Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-27-1991 City Council Agenda packetSARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: Augu 27 =s 1991 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering Recommended Action: Report Summary: Advertise for bids Open bids Award contract Begin work Complete work Fiscal Impacts: ,Attachments: 1991 Pavement Management Schedule. Motion and Vote: 6 �C- August 28 September 17 September 18 October 7 November 15 SUBJECT: 1991 Pavement Management Program Authorization to Advertise for Bids Approve plans and specifications and authorize staff to advertise for bids for the work. Engineering staff has completed the plans, specifications and bidding documents for the 1991 Pavement Management Program and they are available for your review in the Engineering Dept. office. The annual pavement management program focuses on major structural repairs to the City's street system. This is differ- ent from the annual street maintenance program which focuses on street sealing to extend the useful life of pavement before major structural repairs become necessary. A list of the streets to be included in this year's program is attached. The proposed schedule for this year's program is as follows: At this time it is necessary for the Council to approve the plans and specifications and authorize staff to advertise for bids for the work. The proposed FY 91 -92 budget contains approximately $715,000 in Program No. 3031, Account No. 4530 for this work. 707 707 401 2171 2171 1124 913 913 470 1357 1357 670 1205 1205 622 682 682 332 484 484 356 370 370 316 1118 1118 830 2697 2697 1276 921 921 875 2023 2023 958 847 847 690 917 917 632 1917 1917 90 704 704 637 2218 2218 1264 1030 1030 609 1925 1925 1122 939 939 540 1144 1144 820 748 748 420 755 755 410 PAGE NO. 1 STREET NAME From To Area In Fabric In Wedge APOLLO WY BRANDYWINE ASPESI DR QUITO ASPESI DR LYONS ASPESI DR ASPESI CT ASPESI DR METLER ASPESI DR FERNCREST ASPESI DR LA PAZ WAY BRANDYWINE CT BRANDYWINE BRANDYWINE DR SARATOGA -SUNNY BRANDYWINE DR BRANDYWINE CT BRANDYWINE DR APOLLO CRISP AVE GRANITE CRISP AVE ANDREW CURRY CT WEST VIEW EL CAMINO GRANDE EL CAMINO SEND ESPADA CT QUITO GUAVA CT LIDO JOLENE CT WEST VIEW JUNE WY JERRIES KANE DR KANE CT KANE DR KANE KARN CIR KINMAN KARN CIR KINMAN TOTAL END LYONS ASPESI CT METLER FERNCREST LA PAZ WAY SPRINGHILL END BRANDYWINE C APOLLO END ANDREW FRUITVALE END PANORAMA END END END END KARN VERONICA INDIO ORELLA S.Y. 27,792 S.Y. In L. Fe 27,792 15,464 PAGE NO. 2 STREET NAME From To KARN CIR ORELLA KARN CIR E. END SEA GULL KARN CIR W. END SEA GULL KIRKBROOK DR MERIDA KIRKBROOK DR MARILLA KIRKBROOK DR CAROL KIRKBROOK DR KIRKMONT KOSICH CT KOSICH LEONARD ROAD 300' W SARA SUN LIDO WY SEA GULL LIDO WY CHERRY MARIA LN PROSPECT METLER CT ASPESI MONTPERE DR RAVENWOOD MONTPERE DR RAVENWOOD MYREN CT PORTOS OLD WOOD RD SOBEY (W) OLD WOOD RD CORDWOOD PARAMOUNT DR PIERCE PASEO LADO QUITO PEACH HILL RD CITY LIMITS PORTOS CT RONNIE TOTAL KANE KANE INDIO MARILLA CAROL KIRKMONT KNOLLWOOD END END CHERRY GUAVA END END END QUITO END CORDWOOD SOBEY(N) END PASEO PRESADA PIEDMONT END Area In Fabric In Wedge Cut S.Y. 41,573 S.Y. In L. FeE 41,573 21,528 898 898 540 1294 1294 680 1558 1558 830 551 551 166 1854 1854 972 1196 1196 580 1196 1196 680 1167 1167 945 957 957 920 1423 1423 740 1239 1239 620 5243 5243 1565 927 927 1214 2200 2200 1300 1448 1448 1008 486 486 396 1554 1554 2004 2820 2820 1360 4239 4239 1172 4880 4880 2624 3003 3003 160 1440 1440 1052 PAGE NO. 2 STREET NAME From To KARN CIR ORELLA KARN CIR E. END SEA GULL KARN CIR W. END SEA GULL KIRKBROOK DR MERIDA KIRKBROOK DR MARILLA KIRKBROOK DR CAROL KIRKBROOK DR KIRKMONT KOSICH CT KOSICH LEONARD ROAD 300' W SARA SUN LIDO WY SEA GULL LIDO WY CHERRY MARIA LN PROSPECT METLER CT ASPESI MONTPERE DR RAVENWOOD MONTPERE DR RAVENWOOD MYREN CT PORTOS OLD WOOD RD SOBEY (W) OLD WOOD RD CORDWOOD PARAMOUNT DR PIERCE PASEO LADO QUITO PEACH HILL RD CITY LIMITS PORTOS CT RONNIE TOTAL KANE KANE INDIO MARILLA CAROL KIRKMONT KNOLLWOOD END END CHERRY GUAVA END END END QUITO END CORDWOOD SOBEY(N) END PASEO PRESADA PIEDMONT END Area In Fabric In Wedge Cut S.Y. 41,573 S.Y. In L. FeE 41,573 21,528 RAGE NO. 3 STREET NAME From QUITO OAKS WY QUITO RAVEN CT RAVENWOOD RAVENWOOD DR QUITO RAVENWOOD DR RAVEN RONNIE WY RANFRE LANE SARA VIEW DR SARAHILLS SEA GULL WY GOLETA E. END SEA GULL WY KARN N. END SPRINGER AVE E. FOURTH SPRINGHILL CT ASPESI ST CHARLES OAK SURREY LN E. SARA VIEW TRINITY CT TRINITY TWEED CT SCOTLAND VIA COLINA MONTE VISTA VIA MADRONAS DR VIA REAL VIA MADRONAS DR VIA MADRONAS VIA MADRONAS DR VIA MONTE VICTOR PL WALNUT WEST VIEW DR SARATOGA WEST VIEW DR JOLENE WEST VIEW DR RADOYKA To i 1101 777 2373 1275 3293 1177 2158 1168 2469 651 912 2183 636 1305 1240 1133 1016 3322 987 994 1129 1159 777 2373 1275 3293 1177 2158 1168 2469 651 912 2183 636 0.0 1240 1133 1016 3322 987 994 1129 1159 TOTAL END END RAVEN COURT MONTPERE WENDY RUSSELL KARN N. END LIDO END END SIXTH END END END PANORAMA VIA MADRONAS ROBLE ROBLE END JOLENE RADOYKA CURRY Area In S.Y. Fabric In S.Y. 32,458 31,153 Wedge CuI in L. Fe: 860 458 1652 840 1880 915 1140 660 172 443 202 143 363 0.0 525 682 564 1930 0.0 710 610 610 15,359 STREET NAME From To Area In. Fabric In Wedge Cut S.Y. S.Y. In L. Feet WEST VIEW DR CURRY SARATOGA CREEK 2842 2842 1690 WOODMONT DR COX PIERCE 2134 2134 0.0 CHALET CLOTILDE DR PIERCE END 484 484 0..0 LOQUAT CT ALLENDALE END 767 767 520 PAMELA WAY SIXTH END 816 816 0.0 VALLEY VISTA DR FRUITVALE AVE ORIOLE 1977 977 180 VALLEY VISTA DR ORIOLE MONTE VISTA. DR 607 609 0.0 VALLEY VISTA DR MONTE VISTA DR 540 1800 1800 440 BONNIE BRAE MENDELSOHN MONTALVO 2053 1586 238 TOTAL 13,480 13,013 3,068 STREET NAME From To Area In. Fabric In Wedge Cut S.Y. S.Y. In L. Feet EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: August 7, 1991 Recommended Action: Summary: Fiscal Impacts: Attachments: 1) Proposal Motion and Vote: r w ,ri n:C 4L:cc a (Lf ff ce, 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE, SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 807-:34 :38 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL 2-c5eT AGENDA ITEM: CITY MANAGER: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Slutzman SUBJECT: CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT Authorize staff to issue Purchase Order to J. Antuzzi in amount of $8993 for removal and replacement of curb, gutter and sidewalk as per attached. While it is. difficult to obtain bids for the installation of small amounts of concerete, we have succeeded in obtaining two bids for this concrete work and clearly J. Antuzzi is the lowest. Included in the budget are funds for the repair of defective concrete curb, gutters and sidewalk in the amount of approximately ?$17,000. L'E is Xb'O '6 yd 5:31eyYX Lso y ie lb; 7Y tJ'n 61161 ,h)( „1,gr d d7Y/.7rcure7 04Z'/ ,h Y„,,A1 1 .7 icr .cT �,�e b X -!r 371R7 11 77b' 7 N'7/7?J ww z1T37 io g/ wo'd ss© /b/ Y, 6 ?p /21/ uaoyg ssQYay 10( I P 3 otiv //7/./.7 Cued V- AOTER Raw /0 4E/4 43. /o R0 /CL) Cud DEVonJ qv 9/ ;1 6/6/9/L,1 PROPOSAL PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO: CITY OF :SARATOGA STREET 13777 FRUITVALE AVE. NOT INCLUDED IN THIS BID BASEROCK TO BE CONSIDERED AN EXTRA AT 50.00 PER TON IN PLACE. All matefia! zwronteed bt: speciO. Ar work t* be corog,!ettle ocr.xtreri ir.vomng txtro cost.s w t iy.cntuted wc,r VirMen orcle's. aoe virarKi- beyooe cOn ne' trel. Ow '1(1 othe elu5y Oat V-- A:thor 'e J.A. Antuzzi DATE: JULY 2, 1991 ENC.:WEER: CONCRETE COMPANY, INC. 541 W. JUUAN ST. Page No, SAN JOSE, CA. 95110 'Page of (408) 287-0775 FAX (408) 287-0789 by- SP LIC. NO. 329206 coy: T sTArE: SARATOGA 1 95070 PHONF.: ATTCN.: 867-3438 ARJAN IDNANI We hereby .zijOrnit specification and estimates to furii, ,i; if ;ikor and material as required to complete au concrete work for aboVe job including the following items: 1) SAWCUT A/C AT CURB AND GUTTER, AND REMOVE 1' X1251..F. $6.00 PER L.F. •2) SAWCUT, REMOVE AND REPLACE 34 L.F. OF CURE GUTTER 3 SAWCUT, REMOVE AND REPLACE 91 L.F. OF ROLLED CURB AND $25.O0 L.F. SAWCUL_REMOVE AND REPLACE 1044 S.F. OF CITY SIDEWALK $5 00 S.F. I STATE; I DATE OF Pt*ISI 750.00 748.00 2275 5220.00 TOTAL $8993.00 NOTE; Bid based on plan s. ari socific.ations. any rquir e. price adjustment. 3 n0 materials -'comoiete in accordance with above saecifications, for the sum EIGHT THOUSAND NINE_ HUNDRED .NINETY—THREE AND NO/ laars ($8 993.0Q. with payment to be made upon c)moletion of the job. 7% rlere5t char:TO on all overchie standard practices. Any alteration or deviation from above specification:, s the estirnatt.i. All agreements contingent upon strikes, acciden cr (Wcyr, red b Compensation Insurance. Ncte.: not ac w;thirt nt: e o s NOTE: Yellow copy must be si;;ned and reti.irnec prior The above prices. speccations '.err!i. accepted. YOU are authorized to do the work as specified. Payment volil te md &S. CAI:lined Accepted: inT;i1 i 1 Contractors License No. 587380 Phone: (408) 727 -7998 Fax: (408) 727 -8170 Company 1400 Coleman Ave., Ste. E 21, Santa Clara, CA 95050 PROPOSAL AND CONTRACT MAAE;rCity of Saratoge Attn: Mr. Gary Enriquez ;r DDRESS 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 'JOB ADDRESS he undir*igned agrees to furnish and provide necessary labor, materials, tools, implements, and appliances to do, perform -1/0 complete Ina good workmanlike manner the following: 1> Remove and replace city sidewalk $7.88 paf. Demo and haul, remove roots hai debris install base as necessary, form and pour per'city standards. Roo>r'guard by others. 640 s.f. minimum. Revierve and replace curb and gutter .$37.00 plf. Saw cut street dot and haul existing curb, remove roots, form and pour, strip 40I —minimum. 3> Patch asphalt as required curb and gutter $3.20 plf 4> Demo and haul existing approach, install new 26' approach. `'a)Saw,Cut, remove concrete as required; d) Form and b)''.''Grade and install base; planter. c)'YPorm and pour new 26' approach; /does not include `14�flI above_work to be completed fvr the sum of. N /A Dollars N/A DATE June 28, 1991 as required, and cleanup. Item 4 Total $2,189.00 pour 18 1,f. curb at ''A4.- tlterallone or deviation from the above, Involving extra coat of material or labor, will be executed only on written orders for same and will become an extra charge over the sum mentioned above. All agreements must be In writing. to the event that It becomes neoessary to institute suet or to employ an attorney to collect any payment or payments due the un- dersigned for labor or materials furnished under this agreement or any modification thereof, then you shall be liable to the under- signed for court coats and attorney's fees; said attorney's fees shall be In en amount equal to one•third of the amount for which recovery Is paid. Terms of payment shall be as follows: Net 30 days This proposal is vold.If not accepted by Ju 28 1991 ta s MCONwoxsx►ruw OE NOTICE oO OP PNOOE o iEI OCIOAACT CHOR u, ET 0(0.). 0011�� OR, O KIN N HB WOE PM& PAAA N 1MI O H V A w 1TM'r1OVE TWIT MOPERIY WY *NOT PAID FOR M TVOq(O SUPPTIETA Http A Pi0H T TO E,E A cLA N AQANRT Yp1 MOPERTY.ITU HA4ANA Ng, AMR A WONT MANIA, TWIT PITOPERTY 004AO to Eote ITT A OOIAR OKTOER NO THE rnoGELOS Of NC GALE VT[0 TO BATmFY nE P *U T n 4 WPPLN EVEN P YOU HAVE PAO VA OWN Qt O TOR M Nu. HF 11'15 a oo 4WCTOI. LUKNIEN ORSU M1pR16MNHg ACCEPTED Date Res Ily subm By asphalt repair. Arthur Arciniega i ACCEPTANCE You are hereby authorized to furnish all materials and Tabor required to complete the work mentioned in the above proposal, for which agree to pay the amount mentioned in said proposal, and according to the terms thereof. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. C AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: August 7, 1991 ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Clerk SUBJECT: Confirmation of Report and Assessment of Weed Abatement Charges Recommended Motion: Adopt resolution. Report Summary: CITY MGR. APPROVA AFICIP Under State and local laws, local governments routinely abate the seasonal fire hazards of weed growth on undeveloped property. For the County and several cities, including Saratoga, this weed abatement program is administered by the County Fire Marshal's Office. In many cases, property owners find it convenient to have government take care of weed removal and to pay through a property tax lien. This past year, the County performed weed abatement on 128 parcels in Saratoga. Tax liens and assessments on the owners of these parcels range from a high of about $1,791 to a low of about $5. In order to recover this cost, it is necessary for the Coun- cil to adopt a resolution confirming the assessments and direct- ing the County Auditor to enter and collect the assessments on the property tax bill. Fiscal Impacts: None upon City if resolution is passed. City may be liable for work performed by contractor for any assessments not levied. Attachments: Resolution with list of assessments. Motion and Vote: le SITIIS BURNETT DR CRAYSIDE LN PARKER RANCH RD 12496 PARKER RANCH RD 12301 VISTA ARROYO CT PARKER RANCH CT 21439 CONTINENTAL CL 21451 CONTINENTAL CL 21471 CONTINENTAL CL DIAMOND OAK CT STAR RIDGE CT 12624 PASEO FLORES 12799 BACH CT 12796 BACH CT 12795 RODONI CT 12792 RODONI CT 19161 COX AV SARATOGA CREEK DR SARATOGA AV SARATOGA AV SARATOGA AV SARATOGA AV SARATOGA AV 14153 TEN ACRES CT 14175 TEN ACRES CT 14195 CHESTER AV 18843 TEN ACRES RD 14450 L ELAND CL TEN ACRES RD TEN ACRES RD TEN ACRES RD 18846 TEN ACRES RD TEN ACRES RD 14'478 SOBEY RD 18530 SOBEY RD SOBEY RD 1 FRUITVALE AV 19100 ALLENDALE AV 1 991 WEED ABATEMENT ASSESSMENTS BY THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA FOR THE CITY OF SARATOGA APN OWNER NAME 366 -05 -026 DE LA CRUZ MICHAEL AND HEIDI 366 -05 -041 CHEN JAN -CHUAN AND FONG -GWO 366 -43 -008 ARIMA RONALD H AND MASAYE L 366 -48 -001 SINSLEY KRISTINE M AND DOUGLAS E 366 -48 -025 NAGGIAR MICHEL AND DIANE 366 -49 -010 LIN EDWARD S AND ROSE S 366 -49 -014 YAMAUCHI ALAN ET AL 366 -49 -015 TAI DIANE M AND PAUL K 366 -49 -046 KEMP RANDALL B AND MELANIE A 366 -50 -005 VALLEY TITLE CO 366 -50 -034 VALLEY TITLE CO 386 -12 -040 KLINE ROGER G AND PEGGY S 386 -47 -005 GIOMI GENE TRUSTEE 386 -47 -006 MOGANNAM EASA G AND EVELYN E 386 -47 -013 LEISTER INGRID L 386 -47 -014 CONROY FRANCIS P AND PATRICIA J 386 -47 -035 COX HELENE T 389 -06 -002 STURLA WARREN A 389 -10 -005 CAL -WEST COMMUNITIES INC 389 -10 -006 CAL -WEST COMMUNITIES INC 389 -11 -004 DIVIDEND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 389 -11 -011 DIVIDEND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 389 -11 -014 DIVIDEND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 397 -01 -054 KOURETAS PETE AND BESSE 397 -01 -055 HORNE DONALD R AD MARY T 397 -01 -057 SALCEDO ALFREDO L AND MARILYN V 397 -03 -029 BENNETT JANICE J TRUSTEE 397 -03 -069 LELAND VENTURE 397 -03 -081 PEIMANI FARROKH ET AL 397 -03 -082 STROM ROSIE A AND JEROME L 397 -03 -083 WU JERWIN AND CATHERINE L 397 -03 -084 JAYAKUMAR J AND ASHA 397 -03 -085 HUANG SU C AND LIN M 397 -04 -022 CHAU ROSSANA B AND EUGENE Y 397 -05 -006 WOODHULL ROBERT B 397 -05 -066 KIRKHAM NEAL P AND LILLIAN 397 -12 -016 CALIFORNIA ODD FELLOWS FOUNDATION 397 -15 -014 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER OWNER ADDRESS 12201 BROOKGLEN DR P.O. BOX 4360 1018 LEITH AV 1512 JARVIS CT 12301 VISTA ARROYO CT 851 KEVENAIRE DR 12298 GOLETA AV 21451 CONTINENTAL CL 21471 CONTINENTAL CL 125 E SUNNYOAKS AV UNIT 108 125 E SUNNYOAKS AV UNIT 108 12624 PASEO FLORES 12799 BACH CT 12796 BACH CT 12795 RODONI CT 12792 RODONI CT 19161 COX AV PO BOX 1234 2901 MOOREPARK AV UNIT 270 2901 MOOREPARK AV UNIT 270 3600 PRUNERIDGE AV 3600 PRUNERIDGE AV 3600 PRUNERIDGE AV 14153 TEN ACRES CT 14175 TEN ACRES CT PO BOX 7369 18843 TEN ACRES RD 14450 LELAND CIRCLE 121 EL CAMINO REAL 438 CAMBRIDGE 19493 CRISP AV 2770 GLAUSER DR 20673 GREENLEAF DR 7068 SANTA TERESA BL 18530 SOBEY RD 18630 SOBEY RD 14520 FRUITVALE AV 50 E NORTH TEMPLE ST CITY STATE SARATOGA CA MOUNTAIN VIEW CA SANTA CLARA CA SAN JOSE CA SARATOGA CA MILPITAS CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA CAMPBELL CA CAMPBELL CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SAN JOSE CA SAN JOSE CA SANTA CLARA CA SANTA CLARA CA SANTA CLARA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA TAMUNING GUAM SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA MILLBRAE CA PALO ALTO CA SARATOGA CA SAN JOSE CA CUPERTINO CA SAN JOSE CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SALT LAKE CITY UT Page No. 1 ZIP TAXROLL CODE CHARGE 95070 186.61 94040 211.20 95054 220.04 95118 82.50 95070 123.75 95035 82.50 95070 82.50 95070 82.50 95070 82.50 95008 160.91 95008 96.44 95070 165.00 95070 82.50 95070 82.50 95070 82.50 95070 82.50 95070 291.77 95071 687.06 95128 60.06 95128 41.02 95051 153.45 95051 165.00 95051 669.90 95070 566.71 95070 354.42 96911 184.21 95070 167.90 95070 82.50 94030 403.18 94306 60.06 95070 270.01 95133 65.21 95014 293.75 95139 206.25 95070 48.05 95070 165.00 95070 618.75 84150 60.06 SITIIS ALLENDALE AV 14581 FRUITVALE AV 14890 BARANGA LN LUTHERIA WY 20485 WILLIAMS AV EDENCREST LN MT EDEN RD 22122 MT EDEN RD MT EDEN RD PARAMONT DR 20931 CANYON VIEW DR CANYON VIEW DR 14435 DEER CANYON DEER SPRING CT DEER SPRING CT TOLL GATE RD TOLL GATE RD 20700 SARATOGA HILLS RD SARATOGA HILLS RD 21107 MICHAELS DR PIERCE RD DORENE CT 14152 DORENE CT DORENE CT 14134 DORENE CT 14170 TEERLINK WY 14170 TEERLINK WY 21790 HERBER WY 14185 TEERLINK 13946 DAMON LN 13957 ALBAR CT 13947 ALBAR CT 13937 ALBAR CT 13937 ALBAR CT 13917 ALBAR CT 1 991 WEED ABATEMENT ASSESSMENTS BY THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA FOR THE CITY OF SARATOGA