Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-09-08 Heritage Preservation Commission Agenda PacketC�i11�'L�7�1� «�I r7l�I_1 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE - SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 . (408) 868 -1200 December 19, 2008 Mr. Paul Conrado 18820 Bella Vina Saratoga CA 95070 Dear Mr. Conrado: COUNCIL MEMBERS: (ill Hunter Kathleen King Susie Nagpai Howard Miller Chuck Page Congratulations on your nomination by the Historical Foundation to serve on the Heritage Preservation Commission. We would like to invite you for an interview with the City Council on Wednesday, January 7, 2009 in the Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. I will let you know later on as to the exact time you will be scheduled to interview with the Council, however, it will be in the evening — prior to the 7:00 p.m. Council meeting. Ili you require any additional information prior to the interview on January 7, 2009, please feel free to call me at (408) 868 -1269. Sincerely, Ann Sullivan, CNI.0 City Clerk cc: Cliris Riordan, Staff Liaison Christopher Riordan From: Kathleen [saratogakc @yahoo.com] ent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 9:03 AM to: Christopher Riordan; sbogosian @aol.com; Chuck Page; City Clerk; Jill Hunter; Aileen Kao; King, Kathleen; Ann Waltonsmith Cc: John Livingstone; Dave Anderson Subject: RE: City HISTORICAL COMMISSION: 3 items +Meeting time Change to 7pm; Anne, Please forward the rules for appointment of Historical Preservation Commission and meeting times for commissions: My understanding is that the Private Foundation "the Saratoga Historical Foundation (SHF) aka:(the Saratoga Historical Museum)" has the right to pick their own respresentative as a liaison with the city to be objective to decision process, then the SHF appointed rep needs to fill out a city commissioner form and briefly be interviewed by the city council as the other commissioners where interviewed for only 5 minutes each. What are the rules, for the SHF to submit a representative to HPC? Please let me know as soon as possible, because of the current appointments by the SHF President Chuck Schoppe, said'that he has already submitted two candidates, before a SHF Board review. This I believe is a new process of the SHF, has the SHF ever had more than one appointment submitted to the city council before, or is the SHF only to submit their rep. not vote for their liaison., if the council for one reason or another doesn't .cept, the SHF liaison, do they need go through another candidate voted on by the SHF BOARD. Also please tell me about the rules for PUBLIC access and commission meetings times, minutes of meeting, to reflect the adhoc and committees, with understandable public documents or videos. Kathleen - -- On Mon, 11/24/08, Ann Waltonsmith <awaltonsmith@saratoga.ca.us> wrote: From: Ann Waltonsmith <awaltonsmith @saratoga.ca.us> Subject: RE: City HISTORICAL COMMISSION: 3 items +Meeting time Change to 7pm; To: saratogakc @yahoo.com, "Christopher Riordan" <criordan@saratoga.ca.us >, sbogosian@aol.com, "Chuck Page" <cpage @saratoga.ca.us >, "City Clerk" <ctclerk @saratoga.ca.us >, "Jill Hunter" <jhunter @saratoga.ca.us >, "Aileen Kao" <akao @saratoga.ca.us >, "King, Kathleen" <kk2king @comcast.net> Cc: "John Livingstone" <johnl @saratoga.ca.us >, "Dave Anderson" <davea @saratoga.ca.us> Date: Monday, November 24, 2008, 9:38 PM Dear Kathleen Thank you for your interest in the Historical Commission We have passed the email on to the staff that work with the Commission. Ann Waltonsmith `nn Waltonsmith ,ayor, City of Saratoga From: Kathleen [mailto:saratogakc @yahoo.com] Sent: Sun 11/23/2008 4:38 PM To: Christopher Riordan; sbogosian @aol.com; ,ity Clerk; Jill Hunter; k jubject: City HISTORICAL COMMISSION: 3 items Chris, Three items: 1. City Council Meeting last Wednesday: aa; Ann Waltonsmith; Chuck Page; +Meeting time Change to 7pm; There was not a representative on the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) at the City Council meeting, regarding an HPC issue, of the Saratoga Heritage Orchard, please make a note of that in the next meeting minutes, again the responsibilities of the HPC were overlooked. You were not there, nor the commissioners to add to the meeting on agenda item 13, or give answers. 2. At the end of the City Council, They were talking about the Heritage Orchard oak tree. They said, that the HPC had to vote on the City council taking the Heritage Orchard one more time because the Orchard is a register landmark. Three residents of Saratoga went to the West Valley College Board meeting last Wednesday, we were promised that they would think of an alternative Oak tree, and not use the Heritage Oak Orchard Tree. Please discuss this with the President of West Valley College, PHILIP HARTLEY before the next HPC VOTE. As suggested by the City Council this tree is an Historical landmark, and truly is an asset protected under the historical registration of the Orchard, where the HPC needs to vote. I do want to suggest he vote of NO for the removal of the tree and for it's future. Saratoga residents are making note of the STOP organization's original intent of the Heritage Orchard. The STOP organization were the primary organizers of the orchard. 3. Meeting time changes for 2009: For the New Year, I would like the HPC commission to change their meeting time, and meet the general rule of all commissions, especially of the Saratoga Historical Preservation Commission which needs more residential support. This HPC commission should be meeting at 7pm. I don't buy the excuse below for NO CHANGE in MEETING TIMES, because of what the commission needs, all the other city commissions are meeting after 5pm. Public office workers can come -in -to -work at a later time, (that is part of their very expensive salary package) and spend time with their families in the mornings, which can be done on meeting days. (which, I think is already happening) Other reasons: THE CITY should focus on Public Access, and Public participation! I want the city to think of the residents that they are working for. How about the hardship for the public -the - Saratoga- residents that work in the Bay area, there are many more people in the community that could observe ALL the commission meetings of Saratoga. 4orking full time in the tech world, I would get out of work at 5pm and have to commute in full -on- traffic to be at the Saratoga commission meetings. It has been difficult to get any long -time Saratogans into the commissions, when there 0) have been openings for months. My estimate on how many people work that 9 to 5pm schedule is about 90% of the working public, have those hours The number one reason for residents not applying is many of the commissions lave bad hours. This has been the problem for over three years, trying to get other long -time Saratogans to join commissions in the political commission programs at SARATOGA, and I know some very good candidates that would be useful to maintaining the qualities of Saratoga. There have been no on -line video reports for several commissions, and no minutes. Most minutes of the meetings on most of all the commission, commitees and task force meetings have not been piublished in a timely manner, there especially seems not to be any timely published decisions before any historical houses have been demolished. LINGO USED: Also, I resent the lingo used on the television and in other meetings, though Jill Hunter has been a champion to curb acronyms in City council meetings. I do know they are used constantly in other meetings. The procedure is in typing meeting minutes is the job of the meetings secretary, is to type the full description for the abreviation, and then use the abbreviation, example such as: Saratoga Historical Foundation (SHF). There is a whole host of problems that I want changed soon, and I have been sitting back just been documenting them. I am ready to go to the State, and discuss this soon regarding Historical Preservation, they need to attent several classes before they are qualified to demolish any future homes over 50 years the ouse on St. Charles is a complete embrassassment to the HPC you are managing. 4. PUBLIC ACCESS has been a problem for over three years, and is the only answer to good government and solving public unrest. Any Saratoga resident can see the unrest in the City Council meetings in the last 5 years, and I see elder residents ashamed of the HPC. Please ask the City Council to change the meeting time of the HPC in their next meeting, to match all other commissions to a format after 5pm, 6pm, or 7pm preferred, with two hour - maxium meeting time length to be designated. Time to be equal to taking an evening college course schedule, this is do -able for the civic workers, and the public. Kathleen Casey 3 Christopher Riordan From: Kathleen [saratogakc @yahoo.com] snt: Sunday, November 23, 2008 4:38 PM o: Christopher Riordan; sbogosian @aol.com; aa; Ann Waltonsmith; Chuck Page; City Clerk; Jill Hunter; k Subject: City HISTORICAL COMMISSION: 3 items +Meeting time Change to 7pm; Chris, Three items: 1. City Council Meeting last Wednesday: There was not a representative on the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) at the City Council meeting, regarding an HPC issue, of the Saratoga Heritage Orchard, please make a note of that in the next meeting minutes, again the responsibilities of the HPC were overlooked. You were not there, nor the commissioners to add to the meeting on agenda item 13, or give answers. 2. At the end of the City Council, They were talking about the Heritage Orchard oak tree. They said, that the HPC had to vote on the City council taking the Heritage Orchard one more time because the Orchard is a register landmark. Three residents of Saratoga went to the West Valley College Board meeting last Wednesday, we were promised that they would think of an alternative Oak tree, and not use the Heritage Oak Orchard Tree. Please discuss this with the President of West Valley College, PHILIP HARTLEY before the next HPC VOTE. s suggested by the City Council this tree is an Historical landmark, and truly is an asset protected under the .iistorical registration of the Orchard, where the HPC needs to vote. I do want to suggest the vote of NO for the removal of the tree and for it's future. Saratoga residents are making note of the STOP organization's original intent of the Heritage Orchard. The STOP organization were the primary organizers of the orchard. 3. Meeting time changes for 2009: For the New Year, I would like the HPC commission to change their meeting time, and meet the general rule of all commissions, especially of the Saratoga Historical Preservation Commission which needs more residential support. This HPC commission should be meeting at 7pm. I don't buy the excuse below for NO CHANGE in MEETING TIMES, because of what the commission needs, all the other city commissions are meeting after 5pm. Public office workers can come -in -to -work at a later time, (that is part of their very expensive salary package) and spend time with their families in the mornings, which can be done on meeting days. (which, I think is already happening) Other reasons: THE CITY should focus on Public Access, and Public participation! I want the city to think of the residents that they are working for. How about the hardship for the public -the - Saratoga- residents that work in the Bay area, there are many more people in the community that could observe ALL the commission meetings of Saratoga. orking full time in the tech world, I would get out of work at 5pm and have to commute in full -on- traffic to be at the Saratoga commission meetings. It has been difficult to get any long -time Saratogans into the commissions, when there have been openings for months. My estimate on how many people work that 9 to 5pm schedule is about 90% of the working public, have those hours The number one reason for residents not applying is many of the commissions have bad hours. This has been the problem for over three years, trying to get other long -time Saratogans to join commissions in the Atical commission programs at SARATOGA, and I know some very good candidates that would be useful to maintaining ine qualities of Saratoga. There have been no on -line video reports for several commissions, and no minutes. Most minutes of the meetings on most of all the commission, commitees and task force meetings have not been piublished in a timely manner, there especially seems not to be any timely published decisions before any historical houses have been demolished. LINGO USED: Also, I resent the lingo used on the television and in other meetings, though Jill Hunter has been a champion to curb acronyms in City council meetings. I do know they are used constantly in other meetings. The procedure is in typing meeting minutes is the job of the meetings secretary, is to type the full description for the abreviation, and then use the abbreviation, example such as: Saratoga Historical Foundation (SHF). There is a whole host of problems that I want changed soon, and I have been sitting back just been documenting them. I am ready to go to the State, and discuss this soon regarding Historical Preservation, they need to attent several classes before they are qualified to demolish any future homes over 50 years the house on St. Charles is a complete embrassassment to the HPC you are managing. 