216 -23 -047
YOUSIF WILLIAM I AND FIRYAL
3249 AGATE DR
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -1107
10/27/94
1995 WEED ABATEMENT PARCELS BY THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Page 7
FOR THE CITY OF SARAROGA
SITiJS
APN
OWNER
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
3356 CASHDAN CT
216 -24 -024
WHITCOMB JOHN W AND JANE A
939 WOODLAND DRIVE
SAN RAMON
CA
94583
3346 CASHDAN CT
216 -24 -025
HSIEH VAN H AND SHIRLEY T
19171 DAGMAR DR
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -5106
3373 VINCENT DR
216 -24 -087
GRIGGS KIMBERLY E ET AL
2180 BROWN AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050
2644 /46 KITSAP CT
216 -26 -058
GALLO CRUCIANO ET AL
7941 ASH LN
LA PALMA
CA
90623
2401 WALSH AV
216 -28 -037
SCIENTIFIC CUSTOM METAL PRODUCTS
2401 WALSH AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -1302
2400 CONDENSA ST
216 -28 -049
HARRIS TRUST AND SAVINGS BANK
6929 N LAKEWOOD
TULSA
OK
74117
216 -28 -084
SPTC ESMT KIFER ROAD ASSOCIATES
1500 SANSON E ST UNIT 102
SAN FRANCISCO
CA
94111
216 -28 -086
SPTC ESMT SANFORD DAVID E ETAL
1500 SANSON E ST UNIT 102
SAN FRANCISCO
CA
94111
2901 -35 MEAD AV
216 -28 -089
GLAZER GUILFORD
3 DEL AMO FASHION CENTER
TORRANCE
CA
90503
216 -28 -090
SPTC ESMT MURRA N U
1500 SANSON E ST UNIT 102
SAN FRANCISCO
CA
94111
2971 -95 URANIUM RD
216 -28 -091
MEAD ASSOCIATES ET AL
3375 SCOTT BL UNIT 308
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054
LAND ONLY
216 -28 -093
SPTC ESMT CONNETICUT GENERAL LIFE
(LAND ONLY)
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051
216 -28 -097
SPTC ESMT EDELMAN BERT S TRUSTEE
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051
216 -28 -100
SPTC ESMT KAN -MAC L P
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051
2940 MEAD AV
216 -28 -102
KAN -MAC L P
3945 FREEDOM CL STE 1000
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054
2900 MEAD AV
216 -28 -103
EDELMAN BERT S TRUSTEE & ET AL
PO BOX 63700
SAN FRANCISCO
CA
94163
2800 MEAD AV
216 -28 -110
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP
PO BOX 2458
PITTSBURGH
PA
15230
LAND ONLY
216 -28 -111
DE PALMA JOHN J TRUSTEE
1104 PIPPIN CREEK CT
SAN JOSE
CA
95120 -4120
BOWERS AV
216 -28 -121
PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS
BOWERS AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051
2921 CORVIN DR
216 -33 -030
MOUTAFIAN ADOM T TRUSTEE & ET AL
19066 AUSTIN WY
SARATOGA
CA
95030
2985 -3000 GORDON AV
216 -34 -041
PEARLMAN JOINT VENTURE
1788 ROGERS AV
SAN JOSE
CA
95112 -1109
3500 RYDER /COPPER
216 -34 -046
COPPER INDUSTRIALS
1100 MARSHALL ST
REDWOOD CITY
CA
94063
2960 COPPER RD
216 -34 -047
COPPER INDUSTRIALS
1100 MARSHALL ST
REDWOOD CITY
CA
94063
2901/3 GORDON AV
216 -34 -066
PEARLMAN JOINT VENTURE
P O BOX 31
BELL
CA
90201
3505 KIFER RD
216 -34 -070
KOOL METAL AWNING CO INC OF
3505 KIFER RD
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -0712
2951/75 GORDON AV
216 -34 -072
PEARLMAN JOINT VENTURE
P O BOX 31
BELL
CA
90201
3065 BOWERS AV
216 -46 -015
INTEL INTERNATIONAL
3065 BOWERS AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051
3000 BOWERS AV
216 -48 -033
ELMAR ELECTRONICS INC
124 MARYLAND ST
EL SEGUNDO
CA
90245
EL CAMINO /LAWRENCE EX
220 -03 -010
CHAN INC NORMAN P
1817 LEIMERT BL
OAKLAND
CA
94602
10/27/94
1995 WEED ABATEMENT PARCELS BY THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Page 8
FOR THE CITY OF SARAROGA
SITUS
APN
OWNER
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
&IP
1741 LAWRENCE EX
220 -04 -003
ROGERS MINNIE TRUSTEE
1741 LAWRENCE EX
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051
1715 LAWRENCE EX
220 -04 -036
HARRIS EUNICE F TRUSTEE & ET AL
PO BOX 6367
EUREKA
CA
95502
1701 BRIARWOOD DR
220 -05 -001
MOCHERLA SUDHAKAR R AND
1584 HALFORD AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051
3460 BELLA VISTA CT
220 -05 -027
MATEO FRED S AND MATEA A
3460 BELLA VISTA CT
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -2116
3487 WARBURTON AV
220 -06 -074
GUZMAN DAVID A AND KATHY ET AL
3487 WARBURTON AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -2706
3197 DALLAS CT
220 -07 -031
MASSEY MITCHELL W ET AL
3197 DALLAS CT
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -2730
3270 CABRILLO AV
220 -08 -048
S C VILLAGE GREEN ASSOC LTD
75 CENTRAL ST
BOSTON
MA
02109
3368 CREIGHTON PL
220 -15 -073
PREVOST RITA K
3368 CREIGHTON PL
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -1502
3117 SAN JUAN AV
220 -22 -012
MILLER WAYNE D AND LUCILLE T
3117 SAN JUAN AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -1641
3055 MACHADO AV
220 -22 -061
BORG CHARLES A
3055 MACHADO AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -1627
3235 MACHADO AV
220 -22 -079
LEE PATRICK W AND CARIANN S
783 LYNXWOOD CT
SUNNYVALE
CA
94086 -6507
3245 MACHADO AV
220 -22 -080
HAUN LILLIAN C AND GENE A ET AL
3245 MACHADO AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051
3230 MACHADO AV
220 -22 -092
TAM ALOYSIUS T AND CAROLINE H
18300 LEXINGTON DR
MONTE SERENO
CA
95030 -3121
2170 VENTURA PL
220 -23 -015
SHOCKOWITZ CAROLYN F AND
2170 VENTURA PL
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -1624
2218 SANTA CRUZ AV
220 -24 -020
YAMAMOTO LILY H EST OF & TRUSTEE
PO BOX 1350
CUPERTINO
CA
95015 -1350
2836 ADDISON PL
220 -25 -087
PORTER TYRONE A
2836 ADDISON PL
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -1706
1962 BOWERS AV
220 -27 -013
PHILLIPS PAMELLA TRUSTEE
1962 BOWERS AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -1860
3073 MILLAR AV
220 -28 -049
GEKAS ELIAS G ET AL
3073 MILLAR AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -2338
1956 MONTEREY CT
220 -28 -059
HSU CHUN- HISUNG AND LIH C
10323 BLANEY CT
CUPERTINO
CA
95014 -3123
2828 BARKLEY AV
220 -30 -058
CROSS BRETT E AND MILAGROS D
12601 PASEO CERRO
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -4138
1749 JEFFERY CT
220 -31 -051
COX CLARENCE
1749 JEFFERY CT
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -2911
1730 BOWERS AV
220 -31 -062
BATTEY ARLENE
1730 BOWERS AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -3037
2855 EL CAMINO REAL
220 -31 -082
TEIXEIRA LEO ET AL
1820 RICHARD AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -2818
3155 EL CAMINO REAL
220 -32 -058
BOWERS JOHN W TRUSTEE & ET AL
300 SERENE ESTATES LN
LINCOLN
CA
95648
3155 EL CAMINO REAL
220 -34 -002
PACIFIC HOUSES DEVELOPMENT CO
PO BOX 160510
CUPERTINO
CA
95016 -0510
3155 EL CAMINO REAL
220 -34 -004
PACIFIC HOUSES DEVELOPMENT CO
21726 NOONAN CT UNIT 109
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
3155 EL CAMINO REAL
220 -34 -005
PACIFIC HOUSES DEVELOPMENT CO
PO BOX 160510
CUPERTINO
CA
95016 -0510
3155 EL CAMINO REAL
220 -34 -006
PACIFIC HOUSES DEVELOPMENT CO
PO BOX 160510
CUPERTINO
CA
95016 -0510
3155 EL CAMINO REAL
220 -34 -007
PACIFIC HOUSES DEVELOPMENT CO
PO BOX 160510
CUPERTINO
CA
95016 -0510
10/27/94
1995 WEED ABATEMENT PARCELS BY THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Page 9
FOR THE CITY OF SARAROGA
SITUS
APN
OWNER
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZdE
3155 EL CAMINO REAL
220 -34 -008
PACIFIC HOUSES DEVELOPMENT CO
PO BOX 160510
CUPERTINO
CA
95016 -0510
3155 EL CAMINO REAL
220 -34 -009
PACIFIC HOUSES DEVELOPMENT CO
PO BOX 160510
CUPERTINO
CA
95016 -0510
3155 EL CAMINO REAL
220 -34 -010
PACIFIC HOUSES DEVELOPMENT CO
PO BOX 160510
CUPERTINO
CA
95016 -0510
3155 EL CAMINO REAL
220 -34 -011
PACIFIC HOUSES DEVELOPMENT CO
PO BOX 160510
CUPERTINO
CA
95016 -0510
3155 EL CAMINO REAL
220 -34 -012
PACIFIC HOUSES DEVELOPMENT CO
PO BOX 160510
CUPERTINO
CA
95016 -0510
3155 EL CAMINO REAL
220 -34 -013
PACIFIC HOUSES DEVELOPMENT CO
PO BOX 160510
CUPERTINO
CA
95016 -0510
3155 EL CAMINO REAL
220 -34 -014
PACIFIC HOUSES DEVELOPMENT CO
PO BOX 160510
CUPERTINO
CA
95016 -0510
3155 EL CAMINO REAL
220 -34 -015
PACIFIC HOUSES DEVELOPMENT CO
PO BOX 160510
CUPERTINO
CA
95016 -0510
3155 EL CAMINO REAL
220 -34 -016
PACIFIC HOUSES DEVELOPMENT CO
PO BOX 160510
CUPERTINO
CA
95016 -0510
3155 EL CAMINO REAL
220 -34 -017
PACIFIC HOUSES DEVELOPMENT CO
PO BOX 160510
CUPERTINO
CA
95016 -0510
3155 EL CAMINO REAL
220 -34 -018
PACIFIC HOUSES DEVELOPMENT CO
PO BOX 160510
CUPERTINO
CA
95016 -0510
3155 EL CAMINO REAL
220 -34 -019
PACIFIC HOUSES DEVELOPMENT CO
PO BOX 160510
CUPERTINO
CA
95016 -0510
3155 EL CAMINO REAL
220 -34 -020
PACIFIC HOUSES DEVELOPMENT CO
PO BOX 160510
CUPERTINO
CA
95016 -0510
3155 EL CAMINO REAL
220 -34 -021
PACIFIC HOUSES DEVELOPMENT CO
PO BOX 160510
CUPERTINO
CA
95016 -0510
2215 LAFAYETTE ST
224 -03 -070
HINZ ETHEL J
P O BOX 97
SANTA CLARA
CA
95052
2201 LAFAYETTE ST
224 -03 -071
MYERS CERAMIC PRODUCTS CO
P O BOX 97
SANTA CLARA
CA
95052
800 MATHEW ST
224 -03 -081
PATEL JITENDRA G AND SHASHI
800 MATHEW ST UNIT #102
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050
850 WALSH AV
224 -04 -005
L A W INVESTORS LTD
PO BOX 1237
SAN JOSE
CA
95108
810 WALSH AV
224 -04 -006
MENACHO JOHN A AND ANN
871 S MARY AV
SUNNYVALE
CA
94087 -1168
651 WALSH AV
224 -04 -059
PELIO W L
1733 DELL AV
CAMPBELL
CA
95008
2705 -55 LAFAYETTE ST
224 -04 -062
WTTKIN HAROLD AND GERALDYNE G
188 TWIN OAKS DR
LOS GATOS
CA
95128
651 MARTIN AV
224 -04 -071
GANGI BROS PACKING COMPANY
PO BOX 518
SANTA CLARA
CA
95052
614/30 WALSH AV
224 -04 -075
HARO FRANCISCO T ET AL
439 REYNOLD CL
SAN JOSE
CA
95112
750 WALSH AV
224 -04 -076
HAVLIN SYLVIA TRUSTEE & ET AL
750 WALSH AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -2613
650 WALSH AV
224 -04 -077
PELIO W L
1733 DELL AV
CAMPBELL
CA
95008
700/800 CENTRAL EX
224 -04 -085
SOBRATO JOHN A AND SUSAN R
10600 N DE ANZA BL STE UNIT 200
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
750 CENTRAL EX
224 -04 -086
SOBRATO JOHN A AND SUSAN R
10600 N DE ANZA UNIT 200
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
801 -81 MARTIN AV
224 -04 -087
THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE
554 GIBRALTAR DR
MILPITAS
CA
95035
2555 LAFAYETTE ST
224 -04 -088
PECTEN COURT ASSOCIATES
1999 S BASCOM AV UNIT 425
CAMPBELL
CA
95008
10/27/94
1995 WEED ABATEMENT PARCELS BY THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Page 10
FOR THE CITY OF SARAROGA
SITUS
APN
OWNER
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
2555 LAFAYETTE ST
224 -05 -117
PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS
1999 S BASCOM AV UNIT 425
CAMPBELL
CA
95008
RICHARD AV
224 -06 -146
RAVIZZA MARIO B & ADELE C 1985
245 ALVISO ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -5946
1771 RICHARD AV
224 -06 -149
KAHN WILLIAM E TRUSTEE
PO BOX 345
SANTA CLARA
CA
95052
RICHARD AV
224 -06 -175
GREEN VALLEY CORPORATION ET AL
701 N FIRST ST
SAN JOSE
CA
95112
960 SCOTT BL
224 -07 -123
BNP LEASING CORP
1700 PACIFIC AV
DALLAS
TX
75201
RAYMOND ST
224 -08 -086
JACOBSEN ENTERPRISES
PO BOX 792
LOS GATOS
CA
95031 -0792
RAYMOND ST
224 -08 -087
JACOBSEN INTERPRISES
PO BOX 792
LOS GATOS
CA
95031 -0792
SPACE PARK DR
224 -08 -114
WENDOVER INVESTMENTS INC
1200 COLUMBIA AV
RIVERSIDE
CA
92507
RAYMOND ST
224 -08 -126
NEWPARK LEASING CO
PO BOX 792
LOS GATOS
CA
95031 -0792
SPACE PARK DR
224 -08 -131
WENDOVER INVESTMENTS INC
1200 COLUMBIA AV
RIVERSIDE
CA
92507
DUANE AV
224 -08 -142
CHACE JOHN R
P O BOX 308
SAN JOSE
CA
95103 .