APN OWNER NAME 397 -15 -016 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER 397 -17 -010 PESTANA ERNEST E AND IRENE 397 -18 -034 MEREDITH GENE A AND FRANCES V 397 -24 -022 MOORE ELLEN C 397 -28 -050 LEUNG SAVIO T ET AL 503 -13 -033 HORVATH FRANK AND DAGMAR 503 -13 -039 HORVATH FRANK AND DAGMAR 503 -13 -059 HORVATH FRANK J AND DAGMAR M 503 -13 -115 HORVATH FRANK J AND DAGMAR M 503 -15 -060 WILLIAMS PHILIP C AND DEBORAH L 503 -17 -026 MARTINEZ MARILYN J AND MICHAEL R 503 -19 -067 TOUGAS DORIS G AND BERNARD E 503 -27 -081 ISIDORO FRANK W AND MERNA L 503 -28 -007 KIM SOO N AND TAE J 503 -28 -008 MEHRANY M ET AL 503 -28 -112 CHOU CHUEN PU J AND JUI -YU C 503 -28 -117 DICAR INVESTMENTS INCORPORATED 503 -28 -118 DICAR INVESTMENTS INCORPORATED 503 -28 -122 ACHKAR GOURBRAN TRUSTEE ET AL 503 -28 -123 NGAI -PESIC KATHERINE 503 -29 -012 ALLISON ENIDE 503 -29 -078 ALLISON ENIDE 503 -29 -114 BENZING JEFFREY C AND JANET M 503 -30 -002 WALKER THOMAS E AND SUSAN 503 -31 -055 BROWN JOHN P AND JACQUELINE 503 -31 -056 SMITH DAVID AND LORI 503 -31 -057 SEVILLA ALBERTO G ET AL 503 -31 -058 ROSENBERG GERALD R AND BARRIE R 503 -31 -065 SHENG NIN -CHUN AND ROUNDA 503 -31 -066 SHENG NIN -CHUN AND ROUNDA 503 -31 -069 KUNDTZ ROBERT A 503 -31 -076 ALFF WILLIAM H AND DENNY V 503 -31 -079 MOON WILLIAM G AND ANNETTE C 503 -31 -087 MALANCZUK WILLIAM T AND DORENE G 503 -31 -088 HWANG LILY L AND JOSEPH J 503 -31 -089 MCGRATH ROBERT J AND CAROLYN R 503 -31 -090 NAROG KIM AND LESLIE A 503 -31 -091 FARSIO SHAHNAZ AND ALI OWNER ADDRESS 50 E NORTH TEMPLE ST 1431 ATTEBERRY LN 14890 BARANGA LN 1089 S DANIEL WY 431 27TH AV 15209 BLUE GUM CT 15209 BLUE GUM CT 15209 BLUE GUM CT 15209 BLUE GUM CT 12161 PARKER RANCH RD 6067 CROSSVIEW CL 20604 WARDELL RD 15041 PARK DR 20931 CANYON VIEW DR 105 DOVER CT 14435 DEER CANYON PO BOX 2849 PO BOX 2849 525 THE PRUNEYARD 1802 CHENEY DR 4250 STEVENS CREEK 4250 STEVENS CREEK BL 1073 LANCER DR 1134 LITTLEOAK CL 12338 SARATOGA CREEK DR 14152 DORENE CT 19315 RANFRE LN 14134 DORENE CT 14900 VINTNER CT 14900 VINTNER CT 20283 ARGONAUT DR 14185 TEERLINK 13946 DAMON LN 13957 ALBAR CT 13966 ALBAR CT 13937 ALBAR CT 1580 LARKIN ST 14930 VINTNER CT CITY STATE Page No. 2 ZIP TAXROLL CODE CHARGE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84150 46.68 SAN JOSE CA 95131 165.00 SARATOGA CA 95070 221.10 SAN JOSE CA 95128 191.50 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94121 123.75 SARATOGA CA 95070 516.78 SARATOGA CA 95070 211.20 SARATOGA CA 95070 211.20 SARATOGA CA 95070 344.85 SARATOGA CA 95070 81.18 SAN JOSE CA 95120 765.60 SARATOGA CA 95070 268.46 SARATOGA CA 95070 220.56 SARATOGA CA 95070 82.50 LOS GATOS CA 95030 165.00 SARATOGA CA 95070 224.07 SARATOGA CA 95070 278.85 SARATOGA CA 95070 203.78 CAMPBELL CA 95008 123.75 SAN JOSE CA 95128 241.49 SAN JOSE CA 95129 421.08 SAN JOSE CA 95129 229.68 SAN JOSE CA 95129 380.95 SAN JOSE CA 95129 28.31 SARATOGA CA 95070 343.81 SARATOGA CA 95070 131.18 SARATOGA CA 95070 121.28 SARATOGA CA 95070 184.80 SARATOGA CA 95070 270.06 SARATOGA CA 95070 5.15 SARATOGA CA 95070 146.03 SARATOGA CA 95070 123.75 SARATOGA CA 95070 165.00 SARATOGA CA 95070 174.90 SARATOGA CA 95070 586.11 SARATOGA CA 95070 82.50 SAN JOSE CA 95129 237.80 SARATOGA CA 95070 82.50 SITE'S 21761 HEBER WY 21770 HEBER WY 21760 HEBER WY 13966 ALBAR CT CHALET CLOTHILDE DR SARAHILLS DR TOLL GATE RD 21432 TOLL GATE RD 21424 TOLL GATE RD 21424 TOLL GATE RD 21200 CHIQUITA WY 14780 MASSON CT 14760 MASSON CT 14760 MASSON CT 14575 SARATOGA HEIGHTS CT 21503 SARATOGA HEIGHTS DR 21775 CONGRESS HALL LN 21770 CONGRESS HALL LN 21764 CONGRESS HALL LN 21757 CONGRESS HALL LN 21771 CONGRESS HALL LN 21771 CONGRESS HALL LN QUARRY RD QUARRY RD QUARRY RD QUARRY RD QUARRY RD QUARRY RD QUARRY RD QUARRY RD QUARRY RD QUARRY RD 13475 COCCIARDI /21959 21959 QUARRY RD 21959 QUARRY RD 21959 QUARRY RD 1991 WEED ABATEMENT ASSESSMENTS BY THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA FOR THE CITY OF SARATOGA APN 503 -31 -100 503 -31 -103 503 -31 -105 503 -31 -107 503 -51 -003 503 -53 -061 503 -55 -053 503 -62 -017 503 -62 -023 503 -62 -024 503 -62 -026 503 -66 -010 503 -72 -007 503 -72 -008 503 -72 -012 503 -72 -014 503 -72 -018 503 -72 -025 503 -72 -034 503 -75 -008 503 -75 -010 503 -75 -016 503 -75 -018 503 -75 -020 503 -78 -004 503 -78 -005 503 -78 -006 503 -78 -007 503 -78 -008 503 -78 -009 503 -78 -010 503 -78 -011 503 -78 -013 503 -78 -014 QUARY 503 -78 -015 503 -78 -016 503 -78 -018 503 -78 -019 OWNER NAME PALMER CHARLENE AND WILLIAM TRUST DENTON RICHARD AND SHERRIE TRUSTE LUTHRA VIRENDER K AND TRIPTA HWANG LILY L AND JOSEPH J PERASSO CLOTILDE M TRUSTEE DHAKA VIR A AND MOHINI BLAIR JEROME C AND ARLENE LIU VINCENT ET AL ATKINS JAMES D AND BETSY S MC CORMICK ROBERT V AND JANIS K FREDERICKSBURG DEVELOPMENT CORP CHANG MU T AND LIN M SZE ROBERT M AND MABEL K LIU VINCENT L ET AL SAFFARIAN JALIL MIAU MATTHEW F AND AHCHEN H KWONG JONATHAN C AND KATHY W TANIGUCHI BEN T AND SACHIKO HSU FU -CHIEH AND CHENG -YIH DAVIS ISHBEL AND ANTHONY M DELIZONNA HARRY LUTHRA VIRENDER K AND TRIPTA FARSIO SHAHNAZ AND ALI SHENG GRACE ET AL CHAO KEITH AND VIOLETN J ET AL NGUYEN NGUYEN H AND HANG L YAM LAP M ET AL GAULT ROBERT G AND PATRICIA L BILKEY DANIEL AND PAZ Q HOMECRAFT BUILDERS INC UPPAL INDERJIT S AND PARAMJIT K SCHAAF ROGER L AND YEE C HARBOR BUILDERS CO INC HARBOR BUILDERS CO INC PAPPANASTOS PETE E AND VICTORIA G JUE JIMMY HARBOR BUILDERS CO INC ROSENDIN MICHAEL L AND STELLA D OWNER ADDRESS 10900 LUCKY OAK CT 21770 HEBER WY 6951 GRANDWOOD WY 19884 WHEATON DR 596 PACIFIC AV 31028 MARNE DRIVE RANCHO PAL 3549 MAURICIA AV 1635 ALEXANDER WY 2615 PACIFIC COAST HWY UNIT 226 21424 TOLLGATE RD PO BOX 908 21200 CHIQUITA WY 3242 KNIGHTSWOOD WY 1635 ALEXANDER WY 21757 CONGRESS HALL LN 6 -F 585 MING SHENG E RD 3254 KNIGHTSWOOD WY 21503 SARATOGA HEIGHTS DR 21775 CONGRESS HALL LN 21770 CONGRESS HALL LN 1501 THE ALAMEDA 6951 GRANDWOOD WY 14930 VINTNER CT 734 ALMERIA DR 719 BRADMOOR DR 814 PACHECO DR 610 SAN CONRADO TR UNIT 5 5186 COUNTRY LN 2160 ROLLING HILLS DR 4085 ORME ST 655 IDLEBROOK CT 1626 EAGLE DR 691 N MATHILDA AV 691 N MATHILDA AV 13571 BEAUMONT AV 101 HEPPLEWHITE CT 691 N MATHILDA AV 16184 CAMINO DEL SOL CITY STATE CUPERTINO CA SARATOGA CA SAN JOSE CA CUPERTINO CA SAN FRANCISCO CA VERDES CA SANTA CLARA CA LOS ALTOS CA HERMOSA BEACH CA SARATOGA CA HALF MOON BAY CA SARATOGA CA SAN JOSE CA LOS ALTOS CA SARATOGA CA TAIPEI TAIWAN SAN JOSE CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SAN JOSE CA SAN JOSE CA SARATOGA CA SAN JOSE CA SAN JOSE CA MILPITAS CA SUNNYVALE CA SAN JOSE CA MORGAN HILL CA PALO ALTO CA SAN JOSE CA SUNNYVALE CA SUNNYVALE CA SUNNYVALE CA SARATOGA CA LOS GATOS CA SUNNYVALE CA LOS GATOS CA Page No. 3 ZIP TAXROLL CODE CHARGE 95014 95070 95120 95014 94133 90274 95051 94022 90254 95070 94019 95070 95148 94024 95070 14760 95148 95070 95070 95070 95126 95120 95070 95123 95129 95035 94086 95129 95037 94306 95120 94087 94086 94086 95070 95030 94086 95030 158.40 82.50 123.75 123.75 421.08 88.70 254.40 221.10 123.75 82.50 36.38 26.40 29.17 82.50 82.50 432.89 343.94 16.47 77.73 343.65 240.72 243.80 334.55 60.06 52.50 165.00 82.50 82.50 82.50 82.50 255.90 161.70 181.53 68.81 51.83 165.00 37.75 82.50 SITIIS 21959 QUARRY RD 21959 QUARRY RD 21959 QUARRY RD 15156 VICKERY AV PIEDMONT RD 1991 WEED ABATEMENT ASSESSMENTS BY THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Page No. 4 FOR THE CITY OF SARATOGA APN OWNER NAME 503 -78 -020 ROBBY GUY M AND NANCY D 503 -78 -021 YAN JOSEPH W AND ANNA M 503 -78 -023 HARBOR BUILDERS CO INC 517 -18 -046 BUTLER JUDITH L AND GERALD D 517 -22 -037 KOCHER GEORGE S TRUSTEE ET AL OWNER ADDRESS 13643 SARATOGA SUNNYVALE RD 782 LONDON DR 691 N MATHILDA AV 15015 VICKERY AV 15139 PARK DR ZIP TAXROLL CITY STATE CODE CHARGE SARATOGA CA MILPITAS CA SUNNYVALE CA SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA 95070 82.50 95035 82.50 94086 149.72 95070 49.07 95070 99.00 TOTAL 21, 968.96 SITIIS 1991 WEED ABATEMENT ASSESSMENTS BY THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Page No. 1 FOR THE CITY OF SARATOGA SBE PARCELS APN OWNER NAME OWNER ADDRESS SARATOGA SUNNYVALE RD 366 -12 -069 SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION C 65 CAHILL SARATOGA SUNNYVALE RD 366 -12 -071 SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION C 65 CAHILL COX AV 386 -44 -038 SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION C 65 CAHILL LEUTAR CT 386 -53 -017 SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION C 65 CAHILL GLEN BRAE DR 389 -01 -021 SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION C 65 CAHILL GLEN BRAE AV 389 -01 -022 SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION C 65 CAHILL SARATOGA AV 389 -11 -003 SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION C 65 CAHILL QUITO RD 389 -19 -022 SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION C 65 CAHILL ASPESI DR 389 -25 -001 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO 111 ALMADEN BL ZIP TAXROLL CITY STATE CODE CHARGE SAN JOSE CA SAN JOSE CA SAN JOSE CA SAN JOSE CA SAN JOSE CA SAN JOSE CA SAN JOSE CA SAN JOSE CA SAN JOSE CA 95110 526.94 95110 1263.73 95110 831.83 95110 1791.90 95110 970.20 95110 678.22 95110 985.69 95110 1465.20 95110 158.40 TOTAL 8, 672.11 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 20(4? AGENDA ITEM D 1. MEETING DATE: August 7, 1991 ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering Recommended ,kction: Council Discretion. Report Summary: CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Recommendation from Public Safety Commission on Traffic Signal Installation at Saratoga Ave. /Herriman Ave. Last November, the City Council received a petition from resi- dents in the Lannoy Ct. /Beaumont Ave. /Jerries Dr. neighborhood requesting the installation of a traffic signal or stop sign at the Saratoga Ave. Herriman Ave. intersection. The Council for- warded the request to the Public Safety Commission for their recommendation. After Engineering staff evaluated the request and performed the appropriate warrant studies, the Public Safety Commission deliberated the matter at their May and June Meetings and ultimately voted to recommend to the Council that a traffic signal be installed. The Council must now decide whether to authorize the installation of the signal. The signal warrant study, which I've attached, does not provide a clear cut answer as to whether a traffic signal should be in- stalled. Rather, it attempts to provide a rational approach for evaluating those conditions which would be affected by or could be improved by the installation of a signal. Each warrant evalu- ates a separate aspect of the signal installation. The satisfac- tion of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Proper engineering judgement and common sense must also be ap- plied. Depending on the circumstances and how the signal warrants are applied, a warrant study may or may not justify the installation of a signal. At this particular location for example, the signal can be justified on the basis of providing a safe crossing of Saratoga Ave. for pedestrians and particularly for school chil- dren. On the other hand, if improving traffic flow or reducing accidents is the goal, the signal cannot be justified. It apears that the primary concern of those who signed the petition is the safety of school children who must cross Saratoga Avenue. Beyond consideration of the signal warrants, there are several pros and cons which the Council may wish to consider when making its decision. These can be summarized as follows: PROS 1. The nearest signal locations are over 1/2 mile away. This signal will most likely reduce the critical speed along Saratoga Ave. without affecting the operation of adjacent signals. 2. Herriman Ave. is a major east -west collector street. 3. After completion of Route 85, traffic volumes are expected to increase on Saratoga Ave. north (east) of Herriman Ave. by over 20 This will in- 4. crease the need to have a controlled turning movement onto Saratoga Ave.. 3. The signal will ease pedest- rian access across Saratoga 5. Ave.. This may reduce the number of vehicle trips re- sulting from parents who drive their children to school as the peak traffic on Herri- man Ave. coincides with the beginning and end of the school day. CANS 1. Intallation costs of $80,000 plus annual operation and mainten- ance costs of $1300. 2. The signal will likely increase the number of rear end accidents on Saratoga Ave.. The signal will increase air and noise pollution in the vicinity of the signal. The signal may detract from those certain quali- ties of Saratoga Ave. which the City is striv- ing to preserve. The City will be exposed to greater liabilities as a result of owning and operating the signal. 6. The signal will negatively affect ingress and egress from nearby properties on Saratoga Ave.. If the Council opts to install the traffic signal, then staff should be directed to return with a resolution designating the intersection as a signalized intersection. The signal installa- tion would then be proposed as a new project to be included in the Capital Improvement Plan when it is updated in the spring of next year. Between now and then, staff would perform the neces- sary environmental and fiscal analyses and based on the Council's input, program the project into the CIP. This all assumes of course that the Council would not consider the signal as an urgency matter. If you do, then staff should be directed to return with the necessary amendments to the CIP and budget ad- justments so that the signal could be installed during this fiscal year. One final thought the Council may wish to consider on this issue is public notification. Except for the regular noticing proce- dures for your agenda, many people who may be affected by the installation of this signal, both favorably and unfavorably, probably are unaware that this item is even before the Council. The only people who have actually been notified that this topic is on the agenda are the two proponents of the signal who submit- ted the original petition to the Council. Consequently, the Council may wish to defer any decision on the signal until a future meeting and direct staff to increase noticing on the subject. The Deputy City Clerk has sugested holding a public hearing on the matter and recommends sending notice to all of the names on the Community Groups List and publishing a display ad in the Saratoga News. Fiscal, Impacts: Unknown at this time. As stated above, the signal would cost approximately $80,000 to install and $1300 per year to operate and maintain. Attachments: 1. Existing vicinity map. 2. Traffic Signal Warrant Study. 3. Proposed intersection layout with signal. 4. Petition dated November 6, 1990. M otion k Vote: Rj 60" SCALE: MIN. REQUIREMENT DISTANCE TO NEAREST ESTABLISHED CRWLK. FULFILLED 150 Feet N/E ft S/W____ ft Yes 0 No Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Major St: Minor St: DIST CO RTE PM A2Aro&A AVE. Hegrtit►AL, Ave. Critical speed of major street traffic>40 mph In built up area of isolated community of< 10,000 pop. WARRANT 1 Minimum Vehicular Volume Figure 9-1A TRAFFIC SIGNAL WA NTS CALL DATE 5 9i CHK DATE Critical Approach Speed 39 8 mph Critical Approach Speed mph r) OR URBAN (U) RURAL (R) 100% SATISFIED YES NO 80% SATISFIED YES NO MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) APPROACH LANES Both Apprchs. Major Street Highest Apprch. Minor Street* 500 (400) 150 (120) R 350 (280) 105 (84) U 2ormore C 7 L /�Tt� /�rccU 1� 1cr, l ct 7ct I q; (ICI i"i[C icco woo vtce) /fva r tr( 600 (480) 200 (160) R 420 (336) 140 (112) 853 1 4 J�Ilc 13 SS3 13S 1034- 105 1012. Iic'l IS '1 10'7 NOTE: Heavier left turn movement from Major Street included when LT- phasing is proposed WARRANT 2 Interruption of Continuous Traffic 100% SATISFIED YES tgr NO 80% SATISFIED YES PA NO MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) R 750 525 (600) (420) APPROACH LANES Both Apprchs. Major Street Highest Apprch. Minor Street* 75 (60) 53 (42) U R 2 or more 900 630 (720) (504) 100 (80) 70 (56) C $Gi TO c. 1100 IC 00 19-CO I' TO TC C 500 5 C)'-Ilo e e 3 c z IQ 3(<: I C la 9;29 190 93 9 13t, ISCC' Woo ru To -120 C ISM 1147 15 Itcp 107 *NOTE: Heavier left turn movement from Major Street included when LT- phasing is proposed WARRANT 3 Minimum Pedestrian Volume 100% SATISFIED YES NO 80% SATISFIED YES NO Both Apprchs. Major Street Volume MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) No Median Raised 4' Median Ped's On Highest Volume X -Walk Xing Ma or Street X 0 600 (480) 1000 (800) 150 (120) R 420 (336) 700 (580) 105 (84) Oe /110 /11�'U/ 1300 /1- too 15Cy Wo /1 ico T U T U TC% ru T o TU rC rc r ciCC lac0 1 1'400 I- co 1 6)00 11CC1 It?,00 ss 7 S(0C) ID 3(0 tot '7 I 0(0'1 7 9gc) 7 IF MIDBLOCK SIGNAL PROPOSED Hour Hour Hour The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence of the need for right of way assignment must be shown. TS -10A 9-5 12 -1986 'g •Dc 9-6 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual 12 -1986 WARRANT 4 School Crossings WARRANT 5 Progressive Movement Figure 9 -1 B TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS Not Applicable See School Crossings Warrant Sheet X SATISFIED YES 04 NO MINIMUM REOUIREMENTS 1000 ft DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL N 3000 S 3"o' h, E u /A ft, W 330 ft ON ONE WAY ISOLATED ST. OR ST. WITH ONE WAY TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANCE AND ADJACENT SIGNALS ARE SO FAR APART THAT NECESSARY PLATOONING SPEED CONTROL WOULD BE LOST ON 2 -WAY ST. WHERE ADJACENT SIGNALS DO NOT PROVIDE NECESSARY PLATOONING SPEED CONTROL. PROPOSED SIGNALS COULD CONSTITUTE A PROGRESSIVE SIGNAL SYSTEM FULFILLED YES 