4. PUBLIC ACCESS has been a problem for over three years, and is the only answer to good government and solving public unrest. Any Saratoga resident can see the unrest in the City Council meetings in the last 5 years, and I see elder residents ashamed of the HPC. °lease ask the City Council to change the meeting time of the HPC in their next meeting, to match all other commissions a format after 5pm, 6pm, or 7pm preferred, with two hour - maxium meeting time lengthto be designated. Time to be equal to taking an evening college course schedule, this is do -able for the civic workers, and the public. Kathleen Casey Christopher Riordan From: John Livingstone ant: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 9:32 AM o: Dave Anderson Cc: Christopher Riordan Subject: FW: Closure Saratoga Historical Post Office & County Library used as a YOUTH CENTER Attachments: Ann EshooSaratogaPOBOX.doc Hi Dave, FYI JL From: Kathleen [mailto:saratogakc @yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 11:06 PM To: anna.eshoo @mail.house.gov; patty.kim @mail.house.gov; sbogosian @aol.com; Chuck Page; City Clerk; Jill Hunter; Aileen Kao; Ann Waltonsmith Cc: John Livingstone; saratogakc @yahoo.com Subject: Closure Saratoga Historical Post Office & County Library used as a YOUTH CENTER Correction Patty Kim, is assistant to Anna Eshoo, fax number is they way they are accepting letters. (Anna Eshoo does not have an email address as above, but it shows that we want her to read this email). ipresentative Anna Eshoo, . S. Congress 698 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, California 94302 Tuesday, November 25, 2008 RE: Historical Saratoga Village Closure of U.S. Post Office and notification process of closing down; I feel this U. S. Post Office closure is completely dissatisfactory, on several levels. Please CLOSE the MAIN CIVIC SARATOGA POST OFFICE, DOWN SIZE it to be returned to the Saratoga Village Center, to revive business and Foot Traffic! As a 50+ year resident growing up in Saratoga, California, my thoughts about closing the Historical Village Post Office are outlined as best I can in such a short notice. Saratoga has always had a Post Office in the Village. I thought our city council should have mentioned the Village Post Office closure in their last Tuesday council meeting, with more regard for their residents in the Saratoga Village. The city council should have given the information to contact OUR CONGRESSWOMAN, Anna Eshoo, and spelled out your assistant's email address patty.kim(a)mail.house.gov in their council meeting. Today, you would have more letters to defend the Village Post Office, —id you would also know we DO NOT WANT A SUBSTATION, we want the MAIN VILLAGE Post Office back. The ,iratoga Village wants our Main Post Office back in the Village CENTER, now. If the City Council of Saratoga had mentioned to write our Congresswoman, there would be more letters written to you today. Just today, there was the first article in the Saratoga Newspaper, this was the first article written about the closure of the Village Post Office, so I do believe you will be receiving more letters from our residents in the next week.. )day, our Saratoga Village Historian, Willys I. Peck has faxed and emailed a written letter to you at age 85, to urge you "not to close the Post Office where his father and several other Saratoga Characters were U. S. Post Office Postmasters." As I was very concerned about last Monday's notification of a 1 day notice (one week ago) and the actual Post Office meeting (on Wednesday) of Village Post Office closure meeting with Ms. Garcia. I needed to call on her again, to receive clear directions on how to stop this situation. Since then, I have had a telephone conversation with the Saratoga and Oakland Post Office Administration, Ms. Garcia from Saratoga administration was in the very unfortunate, but understandable storm of this closure situation, and I would like to thank her for her time. She had told me the administration felt it necessary to give only "a two day notice" of the "closure meeting" on Wednesday, to announce the closure of the Village U.S. Postal office, to give Village residents more time to adjust. The meeting had only 30 Village residents attending, because of the way they were notified. People were upset, at the short notice, to change Christmas Cards, their stationery, and notification of their business partnerships and family. Then, the hammer dropped at this Wednesday meeting that this Village Post Office would be closing in a 2 month time frame. I say NOT unless you expect Anna Eshoo will do nothing, the Village wants Anna to close the Main Civic Post Office to save money, and Bring back the Main Post Office (in a Smaller Scale to save money) to the Village within two months. The idea of a co -oped or satellite Post Office is very UNSATISFACTORY to answer all our Village needs, (we already have a UPS Store in the Village, and it doesn't work for professional people). The Village needs an informed experienced Postal Office Staff for our professional offices, which a business person can have confidence in, walk into the Post Office and get the immediate answers to the U. S. Postal deadlines, and costs. Please put the Main Post Office back in the Village Center, where all Saratogans need to visit their Village, and meet each other residents for lunch and dinner, the businesses will come back. The MAIN Post Office needs to be BACK in our Village where the businesses are now vanishing, as quickly as our tourists. Having the Main U.S. Post Office in the Village brings residents into our Village, and also their out -of- town - guests, and the foot - traffic will proceed again to support business, and the Village plus the city council should support them! The past City Council Government and the U. S. Post Office Administrative staff did not realize how truly important our Historical Village Post Office is to our Small Historical Village. When the post office became larger in the Village, the U. S. Postal department put "the new office in a place that was not accessible" in the Village, it was across four lanes of traffic and set away from the Village Center. This.location was poorly designed, poor parking and was a drive -up -only location. Then when the P. O. Box administration felt it necessary to move the Main Saratoga Post Office to a place outside the village, next to the school yards; I thought this was not only poorly researched, the decision was very unfortunate for the Village as a Center. This was a MAJOR problem for the Village, because of the few hours given to the open hours of the Village Post Office. When the hours at the Village P. O. were minimal. The Village residents were forced to drive out of Village and why not do their business else where. The new hours were the biggest problem and the location out of the center of the Village is where the P.O. failed the community, both were NOT satisfactory and still there was accessibility was a problem, drive up only. In most important issues when mailing I went to Monte Sereno's Post Office instead of the Saratoga Main Post Office because they had the most experienced woman Post Master. The economic development of the Saratoga Village has been suffering ever since this move of the Main Post Office on Allendale and Fruitvale Avenue, the location near the school has presented many problems with school traffic and at the County Library. The current Main post office should down size and move to the Saratoga Village where there is a gas station for their US Postal trucks. 2. Which brings -up several years of traffic problems at the Redwood school, the Civic Center and Main Post Office. The Saratoga Union School district values where definitely misplaced, selling valuable school property to make additions to the school. The School district should be responsible for the Latch -key children and take over the programs at the Library, there should be a Youth Center, not a post office at the current Main Post Office location. This closure Post Office would occur because of the sale of the Village Post Office property for a church youth program in the Village, which is also completely unsatisfactory for the fear of what happen in the early 1970s in the Village, with youth staying all night at Blaney Plaza.. Youth will be hanging out in the Saratoga Village because there are so many Latch -Key Kids, with working ,rents. A YOUTH CENTER in the Saratoga Village is asking for trouble, (especially when the Village is as empty as it is) .e kids either choose to attend Youth Center and because they are not forced to attend the youth Center will choose to hang out from the Village location. Kids can also hang out at the Wildwood Park, and stay in Village undetected until the evening hours, where there are potential problems with undesirable adults. When their parents do come home, they are exhausted, and think they are at the YOUTH Center in the Village, but they are not, they are usually hanging out!. Some parents do not come home until 7pm or 8pm. (If you as a parent, think that your children are above this, think again. Youth Center's unless by a school are uncontrollable.) 3. In great amazement, I find that the current the SARATOGA/the County Library, "the NEW Saratoga LIBRARY" is being forced to run as a Baby sitting venue with kids running around between the hours of 2:30pm to 7pm. This is not the problem of the Library Administration but the Saratoga Union School District. 4. The Saratoga Union School district made the MISTAKE of selling school property at Redwood Middle /Junior High on a discount, to the Post Office Administration for an extravagant and excessive new MAIN Post Office. This Main Post Office location should have been reserved for a junior high school Youth Center with soccer fields, where the Saratoga Union High School has now PASSED THEIR RESPONSIBILITY about LATCH KEY children to the Saratoga Library to have after school programs. 5. Older- elders / Senior citizens are being booted out of the adult section of the Saratoga Library for latch key kids! Just yesterday, I was booted out of the NEW Library's study room where the Library staff was "being- used" as YOUTH COUNCELORS; and children were playing board games and cards, as if it was a daycare facility for the Youth of Redwoods Junior High School, Saint Andrews School and Sacred Heart School. 6. Instead of using the Public county Library system to watch LATCH KEY CHILDREN of Saratoga. What this City of Saratoga needs is an OUTDOOR activities center for their children, which should be WHERE the current Main Post Office building is NOW, next to the baseball field at Redwood Public school! Either that, or ... 7. Saratoga Parents should produce "paid nanny time for their children" not using City and County Library paid employees for latch -key babysitting. If parents are working and can not pickup their children at 2:30pm, they should hire babysitters, and if they are going to work until 7pm, they should never be leaving latch -key children in Saratoga's Library until closing time, (unless there is an emergency ?) Paid Library employees and volunteers have complained about the tax dollars spent on babysitting by the County government and Saratoga Library volunteers! Only one study hour, and outdoor activities are needed for Junior High Children, NOT INDOOR activities, children have computers at home, INDOOR activities only when it is raining. 8. CLOSE the MAIN SARATOGA POST OFFICE, and DOWN SIZE to the Village Center! The produce a NEW YOUTH CENTER at the now MAIN Post Office location to have activities there, and only use the Main Post Office location as an activity room to play board games, when it is raining, restrooms, and places to practice music and theater. Children are inside all day at school, this is why the outdoor school activity center is necessary at a new youth center. Saratoga City Council government took away the Civic Center Youth Center for a Senior Day care Center. The City of Saratoga has spent MILLIONS on new soccer fields, when school programs, volunteer parent programs should have worked on the Latch -Key problem. Many volunteers programs would have worked on Saratoga School District property. The City of Saratoga needs after school programs, to not pawn them off on the County Library Staff, if the School District had the use of the current Main Post Office building, and the function of main post office move back into the Village again, for the good of "the future businesses in our Village Center", the foot traffic that would return and pick -up immediately. A New Youth Center would be established for three local schools that are in the Saratoga civic area, Redwood Junior /Middle High School, Sacred Heart Private School and St. Andrews Private School would get the kids having fun after school within walking distance of the schools, and outside the County Library system. Many Private school students are waiting at the Library most of their day or all day, they should sign in and out for notification to the parents, they are staying at the library too long. —riends of Saratoga has a delightful spot for the New Main Post Office in the village and make a request to close ,e Civic MAIN Post Office and SAVE TAX PAYER MONEY; to enable and provide full service again, within the Saratoga Village. We would like to know the requirements needed for a (DOWN- Sized) Main Post Office in Saratoga Village, we know we can save money for the Postal Service. The current residents and businesses in the Village need a MAIN Post Office back in the Village forever, to bring back more business and foot traffic! The example of a European Village where residents get their business mail and their residential mail, and then sit down in the Village for coffee and reading over their mail or magazines, waiting for business people, and meeting friends in the village for lunch. This is what Saratoga Village was all about in the early 1960's , when the village was at the most successful time, and definitely the center of Saratogal. The Saratoga Village Post Office had an -trly business office directly in the middle of the Village, between two markets, we would like to return and revive ie Main Post Office in the middle of the Village Center (the Main Office can be downsized, and needs to be down sized) and put back to its proper HISTORICAL location, NOW! Trucks can be parked in the parking area behind the Firehouse in the evenings. Postal workers will find lunch again in the Village, and enjoy the experience. I feel this letter had to be rushed to your office assistant because of the Thanksgiving Holidays, again, another reason NOT to CLOSE the Village Post Office because many people are already away on holiday or will be leaving. The subject of the Saratoga Village post office should be put on a civic agenda in February 2009 by Representative of the U.S. Congress, and at a time when most citizens have settled down from the Holidays. Kathleen Casey Saratoga Village See attached RUSHED, letter regarding the Saratoga POST OFFICE that your assistant Patty Kim suggested that I send: see attached, she has my telephone number.. The Saratoga Historian, Willys Peck will also be sending you a letter after Ipm. Kathleen Casey ;presentative Anna Eshoo, Emerson Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94302 U.S. Congress, Washington, D.C. November 25, 2008 RE: The closing of Historic Saratoga Village's U.S. Post Office Thank you for your consideration in reading this letter regarding my disappointment and utter dismay at the closing of the Saratoga Village Post Office. Saratoga as a historic village, a state designation conferred in the year 1976, has always had a U.S. Post Office. can't say when the settlement that became Saratoga got its first Post Office, but it has had two postal names before Saratoga: McCarthysville and Bank Mills. Our present Saratoga Village is having enough problems without losing an institution that has always been a key element of civic identity. We are sending this email to your assistant, Patty Kim, to forward to you via email; a hard copy can be sent as a FAX if needed. /illys I. Peck 14275 Saratoga Peck Saratoga, California Cc: Mayor Ann Waltonsmith; Councilwoman Jill Hunter; Assistant to Anna Eshoo, Patty Kim Correction Patty Kim, is assistant to Anna Eshoo, fax number is they way they are accepting letters. Representative Anna Eshoo, U. S. Congress 698 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, California 94302 Tuesday, November 25, 2008 RE: Historical Saratoga Village Closure of U.S. Post Office and notification process of closing down; feel this U. S. Post Office closure is completely dissatisfactory, on several levels. Please CLOSE the MAIN CIVIC SARATOGA POST OFFICE, DOWN SIZE it to be returned to the Saratoga Village Center, to revive business and Foot Traffic! As a 50+ year resident growing up in Saratoga, California, my thoughts about closing the Historical Village Post Office are outlined as best I can in such a short notice. Saratoga has always had a Post Office in the Village. I thought our city council should have mentioned the Village Post Office closure in their last Tuesday council meeting, with more regard for their residents in the Saratoga Village. The city council should