3151 JAY ST
224 -09 -071
HAMAZAWA INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES
633 W 5TH ST SUITE 2100
LOS ANGELES
CA
90071
JAY ST
224 -09 -128
HAMAZAWA INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES
633 W FIFTH ST SUITE 2100
LOS ANGELES
CA
90071
2200 MARTIN AV
224 -10 -097
BETZ IRVING AND HELEN TRUSTEE &
2520 COLLEGE AV
BERKELEY
CA
94704
2200 MARTIN AV
224 -10 -098
BETZ IRVING AND HELEN TRUSTEE &
2520 COLLEGE AV
BERKELEY
CA
94704
2008 /36 MARTIN AV
224 -10 -117
RREEF WEST -V INC
155 A MOFFETT PARK UNIT 110
SUNNYVALE
CA
94089
2008 MARTIN AV
224 -10 -127
PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS
155 A MOFFETT PARK UNIT 110
SUNNYVALE
CA
94089
1995 EL CAMINO REAL
224 -20 -081
SHELL OIL COMPANY
PO BOX 2099
HOUSTON
TX
77252
2113 MAIN ST
224 -22 -019
PADILLA GILBERT AND GLORIA R
2113 MAIN ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -3503
2086 MAIN ST
224 -22 -040
SALMON GLEN AND CAROL A
2086 MAIN ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -3851
2066 MAIN ST
224 -23 -001
COVELL JAMES A AND ESTHER V
2066 MAIN ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -3817
1970 MAIN ST
224 -23 -010
SANCHEZ CRISTOBAL AND SANDRA A
1970 MAIN ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -3809
MAIN ST
224 -23 -071
HOFFMAN JOHN L
937 PINE ST
OAKLAND
CA
94607
1742 JACKSON ST
224 -24 -066
MATTOS ADELINE S TRUSTEE
1742 JACKSON ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -3815
1730 MAIN ST
224 -24 -080
COR MAR INVESTMENTS CO
1751 MAIN ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050
1370 WARBURTON AV
224 -25 -003
CHIANG DAVID T T AND CHRISTINA C
15 GLENBROOK DR
HILLSBOROUGH
CA
94010
1662 JACKSON ST
224 -26 -034
GREEN DANH AND BERTHA
2984 EL SOBRANTE ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -3716
1627 MONROE ST
224 -26 -062
DESOUSA LUIS AND ANTONIA M
1254 MARKET ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -5442
1619 MONROE ST
224 -26 -074
FAGUNDES JOHN D AND FATIMA M
1619 MONROE ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -4247
10/27/94
1995 WEED ABATEMENT PARCELS BY THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Page 11
FOR THE CITY OF SARAROGA
SITUS
APN
OWNER
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
1621 MONROE ST
224 -26 -075
NEVIN KIMBERLY A
1621 MONROE ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -4247
1623 MONROE ST
224 -26 -076
ARIAS JOSEPH G AND MARY M
690 JACKSON ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -5415
1615 JACKSON ST
224 -26 -077
GLORIA PEDRO F AND CLAUDIA C
1156 CIVIC CENTER DR
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050
940 CIVIC CENTER DR
224 -28 -055
BACKHUS CHARLES H AND DOROTHY L
2600 PEPPERWOOD LN
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -6236
1627 LAFAYETTE ST
224 -29 -017
TEIXEIRA ANTHONY J AND JEANNETTE
2971 RIDGE CT
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -5528
1647 LAFAYETTE ST
224 -29 -018
TEIXEIRA MANUEL
1647 LAFAYETTE ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -3914
820 CIVIC CENTER DR
224 -29 -022
IVANCOVICH ROBERT L AND EDITH M
820 CIVIC CENTER DR
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -3921
ALVISO ST
224 -29 -023
SPENO ANTHONY AND MARIAN
858 CIVIC CENTER
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050
1777 LAFAYETTE ST
224 -29 -026
POLLACK ENTERPRISES INC
1670 NEWHALL ST STE UNIT 204
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050
224 -29 -032
IVANCOVICH ROBERT L AND EDITH M
820 CIVIC CENTER DR
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -3921
1525 ALVISO ST
224 -29 -034
IVANCOVICH ROBERT L AND EDITH M
820 CIVIC CENTER DR
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -3921
859 EL CAMINO REAL
224 -29 -041
ASSTIK CORPORATION
1655 EL CAMINO REAL
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -4158
2128 MAIN ST
224 -30 -093
ANDERSEN WILLIAM F AND SUSAN F
95 PIAZZA WY
SAN JOSE
CA
95127 -2663
2122 MAIN ST
224 -30 -096
CHENG CHIEN -HUI TRUSTEE & ET AL
1211 LAFAYETTE ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050
2120 MAIN ST
224 -30 -097
KINNEY GEORGE L AND ERMA J
PO BOX 2624
SUNNYVALE
CA
94087
2147 PASETTA DR
224 -32 -014
SITYH JEFFREY AND SALLY
13095 VIA ESCUELA CT
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -4461
630 MARTIN AV
224 -35 -014
CHUN PHILIP W ET AL
12752 RODONI CT
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -4017
650 /80 MARTIN AV
224 -35 -017
MARTIN ASSOCIATES
755 PAGE MILL RD UNIT A200
PALO ALTO
CA
94304
MARTIN / LAFAYETTE
224 -35 -018
PELIO W L
1733 DELL AV
CAMPBELL
CA
95008
840 -890 COMSTOCK ST
224 -36 -001
LAPTALO SLAVKA AND JAKOV
1224 THORPE CT
LOS ALTOS
CA
94024 -5552
790 COMSTOCK ST
224 -36 -004
ATLAS DONALD M
6223 FRANCISCAN WY
SAN JOSE
CA
95120
224 -36 -007
WATSON BERT E AND JOYCE J TRUSTEE
1336 CENTRAL AV
SAN JOSE
CA
95128 -3104
750 COMSTOCK ST
224 -36 -008
WATSON BERT E AND JOYCE J TRUSTEE
1336 CENTRAL AV
SAN JOSE
CA
95128 -3104
780 COMSTOCK ST
224 -36 -024
ZIMMERMAN ARNOLD S AND LEAN F
1010 HEWITT DRIVE
SAN CARLOS
CA
94070
720 COMSTOCK ST
224 -36 -025
MURRAY HANLEY H TRUSTEE & ET AL
20281 GLASGOW DR
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -4334
800 COMSTOCK ST
224 -36 -026
KITTLE LOGAN B ET AL
800 COMSTOCK ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054 -3404
700 -05 COMSTOCK ST
224 -36 -035
MILLS BONNIE J AND B T
5284 ORCUTT RD
SAN LUIS OBISPO
CA
93401
2346 ROOSEVELT CL
224 -37 -035
CLAYPOOL BRIAN E
2346 ROOSEVELT CL
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051
705 REED ST
224 -38 -001
FORSYTH PEARL ET AL
3107 VERDUN AV
SAN MATEO
CA
94403
10/27194
1995 WEED ABATEMENT PARCELS BY THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Page 12
FOR THE CITY OF SARAROGA
SITUS
APN
OWNER
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
Z.IE
735 REED ST
224 -38 -002
SMITH DOROTHY F ET AL
1870 CATHERINE ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050
720/30 PARKER ST
224 -38 -011
MORETON COLIN A TRUSTEE & ET AL
PO BOX 4839
INCLINE VILLAGE
NV
89450
PARKER ST
224 -38 -017
ATHANS PETE AND JOAN
2015 LAFAYETTE ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -2901
2005 GRANT ST
224 -38 -022
GANGI BROS PACKING COMPANY
PO BOX 518
SANTA CLARA
CA
95052
2034 MONROE ST
224 -39 -013
RAMIREZ JENNIFER ADMINISTRATOR
1120 SULTANA DR
SAN JOSE
CA
95122 -3240
651 MATHEW ST
224 -40 -001
DIANA LAND COMPANY, LTD.
651 MATHEW ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95052
725 MATHEW ST
224 -40 -002
GANGI BROS PACKING CO
P O BOX 518
SANTA CLARA
CA
95052
2365 LAFAYETTE ST
224 -40 -010
GANGI CORPORATION
825 MATHEW ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -2916
224 -41 -104
CIVIC CENTER DEVELOPMENT GROUP
PO BOX 50085
WATSONVILLE
CA
95077
1600 DUANE AV
224 -42 -001
SOSNICK CO MELVIN
PO BOX 391
SANTA CLARA
CA
95052
2251 LAWSON LN
224 -44 -019
BERG MARY A AND CARL E TRUSTEE &
10050 BANDLEY DR
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
2251 LAWSON LN
224 -45 -017
SOUTH BAY SAN TOMAS ASSOCIATES
511 DIVISION ST
CAMPBELL
CA
95008
2251 LAWSON LN
224 -45 -020
SOUTH BAY SAN TOMAS ASSCS
511 DIVISION ST
CAMPBELL
CA
95008
SCOTT BL
224 -45 -021
SOUTH BAY /SAN TOMAS ASSOCIATES
511 DIVISION ST
CAMPBELL
CA
95008
1375 EL CAMINO REAL
224 -48 -002
MURRAY HANLEY H AND MURIEL A
20281 GLASGOW DR
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -4334
1493 EL CAMINO REAL
224 -48 -006
IVANCOVICH ANNA ESTATE OF
410 TRAVERSO AV
LOS ALTOS
CA
94022
1385 EL CAMINO REAL
224 -48 -012
VITKOVICH HENRY J SR AND PAULINE J
1552 PEREGRINO WY
SAN JOSE
CA
95125 -4543
1399 EL CAMINO REAL
224 -48 -013
BACON ARDUTTE TRUSTEE
1685 UNIVERSITY AV
SAN JOSE
CA
95126 -1547
1651 TRITON CT
224 -49 -039
TOLENTINO AMELITA L ET AL
1651 TRITON CT
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -4173
1661 TRITON CT
224 -49 -040
DIMOPOULOS GEORGE I AND
1661 TRITON CT
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -4173
1671 TRITON CT
224 -49 -041
DAVIS ELLEN ET AL
1671 TRITON CT
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -4173
1681 TRITON CT
224 -49 -042
WALSH JASBIR K AND TIMOTHY J
1681 TRITON CT
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -4176
1691 TRITON CT
224 -49 -043
SINAI KEYHAN AND HESHMATPOUR
1691 TRITON CT
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -4176
1701 TRITON CT
224 -49 -044
CHEUNG JOHN C K AND MARY W
1701 TRITON CT
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -4176
1705 TRITON CT
224 -49 -045
FIRESTONE CAROLLSON H JR AND
1705 TRITON CT
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -4176
1711 TRITON CT
224 -49 -046
MCPHAIL ROY K AND DENISE M
1711 TRITON CT
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -4176
1721 TRITON CT
224 -49 -047
JOHNSON LINDA D TRUSTEE
1721 TRITON CT
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -4176
1720 TRITON CT
224 -49 -048
LAMPELA VERNON G AND VICKIE ET AL 1720 TRITON CT
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -4177
1710 TRITON CT
224 -49 -049
MANNHALTER LORI A ET AL
1710 TRITON CT
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -4177
10/27/94
1995 WEED ABATEMENT PARCELS BY THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Page 13
FOR THE CITY OF SARAROGA
SITUS
APN
OWNER
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
1700 TRITON CT
224 -49 -050
BOGARD JACQUELINE A ET AL
1844 E BENDIX DR
TEMPA
AZ
85283
1690 TRITON CT
224 -49 -051
ZULAICA LOUIS E ET AL
1690 TRITON CT
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -4175
1680 TRITON CT
224 -49 -052
HUDSPETH MICHAEL AND WENDY M
1680 TRITON CT
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -4175
1670 TRITON CT
224 -49 -053
RAD REZA Y AND RAZIEH Y
1670 TRITON CT
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -4168
1660 TRITON CT
224 -49 -054
WOODHALL BARNES W ET AL
1660 TRITON CT
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -4168
1650 TRITON CT
224 -49 -055
WESTER JOSEPH G AND SUSAN J
1650 TRITON CT
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -4168
WALSH / LAFAYETTE
224 -56 -001
LAFAYETTE HOLDING CORP
909 MARINA VILLAGE UNIT 106
ALAMEDA
CA
94501
1150 WALSH AV
224 -58 -003
CURRIE MANUFACTURING CO
PO BOX 192
SANTA CLARA
CA
95052
1056 WALSH AV
224 -59 -003
MOORE AND CO BENJAMIN
51 CHESTNUT RIDGE RD
MONTVALE
NJ
07645
1000 WALSH AV
224 -59 -004
MOORE AND CO BENJAMIN
51 CHESTNUT RIDGE RD
MONTVALE
NJ
07645
1090/92 WALSH AV
224 -59 -008
HUNTALAS WILLIAM N ET AL
1090 WALSH AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -2615
2580/90 LAFAYETTE ST
224 -60 -001
PACIFIC NURSERY POTS INC
1015 MARTIN AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -2636
2562 -74 LAFAYETTE ST
224 -60 -002
RECTOR ORMOND N AND DORIS J
510 BAY RD
MENLO PARK
CA
94025
1015 -45 MARTIN AV
224 -60 -006
TERSINI HOLDING COMPANY INC
1015 MARTIN AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050
1061 MARTIN AV
224 -60 -008
WEIL HENRY B AND HELEN I
1061 MARTIN AVE PO BOX 150A
SANTA CLARA
CA
95052
LAND ONLY
224 -60 -010
BAY AREA CELLULAR TELEPHONE CO
(LAND ONLY)
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050
1055 MARTIN AV
224 -60 -011
DRAKE WILLIAM A TRUSTEE & ET AL
2309 KAYLA CT
SAN JOSE
CA
95124 -1030
1871 MARTIN AV
224 -61 -007
DIETRICH CHARLES W AND CONNIE S
521 WESTGATE DR UNIT 1 -14 -2
NAPA
CA
94558
1086 MARTIN AV
224 -62 -004
CANE JAMES L AND LAVADA L
1086 MARTIN AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -2609
980 MARTIN AV
224 -62 -010
GAFFNEY MICHAEL F AND JUDITH M
980 MARTIN AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -2609
991 RICHARD AV
224 -62 -019
REYNOLDS RICHARD J
20 MONTARA CT
PORTOLA VALLEY
CA
94025
224 -63 -015
GREEN VALLEY CORPORATION ET AL
701 N FIRST ST
SAN JOSE
CA
95112
RICHARD AV
224 -63 -018
LACK PROPERTIES
573 UNIVERSITY AV
LOS GATOS
CA
95030 -4423
2390 LAFAYETTE ST
224 -63 -019
LACK PROPERTIES
573 UNIVERSITY AV
LOS GATOS
CA
95030 -4423
2380 LAFAYETTE ST
224 -63 -020
LACK PROPERTIES
573 UNIVERSITY AV
LOS GATOS
CA
95030
1125 MEMOREX DR
224 -63 -021
RAINY DAY PROPERTIES INC
1125 MEMOREX DR
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -2811
MEMOREX DR
224 -64 -001
CUPERTINO NATIONAL BANK,
550 HAMILTON AV UNIT 220
PALO ALTO
CA
94301
LAND ONLY
224 -64 -007
MEMOREX CORPORATION
PO BOX 565048
DALLAS
TX
75356
1100 RICHARD AV
224 -64 -008
MAESTRI FRANK J AND LINDLEY B
P 0 BOX 610877
SAN JOSE
CA
95161 -0877
10/27/94
1995 WEED ABATEMENT PARCELS BY THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Page 14
FOR THE CITY OF SARAROGA
SITUS
APN
OWNER
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIE
1060 RICHARD AV
224 -64 -009
RINAURO INVESTMENT PROPERTIES
735 REED ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -3942
MEMOREX DR
224 -65 -003
JAMES J VISO & ASSOCIATES
P.O. BOX 150
SANTA CLARA
CA
95052
224 -65 -004
PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050
1600 MEMOREX DR
224 -65 -006
HANNY ACQUISITION CO
10100 PIONEER BL UNIT 110
SANTE FE SPRINGS
CA
90670
950-66 SHULMAN AV
224 -67 -002
PLATO JACK H AND RUTH S TRUSTEE
19405 BAINTER AV
LOS GATOS
CA
95030 -2917
2256 AVILA AV
224 -67 -011
SILVEIRA ALBERTO S AND MARIA S
2256 AVILA AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -2802
LAFAYETTE ST
224 -67 -029
HINZ ETHEL J
P O BOX 97
SANTA CLARA
CA
95052
LAFAYETTE ST
224 -67 -030
HINZ ETHEL J
P O BOX 97
SANTA CLARA
CA
95052
2304 /18LAFAYETTE ST
224 -67 -040
ODONNELL CHESTER R AND MARLENE
2940 JERALD AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -2920
2304 LAFAYETTE ST
224 -67 -041
CAVALIERI WILLIAM AND ADELLA
2304 LAFAYETTE ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -2908
483 ROBERT AV
230 -03 -019
VARGAS DANIEL D AND ARTEMISA C
1616 CROW CT
SUNNYVALE
CA
94087 -4634
485/95 ROBERT AV
230 -03 -020
VARGAS DANIEL D AND ARTEMISA C
1660 CROW CT
SUNNYVALE
CA
94087
525/27 ROBERT AV
230 -03 -021
FILICE WILLIAM G TTEE FBO MARTIN L
PO BOX 8550
SAN JOSE
CA
95155
575 ROBERT AV
230 -03 -022
LONG RICHARD D AND DOROTHY A
17810 FOSTER RD
LOS GATOS
CA
95032
510 MARTIN AV
230 -03 -059
OZUNA ENTERPRISES
510 MARTIN AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -2911
530 /70 MARTIN AV
230 -03 -063
POLLACK ROBERT S
1670 NEWHALL
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050
ROBERT AV
230 -03 -070
LONG RICHARD D AND DOROTHY A
17810 FOSTER RD
LOS GATOS
CA
95032
585 ROBERT AV
230 -03 -071
LONG RICHARD D AND DOROTHY A
17810 FOSTER RD
LOS GATOS
CA
95032
500 -20 MATHEW ST
230 -03 -075
WINKEL PROPERITES ET AL
PO BOX 490
SANTA CLARA
CA
95052
2000/70 DE LA CRUZ BL
230 -03 -079
HUBANKSON SANTA CLARA
703 MARKET ST
SAN FRANCISCO
CA
94103
555 REED ST
230 -03 -080
WINKEL PROPERTIES ET AL
555 REED ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -3014
2470 DE LA CRUZ BL
230 -03 -084
VOYE JOSEPH J
PO BOX 907
ALAMO
CA
94507
2460 DE LA CRUZ BL
230 -03 -091
RELIANCE STEEL AND ALUMINUM CO
2550 E 25TH ST
LOS ANGELES
CA
90058
2290 DE LA CRUZ BL
230 -03 -092
VICTOR LEASING CO
1400 EASTON DR STE 136F
BAKERSFIELD
CA
93309
2260 DE LA CRUZ BL
230 -03 -093
HUBANKSON SANTA CLARA
703 MARKET ST
SAN FRANCISCO
CA
94103
2750 DE LA CRUZ BL
230 -03 -099
MARCOR INC
10050 BANDLEY DR
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
364 REED ST
230 -05 -030
RYAN PATRICK H TRUSTEE
PO BOX 5192
TAHOE CITY
CA
96145
1450 COLEMAN AV
230 -05 -105
F M C CORP
200 EAST RANDOLPH
CHICAGO
IL
60601
1600 DE LA CRUZ BL
230 -05 -112
JOSEPH GEORGE DISTRIBUTOR
PO BOX 5670
SAN JOSE
CA
95125
10/27/94
1995 WEED ABATEMENT PARCELS BY THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Page 15
FOR THE CITY OF SARAROGA
SITUS
APN
OWNER
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZJE
300 MARTIN AV
230 -05 -114
MCADAM ROBERT E
11 KULANI LANE
PLEASANT HILL
CA
94523
2830 DE LA CRUZ BL
230 -06 -017
FMC CORPORATION
200 EAST RANDOLPH
CHICAGO
IL
60601
333 BROKAW RD
230 -06 -021
F M C CORP
200 EAST RANDOLPH DRIVE
CHICAGO
IL
60601
575 BENTON ST
230 -06 -026
VISO JAMES J TRUSTEE & ET AL
PO BOX 150
SANTA CLARA
CA
95052
BENTON ST
230 -06 -027
CALIFORNIA STATE OF
BENTON ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050
1295 -3490 THE ALAMEDA
230 -07 -047
WILSON MARRIAGE & FAMILY
3490 THE ALAMEDA
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -4333
3490 THE ALAMEDA
230 -07 -049
PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS
3490 THE ALAMEDA
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -4333
BENTON ST
230 -08 -018
SANTA CLARA VANGUARD BOOSTER
1795 SPACE PARK DR
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054 -3436
596 FRANKLIN ST
230 -08 -044
PRESIDENT & BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
PRORMANAGEMENT DEPT.