121 NO WARRANT 6 Accident Experience SATISFIED YES NO ti NO WARRANT 7 Systems Warrant SATISFIED YES NO The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence of the need for right of way assignment must be shown. MINIMUM VOLUME REQUIREMENT ENTERING VOLUMES ALL APPROACHES FULFILLED 800 VEH /HR DURING TYPICAL WEE KDAY PEAK HOUR 12 s r VEH /HR SUNDAY YES )4 NO DURING EACH OF ANY 5 HRS OF A SATURDAY AND /OR VEH /HR YES IX NO CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES MAJOR ST MINOR ST HWY SYSTEM SERVING AS PRINCIPLE NETWORK FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC CONNECTS AREAS OF PRINCIPLE TRAFFIC GENERATION RURAL OR SUBURBAN HWY OUTSIDE OF ENTERING_ OR TRAVERSING A CITY HAS SURFACE STREET FWY OR EXPWAY RAMP TERMINALS APPEARS AS MAJOR ROUTE ON AN OFFICIAL PLAN YES I`I N 0 (I- S N a '(ES N 0 N0 t l 0 ANY MAJOR ROUTE CHARACTERISTICS MET, BOTH STS. X 'g •Dc 9-6 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual 12 -1986 WARRANT 4 School Crossings WARRANT 5 Progressive Movement Figure 9 -1 B TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS Not Applicable See School Crossings Warrant Sheet X SATISFIED YES 04 NO MINIMUM REOUIREMENTS 1000 ft DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL N 3000 S 3"o' h, E u /A ft, W 330 ft ON ONE WAY ISOLATED ST. OR ST. WITH ONE WAY TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANCE AND ADJACENT SIGNALS ARE SO FAR APART THAT NECESSARY PLATOONING SPEED CONTROL WOULD BE LOST ON 2 -WAY ST. WHERE ADJACENT SIGNALS DO NOT PROVIDE NECESSARY PLATOONING SPEED CONTROL. PROPOSED SIGNALS COULD CONSTITUTE A PROGRESSIVE SIGNAL SYSTEM FULFILLED YES 121 NO WARRANT 6 Accident Experience SATISFIED YES NO ti NO WARRANT 7 Systems Warrant SATISFIED YES NO The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence of the need for right of way assignment must be shown. REQUIREMENT WARRANT FULFILLED ONE WARRANT SATISFIED 80% WARRANT 1 MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME R WARRANT 2 INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC OR WARRANT 3 MINIMUM PEDESTRIAN VOLUME YES )4 NO SIGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUPT PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC FLOW (XI ADEQUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO REDUCE ACC. FREQ. N /A ACC WITHIN A 12 MON. PER MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OD SUSCEPTIBLE OF CORR. INVOLVING INJURY OR $200 DAMAGE NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS 01 5 OR MORE* 'g •Dc 9-6 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual 12 -1986 WARRANT 4 School Crossings WARRANT 5 Progressive Movement Figure 9 -1 B TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS Not Applicable See School Crossings Warrant Sheet X SATISFIED YES 04 NO MINIMUM REOUIREMENTS 1000 ft DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL N 3000 S 3"o' h, E u /A ft, W 330 ft ON ONE WAY ISOLATED ST. OR ST. WITH ONE WAY TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANCE AND ADJACENT SIGNALS ARE SO FAR APART THAT NECESSARY PLATOONING SPEED CONTROL WOULD BE LOST ON 2 -WAY ST. WHERE ADJACENT SIGNALS DO NOT PROVIDE NECESSARY PLATOONING SPEED CONTROL. PROPOSED SIGNALS COULD CONSTITUTE A PROGRESSIVE SIGNAL SYSTEM FULFILLED YES 121 NO WARRANT 6 Accident Experience SATISFIED YES NO ti NO WARRANT 7 Systems Warrant SATISFIED YES NO The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence of the need for right of way assignment must be shown. REQUIREMENT WARRANT FULFILLED TWO WARRANTS SATISFIED 80% 1 MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME is i OS 2 INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC 2 3 MINIMUM PEDESTRIAN VOLUME YES NO ai Both Approaches Major Street 5 A k ATC CA Ay E IOWA l03(n is i OS Minor Street Highest Approaches Minor Street 14 earl. IMnN /WE. 151 IS lI9'1 190 Both Approaches Major Street Ar1ATC Av6. 1012 1004 Highest Approaches Minor Street 14E d RIM 4I u Ay tE It 15 9 Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-7 12.1986 WARRANT 8 Combination of Warrants WARRANT 9- Four Hour Volume *Refer to Fig. 9 2A (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9 2B (RURAL AREAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfied. WARRANT 10 Peak Hour Delay 1. The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle -hours for a one -lane approach and five vehicle -hours for a two -lane approach; and 2. The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes; and CG rc Ccico 3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with three approaches. YES NO NO WARRANT 11 Peak Hour Volume *Refer to Fig. 9 -2C (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9 -2D (RURAL AREAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfied. The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence of the need for right of way assignment must be shown. Ts -roc Figure 9-1C TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS Approach Lanes Approach Lanes SATISFIED YES NO 2 or One more 2 or One more SATISFIED* YES tiO NO Hour SATISFIED YES NO YES NO YES JI NO SATISFIED* YES NO Hour Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Major St: Minor St: DIST CO RTE P.M. 7A►ZATC A AVE H RCCIMA►..l A vr Critical speed of approach traffic >40 mph In built up area of isolated community of <10,000 pop. FLASHING YELLOW SCHOOL SIGNALS (All parts must be satisfied) PART B PART C Vehicle Volume School Age Pedestrians Crossing Street PART B AND Critical Approach Speed Exceeds 35 mph AND Is nearest controlled crossing more than 600 feet away? SCHOOL AREA TRAFFIC SIGNALS (All parts must be satisfied) Minimum Requirements PARTA LU AND Is nearest controlled crossing more than 600 feet away? Figure 9 -1 E SCHOOL PROTECTION WARRANTS CALC e DATE (1 1 CHK DATE Critical Approach Speed ..31,L.2._ mph Critical Approach Speed 0 mph c c C c •o rc It C c c ILscV -/1 Each of 2 hours Each of 2 hours or per day Co 500 100 500 R 350 70 350 7 103 o RURAL (R) URBAN (U) 9-9 12 -1986 SATISFIED YES NO SATISFIED YES NO SATISFIED YES NO SATISFIED YES NO SATISFIED YES X1 NO SATISFIED YES NO SATISFIED YES NO Minimum Requirements PARTA U R Vehicle Volume Each of 200 140 2 hours School Age Pedestrian Crossing Street Each of 2 hours 40 40 Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Major St: Minor St: DIST CO RTE P.M. 7A►ZATC A AVE H RCCIMA►..l A vr Critical speed of approach traffic >40 mph In built up area of isolated community of <10,000 pop. FLASHING YELLOW SCHOOL SIGNALS (All parts must be satisfied) PART B PART C Vehicle Volume School Age Pedestrians Crossing Street PART B AND Critical Approach Speed Exceeds 35 mph AND Is nearest controlled crossing more than 600 feet away? SCHOOL AREA TRAFFIC SIGNALS (All parts must be satisfied) Minimum Requirements PARTA LU AND Is nearest controlled crossing more than 600 feet away? Figure 9 -1 E SCHOOL PROTECTION WARRANTS CALC e DATE (1 1 CHK DATE Critical Approach Speed ..31,L.2._ mph Critical Approach Speed 0 mph c c C c •o rc It C c c ILscV -/1 Each of 2 hours Each of 2 hours or per day Co 500 100 500 R 350 70 350 7 103 o RURAL (R) URBAN (U) 9-9 12 -1986 SATISFIED YES NO SATISFIED YES NO SATISFIED YES NO SATISFIED YES NO SATISFIED YES X1 NO SATISFIED YES NO SATISFIED YES NO N N N 0 60 Oak s*eef Moue Si like Roe.0 Sign Type N i/oiA■c C B. POSSIBLE PROPOSED SCALE: G ti. November 6, 1990 Mayor and City Council of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mayor Stutzman and Saratoga City Council Members: We would like to request that you consider installing a stop light or stop sign at the intersection of Herriman and Saratoga Avenues. You may be aware that it is difficult for pedestrians to cross Saratoga Avenue in the crosswalk near this intersection. Drivers are often going too fast on Saratoga Avenue to stop easily for pedestrians. We have witnessed bicyclists and pedestrians struck in this crosswalk. Before and after school, the traffic to and from Redwood School, Saratoga High School, and Saratoga School results in two long lines of cars on Herriman waiting to turn left and right onto Saratoga Avenue. At the same time, many cars turn onto Herriman from Saratoga Avenue. This situation makes it difficult for drivers to check both the crosswalk and the oncoming traffic while turning right onto Saratoga Avenue. With the opening of Redwood School as a middle school, more and younger students are using this crosswalk. In the interest of the safety of our children and of all Saratoga residents, we urge your prompt attention to this matter. Attached are signatures of other Saratoga residents who support the installation of a stop light or sign at the intersection of Herriman and Saratoga Avenues. Sincerely, zaix4_41cdk)a_etsi5k Barbara Wolcott Poe Edita Bacal Yagol 19951 Lannoy Court 19970 Lannoy Court 867- 7973 867 -7210 2�r J 367o f3-9,�14.1 alri 1378 &Q u lyi v ttr (6 *e-ft-t44-4- To: Mayor S-h zw..n and the Saratoga City Council We support the installation of a stop light or stop sign at the intersection of Herriman and Saratoga Avenues. Name: Address: �41. /996/ a //A 9- 10. ,Son etS070 ef i■szi At4\T* o `�.A4 1 9 I4- .r C56%. 5 S Y t t /3 Al zui.).,r_e-A..1 94tAcgi-ttr, 9s 7 1 17lb Qied4,14.14yt, '46AcTiAle( 7/0 AlkumtInf SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. `3 AGENDA ITEM LIT MEETING DATE: August 7, 1991 n CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering SUBJECT: SD 87 -008 (22630 Mt Eden Road): Stella Investments Final Map Approval of Four Lots Recommended ,Action: 1. Adopt Resolution SD 87 -008.4 granting Final Map Approval and accepting Offers of Dedication of Easements. 2. Authorize the Mayor to execute the Contract for the Improve- ment of SD 87 -008. 3. Authorize the Mayor to execute the Grant of Open Space and Landscape Maintenance Agreement. 4. Authorize the Mayor to execute the Landscaping and Revege- tation Agreement Quarry Creek Project. 5. Authorize the Mayor to execute the Agreement for Maintenance of the private road. Report Summary Attached is Resolution No. SD 87-008.4 which, if adopted, will grant Final Map Approval of four lots located at 22630 Mt. Eden Road. I have examined the final map submitted to me in accord- ance with the provisions of Section 14- 40.020 of the Municipal Code and have determined that: 1. The final map substantially complies with the approved tentative map. 2. All conditions of the tentative map as contained in Plan- ning Commission Resolutions SD 87 -008 and SD 87 -008.2 have been completed or are covered by the standard Improvement Agreement and secured by apropriate and sufficient secur- ities. 3. The Subdivision Map Act, the City's Subdivision Ordinance and all other applicable provisions of law have been com- plied with. 4. The final map is technically correct. Consequently, I have executed the City'Engineer's Certificate on the final map and have filed the final map with the City Clerk pursuant to Section 14- 40.040 of the Municipal Code for action by the City Council. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. SD 87 -008 with exhibit. 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. SD 87- 008.2. 3. Resolution No. SD 87- 008.4. 4. Contract for the Improvement of SD 87 -008. 5. Grant of Open Space and Landscape Maintenance Agreement. 6. Landscaping and Revegetation Agreement Quarry Creek Project. 7. Maintenance Agreement for the private road. 8. Declaration of CC &R's. Motion k Vote: Done. N.A. Done. Pd. $470 On final map and improvement plans In Title Report and on final map. RESOLUTION NO. SD -87 -008 RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF 22631 MT. EDEN ROAD, COCCIARDI APN #'s 503 -12 -024 (partial), 503 -12 -025 WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for tentative map approval of 4 lots, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD -87 -008 of this City, and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan, reference to the Staff Report dated 5/24/89 being hereby made for further particulars, and WHEREAS, this body has heretofor received and considered the EIR prepared for this project in accord with the currently applicable provisions of CEQA, and WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a) through (g) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect to said subdivision, and tentative approval should be granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated the 1st day of April, 1989 and is marked Exhibit "A" in the hereinabove referred file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as follows: 1. The applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. 2. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval. 3. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation and pay required checking and recordation fees. 4. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 20 ft. ft. Half Street on Nina Court and improve to minimum access road standards as prescribed by the City Engineer. 5. Provide evidence of access rights to Mt. Eden Road from the Revised per Planning Commission Resolution No. SD 87- 008.2. On improvement plans. None req'd. Done. Done. SD -87 -008, 22631 Mt. Eden Road proposed cul -de -sac. The applicant shall submit road widening, drainage and utility plans for improvements to the beginning of the subdivision to City Standards including: a. Access road from Mt. Eden road to the subdivision's westerly boundary to the Planning Commission for review and approval prior to recordation of the final map. b. Designed Structural Section 26 ft. between flowlines. c. P.C. concrete curb and gutter (V -24). d. Undergrounding existing overhead utilities. 7. Construct Storm Drainage System as shown on the "Master Drainage Plan" and as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey storm runoff to street, storm sewer or watercourse, including the following: a. Storm sewer trunks with necessary manholes. b. Storm sewer laterals with necessary manholes. c. Storm drain inlets, outlets, channels, etc. 8. Construct standard driveway approaches. 9. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstruction of view as required at driveway and access road intersections. 10. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. 11. Protective planting required on roadside cuts and fills. 12. Obtain encroachment permit from Santa Clara County for work to be done within their right -of -way. 13. Engineered improvment plans required for: a. street improvements b. storm drain construction Done. Pd. $10,000. 14. Pay plan check and inspection fees as determined from improvement plans. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed within one (1) year of receiving final approval. 15. Done. Posted 16. $122,000 bond. 17. A sanitary sewer connection from Cupertino Sanitary District is Commitments received from Cupertino Sanitary District and Mt. Eden Mutual Water Co. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements. N.A. Prior to Bldg. permits. Done. Prior to issuance of permits. Done. SD -89 -008, 22631 MT. EDEN ROAD required. Domestic water shall be supplied by San Jose Water Co. or similar authorized water provider. 18. Seal any well in accordance with County standards. Submit a geotechnical investigation and report by a licensed professional for the following: a. geology b. soils (for each lot) c. foundation 19. Submit detailed on -site improvement plans showing: a. grading (limits of cuts, fills, slopes, cross sections, existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities. b. drainage details c. retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for walls greater than 3 ft. or higher. d. erosion control measures 20. Prior to final map approval the applicant's geotechnical consultant should evaluate the potential for slope failure and erosion within Lot #4 (including all area outside the building area which may impact adjacent properties or local roadways). 21. Prior to issuance of building permits for individual lots, the applicant's geotechnical consultant should prepare detailed geotechnical design recommendations which address, but are not necessarily limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and design parameters for driveway, residential foundations and retaining walls. The geotechnical design recommendations shall be submitted to the City Engineer and Geologist. 22. The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements, and design parameters for foundations, and retaining walls) to ensure that his recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan review should be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of site development and building permits. 23. The applicant's geotechnical consultant should evaluate the long- term stability of the proposed building site considering: 1) the proximity of the residence to steep slopes, 2) the site's seismic setting, 3) apparent dip -slope conditions and 4) the area of potential slope instability identified by John O'Rourke in the N.A. Done. Done. On improvement plans. On future lot development plans. Done. (Quarry Rd.). On final map. Done. SD -87 -008; 22631 MT. EDEN reference report. Appropriate geotechnical design should be proposed (as necessary) to ensure the long -term stability of the proposed development. The evaluation shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of a permit. 24. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall submit plans showing the location and intended use of any existing welts to the Santa Clara Valley Water District for review and approval. 25. Annex property to Cupertino Sanitary District prior to final map approval. 