have given the information to contact OUR CONGRESSWOMAN, Anna Eshoo, and spelled out your assistant's email address patty. kim(a-)mail.house.gov in their council meeting. Today, you would have more letters to defend the Village Post Office, and you would also know we DO NOT WANT A SUBSTATION, we want the MAIN VILLAGE Post Office back. The Saratoga Village wants our Main Post Office back in the Village CENTER, now. If the City Council of Saratoga had mentioned to write our Congresswoman, there would be more letters written to you today. Just today, there was the first article in the Saratoga Newspaper, this was the first article written about the closure of the Village Post Office, so I do believe you will be receiving more letters from our residents in the next week.. Today, our Saratoga Village Historian, Willys I. Peck has faxed and emailed a written letter to you at age 85, to urge you "not to close the Post Office where his father and several other Saratoga Characters were U. S. Post Office Postmasters." As I was very concerned about last Monday's notification of a 1 day notice (one week ago) and the actual Post Office meeting (on Wednesday) of Village Post Office closure meeting with Ms. Garcia. I needed to call on her again, to receive clear directions on how to stop this situation. Since then, I have had a telephone conversation with the Saratoga and Oakland Post Office Administration, Ms. Garcia from Saratoga administration was in the very unfortunate, but understandable storm of this closure situation, and I would like to thank her for her time. She had told me the administration felt it necessary to give only "a two day notice" of the "closure meeting" on Wednesday, to announce the closure of the Village U.S. Postal office, to give Village residents more time to adjust. The meeting had only 30 Village residents attending, because of the way they were notified. People were upset, at the short notice, to change Christmas Cards, their stationery, and notification of their business partnerships and family. Then, the hammer dropped at this Wednesday meeting that this Village Post Office would be closing in a 2 month time frame. I say NOT unless you expect Anna Eshoo will do nothing, the Village wants Anna to close the Main Civic Post Office to save money, and Bring back the Main Post Office (in a Smaller Scale to save money) to the Village within two months. The idea of a co -oped or satellite Post Office is very UNSATISFACTORY to answer all our Village needs, (we already have a UPS Store in the Village, and it doesn't work for professional people). The Village needs an informed experienced Postal Office Staff for our professional offices, which a business person can have confidence in, walk into the Post Office and get the immediate answers to the U. S. Postal deadlines, and costs. Please put the Main Post Office back in the Village Center, where all Saratogans need to visit their Village, and meet each other residents for lunch and dinner, the businesses will come back. The MAIN Post Office needs to be BACK in our Village where the businesses are now vanishing, as quickly as our tourists. Having the Main U.S. Post Office in the Village brings residents into our Village, and also their out -of- town - guests, and the foot - traffic will proceed again to support business, and the Village plus the city council should support them! The past City Council Government and the U. S. Post Office Administrative staff did not realize how truly important our Historical Village Post Office is to our Small Historical Village. When the post office became larger in the Village, the U. S. Postal department put "the new office in a place that was not accessible" in the Village, it was across four lanes of traffic and set away from the Village Center. This location was poorly designed, poor parking and was a drive -up -only location. Then when the P. O. Box administration felt it necessary to move the Main Saratoga Post Office to a place outside the village, next to the school yards; I thought this was not only poorly researched, the decision was very unfortunate for the Village as a Center. This was a MAJOR problem for the Village, because of the few hours given to the open hours of the Village Post Office. When the hours at the Village P. O. were minimal. The Village residents were forced to drive out of Village and why not do their business else where. The new hours were the biggest problem and the location out of the center of the Village is where the P.O. failed the community, both were NOT satisfactory and still there was accessibility was a problem, drive up only. In most important issues when mailing I went to Monte Sereno's Post Office instead of the Saratoga Main Post Office because they had the most experienced woman Post Master. The economic development of the Saratoga Village has been suffering ever since this move of the Main Post Office on Allendale and Fruitvale Avenue, the location near the school has presented many problems with school traffic and at the County Library. The current Main post office should down size and move to the Saratoga Village where there is a gas station for their US Postal trucks. 2. Which brings -up several years of traffic problems at the Redwood school, the Civic Center and Main Post Office. The Saratoga Union School district values where definitely misplaced, selling valuable school property to make additions to the school. The School district should be responsible for the Latch -key children and take over the programs at the Library, there should be a Youth Center, not a post office at the current Main Post Office location. This closure Post Office would occur because of the sale of the Village Post Office property for a church youth program in the Village, which is also completely unsatisfactory for the fear of what happen in the early 1970s in the Village, with youth staying all night at Blaney Plaza.. Youth will be hanging out in the Saratoga Village because there are so many Latch -Key Kids, with working parents. A YOUTH CENTER in the Saratoga Village is asking for trouble, (especially when the Village is as empty as it is) the kids either choose to attend Youth Center and because they are not forced to attend the youth Center will choose to hang out from the Village location. Kids can also hang out at the Wildwood Park, and stay in Village undetected until the evening hours, where there are potential problems with undesirable adults. When their parents do come home, they are exhausted, and think they are at the YOUTH Center in the Village, but they are not, they are usually hanging outl. Some parents do not come home until 7pm or 8pm. (If you as a parent, think that your children are above this, think again. Youth Center's unless by a school are uncontrollable.) 3. In great amazement, I find that the current the SARATOGA/the County Library, "the NEW Saratoga LIBRARY" is being forced to run as a Baby sitting venue with kids running around between the hours of 2:30pm to 7pm. This is not the problem of the Library Administration but the Saratoga Union School District. 4. The Saratoga Union School district made the MISTAKE of selling school property at Redwood Middle /Junior High on a discount, to the Post Office Administration for an extravagant and excessive new MAIN Post Office. This Main Post Office location should have been reserved for a junior high school Youth Center with soccer fields, where the Saratoga Union High School has now PASSED THEIR RESPONSIBILITY about LATCH KEY children to the Saratoga Library to have after school programs. 5. Older- elders / Senior citizens are being booted out of the adult section of the Saratoga Library for latch key kids! Just yesterday, I was booted out of the NEW Library's study room where the Library staff was "being- used" as YOUTH COUNCELORS; and children were playing board games and cards, as if it was a daycare facility for the Youth of Redwoods Junior High School, Saint Andrews School and Sacred Heart School. 6. Instead of using the Public county Library system to watch LATCH KEY CHILDREN of Saratoga. What this City of Saratoga needs is an OUTDOOR activities center for their children, which should be WHERE the current Main Post Office building is NOW, next to the baseball field at Redwood Public school! Either that, or ... 7. Saratoga Parents should produce "paid nanny time for their children" not using City and County Library paid employees for latch -key babysitting. If parents are working and can not pickup their children at 2:30pm, they should hire babysitters, and if they are going to work until 7pm, they should never be leaving latch -key children in Saratoga's Library until closing time, (unless there is an emergency ?) Paid Library employees and volunteers have complained about the tax dollars spent on babysitting by the County government and Saratoga Library volunteers! Only one study hour, and outdoor activities are needed for Junior High Children, NOT INDOOR activities, children have computers at home, INDOOR activities only when it is raining. 8. CLOSE the MAIN SARATOGA POST OFFICE, and DOWN SIZE to the Village Center! The produce a NEW YOUTH CENTER at the now MAIN Post Office location to have activities there, and only use the Main Post Office location as an activity room to play board games, when it is raining, restrooms, and places to practice music and theater. Children are inside all day at school, this is why the outdoor school activity center is necessary at a new youth center. Saratoga City Council government took away the Civic Center Youth Center for a Senior Day care Center. The City of Saratoga has spent MILLIONS on new soccer fields, when school programs, volunteer parent programs should have worked on the Latch -Key problem. Many volunteers programs would have worked on Saratoga School District property. The City of Saratoga needs after school programs, to not pawn them off on the County Library Staff, if the School District had the use of the current Main Post Office building, and the function of main post office move back into the Village again, for the good of "the future businesses in our Village Center', the foot traffic that would return and pick -up immediately. A New Youth Center would be established for three local schools that are in the Saratoga civic area, Redwood Junior /Middle High School, Sacred Heart Private School and St. Andrews Private School would get the kids having fun after school within walking distance of the schools, and outside the County Library system. Many Private school students are waiting at the Library most of their day or all day, they should sign in and out for notification to the parents, they are staying at the library too long. Friends of Saratoga has a delightful spot for the New Main Post Office in the village and make a request to close the Civic MAIN Post Office and SAVE TAX PAYER MONEY; to enable and provide full service again, within the Saratoga Village. We would like to know the requirements needed for a (DOWN- Sized) Main Post Office in Saratoga Village, we know we can save money for the Postal Service. The current residents and businesses in the Village need a MAIN Post Office back in the Village forever, to bring back more business and foot traffic! The example of a European Village where residents get their business mail and their residential mail, and then sit down in the Village for coffee and reading over their mail or magazines, waiting for business people, and meeting friends in the village for lunch. This is what Saratoga Village was all about in the early 1960's , when the village was at the most successful time, and definitely the center of Saratogal. The Saratoga Village Post Office had an early business office directly in the middle of the Village, between two markets, we would like to return and revive the Main Post Office in the middle of the Village Center (the Main Office can be downsized, and needs to be down sized) and put back to its proper HISTORICAL location, NOW! Trucks can be parked in the parking area behind the Firehouse in the evenings. Postal workers will find lunch again in the Village, and enjoy the experience. I feel this letter had to be rushed to your office assistant because of the Thanksgiving Holidays, again, another reason NOT to CLOSE the Village Post Office because many people are already away on holiday or will be leaving. The subject of the Saratoga Village post office should be put on a civic agenda in February 2009 by Representative of the U.S. Congress, and at a time when most citizens have settled down from the Holidays. Kathleen Casey Saratoga Village See attached RUSHED, letter regarding the Saratoga POST OFFICE that your assistant Patty Kim suggested that I send: see attached, she has my telephone number.. The Saratoga Historian, Willys Peck will also be sending you a letter after 1pm. Kathleen Casey City of Saratoga HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA Date: Tuesday, December 9, 2008 - 8:30 a.m. Place: Regular Meeting — Please meet in the parking lot in front of the Warner Hutton House at 8:30 a.m. and Staff will provide transportation to the site visit under New Business and return to Warner Hutton House by 9:15 a.m. 1. Routine Organization A. Roll Call B. Approval of minutes from November 12, 2008 meeting C. Posting of Agenda — Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda was posted on December 5, 2008. D. Oral & Written Communication - Any member of the public may address the Commission about any matter not on the agenda for this meeting for up to three minutes. Commissioners may not comment on the matter but may choose to place the topic on a future agenda. E. Oral Communications — Instruction to staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. 2. Old Business A. Discuss National Registry & Saratoga Landmark Plaques. B. Staff Discussion of HPC's November 12, 2008 review of the project at 20365 Williams Avenue. 3. New Business A. 8:30 a.m. Site Visit — 14890 Montalvo Road — Determination of whether the existing one story structure is historically significant and review plans for a proposed addition. B. 8:50 a.m. Site Visit — 14660 Quito Road — Determination of whether the one story existing structure is historically significant and review plans for a proposed addition. 4. Pending Items A. Update the Heritage Resources Inventory List B. National Register Applications 5. Adjournment Adjourn to 8:30 a.m. Tuesday, January 13, 2009, Warner Hutton House, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. Please advise the Chair if you will be absent from the next scheduled meeting In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you are a disabled person and you need a disability - related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Office at (408) 868 — 1269 or ctclerk @saratoga.ca.us. Requests must be made as early as possible and at least one full business day before the start of the meeting. Any recommendation made by the Heritage Preservation Commission may be appealed to the Planning Commission within ten (10) days of the date of the decision. The appeal shall be taken by filing with the Secretary of the Planning Commission a written notice and filing fee within ten (10) days of the date of the decision. In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff reports and other materials provided to the Historical Preservation Commission by City staff in connection with this agenda are available at the office of the Community Development Department Director at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070. Any materials distributed by staff after the posting of the agenda are made available for public review at the office of the Director at the time they are distributed to the Planning Commission. Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Heritage Preservation Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted at the office of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Signed this 4th day of December 2008, at Saratoga, California Christopher Riordan Senior Planner City of Saratoga (408) 868 —1235 HPC 12 -6 -08 I am here to talk about the Oak Tree that was to be moved from the Historical Orchard to WC and to let you know of my change of attitude and actions. As I understand it, some HPC members and some other HPC supporters were working behind the scenes, going to the WVC Board Meeting and insisting that they refuse the City's gift of the tree. I am shocked that some of you would support an effort to put the City Council and the WVC back on a collision course again after we worked so hard to build a good relationship out of the ashes of the stadium issue. As you may know, I was one of the Council negotiators that ended the long standing stadium issue and ushered in the era of cooperation. I am disappointed in your actions and plan not to do anything further on the project. I truly believe that leaving so many oak trees in the orchard will ultimately kill the orchard. It really hurts my soul to be around the orchard and watch it die. I fear that your actions leave the orchard vulnerable in many ways. You have chosen oaks over orchard trees. They do not coexist together. Oaks kill off Orchard trees. In addition, I seem to be arguing with the HPC on many other issues too. 1. The HPC fought putting in trails that people and groups would use and enjoy and also learn to love the orchard. The HPC does not seem to be interested in leading the effort on education. 2. The HPC has not lead the effort to get Matt Novakovitch to take care of the orchard like he takes care of his own. Ours is very shabby. He makes a lot of money on the job but short changes it. The HPC seems to want to defend him versus deal with the reality of the situation. Either he should do the job right or the City should get another vendor. 3. There seems to be a "dog in the manger" quality to the HPC defense of the orchard rather than throw it open to use by the citizens who own it. That is the only way, in my mind, that the future generations will want to defend it. My request to have the PRC included in the management of the orchard was stonewalled. The PRC is interested in educational activities and increasing use of parks and specialty parks like the orchard. The HPC says it is but does not focus on it. 4. The large orchard sign that HPC designed was another problem. I was shocked that it is to be built out of fake rocks versus using the rocks that come out of the orchard and are piled in the back of the orchard. Where is the "historic in fake rocks? So rather than argue with the HPC about saving the orchard and because of the latest attempt to get WVC and the City sideways with one another again, I plan to not be involved in saving the orchard anymore. It makes me sad but I do not want to continue to argue with a Commission that I do care about nor do I want to watch as the orchard goes down hill and becomes vulnerable to dissolution. Good luck and for the sake of the Orchard I hope you are correct in your judgements. Sincerely, Ann Waltonsmith November 28, 2008 KATHRYN MATHEWSON ASSOCIATES ECOLOGICAL DESIGN, PLANNING AND CONSULTING 1698 HANCHETT AVE - SAN JOSE - CA 95128 408 - 292 • 9595 Fax: 408 • 292 - 9166 kmathewson@secretgardens.com www. s ec retg a rd e n s. com RE: Problems with using the Saratoga Apricot Heritage Orchard Oak Tree for the West Valley College entrance To West Valley/N ission College Trustees: Following are some of the reasons why you should reconsider accepting the transplanting of the native Evergreen Oak (Quercus agrifolia) from the Saratoga Apricot Heritage Orchard for the new West Valley College entrance: 1. In transplanting the Evergreen Oak you will not get a guarantee that it will live. If it dies, as did the nearby one at the entrance has done, you will be wasting $30,000 of tax payers money. Such waste of money will not help create good will with the community thus creating problems of future passing of school bond money for you. 2. There are other large Evergreen Oak trees that can be planted which will give you a year warrantee. If you must plant an Evergreen Oak it should have at least a year guarantee. Friends of Saratoga have found several Evergreen Oaks which will have a year guarantee with them. They are currently collecting donations so the college will not need to pay anything. Two pictures of these oaks are attached. 3. It is also important to keep the few native oaks that remain in the heritage apricot orchard because they attract beneficial insects which contribute to the health of the orchard and provide shade for the workers and educational programs which take place in the orchard. How can this be a heritage orchard if 150 year old heritage trees are removed from it? It is questionable if the Evergreen Oak is the best tree to plant at West Valley College's entrance location for the following reasons: 1. The Evergreen Oak is one of the two native oaks that are susceptible to Sudden Oak Death Syndrome. Planting a tree that is susceptible to a disease in such an important place is not a good example of sustainable practices which you should be passing on to your students. 2. There are too many Evergreen Oaks planted by both man and squirrels on the West Valley campus. Planting with biodiversity is a better way to think about plant species. Remember the story about the New England Elm trees which all died because of a disease leaving all New England towns barren? We do not want to repeat this problem by dominating the campus with the same tree species. M 1 i 3. ' This entrance location requires a grand tree and the Evergreen Oak is not as grand a shape as the native Valley Oak (Quercus lobata) or the native Sycamore (Platanus californicus). Both of these trees are deciduous and lose their leaves in the fall. Without winter leaves there be warmth and light at the entrance during dark cold winter days. 4. The Evergreen Oak is an evergreen tree. Therefore, it creates deep shade in the winter and drops its leaves year- round. Therefore, it creates regular messiness requiring more year -round clean -up maintenance than do the deciduous trees. 5. West Valley College's logo is the Valley Oak leaf. The Valley Oak grows on the campus natively and in the parking lots and is truly the college's grand tree. If an oak must be planted at the entrance, than why not plant the tree that represents the college's image /logo? This important entrance location should have a grand tree like the Valley Oak or multi - trunked Sycamore. 6. The selected entrance tree location is the lowest point in the entire area. Because native oaks do not like or need water for their root systems, the entrance location is not a good location for an oak tree to flourish. If you insist on planting an oak tree in this location than there should be much engineering and construction work to get the underground water away from this location. Do you really want to spend this kind of money when you could be planting a native Sycamore which likes water? The Sycamore could be a multi - trunked tree and its form could be like a sculpture for this important entrance. Planting the right tree in the right place is sustainable thinking. This is the kind of thinking that should be imparted to West Valley College students and future generations. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Kathryn Mathewson Owner, Kathryn Mathewson Associations and Secret Gardens r City of Saratoga HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION Draft Minutes Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 - 8:30 a.m. Place: Warner Hutton House, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Type: Regular Meeting 1. Routine Organization A. Roll Call PRESENT — Commissioners Gomersall, Koepernik, McCarty, Tai, and Chair Kellond ABSENT— Vice Chair Marra STAFF — Senior Planner Christopher Riordan GUESTS — Susan Kim, Samuel Kim, Cindy Brozicevic, Kyung Shin, Hayoung Lee, Celine Chen, Matthew Chen, and David Perng B. Approval of minutes from November 12, 2008 meeting — Approved with no modifications. C. Posting of Agenda — Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda was posted on November 5, 2008 — Staff announced this item. D. Oral & Written Communication - Any member of the public may address the Commission about any matter not on the agenda for this meeting for up to three minutes. Commissioners may not comment on the matter but may choose to place the topic on a future agenda. - None E. Oral Communications — Historic Preservation Commission direction to Staff — Instruction to staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. — Commissioner Koepernik asked Senior Planner Christopher Riordan about the status of the wood on the barn to be demolished located at 13686 Quito Road since Hakone Gardens would be interested in the wood. Senior Planner Christopher Riordan replied that he has spoken to a representative of the developer and that the developer had promised to contact Planning Department staff prior to demolition of the barn so that plans could be made to salvage the wood. 2. Old Business A. Discuss National Registry & Saratoga Landmark Plaques — Item Discussed. Chair Kellond directed Senior Planner Christopher Riordan to bring the list of the Landmark Plaques to the December HPC meeting. B. Discuss Heritage Orchard Signage and November 5, 2008 City Council Meeting when the Council reviewed final plans for design of the sign — Item Discussed. Chair Kellond said that the City Council has approved the design for the Orchard Sign and that it had been approved but there were no allocated funds in the CIP budget to construct it. v 3. New Business A. 8:30 a.m. Site Visit — 14370 Elva Avenue — Determination of whether the existing structure is historically significant and review plans for a proposed residential addition — Site visit completed. Item discussed. Mr. Kim said that the house has been a rental. Commissioner Gomersall said that the owner should proceed in fixing their home to meet their needs. Commissioner McCarty inquired if the property owner would need a building permit for the work and Senior Planner Christopher Riordan replied that a building permit would be required. Chair Kellond said that ' based on this morning's site visit it was his opinion that the house had no historic value and Commissioner McCarty agreed. Chair Kellond stated that the HPC should let the project move forward and Commissioner Koepernik agreed. Motion by Commissioner Koepernik and seconded by Commissioner Gomersall that the house at 14370 Elva Avenue has no significant historical significance and the applicant should be allowed to move forward to the next step in the process. Carried on a 5 -0 vote. B. 8:50 a.m. Site Visit — 20365 Williams Avenue — Determination of whether the existing structure is historically significant and review plans for a proposed residential addition — Site visit completed. Item discussed. Chair Kellond asked Architect David Perng if he would like to describe the project. Mr. Perng said that he did not have much to add that was not discussed in the staff report and shown on the plans, the project was basically new windows and a small addition to the rear of the house. Chair Kellond asked if there were any more questions from the applicant and as there were none he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Koepernik stated that the project was historically significant, the house is of a farmhouse style and it is likely that the rocks used on the building exterior probably came from a local creek, and that findings for criteria C, D,& E could be made. Commissioner Gomersall replied that she agreed with Commissioner Koepernik. Chair Kellond said that the proposed addition would be consistent with the existing architectural style, the addition would be an improvement, he agreed with the comments made by Commissioner Koepernik„ the existing windows are one of the most important features of the home and that he was unclear on the number of windows proposed for replacement. Mrs. Chen said there is a significant cost to add wood windows and that she would be keeping the existing wood trim around the windows and may consider wood windows at a later time but now would like to keep the costs of the project down. Chair Kellond said that if the budget was a concern than maybe the applicant should consider replacing the windows at a later time and that the existing wood windows on the house are a good feature, the applicant should focus on the addition at this time and install the new wood windows as a separate project phase. Mr. Chen replied that he would like to install new double pane windows as the noise from nearby Saratoga High School was loud. Mrs. Chen added that the existing windows have thin glass and that they were not energy efficient. Commissioner Koepernik said that he did not agree that the primary reason to remove old windows is their lack of energy efficiency. Chair Kellond said that there is a need to make findings since there is historical integrity to the house. Commissioner Koepernik said that he could make a motion. Motion by Commissioner Koepernik and seconded by Commissioner McCarty that the house at 20365 Williams Avenue should be added to the City's Historic Resources Inventory since the house has historic significance to the City of Saratoga and that he could make findings #'s C, D, & E, the new addition matches the style of the house and should be approved, new and replacement windows should be made of wood with a window style that matches the rest of the house, the existing aluminum windows are to be replaced with wood windows to match, new siding is to match the existing house. Commissioner Gomersall stated what she thought was unique to the home was the existing basement stairs and that since they were so unique and were a good example of how stairs were done in the past that this fact should be stated in the minutes for this meeting. Commissioner McCarty said that she was not against vinyl windows and could understand the need to have double pane windows as the home was so close to the High School. Architect David Perng said that the vinyl windows would keep the same style and that they would have internal grids. Commissioner Tai said that the goal of the Commission was to maintain the integrity of the home. Commissioner Koepernik suggested that the owner could pursue a Mills Act designation for the property which would have the effect of saving the property owner money. Mrs. Chen said that they plan to own the home for the next 20 -30 years and want to keep the outside look but that they really want vinyl windows. Mr. Chen said that being on the list would limit future buyers and the resale value of the home and was concerned that