SANTA CLARA
CA
95053
576 FRANKLIN ST
230 -08 -045
SANTA CLARA COLLEGE BOARD OF
PRORMANAGEMENT DEPT.
SANTA CLARA
CA
95053
580 FRANKLIN ST
230 -08 -046
SANTA CLARA COLLEGE BD OF TR &
PROP. MANAGEMENT DEPT.
SANTA CLARA
CA
95053
570 FRANKLIN ST
230 -08 -047
SANTA CLARA COLLEGE PRES & BD OF
PROP. MANAGEMENT DEPT.
SANTA CLARA
CA
95053
560 FRANKLIN ST
230 -08 -048
SANTA CLARA COLLEGE BOARD OF
PROP. MANAGEMENT DEPT
SANTA CLARA
CA
95053
FRANKLIN ST
230 -08 -049
SANTA CLARA COLLEGE BOARD OF
PROP. MANAGEMENT DEPT
SANTA CLARA
CA
95053
505 HOMESTEAD RD
230 -08 -052
SANTA CLARA COLLEGE BOARD OF
PROP. MANAGEMENT DEPT.
SANTA CLARA
CA
95053
507 HOMESTEAD RD
230 -08 -053
SANTA CLARA COLLEGE BOARD OF
PROP. MANAGEMENT DEPT.
SANTA CLARA
CA
95053
517 HOMESTEAD RD
230 -08 -054
PRESIDENT & BOARD OF TTEE OF SCC
UNIV. OF SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA
CA
95053
563 HOMESTEAD RD
230 -08 -057
PRESIDENT /BOARD OF TRUSTEES
PRORMANAGEMENT DEPT.
SANTA CLARA
CA
95053
925 SHERMAN ST
230 -08 -058
SANTA CLARA COLLEGE BOARD OF
PROP. MANAGEMENT DEPT.
SANTA CLARA
CA
95053
945 SHERMAN ST
230 -08 -059
SANTA CLARA COLLEGE BOARD OF
PROP. MANAGEMENT DEPT.
SANTA CLARA
CA
95053
965 SHERMAN ST
230 -08 -060
SANTA CLARA COLLEGE BOARD OF
PROP. MANAGEMENT DEPT.
SANTA CLARA
CA
95053
514 FRANKLIN ST
230 -08 -067
SANTA CLARA COLLEGE BOARD OF
PROP. MANAGEMENT DEPT.
SANTA CLARA
CA
95053
CAMPBELL AV
230 -08 -069
SANTA CLARA COLLEGE BOARD OF
UNIV OF SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA
CA
95053
751 CAMPBELL AV
230 -09 -008
MAYFAIR REFRIGERATING CO
PO BOX 5879
SAN JOSE
CA
95150
475 EL CAMINO REAL
230 -09 -016
MAYFAIR PACKING CO
P O BOX 5879
SAN JOSE
CA
95150
2491 THE ALAMEDA
230 -12 -014
MUSSO TERESA
128 GLASGOW LN
SAN CARLOS
CA
94070
2391 THE ALAMEDA
230 -12 -068
THOMPSON WILLIAM E
PO BOX 1601
OXNARD
CA
93032
2323 THE ALAMEDA
230 -12 -069
ECKHOFF JEANNE A TRUSTEE
7950 CRANBERRY CL
CUPERTINO
CA
95014 -4923
1224 SHERWOOD AV
230 -16 -001
CASTILLO INEZ B
1224 SHERWOOD AV
SAN JOSE
CA
95126 -1055
10/27/94
SITUS
1224 SHERWOOD AV
336 /38 MARTIN AV
332 MARTIN AV
1868 CLAY ST
1818 CLAY ST
1841 CATHERINE ST
1889 CLAY ST
1515 SCOTT BL
1550 ISABELLA ST
CLAY /LINCOLNST
HARRISON ST
1786 CATHERINE ST
1235 LEWIS ST
1489 MONROE ST
1460 MAIN ST
1452 WASHINGTON ST
1365 MAIN ST
1486 LAFAYETTE ST
1475 WASHINGTON ST
1651 FREMONT ST
1290 WASHINGTON ST
1145 JACKSON ST
1116/18 WASHINGTON ST
1284 FREMONT ST
1716 HOMESTEAD RD
860 MONASTERY WY
1445 FRANKLIN ST
1350 BENTON ST
807 -15 FRANKLIN ST
1995 WEED ABATEMENT PARCELS BY THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Page 16
FOR THE CITY OF SARAROGA
APN
OWNER
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIE
230 -16 -034
COSTILLO INEZ B
1224 SHERWOOD AV
SAN JOSE
CA
95126 -1055
230 -47 -068
DE ANDA ANASTACIO AND ELSA
336 MARTIN AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -3112
230 -47 -103
RIVERA THOMAS D TRUSTEE & ET AL
25440 ADOBE LN
LOS ALTOS HILLS
CA
94022
269 -01 -036
ROYCE SHELLEY
1868 CLAY ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -4616
269 -01 -042
VAUGHN LOYD P AND ELEANORE B
1818 CLAY ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -4616
269 -01 -050
PAPANEK WALTER ET AL
7861 STEWART & GRAY RD UNIT 14
DOWNEY
CA
90421
269 -01 -076
FANELLI ALEXANDER E AND LAURA
1555 BENTON ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -4708
269 -01 -077
FANELLI ALEXANDER E TRUSTEE & ET
1555 BENTON ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -4708
269 -02 -003
CESENA MARIA C TRUSTEE
11581 MADRONE CT
AUBURN
CA
95603
269 -02 -042
ENOS ROBERT TRUSTEE & ET AL
1490 LINCOLN ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -4641
269 -02 -060
SAPENA JOSEPH
974 CHERRY AV
SAN JOSE
CA
95126 -4006
269 -02 -063
CANCHOLA JOSE AND MARY
1786 CATHERINE ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -4628
269 -03 -082
BARCELOS ARTHUR B AND MARIA C
1017 REED AV
SUNNYVALE
CA
94086 -6806
269 -03 -086
AVELAR ANTONIO M AND MARIA S
1212 EL CAMINO REAL STE UNIT
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050
269 -05 -003
DE SOUSA DAVID AND SOUSA MARIA C
1460 MAIN ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -4220
269 -05 -016
WETTACH GEORGE A AND GLODINE L
213 WILLOW RD
MENLO PARK
CA
94025
269 -05 -051
FREITAS LORRAINE V ET AL
1365 MAIN ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -4217
269 -05 -059
SALOMON AMME ET AL
PO BOX 602
GARBERVILLE
CA
95542 -0602
269 -05 -069
DUTRA GEORGE AND CLARA P ESTATE
1475 WASHINGTON ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -3903
269 -12 -018
RENTERIA JOSEFINA M
942 TOMLINSON LN
SAN JOSE
CA
95116 -3561
269 -15 -017
CHO JANE H AND DONG I
1290 WASHINGTON ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -4834
269 -15 -040
FREY DONALD G TRUSTEE & ET AL
967 ELIZABETH DR
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -5003
269 -15 -046
BOYLES JOHN V AND MAHAN PATRICIA
1116 WASHINGTON ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -4883
269 -15 -079
CHARGIN MICHAEL T AND STEIN JOAN E 1284 FREMONT ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -4818
269 -19 -026
DUNN MARIE H
1911 MORSE ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -6023,
269 -19 -060
TORRES MARGARET A TRUSTEE
860 MONASTERY WY
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -5357
269 -20 -018
SANTA CLARA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
1601 CIVIC CENTER DR STE 101
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050
269 -21 -002
HOMEN AUGUST ET AL
3631 BETH CT
SANTA CLARA
CA
95054 -1901
269 -23 -023
UONG PHUC T AND HOP T ET AL
748 THE ALAMEDA
SAN JOSE
CA
95126
10/27/94
1995 WEED ABATEMENT PARCELS BY THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Page 17
FOR THE CITY OF SARAROGA
SITUS
APN
OWNER
ADDRESS
CITY
Ts A—TE
FRANKLIN ST
269 -23 -026
ENGLISH GERALD V AND NORA E
2335 NEWHALL ST
SAN JOSE
CA
95128 -1115
829 FRANKLIN ST
269 -23 -060
ENGLISH GERALD V AND NORA E
2335 NEWHALL ST
SAN JOSE
CA
95128 -1115
801 FRANKLIN ST
269 -23 -067
UONG PHUC T AND HOP T ET AL
748 THE ALAMEDA
SAN JOSE
CA
95126
766 MADISON ST
269 -26 -049
GERACI J A AND JUANITA M TRUSTEE
920 LINCOLN CT
SAN JOSE
CA
95125 -2635
890 JACKSON ST
269 -27 -017
SHAWAREB BETTY L AND ZAM
20110 MENDELSOHN LN
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -5904
752 VIADER CT
269 -31 -007
DUNN ROBERT A AND DOROTHY E ET
1980 PACHECO PASS
GILROY
CA
95020
1984 MURGUTA AV
269 -32 -026
HANSEN FRANCES J
1984 MURGUTA AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050
1760 MARKET ST
269 -34 7030
ORLANDO MICHAEL AND LAURIE
1492 ALMADEN RD UNIT B
SAN JOSE
CA
95125
1750 MARKET ST
269 -34 -031
DICKUM RICHARD C
1750 MARKET ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -5335
547 ISABELLA ST
269 -34 -045
FURDUTO ELEEN
1697 BELLOMY ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -5301
MARKET ST
269 -34 -052
FERNANDEZ JOHN
1005 BROADWAY AV
SAN JOSE
CA
95125 -2202
660 JEFFERSON ST
269 -35 -003
BARBER CAROLE ET AL
924 O'DELL WY
LOS ALTOS
CA
94024
590 MONROE ST
269 -36 -027
MC ENROE JAMES M JR
590 MONROE ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -5445
775 BELLOMY ST
269 -38 -087
VISO JAMES J TRUSTEE & ET AL
PO BOX 150
SANTA CLARA
CA
95052
375 MADISON ST
269 -41 -038
BRAGONIER STEVEN R AND SHIRLEY
2054 CRIST DR
LOS ALTOS
CA
94024 -7227
930 BELLOMY ST
269 -43 -054
POTTER BEVERLY A
PO BOX 1035
BERKELEY
CA
94701
842 BELLOMY ST
269 -44 -006
GEIGER RICHARD G AND BARBARA A
714 E CHARLESTON RD
PALO ALTO
CA
94303
446 ALVISO ST
269 -44 -012
CHIOINI GIULIO J AND HAZEL B
PO BOX 183
CORTE MADERA
CA
94925
ALVISO ST
269 -44 -013
CHIOINI GIULIO J AND HAZEL B
PO BOX 183
CORTE MADERA
CA
94925
432 ALVISO ST
269 -44 -014
CHIOINI GIULIO J AND HAZEL B
PO BOX 183
CORTE MADERA
CA
94925
410 ALVISO ST
269 -44 -015
JONES CHARLES A
PO BOX 183
CORTE MADERA
CA
94925
398 ALVISO ST
269 -44 -016
CI-HOIM GIULIO
200 CHIPPENDALE CT
LOS GATOS
CA
95030 -1605
200 MONROE ST
269 -46 -056
JESUIT COMMUNITY AT S C UNIV INC
PO BOX 577
SANTA CLARA
CA
95053
175 MONROE ST
269 -47 -018
STEFANI EDWARD D AND ALBERTA J
16063 TOTEM DR
ISLETON
CA
95641
584 PARK CT
269 -52 -038
RAY ROBERT D
584 PARK CT
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -6163
554 PARK CT
269 -52 -041
APODACA LISA E
554 PARK CT
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -6163
620 PARK CT
269 -52 -067
RODRIGUEZ MICHAEL
620 PARK CT
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -6119
15 WASHINGTON ST
274 -03 -001
BUNCH JEROME AND ANN E TRUSTEE
777 MC ALISTER DR
SAN JOSE
CA
95128 -1443
LAND ONLY
274 -03 -011
BUNCH JEROME AND ANN E TRUSTEE
777 MC ALISTER DR
SAN JOSE
CA
95128 -1443
10/27/94
1995 WEED ABATEMENT PARCELS BY THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Page 18
FOR THE CITY OF SARAROGA
SITUS
APN
OWNER
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
Z-1 P
1451 BERGIN PL
290 -02 -017
ALEMAN MARIA J TRUSTEE
1451 BERGIN PL
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -3605
1436 BERGIN PL
290 -02 -055
LANE MARGARET A AND JOHN F
1436 BERGIN PL
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -3606
EL CAMINO REAL
290 -02 -087
PACIFIC BELL
EL CAMINO REAL
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051
1570 POMEROY AV
290 -02 -092
PASCUAL VAL M AND BEULAH A
2137 EL CAPITAN AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -3318
3050 -74 EL CAMINO REAL
290 -04 -006
WONG K C ET AL
2644 EL CAMINO REAL
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051
3005 BUTTE ST
290 -04 -008
CALVILLO MARCELINO M
3005 BUTTE ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -3709
3019 BUTTE ST
290 -04 -009
ZACHARISEN WILBUR S AND BETTY A
3019 BUTTE ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -3709
3033 BUTTE ST
290 -04 -010
VAVAK DAVID W AND JOANNE C
3033 BUTTE ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -3709
3047 BUTTE ST
290 -04 -011
ZACHARISEN GEORGE C AND
3047 BUTTE ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -3709
3061 BUTTE ST
290 -04 -012
EWBANK- NUHFER VERNETA V ET AL
3061 BUTTE ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -3709
3085 BUTTE ST
290 -04 -013
AFANADOR ELSIE
3085 BUTTE ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -3709
3099 BUTTE ST
290 -04 -014
EGNATOFF JOHN AND PAULINE M
3099 BUTTE ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -3709
3101 BUTTE ST
290 -04 -015
MELLBERG ROBERT L AND BARBARA L
336 GRINNELL CT
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -5807
3109 BUTTE ST
290 -04 -016
HAM DAVID L
1064 WESTLYNN WY
CUPERTINO
CA
95014 -5826
3119 BUTTE ST
290 -04 -017
LOPEZ JOE D AND HOPE H
3119 BUTTE ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -3711
3129 BUTTE ST
290 -04 -018
TO DUC T
3129 BUTTE ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -3711
3139 BUTTE ST
290 -04 -019
MCFARLAND ARTHUR D JR AND
3139 BUTTE ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -3711
3149 BUTTE ST
290 -04 -020
BENEDICT PAULETTE A AND RICHARD P
3160 EL CAMINO REAL
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -2906
3159 BUTTE ST
290 -04 -044
ZEDAK KATHRYN A ET AL
3085 ORTHELLO WY
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051
MARYANN DR
290 -08 -040
SCAVUZZO EILEEN M TRUSTEE
1476 BARBARA DR
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -4407
2373 HARRISON ST
290 -08 -051
BARR MORTON AND EVA R
2373 HARRISON ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -4446
2330 -34 EL CAMINO REAL
290 -08 -135
WOLF JULIUS TRUSTEE & ET AL
6195 GERDTS DR
SAN JOSE
CA
95135
1494 MARYANN DR
290 -08 -149
NIMMO KENNETH E
3888 HANCOCK DR
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -5809
1365/67 BLOCK DR
290 -09 -029
TEXERA DANIEL V AND LAURA M
1510 FREMONT ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -4739
2502 HAYWARD DR
290 -14 -103
PETROPOULOS VOULA AND NICK
726 BLUE SAGE RD
SUNNYVALE
CA
94086
1255 BUCHANAN DR
290 -14 -142
SIMON BARRY H
1255 BUCHANAN DR
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -3950
1117 /119 WHITE DR
290 -14 -175
ROGERS FRANK A AND JACQUELINE A
12196 CANDY LN
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -3308
2771 BENTON ST
290 -15 -020
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MTGE CORP
PO BOX 4435
PROTLAND
OR
97208
1217 PHILLIPS CT
290 -15 -119
BILTOFT CHARLES W ET AL
P 0 BOX 399
KEALAKEKUA
HI
96750
10/27/94
SITUS
1334 CROWLEY AV
2972 ORTHELLO WY
3232 HUMBOLT AV
3131 HUMBOLT AV
3101 ORTHELLO WY
1290 POMEROY AV
3596 GOLDEN STATE DR
954 CURTIS AV
3421 HOMESTEAD RD
3131 HOMESTEAD RD
2901 HOMESTEAD RD
2513 HAYWARD DR
941 ROSE CT
2511 ROSE WY
995 LAS PALMAS DR
POMEROY AV
3220 -32 EL CAMINO REAL
750 BAYLOR DR
664 TULANE DR
3421 PRUNERIDGE AV
725 POMEROY AV
735 POMEROY AV
741 POMEROY AV
745 POMEROY AV
3137 FORBES AV
624 HICKORY PL
3174 TEMPLE CT
626 BARTO ST
704 HAMILTON LN
1995 WEED ABATEMENT PARCELS BY THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Page 19
FOR THE CITY OF SARAROGA
APN
OWNER
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
Zj F
290 -16 -008
SHEEDER RONALD G AND LINDA F
1334 CROWLEY AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -3806
290 -18 -008
BARIAO VINCENTE B AND MATILDE A
3160 ORTHELLO WY
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -3760
290 -19 -007
WARTA MARVIN D AND JANICE L
3232 HUMBOLT AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -3749
290 -19 -023
BASHAM EVERETT F JR. ET AL
3131 HUMBOLT AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -3746
290 -19 -048
RODD SYLVIA
3101 ORTHELLO WY
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -3759
290 -20 -061
ASSEMBLY OF GOD OF SANTA CLARA
PO BOX 2793
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051
290 -22 -054
WRITER MINOO J AND CONSTANCE M
3596 GOLDEN STATE DR
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -4634
290 -22 -079
BAMBERG KAREN M TRUSTEE & ET AL
975 CAPITOLA WY
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -4602
290 -23 -087
SCIARRINO MARY C
3421 HOMESTEAD RD
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -5114
290 -24 -044
LAGUNA CLARA ASSOCIATES
1777 SARATOGA AV UNIT 210
SAN JOSE
CA
95129
290 -25 -092
MATOS MANUEL L AND MARIA M ET AL
1171 HOMESTEAD RD UNIT #150
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050