26. The developer Tract No. 7761, Mt. Eden Estates, is obligated to construct sanitary sewers in Quarry Road in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the District. These facilities must be constructed and accepted by the District prior to being able to provide sanitary sewer service for the proposed development. 27. Fire hydrants shall be located within five hundred feet from all future residences and deliver no less than one thousand gallons per minute of water for a sustained period of two hours. 28. The developer shall install fire hydrant(s), the exact number to be determined by the Fire Chief, that meet Fire District specifications. Hydrant(s) shall be installled and accepted prior to construction of any building. 29. All future driveways shall be constructed to the following standards: a. slopes from 0% to 11% shall use a double seal coat of 0 S or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. b. slopes from 11% to 15% shall be surfaced using 2 1/2" of A.C. or better on 6" aggregate based from a public street to proposed dwelling. c. slopes from 15% to 17% shall be surfaced using a 4" PCC concrete rough surfaced on 4" aggregate base from a public street to proposed dwelling. d. driveways shall have a minimum inside radius of 21 feet. Construct an emergency access road, as required as part of Tract 7761, for use in the event of an emergency only. 30. Provide a 10 ft. public utility easement along the edge of the street right -of -way. 31. Prior to final map approval the applicant shall submit CC &R's to Done. Done. Acknowledged. On final map. Done. Done. Changed to Garrod Road. Acknowledged. On improvement plans. In Landscape and Revegetation Agreement. SD -87 -008, 22631 MT. EDEN ROAD the City for review and approval. 32. Dedicate scenic easement as shown on the tentative map. 33. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall enter into a Scenic Easement Agreement with the City. At a minimum, the agreement shall prohibit structures within this easement and require vegetation and topography to be kept in their natural states. 34. Tree removal prohibited unless in accordance with the City Code. 35. Future homes on each lot require Planning Commission design review approval. 36. All applicable requirements of State, County, City or other governmental entities shall be met. 37. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall dedicate a 15 ft. wide trail and pathway easement as shown on the tentative map and /or approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission. 38. The all weather equestrian trail shall be improved to be a minimum of 8 ft. wide or approved alternate. Trail to be comparatively level from side to side and unobstructed. All trail and pathway grading shall be completed prior to final map approval. 39. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall submit evidence to the City Engineer indicating that the City's water requirements including adequate fire flow and domestic water supply, as well as appropriate system appurtenances will be provided to the site. 40. The applicant shall repair and re- vegetate haul road used to export fill material to this'site in accordance with the permits pending with the Army Corps of Engineers to the satisfaction of the Planning Director prior to the approval of the final map. 41. The name Nina Court shall be revised on the final map to be consistent with the access road serving this project and shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. 42. The mitigation measures contained on the final Environmental Impact Report prepared for this project are hereby incorporated as conditions of approval by reference as Exhibit "B" attached hereto. 43. The applicants shall be required to install a gate across the access road at the subdivision's westerly boundary which shall be maintained for the duration of the construction of the subdivision. 44. In addition to the mitigation measures incorporated in Exhibit "B" the following conditions are added: a. both the current and future owners of Lot #4 shall be Done. SD -87 -008, 22631 MT. EDEN ROAD Section 1 within 30 days be void. Section 2. will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective ten (10) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 24th day of May, 1989 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Harris, Siegfried, Burger, Tappan NOES: ATTEST:/ required to participate in the landscaping and re- vegetation of the Quarry Creek project. b. to the extent this project including Lot #4 is found to require modification of the Quarry Creek Repair project the proponents and there successors in interest shall be required to participate their proportionate share in the implementation of necessary alteration to the project. c. the applicants shall submit a detailed drainage and erosion control plea prior to the recordation of a final map to the City Engineer and City Geologist for review and approval. None Secretary, Planning Commission Applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall Conditions must be completed within 24 months or approval ABSENT: Commissioners Kolstad,Tucker T 7/ 50 Z.- The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted y Gr tL 40,- Zide -/aii3 6 a.. 0. LSD/ F. --Cs J167;;J 4 /107 A Signature Date Chairman, Planning Commission _ce Modification Fee No. SD -87 -008.2 RESOLUTION NO. SD -87 -008.2 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga has received an application for site modification approval to delete conditions requiring the applicant to deposit funds to improve portions of the access road coincidental with the SW -NE Road; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence, and; WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following findings have been determined: 1. The proposed modification to conditions is consistent with the General Plan in that each lot within the subdivision will be subject to the traffic impact fee, the purpose of which is to construct the SW -NE road. 2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development proposed in that there are significant environ- mental factors such as existing trees and steep slopes which would be altered if the access were widened to 26 ft. 3. The design of the building site and the proposed improve- ments are unlikely to cause substantial environmental dam- age, or serious public health and safety problems in that the Planning Commission's action to reduce the access width will not result in alteration of the environment or reduc- tion of access for safety purposes. 4. The design of the building site and type of improvements proposed will not conflict with any public easements, in that the access easement in question is private and outside the City's jurisdiction, and 5. The proposal causes no impact on Williamson Act parcels, nor will it result in a significant discharge of waste which would violate requirements of the State Regional Water Quality Board in that the provision of adequate drainage improvements is a condition of SD -87 -008. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: 1 On improvement plans. Maintenance Agreement submitted. On final map. File No. SD -87 -005 Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Serena Invest- ments for site modification approval to delete condition No. 6 (a) (b) and (c) as this condition requires widening of the access to 26 feet in width is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. All access roads serving this development including the cul- de -sac shall be developed or improved to minimum access standards as specified in Chapter 14 [Section 14- 25.030 (b)] of the City Code. 2. A maintenance agreement shall be recorded requiring owners of each lot within the subdivision and all successors in interest to contribute to the regular maintenance of the entire access from Mt. Eden Road to the end of the cul -de -sac. 3. The entire length of the access road including the cul -de- sac, shall appear on the final map as private streets not to be offered to the City for acceptance. Section 2. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within thirty (30) days of the passage of this resolu- tion or said resolution shall be void. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, Coun- ty, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. The applicant shall affix a copy of this resolu- tion to each set of construction plans which will be submitted to the Building Division when applying for a building permit. Section 5. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, on this 13th day of March, 1991 by the following roll call vote: AYES: BOGOSIAN, DURKET, FORBES, TUCKER NOES: NONE ABSENT: CALDWELL ABSTAIN: MORAN 2 Chaff ,annin j ).//V Commission IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES 3.1 GEOLOGY Slope stability is not of appreciable concern if mitigation is implemented. Groundshaking from a seismic event could cause potential damage to residences and utilities. Twenty foot setbacks from the slope to the residences on Lots 1, 2, and 3 should be implemented. The residence on Lot 4 should be founded on a pier and- grade -beam foundation Nordmo Associates, Inc., 1987). The recommendations outlined in the geotechnical investigation by Nordmo Associates, Inc., should be adhered to. Prior to the issuance of building permits for individual lots, geo- technical design recommendations will be reviewed and approved by the Saratoga City Engineer and Geologist. Building design should comply with seismic requirements of the current Uniform Building Code. Foundation support and retaining walls, if required, should be designed to resist the effects of ground shaking. Utilities should be designed to provide sufficient flexibility to withstand the ground motion induced during an earthquake. Additional specific engineering recommendations, as proposed by Nordmo Associates, Inc., the project geotechnical engineers, should be incorporated into the final designs of the propoaed development. EXHIBIT 'B' On final map. Acknowledged. Done. Done. IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES 3.2 DRAINAGE /HYDROLOGY /WATER QUALITY The proposed development would alter the existing natural drainage patterns on the project site. The project would result in minor increases in urban pollutants in downslope drainage courses resulting from increased vehicular traffic on the site and possible application of pesticides and fertilizers. The haul roads are currently experiencing erosion. The erosion will likely worsen if the situa- tion is not corrected. The potential exists for erosion and downslope sedimentation to occur during the construction period when soils are left unprotected and minor additional grading occurs. The proposed storm drainage system would require approval from the City Engineer. The development should be landscaped, to the extent possible, with native vegetation requiring minimum application of fertilizers and pesticides. As part of the proposed project, the haul roads will be revegetated and erosion control measures implemented to protect against further erosion. The City of Saratoga, under recent State of California legislation (AB 3180), will ensure these measures are implemented. Grading plans should conform with City grading ordinances. Grading for building site pads, roads, and drainage should be kept to a minimum. Graded pads should not be allowed to remain exposed and undeveloped during the rainy season. All exposed soils should be mulched and planted with vegetation before the start of winter seasonal rains. Natural vegetation should be retained whenever possible. EXHIBIT Done. Acknowledged. Done. Done. Acknowledged. IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES 1.1 VISUAL /AESTHETICS Two residences to the adjacent west and above the project site would have virtually unobstructed views of the proposed development. The project development will increase light and glare eminating from the project site. Cut and fill slopes, where possible, should be hydroseeded with a native plant mix requiring minimal irrigation and fertilizing. The construction operations should be evaluated and inspected periodically by the Soils Engineer. Storm water should not be allowed to flow directly down unprotected slopes. Interceptor ditches and benches should be utilized during rainy season construction to prevent gullying. Catch basins should be used to retain sediment within the site area during construction period. The project residences should be designed and landscaped to be compatible with the existing adjacent homes. Although architectural and landscaping plans are not yet formulated, the City of Saratoga shall review and approve final plans through its design review process. Project residences should utilize nonreflective or minimally reflective glass to minimize glare where possible. Low profile exterior lighting should be considered. EXHIBIT 'B' On improvement plans. Acknowledged. On improvement plans. Acknowledged. 4.4 NOISE IMPACTS Initial noise impacts of the proposed project Would result from construction activity. Traffic generated by future development of the project site is not expected to have a significant adverse impact on sensitive receptors in the site vicinity. 1.5 PUBLIC SERVICES Water Service The provision of water service to the proposed development has not been finalized. MITIGATION MEASURES To minimize the noise impact of construction, all construction vehicles and equipment should be properly muffled. Construction activities at the project site should be restricted to the weekday hours of 7:30 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. to minimize disturbance to local residents. The public should be informed of proposed construction timelines to minimize potential annoyance related to construction noise. This is important for the home located near the construction activity. No mitigation is recommended or required. Prior to final approval of the proposed project, the developer should enter into a formal agreement with Mr. Garrod regarding the Garrod Water System. This agreement should be an arrangement to purchase water from the Garrod Water System if the System has been certified by the PUC, or it should be an agree- ment to become a atookholder in a Mutual Corporation with the Garrod Water System. EXHIBIT 'B' Acknowledged. Req'd. per City Code. Acknowledged. N.A. Done. IMPACTS Fire Protection Service The proposed project will incrementally increase the demand on fire protection services. The project site is located in a hazardous hillside area with respect to fire susceptibility. The length of Nina Court including the access road to Mt. Eden Road exceeds the suggested length of cul -de -sac roads recommended by City policy concerning emergency vehicle access. Police Services The proposed project will incre- mentally increase the demand on police services. MITIGATION MEASURES In order to comply with the City of Saratoga's City Code, Article 16-60, project residences should have early warning systems installed. These systems include smoke detectors in hallways, bedrooms, and garages, a heat detector in attics, a manual pull station, a medical emergency button, and a digital alarm communicator transmitter. The fire department also recommends that Article 16-60, Section E, be implemented which requires a sprinkler suppression system (NFDA 13) throughout each project residence to provide enhanced safety (Kraul, 1988). The fire department charges $20.00 per month to monitor these systems. Residential structures should be constructed with fire resistant roofing (Class B or better). The access roadway to the project site should meet the City of Saratoga's minimum emergency vehicle access width standards. A "Statement of Overriding Considera- tions" should be obtained from the City of Saratoga. A clear aoheme of street addressing should be used within the proposed project. The street addresses should EXHIBIT 'B' Req'd. per City Code. Req'd. per City Code. On improvement plan. Done. Acknowledged. IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES Wastewater Services The proposed project will require annexation to the Cupertino Sanitary District. The proposed project will increase the demand on wastewater services. Other Public Services The proposed project will not have adverse impacts on road maintenance, schools, parks, refuse collection, electricity, or telephone service. 