being on the list could stop a future demolition of the home. Chair Kellond said that under the Secretary of Interior Standards future additions to the home would not be limited and that there is much flexibility for additions. Carried on a 4 -1 vote. C. 13514 Hammons Avenue — Review proposed new stucco exterior wall covering and replacement windows for an existing adobe brick home. Item discussed. Ms. Brozicevic stated that 44 percent of the house was constructed of adobe and the house has been added to over the course of time and that this project offered the opportunity to unify the design, the house would have a Santa Barbara styled exterior, the house would be covered with stucco, and that the "proud" adobe bricks would be visible through the stucco, the stucco would be affixed to the adobe with an adhesive, the stucco would be painted, the same finish applied to the interior of the house, the stucco would cover the existing wood header. Ms. Brozicevic showed the Commission pictures of adobe homes covered in stucco to illustrate how this was common for adobe homes. Ms. Brozicevic said that the project would keep as many existing exterior openings as possible and that new wood windows would be installed throughout the home, the brick used in the rear is inconsistent and stuccoing the bricks will bring uniformity to the structure. Chair Kellond said that he was concerned about the plaster adhesion method and possible moisture buildup behind the bricks. Ms. Brozicevic said that she had spoken to Mike at Greystone Plaster and that he said nails would likely pull out of the bricks and that glue was preferred. Chair asked if they were proposing to stucco over the wood header and Ms. Brozicevic responded yes. Commissioner McCarty said that she would like to see the wood header to stay the way it is and Ms. Brozicevic said that it was more historically consistent to cover the header. Chair Kellond v said that it was his understanding that all windows would be made of wood but questioned the material of the exterior trim and the color of the windows. Ms. Brozicevic said that the window color will be "sage green" and that the eves and trim would be "brown" with "grey" and the stucco would be "off white" Chair Kellond said that he first wanted to discuss the issue of the homes historical significance. Ms. Brozicevic showed the Commission pictures of the adobe home that had been located near the subject house and that this adobe house had been demolished without HPC review. Chair Kellond said that he could not make assumptions based on photographs and that any opinion would be tough to make since they did not see it so it is hard to evaluate. Commissioner Koepernik said that it was unfortunate that this mistake had occurred. Motion by Commissioner Tai and seconded by Commissioner Gomersall that the home should be placed on the Historic List since Criteria "C" could be made. Carried on a 5 -0 vote. Chair Kellond said that they should not discuss the issue of the stucco and that the last time the HPC met on this issue there was agreement that the covering the adobe bricks with stucco would be inconsistent with its style, remodeling work had been done to the house and this was at least an attempt to remedy previous mistakes and to give the home a comprehensive design, the house has both aluminum and wood windows, the adobe has historic value, the stucco will unify the project, would encourage the applicant to not do the two over two window design and to look at a variety of different configurations, would like to see wood header remain, can stucco over the header but this should be reinterpreted. Commissioner Koepernik said that it was an adobe structure that was built with this particular style in mind and new additions should be different, there are technical concerns of the adhesiveness of stucco over existing adobe brick in that the glue will not stick to the adobe but instead will stick to the paint that has been applied to the adobe bricks and that the glue will not hold so that you would be trading one problem for another and the adhesiveness of the glue is a concern, any cracks in the adobe will cause water to get behind it, there is a concern that cutting through the adobe for the windows will damage the adobe an cause new problems, the contractor must have a passion for this kind of work so that a good job is done, there are many problems that can arise from covering the existing adobe and 1 do not want to change the style. Ms. Brozicevic said that there are many adobe brick homes that are covered in stucco so there should not be a problem and the 50 year old threshold for historic structures is confusing. Chair Kellond said that he too was concerned about the stucco but liked the fact that the applicant was appreciating the adobe by wanting to expose some of the bricks. Commissioner Koepernik said that he hear what Chair Kellond is saying but respectfully disagrees with him. Commissioner Tai stated that she would like for the home to maintain its original adobe appearance since covering the home with plaster would changes its character, items of inconsistency should be fixed but does not know specifically how to do it and that it should be a personal choice to smooth the adobe bricks on the interior with plaster. Commissioner Gomersall asked if it was possible for a compromise where the applicant could stucco over the bricks with the bricks still visible. Commissioner Koepernik said that there were not enough bricks sticking out and to do so would end up looking as it was not intentional and a mistake. Commissioner Gomersall said that it was the job of the HPC to preserve structures. Chair Kellond said that it was important to remember the meaning of preservation, a structure must be placed into context and does agree that windows are being reinterpreted and that the applicant was not proposing something inconsistent with the style of the home and would like to see the wood header remain. Commissioner Koepernik stated that he was concerned that the project would run into construction problems. Chair Kellond said that the project must be put into context of time, the house was built in 1950 and has gone through at least one remodel and questioned what the HPC was trying to do. Ms. Brozicevic said that most every adobe building has had it surface coated and that the adobe bricks are behind these walls and did not know why this building was being held to a higher standard and that smooth stucco would allow the buildings history to show through. Motion by Chair Kellond and seconded by Commissioner Tai to approve the project with the following, that the applicant would reconsider coating the headers with plaster and try to keep them as they currently are, reconsider the design proportions of the windows to be not two by two, the stucco will be applied with undulations as proposed so that imperfections in the wall will show through, the applicant it to come back to the HPC during the stucco application process so that the HPC can observe the method of application. Carried on a 3 -2 vote. D. Sam Cloud Barn — Discuss building rededication and HPC Proclamation for the building. Item discussed. Chair Kellond said that the owners of the Sam Cloud Barn were going to receive an award on January 9, 2009 for the Green Building of the Year for adaptive reuse and would like for the HPC to be involved in rededicating the building and have the HPC partner so to create an even bigger and better event and that he has to prepare a letter to the mayor for the proclamation. Commissioner Koepernik said that he like the idea for a true joint event. 4. Pending Items A. Update the Heritage Resources Inventory List B. National Register Applications 5. Adjournment Adjourn to 8:30 a.m. Tuesday, December 9, 2008, Warner Hutton Hosue, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: December 9, 2008 TO: Heritage Preservation Commission FROM: Cynthia McCormick, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: Determination of whether or not the existing home is historically significant. Property Location: 14890 Montalvo Road, Saratoga, California Property APN: 517 -20 -027 Project Applicants: David Kerley & Kirsten Jensen Property Owners: David Kerley & Kirsten Jensen Project Summary The applicant would like to build a 2nd story addition to an existing single -story single - family. residence. The existing home is made of brick and wood siding with double hun� windows and wood shutters. The project will add 220 square feet to the ground level and a 2n story addition of 1,060 square feet. The ground level will be primarily brick on the front fagade with a mix of brick and wood siding elsewhere. The 2nd story fagade will be primarily horizontal wood siding. Prior to construction, the staff and the applicant request a determination from the Historical Preservation Commission (HPC) on the historical significance of the existing residence. The determination to allow the addition would be based on the recommendation from the HPC. Historic Evaluation The property is not currently listed on the City's Historic Resources Inventory. Staff has determined that the home could be classified as being most indicative of the Minimal Traditional architectural style. Homes of this style were typically small one -story with features including low pitched roof with at least one front facing gable, minimized eaves, and brick fagade. The applicant has indicated that the home is approximately 53 years old. Decision by HPC The applicant is requesting a determination of the HPC regarding the historical significance of the structure. The following are options available to the Commission in reviewing this proposal: Determine that the structure is not historically significant: If the Commission determines that the structure is not historically significant, the property would not be listed on the Historic Resources Inventory. Proposed and /or future alterations would not be subject to HPC review. HPC December 9, 2008 Meeting Project Address: 14890 Motalvo Road Project Applicant: David Kerley & Kirsten Jensen 2. Determine that the property /structure is historically significant and direct staff to place the structure on the historical list: If the Commission determines that the property /structure is historically significant: ' At least one (1) of the seven (7) criteria listed in the City code must be selected to reflect the reasons why the structure is significant. ■ The HPC would need to determine that the proposed project either meets or does not meet the Secretary of Interior Standards (Standards) for historic properties. Suggestions to ensure compliance with the Standards may be provided. ■ Staff would place the property on the Historic Resources Inventory and proposed future alterations to the structures would require HPC review and would be required to meet Standards for historic properties. The seven Criteria are as follows (City Code §13- 15.010): (a) It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering or architectural history of the City, the County, the State or the nation; or (b) It is identified with persons or events significant in local, county, state or national history; or. (c) It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials; or (d) It is representative of the notable design or craft of a builder, designer, or architect; or (e) It embodies or contributes to unique physical characteristics representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood or district within the City; or (f) It represents a significant concentration or continuity of site, buildings, structures or objects, unified by past events or aesthetically by plan or physical or natural development; or (g) It embodies or contributes to a unique natural setting or environment constituting a distinct area or district within the City having special character or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value. Attachments (1) Copy of Preliminary Title Report (2) Photographs of Existing Home (to be submitted at meeting) (3) Letter from Owner (4) Proposed Plans Memorandum to the Saratoga Historic Preservation Commission Page 2 OCHICAGO TITLE COMPANY PRELIMINARY REPORT in response to the application for a policy of title insurance referenced herein, Chicago Title Company hereby reports that it is prepared to issue, or cause to be issued, as of the date hereof, a policy or policies of title insurance' describing the land and the estate or interest therein hereinafter set forth, insuring against loss which may be sustained by reason of any defect, lien or encumbrance not shown or referred to as an exception herein or not excluded from coverage pursuant to the printed Schedules, Conditions and Stipulations or Conditions of said policy forms. The printed Exceptions and Exclusions from the coverage and Limitations on Covered Risks of said policy or policies are set forth in Attachment One. The policy to be issued may contain an arbitration clause. When the Amount of Insurance is less than that set forth in the arbitration clause, all arbitrable matters shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. Limitations on Covered Risks applicable to the CL TA and AL TA Homeowner's Policies of Title Insurance which establish a Deductible Amount and a Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability for certain coverages are also set forth in Attachment One. Copies of the policy forms should be read. They are a vailable from the office which issued this report. This report (and any supplements or amendments hereto) is issued solely for the purpose of facilitating the issuance of a policy of title insurance and no liability is assumed hereby. If it is desired that liability be assumed prior to the issuance of a policy of title insurance, a Binder or Commitment should be requested. The policy(s) of title insurance to be issued hereunder will be policy(s) of Chicago Title Insurance Company, a Nebraska corporation. Please read the exceptions shown or referred to herein and the exceptions and exclusions set forth in Attachment One of this report carefully, The exceptions and exclusions are meant to provide you with notice of matters which are not covered under the terms of the title insurance policy and should be carefully considered, It is important to note that this preliminary report is not a written representation as to the condition of title and may not list all liens, defects and encumbrances affecting title to the land, Countersigned Chicago Title Company BYE Presiden, . ATTEST Secretary CLTA Preliminary Report Form -Modified (11/17/06) Visit Us on our lWebsite: www ctic, com Chicago Title Company ISSUING OFFICE: 675 N. First Street, Suite 400 • San Jose, CA 95112 408 271 -7600 • FAX 408 295 -3975 FOR SETTLEMENTINQUIRIES, CONTACT., Chicago Title Company - Milpitas 26 S. Hillview Ave • Milpitas, CA 95035 408 263 -0986 • FAX 408 263 -0291 PRELIMINARY REPORT Title Officer: Liz Duron Title No.: 08- 32004740 -LD Escrow Officer: Sarah Joseph Locate No.: CACTI7743- 7743 - 3020- 0032004740 Escrow No.: 08- 32004740 -SJ TO: Coldwell Banker 221 Los Gatos Saratoga Road Los Gatos, CA 95030 ATTN: Norene Griffin SHORT TERM RATE: Yes PROPERTY ADDRESS: 14890 Montalvo Rd, Saratoga, California EFFECTIVE DATE: June 11, 2008, 07:30 A.M. The form of policy or policies of title insurance contemplated by this report is: ALTA Homeowner's Policy of Title Insurance For a One -To -Four Family Residence (10/22/03) FORMERLY ALTA Loan Policy (10/17/92) with Endorsement -Form 1 Coverage 1. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED OR REFERRED TO COVERED BY THIS REPORT IS: A Fee 2. TITLE TO SAID ESTATE OR INTEREST AT THE DATE HEREOF IS VESTED IN: Kirsten J. Jensen and David A. Kerley, wife and husband as joint tenants 3. THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS REPORT IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF LD \LD 06/18/2008 1 CLTA Preliminary Report Forth - Modified (11/17/06) Title No. 08- 32004740 -LD Locate No.CACT17743- 7743 - 3020 - 0032004740 LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT "A" THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF SARATOGA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: Portion of Lot 5, as shown on that certain Map entitled "Map of Gutzeitz Subdivsion ", which Map was filed for record in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, on June 25, 1904 in Book 7-3" of Maps at page(s) 73, and more particularly described as follows: Beginning at an iron pipe at the point of intersection of the Northerly line of Bonnie Brae Way, as said line was established by the deed from G. A. Wood Estate, Incorporated, to the County of Santa Clara, a body politic and corporate, dated October 17, 1949, recorded November 15, 1949 in Book 1876 of Official Records, page 37, Santa Clara County Records, with the Southeasterly line of that certain 60.00 foot strip of land described in the deed from George A. Wood and James D. Phelan, dated April 10, 1916 and recorded April 10, 1916 in Book 440 of deeds, page 308, Santa Clara County Records; running thence North 890 36' East along the said Northerly line of Bonnie Brae Way, 93.39 feet to an iron pipe; thence North 80 03' East 232.97 feet to an iron pipe; thence South 890 36' West and parallel with the said Northerly line of Bonnie Brae Way 84.89 feet to an iron pipe on the Southeasterly line of said 60.00 foot strip thence South 100 06' West along said last named line 234.36 feet to the point of beginning. APN: 517 -20 -027 CLTA Preliminary Report Form- Modified (11/17/06) Title No. 08- 32004740 -LD Locate No. CACTI7743- 7743 - 3020 - 0032004740 AT THE DATE HEREOF, ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED AND EXCEPTIONS TO COVERAGE IN ADDITION TO THE PRINTED EXCEPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS IN SAID POLICY FORM WOULD BE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Property taxes, which are a lien not yet due and payable, including any assessments collected with taxes to be levied for the fiscal year 2008 -2009. 2. The lien of supplemental taxes, if any, assessed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 3.5 (Commencing with Section 75) of the Revenue and Taxation code of the State of California. 3. Covenants, conditions and restrictions (deleting therefrom any restrictions indicating any preference, limitation or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin) as set forth in the document Recorded: April 5, 1906, Book 307, Page 105, of Deeds Note: Section 12956.1, as amended, of the Government Code provides for the following: "If this document contains any restriction based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, marital status, disability, national origin, or ancestry, that restriction violates state and federal fair housing laws and is void, and may be removed pursuant to Section 12956.1 of the Government Code. Lawful restrictions under state and federal law on the age of occupants in.senior housing or housing for older persons shall not be construed as restrictions based on familial status." 4. A deed of trust to secure an indebtedness in the amount shown below, and any other obligations secured thereby Amount: $1,750,000.00 Dated: October 26, 2005 Trustor: Kirsten J. Jenson and David A. Kerley, wife and husband Trustee: Commonwealth Land Title Ins Co Beneficiary: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Loan No.: Recorded: November 1, 2005, Instrument No. 18651195, of Official Records END OF ITEMS Note 1. The current owner does NOT qualify for the $20.00 discount pursuant to the coordinated stipulated judgments entered in actions filed by both the Attorney General and private class action plaintiffs for the herein described property. CLTA Preliminary Report Form - Modified (11/17/06) NOTES: (continued) ° ° Title No. 08- 32004740 -LD Locate No, CACn7743- 7743 - 3020 - 0032004740 Note 2. The application for title insurance was placed by reference to only a street address or tax identification number. Based on our records, we believe that the description in this report covers the parcel requested, however, if the legal description is incorrect a new report must be prepared. If the legal description is incorrect, in order to prevent delays, the seller /buyer /borrower must provide the Company and /or the settlement agent with the correct legal description intended to be the subject of this transaction. Note 3. There are NO deeds affecting said land, recorded within twenty -four (24) months of the date of this report. Note 4. If a 1970 ALTA Owner's or Lender's or 1975 ALTA Leasehold Owner's or Lender's policy form has been requested, the policy, when approved for issuance, will be endorsed to add the following to the Exclusions From Coverage contained therein: Loan Policy Exclusion: Any claim, which arises out of the transaction creating the interest of the mortgage insured by this policy, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws, that is based on: (i) the transaction creating the interest of the insured mortgagee being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or (ii) the subordination of the interest of the insured mortgagee as a result of the application of the doctrine of equitable subordination; or (iii) the transaction creating the interest of the insured mortgagee being deemed a preferential transfer except where the preferential transfer results from the failure: (a)to timely record the instrument of transfer; or (b) of such recordation to impart notice to a purchaser for value or a judgment or lien creditor. Owners Policy Exclusion: Any claim, which arises out of the transaction vesting in the insured, the estate or interest insured by this policy, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws, that is based on: (i) the transaction creating the estate or interest by this policy being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or (ii) the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a preferential transfer except where the preferential transfer results from the failure: (a) to timely record the instrument of transfer; or (b) of such recordation to impart notice to a purchaser for value or a judgment or lien creditor. CLTA Preliminary Report Form - Modified (11/17/06) NOTES: (continued) —' Title No. 08- 32004740 -LD Locate No.CACT17743- 7743 - 3020- 0032004740 Note S. Effective March 1, 1979, there will be an additional $10.00 fee for recording a deed with a legal description other than an entire lot in a recorded final map. If there are any questions, please call your escrow officer or title officer. Note 6. Property taxes for the fiscal year shown below are PAID. For proration purposes the amounts are: Bank of America Tax Identification No.: 517 -20 -027 Fiscal Year: 2007 -2008 1st Installment: $16,249.46 2nd Installment: $16,249.46 Exemption: $7,000.00 Land: $1,938,000.00 Improvements: $867,000.00 Code Area: 15 042 Note 7. The Company is not aware of any matters which would cause it to decline to attach the CLTA Endorsement Form 116 indicating that there is located on said land single family dwelling known as 14890 Montalvo Raod, Saratoga, Ca to an Extended Coverage Loan Policy. Note 8. If a county recorder, title insurance company, escrow company, real estate broker, real estate agent or association provides a copy of a declaration, governing document or deed to any person, California law requires that the document provided shall include a statement regarding any unlawful restrictions. Said statement is to be in at least 14 -point bold face type and may be stamped on the first page of any document provided or included as a cover page attached to the requested document. Should a party to this transaction request a copy of any document reported herein that fits this category, the statement is to be included in the manner described. Note 9. Wiring instructions for Chicago Title Company, Milpitas, CA, are as follows: Receiving Bank: Bank of America 275 Valencia Blvd, 2nd Floor Brea, CA 92823 -6340 ABA Routing No.: 026009593 Credit Account Name: Chicago Title Company - Milpitas 26 S. Hillview Ave, Milpitas, CA 95035 Credit Account No.: 12353 -81969 Escrow No.: 08- 32004740 -SJ These wiring instructions are for this specific transaction involving the Title Department of the San Jose office of Chicago Title Company. These instructions therefore should not be used in other transactions without first verifying the information with our accounting department. It is imperative that the wire text be exactly as indicated. Any extraneous information may cause unnecessary delays in confirming the receipt of funds. Note 10. Any documents being executed in conjunction with this transaction must be signed in the presence of an authorized Company employee, an authorized employee of an agent, an authorized employee of the insured lender, or by using Bancsery or other approved third -party service. If the above requirements cannot be met, please call the company at the number provided in this report. CLTA Preliminary Report Form - Modified (11/17/06) NOTES: (continued) END OF NOTES ` Title No. 08- 32004740 -LD Locate No.CACT17743- 7743 - 3020- 0032004740 CLTA Preliminary Report Form - Modified (11/17/06) O F F I C E O F C O U N T Y A S S E S S O R BYO ar`i `fit o M � a .n .r,, °F� 0. O 40 �y 15 k c P a P C q 9 1p\ to • it n, P 6100 ti0 V^ j �Y`c pre 'e•\ ti P 1 Pc' iP �. 38 64 g1 M1Sr V� �v +` i`ti4' •6 plc yd a \ µyo wo S A N T A C L A R A C O U N T Y, C A L I F O R N I A G` I-pi d h conlmma , k T. code. fa a Effectlw for Rol LAWRENCE E S BOOK PAGE 517 1 20 pIQ--- LOT 5 OF GUTZEIT SUT3'D. F-P OF MAPS 73. 6-25 -04 19 G` I-pi d h conlmma , k T. code. fa a Effectlw for Rol LAWRENCE E S BOOK PAGE 517 1 20 Cynthia McCormick crom: Jensen, Kirsten [kjensen @stblaw.com] Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 11:40 AM To: Cynthia McCormick Subject: 14890 Montalvo Dear Cynthia Thank you again for taking the time to meet with us last week. I understand that in connection with the Planning Department review of the proposed addition, the property needs to be reviewed by the Saratoga Heritage Commission. As we discussed, I am following up with you in writing to express the view of my husband and I that our house is not of any historical significance. Portions of the house were originally constructed in 1953, but changes have been made to it over the years, most recently an interior gut renovation (as the prior owners described it to us) in the 1990s, which also included building a small addition on the Montalvo Road side and a large addition on the rear. As you know, our house is not located on a heritage lane or in a historic district. The style is not a representative example of any of the native California architectures, and neither the original house nor the subsequent additions were designed by architects of note. It hasn't otherwise been associated with any historically significant people or events. Like many Saratoga residences, it is an attractive house, but not special or unique in that regard. In fact, the most historic thing about it is that the prior owners used reclaimed brick from a sugar mill for the addition (and we're hoping to.find more of that to use ourselves for the new addition)! In short, I do not see any reason that it would be appropriate to consider our house a historic resource. Regards, Kirsten Kirsten Jensen kjensen @stblaw.com 650.251.5145 1 Ker1c -*~Jen,5cn Res. "YANW211ANSIVA FLOOR AREA EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL FIRST FLOOR 2644 220 2864 SECOND FLOOR 0 1050 1050 GARAGE 574 0 574 ENCLOSEDPORCH 30 0 30 •112' -10' REAR SECOND FLOOR 15' -0' .152 -1" TOTAL 3248 1270 4518 SETBACKS REQUIRED PROPOSED FRONT 30' -0' .31' -6' LEFT SIDE FIRST FLOOR I7' -10' •17' -10' LEFT SIDE SECOND FLOOR 22'-10' .22' -10' RIGHT SIDE FIRST FLOOR 9'-4 .9' -5' RI6HT SIDE SECOND FLOOR 14-4' . 14' -5' REAR FIRST FLOOR 15'-0" •112' -10' REAR SECOND FLOOR 15' -0' .152 -1" Existing 1 story Residence Addition & New Second Level Addition SITE COVERA6E SQUARE FOOTAGE % NET LOT SIZE HOME FOOTPRINT 3438 16% DRIVE WAY 504 2% WALK WAYS 1800 6% PATIOS ON GRADE 2519 1211 LI6HT WELLS 43 0.6% ENCLOSED PORCH 30 0.4% GREENHOUSE 88 1% PERVIOUS PAVING 105 1% TOTAL 8527 41% 14890 Montalvo Rd. Saratoga Ca. �i il. 11 assesor's parcel number: address of project: 517 -20 -027 14890 Montalvo Rd. owner name: David Kerley - Kirsten Jensen existing use: Residential zonning district: R- 1- 20,000 E s size of lot 20,794 sq ft ize of lot: 20,794 sq ft size of structure(including garage): 4518 sq ft max allowed sq ft: 4518 sq ft PARAGON DESIGN GROUP, INC. !CSC 01 2008 .. -9 W-0 KWO101110231111 DATE' PRINTED D k 9 1 � I E 0 DECO 2 2008 ClTr 0r SAM TOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT' CS COVER SHEET A -1 EXISTING SITE PLAN/ A -Z EXISTING LOWER LEVEL/ DEMOLITION PLAN A -5 EXISTING CELLAR FLOOR PLAN / CELLAR SECTION A -4 EXISTING ELEVATIONS [total impervious site coverage: 8527 =-419/b A -5 NEW SITE PLAN/ CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE slope at building's site: 3%6 average site slope: 6.1% �' FLOOR AREA CALLS. age of residence: original house 53 years A—V NEW LOWER LEVEL right side addition 9years A -7 NEW UPPER LEVEL cellar 9 years A -8 ROOF PLAN A -9 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS )A A -10 SECTIONS & fLOOR AREA HEIGHT LOWEST ELEVATION PONT @ BUILDING EDGE FROM NATURAL GRADE 555.24 HIGHEST ELEVATION POINT @ BUILDING EDGE FROM NATURAL GRADE 557.40 AVERAGE OF HIGHEST AND LOWEST POINTS (ABOVE) 556.32 TOP MOST ELEVATION POINT- VERTICAL DISTANCE FROM AVERAGE POINT (ABOVE) TO TOP MOST POINT OF ROOF (EXCLUDING APPUERTENANCES) 25'-0" LIN ■■ ■■ ■■ ■ ■■om L010:080!9"1111 ■ CNOTE: ATION INSPECTION BY THE CITY, THE HALL PROVIDE A WRITTEN HAT ALL BUILDING SETBACKS ARE PER ANS 1 • Cover Sheet • General Development Plan Set ■■■■ ■.Erg =Z -Mm�■�■ An e `-`A■■� i i I I I 1 z 0 S MONTALVO ROAD cC'0 - X ImoT I N C S I-T-_f:'--P L_A- N SCALE 1"= 10' -0" 0 Z m m N, e' .�■■. ■■.■ ALI . .■l,.■. ■I r t ■ ■[rrTT1Tr13_,p .T 4 c • N, e' .�■■. ■■.■ ALI . .■l,.■. F----] CELLAR BELOW (E) EXTERIOR PATIO ON GRADE ------------ EXISTING OAK TREE I _ UMT IF LI6HTWELL DN (E) EXTERIOR PATIO ON GRADE (E) GARDEN TOOL SHED TO BE DEMOLISHED Y b � / N PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF WALK -IN CLOSET I TO THIS LINE I I I DOOR TO BE SEALED o 3 J 0 Z 3 _ N e 3 3 (E) GREEN HOUSE TO REMAIN - wd- z f 3a �o 1 0 8� 3W ° in 1 1 Lu 8 h 1 li 4 1 I I I - J Z rb 0 DOOR TO BE SEALED o 3 J 0 Z 3 _ N e 3 3 (E) GREEN HOUSE TO REMAIN - wd- z f 3a �o 1 I 1 I OUTLINE OF NEW PARKING $P ALE, PERVIOUS PAVING 1 1 OUTLINE OF NEW ADDITION 1 I 1 ° I L — — -- -� I I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I 1 W I 1 � I 1 �w KZK'�� I 1� -- O I 1 ~ I 3 I Y I 5 vwi I 1 ------------- - - - - -- =-—---- - - - - --- A —— — PROPERTY LINE — SCALE 1/8. =1' -0" 25' -Or ■■ ► —�■ ■r.