290 -31 -052
HOLDER KENNETH L
78 ROBLEDA DR
ATHERTON
CA
94025
290 -31 -084
WICK ROBERT L
941 ROSE CT
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -5311
290 -31 -092
THISSEN SHIRLEY A
2511 ROSE WY
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -5312
290 -31 -094
SEPULVEDA DAVID J
995 LAS PALMAS DR
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -5306
290 -44 -010
SOARES MARY A
910 POMEROY AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -4718
290 -63 -008
LIN TSUNG -YEN AND KIM F
1243 NIGHTINGALE CT
LOS ALTOS
CA
94024
293 -04 -045
COLWILL LARY L AND ROSEMARIE
27271 LAS RAMBLAS UNIT 114
MISSION VIEJO
CA
92691
293 -05 -004
PIEN SHENG -CHIA ET AL
TUNHWA S. RD
TAIPEI TAIWAN
CHINA
10654
293 -08 -023
RUDINSKAS ALGIS J AND JOANNE Z
3421 PRUNERIDGE AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -6401
293 -10 -033
PAQUETTE PATRICIA A
725 POMEROY AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -5518
293 -10 -035
WONG FRANCES W ET AL
735 POMEROY AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -5518
293 -10 -036
SUMARES JOHN A
741 POMEROY AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -5518
293 -10 -037
TANG QUYEN
745 POMEROY AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -5518
293 -13 -002
CALVARY SOUTHERN BAPTIST CHURCH
3137 FORBES AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -6117
293 -14 -021
ROBINSON ALBERT AND ALICE W
624 HICKORY PL
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -6125
293 -15 -028
COLLINS VICTORIA C
3174 TEMPLE CT
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -6129
293 -16 -047
SANCHEZ HENRY T AND EUFROSINA B
626 BARTO ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -5543
293 -17 -041
BORGIA ALLAN TRUSTEE & ET AL
10931 BARNETT VALLEY RD
SEBASTOPOL
CA
95472
•
10/27/94
1995 WEED ABATEMENT PARCELS BY THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Page 20
Pa 9
FOR THE CITY OF SARAROGA
SITUS
APN
OWNER
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
742 FLANNERY ST
293 -17 -051
APPLE CHRISTIAN K AND ROBIN S ET AL
742 FLANNERY ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -5547
702 FLANNERY ST
293 -17 -059
RUSSELL DORLENE
702 FLANNERY ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -5547
2930 HOMESTEAD RD
293 -17 -084
WOODHAM PROPERTY
PO BOX 2041
LOS GATOS
CA
95031
2930 STEVENSON ST
293 -18 -033
LOPEZ JOSEPH
2930 STEVENSON ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -5505
2901 PRUNERIDGE AV
293 -21 -021
DE QUINTO PONCIANO R AND MARIA
2901 PRUNERIDGE AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -5652
687 VALLEY WY
293 -24 -019
PAYNE DAVID V
687 VALLEY WY
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -5624
704 VALLEY WY
293 -24 -046
ROTHWELL TERRY A AND BARBARA E
704 VALLEY WY
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -5625
2816 RAMONA CT
293 -25 -011
LADENBERGER GENEVIEVE H ET AL
2816 RAMONA CT
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -5644
2812 BARCELLS AV
293 -26 -005
SANTUCCI ANTHONY H
2812 BARCELLS AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -5602
2808 STEINHART CT
293 -26 -024
OLIVEIRA TRAJANO B AND MARIA F
2808 STEINHART CT
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -5648
771 LAWRENCE EX
293 -30 -026
FLECKNER LEONARD R TRUSTEE & ET
1511 QUEENSBURY AV
LOS ALTOS
CA
94024 -5844
666 SCOTT BL
294 -06 -005
WINKLER WARREN D
666 SCOTT BL
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -6925
2257 FORBES AV
294 -08 -054
BURGER STEPHEN G ET AL
2257 FORBES AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -5631
632 LOS PADRES BL
294 -09 -014
MEAD CHARLES AND LOLITA
632 LOS PADRES BL
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -6946
691 CLARA VISTA AV
294 -09 -038
LEPLEY HELEN M
462 FULTON CT
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -6307
692 SAN MIGUEL AV
294 -10 -001
PEASE JOHN S
692 SAN MIGUEL AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -5158
2528 HART AV
294 -14 -041
EVANS -LONGO JANICE M
2528 HART AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -5519
758 CLARA VISTA AV
294 -15 -043
MA WEI M
758 CLARA VISTA AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -5153
2790 HOMESTEAD RD
294 -18 -037
SCHWEICKHARDT REYNOLD
12311 SARAGLEN DR
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -3224
745 BUCHER AV
294 -19 -010
YOUNG DAVID AND JOAN
102 OAKLAND PL
LOS GATOS
CA
95030 -1757
2622 TOLEDO AV
294 -19 -023
ALEXANDER THOMAS M AND H E
2622 TOLEDO AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -5723
734 SALBERG AV
294 -23 -018
GONCALVES MARIA F AND DOMINGOS
2642 FORBES AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -6218
2648 FORBES AV
294 -24 -013
GREGORY J A TRUSTEE
2648 FORBES AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -6218
625 WILSON CT
294 -25 -009
LO ELIZABETH ET AL
5031 DOYLE RD
SAN JOSE
CA
95129 -4228
166 SARATOGA AV
294 -38 -001
BOYTO JACK P ET AL
166 SARATOGA AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -7305
404 SARATOGA AV
294 -45 -054
SCHOTT CHILDREN S PARTNERSHIP THE
404 SARARTOGA AV UNIT 4100
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050
3542 GENEVA DR
296 -04 -005
BROUGFD AN LEONNE L
3542 GENEVA DR
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -6419
3382 GENEVA DR
296 -05 -002
HOGLUND PATRICK AND TRACY E
3382 GENEVA DR
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -6415
396 SLOAT CT
296 -09 -001
TSUI RICHARD AND CHIEH ERH C ET AL
10333 B DEGAS CT
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
1-
10/27/94
1995 WEED ABATEMENT PARCELS BY THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Page 21
FOR THE CITY OF SARAROGA
SITUS
APN
OWNER
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
3195 MAURICIA AV
296 -10 -037
GIGUIERE GREGORY AND MARNIE L
2835 BREWSTER AV
REDWOOD CITY
CA
94062
120 TYLER CT
296 -12 -023
WEISBROD DAVID S AND DOROTHY M
120 TYLER CT
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -6814
5203 STEVENS CREEK BL
296 -18 -053
DORCICH STEPHEN N ET AL
1830 HAMILTON AV
SAN JOSE
CA
95125
2870 MALABAR AV
296 -33 -026
LOUIE QUON C AND JENNIE C ET AL
P O BOX 2404
SANTA CLARA
CA
95055
4355 STEVENS CREEK BL
296 -34 -017
FEELEY DANIEL M ET AL
1110 N 01ST ST
SAN JOSE
CA
95112
4401 STEVENS CREEK BL
296 -34 -018
RIPARBELLI PARIDE TRUSTEE & ET AL
PO BOX 28385
SAN JOSE
CA
95159
296 -37 -029
CANE MARY E TRUSTEE
1250 AVIATION AV UNIT 260
SAN JOSE
CA
95110
2044 BOHANNON DR
303 -01 -008
DEFREITAS NELIO D AND MARIA T
2044 BOHANNON DR
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -6307
280 N WINCHESTER BL
303 -03 -039
GORINI ROBERT W AND ANNA TRUSTEE
3200 WILLIAMS RD
SAN JOSE
CA
95117 -2658
2184 TALIA AV
303 -07 -082
DUNNE ROBERT W
2184 TALIA AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -6382
2071 BOHANNON DR
303 -08 -005
FANNING MARGARET ET AL
20140 SEA GULL WY
SARATOGA
CA
95070
447 LOS PADRES BL
303 -09 -030
MANN DEANNA L
1871 AUSTIN AV
LOS ALTOS
CA
94024 -6806
2386 SUTTER AV
303 -12 -019
LOPEZ MIGUEL AND ERLINDA
2425 NEWHALL ST
SAN JOSE
CA
95128 -1117
3465 FOREST AV
303 -14 -053
CARRASCO ISADORE A
3465 FOREST AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -6611
2212 PRUNERIDGE AV
303 -14 -114
JEN WEI H AND CHIN S ET AL
2212 PRUNERIDGE AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95050 -6431
CECIL AV
303 -18 -012
SORICH DAVOR M AND THELMA H ET
3171 CECIL AV
SAN JOSE
CA
95117 -1101
CECIL AV
303 -18 -013
SORICH DAVOR M AND THELMA H ET
3171 CECIL AV
SAN JOSE
CA
95117 -1101
225 WESTRIDGE DR
303 -19 -034
BEAN HELEN D
225 WESTRIDGE DR
SAN JOSE
CA
95117 -1152
3330 CECIL AV
303 -19 -082
VRIETHOFF TONY C
10880 CASTAWAY CT
ROUGH AND
CA
95975
3549 CECIL AV
303 -21 -014
CORBUS LLOYD F AND B
401 NELO ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051
297 BEL AYRE DR
303 -21 -040
SOMKUTI ISTVAN L
297 BEL AYRE DR
SAN JOSE
CA
95117 -1004
73 HAROLD AV
303 -22 -010
ST CLAIR MICHAEL W
73 HAROLD AV
SAN JOSE
CA
95117 -1027
35 HAROLD AV
303 -22 -012
MARTZ KENNETH E AND ANNA K
1535 MERIDIAN AV
SAN JOSE
CA
95125 -5316
3700 BENTON ST
313 -19 -014
LAURELWOOD CABANA CLUB THE
3700 BENTON ST
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -4508
977 WOOD DUCK CT
313 -19 -032
CAMPBELL JEAN T
977 WOODDUCK CT
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -4516
3800 HOMESTEAD RD
316 -09 -033
KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS
1950 FRANKLIN ST FL 6
OAKLAND
CA
94612
18600 HOMESTEAD RD
316 -09 -038
KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS
1950 FRANKLIN FLR 6TH
OAKLAND
CA
94612 -2998
3853 SULLIVAN DR
316 -12 -049
LAUMANN EMMA L TRUSTEE
3853 SULLIVAN DR
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -5823
369 HOWARD DR
316 -13 -054
NITSOS PATRICIA J
369 HOWARD DR
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -5812
10/27/94 1995 WEED ABATEMENT PARCELS BY THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Page 22
FOR THE CITY OF SARAROGA
SITUS APN OWNER ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP
3716 DANIEL WY 316 -15 -057 JIN WILLIAM AND KATHLEEN P 3716 DANIEL WY SANTA CLARA CA 95051 -6304
5405 STEVENS CREEK BL 316 -19 -031 ROYAL NEIGHBORS OF AMERICA P O BOX 190700 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94119
0
S50-3-<-
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. �� AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 2, 1994 CITY MGR.:
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD: .`<fAjjzj,1
SUBJECT: Final Map Approval for Tract No. 8671 (SD 94 -001)
Recommended Motion(s): 1. Move to adopt Resolution No. SD 94 -001
granting final map approval of Tentative Map Application No.
SD 94 -001 for five lots at 14024 Saratoga Avenue. 2. Move to
authorize the Mayor to execute the Subdivision Improvement
Agreement. 3. Move to authorize the City Manager to execute the
agreements waiving the right of the property owner to protest
annexation into the Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting Assessment
District LLA -1, and a future underground utility district.
Report Summary: Attached is Resolution No. SD 94 -001 which, if
adopted, will grant final map approval for five lots located at
14024 Saratoga Avenue. I have examined the final map and related
documents submitted to me in accordance with the provisions of
Section 14.40.020 of the Municipal Code and have determined that:
1. The final map substantially complies with the approved
tentative map.
2. All conditions of the approved tentative map, as contained
in Planning Commission Resolution No. SD 94 -001, have been
completed or will be completed concurrent with development
of the five lots.
3. The Subdivision Map Act, the City's Subdivision Ordinance
and all other applicable provisions of law have been
complied with.
4. The final map is technically correct.
Consequently, I have executed the City Engineer's certificate on
the final map and have filed the final map with the City Clerk
pursuant to Section 14.40.040 of the Municipal Code for action by
the City Council.
Fiscal Impacts: The
fees and $40,800
subdivision.
Follow Up Actions:
subdivider's Title
instructions.
subdivider has paid $16,682.90 in.Engineering
in Park In -Lieu fees required for this
The signed map will be released to the
Company for recordation along with recording
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The final
map must either be approved or rejected by the City Council. If
the map is rejected, it would be returned to the subdivider with
findings as to why the map was rejected.
Attachments: 1. Resolution No. SD 94 -001 granting final map
approval.
2. Subdivision Improvement Agreement.
3. Agreements waiving right to protest annexation into
Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting Assessment
District LLA -1, and a future underground utility
district.
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. SD 94 -001
approving the tentative map with conditions.
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application No./Location: SD -94 -001, 14024 Saratoga Ave.
Applicant /Owner: BEAN
Staff Planner: Lynette Stanchina
Date: April 13, 1994
App: 397-16-052 Director Approval:
I J UJ
I, ..
1 oe
e
9
L-6
civic
CENTER
Alleerele
W
C==
C=
C11
SCHOOL
�� D ualedo Ave.
RESOLUTION NO. SD -94 -001
RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF
BEAN; 14024 Saratoga Avenue
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency
under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under
the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for Tentative
Map approval of five (5) lots, all as more particularly set forth
in File No. SD -94 -001 of this City; and
WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed
subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and
improvement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with
all specific plans relating thereto; and the proposed subdivision
and land use are compatible with the objectives, policies and
general land use and programs specified in such General Plan,
reference to the staff report dated April 13, 1994 being hereby
made for further particulars; and
WHEREAS, this body has heretofore received and considered the
environmental Negative Declaration prepared for this project in
accord with the currently applicable provisions of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a)
through (g) of Government Code Section 66474 and 66474.6 exist with
respect to said subdivision, and tentative approval should be
granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed
public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a
full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the
hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated January 1994
(revised date 5/16/94) and is marked Exhibit "A" in the hereinabove
referred file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved.
The conditions of said approval are as follows:
Community Development Department
Street name accepted. 1. Prior to Final Map approval, the proposed street name shall be
reviewed and accepted by the Heritage Commission.
2. No signage identifying the subdivision shall be allowed other
Acknowledged. than a standard street identification sign.