3.6 FISCAL ANALYSIS The proposed project will have a positive fiscal impact on the City of Saratoga. be plaoed in locations, such as on a mail box or curbs, that ensure visibility from Nina Court. Prior to final project approval, the project site shall be annexed to the Cupertino Sanitary District. The developer should provide sanitary sewer lines in accordance with specifications approved by the district. No mitigation is recommended or required. No mitigation is recommended or required. EXHIBIT 'B' Done. On improvement plan. N.A. CONTRACT FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF SD 87 008 AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 19 by and between the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter called "City and STELLA INVESTMENT COMPANY, L.P., a California limited partnership subdivider and Owner, hereinafter collectively called Subdivider: W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, Subdivider is engaged in subdividing that certain tract of land known and designated as SD 87 008 situated in the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California; and WHEREAS, a final map of Tract SD- 87- 008h been filed with the City Clerk of the City of Saratoga for presentation to the Council for its approval, which map is hereby referred to and by said reference incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, Owner and Subdivider has requested approval of said final map prior to the completion of improvements of all streets, highways or public ways and sewer facilities which are a part of or appurtenant to the abovemen- tioned subdivision, including, but without limiting the foregoing, the neces- sary paving, catch basins, pipes, culverts, storm drains, sanitary sewers where required, street trees and street signs where required, and including a water system and fire hydrants acceptable to the City of Saratoga all in accordance with and as required by the plans and speci- fications for all of said improvements in or appurtenant to said subdivision, which plans and specifications were prepared by MASON -SULIC Civil Engineer, approved by the City Engineer and now on file in the offices of the Clerk of said City and /or the City Engineer's Office of said City, and WHEREAS, the City Council of said City did on the day of 19 adopt a Resolution approving said Final Map, rejecting certain dedications therein offered which rejection did not and does not, however, revoke the offers of dedication therein contained and re- quiring as a condition precedent to the future acceptance of said offers of -2- dedication that the Subdivider improve the streets and easements thereon subdivision ordinance shown in accord with the OK- diud.nuc Nu. 60 d.`i umuci.ded; of the City of Saratoga and in accord with the improvement plans and specifications on file as hereinabove referred to, and requiring as a condition precedent to the release of said final map for recordation that the subdivider agree in writing to so improve said streets and easements in accord with this agree- ment, NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above and in consideration of the City accepting all of said dedications after the hereinafter agreed to covenants on the part of the Owner and Subdivider have been complied with and in accord with Government Code Section 66462(a) of the State of California, it is hereby agreed as follows: 1. Subdivider at his cost and expense shall construct all of the im- provements and do all of the work hereinafter mentioned, all in accordance with and to the extent and as provided in the above mentioned plans and speci- fications on file in the office of said City, for the construction of said improvements, in, for, or appurtenant to said subdivision, and all in com- the subdivision pliance with /Ordinance and the laws of the State of Califor- nia, and shall complete the same within one year from date hereof a +_ti-- r t oa 2. Subdivider shall, before the release of said final map by City and as condition precedent to recordation thereof, furnish to the City and file with the City Clerk a good and sufficient surety bond or bonds, money or negotiable bonds, in form to be approved by the City Attorney, securing the faithful performance by Subdivider of all work and the construction of all improvements herein in this Agreement mentioned within time specified, and securing the faithful performance by Subdivider of the maintenance of said improvements for such -edi- period of time as may be necessary in order that Subdivider may cure and correct all deficiencies of construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer of the City of Saratoga (in all events at least $9,000.00 -3- of said bond to be in casn, with the right of City to use the same in its discretion for emergency maintenance and re- pairs in addition to any other rights of use) L e t d a'�ne are v pffel. and also a good and sufficient surety bond in form to be approved by the City Attorney securing the payment by subdivider of all bills for labor and ma- terials incurred in the construction of any and all of said improvements, and the t d a oing of b all other work herein agreed to be done by the said Subdivider, the /amount of /said bondato be TWENTY HUNDRED AND TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS Dollars 120,000.00 ),to be provided in the form of a certificate of deposit payable to the City of Saratoga and /or cash (as provided above). 3. Subdivider does hereby expressly agree to indemnify and hold harmless the City and in their capacity as such, its councilmen, officers, boards, commissions and its employees, from any and all loss or damage, and from any and all liability for any and all loss or damage, and from any and all suits, actions, damages, or claims filed or brought by any and all person or persons because of or resulting from the doing by Subdivider or any and all things re- quired of Subdivider by this contract, or because of or arising or resulting from the failure or omission by Subdivider to do any and all things necessary to and required by this contract or by law, or arising or resulting from the negligent doing by Subdivider, his agents, employees or subcontractors of any and all things required to be done by this contract, or arising or resulting from any dangerous or defective condition arising or resulting from any of the above said acts or omissions of subdivider, his agents, subcontractors, or employees. Subdivider having heretofore certified, by the certificate upon the abovementioned subdivision map, that he can convey clear title to the land within said subdivision, and City having relied upon said certificate and the representation contained therein, the foregoing provisions of this paragraph are specifically made to apply to any destruction or damage to or removal of utilities, water lines or pipe lines of any kinds, and any other improvement, whether said destruction, damage or removal is required or caused by the plans or specifications or by direction of an officer, agent or employee of the City. 4. Subdivider shall, before the release of said final map by the City, and as a condition precedent to the recordation thereof, furnish to the City and file with the City Clerk certificates or policies of public liability and -4- property damage insurance in form satisfactory to the City Attorney, and Sub- divider shall at all times during the entire term of this agreement maintain the same in full force and effect, which policies shall insure the City of Saratoga, its Councilmen, officers, boards, commissions and employees against loss or liability for bodily injury and property damages arising or resulting from subdivider's operations and activities in the construction of any and all improvements mentioned in this agreement and the doing of any and all work mentioned in this agreement, within or outside the abovementioned subdivision, and /or arising or resulting from the doing or failure of subdivider to do all things required to be done pursuant to this agreement. Said policies of in- surance shall cover bodily injury and property damage on both an accident and occurrence basis, with completed operations coverage for one (1) year after completion and acceptance of improvements, and shall be in amounts of not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) for each person, ONE MILLION DOLLARS !$1,000,000.00) for each accident or occurrence and property damage coverage of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($100,000.00) for each accident or occurrence. Said policies of insurance shall in addition contain the following endorsement: "Other insurance the coverage afforded by this insurance shall be primary coverage to the full limits of liability stated in the declarations. If the assured has other insurance against the loss covered by this policy, that other insurance shall be excess insurance only, after the entire face value of this policy shall have been exhausted by payment." 5. In consideration of City allowing Subdivider to connect said sub- division to certain existing or proposed out -of -tract storm sewer lines, and in consideration of City relieving Subdivider of any obligation which City might legally impose on Subdivider to acquire any right -of -way for, and /or to construct, any out -of -tract storm sewer drainage pipe lines and appurtenances which might reasonably be necessary to drain said subdivision and carry storm waters from said subdivision to natural drains, Subdivider shall, before the release of said final map by City and as a condition precedent to the recorda- tion thereof, pay the City the sum of NONE dollars NONE agreement, the in -tract storm drain lines and facilities constructed or to be constructed by Subdivider within or outside of said subdivision in accord with the plans and specifications now on file with the City offices, including the streets and other easements in or beneath which said facilities lie, Sub- divider shall, before the release of said final map by City and as a condition precedent to the recordation thereof, pay the City the sum of NONE Dollars NONE 7. Subdivider shall, before the release of said final map by the City and as a condition precedent to the recordation thereof, pay to the City the sum of (ems Tlw u, to, 6. In consideratiiittiof City agreeing to acceptf in accord with this Dollars (D,000, to be applied by City to the payment of expenses to be incurred by City for engineering and inspection services to be performed by the City in connection with said subdivision. 8. Upon Subdivider completing in accord with this agreement all of the improvements to be made and done by said Subdivider as hereinabove set forth and as shown on the plans and specifications on file as hereinabove referred and upon the Subdivider complying with all covenents and conditions on his or its part to be done and performed in accord with the within agree- ment, then and in that event, City agrees to rescind its rejection of the offers of dedication of streets and storm drain easements contained on the aforesaid final map, and at that time accept said offers of dedication, if any, and to return the bonds to Subdivider (less any amounts expended by the City under this Agreement) 9. Should the Subdivider and Owner hereinabove referred to not be the same person, firm or corporation, then this agreement shall only be effective upon both the subdivider and the Owner separately executing the same, and wherever the term Subdivider is used, the same shall include Owner and wherever the term Owner is used, the same shall include Subdivider. 10. This agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, personal represen- tatives and assigns of Subdivider and Owner, and time is of the essence hereof, -6- save and except that the City Council of the City of Saratoga may, but need not, extend any time or times for the doing or performing of any acts as required under the terms of this agreement. by resolution, if in the opinion of the City Council any such delay is without fault on the part of the Sub- divider and Owner. Execution of the within agreement by the Owner or Subdivider shall constitute an irrevocable authorization to City to insert the date of passage of the Council resolution approving the final map, and to insert the date of this agreement as of the date of such resolution. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hand the day and year first above written. ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney PARTNERSHIP ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of C al, -(.9 rr County of 01\ CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation By: Mayor STELLA INVESTMENT COMPANY, L.P. By: SERENA INVESTMENT CORPORATION General Partner �J 2 By: Eric Sung, Pr dent Subdikider By: Enr, N/A Owner. if tii ff Fiiim' ga+bdi_vider) On this the day of 1 cw, I G o rci or, Iv the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared 19 before me, 1 3 YS4e o� VQgYI :COAL) 0; lyt, personally known to me proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) who executed the within instrument on behalf of the partnership, and acknowledged to me th t the partnership executed it. WITNESS my nd and official seal. .tip �11 Notary s Signa NO. 203 .y 7130 122 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION 23012 Venture Blvd. P.O. Box 4825 Woodland Hula, CA 91363 Recorded at the request of: THE CITY OF SARATOGA After recordation return to: CITY OF SARATOGA Planning Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 GRANT OF OPEN SPACE EASEMENT AND LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made this by and between "Grantor and THE CITY OF referred to as "City day of 19 (hereinafter referred to as SARATOGA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter WITNESSETH: Grantor is the owner of certain real property located in Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California, known as Tract particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property Grantor is subdividing the Subject Property into residential lots, as shown on the subdivision map for Tract concurrently herewith. It is the desire of Grantor to grant to City an open space easement on, upon, across and under a portion of the Subject Property, pursuant to Chapter 6.6 (commencing with Section 51070) of Part 1, Division 1, Title 5 of the California Government Code, whereby Grantor relinquishes certain rights and enters into certain covenants relative to such easement, as hereinafter set forth. The purpose of this Grant of Easement and its acceptance by City is to maintain a portion of the Subject Property in a natural condition as open space land and to preserve as near as possible the scenic beauty thereof for enjoyment by the public. This grant is for the additional purpose of preventing the construction of improvements upon a portion of the Subject Property which is, or may be, unsuitable for development by reason of topographic or geologic constraints. Grantor further has agreed to landscape certain portions of the Subject Property and the public right -of -way adjacent thereto and to maintain such landscaped areas as hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration for the substantial public benefits to be derived therefrom by both Grantor and City, the parties agree as follows: 1. Grantor hereby grants to City an open space easement on, upon, over, across, above and under that portion of the Subject Property shown and delineated as open space or scenic easement on the subdivision map for Tract recorded the City of ,asmore part hereof single family recorded concurrently herewith, such easement being located upon a portion of Lots as shown on said map. Grantor does hereby relinquish to the public, in perpetuity, the right to construct improvements within the open space easement, except as expressly reserved in Paragraph 6 hereof. 2. Grantor covenants and agrees for and successors and assigns, that Grantor, successors and assigns, singularly or in combination: (a) Except as herein expressly reserved, shall not erect, construct, place or maintain or permit the erection, construction, placement or maintenance of any improvement, building, structure, ornamental landscaping or other thing whatsoever on any portion of the open space easement. (b) Except as herein expressly reserved, shall not use or permit the use of any portion of the open space easement for any purpose, except as open space consistent with the stated purposes, terms, conditions, restrictions and covenants of this Agreement, with the provisions of Chapter 6.6 (commencing with Section 51070) of Division 1, Part 1, Title 5 of the Government Code, and with the findings of the City Council of the City of Saratoga relative to the open space easement pursuant to Government Code Section 51084. (c) Except as herein expressly reserved, shall not cover or cause any portion of the open space easement to be covered with any asphalt, stone, concrete or other material which does not constitute natural cover for the land nor otherwise disturb the existing natural cover of such land. (d) Shall not extract, sever or remove nor permit or cause to be extracted, severed or removed any natural resource found or located on, above or under the open space easement, or otherwise engage in or permit on such easement any activity which will or may destroy the unique physical and scenic characteristics of the property. (e) Shall not cut, uproot or remove or permit the cutting, uprooting or removal of timber or trees found or located on the open space easement, except as may be required for fire prevention, thinning, elimination of diseased growth or similar preventive measures in a manner compatible with scenic purposes. (f) Shall not excavate or grade or permit any excavation or grading to be done, except to the extent such excavation or grading is pursuant to the grading plan for Tract approved by City or shall be required to prevent soil erosion, landslide or other geologic hazard, and upon issuance of such permits as may be required under the Ordinances of the City of Saratoga. (g) Shall be responsible for maintenance of the property subject to the open space easement. 3. Grantor hereby grants to City the right, but not the obligation to enter upon the Subject Property for the purpose of removing any building, structure, improvement or other thing whatsoever constructed, erected, placed, stored, deposited or maintained on the open space easement contrary to the stated purposes of this Agreement or to any term, condition, restriction or covenant contained herein, or to -2- prevent or prohibit any activity which is contrary to the stated purposes, terms, conditions, restrictions or covenants of this Agreement or which will or may destroy the unique physical and scenic characteristics of the property within the open space easement. 