�iffrelmp ■■ "MMEMEM NNE ME G�wwww� ■ ■■■■i■■■■■i■■■ PLANflER COMMENTS DATED 9-10-2008 CYNTHIA M.CORMICK 8� 3W -------------------- 1 1 - - ----- - - - - -- 1 li 4 1 I I I I 1 I OUTLINE OF NEW PARKING $P ALE, PERVIOUS PAVING 1 1 OUTLINE OF NEW ADDITION 1 I 1 ° I L — — -- -� I I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I 1 W I 1 � I 1 �w KZK'�� I 1� -- O I 1 ~ I 3 I Y I 5 vwi I 1 ------------- - - - - -- =-—---- - - - - --- A —— — PROPERTY LINE — SCALE 1/8. =1' -0" 25' -Or ■■ ► —�■ ■r.�iffrelmp ■■ "MMEMEM NNE ME G�wwww� ■ ■■■■i■■■■■i■■■ PLANflER COMMENTS DATED 9-10-2008 CYNTHIA M.CORMICK A A :�ra�ira.ra��;■; ray■ ;j'.WII'I No ......��f W,,,Yr�CCIN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■Fiirb iii :%�■ .. ■ ■ ■.C. EXISTING CELLAR TO REMAIN 744 S.F. • 4 SCALE 1/4 " =1' -0" ■■'— �■ ■■■■■■rarfn�r.Tmn�r�■■■ ■•��wr�� *■..ii i■■■■.■■■■ L e - MEAL OMAN FRONT ELEVATION 1/47' 0• LEFT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION PLANNER COMMENTS DATED 9 -10 -2008 CYNTHIA WCORMICK �XJ_5 T M G E )�--F--RA-(D K-tA-E-V A T LC) N-5 TAI ar o — — Sh 1 1 •3/ I 7 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 \ / 1 o ?. --- - - - - -- -- xtsTVaG.6' -o E¢G4 \\ OOD FFI'6 ORFIAAIN — / IMPERVIOUS -SITE COVERAGE HOUSE FOOT PRINT = 3438 S.F. DRIVE WAY= 504 S.F. .� WALKWAYS= ISOOS.F. Oj PATIOS ON GRADE= 2519 S.F. LIGHT WELLS= 43 S.F. I® GREENHOUSE= 8S S.F. ® PERVIOUS PAVING 50% 105 S.F. Q TOTAL = 8527 S.F. IMPERVIOUS SITE COVERAGE OF 41 L 1 N 06°03'00" :E._7" P p75T ANCE FkpM HOUSE T O PROPER l •551.1 p 0 � 5 4.12 co t �ifl - o,m I •� 1 � � D \ Z , SET BACK sst m UPPER LEVE -p - _,SETBACK __ \`\ 152')• / •5'f�l�A \ I I /�4•orx �� - II OUTLINE OF TREE l�J I I CANOPY, TYP. 4 1 \\ \GS -wmpII 10 °06'00" E 23 37' 01 1 II i i eeWA wT d ri .s•J1b r4�i •s•JnA NrI i' q.�p�I` / .s•JAPATESI1w- \ 45.32 _ i EXISTING .6'- O'HIGH I /\ WrooD FENCE TO REMAIN �$.0 -_- Z i (N).6'- 0•HIGH 1 WOOD FENCE 6GATE S� VI O 5s &25 v � 1 • E%ISTIN6.6'- 0•{IGH ,S-07 WOOD FENCE TO REMAIN 1 1 25 NG SET gALX 5• < I n (E)LW, s /` -- - - - 1 )PARKING - 11 PERVIOUS PAVING ST. 55935 t 1 I1 1 EXISTING STORY HOUSE 1 I 1 30' -o . t snzi NEW SET BACK Qj sse.is � 1 Z ' 11 610 �55y 65 e.n m C o Q D (N) m rn 1 FIRST VE � A9 W ,sse.fi+ I ADDITI N 30.6• w INN SECOND LEVEL \ 59.20 (N) WALKWAY TO MATCH E)QSTIN6 C' —TA q1 — — ------- - - - - -- 558.46 • I 1 r -- _I 59:12 - - -- ------------ - - - - -- -- _ ( NOTE: Z m ssas LANDSCAPING IN FRONT OF HOUSE TO MATCH PREVIOUS H "s I V (£ Z 1 ( 6 EXISTING PLANTING ALL OF REST OF PLANTING, LAWN o c 8 LANDSCAPING REMAIFI T E-*E \\\ I 1 (E) VE&. GARDEN ; 1 a e• I i �e•Pw¢ j O1 e•aArrE ss9.e4 _ 'JAPAN \ ) 4\ I I I ! I 1 / NG: / -3'-P HIGH WOOD FE TO MAIN \ 1 I •c5n3.99 _ - -- �� - - -- � -- MONTALVO ROAD To REPLACE 'IGH NtW SITE PLAN &CONCEPTUAL LAND S P LA N- LOWER LEVEL EXISTING HOUSE = 2714 S.F. (E) GARAGE= 574 S.F. COVERED Y 30 5 F SUR TOTAI M1l 3318 5 F EFW ADDITION- 2205.E LOWER LEVEL= 35385. F. AREA TO BE REMOVED= 70 S,L TOTAL LOWER LEVEL= 34685.E CELLAR AREA (NOT TO BE COUNTED) CELLAR= 744 S.F. AREA CALUTATIONS LEGEN' INDICATES EXISTING INDICATES NEW /ADDITION INDICATES CELLAR ) INDICATESCARA&E INDICATES TO BE REMOVED I ■ INDICATES 3 SIDE WALL COVERD AREAS N9 r r : ■■■��T��3TTr�,nT^�rr m-Em ME ■�pINPPRI ■■■■■■ ■C■■■■■■ SOMME UPPER LEVEL I.EWADDITION= 1050 S.F. 0 e - ■ ■� ■■�'■ ■ ■�: i ■ ■' .4m ME ai��i�i■ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - ---- -� � 1e•-a 1- (E) I� — I (E)LIGHTWELL GAS FIRE PLACE J`Q 1 I I OUTLINE OF CELLAR BELOW I (E) EXTERIOR PATIO ON GRADE EXISTING OAK TREE FlDbt 109.9 TO FLOOR 1 (EI_P_ATIQ RIS -z-lw5 T O O I 73'RISE 1 .9 I H9 TREADS; 1 WDER /al N #3 1 m I 1 I I - I — 1 CLOSET _ I \ I 3 ------------ - - - - -I Z' I \ 1 \\ o \\ FILES - - p 1 ---------- - - - - -- < f BEDROOM -2 (� -ae1� I + , " 1 0 1 WALK-IN lb'± X2(L• Y 1 OUTSIDE KIT 5N WOOD BURNING FIRE PLACE O OUTLINE OF UPPER LEVEL 7- ------ ------- - - - - -- ( I �— �— (N) WALKWAY TO MATCH BUSTIPL9 -- a S O " EXISTING HOUSE 2714 5.F. SCALE 1/4 " =1' -0" 'GARAGE' 5745.F. —_?_ — PROPERTY LINE AREA TO BE REMOVED 70 S.F. — — — (E) WOOD FENCE TO BE RELOCATED 30'_v NEW SETBACK MEMO �pp :,m.m rRlr.RitP;mm17 . ■EM■ \: I�!IR! Om 1 (E) WOOD FENCE TO REMAIN IN PLACE 1 1 1 1 QPLANNER COMMENTS DATED 9 -10 -2418 CYNTHIA McCORMICK ? (N) PARKING AREA 1 ? PERVIOUS PAVING (E) GREEN HOUSE ! 3 1 � � � _._{ ------------- 1 1 1 DN 1 1 1 1 1 - -1 - - - - - -- 1 z5 -� WOOD BURNING - -- - --- - 1 z FIRE PLACE (E) LIVING ROOM i i (4 DRIVE WAY high eeil� 11'-6° 1 '------------- - 1 --1'- - -- MOD. DOOR PAWL FOR Q 1 1 D06 ACCESS DOOR I I 1 1 (E) EXTERIOR PATIO I 1 1 � ON GRADE D DOOR TO BE I I SEALED B I I G�LI_6L I i 1 I I I I 1 1 1 109.9 TO FLOOR 1 (EI_P_ATIQ RIS -z-lw5 T O O I 73'RISE 1 .9 I H9 TREADS; 1 WDER /al N #3 1 m I 1 I I - I — 1 CLOSET _ I \ I 3 ------------ - - - - -I Z' I \ 1 \\ o \\ FILES - - p 1 ---------- - - - - -- < f BEDROOM -2 (� -ae1� I + , " 1 0 1 WALK-IN lb'± X2(L• Y 1 OUTSIDE KIT 5N WOOD BURNING FIRE PLACE O OUTLINE OF UPPER LEVEL 7- ------ ------- - - - - -- ( I �— �— (N) WALKWAY TO MATCH BUSTIPL9 -- a S O " EXISTING HOUSE 2714 5.F. SCALE 1/4 " =1' -0" 'GARAGE' 5745.F. —_?_ — PROPERTY LINE AREA TO BE REMOVED 70 S.F. — — — (E) WOOD FENCE TO BE RELOCATED 30'_v NEW SETBACK MEMO �pp :,m.m rRlr.RitP;mm17 . ■EM■ \: I�!IR! Om 1 (E) WOOD FENCE TO REMAIN IN PLACE 1 1 1 1 QPLANNER COMMENTS DATED 9 -10 -2418 CYNTHIA McCORMICK l i i ■ ■■■r mmaa ■iii rT, �ww�w *■ ■ ■■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■ I 1 1 1 1 PUWJER COMMENTS DATED 9- 10.2478 CYNTHIA MCCORMICK CCC��� � :•Z• •• _► SCALE 1/4 " =1' -0" ■r f` . -�■■[[f:TT7, F � ^TrTrnT.M ■1 'R■■■■ ■mL�Ti•L^momm■■■ Elk ■■■ ■■■■ ■MEN ■■■ IN ■ "V■S T (E)16' -0- ORIGINAL HOUSE SETBACK (E) (N) ROOF OF IMITATION SLATE SHINGLES TO MATCH EXISTING ROOF BY DAVINCI OR SIMILAR `(I.D WINDOWS TOE -(M BRICK VENEER TO MATCH EXISTING MATCH EXISTING (N) BRICK VENEER TO MATCH EXISTING I �I�tii•�i FRONT ELEVATION L (N) GARAGE DOORS TO REPLACE EXISTING DOORS BY SUMMITDOOR INC. COL MODEL 5WOB (N) ROOF OF IMITATION (N)10'LAP SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING 511 WOOD FENCE TO REMAIN 1 (N) ROOF OF IMITATION - SLATE SHINGLES TO MATCH EXISTING ROOF REAR ELEVATION D LEFT SIDE ELEVATION Q 1 (N) RMF - TM-A -M RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION EON- 1,09MOAM L. 'AMNON p ■■ ■■■■■■ .Ir ■.■... ■ r(.t■ i`i ■ ii ■ ■■ Ia'=r -a SECTION B -B C" A l C rI I ATinN.q M..TCIRql BE Ewoolkhm ii■ ■■■iME- MED�0Q7�■■pw "��■ ■C■■ NONE ■■.■■■■ 1.+, arh rW ■■.mom ■■■ ■■■■ 1 /1' =1' -P U INDICATE5 EXISTING - INDICATES NEW e .� ■fir,.■ qua ■ A Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: December 9, 2008 TO: Heritage Preservation Commission FROM: Michael Fossati, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: Determination of whether or not the a isting home is historically significant. Property Location: 14660 Quito Road, Saratoga, California Property APN: 407 -14 -004 Project Applicants: Adam Rockwood, Rockwood Design Property Owners: Dan Dang Project Summary The applicant would like to add onto an existing single -story building and construct a two -story residence. Prior to construction, the staff and the applicant request a determination from the Historical Preservation Commission (HPC) on the historical significance of the existing building. The determination to allow the demolition would be based on the recommendation from the HPC. Historic Evaluation The property is not currently listed on the City's Historic Resources Inventory. Staff has determined that the home could be classified as being most indicative of the Minimal Traditional architectural style. Homes of this style were typically small one -story with features including low pitched roof with at least one front facing gable, and minimized eaves. The applicant has indicated that the home is approximately 76 years old. Decision by HPC The applicant is requesting a determination of the HPC regarding the historical significance of the structure. The following are options available to the Commission in reviewing this proposal: Determine that the structure is not historically significant: If the Commission determines that the structure is not historically significant, the property would not be listed on the Historic Resources Inventory. Proposed and /or future alterations would not be subject to HPC review. 2. Determine that the property /structure is historically significant and direct staff to place the structure on the historical list: If the Commission determines that the property /structure is historically significant: Project Address: 14660 Quito Road Project Applicant: Adam Rockwood / Rockwood Design ■ At least one (1) of the seven (7) criteria listed in the City code must be selected to reflect the reasons why the structure is significant. ' The HPC would need to determine that the proposed project either meets or does not meet the Secretary of Interior Standards (Standards) for historic properties. Suggestions to ensure compliance with the Standards may be provided. ■ Staff would place the property on the Historic Resources Inventory and proposed future alterations to the structures would require HPC review and would be required to meet Standards for historic properties. The seven Criteria are as follows (City Code §13- 15.010): (a) It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering or architectural history of the City, the County, the State or the nation; or (b) It is identified with persons or events significant in local, county, state or national history; or (c) It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials; or (d) It is representative of the notable design or craft of a builder, designer, or architect; or (e) It embodies or contributes to unique physical characteristics representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood or district within the City; or (f) It represents a significant concentration or continuity of site, buildings; structures or objects, unified by past events or aesthetically by plan or physical or natural development; or (g) It embodies or contributes to a unique natural setting or environment constituting a distinct area or district within the City having special character or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value. Attachments (1) Letter from Applicant (2) Images of existing residence and plans of proposed two -story residence Memorandum to the Saratoga Historic Preservation Commission Page 2 City of Saratoga Heritage Preservation Commission 11/25/2008 C /O: Community Development / Planning Dept. 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Dang Residence- 14660 Quito Road, Saratoga, CA. 95070 To whom it may concern: My name is Adam Rockwood and I am with the firm Rockwood Design Associates, Inc. We are pleased to submit the following set of drawings and supporting documents on behalf of the Dang Family who have purchased the property located at 14660 Quito Road earlier this year. We recently submitted our proposed project to the City of Saratoga Planning Department and after preliminary review, we have been asked to submit our project documents to the Heritage Preservation Commission for review as our structure was built c. 1932. We request that the commission DENY the designation of the existing residence as a Heritage Resource based on the following information per Article 13- 15.010 of the Municipal Code: The existing structure does not exemplify or reflect special elements of the cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering or architectural history of the City, the County, the State or the nation. The existing structure is not identified with persons or events significant in local, county, state or national history. The existing structure does embody distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period or method of construction, but no more so than any other craftsman style cottage of the period. There are many examples within the City of Saratoga that contain the same qualities and are not considered a heritage resource. The existing structure is not a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials. The existing structure is not representative of the notable design or craft of a builder, designer, or architect. The existing structure does not embody or contribute to unique physical characteristics representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood or district within the City. The structure is unique in that it is totally nonconforming and one of the smallest residences in the City of Saratoga as we feel that the structure was a cottage to another residence prior to subdivision. Hence the one bedroom / studio nature and no existing garage. The existing structure does not represent a significant concentration or continuity of site, buildings, structures or objects, unified by past events or aesthetically by plan or physical or natural development. The existing structure does not embody or contribute to a unique natural setting or environment constituting a distinct area or district within the City having special character or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value. The subject property one of the few properties within the City of Saratoga on the east side of Quito Road. It is zoned R1- 40,000 with a Gross Site Area of 1.04 acres and a net site area of .80- acres / 34,848 square feet. The San Thomas Aquino Creek flows right through the center of the property with the existing residence between the creek and Quito road. The portion of the site between the creek and the street is flat- while the east side of the property from the creek up the hill is steep and unbuildable. While the existing and proposed structures are located on a nearly flat portion of the site, the average slope of the property is 25.1 % The existing structure is a prime example of a noncomforming structure per 15- 06.460 of the Zoning Regulations. 1 have included the code section below for your reference: "(b) Nonconforming structure means a structure which was lawfully constructed in compliance with all zoning regulations then applicable to the site, but which, by virtue of a subsequent rezoning, reclassification, or the adoption of or change in zoning regulations, no longer conforms with the standards of size, coverage, setback areas, height, distance between structures, or other regulation of this Chapter for the district in which the structure is located. " (15- 06.460) Per Sheet G2 (Site Plan) of the drawing package, approx. 