3. Prior to Final Map approval, the existing residence shall be
Completed . and documented with photographs and as -built drawings. This
acknowledged. information shall be reviewed and accepted by the Heritage
Preservation Commission and then incorporated into Heritage
Resource Inventory file #73 for this structure. The residence
shall not be demolished prior to Final Map approval.
File No. SD -94 -001; 14024 Saratoga Avenue
Done.
4. Prior to Final Map approval, a final landscape plan consistent
with the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance shall be
reviewed and accepted by the Heritage Preservation Commission
and the Planning Commission. The plan shall also be reviewed
and approved by the City Arborist prior to review by the
Planning Commission. The following items shall be addressed:
a. Detailed landscape plans, including three (3) 48 -inch box
Coast Live Oak trees, for the area within the Saratoga
Avenue right -of -way and the exterior side yards of lots
#1 and #5. There shall be no earth berming beneath the
canopies of any oak trees and there shall be either no
landscaping in these areas or only plants that can
survive on irrigation once per month after establishment.
b. Planting of replacement trees equal to $ 41,819 in
addition to the three (3) 48 inch box oak trees required
within the Saratoga Avenue right -of -way. The placement
of these trees shall be carefully considered to avoid
conflict with existing trees and future development of
each individual parcel.
C. Method of irrigation shall be noted on the plans.
d. All proposed plantings shall be native and drought
tolerant and consistent with the City's Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance and Xeriscape Guidelines.
e. Details and material samples of the proposed fence /wall
located at the exterior side yards of lots #1 and #5.
5. Prior to Final Map approval, the property owner shall enter
Agreement signed..
into a landscape maintenance agreement to be recorded against
each lot to ensure the installation and maintenance of the
replacement trees as approved on the landscape plan. This
agreement may expire after a period of three years from the
date the trees are planted.
Easement offered on
6. Prior to Final Map approval, a landscape easement shall be
recorded along the exterior side yards of Lots #1 and #5.
Final Map.
This area shall also be included in the Landscaping and
Lighting Assessment District to ensure the maintenance of the
landscaping.
7. Prior to Final Map approval, all tree preservation
Requirements met.
requirements shall be met pursuant to the City Arborist's
report dated May 3, 1994 including but not limited to:
a. All trenches which must be dug for any utility lines
shall be plotted on the map and reviewed and approved by
the City Arborist.
Security provided.
Acknowledged.
Acknowledged.
File No. SD -94 -001; 14024 Saratoga Avenue
b. A Tree Maintenance Program shall be prepared by the
applicant's licensed arborist addressing tree pruning,
cabling, fertilization and irrigation and submitted to
the City for review and approval by the City Arborist.
The program shall include a time line for when the work
will be performed and inspected.
8. Prior to the commencement of any construction activities or
the issuance of any City permits, the owner (applicant) shall
submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community
Development Director, security in an amount of $25,608 to
guarantee the maintenance, and /or preservation of trees on the
subject site. This security deposit shall be released at the
time of construction acceptance upon the City Arborist's
finding that all tree protection measures have been adequately
followed.
9. Prior to the commencement of any construction activities, the
City Arborist shall oversee and inspect the following work:
a. Installation of all recommended tree protection fencing.
This fencing shall remain in place throughout construc-
tion activities.
b. The transplanting of all trees proposed to be relocated
on -site.
C. The removal of trees #8, 9, 30, 31, 32, 46, 48, and 63 as
shown to be removed on the Tentative Map. No other
ordinance protected trees shall be removed.
d. All recommended tree cabling, pruning, and end - weight
removal shall be completed and accepted by the City
Arborist.
10. Future development of Lots 1 through 5 shall require Design
Review approval and be limited to one story construction.
Building sites shall be consistent with the approved building
envelopes as indicated on Exhibit A and based on current
Zoning Ordinance regulations and City policy. All proposed
structures shall maximize tree preservation and should not
encroach into the dripline of any existing ordinance size
trees or replacement trees. Each application shall be
reviewed by the City Arborist prior to being scheduled for
Public Hearing. A landscape plan shall be submitted for each
lot specifically addressing the areas beneath the driplines of
the trees. It should show either no landscape installation
beneath the canopy or only plants that can survive on
irrigation once per month after establishment.
File No. SD -94 -001; 14024 Saratoga Avenue
Acknowledged.
11. Design Review approvals shall only be granted upon finding
that the proposed structure is compatible in terms of scale
and design with the existing adjacent residences on Shadow
Oaks Way, complimentary to the Heritage Lane, and in
conformance with the City's Residential Design Guidelines and
Section 15 -45 of the City Code. The location of the
residences on lots #1 and #5 shall also be reviewed relative
to their proximity to the proposed exterior side yard
fence /wall.
Acknowledged.
12. Design Review applications for lots #1 and #5 shall be
reviewed by the Heritage Commission prior to Planning
Commission consideration.
Acknowledged.
13. Prior to acceptance of the subdivision improvements by the
Public Works Director, all approved landscaping and
irrigation, including the Saratoga Avenue right -of -way and
landscape easement planting and the required replacement
trees, shall be installed. If the location of the new trees
will be in conflict with anticipated construction activity of
an individual residence, a security deposit in an amount
determined by the Community Development Director may be
submitted, for each affected lot, to the City to ensure
planting of these trees prior to the issuance of final
occupancy for the residence.
Acknowledged.
14. No grading, other than what is required to control on -site
drainage as approved by the Public Works Director, or building
pad improvement work shall take place on the individual lots
until Design Review applications have been reviewed and
approved by the Planning Commission.
Acknowledged.
15. The driveways on lots #1 and #5 shall be of pervious material
and installed per the City Arborist's recommendations. 'The
specific details of the material and construction of each
driveway shall be reviewed and approved at the Design Review
level.
Public Works
Completed by Surveyor. 16. Prior to submittal of a Final Map to the City Engineer for
examination, the owner (applicant) shall cause the property to
be surveyed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or an authorized Civil
Engineer. The submitted map shall show the existence of a
monument at all external property corner locations, either
found or set. The submitted map shall also show monuments set
at each new corner location, angle point, or as directed by
the City Engineer, all in conformity with the Subdivision Map
Act and the Professional Land Surveyors Act.
Completed. 17. The owner (applicant) shall submit four (4) copies of a Final
File No. SD -94 -001; 14024 Saratoga Avenue
Map in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative
Map, along with the additional documents required in Section
14- 40.020 of the Municipal Code, to the City Engineer for
examination. The Final.Map shall contain all of the informa-
tion required by Section 14- 40.030 of the Municipal Code and
shall be accompanied by the following items:
a. One copy of map checking calculations.
b. Preliminary Title Report for the property dated within
ninety (90) days of the date of submittal of the Final
Map.
C. One copy of each map referenced.on the Final Map.
d. One copy of each document /deed referenced on the Final
Map.
e. One copy of any other map, document, deed, easement or
other resource that will facilitate the examination
process as requested by the City Engineer.
Fees Paid.
18. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Map Checking fee, as
determined by the City Engineer, at the time of submittal of
the Final Map for examination.
Bond Posted.
19. Interior monuments shall be set at each lot corner either
prior to recordation of a Final Map or some later date to be
specified on a Final Map. If the owner (applicant) chooses to
defer the setting of interior monuments to a specified later
date, then sufficient security as determined by the City
Engineer shall be furnished prior to Final Map approval, to
guarantee the setting of interior monuments.
All easements offered
20. The owner (applicant) shall provide Irrevocable Offers of
on Final Map.
Dedication for all required easements and /or rights of way on
the Final Map, in substantial conformance with the approved
Tentative Map, prior to Final Map approval.
Plans
21. The owner (applicant) shall submit engineered improvement
submitted and
plans to the City Engineer in conformance with the approved
approved.
Tentative Map and in accordance with the design and improve-
ment requirements of Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. In
addition to the requirements of Chapter 14 the improvement
plans shall specifically address the following items:
a. Location of all trenching for underground utilities shall
be shown on the plan per Condition #7.
b. A storm drain system that will prevent runoff to the
adjacent properties.
File No. SD -94 -001; 14024 Saratoga Avenue
C. Pavement of the walkway on the Saratoga Union School
District parcel.
The improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Engineer and the appropriate officials from other public
agencies having jurisdictional authority, including public and
private utility providers, prior to approval of the Final Map.
Done. 22.
An analysis of the existing storm drain system shall be
conducted per the direction of the Public Works Director to
ensure that there is adequate capacity.
Fees paid. 23.
The owner (applicant) shall pay an Improvement Plan Checking•
fee, as determined by the City Engineer, at the time Improve -
ment Plans are submitted for review.
Agreement signed. 24.
The owner (applicant) shall enter into an Improvement Agree-
ment with the City in accordance with Section 14- 60.010 of the
Municipal Code prior to Final Map approval.
All securities provided. 25.
The owner (applicant) shall furnish Improvement Securities in
accordance with Section 14- 60.020 of the Municipal Code in the
manner and amounts determined by the City Engineer prior to
Final Map approval.
26.
The owner (applicant) shall furnish a written indemnity
Insurance provided:
agreement and proof of insurance coverage, in accordance with
Section 14- 05.055 of the Municipal Code, prior to Final Map
approval.
All utility commitments 27.
Prior to Final Map approval, the owner (applicant) shall
provided.
furnish the City Engineer with satisfactory written commit -
ments from all public and private utility providers serving
the subdivision guaranteeing the completion of all required
utility improvements.
28.
The owner (applicant) shall secure all necessary permits from
All permits obtained.
the City and any other public agencies, including public and
private utility providers, prior to Final Map approval.
29.
The owner (applicant) shall pay the applicable Park and
Fees paid.
Recreation fee prior to Final Map approval.
30.
Acknowledged.
All public and private subdivision improvements shall be
constructed and accepted by the City prior to the issuance of
any Grading or Building permits for each lot.
31.
Agreement signed.
Prior to approval of the Final Map, the owner (applicant)
shall execute an agreement with the City waiving the rights of
the owner or any successive owners of any of the lots created
by the subdivision to protest the annexation of the lots into
File No. SD -94 -001; 14024 Saratoga Avenue
the City's existing Landscaping and Lighting Assessment
District for the propose of providing for the maintenance of
the Landscape and Pedestrian. The agreement shall be recorded
concurrently with the Final Map and reference to the agreement
shall appear in the Owner's Certificate on the Final Map.
Acknowledged.
32. Subdivision construction hours shall be restricted between
7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except in the
event of an emergency which imperils public safety. The
Public Works Director may grant an exemption upon his /her
determination of an emergency. No construction work shall be
permitted on legal holidays.
West valley Sanitation District
Requirements met.
33. All requirements of the West Valley Sanitation District shall
be including
met but limited to .the following:
a. Payment of all applicable fees, including treatment plant
capacity fee, and the posting of a sanitary sewer
improvement bond.
b. Sanitary sewer main will be constructed within the
proposed public roadway to serve in accordance with the
District's public sewer standards.
Santa Clara County Environmental Health
N/A
34. Any existing septic tank on the property shall be pumped and
backfilled in accordance with County Environmental Health
Division standards prior to Final Map Approval.
N/A
35. Abandon and seal all existing wells to Santa Clara Valley
Water District standards prior to Final Map Approval.
Saratoga Fire District
Acknowledged.
36. The owner (developer) shall install one (1) fire hydrant that
meets the Saratoga Fire District's specifications, pursuant to
the 1991 Uniform Fire Code. The hydrant shall be located
within five hundred feet from the residence and shall be
installed and accepted prior to construction of any buildings.
Acknowledged.
37. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in newly constructed
attached /detached garages.
City Attorney
Acknowledged.
38. The owner (applicant) shall, upon the City's request, defend,
indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials,
boards, commissions, employees and volunteers harmless from
File No. BD -94 -001; 14024 Saratoga Avenue
and against any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set
aside, void or annul this approval, or any of the proceedings,
acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to such
approval, which is brought within the time specified in Sec.
14- 85.060 of the Municipal Code. If a defense is requested,
the City shall give prompt notice to the applicant of any such
claim, action or proceeding, and shall cooperate fully in the
defense thereof. Nothing herein shall prevent the City from
participating in the defense, but in such event, the City
shall pay its own attorney's fees and costs.
Acknowledged.. 39. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall
constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossi-
ble to estimate damages the City could incur due to the
violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this
City per each day of the violation.
Section 1. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these
conditions within thirty (30) days of the passage of this resolu-
tion or said resolution shall be void.
Section 2. Conditions must be completed within twenty -four
(24) 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 commis-
sion, State of California, this 8th day of June, 1994, by the
following vote:
AYES: 5 Asfour, Jacobs, Moran, Muraka & Flolfe
NOES: O None
ABSENT: 2 Caldwell & Kaplan
Chair, Planning mmission
ATTEST:
1 Secrets y, Planning Commission
ing conditions are hereby accepted:
&A4/11+
0
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ��,� AGENDA ITF
MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 2, 1994 CITY MGR.:
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAI
SUBJECT: Aspesi Drive /Metter Court multi -way stop
Recommended Motion(s) : Move to adopt the MV Resolution establishing
the multi -way stop.
Report Summary: The Council tabled this matter on July 20 and
requested it be re- agendized on November 2. The matter was
referred back to the Public Safety Commission to reconsider as they
developed recommendations for dealing with Route 85 traffic
impacts. Since .then, and upon reconsideration, the Commission's
original recommendation has not changed.
Fiscal Impacts.: Same as in attached report.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended. Motions: See attached
report.
Follow Up Actions: If approved, the stop signs will be installed.
Attachments: 1. Staff Report dated July 20 with attachments.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
MEETING DATE: JULY 20, 1994
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS
AGENDA ITEM �
CITY MGR.:
DEPT. HEAD: --��
SUBJECT: Recommendation from the Public Safety Commission to
establish a multi -way stop at the intersection of Aspesi
Drive and Metler Court
Recommended Motion(s): Move to adopt the attached Motor Vehicle
Resolution establishing a multi -way stop at the intersection of
Aspesi Drive and Metler Court.
Report Summary: At their June meeting, the Public Safety Commission
voted unanimously to recommend to the Council that a multi -way stop
be created at the intersection of Aspesi Drive and Metler Court.
The particular traffic problem which the multi -way stop is intended
to address is the inability of motorists on Aspesi Dr. to remain
right of the centerline as they drive through the curve at Metler
Ct. The Commission was persuaded to make its recommendation upon
considering the responses to a survey of the residents in the
vicinity of the intersection, and who would be affected by the
installation of the stop signs. A majority of the residents who
responded to the survey believe that the stop signs will improve
traffic safety on Aspesi Dr. and therefor, should be installed.
Staff's recommendation to the Commission was to defer action on the
matter until the Commission has the opportunity to discuss
anticipated traffic impacts associated 'with the opening of Route
85. The Commission will be discussing this issue at their next
three meetings in an effort to formulate an overall recommendation
to the Council of various actions to take and measures to implement
prior to the opening of the new freeway on October 19. Since it is
quite likely that Aspesi Dr. will be one of the streets considered
in these discussions, staff felt that the recommendation on the
multi -way stop should be folded into the larger recommendation to
ensure consistency and necessity. However, the Commission believes
the traffic safety issue on Aspesi Dr. is unrelated to, and will
not be affected by, either the opening of the freeway or any
actions the City may take prior to then, and that the multi -way
stop should be created now to address this specific traffic safety
concern.
Fiscal Impacts: Approximately $500 in labor and materials to create
the multi -way stop. Funding would come from Program 33, Traffic
Control.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional.
Conseauences of Not Actina on the Recommended Motions: The multi-
way stop would not be approved at this time. The Council may
either adopt the resolution, reject the Commission's
recommendation, table the matter, or refer the matter back to the
Commission with specific direction.
Follow Up Actions: If the resolution is adopted, a work order will
be initiated to install the multi -way stop. The work would take
approximately two weeks to complete.
Attachments: 1. Motor Vehicle Resolution.
2. Staff report to Public Safety Commission dated June
8, 1994, with attachments.
3. Staff report to Public Safety Commission dated
March 10, 1994 with attachments.
kk
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE - SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 - (408) 867 -3438
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
Ann Mane Burger
Willem Kohler
TO: Residents in the vicinity of Aspesi Drive Victor Monia
Karen Tucker
FROM: Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Proposed Stop Signs on Aspesi Drive at Metler Court
DATE: June 8, 1994
As of today, I have received 72 response cards from the stop sign
survey out of a total of 93 residences included in the survey.
This represents a response rate in excess of 77% (much better than
the voter turnout for yesterday's election!) and I would like to
thank those of you who took the time to return the response card.
Of the 72 responses, 38 or approximately 52.8% of the total,
indicate support for the proposed three -way stop. The remaining
34, or approximately 47.2 %, indicate opposition to the stop signs.
A number of response cards include additional comments, the most
common of which are:
1. Put the three -way stop at Aspesi and La Paz Way.
2. Close La Paz Way to through traffic.
3. Install speed bumps on Aspesi as an alternative to the stop
signs.
4. Install a raised berm /median along the center of the Aspesi
curve to prevent vehicles from crossing over the
centerline.