4. The stated purposes, terms, conditions, restrictions and covenants set forth herein and each and all of them may be specifically enforced or enjoined by proceedings in the Superior Court of the State of California. 5. The granting of this open space easement and its acceptance by City does not authorize and is not to be construed as authorizing the public or any member thereof to trespass upon or use all or any portion of the open space easement or as granting to the public or any member thereof any tangible rights in or to such easement or the right to go upon or use or utilize such easement in any manner whatsoever. It is understood that the purpose of this easement is solely to restrict the uses to which the property subject to the easement may be put so that said property may be kept as near as possible in its natural condition. 6. Grantor hereby reserves the right to plant, transplant, remove, replant and install landscaping including trees, plants and other vegetation indigenous to the natural landscape; the right to install, repair or replace irrigation facilities and equipment, paths and walkways, and items of a similar nature. Such reserved exceptions shall be consistent with the stated purposes, terms, conditions, restrictions and covenants contained herein, and consistent with General Plan, zoning and other laws, rules and regulations of the City of Saratoga and the State of California, as such laws, rules and regulations may be hereafter from time to time amended. 7. This Agreement shall be effective on the date of execution hereof and shall remain in effect permanently. 8. Grantor shall not receive any payment from City in consideration for the obligations imposed hereunder, it being recognized and agreed that the consideration for the execution of this Agreement is the substantial public benefit to be derived therefrom and the advantage which will accrue to Grantor and successors as a result of any reduction of the assessed value of the property subject to the open space easement due to the limitations on its use contained in this Agreement. 9. In the event the open space easement or some portion thereof is sought to be condemned for public use, the easement and each and every term, condition, restriction and covenant contained herein shall terminate as of the time of the filing of the complaint in condemnation as- to that portion of the property sought to be taken for public use only, but shall remain in effect relative to all other portions of said property. Grantor shall be entitled to such compensation for the taking as Grantor would have been entitled to receive had the Subject Property not been burdened by this easement; provided, however, that each and every stated term, condition, restriction and covenant of this Agreement shall be observed by Grantor during the pendency of such action and provided further that in the event such action is abandoned prior to the recordation of a final order of condemnation or the property subject to the open space easement or some portion thereof is not actually acquired for a public use, said property shall, at the time of such abandonment, or at the time it is determined that such property shall not be taken for public use, once again be subject to this easement and to each and every stated purpose, term, condition, restriction and covenant contained herein. -3- 10. Either Grantor or City may undertake proceedings for abandonment of the open space easement in accordance with the requirements and subject to the conditions set forth in Sections 51093 and 51094 of the California Government Code. 11. Grantor shall install and permanently maintain the landscaping within the open space easement and adjacent public right -of -way in accordance with the landscape plan approved by City. Upon any failure to do so, City shall have the right, but not the obligation, to perform the installation or maintenance work and to charge the defaulting party for all costs and expenses incurred by City in connection therewith. If such costs and expenses are not paid in full within ten days after written demand by City, the same shall constitute a lien and special assessment against the property of the defaulting party and shall be added to and become a part of the real property taxes levied against said property and collected in the same manner and frequency and by the same persons as ordinary municipal taxes and shall be subject to the same interest and penalties and the same procedure of sale as provided for delinquent ordinary municipal taxes. In addition thereto, City may exercise any and all other rights and remedies available to City by law to enforce the provisions of this Agreement. 12. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be deemed to impose any duty upon City to maintain any property subject to the open space easement or the landscape requirements referred to above and the acceptance of such easement shall not constitute an assumption by City of any liability whatsoever with respect to such property. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to constitute a limitation on the legislative or quasi judicial powers of City. 13. This easement and each and every term, condition, restriction and covenant contained herein is intended for the benefit of the public and constitutes an enforceable restriction pursuant to the provisions of Section 8 of Article XIII of the California Constitution and Chapter 6.6 (commencing with Section 51070) of Part 1, Division 1, Title 5 of the Government Code and shall bind Grantor and successors and assigns and each and all of them and shall and is intended to run with the land. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has executed this Grant of Open Space Easement with covenants the day and year first above written. GRANTOR: s UC C r a7< (.r. e� Z��c,� -t kv.€ Cr 1/ p R py, Dated: ACCEPTANCE OF OPEN SPACE EASEMENT The CITY OF SARATOGA, pursuant to a Resolution adopted by its City Council on hereby accepts the foregoing Grant of Open Space Easement, based upon a finding by the City Council that: (a) Preservation of the land as open space is consistent with the General Plan of the City; and (b) Preservation of the land as open space is in the best interest of the City for the following reasons: (1) The land is essentially unimproved and if retained in its natural state has scenic value to the public. (2) Retaining the land as open space will help preserve the rural character of the area in which the land is located. (3) Retaining the land as open space will add to the amenities of living in neighboring urbanized areas. (4) Retaining the land as open space is necessary in that the land is unsuitable for development by reason of topographic constraints or geologic hazards. CITY OF SARATOGA WITNESS my hand and official seal. OFFICIAL SEAL LINDA LAU NOTARY PUBLIC CALIFORNIA SANTA =RA COUNTY My comet. expires DEC 13, 1993 ss. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF j �..,�E e4 On this a 3 day of before me,, the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared (kr personally known to me proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person who executed the within instrument as or on behalf of the corporation therein named, and acknowledgdd to me that the corporation executed it. P •lic for Cali ornia Recorded at the request of and after recordation return to: City of Saratoga Planning Department 33777 Pruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 LANDSCAPING AND REVEGETATION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, dated 1991, by and between STELA INVESTMENT COMPANY, L.P., a California limited partnership "Owner and CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation "City is made with reference to the following facts: A. Owner is the owner of certain real property located at 22631 Mt. Eden Road, in the City of Saratoga, State of California (the "Property as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. B. City has granted to tentative map for a four -lot accordance with Resolution No. Council on May 24, 1989. 273isaree\ouerrv.r r QUARRY CREEK PROJECT Owner conditional approval of a subdivision on the Property, in SD-87-008, adopted by the City C. Condition No 44 of Resolution No. SD -87 -008 requires that Owner and any successor in interest to Lot #4 of the four lot subdivision be required to participate in the landscaping and revegetation of the Quarry Creek Project; and to the extent this project requires modification of the Quarry Creek Repair Project, the Owner and successors in interest to Lot #4 shall be required to pay their proportionate share of the cost of the necessary alterations to the Repair Project. NOW, THEREFORE, Owner hereby agrees, on behalf of itself and its successors and assigns, to the following: 1. Owner and all successors in interest to Lot #4 of the four -lot subdivision shall contribute to the landscaping and revegetation of the Quarry Creek Project, and to the extent that such landscaping and revegetation requires, in the determination of the City Engineer, modification to the Quarry Creek Repair Project, shall contribute to the necessary modifications. 2. Such contribution obligation shall be shared by the owner of Lot #4 with fifteen (15) other lots identified by the City Engineer as being obligated to participate in the landscape and -1- revegetation of the Quarry Creek project. Therefore,' the contribution obligation of the owner of Lot 04 shall equal one sixteenth (1 /16th) of the total cost of the landscape and revegetation of the Quarry Creek project. It is estimated at the time of execution of this Agreement that the total cost of such landscaping and vegetation will approximate Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000), although the actual amount could increase or decrease in the future. In no event shall the contribution obligation of the owner of Lot #4 exceed the amount of Twenty -Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000). 3. This Agreement shall constitute a covenant running with the land and shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of Owner, including any transferee of legal title. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. Attest: Grace E. Cory Government Code S 40814 Approved as to form: Michael S. Riback City Attorney 273 \agree \quarry,msr OWNER: STELLA INVESTMENT COMPANY, L.P., a California limited partnership By: SERENA INVESTMENT CORPORATION General Partner B CITY: -2- Eric Sung, P 4 ident THE CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation By: Its: State of California ss. County of Santa Clara Witness my hand and official seal. f2MM2=MME® OFFICIAL SEAL DIANNE MEEK NOTARY PUBLIC CALIF PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN RI SANTA CLARA COUNTY El My Comm. Exp. Oct 20, 1991 On July 19, 1991, before me, Dianne Meek, personally appeared Eric Sung, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is /are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he /she /they executed the same in his /her /their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his /her /their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Notary Public Recorded at the request of and after recordation return to: City of Saratoga Planning Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, dated 1991, by and between STELLA INVESTMENT COMPANY, L.P., a California limited partnership "Owner and CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation "City is made with reference to the following facts: A. Owner is the owner of certain real property located at 22631 Mt. Eden Road, in the City of Saratoga, State of California, (the "Property as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. B. City has granted to Owner conditional approval of a tentative map for a four -lot subdivision on the Property, in accordance with Resolution No. SD -87 -008 adopted by the City Council on May 24, 1989. C. On March 13, 1991, the City Council deleted Condition No. 6 of Resolution No. SD -87 -008 by adopting Resolution No. SD -87- 008.2, which includes three new conditions upon which such deletion was made. D. Condition No. 2 of Resolution No. SD -87 -008.2 requires that Owner record a maintenance agreement requiring owners of each lot within the subdivision to contribute to maintenance of the access road from Mt. Eden Road to the end of the cul -de -sac. NOW, THEREFORE, Owner hereby agrees, on behalf of itself and its successors and assigns, to the following: 1. Owner and all successors in interest to each lot within the subdivision shall contribute to the regular maintenance of the entire access road from Mt. Eden Road to the end of the cul -de -sac, to the extent necessary to keep and maintain such access road in good condition and repair. 2. Such maintenance obligation shall be shared by each lot owner proportionally to the use made of the access road by each owner of a parcel of land serviced by the access road, as governed by California Civil Code Section 845. 3. This Agreement shall constitute a covenant running with the land and shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of Owner, including any transferee of legal title. _.�.I.'.u... i.. _..v......�:a'7:i�I:/.i•JXail:. 'F+.;G IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. Attest: F: \RE\ CLIENT \STELLA.GEN \CITYMAIN.VDW Owner: Grace E. Cory Government Code 40814 STELLA INVESTMENT COMPANY, L.P., a California limited partnership By: Serena Investment Corporation, a California corporation, general partner City: Its: By: Its: f f'JcL3vE- The City of Saratoga, a municipal corporation By: Approved as to form: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney State of California County of r _-''cc. Signature F: \RE \MASTERS \NOTARYAR.ALL 5.2.91 NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT WITNESS my hand and official seal. On (.4 (99/ before me, I (here ins �rt name and title of the officer), personally ppeared personally known to me (or roved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is /are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he /she /they executed the same in his /her /their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his /her /their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. (Seal) OFFICIAL SEAL LINDA LAU NOTARY PUBLIC CALIFORNIA SANTA CLARA COUNTY My comm. expires DEC 13, 1993 When Recorded Return to: Stella Investment Company 21060 Rainbow Drive Cupertino, CA 95014 Attn: Eric Sung DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS RESTRICTIONS AND PRIVATE ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT This Declaration of Covenants, Conditions Restrictions and Private Road Maintenance Agreement (the "Declaration is made as of the date last written below by Stella Investment Company, L.P., a California limited partnership (hereinafter referred to as "Declarant WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner of real property (the "Property being a portion of Section 35, Township 7 South, Range 2 West; Mount Diable Base and Meridian, and being more particularly described as: Lots 1 through 4 as said lots are shown on that certain Map entitled "Parcel Map" which Map was filed for record in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California on in Book of Maps, at pages WHEREAS, Declarant desires to impose on the Property covenants, conditions, restrictions, reservations, servitudes, and agreements regulation and controlling the use, improvements and occupancy of said Property to provide the harmonious and uniform development of the Property and to ensure it remains in good and serviceable condition. NOW, THEREFORE, Declarant hereby declares and imposes on the Property the following covenants, conditions, restrictions, reservations, servitudes and agreements for the benefit of each lot in the Property and the various owners thereof, both present and future. All of the covenants, conditions, restrictions, reservations, servitudes and agreements shall run with the land and be binding upon and enforceable by the owner or owners of each lot subject thereto, their heirs, successors and assigns. 1 GNH /SERO2SARCCR GENERAL DESIGN RESTRICTIONS 1. Residential Use. A lot shall not be used, nor shall any portion thereof be used, for any purpose other than a residence. However, buildings on lots owned by Declarant or its nominees may be used as models and sales offices and construction offices for the purpose of selling or construction of dwellings on the Property until all of the dwellings thereon are sold. 2. Dwelling Size. No dwelling shall be constructed having a total finished floor space, exclusive of storage, porches and overhangs, and garage, less than 4,000 square feet nor more than 10,000 square feet. No dwelling shall have a private garage capable of holding more than four cars. 3. Architectural Control. No building shall be erected, placed, or altered on any lot until the construction plans and specifications and a plan showing the location of the structure have been approved by the Architectural Control Committee as to quality of workmanship and materials, harmony of external design with the environment and existing structures, and as to location with respect to topography and finish grade elevation. Approval shall be as provided in Paragraphs 14 and 15 below. 