40% of the existing structure is located within the 30' -0" front setback, while the rear 40% of the structure is within the 20' -0" rear creek setback. We have determined the creek setback at 50' -0" per direction from the Planning Department. With regard to the layout, the garage and second story addition to the north is really the only feasible location for this scope of work due to the size and shape of the site. The tree canopies at the south end of the property would not allow a second story, and any addition toward Quito would encroach further into the front setback and we don't have any room on the opposite side due to the creek. We have also proposed a minor addition to the kitchen and entry. With regard to the existing and proposed development, please find the following summary for your review: Existing Residence: 926 square feet. (no garage) Proposed First Floor Additions: 611 square feet Proposed Second Floor Additions: 741 square feet Total Proposed Living Area: 2,278 square feet Total Proposed Garage: 432 square feet Per section 15- 65.070 (Expansion of Noncomforming Structures) and given the fact that the existing residence is within the setbacks for the zoning district, we request that variances for the following be considered: 1. Variance to encroach into the front yard setback- existing and proposed elements 2. Variance to encroach into the creek setback- existing and proposed elements 3. Variance to encroach into the rear (first floor) setback at the northern proposed addition. 4. Variance to encroach into the rear (second floor) setback at the northern proposed addition. The purpose of the article for a variance states the following: "The Planning Commission is empowered to grant variances in order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this Chapter as would result from a strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of certain zoning regulations. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon, from geographic, topographic or other physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity or from population densities, street locations or traffic conditions in the immediate vicinity. "(15- 70.010 Purpose of Article- excerpt) With the exception of population densities, all of the above conditions apply to our property to exacerbate the practical difficulties or unnecessary physical hardships associated with this site. Furthermore, we would argue that all of the (applicable) findings for granting of a variance can be made upon review of the site conditions. Per section 15- 70.060 (Findings required for granting of variance) we feel that the finding for the granting of a variance can be met as follows: The approving authority may grant a variance as applied.for or in modified form if, on the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the approving authority makes all of the following findings: (a) That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. The existing residence is located in the only buildable area of the site. Please refer to the site plan. The existing structure is located within the front setback and creek setback. Due to the size and shape of the property, the setback actually converge in some places. In our opinion, this is a special circumstance unique to this property. Strict enforcement of the applicable setback regulations would deprive my Client of the privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and zoning district. (b) That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. Due to the fact that the existing residence is already within the setbacks, and the fact that we are only requesting variances for the encroachment into setbacks, we do not feel that the granting of our variances would be considered a special privilege. We can stay within the allowable floor areas, coverage, building heights, etc. Setback encroachment can't be resolved without a variance due to the proximity of the setbacks. For example- the front yard setback is within 6' -0" of the creek setback at the rear of the property and the front yard setback, rear yard (second story) setback and creek setback all converge at the north end of the property. (c) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. None of our variance requests have any relation to the health, safety or welfare or are materially injurious to properties or improvements within the vicinity. With regard to compliance with design review findings stated in section 15- 45.080 of the zoning ordinance, we have the following for your review: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed main or accessory structure, when considered with reference to: (1) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (2) community view sheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. Due to the location of the property, there will be no sacrifices with regard to the interference of views and or privacy from any of the adjacent neighbors. The height, location and placement on site are in direct relation to the existing residence as well as the only available building area on the site. Regardless of the available location, there are no impacts, significant or otherwise as there are really no adjacent properties that have structures located in a manner as to be able to directly view our existing or proposed residence. (b) Preserve natural landscape. 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. The natural landscape will be preserved. Although the average slope of the site is 25 %, the building site and existing structure as well as all adjacent landscaping and driveway are on a level / flat area. There will be minimal grade changes- less than 8 ". (c) Preserve native and heritage trees. All heritage trees (as defined in Section 15- 50.020(l)) will be preserved. All native trees designated for protection pursuant to Section 15- 50.050 will be preserved, or, given the constraints of the property, the number approved ,for removal will be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal of any smaller oak trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist will be minimized using the criteria set ,forth in Section 15- 50.080. We have proposed the removal of four trees that have never been properly maintained on the property. We feel that the mitigation with regard to replacement trees would benefit the site, and remove potential hazards. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The proposed main or accessory 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. We feel we have, minimized the perception of bulk, but we know this is subject to interpretation. The proposed design is Craftsman in style. We have changed materiality and accent colors where material changes have occurred. We have also proposed design elements to minimize the "flatness" of the vertical features. (e) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (1) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (2) the natural environment; and shall not (1) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties nor (2) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. The additions to the existing residence will be compatible with regard to bulk and height. The zoning district and surrounding neighborhood consist of a mix of single and two story structures. Due to the location of the existing structure, there will be no interference with regard to air and light or the utilization of solar energy. 69 Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. The proposed development will incorporate grading and erosion control standards used by the City. (g) Design policies and techniques. 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. The proposed residence 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. We thank you for your review of our submittal documents and look forward to hearing from you. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you would like to discuss this project in further detail. Sincerely Adam Rockwood, AIA Assoc. Rockwood Design Associates, Inc. 14554 Big Basin Way, Suite A Saratoga, CA. 95070 408 -741 -0189 408 -741 -5085 arockNvood; r rocl-wooddesign.net View from driveway at Quito Road Rear Elevation and Side South Elevation Rear Elevation and Side North Elevation Side 1 North Elevation Rockwood Design Associates, Inc. 14554 Big Basin Way, Suite -A Saratoga, CA, 95070 408-741-0189. 408741-5085 iax I www.rockwooddesign.net Historic Compliance Review as required by City, of Saratoga Planning Department. Structure built in 1932 per public records. Please refer to attached I Architectural Drawings for all existing and proposed conditions. Dang Residence 14660 Quito Road Saratoga, CA, 95070 Design Firm: 4tY7 14 Project Owner. Property Information: Index: Rockwood Design Associates ft Dan Deng Existing use: Single Family Residence G1 Tine sheet I Setback Diagram ,u �' - G2 Vicinity Map / Site plan Big Basin way, Suite A 14660 Quito Road Address: G3 Existing Topographic Survey Saratoga. CA. 95070 Sarat �+ Saratoga, CA, 95070 14660 Quito Road Saratoga, CA, 95070 G4. Landscape plan Al First Floor plan Project manager.. Adam Rockwood, AIAAssoc. a. £ - Project Description: Age of stnecttrre: Not on Historic Registry A2 Second Floor plan 11A A4 Elevation Project l?eslgller. � 4 , B ?1, e1 r Addition and renovation to exlstklg single family one-story APN: 407- 14-004 AS Elevation A6 Sections Mohammad Sadeh i � � ,. " non - conforming residence to include uce new second story A7 Roof Plan +t 1 p " and new 2 car garage. Proposal will require the : 408 - 741 -0189 �,... variances: Front setback encroachment, Rear first floor R1- 40.000 408 - 741 -5085 t ,, �� setback encroachment, Rear second floor setback www.rodwmoddesign.net LVA encroachment, Creek setback encroachment. Lot Size: 1.04 Acres = 45,302.40 a.f. f © Lot: .80 '848 s.f. Adjusted per SIo e (see below): 18,120.96 s.f. Slope at building Edge: Nearly Flat at Building Pad aaxo o� Average Slope of Sl*- 25.01 % First Floor Setbacks: Required Proposed Addition 25.01% average Mope = Reduction of 30% + 3% for each . See GM Setback Diagram Second Floor 1 % over 20% = 30% + 3% (6) = 48% Reduction. ® Addition Net Lot = 34,848 s.f, less 48% = Adjusted Net Area per Front right side 3(r 35' -2" Slope: 18,120.96 s.f. Front left side 30' Allowable Floor Area: Left side First floor 25' 174` -2" 4,050 s.f. + 78 s.f. for each 1,000 91 over 15,000 s.f. _ O 4,050 + 78 (4) = 4,362 s.f Allowable Left side Second floor 30' 174' -2" ti O Total Proposed Floor Area: 2,880 s.f. includes existing and Right side First floor 25 32'-6" LO O) proposed first floor, second floor and garage. Right side Second floor V Rear First Floor 50' 48'-11/2" Rear Second floor 60' 48'-1112" - --- ,. ICE) L • Q++wsa U) � ♦'CU^ Height: Exterior Walls: 339.7T O _ - Lowest elevation point 340.10' "iofsl existing first floor wells: 126' -0" 6p Highest elevation point Exterior first floor walls to be demolished: 29' -10" .01 \/ 339.94' Average of highest and lowest point. New wafts to be corlsiruded(flrst and second floor): 281' -T' a � 363.69' Top most elevation point C (From average point) c Exvrwa not= CO 30' Floor Area: Existing Proposed Total Impervious Coverage: Net lot size per slope: 18,120.96 s:f. First Floor 926 811 1,537 She Coverage: SOFT % Of net tot size Second Floor 0 741 741 (A) Footprint of horhe , 1,68 10.86 Garage 0 432 432 (6) Driveway 1,904 10.50 Total: 926 1,784 2,710 (c) watkwaya 1,200 6.62 Rockwood Design . - r -:- (D) Dock 420 2.31 14554 ft a"M W* Un"a" C. W70 - - - Total - 5,493 3q Ft 31% ft 4OWY41-SW Date: 10@M200e G1 1 Setback Diagram N77-Scale 1/16 " =11 -0" 8sde,, uQ �>o LANDS OF BOUNDARY BwrnCry of Pawl 8 as shcew7 on the Record of Survey tied In the office of the Recorder of the / County of Santa CAke, Suer of Callhhmla on, October 3, 1957, Book 06 of Maps, page 47. BASIS OF BEARINGS The opted bs41Mp S 26.81' 45' W between fbtmd iron pipes shown on that map which wee filed for record to the e4Uas of the Recorder of Vie County of Santa Ctrs, Seats of Ctfi cords an Oclobw 3, 1967 in Book 80 ofMepa, Page 47. Booponment for daft to the S.E. corder of Old Adobe Road and Quito Road northernmost star in hood stf ceta t beaft 7?M24 . Adenaation 317.BB Efieva tions.in bat and dooknsb thereof. l PERCENT SLOPE. \ S - Percent ( %) Slope m 0.002291 I L S = 0.002291 (2.00 FE) 4.366.45 Ft - 25.01 % / ! —00 -00 •w/ . I /1= Con[ouf interval L = Total Length of Contoure an 88s A = Grose Area of Si6e (agree) 9r nut Of +ary �' •saw \ J ,e A O e �;�� / � •ace � / .saw I / ,� 'z: / / •sass / ,aa� I Doe Q FOUND 314 m ' IP / a ,ma / ao SNF .7EARCHED, NOT FOUND err .,.OVERHEAD LINES / C� •sea / ore �{r POWER POLE TOP OF BANK JXy, Irrry /y .wn �.� CONCRETE WALL / •6 ""m ,��� .... / dr .ace/ ,era •+4 / .aye/ sa"I err wr,Ip ------ - - - --� •asy Rmw n .con ma / = X• an/ EX SIONC SIRMW s DPOr .. / •gas / 1 � sates i � / O i / ° x mar Leas tr w 9 �.� CONCREW con DRAIN AW. •� / 33566 my ,0 1 � acas mar+ or s FOUND 314' MM BASIS Or e' •era / / OEARW06 lagler err �~ / O� Y. a IP y1 m F'opErr OtIND 314' � ( � 'r 1 .saw r, .. I Y ^ ► wt �O ma ., u. r wr n Ir .3 sear con � . • SNIF A FOUND ace r arc \ m \ e O FOUND 3 4' O15 ens \ AN STEEL µBR1DDE arw alre lw ` q ` •seas sew "C \ \s' r „caeca \\ ` er `-•1 \ . `L_r� \ ..ear ' a•sawNr 8RlOfiE \ \4 PARCEL S eff °a \ aaa 1.ffpp4 ac GROSS = p \ .VV ne NET 0 SW •acv can \ a ° awe \ •ace saw arn• .cur O �! an •ere EX. CHAIN z �4 gas - \ POKE ,yw,r LW _ Y ue A o \ r a a as \• ' \ \!1[MRw � araN • � J1L]f. Lass n 3� .JRIr .rtM „mM �ae,3, W Ex SLAB Seri „�,.,.�J =•. \ \ X11 LYt /Anne sae —d \ "\ orpsral —trrM of per 80 Mepe 47 Oer� .. \ \ •awn ` � - \ m GRAPHIC SCALE \ \ as (of =7) \ I hash - 20 rL \ Designed: No Revision By Dots Drown By: DD ASSOCIATED TERRA CONSULTANTS, Inc. — Floyd Checked: TF ft41n**rtns c.Owa /fie /aeE+.vms 1735 DELL AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CA 95000 Date: 08/15/08 Phone: 406- 866 -1097 FAX: 406- 666 -1047 WE PLAN Project Number: I ArDB CF DAN4 e3MI LYNO MM OF SARATOG A AND TOM OF LOB G And CALF► sHE TG 1 �i r- Q --- A I I I i I I I i i 1 I I I N E I 1 I I I I I I e '-i r•L Proposed First Floor Plan Total Floor Area Combined: First Floor A 55'-6" x 21' -2" =1,175' S 16-2' x 18' -10" = 286' C 10' -7" x 6-1' = 64' D 7' -1" x V-9"= 12! E 21'-2"x 20'-5" = 432 Total 1,969' Sq.Ft -3n W-100 I I— T —1— I —I 1 I T I i I I I I I I I� I ] s--------------- - - - - -- r_�r-------------------------_-- -_ - - - ` I I I - -i_ o m I -— — — — — — — — — — — — — — "pd Lkdrown I Lry kV t%wft Dn l - -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — FP — F I oo I -- -- I I I 7 >: I € I I I I I I I l j La == I I I I 1 I I I � - - -- --- t-- - - = -_— E4Y L-- - - - - -- ---- - - -- -- I -- -- — I I!] I I I I I V I I I' + I I I I I I I I I 4 ! 14 I + L_ _ I3IlIIIIIIIr 1 LIJ t LI—L 1L n<i nn to N 7 Sole 114 " =1' -0" _ Demo wall New wall (E) Wall 0 ti 0 LO rn U0 rn -(D a .y t0 rn"0 c � C0 o 0 4 a 0 Co C.} Al i e N N s ti Total Floor Area Combined: Second floor plan A 21' -2" x W -5" = 432' B 7' -1" x 9'-4" = 66' C 21' -2" x 11'-6" = 243' Total 741' $q.Ft Proposed Second Floor plan N (` ) Scale 114 " =1' -0" 0 ti 0 0) R" a 'cn co a� cc c CU ry O 0 C� 0 cfl co d- Rockwood Cie; 14554 wf% Dete:10iMIM A2 1 Existing Front Sevation(West) Hvvest POK: From Fish Grade 36357 0 ti O LO 0) RR U c (U U) rn� c ca, CIO O sj C) co CD r 2 Proposed Front Elevation(West) _1 J� 1 1 1 Existing South Elevation 1 3 1 Existing North Elevation 2 Proposed South Elevation cm � 4 Proposed North Elevation wl O r► O N O R, UCO 0 "cA cc a> CO rn �Cc c Cc m � O O O O e•- Rockwood Design 145" ft ease, way ca :s�sozo ' I I 408�Fa 41-51 F�1: 408�74]�e oam: tonazooa A� Scale 114 " =1' -0 ", N* ral & Finish Grade Natural & Finish Grade 1 1 1 Cross Section 1 12 1 Cross Section 2 1 3 Long Section 3 Scale 114"=V-0" I Mel 0 O cn (o N U) rn� c 4 Cu � D O r ,eJ O (0 CO Rockwood Design 14554 No Rah WW 5 aaa Ca 95070 408!741 --0109 fl: 4WY41-506- Dela: 10!'24M008 A6 _I NM rod 17 ------- LO $w Roof Plan Cl) ca a) (1) Roof tr-) Roof x flockmed Design ` A7 Proposed Roof Plan' Scale 1/4"=l'-O" M.'WM"W Sefth