5. Increase traffic enforcement on Aspesi.
The matter will next be considered by the City's Public Safety
Commission at their meeting this coming Monday, June 13. The
meeting will be held in the Administrative Conference Room at City
Hall and the item is scheduled on the meeting agenda for 8:00 p.m.
Please feel free to attend the meeting and address the Commission
about this, or call me at 867 -3438, extension 241, if you have any
questions or would like to discuss this further with me.
Larry I. Perilin
W44M4 �. a�
Larry I. Pe lin
Attachments: 1. Memo to residents dated June 8.
2. Stop Sign Survey dated May 16 with map.
3. Survey responses with comments.
4 0� SAR�9
�O
CITY of = ' ATOGA
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE - SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 - (408) 867 -3438
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
Ann Marie Burger
Willem Kohler
TO: Residents in the Vicinity of Aspesi Drive VicrorMonia
Karen Tucker
FROM: Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Proposed Stop Sign on Aspesi Drive at Metier Court
DATE: May 16, 1994
Dear Resident:
The City of Saratoga's Public .Safety Commission is evaluating
whether to recommend to the City Council that stop signs be
installed on Aspesi Drive at Metler Court. The primary purpose of
the stop signs would be to force traffic to stop at the point where
Aspesi Dr. curves in order to reduce the speed of traffic
travelling through the curve. This, in turn, could improve the
safety of Aspesi Dr. by keeping motorists from crossing over the
centerline of the road as they drive through the curve. On the
other hand, stop signs pose an inconvenience to those who must pass
through them to get to and from their homes, and create additional
noise and air pollution near them.
The Public Safety Commission would like to know what you think.
Enclosed with this memo is a pre- stamped, pre- addressed postcard
for you to use to express your opinions about the proposed stop
signs. Please take a moment to fill out the survey on the back of
the card and then return it to the City by Friday, June 3. I will
then tally the survey responses and summarize the comments in a
report to the Public Safety Commission which will consider the
matter at their next meeting on Monday, June 13.
You are welcome to attend this meeting and before then, I will
write you again to remind you of the time and location of the
meeting as well as to provide you with the results of the survey.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation with this, and if you
have any questions, please call me at 867 -3438, extension 241.
Larry I. Per in
G,,ntea cn !ecr:ciee Cape.
s:,
Aspesi -Ur. Stop Signs
-Owe support the proposed stop signs.•
I /we do not support the proposed stop
signs.
I /we have another idea:
o
esi Dr. Stop Signs
-
I /wesupport the proposed stop signs.
I /we do not support the
signs. proposed stop
I /we have another idea:
i
Aspesi Dr. Stop Si
gns
y - I /we support the proposed stop A-5
signs.
g oro �Y
- I /we do not support
signs. the proposed stop
I /we have another idea: 1 ff #qa= 5,RAJ 07NtFK Cc4P -t1c7 TfrA-T 14* %hiNi
-nfA -r SHcULD rG---YP ALAro.�, C2�ss,,ve-
C� ! ft t s 5 riot' O gc-GO -51zw 774ch. S
�. � �I ✓Ei'G-rti
ON � � c,,� 2 ✓c, 6n10 Nonce- 77t1�•r r r is �cDar
Q •U ti' •�� W io SPn.,-Y) �c15$ oc/�IZ T CLhJ�i' C n
r iiv, U1t' ;��'%'•S (N0U,-0 cE !? CG`5 AJI, - S i3 � �L'C 2L
'nspesi. ijr. �icQLa signs
V \ - IJve support the proposed stop signs.
- I. /we do not support the proposed stop
signs.
I /we have another idea:
t�l�l ��- r -r�•I ��1R • 7••�.�
_ - WWe support the proposed stop signs.
I /we do not support the proposed stop
signs.
a- �c+�r►c -e.
�
I /� have ` ,
13620
sa^at °9a, 95070
Aspesi Dr. Stop Signs
_ - I /we support the proposed stop signs.
- I /we do not support the proposed stop
signs.
I /we have another idea:
f y
Aspesi Dr. Stop Signs
I /we support the proposed stop signs.
- I /we do not support the proposed stop
signs.
I /we have another idea:
�Li i �liK D N e- C' o ce /a/ b -c sf- r-
Td b .s �#-,C-7 0 z-' 7'h ct cv e. _ % you �•� �r ro
�u f �i e S e�L
Aspesi Dr... Stop Signs
I w support the proposed stop signs.
qw
I /we do not support the proposed stop
signs.
e `
have another idea:
Aspesi Dr. Stop Signs
'\ - I /support the
proposed stop signs.
I /we do not support the proposed sto�-
signs.
I /we have another
?bQ-L d
idea:
c
i
Lu✓ �uc tb
Aspesi Dr. Stop Signs
I /we support the proposed stop signs.
- I /we do not support the proposed stop
signs.
I /we have another idea:
1�
✓ - I /we support the proposed stop signs.
- I /we do not support the proposed stop
signs.
I /we have another idea:
n add�i'cc% -to S4op sljhs- (or td'1Si-19eL4 df aktm), PcL(- th 3lEV�r4
�p�o� buiti I s W c u-la Slow 4k-Q- 4 Mall (_ i, )1 h 6 LL+ 3i 11 1 '�CCJl R y,
thG�cc.Sc -fh-E - P�(ha.�C - ►'lofSt CAS cur,�c cl 4o normcd ira�(c. • -� �1�;
� � 'h �
4K - (e�-t a3hoa u � dme CO � a SIT 0
Aspesi Dr. Stop Signs
we upport the proposed stop signs. np4e,K e SeE
a�Qo e C_c-oss ov e �-l2 - (Abu --6�e 1 c LA12 -,
I /we do n support the proposed stop
signs.
I / we have another idea:
C�o
Aspesi Dr. Stop Signs` `
- I /we support the proposed stop signs.
_ - I /we do not support the ;.,
PP proposed_ os p ed -stop
signs..
I /we have another idea.
wi
n oc - Z: call -sz-
C�". � ��� ems.` f�►?� 1 �-o slD c,� Cam:
Aspesi Dr. Stop Signs
k:
I /we support the s'it:,..
proposed stop signs.
I /we do not support the proposed stop
signs.
I /we have another idea:
• I V , v •
Aspesi Dr. Stag Signs
- I /we support the proposed stop signs.
X - I/we do not support the proposed stop
signs.
I /we have anothp idea: Jdk Cite -
Aspesi Dr. Stop Signs
I /we support the proposed stop signs.,
- I /we do not support the proposed sto
signs. lr
I /we have another idea:
Aspesi Dr. Stop Signs
- I /we support the proposed stop signs.
I /we do not support the proposed stop
signs.
I /we have another idea:
U�
-.DLop Signs
I /we support the-proposed stop signs.
- I /we do not support the proposed stop
signs.
I /we have another idea:
Aspesi D4r� , {signs
- #�mpport the proposed stop signs.
�
�1 V11- 'Do
- Ar /mmffm not support the proposed stop �-
I:/we. have . aver idea:
Wctt+ f-'Or fV-cr—W tO CMa:112-C T r& rc.
Patte'ros . a.ua 7ewz
�� - I /we do not support the proposed stop
signs.
I /we have another idea:
N GO (T-0 F-OIL 145re,.5 1 .D.,Q- ,
Aspesi Dr. Stop Signs
- I /we support the proposed stop signs.
- I /we d�.� not support the proposed stop
signs.
I /we have another idea:
151:�'Cr�aC``.►i:S2:.a- �..�y,,,:i: ry� ±._.....
Aspesi Dr. Stop Signs
- I /we support the proposed stop signs.
_ - I /we do not support the proposed stop-,
signs.
I /we have another idea:
'C ♦� w -.:
I W�/ ��' • _v VQ
d
Aspesi Dr. Stop Signs
- I /we support the proposed stop signs.y
- I /we . d. o not support the proposed
stop
si �s
I /we have another idea:
40 F U m cck Axe.,
Aspesi Dr. Stop Signs
- I /we support the proposed stop signs.
VL- - I /we do not support the proposed stop
signs. ,h
I /we have another idea: -
��M;4 of IS• tV(L SllaA -
ppt
�s,Ytt, �� . ��:.Jn...J or. �.�.��< Ot'tb1�, � vet v;,, 1 a ;,. A...... • ld:.--- �- - -�` `
Aspesi Dr. Stop Signs
- I /we support the proposed stop signs.
- I /we do not support the proposed stop
signs.
I /we have another idea:
Aspesi Dr. Stop Signs
I /we support the proposed stop signs.
X - I /we do not support the proposed stop
signs.
I / we have another idea: . A s \ � ), C. Q, ' } � �.c�� �✓
1P �
Aspesi Dr. Stop Signs
- Ilve support the proposed stop signs.
V - IG do not support the proposed stop
signs.
I /we have another idea:
�'p 8ump
Aspesi Dr. Stop Signs
- I /we support the proposed stop signs.
- I /we do not support the proposed stop
signs.
I /we have another idea:
�t4A,
&rj Ctr�z
Aspesi Dr. Stop Signs
- I /we support the proposed stop r'signs; `
I /we do not support the proposed stops
signs.
I /we have another idea: `=
�9ys�_J2,7 ; sf:�' - 1791�?�_ --dam
Gv -e've G�
two
IV
Aspesi Dr. Stop Signs
- I /we support the proposed stop signs.
IzZ_ I�o not support the proposed stop
s s—"
-7 ue ,J.
I /we
have another
idea:
egoP �1AJ
To SLZVj
't'4 w ../
�T
THE CURV,L.
T� f Y
S�tM'
-7 ue ,J.
Aspesi Dr. Stop Signs
I /we support the proposed stop signs.
y - I /we do not support the proposed stop
signs.
I /we have another idea:
LAPAL
Aspesi Dr. Stop Signs
- I /we support the proposed stop signs.
_ - I /we do not support the proposed stop
signs.
I /we have another idea:
�. %� J�I�S;t (.'' }�, 4 �� Tt� �. [tOi�l"Grc s ��' V/C c.0 .�1J %h. �� /A'!�i`I Sl�J• , �•.� �..:C �i ;: S:
1 ,f'' � � /G y' i yps,. t %<'.S / llctt CC fv
W �!-/ ✓�°rl �� GQ r'f _ °x�'7ia� %�t:° �'I e'r Ct Q %Jt `�'� • L J'L' to
Aspesi Dr.:,5 Signs
-111- ,>aipport the proposed stop signs.
_ - Iatim•not support the proposed stop
s
we
have anew idea: �� ��A"� �G S6ti a LA A l-Y\, G r PZ-S e,
-4F
. c
Hspesi Dr. Stop Signs;
I /we support the proposed stop signs.
_ - I /we do not support the proposed stop
signs.
I /we have another idea:
LP ,
3 m env VZ
v'e c-L L 3 ( s�
417�64t�, e-
' I � vt Gf ci.lf�! -xl..L �� (il-D v� a.. [ c
Aspesi Dr. Stop°5igns
- I /we support the proposed stop signs.
x - I /we do not support the proposed stop
signs.
I /we have another idea:
AF
Aspesi Dr. Stop Signs
I /w- support the proposed stop signs.
V - I r >.
/�. do not support the proposed stop
ass c ��
I /we have anc :her idea: ,W 7c �
�7 111 7LV1,l's Ic CA,,,-Ye- 01-4 S
Ct- �- '3 -:-c� ,•��4.�e�z. tv-+�� ,5�o --Q� la:C� C*�► �ik� c� fD ��.;.�a�...— .
�? �w � � ti ,1L- 1 -�C-�. U- ...C��i �C o-s� c- -t--- L iYt��� �C l� -.•,�� � � �-� Li�G 1
'� lO
U
C' Q'
9L1 FOg��
09,7T @2 -0&M&UQ)S&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
Ann Mane Burger
Willem Kohler
TO: Public Safety Commission Willem Kohler
Karen Tucker
FROM: Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Aspesi Drive speeding Issue
DATE: March 10, 1994
RECOMMENDATION: No additional traffic. control devices are
recommended at this time. If a three -way stop is proposed for the
Aspesi Drive /Metler Court intersection, staff recommends that the
property owners identified on the attached map be surveyed first.
DISCUSSION: This matter was continued from your December meeting.
At that time, the Commission received input from Mr. Allen Amstutz,
a Metler Court resident, about a continuing speeding problem on
Aspesi Drive in the vicinity of the curve near Metler Court. Mr.
Amstutz is concerned about motorists who are unable to remain in
their lane of traffic as they drive through the curve at excessive
speeds. The Commission requested staff to evaluate the reported
problem again and develop appropriate recommendations.
This is not the first time that Mr. Amstutz has come before the
Commission to express concerns about this situation. Staff
reviewed the same concern back in 1992 and a copy of staff's prior
report to the Commission is attached. In 1992, the Commission,
concurred with Staff's recommendations and the additional striping
and signage was installed.
In January, 1993, there was a property damage accident involving a
vehicle travelling eastbound on Aspesi Drive. A copy of the
accident report is attached. The accident occurred at 5:45 p.m. on
a rainy day and according to the report, the driver of the vehicle
involved in the accident thought he was on Quito Road and did not
expect the curve on Aspesi Dr. nor see the curve because of the
rain. There is no evidence to suggest that the vehicle was being
driven too fast, (in fact the driver was not cited for a speed
violation), so assuming the driver's statements to be true, it is
doubtful that any traffic control device such as a stop sign on
Aspesi Dr. at Metler Ct. would have prevented this type of
accident.
- _.._
Mr. Amstutz is requesting the City install a three -way stop at the
Aspesi Dr. /Metler Ct. intersection to slow traffic. Unfortunately,
this is not an appropriate warrant for installing stop signs.
However, if the Commission truly believes a multi -way stop is
warranted, one can probably be justified using other warrant
criteria. Before performing such a. warrant study though, staff
would recommend a survey of the surrounding property owners who
would be impacted by the installation of the stop signs. Those
property owners whom staff believes should participate in the
survey are indicated on the attached map.
As for other traffic control measures, staff believes that this
location has ample signage and striping and anything additional
would be redundant and ineffective. And, as a matter of fact,
staff has received several complaints since the signage and
striping were installed in 1992 suggesting that they constitute an
eyesore and are overkill.
Lastly, staff believes that Aspesi Dr. may
those streets where traffic patterns could
of Route 85. Consequently, the Commissio
after the freeway opens before making any
further changes on Aspesi Dr.
Larry . P rlin
Attachments: 1.
2.
3.
very well become one of
change after the opening
n may want to wait until
recommendations to make
Staff report dated July 6, 1992.
Accident Report No. AR93- 026 -5.
Map of suggested survey area.
July
6, 1992
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
MEMO
TO: Public Safety Commission
FROM: Larry I. Perlin, City Engineer
RE: Letter from Gail and Allen Amstutz
requesting a 3 -way stop at Aspesi Drive
and Metler Court
Recommended Action: Support staff's recommendation to install
additional signage and striping and to request increased
enforcement by the Sheriff's Dep't.
Discussion: Engineering staff has evaluated Mr. and Mrs. Amstutz's
request for a 3 -way stop at the intersection of Aspesi Dr. and
Metler Ct.. Since the stated reason for the request -is to control
speed on Aspesi Dr. and since there is no history of accidents at
this intersection which would warrant the installation of the stop
signs, staff is not supportive of the request.
Instead, staff believes that there is additional signage and
striping which could be installed in the vicinity of the
intersection and which would be a more proper response to the
reported problems. The proposed signage and striping is
illustrated on the attached drawing and involves edge stripes along
the sides of the road and warning signs to alert motorists to the
curves and the intersection. Additionally, staff believes it would
be appropriate to request increased traffic enforcement on Aspesi
Dr. by the Sheriff's Department, particularly during those times of
the day when students are travelling to and from West Valley
College.
If the Commission supports staff's recommendations, the proposed
signage and striping could be installed within the next 2 -3 weeks
as no Council action is necessary to install these traffic control
devices.
Attachments:
1. Proposed conditions.
2. Existing conditions.
3. Letter from.Mr. & Mrs. Amstutz dated 2- 28 -92.
Motion & Vote:
CAs,a BLANCA LN �Ro Pas F_ D
N / f W53
o %7/ S.7,0 It A,
Oro //e 0
Pace pne....w 4.
._ S7 ems' -'►r
Pblf Nx (1
ti
JCA� E't
sai t
To Atli fa RrL
s SOS S/ L?R..
r�r�4l/
\�ws3
CA-FA BLANCA LN
/'f W S3
q
.AS Aesyl..
wS3 we(•sy
ti
Wl•
�V
EX1 --3TaNc
�✓J3
K
,*,,r
Ju -TAI
AC_AL Et
,v;v
t
re tai fa RJ,
Larry Perlin .
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mr. Perlin,
2 -28 -92 MAR 2 1992
CITY OF 1JGA
,!T':' ENGINEER'S OFFICE
We are residents of Saratoga and are writing this letter to you
in hopes of solving a traffic problem on our street.
Our house is located on the corner of Metler Court and Aspesi
Drive. It is at this point of Aspesi that there is an "S"
turn, and during commuting hours, cars speed around this corner.
Many cars go so fast around this' "S" turn that they are driving
on the opposite side of the street. This is particularly dang-
erous because it is a blind curve, and we have witnessed near
head -on collisions. Our neighbor across the street has had cars
jump the curb and drive across his lawn. Also, it is difficult
to exit MMetler Court because of poor visibility.
We have.talked to Erman in city engineering twice -about this
problem. After the first talk, he had 15 mile per hour signs
installed. Unfortunately, the signs have had no affect. The
second time we called him, he said he would inform traffic
police, and he also suggested we write to you.
We would like to see a three way stop put in at this intersection.
That way, cars would definately be travelling slower around the
curve, and residents of Metler Court could safely exit the court.
There are several families with young children living near this
intersection and during rush hours, it is dangerous for the -kids
to ride their bikes and play nearby. Can you please help us
solve this problem before someone gets hurt?
Sincerely,
Gail and Allen Amstutz
18733 Metler Court
Saratoga, CA 95070
374 -5589
STATE O ALIPORNIA
T eA FIC COLLISION REPORT- Property Damage Only —" Orb" roomeo Copy Iw)rOhwA4ev+rtrr+
SPECIAL CONOIT10N3
MTA RUN
CIT'f C J 00MAL diTRIGI'
f
COUH �� J R[►ORTINO TNCT J[/L
``/' f/t!•
)NCIC
n[►91fTiN0 OFFICER
/v�l•
COLLI&OM OO �Ui1�4J �_
OAT T
TIME ) �5
OIfK, RLDL
AT INTERSECTION WITH
on: PE[T! IBLn OF F C
OAT W W[EK Y7
S M T F S
TOW AWAT
❑Ya BMO
STATE HIGHWAY RELATEI
❑YEi allo
PARTY
oNv[11'>f LICENSE NUMBER
V S ,0
fTATi
CI'A•ff
`
fAf[TT [QUIP,
[NAOI
DAMAGED
AREA
SKETCH
`r t
����i�• !
' 1
"of
'
r
/ \
/ �•• (/y //
' �`i•
V
DRIVER
NAME In ST, WOO lA h _ t� (NUMB
CO /i� /i
PEO.
rl
STRE fT AO E S TYIfTAT[ID►
I
PK VEM
SEI
LIRTMOATIE
IHSUR CA R POLICY N f[R
BICTCLE
N& TRAVEL ON
ITREET OR HIOHWAV
SPEED LMT.,
OTHER
V
MA E otl.IC LOR
LICENSE NUMBEn STATE
VEKTTP[
PARTY
PARTY
2
DRIVER'S LICENSE NUMBER
I 2TATI
I CLAl6
SAi[TV[OU►.
fNADE
DAMAGED
AREA
DRIVER
NAMf�([IR ;T, MIOOLL LAST . {ter PHONE NUMBEII
PEO.
STgEV AOO(IESS "^ I STATE I LP
PK VEM
SEXII SIRTMOAiE JINSURANCE
CARRIER POLICY NUMBER
ICICLE
010. TRAVEL
ON STREET OR 11Iiy1w ♦i / {
SPEED
OTHER
VEK
g.
MAKEl YO L COL R
o/vlt 1 Arco i 4r " "�
UC SE UM S,LR STATE
1' ► .z c.
VEK TYPE
PARTY
2
R /O
W❑
AGE
3
HM[ PARTT
I` �S r AnL )54Y,77 )15AfJ x-
3
AGE
I SIX
NAME-- ADDRESS PMON[NWSRR PARTY
f%1.4ivv //)� _A C' A..: es c
PROP.
OWNER
AME ADDRESS DAAG[OPROPERIT
AI
PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR
UST NUMBER (l) OF PARTY AT FAULT
TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
1
2
TYPE OF VEHICLE
1
2
MOVEMENT PRECEDING
COLLISION
B A
VC SECTION VIOLATED:
Z O G•
ACONTROLS FUNCTIONING
A PASSENGER CAR I STATION WAGON
A STOPPED
B CONTROLS HOT FUNCTIONING
B PASSENGER CAR W /TRAILER
B PROCEEDING STRAIGHT
l B
OTHER IMPROPER DRIVING
CCONTROLS OBSCURED
C MOTORCYCLE I SCOOTER
C RAN OFF ROAD
D NO CONTROLS PRESENT / FACTOR
D PICKUP OR PANEL TRUCK
D MAKING RIGHT TURN
C
OTHER THAN DRIVER '
TYPE OF COLUSION
E PICKUP / PANEL TRUCK W I TRAILER
I
E MAKING LEFT TURN
DUNKNOWN
AHEAD • ON
F TRUCK OR TRUCK TRACTOR
IF MAKING U TURN
FELL ASLEEP
B SIDESWIPE
G TRUCK / TRUCK TRACTOR W / TRLR.
G BACKING
REAR ENO
SCHOOL BUS
H SLOWING / STOPPING
WEATHER( MARK I TO 21TEMS)
DBROADSIDE
OTHER BUS
I PASSING OTHER VEHICLE
ACLEAR
E MIT OBJECT
Ij EMERGENCY VEHICLE
J CHANGING LANES
BCLOUDY
F OVERTURNED
IK HIGHWAY CONST. EQUIPMENT
K PARKING MANEUVER
C RAINING
G VEHICLE / PEDESTRIAN
L BICYCLE
L ENTERING TRAFFIC
D SNOWING
H OTHER
M OTHER VEHICLE
IM OTHER UNSAFE TURNING
FOG / VISIBILITY FT.
MOTOR VEHICLE INVOLVED WITH
N PEDESTRIAN
IN XING INTO OPPOSING LANE
F
OTHER:
A NON - COLLISION
MOPED
7
O PARKED
G WIND
B PEDESTRIAN
NR
MERGING
UGHTING
C OTHER MOTOR VEHICLE
i
2
OTHER ASSOCIATED FACTOR(S)
( MARK I TO 21TEMS)
Q TRAVELING WRONG WAY
A DAYLIGHT
D MOTOR VEHICLE ON OTHER HIGHWAY
OTHER
B DUSK - DAWN
E PARKED MOTOR VEHICLE
A VC SECTION VIOLATION:
B VC SECTION VIOLATION:
� 2
C DARK .STREET LIGHTS
F TRAIN
DARK -NO STREET LIGHTS
GBICYCLE
EDARK - STREET LIGHTS NOT
FUNCTIONING
H ANIMAL:
SOBRIETY - DRUG
PHYSICAL
( MARK I TO2ITEMS)
ROADWAY SURFACE
A DRY
I FIXED OBJECT
E VISION OBSCUREMENT :
A HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING
B IIBO -UNDER INFLUENCE
B WET
C SNOWY - ICY
j OTHER OBJECT:
C HBD •NOT UNDER INFLUENCE
D SLIPPERY (MUDDY, OILY, ETC.)
F INATTENTION •
H8D- IMPAIRMENT UNKNOWN
ROADWAY CONDITION(S)
(MARK ITO2 ITEMS )
PEDESTRIANS ACTION
G STOP 6 GO TRAFFIC
E UNDER DRUG INFLUENCE
ANO PEDESTRIAN INVOLVED
H ENTERING /LEAVING RAMP
FIMPAIRMENT - PHYSICAL'
A HOLES, DEEP RUTS
B CROSSING IN CROSSWALK
ATINTERSECTION
I PREVIOUS COLLISION
G IMPAIRMENT NOT KNOWN
B LOOSE MATERIAL ON ROADWAY •
J UNFAMILIAR WITH ROAD
H NOT APPLICABLE
C OBSTRUCTION ON ROADWAY •
CLROSSING IN CROSSWALK •NOT
AT INTERSECnON
K DEFECTIVE VEK EQUIP.
I SLEEPY! FATIGUED
DCONSTRUCnON • REPAIR ZONE
SPECIAL INFORMATION
E REDUCED ROADWAY WIDTH
DCROSSING - NOT IN CROSSWALK
L UNINVOLVED VEHICLE
I JA HAZARDOUS MATERIAL
F FLOODED
E IN ROAD - INCLUDES SHOULDER
M OTHER*:
C-, OTHER • :
F NOT IN ROAD
N NONE APPARENT
•\ }-{
NO UNUSUAL CONDITION$
G APPROACHING / LEAVING SCHOOL BUS
10 RUNAWAY VEHICLE
CHP SSS-03 (REv I I -08) OP10a2
.pM
7MQ jaml
YCIQ aYIi1QQw
OrryeQw 1A.
YYrQQQ
�Mt . \
Poe,
7i'//4 / fi' /P.
7-�fea C�141C/7 ry�9 S
T 0,=,-
=--
7.
Gv
fe_�
3 z fzlr-
1E G 9 7 A S��s T zT �4 O" -Ws 7',;Y,4 T D/ o1�sr�f' l w s
F % s rs A ,yin AlSSSey T#4 e5aA!, -v A Y Z„r T, Ar
4,r
%4rA1Q TiSE ��T SsO �.Yc,y TAE
8.
9 Loo1Y T y� A7- T, T
C- Y - 7 H. 9"; 9 -
TZ
T
s
33—
7iy,E ��UG D �liG % �,c-' G CC,f T,Er, .
Sr4.r0 /3 ELa�r.G f-o► Tc .fir s L A69
'— - C ff S T
SO T
4.
7 1v,4 S
A ,V2cr1L7— wit/ 7;,;eAc—z' L_
Poe,
7i'//4 / fi' /P.
7-�fea C�141C/7 ry�9 S
T 0,=,-
=--
7.
Gv
'8---
-.o�tiT ,i¢�[/0
9_
AV 7,41,7-r
'
Tigoc--'4iY r Al f 4c-- �s
d ti
1d
� \�� \•w'• FAY■ �
3' ! (--/ P I.O. MYY• ■w YO. OAS 1w, w \V/wvww' \JIwYt\ YO. 4A• ♦w.
sy
: Sol
5Llq
17
• ik
r Zr Q
IrT.
l�
F. , r� :ter_,.. •.: �'�: t:. :.:.• ...,r..
e � S • FA c+ wt "�. 7�" 7 .
t �f . ,. icy H,�.J•'J rth •i• .}�
t,.•� i ' -�. ft' • �, 1' yam` + •'��
_ °, '` + iii �� � :;: •"� •:+ � �
ti ra b
f .
At
dOr
It
Lo I
IV
E'
sop
I 416or
oft 4
.-� •w � 'x,11 .� . • � '�i .� � j -'..f! � 1 Nt
.a` •� �� `:' -' �' >'.• 't.. "•f�� .�•� -.. ` ---. ��; .. _i .t� '. . ,lam -`� .• -- .' .
• t) -` S�j. � - � " i • - `� ..... ' . -' s� ',• .fir .• � ..y :i f,. , �,- 4 Now
•
4
53 0-35
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM
MEETING.DATE: NOVEMBER 2, 1994 CITY MGR.:
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD:
SUBJECT: Final Map Approval of Tract No. 8595 (6 lots) - Montalvo
Road and Hill Avenue, Owner: Audrey Smith Trust
Recommended Motion(s) : 1. Move to adopt Resolution No. SD 93 -001
granting final map approval of Tentative Map Application No.
SD 93 -001 for six lots at Montalvo Road and Hill Avenue. 2. Move
to authorize the Mayor to execute the Subdivision Improvement
Agreement.
Report Summary: Attached is Resolution No. SD 93 -001 which, if
adopted, will grant final map approval for six lots located at
Montalvo Road and Hill Avenue. I have examined the final map and
related documents submitted to me in accordance with the provisions
of Section 14.40.020 of the Municipal Code and have determined
that:
1. The final map substantially complies with the approved
tentative map.
2. All conditions of the approved tentative map, as contained
in Planning Commission Resolution No. SD 93 -001, have been
completed or will be completed concurrent with development
of the six lots.
3. The Subdivision Map Act, the City's Subdivision Ordinance
and all other applicable provisions of law have been
complied with.
4. The final map is technically correct.
Consequently, I have executed the City Engineer's certificate on
the final map and have filed the final map with the City Clerk
pursuant to Section 14.40.040 of the Municipal Code.for action by
the City Council.
Fiscal Impacts: The subdivider has paid $24,216.60 in Engineering
fees and $48,960 in Park In -Lieu fees required for this
subdivision.
Follow Up Actions: The signed map will be released to the
subdivider's Title Company for recordation along with recording
instructions.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The final
map must either be approved or rejected by the City Council. If
the map is rejected, it would be returned to the subdivider with
findings as to why the map was rejected.
Attachments: 1. Resolution No. SD 93 -001 granting final map
approval.
2. Subdivision Improvement Agreement.
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. SD 93 -001
approving the tentative map with conditions.
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application No. /Location: SD -93 -001; Montalvo Road and Hill Avenue
Applicant /Owner: Audrey Smith Trust
Staff Planner: James Walgren
Date: February 24, 1993
APN: 517 -19 -075 and 007 Director Approval:
inui nctivo na. & trill! iAve.
RESOLUTION NO. SD -93 -001
RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF
AUDREY SMITH TRUST; Montalvo Road and Hill Avenue
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency
under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under
the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for tentative
map approval of six (6) lots, all as more particularly set forth in
File No. SD -93 -001 of this City; and
WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed
subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and
improvement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with
all specific plans relating thereto; and the proposed subdivision
and land use are compatible with the objectives, policies and
general land use and programs specified in such General Plan,
reference to the staff report dated February 24, 1993 being hereby
made for further particulars; and
WHEREAS, this body has heretofore received and considered the
environmental Negative Declaration prepared for this project in
accord with the currently applicable provisions of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a)
through (g) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect to
said subdivision, and tentative approval should be granted in
accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed
public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a
full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the
hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated March 1992
and is marked Exhibit "A" in the. hereinabove referred file, be and
the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said
approval are as follows:
Completed by Surveyor.. 1• Prior to submittal of a Final Map to the City Engineer for
examination, the owner (applicant) shall cause the property to
be surveyed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or an authorized Civil
Engineer. The submitted map shall show the existence of a
monument at all external property corner locations, either
found or set. The submitted map shall also show monuments set
at each new corner location, angle point, or as directed by
the City Engineer, all in conformity with the Subdivision Map
Act and the Professional Land Surveyors Act.
2. The owner (applicant) shall submit four (4) copies of a Final
Completed. Map in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative
Map, along with the additional documents required in Section
14- 40.020 of the Municipal Code, to the City Engineer for
examination. The Final Map shall contain all of the informa-
File No. 8D -93 -001; Montalvo Road and Hill Avenue
tion required by section 14- 40.030 of the Municipal Code and
shall be accompanied by the following
items:
a. One copy of map checking calculations.
b. Preliminary Title Report for the property dated within
ninety (90) days of the
date of submittal of the Final
Map.
C. One copy of each map referenced on the Final Map.
d. One copy of each document /deed referenced on the Final
Map.
e. One copy of any other map, document, deed, easement or
other
resource that will facilitate the examination
process as requested by the City Engineer.
Fees Paid.
3. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Map Checking fee, as
determined
by the City Engineer, at the time of submittal of
the Final Map for
examination.
Bond Posted.
4. Interior monuments shall be set at each lot
corner either
.prior to recordation of a Final Map or some later date to be
specified
on a Final Map. If the owner (applicant) chooses to
defer the setting of interior
monuments to a specified later
date, then sufficient security as determined by the
Engineer
City
shall be furnished prior to Final Map approval, to
guarantee the setting of interior
monuments.
All easements offered
5. The owner (applicant) shall provide Irrevocable Offers of
Dedication for
on Final Map.
all required easements and /or rights of way on
the Final Map, in substantial
conformance with the a PProved
Tentative Map, prior to Final MAP
approval.
Plans submitted and
6. The owner (applicant) shall submit engineered improvement
approved.
plans to the City Engineer in conformance with the approved
Tentative Map in
and accordance with the design and improve-
went requirements of Chapter 14 of the
Municipal Code. The
improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer and
the appropriate officials from other public
agencies having jurisdictional
authority, including public and
private utility providers, prior to
approval of the Final Map.
Required improvements shall include curb and gutter installa-
tion and
pavement widening of Montalvo Road along the frontage
of the property and
pavement overlay of Montalvo Road from
Calle Montalvo to Hill Avenue.
File No. SD -93 -001; Montalvo Road and Hill Avenue
Fees Paid. 7.
The owner (applicant) shall pay an Improvement Plan Checking
fee, as determined by the City Engineer, at the time Improve-
ment Plans are submitted for review.
Agreement Signed. 8•
The owner (applicant) shall enter into an Improvement Agree-
ment with the City in accordance with Section 14- 60.010 of the
Municipal Code,prior to Final Map approval.
All securities provided. 9•
The owner (applicant) shall furnish• Improvement Securities in
accordance with Section 14- 60.020 of the Municipal Code in the
manner and amounts determined by the City Engineer prior to
Final
Map approval. _
Insurance provided. 10.
The owner (applicant) shall furnish a written indemnity
agreement and proof of insurance coverage, in accordance with
Section 14- 05.055 of the Municipal Code, to
prior Final Map
approval.
11..
Done.
The owner (applicant) shall file with the Santa Clara County
Recorder the requisite statement indicating that there are no
liens against the
property or any part thereof for any unpaid
taxes or special assessments.' A copy of the statement(s)
shall be provided to the City Engineer prior to Final Map
approval.
All Utility commitments 12.
Prior to Final Map approval, the owner (applicant) shall
provided.
furnish the City Engineer with satisfactory written commit-
ments from all public and private utility providers serving
the subdivision
guaranteeing the completion of all required
Utility improvements.
All permits obtained. 13..
The owner (applicant) shall secure all necessary permits from
the City and any other public agencies, including public and
private utility providers, to Final
prior Map approval.
Fees Paid. 14.
The owner (applicant) shall pay the applicable Park and
Recreation fee prior to Final Map approval.
Acknowledged. 15.
All public and private improvements required for the project
shall be completed and accepted for construction by the City
Engineer, Planning Director,
and /or the appropriate officials
from other public agencies, including public and private
utility providers, prior to acceptance of any Design Review
applications for
any of the lots.
16.
Acknowledged.
Notice of construction shall be distributed to all residents
within 500 ft.
of the property at least five calendar days
prior to commencement of construction in such form as deter-
mined by the City Engineer.
The applicant (owner) shall
reimburse the City the full cost of providing such notice
File No. SD -93 -001; Montalvo Road and Hill Avenue
prior to receiving approval from the City Engineer to commence
work on the project.
Acknowledged.
17. All requirements of the West Valley Sanitation District shall
be met.
N/A
18. Any existing septic tank on the property shall be pumped and
backfilled in accordance with County Environmental Health
Division
standards prior to Final Map Approval.
N/A-
19. Abandon and seal all existing wells to Santa Clara Valley
Water District standards prior to Final Map Approval. .
Acknowledged.
20. The owner (applicant) shall install three (3) fire hydrants
that meet the Saratoga Fire District's specifications,
pursuant to the 1991 Uniform Fire Code. Water flow GPM shall
be based
on 6,000 sq. ft. potential future residences.
Acknowledged.
21. The property is located within a designated hazardous fire
area. Future home construction shall incorporate the follow-
ing fire
protection measures:
a. Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building
Code Class A or B prepared or built -up roofing.
b. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and
maintained in accordance with City of Saratoga Code
Article
16 -60.
C. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in newly con -
structed attached /detached garages. Sprinklers may also
be
required throughout the entire residence if the
available water flow from the hydrants is less than 1;750
GPM.
Acknowledged.
22. Future, development of Lots 1 through 6 shall require Design
Review
approval. Appropriate building sites shall be deter-
mined
at that time, based on current Zoning Ordinance regula-
tions and City policy. The site development
plan reviewed by
the Planning Commission was an informational document only,
intended
to indicate that the individual sites could feasibly
be developed.
Acknowledged.
23. Design Review approvals shall only be granted upon finding
that the
proposed structure is compatible in terms of scale
and design with the existing adjacent
residences, that it is
in conformance with the City's Residential Design Guidelines
and that all of the necessary Design Review findings can be
made. Development
proposals shall conform with current zoning
and building regulations.
File No, SD -93 -001; Montalvo Road and Hill Avenue
Easement on Final Map.
24. A 60 ft. deep riparian habitat preservation easement shall be
recorded along the northwest property line of Lot #4, abutting
the Wildcat Creek tributary. No built
improvements, with the
exception of open wire fencing with spacing between the
wires
of at least 4 inches in diameter, shall be permitted within
this 60 feet.
Acknowledged.
25. No grading or building pad improvement work shall take place
on the individual
lots until Design Review applications have
been reviewed and
approved by the Planning Commission.
Done.
26. Pursuant to the City Arborist's report dated May 5,_.1992, the
following tree
preservation requirements shall be met, and all
outstanding Arborist fees paid,
prior to Final Map approval:
a. The City Arborist shall field -tag those trees which he
recommends be removed based on their poor structure, poor
health and susceptibility to
spread disease and /or that
are immediate hazards.
b. The City Arborist shall identify those trees within the
.proposed roadway and /or building envelopes which are
suitable to be transplanted.
C. All trenches which must be dug for any utility lines
shall be plotted
on the map and reviewed and approved by
the City Arborist.
d. Aeration tubes shall be shown to be installed within the
entrance road
per the City Arborist's "Entry Island"
detail dated February 2, 1993.
Acknowledged.
27. Prior to the commencement of any construction activities, the
City Arborist
shall oversee and inspect the following work:
a• All recommended tree pruning and cabling.
b• Installation of all recommended tree protection fencing.
This fencing shall
remain in place throughout construc-
tion activities.
C. The transplanting of all trees identified pursuant to
Condition 26.b.
d• The removal of the trees identified pursuant to Condition
26.a., and those
trees within the roadway construction
and shown to be removed on the Tentative Map., No
other
ordinance protected trees shall be removed.
File No. SD -93 -001; Montalvo Road and Hill Avenue
Security posted. 28. The owner (applicant) shall submit to the City, in a form
acceptable to the Planning Director, security in an amount
deemed sufficient by the Planning Director pursuant to a
report and recommendation by the City Arborist to guarantee
the installation, replacement, maintenance, and /or preserva-
tion of. trees on the subject site. This security deposit
shall Le released at the time of construction acceptance upon
the City Arborist's finding that all tree protection measures
have been adequately followed.
Acknowledged. 29.. Subdivision construction hours shall be restricted between
7:30 a-m: and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except in the
event of an emergency which imperils the public safety. The
City Engineer may grant an exemption upon his /her determina-
tion of an emergency. No construction work shall be permitted
on legal holidays.
30. Prior to Final Map approval, the owner (applicant) shall clear
Completed. the site of all unnecessary debris, including; abandone
vehicles, structures, fire hazardous debris pilesandmiscel-
laneous objects. This shall be performed to the satisfaction
of the Planning Director, City Engineer, Building Codes
Administrator, Environmental Programs Manager and Fire Chief.
The Fire Chief shall also work with the City Arborist to
ensure that the on -site Eucalyptus trees are appropriately
pruned to minimize their potential fire hazard. Excess debris
from all on -site trees shall also be removed to the Fire
Chief's satisfaction.
Acknowledged.
31. The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and
approve all geotechnical aspects of the subdivision plans
(i.e. site preparation and grading,. surface and subsurface
drainage improvements, and design parameters for foundations,
retaining walls, pools and pavement) to ensure that his
recommendations have been properly incorporated.
The results of the Geotechnical Plan Review shall be summa-
rized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted
to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer prior
to approval from the City Engineer to begin subdivision
construction.
Acknowledged. 32. The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed) ,
and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construc-
tion. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be
limited to: site preparation and grading, demolition and
removal of existing structures and unsuitable materials, site
surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations
for roadways and retaining walls prior to the placement of
baserock, fill, steel and concrete.
6)
File No. SD -93 -001; Montalvo Road and Hill Avenue
The geotechnical consultant shall prepare a report describing
the as -built conditions of the project construction. The
report shall include a map (e.g., corrected or revised
drainage plan) that portrays the extent of any grading (cuts
and fills), drainage improvements, and retaining walls. This
final .report shall also include the locations and data from
field density tests anti any new information disclosed during
construction which may have an impact on development of any
lots within the subdivision.
A report describing the results of field inspections, and the
report of as -built conditions, shall be submitted to the City
to be reviewed by the City Engineer prior to Construction
Acceptance of the subdivision improvements.
Acknowledged. 33. The owner (applicant) shall, upon the City's request, defend,
indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials,
boards, commissions, employees and volunteers harmless from
and against any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set
aside, void or annul this approval, or any of the proceedings,
acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to such
approval, which is brought within the time specified in Sec.
14- 85.060 of the Municipal Code. If a defens is requested,
the City shall give prompt notice t e o the applicant of any such
claim, action or proceeding, and shall cooperate fully in the
defense thereof. Nothing herein shall prevent the City from
participating in the defense, but in such event, the City
shall pay its own attorney's fees and costs.
Acknowledged. 34. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall
constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossi-
ble to estimate damages the City could incur due to the
violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this
City per each day of the violation.
section 1. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these
conditions within thirty (30) days of the passage of this resolu-
tion or said resolution shall be void.
section 2. Conditions must be completed within twenty -four
(24) 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.
t
File No. SD -93 -001; Xcntalvc Road and Hill Avenue
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning commis-
sion, State of California, this 9th day of March, 1993, by the
following vote:
AYES: CALDWELL, ASPOBg, BOC,OSIAN, JACOBS, MORAN, MQRAICAMI, WOT•FR
NOES: none
ABSENT: none
Cha r, anning ommi Lon
ATTEST:
Se etary, Plann
Commission
The foregoing c dit' s are hereby accepted:
,70a- V/
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 2, 1994 CITY MGR.:
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD:
SUBJECT: Recommendations from Public Safety Commission for
monitoring Route 85 traffic impacts
Recommended Motion(s): 1. Move to receive recommendations,
providing comments and direction. as necessary. 2. Move to request
a status report on monitoring efforts and results after ninety
days.
Report Summary: On July 20, the City Council directed the Public
Safety Commission to evaluate the anticipated traffic impacts of
Route 85 and develop appropriate recommendations for dealing with
those impacts. After considerable discussion and review of
projected post- freeway traffic patterns, and after considering the
concerns about neighborhood traffic impacts raised by various
neighborhood groups, the Commission has concluded that the primary
focus of the City should be to establish an effective process for
monitoring post- freeway traffic patterns in order to measure the
real traffic related impacts of Route 85. Until the real impacts
can be verified, the Commission believes that the City should
refrain from approving any new traffic control devices or from
changing any existing traffic patterns due solely to perceived
impacts from the opening of Route 85. Further, the Commission
believes that post- freeway traffic patterns will not stabilize for
at least 3 -4 months, and that monitoring efforts should continue
for at least.6 months after the.freeway opens.
Given the above, the following are the Commission's recommendations
for monitoring Route 85 traffic impacts:,
1. Avoid making any assessments of or changes in traffic patterns,
or installing traffic control devices, until post- freeway traffic
patterns stabilize and can be verified. Assume post- freeway
traffic patterns will not stabilize for at least 3 -6 months.
Recognize that obvious or chronic problems may need to be addressed
sooner.
2. Employ various mean
freeway related traffic
in neighborhood traffi c
control devices, gather
neighborhood which will
requesting changes.
s to conduct traffic monitoring to verify
impacts. Prior to implementing any changes
patterns or installing any new traffic
neighborhood input. Identify the entire
be impacted by any change, not just those
3. Continue plans to conduct- post- freeway traffic volume and
intersection turning movement counts at selected locations
throughout the City. These will provide the clearest and most
accurate picture of post- freeway traffic patterns and will provide
the basis for comparing pre and post- freeway traffic conditions.
Perform a comparative analysis of this data with the traffic
projections in the various freeway traffic studies to determine the
accuracy of the projections and the validity of. the model on which
the projections were based.
4. Establish a Route 85 Hotline which residents may call to express
concerns about and report problems with Route 85. Maintain a log
of all calls and chart reported problems on a map. Acknowledge all
calls with either .a return call or a letter and periodically remind
residents of the availability of the Hotline in the newspaper and
on KSAR. Maintain the Hotline for at least six months after the
freeway opens. Note - The Hotline was established on October 10.
5. To promote objective monitoring and observations of post- freeway
traffic conditions, avoid using volunteers or relying on data
gathered from individuals or groups who have a particular stake in
the outcome of such monitoring. Whenever possible, rely on
independent third parties to assist with monitoring efforts.
Possibilities include Sheriff's Deputies and student interns.
6. Monitor for evidence of cut - through traffic during commute hours
in the residential neighborhoods between Quito Rd. and the Saratoga
Ave. interchange.
7. Monitor for speeding problems along Cox Ave., Allendale Ave.,
Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga Ave., and Miller Ave. particularly during
commute hours.
8. Plan to update the Speed Survey for Saratoga Ave. between
Fruitvale and Cox in early 1995. Anticipate a reduction in the
posted speed limit. Establish two segments for the Speed Survey,
one on either side of the freeway.
9. Monitor the operation of the new signal system between Dagmar
and Vineyards. Determine whether the signal interconnect system
should be extended to the signals at Cox and Fruitvale. Also
monitor Caltrans operation of the ramp meters during commute hours
to determine if there are any backups onto Saratoga Ave.
10. Monitor accident data to determine if the freeway opening
results in any positive or negative trends.
The Commission believes that by following. the above
recommendations, the Council will get an accurate and unbiased
evaluation of both the positive and negative traffic impacts
resulting from Route 85. It is further recommended that a status
report on the above monitoring program be provided to the Council
in 90 days.
Fiscal Impacts: Limited. All of the above recommendations can be
carried out by City staff as part of its. routine work with the
exception of the post- freeway traffic volume and turning movement
counts. The cost of the counts will be determined by the number of
counts which need to be taken and that is something which the
Commission will recommend after the initial 90 day monitoring
period. The current budget has funds programmed to perform counts
in April and May, but it is possible that ,a small supplemental
appropriation will be needed to perform all of the counts that will
be recommended..
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: N /A.
Follow Up Actions: Staff will begin to implement the monitoring
program as directed by the Council.
Attachments: 1. Letter from Caltrans dated September 27 re: Ramp
meter monitoring.
2. Memo to Public Safety Commission dated July 22.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA — BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor
'DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BOX 23660
OAKLAND, CA 94623 -0660
(510) 286 -4444
TDD (510) 286 -4454
September 27, 1994
Mr. Larry Perlin
Director of Public Works
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mr. Perlin:
The construction of the new Route 85 freeway in Santa Clara County between Route 101 and
Route 280 is nearing completion. As you may be aware, ramp metering, along with carpool lanes
on the freeway and many on- ramps, are included as part of this project. These two traffic
management features were decisive factors in obtaining environmental clearance to build Route 85
under the strict provisions of federal air quality regulations.
This is to inform you that Caltrans is planning to implement the new ramp meters on Route
85 when it is opened to the public on October 19, 1994. The attached diagram shows the locations
for the new Route 85 ramp meters. Please note that there are six ramp meters that are already in
operation on northbound Route 85 from the Route 101 interchange to the Blossom Hill Road
interchange.
According to year 2010 traffic projections prepared by the Santa Clara Traffic Authority's
consultant and our own traffic projections, Route 85 has been expected to be congested at some
point in the future. However, the traffic volumes at many of the ramps that have opened early are
currently already near the 2010 levels. In some cases, existing volumes are higher than the 2010
traffic projections. We believe this trend will continue when the remainder of Route 85 is opened.
It is for this reason that we believe it is essential to turn on the meters as soon as Route 85 is open.
In general, we expect to operate the northbound meters initially during the morning peak
period and the southbound meters during the afternoon peak period. However, since the entire
freeway is not open to traffic, the stable travel patterns upon which we normally would base
preliminary metering rates have not yet occurred. Therefore, we will take a slightly different
approach than usual for our preliminary metering strategy.
Initially, we plan to set the ramp meters to operate at the fastest metering rate of 900 vph.
Traffic data will be collected during the the first days of operation and as new travel patterns
develop, we will make adjustments as necessary.
In addition to the ramp meters along Route 85, the connector ramps from Route 85 to Route
17 will be metered. The meters on the connectors to northbound Route 17 will be activated as soon
as the connectors are opened to minimize the disruption to northbound Route 17, which currently
operates at capacity. The meters on the connectors to southbound Route 17 will be set on green
initially. We will monitor southbound Route 17 to determine if these meters are needed at this
time.
u
rn�
Mr. Perlin
Tuesday, September 27, 1994
Page 2
For the first several weeks of operation, tfaffic using Route 85 may experience delays. We
will be monitoring freeway and local street operation very closely during this period and will
adjust the metering rates to achieve the optimum operation on the freeway as well as the local
streets. We believe that after commuters become accustomed to the new meters and the meters are
adjusted, the ramp meters will have negligible impact on local street operations.
We will be contacting your staff to arrange a meeting to discuss these new ramp meter in
more detail. If you have any question or require any additional information, please feel free to call
Rod Oto of my staff at (510) 286 -4540 or Ron Kyutoku at (510) 286 -4527.
Sincerely yours,
JOE BROWNE
District Director
;rafffific
G �
S S. MICR NK, Chief
Systems ranch
attachments
cc: Erman Dorsey
STEVI
BLVD
Ramp?
Ramp
1
o�
n ®�c� 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ann Marie Burger
Paul E. Jacobs
Gillian Moran
July 22, 19 9 4 Karen Tucker
Donald L. Wolfe
To: Public Safety Commission
From: City Manager
Subject: Review of Traffic Safety Items Pending Opening of
Highway .85
------------------------------------------------------ - - - - --
On July 20th the City Council reviewed your recommendations
relating to the installation of a 3 -way stop sign at Aspesi
and Metler Court. After extensive discussion the Council
tabled this matter until November 2nd pending your Commission's
completion of review of other traffic control recommendations
you intend to consider relative to the opening of Highway 85.
The City Council has requested that your Commission not finalize
any other traffic control changes which are requested or recom-
mended based upon projected impacts of Highway 85 opening, nor
send them onto the City Council in the interim period. It is
the desire of the City Council to be able to consider all such
changes at one time. Hopefully your Commission will be able
to schedule its work so that all recommended changes can come
to the Council on November 2nd.
J000(
Harry R Peacock
jm
cc: City Council
Larry Perlin
Captain Wilson
Paula Reeve
r�
Printed on recycled paper.