4. Nuisances. No noxious or offensive activity shall be carried on upon any lot, nor shall anything be done thereon which may be or may become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood. 5. Oil and Mining Operations. No oil drilling, oil development operations, oil refining, quarrying or mining operations of any kind shall be permitted upon or in any lot, nor shall oil wells, tanks, tunnels, mineral excavations or shafts be permitted upon or in any lot. No derrick or other structure designed for use in boring for oil or natural gas shall be erected, maintained or permitted upon any lot. 6. Temporary Structures. No structure of temporary character, trailer, basement, tent, shack, garage, barn, or other outbuilding shall be used on any lot at any time as a residence either temporarily or permanently. 7. Signs. No sign of any kind shall be displayed to the public view on any lot except one sign of customary and reasonable dimensions advertising the Property for sale or rent, or signs used by Declarant or a builder to advertise the Property during the construction and sales period. 8. Vehicles. No vehicles shall be kept or stored upon the Property other than those vehicles primarily and currently used for transportation of persons other than for hire, unless such vehicle is kept or stored in a carport or an enclosed garage when not in use. No vehicle owned or in the possession of or under the control of any resident on the Property shall be parked overnight on any street within the Property. No vehicle of any type (including motorcycles) shall be permanently or semi permanently parked in or upon the public streets within the Property or on any driveway of any lot for the purposes of accomplishing repairs thereto or the reconstruction thereof, except for emergency repairs and then only to the extent necessary to enable movement of the 2 GNH /SERO2SAR.CCR vehicle. No trailers or boats of any type or size shall be kept or stored nearer than 25 feet from any street property line for a period of time exceeding forty-eight (48) hours, unless they are stored in such a manner as not to be visible from the street or adjoining residences. 9. Sight Distance at Intersections. No fence, wall, hedge or shrub planting which obstructs sight lines at elevations between 2 and 6 feet above the roadways shall be placed or permitted to remain on any corner lot within the triangular area formed by the street property lines and a line connecting them at points 50 feet from the intersection of the street lines, or in the case of a rounded property corner from the intersection of the street property lines extended. The same sight -line limitations shall apply on any lot within 10 feet from the intersection of a street property line with the edge of a driveway or alley pavement. No tree shall be permitted to remain within such distance of such intersections unless the foliage line is maintained at sufficient height to prevent obstructions of such sight lines. 10. Animals. No livestock, poultry or animals of any kind shall be raised, bred or kept on any lot except for dogs, cats or other household pets, provided that they are not kept, bred or maintained for any commercial purposes and are kept under reasonable control at all times. 11. Garbage and Refuse Disposal. All rubbish, trash and garbage shall be regularly removed from lots, and shall not be allowed to accumulate thereon. Trash, garbage and other waste shall not be kept except in covered sanitary containers. All equipment for the storage or disposal of such materials shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition at least 25 feet from the street. 12.. City Approvals. Residences shall require design approval by the City of Saratoga. Recreational courts, such as tennis courts, and swimming pools shall not be allowed unless specifically approved by the City of Saratoga. Fences and walls shall comply with City of Saratoga requirements. 13. Easements. Easements for the installation and maintenance of utilities and drainage facilities are reserved as shown on the recorded map. Within these easements, no structure, planting or other material shall be placed or permitted to remain which may damage or interfere with the installation and maintenance of the utilities or which may obstruct or change the direction of flow of water through drainage channels in the easements. Such easement areas of each lot and all improvements in it shall be maintained continuously by the owner of the lot, except for those improvements for which the public authority or utility company is responsible. 3 GNH /SERO2SAR.CCR ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE 14. Membership. The Architectural Control Committee is composed of Eric Sung and Jennifer Sung, whose address is: 21060 Rainbow Drive, Cupertino, CA 95014. A majority of the committee may designate a representative to act for it. In the event of death or resignation of any member of the committee, the remaining member shall have full authority to designate a successor. In the event of the failure of the remaining member or members of the committee to appoint a successor or successors within ninety (90) days after the death or resignation of a member or members, the then record owners of a majority of the lots shall have the power, through a duly recorded written instrument, to appoint such successor or successors. Neither the members of the committee, nor its designated representative shall be entitled to any compensation for services performed pursuant to this covenant. 15. Procedure. The committee's approval or disapproval as required in these covenants shall be in writing. In the event the committee, or its designated representative, fails to approve or disapprove within 30 days after plans and specifications have been submitted to it, approval will not be required and the related covenants shall be deemed to have been fully complied with. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT 16. Road Maintenance Agreement. The private roadway and the on -site storm drainage facilities located within the areas on the Parcel Map identified as Garrod Road "A Private Road" from the most northwesterly corner of Parcel 1 (point #24) in an easterly direction approximately 665 feet to the common Parcel Line of Parcels 3 and 4 shall be maintained by the owners of all the lots in a good and serviceable condition, including the maintenance of landscaping on cut /fill areas. These facilities are considered to be mutually beneficial to all of the lots and costs shall be shared equally among the owners of said lots. 17. Determination of Need for Maintenance. Upon written notice by the owner of any lot to the other owners, or by written notice by the County of Santa Clara or other cognizant governmental agency, a meeting will be called within 30 days. Said meeting will be conducted within the boundary of the Property at a time and place acceptable to the owners of the lots and the noticing party, or if agreement cannot be reached the meeting will be held on the 30th day from the date of notice at 7:30 p.m. at a location within Santa Clara County as designated by the person(s) /agency who gave initial notice. 18. Extent of Work Required. The determination of the extent of maintenance will be by unanimous agreement of the owners of the lots. If unanimous agreement cannot be reached the determination may be made by a registered civil engineer licensed by the State of California as selected by a majority of the lot owners or by the County of Santa Clara, or by any other cognizant governmental agency. 4 GNH /SERO2SAR.CCR 19. Contracting and Performance of Work. The contracting and performance of work will be as unanimously agreed. If unanimous agreement cannot be reached, the majority of the lot owners, or the County of Santa Clara, or any other cognizant governmental agency, shall select the lowest of three bids from contractors who (a) are licensed by the State of Califoria for the type of work to be performed and (b) carry comprehensive general liability insurance in an amount of $1,000,000 or more, and such contractor shall perform the work. 20. Collection of Funds. The lot owners shall select one of their members, by majority vote, to act as the collecting and disbursing agent for the other lot owners. The funds required to perform any work will be placed in trust by such designated lot owner within fifteen (15) days after the final determination of need and determination of contracting costs. In the event any one or more of the owners fails to deposit required funds within thirty (30) days after the determination of need and determination of contracting costs, the remaining owners, or any one of them, may bring suit in a court of appropriate jurisdiction, including suit for damages, specific performance, or both, and the prevailing party in the event of such suit shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. GENERAL PROVISIONS 21. Covenants Run With the Land. All of the restrictions, servitudes, easements, covenants and agreements shall affect all of the lots hereinabove set forth except as described herein and are made for the direct and reciprocal benefit thereof, and in furtherance of a general plan for the improvement of said lots, and the covenants shall attach to and run with the land. 22. Enforcement. If the parties hereto, or their successors, shall violate or attempt to violate any of the covenants herein, it shall be lawful for any person owning any real property subject thereto or the County of Santa Clara, as a third party beneficiary hereunder, to prosecute any proceedings at law or in equity against the person or persons violating or attempting to violate any such covenants, or either prevent him or them from so doing or to recover damages or other dues for such violation. 23. Subordination. It is further provided that a breach of any of the conditions contained herein or of any re -entry by reason of such breach shall not defeat nor render invalid the lien or any mortgage or deed of trust made in good faith and for value as to said premises or any part thereof; but said conditions shall be binding upon and effective against the owner of said premises whose title thereto is acquired by foreclosure, trustee's sale or otherwise. 24. Severability. Invalidation of any one or more of these covenants by judgment or court order shall in no way affect any of the other provisions which shall remain in full force and effect. 5 GNH /SERO2SAR.CCR 25. Failure to Enforce. Failure by the undersigned or any other person or governmental agency entitled so to do, to enforce any covenant, restriction or agreement upon violation thereof shall not stop, prevent or be deemed a waiver of the right of enforcement thereafter. 26. Notices. Any notice permitted or required by this declaration may be delivered either personally or by mail. If delivery is by mail, it shall be deemed to have been delivered seventy -two (72) hours after a copy of the same has been deposited in the United States mail, certified or registered, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed to each person at the residence address of the lot. In the event the owner is not then the occupant of the lot, it shall be the responsibility of the owner to require his or her tenants, guests and invitees to communicate any said notice hereunder to the owner. 27. Amendment. This declaration may be amended by the affirmative vote or written consent of the owners of three of the four individual lots. Any amendment shall be recorded in the Recorder's Office of the County of Santa Clara. No amendment of these articles shall become effective until sixty (60) days after notice of such proposed action is filed within the County of Santa Clara and the County has not vetoed such amendments within said sixty (60) day period. 28. Voting and Consents. In any matter requiring the approval, consent or vote of the lot owners, each lot owner shall be entitled to one vote for each lot owned. Votes may not be cast on a fractional basis, and only one vote may be cast per lot. 29. Term. The covenants and restrictions of this declaration shall run with and bind the Property, and shall inure to the benefit of and shall be enforceable by the owners of the Property subject to this declaration, their respective legal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns, for a term of fifty (50) years from the date this declaration is recorded, after which time they shall be automatically extended for successive periods of ten (10) years, unless an instrument in writing, signed by a majority of the then owners of the lots, has been recorded within the year preceding the beginning of each successive period of ten (10) years, agreeing to change said covenants and restrictions in whole or in part, or to terminate the same. it t i s.,. 1 OFFICIAL SEAL LINDA LAU NOTARY PUBLIC CALIFORNIA SANTA CtARA COUNTY My comm. expires DEC 13, 1993 4-I4 0 2x, /9 STELLA INVESTMENT COMPANY, L.P. By: SERENA INVESTMENT CORPORATION General partner 6 By: GNH /SERO2SAR.CCR SECTION 1: SECTION 2: ATTEST: RESOLUTION NO. SD 87 -008.4 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING FINAL MAP OF Stella Investment Corp. AND ACCEPTING DEDICATIONS OF EASEMENTS The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: The 2.0009 Acre, 2.0014 Acre, 2.005 Acre and 14.925 Acre Parcels shown on Paracel 1, 2, 3 and 4 on the Final Parcel Map prepared by Mason -Sulic Civil and Design Consultants, Inc., and submitted to the City Engineer, City of Saratoga, be approved as four (4) individual parcels. The Offer of Dedications of Open Space Easement and Pedes- trian and Equestrian Trail and Path Easement as shown on said Map are hereby accepted. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly intro- duced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the 7th day of August 19 91 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Anderson, Clevenger, Stutzman and Mayor Kohler NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Nona MAYOR Printed on recycled paper. M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director Recommended Motion 01P cDO Project Description Background 13777 FRUTVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: 8/7/91 SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of DR -90 -044 Applicant /Appellant: De La Cruz; Location: 21210 Chadwick Court Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission and deny DR -90 -044. The proposal involves the construction of a two -story residence in the Chadwick Place subdivision, Tract 7770. The subject parcel is Lot 5 which fronts directly onto Chadwick Court. Lot 5 has not been, nor is it now, the subject of illegal grading or tree removal found in other portions of this development. The site consists of a sloping terrain with an average slope of 25 The site has no trees except for one ordinance size oak tree located at the northwest corner of the parcel, which is to be preserved. Surrounding land uses consist of single family residences to the south and undeveloped parcels to the north, east and west. The following table summarizes the technical data involved with this proposal: ZONING: NHR GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Hillside Conservation (RHC) PARCEL SIZE: 1.17 acres (50,965 sq. ft.) AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 25% MEMO TO: City Council FROM: Stephen Emslie DATE: 8/7/91 GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: Fill: Import: 264 cu. yds. 442 cu. yds. 178 cu. yds. Cut Depth: Fill Depth: 4.5 ft. 10 ft. MATERIALS COLORS PROPOSED: Blue /grey stucco exterior, dark grey tile roofing and "winter mist" trimming. PROPOSAL CODE REOUIREMENT/ ALLOWANCE LOT COVERAGE: 14% (7,136 s.f.) 25% (or 15,000 s.f. (whichever is lower) HEIGHT: FLOOR AREA: SETBACKS: First Floor: Second Floor: Total: Front: 30 ft. Rear: 118 ft. Right Side: 27 ft. Left Side: 26 ft. 3,054 s.f. 1,933 s.f. 4,987 s.f. 26' 26' Front: Rear: Right Side: Left Side: 5,142 s.f. 34 ft. 50/60 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. The Planning Commission considered the proposal at its May 22nd 1991 meeting. In its report, staff itemized seven revisions which staff viewed as essential to find the proposal consistent with the City's design review objectives. In summary, staff's concerns were as follows: 1.. Minimize the architectural detailing such as wrought iron railings, chimney caps and quoined building corners. 2. Reduce or eliminate the turret room projections. 3. Step the formulation to follow the natural topography. 4. Revise the color board to utilize darker earthtone colors. 5. Reduce the amount of two -story floor area. MEMO TO: City Council FROM: Stephen Emslie DATE: 8/7/91 6. Reduce the maximum building height to 22 feet. 7. Comply with side yard setback standards for any portion of the structure which exceed 22 feet in height. The Planning Commission determined that the design review findings were not present to approve the proposal as submitted. The fundamental concern expressed by the Planning Commission concerned the site's high visibility and prominence. The Planning Commission determined that the proposal would result in the appearance of excessive mass and bulk which was incompatible with the City objectives articulated in the design review ordinance. Thus, the Planning Commission denied the application which would cause the applicant to resubmit design and architectural plans as a revised application. Issues of the Appeal The appeal asserts that the project complies with applicable zoning regulations and should be approved. The appellant feels that since the project complies with development standards such as setback, building height, coverage and square footage, the decision of the Planning Commission was arbitrary. Staff would point out that the reason for a design review ordinance is to affect change to projects which conform to the technical requirements of the zoning code. The Planning Commission application of the design review ordinance requires the Planning Commission to exercise judgment over subjective issues relating to design and architecture. Compliance with the City's development standards does not compel the City to grant approval when the Planning Commission finds the project is inconsistent with the City's design review objectives. SE:cw Attachments: 1. Planning Commission resolution 2. Planning Commission minutes 3. Staff report 4. Appeal RESOLUTION NO. DR -90 -044 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA De La Cruz; 21210 Chadwick Court DENIAL OF DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for design review approval to construct a new 4,987 sq. ft. two -story single family residence on a 1.17 acre parcel within the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following findings have been determined: The project will not minimize the perception of excessive bulk in relation to the immediate neighborhood in that the proposal does not attempt to integrate the residence into the hillside or follow the natural contours required on such a prominent site. The project is not compatible in terms of bulk and height with those homes within the immediate area and in the same zoning district in that the combination of overwhelming design elements and areas of maximum height add to the proposal's bulk and mass. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of De La Cruz for design review approval be and the same is hereby denied. Section 2. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, this 23rd day of May, 1991 by the following roll call vote: AYES: BOGOSIAN, CALDWELL, DURKET NOES: FORBES File No. DR -90 -044; 21210 Chadwick Court ABSENT: MORAN, TUCKER ATTEST: C jperson, Plan ng Commission ecre ary, Tanning Commission PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 22, 1991 Page 5 P LIC HEARINGS Continued Comm'_ sioner Bogosian indicated that an amendment to his motion to allow ndividual tenants to retain their corporate logos would be accepta and felt it would be a good idea from a safety standpoi Commissione Durket suggested the following wording for the amendment: gnage for tenant identification shall be of the same height and color but able to retain corporate identity through their logo." Commissioner Forbes shopping center woul sign which may not be uestioned whether someone else renting in the e allowed to put their corporate logo on the eadily accepted to be in the best taste. Chairperson Caldwell resp• ded that in the interest of equity that would have to be allowed. Commissioner Forbes indicated wished to separate the main motion from the amendment. Mr. Emslie restated the motion as follows: "To approve A -632.1 with the amendment to add a condi on that there shall be no removal of the eucalyptus tree and i any pruning is done it be done by a licensed arborist using nternational Society of Arborists methods." Chairperson Caldwell restated the amendment =s follows: "To alter Condition No. 3 to read 'Signage for tenant id tification shall be at the same height and color allowing for indivi• ual enterprises to retain their corporate identity on the sign. DURKET /BOGOSIAN MOVED THE AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION TATED ABOVE. The motion carried on a 3 -1 vote (Forbes opposed). The original motion carried on a 3 -1 vote (Forbes oppos Commissioner Forbes indicated that since the amendment to the original motion carried it would make no sense for him to be opposed to the amendment but approve the motion. 5. DR -90 -044 De La Cruz, 21210 construct a new 4,987 family residence on a NHR zone district per (cont. from 5/8/91). Chadwick Ct., request to sq. ft., two -story single 1.17 acre parcel within the Chapter 15 of the City Code Mr. Walgren presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated May 8, 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 22, 1991 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Forbes suggested continuing this item to a study session. In response to Chairperson Caldwell's question, Mr. Walgren responded that a ridge analysis was performed and the property is not listed on the map indicating major ridges and it did not turn out to be a minor ridge either. The public hearing was opened at 8:22 p.m. Mr. Mike De La Cruz, 12221 Brookglen Drive, addressed the Commission and reviewed the proposal in detail. He said he agreed with some of the points in the staff report but did not agreed with most of them. He requested that the item be continued to a study session. Chairperson Caldwell requested that staff provide clarification of Item 7 and the ruling regarding setback. Mr. Emslie responded that at one time there was ambiguity regarding the terms of where the setback is measured from for structures that exceed 22 feet in height. There was a Commission study session held to discuss Mr. De La Cruz' problem. He said the Planning Commission looked at the issue again and reinterpreted it to mean that the structure itself needs to be set back not just the roof. That was discussed at subsequent hearings and is the latest direction used. The idea is to get more articulation in the wall not just the roof in terms of a building's mass and bulk and that the intent behind the increased setback was to move the vertical elements not the roof elements back from the property lines. FORBES /DURKET MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:31 P.M Passed 4 -0. BOGOSIAN /DURKET MOVED TO DENY DR -90 -044 WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Commissioner Durket expressed concerning regarding the Streamlining Act in that unless something is brought to the Commission that is a drastic change would the Commission be able to vote appropriately. He said if the applicant's plans were close he might be willing to go to a study session but noted that he agreed with every one of the staff's concerns especially the relationship to the vertical elements. He expressed disappointment that the vertical elements have not been changed prior to this hearing. He did not feel there was enough time to go to a study session and did not feel there was a willingness on the part of the applicant to make any drastic changes to the proposal. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 22, 1991 Page 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Bogosian agreed with Commissioner Durket's comments. He said the proposal appeared to be a long way away from something that could be workable given the constraints of the site. He felt the site is a prominent one and felt the building was bulky, especially the south elevation. Commissioner Forbes agreed with the previous comments but felt the applicant was owed another chance to design his house and that the Commission was operating under speculation in not believing he could do so. Chairperson Caldwell pointed out that most of the recommendations reflected in the staff report have been made to the applicant for some time, and the applicant has had a significant amount of time to address the concerns but has chosen not to. She said she visited the site and could not agree with the applicant's characterization of the site as not being prominent. She felt that some of the policies and objectives set forth in the NHR specific plan apply in this case and did not feel the application meets those policies and objections. She could not make the design review findings. She felt a total redesign would be necessary and felt the applicant would be done a disservice by going to a study session. The motion carried on a 3 -1 vote (Forbes opposed). eak 8:40 p.m. 8:55 p.m. 6. R City of Saratoga, consideration of a proposed ordinance for Residential and Open Space Zone District (R -OS), which may be applied to properties within the City's Sphere of Influence a prezone district. Mr. Emslie reviewed t staff memorandum dated May 10, 1991 and answered Commissioners' estions. The public hearing was opened 9:10 p.m. Ms. Jensen of Quito Road addressed the purpose of the ordinance should be not feel that had been done. She suggest hillsides was not as a scenic backdrop, no not an extension of the urbanized area but is felt that if development is allowed in that area and felt that should be spelled out very clearly. that the language "to preserve water supply by pro watershed" be included in the ordinance. She also discu e Commission. She felt that t out very clearly and did that the purpose of the a place for housing, e watershed. She er will be lost he suggested cting the ed REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No. /Location: DR -90 -044; 21210 Chadwick Ct. Applicant /Owner: De La Cruz Staff Planner: Paul Kermoyan Date: 5/8/91 APN: 503 -15 -040 Director Approval: File No. DR- 90 -04 21210 Chadwick Court CASE HISTORY: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Application filed: 6/15/90 Application complete: 9/19/90 Notice published: 4/24/91 Mailing completed: 4/25/91 Posting completed: 4/18/91 Request for design review approval to construct a new 4,987 square foot, two story, single- family residence on a 1.17 acre parcel within the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. PROJECT DISCUSSION: The proposal involves the construction of a two -story residence in the Chadwick Place subdivision on Lot 5 fronting Chadwick Court. The site is a vacant parcel with one ordinance size oak tree located at the front portion of the property. The City has had this application since June of last year. The application had not been scheduled for public hearing due to the necessity to resolve subdivision level geotechnical issues. However, staff has recently received information from the City Engineer indicating that this lot is cleared for Planning Commission consideration. Because the Permit Streamlining Act limits the time a public agency has to act on an application, the Commission must either approve or deny the application prior to June 19, 1991. Due to excessive bulk, mass and incompatibility concerns with the applicant's proposal, staff has recommended several modifications to the plans. Staff feels these proposed revisions are necessary in order to meet the design review findings. Staff recommends continuance of application DR -90 -044 to the June 12th meeting for final decision. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analysis 2. Exhibit A, Plans File No. DR- 90 -04..; 21210 Chadwick Court GRADING REOUIRED: Cut: 264 Cu. Yds. Fill: 442 Cu. Yds. Import: 178 Cu. Yds. FLOOR AREA: SETBACKS: DISCUSSION: Overview: First floor: Second floor: Total: Front: Rear: Right Side: Left Side: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 30 ft. 118 ft. 27 ft. 26 ft. STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: NHR GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Hillside Conservation (RHC) PARCEL SIZE: 1.17 acres (50,965 sq. ft.) AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 25% 3,054 sq. ft. 1,933 sq. ft. 4,987 sq. ft. Cut Depth: Fill Depth: Front: Rear: Right Side: Left Side: 4.5 ft. 10 ft. MATERIALS COLORS PROPOSED: Grey stucco exterior, dark grey tile roofing and pink trimming. PROPOSAL CODE REQUIREMENT/ ALLOWANCE LOT COVERAGE: 14% (7,136 sq.ft.) 25% (or 15,000 sq. ft. whichever is lower.) HEIGHT: 26' 26' 5,142 sq. ft. 34 ft. 50/60 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. Request for design review approval to construct a new 4,987 square foot, two story, single family residence on a 1.17 acre parcel within the NHR zone district. The project site is located at 21210 Chadwick Court on Lot 5 within the Chadwick Place subdivision (Tract 7770). As the Commission is aware, Tract 7770 is the subdivision in which illegal grading and tree removal occurred. Following a series of public hearings, the File No. DR-90-04.; 21210 Chadwick Court City Council declared the entire subdivision to be a public nuisance. The Council adopted restoration plans for the entire subdivision which included the replacement of excavated soil and a revegetation plan to compensate for the number of trees illegally removed during the grading process. Upon further investigation, the Council subsequently found that there were no violations on lots 5 and 8. Therefore, these lots, and eventually lots 4, 6 and 7, were removed from the nuisance declaration and have been cleared for design review consideration by the City Council. Site Characteristics: The site consists of sloping terrain with an average site slope of 25 The site has no trees except for one ordinance size oak tree located at the north west corner of the parcel. Surrounding land uses consist of single family residences to the south and undeveloped parcels to the north, east and west. Due to the parcel's visibility from adjacent hillside and valley floor vantage points, staff feels the parcel can be characterized as a prominent site. Therefore, the size and height of the residence should reflect a design compatible with such a sensitive lot. Staff feels that this is not accomplished due to excessive bulk and mass concerns associated with the applicant's proposal. DESIGN REVIEW: The applicant is proposing to construct a 4,987 square foot structure on a 1.17 acre parcel. The home will be located on the top portion of the parcel closest to the street. The location affords views of the adjacent hillside to the south and west, and the valley floor to the east. In order for the Commission to grant design review approval of the proposal, specific findings must be met. Two of these findings include minimizing the home's perception of excessive bulk and creating a home which is compatible in terms of bulk and height with surrounding residential homes. Due to the bulk and mass of the applicant's proposal, staff can not support the request as presented. In order to satisfy the required design review findings, staff recommends the following revisions for further review: 1) Minimize and /or eliminate the stylistic elements such as the iron cresting, quoined corners, chimney caps and the balustrade in order to minimize the perception of excessive bulk. 2 3 Redesign or eliminate the turret room projections in order to minimize the vertical mass which adds to the bulk of the structure. Step the house down to follow the hillside contours in order to break up the rear elevation, reduce massing, reduce the amount of earth movement and integrate the structure with the topography. File No. DR- 90 -04_; 21210 Chadwick Court 4 Use earthtone colors and natural materials to soften the elevations. 5) Minimize areas of maximum height in order to reduce excessive bulk and mass impacts. 6) Attempt to reduce the maximum height to approximately 22 feet due to the parcel's prominence. 7) If the applicant proposes a structure which exceeds 22 feet at the required setback line, then the applicant must either apply for a variance to exceed the allowable height or bring the structure into conformance. Staff has met with the applicant to discuss the above concerns and to present possible design modifications. The applicant, however, wishes to present the plans to the Commission as submitted in order to receive formal direction. This application is constrained by the provisions of the Permit Streamlining Act which limits the time a public agency can use to review and act on an application. Because the City has had this application for a long period of time due to problems associated with the Chadwick Place subdivision, the application must either be approved or denied no later than June 19, 1991. If the Commission finds that the proposed plans are considered workable to the extent that a total redesign is unnecessary, then staff would recommend that revised plans be brought back to the June 12th Planning Commission meeting for final decision. On the other hand, if the Commission finds that the plans are not workable due to the proposed design and quality of the drawings, then staff would recommend denial of DR -90 -044 in order for the applicant to submit a new application. The project site is in an area which requires geotechnical review. Staff submitted information to the City's geotechnical consultant who responded that additional information from the developer must be submitted in order to resolve subdivision level geotechnical issues. Therefore, the applicant's opportunity for geotechnical review had been postponed until recently. The applicant is currently obtaining a new soils report for further review. Due to the provisions of the Permit Streamlining Act, the amount of time available to approve this application is limited. Unless a soils report is submitted for geotechnical review and cleared by the City Engineer no later than Thursday June 6th, the Commission will have no choice other than to deny the project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends continuance of application DR -90 -044 to the June 12th public hearing for final decision. Oato Received: 6 S. Hea ring Date: 7 /j �I Fee: iFli<Oo APPEAL APPLICATION i tc.e r Name of ;Appellant: Ad a ress r7 Vl N v �c i T 4 e 447/79 Telephone: j /ccE' 3 J ot7 Name of Applicant (if lifferent from Appellant: p G� Proiect File No.: Proiect Address: o S CX J A e c_ )a� Decision Being Appealed: 1 -�e 7 of D2 r j Grounds for Appeal (Letter may be attached): L rev` cPs r P J C, n., ,L t/ c N O b i t .2 1 0 .N C i::: 1- L. cam- S E7.. r 1 .:14e r .q 4 C c- I 1r il t f t O e• S r)'Z L (S', v v App- lant's Signa *Please do n• this application until it is presented at the City offic If you wish specific people to be notified of this appeal, please list them on a separate sheet. THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED BY 5:00 P.M. WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION.