HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-04-1983 CITY COUNCIL AGENDAMay 4, 1983
Mayor and City Council Members
City of Saratoga
Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California
Re: SD -1489
SD -1505
:SD -1531
Wilson Development
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
We, the Residents, have been deeply concerned over the course
of events and circumstances surrounding the land use applications
by Wilson Development. In view of the Council.actions and other
events including but not limited to the stipulated settlement
of the Wilson lawsuit agreed to by the Council in November as
well as the Council entertaining recent.,proposals by Wilson to
Council for the amendment of the land use proposal to include
office use, the Residents anticipate a Council action confirming
their recent decisions which are clearly adverse to the interests
and and property rights of the Residents. Dispite extreme
reservations about the conclusion to which the Council may feel
conmited, the Residents strongly encourage both.the Council and
reconsider Developer to resider the position of the Residents which
advocates abiding by the subdivision law and providing access
from Sunnyvale - Saratoga Road. This access has been conclusively
shown to be feasible and as stated by City Staff in their report
of September 16, 1981 to the City Council "Said project (10 lots
with access off of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road) complies with all
objectives of the 1974 General Plan, and all requirements of the
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga."
The Residents have never denied the right of the property owners
to develop their property on a basis consistent with the General
Plan which provides for the density and residential use. In fact,
the development of the property for single family residential
use has always been highly desired but only on a basis which is
in compliance with the law and ordinances and thereby satisfactorily
addresses and upholds the property rights of the Residents.
Page 1
,.
May 4, 1983
Page 2
The uncertainty and the struggle for the ultimate land use of
this parcel has needlessly been delayed for a period of in excess
of two years and very conceivably could.be further delayed two
to three.more years. Those that incur real suffering and real
damages are not the City Council, the "future" residents of the
suject parcel nor the developer, but are, in fact, the current
land owners, the Ladota Family and the Olson Family, who have
seen the approval process stalemated for want of a willingness
to recognize the only legal method of developing the property
is via Sunnyvale- Saratoga Road. The Residents have also suffered
and endured through this protracted process which appears destined
to result in continued aggravation; uncertainty of property rights,
and ccnpounded and mare serious delays and expenses even though
the Resident's position is founded on the very laws and ordinances
of this City.
Relevant Factors
1. Tricia Way, is an improved cul de sac with existing homes,
and is approximately 400' in length:,
2. On June 10, 1981 as per the official City minutes the
Planning Director stated " The 400 ft. cul de sac length
requirement (of Tricia Way) must be ::adhered to unless there
is a finding that no alternative method is feasible ".
3. The City Council upon their hearing,of SD -1489 (access off
of Tricia) denied the project due in' part to the fact, as
stated in the official Council minutes, "they cannot make
the finding required by Section 13.3 -4 of this Subdivision
Ordinance which provides "no cul de,,sac shall be longer than
four hundred feet unless a length in" excess of said four
hundred feet is, in the opinion of the advisory agency, the
only feasible method of developing the property ".
4. Feasibility of the ability to develop the property via
Sunnyvale- Saratoga Road does in fact exist and all evidence
submitted has conclusively supported this alternative means
of egress. Of particular note is the following:
a. Traffic Engineers (both the Developers and
the Residents) conclude Sunnyvale- Saratoga
Road access is reasonable and acceptable
in accordance with design standards.
May 4, 1983
Page 3
b. Cal Trans, the State.':of California Highway,.
Agency who has jurisdiction over the throughfare
has indicated access, is available in a manner
which is consistent with highway design standards.
C. There exists between�;Cos Blvd. and Big Basin
Way along Sunnyvale - Saratoga Read, street openings
totaling in excess of 35 which require "right
in right - out "ingress and egress.
d. In fact, several relatively recent (within the
last 7 years) subdivisions have been developed
with this very type of access being via
Sunnyvale- Saratoga Road. .
5. The fact development of this property can.occur from Sunnyvale -
Saratoga Road on a basis which is�,entirely defensible is
irrefutable and will be the principle theory under which
the Residents will remain resolute and pursue an outcome
which will not compromise their property rights:
6. The City Staff in their report on application SD -1505 (access
from, Sunnyvale- Saratoga Road) did state in their report of
September 15, 1981 the following:; "Said project conplies
with all objectives of the 1974 General Plan, and all requirements
of the Zoning and Subdivision ordinances of the City of Saratoga."
This plan is the only plan ever submitted to the Council
which can properly satisfy the above statement by the Staff.
7. The lawsuit by Wilson Development against the City did so
state with reference to the Council's denial of SD -1505
(access for 10 hcmes via Sunnyvale- Saratoga) that "respondent
City Council acted arbitrarily, capriciously and abused its
discretion in denying the tentative map application SD -1505
on the basis of two findings, neither of which was supported
by any evidence whatsoever ". The Residents concur wholeheartedly
but cannot endorse the subsequent lawsuit settlement which
in itself violates the law.
8. The violation of Civil Rights and other issues not mentioned
here are a very real issue and concern to all Residents the
gravity of which should be extremely significant to all
parties in light of the circumstances.
9. An important if not crucial.point to realize is the issue .
is not one of preference (i.e. I, council person, feel "despite
. L
May 3, 1983
Page 4
law, etc." the development should proceed with access via
Tricia Way). This.in oppostion to tho-property.rights
of the Residents who have a right toimintain the issue is
one of law not preference. The findings and law 90 SI4:)POrt_
the developmnt via Sunnyvale-Saraboga.Road and.the developer
and property owners can achieve theirlend objective consistent
with the rights of all parties by an,*endorseneit of SD-1505
or some sindliar site plan. 2 hon-6s could be developed
at ,terminus of Tricia without altering the cul-de-sac and
7 or 8 adjacent off of Sumyvale-Saratoga Road).
Conclusion
The Residents are highly desirous of seeing residential develpFumt
on the adjacent parcel as soon as possible and consistent with
the ordinances. A protracted continuation of the land use decision
as well as needless and expensive delaysifor all parties can be
resolved by putt r Eences aside and recognizing what is,
i r 1_ I
in fact, feasible. the Property Owners and Developer
to approach and encourage the Council to endorse a residential
development plan providing.access via Suimyvale-Saratoga Road
and conclude this application process iri the interests of all
parties (City Council, Landowners, Developer,. and Current Residents).
Respectfully submitted!
Residents (Petitioners dated January 141, 1983)
C1'ri: OF SAI:I'11,
` (�.3z Initial:
:1GF.DA BILL NO. Dept. f1d.
DATE:_ May 4, 1983 C. Atty.'
DEPTUME 'T: Community Development C. M
SUtaTECT:
Appeal of SDR -1533 James & Michael Foley, 18927 Monte Vista Drive V
--- - - - - -- Tentative Subdivision Approval - 3 lots
Issue St_^tmary
The planning Commission approved a three lot subdivision on a 3.3 acre site on Monte
Vista Drive in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. Although the existing residence presently
accesses on a private portion of Monte Vista Drive the proposed access would be 2 lots
onto the public portion of Monte Vista Drive and 1 lot. onto Sobey Road via a minimum'
access road. In conjunction with the lot split tie Commission granted a variance for
the setbacks of the existing garage. The Commission determined not to require a cul-
de -sac at the end of Monte Vista Drive, thereby moving the barrier as.little as possible.
The applicant is not °accessing onto the private portion of Monte Vista and therefore,
was not required to improve that portion of Monte Vista along his footage.
Mr. Coe.is appealing the Planning Commission's approval of the subject subdivision
approval,°as.:znot in conformance with the .General Plan stating that 1) it would
cause 5 lots to access on a minimum access road; 2) it.required variances for an'
existing garage; 3)'a standard cul -de -sac was-not required by the Planning Commission
at the end of Monte Vista Drive; 4) widening of the private portion of Monte Vista
Drive was not required or of Sobey Road; and 5) allowing 2.64 lots to be rounded up
to 3 lots. t
Neighborhood concerns centered on access for the subdivision and continuation of the
barrier blocking through_ access on Monte Vista Drive.
Recommendation
lJphold the .Planning Commission decision, approving the 3 -lot subdivision.
L4
Fiscal Impacts
None known
Exh ibi is /A tta& mr_n is
1. Appeal letter dated::3 /18/83
2. Staff Report dated 2/4/83 and revised 3/2/83 (with geology review), amended 3/9/83 by P.C.
3. Planning Commission Minutes dated 2/23/83 and 3/9/83
4. Resolution No. 1533 -1
5. Correspondence received on the project
Council Action
5/4: Consensus to continue to 5 /18'at request of applicant.
5/18: Fanelli /Clevenger moved to deny appeal on V -604. Passed 5 -0.
Moyles /Clevenger moved to deny appeal on SDR 1533. Passed 5 -0.
A LULL
Hearing Date,
1J
� Fee
'r• ^n�n�t�'.! t� ULi �� E1` CITY USE
APPEAL APPLICATION
ONLY
Name of Appellant: �1� S Co
�c
Address:
Telephone: s� Z& 4
Name of Applicant: r
�O/C EY
Project File No.:
Project Address: 7 I��IDNTE ��STA ,
P oject Description: T VA
�NT,QT� vE /r%Q,o Fo,e ,� rL o Ts W1 TN Al c c e3 s F,eoM /VJo�v7- ViST.q
Decision Being Appealed: � �D,�A,y,U1�i, CoM �� &?ZP2Vim.4
0A.I 3 -9- SS C� oVF_ .DESC,2 /r� ,o pno cr
Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached):
097 TA C,yJ` %FiV T�',
Appellant's Signatur
*Please do not sign this application, until it is presented at the
City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this
appeal please list them on a separate sheet.
THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF
HE DATE OF THE DECISION.
�1
RECEIVED APR 2 8 1983
Mr. & Mrs. Thomas U. Coe
15217 Sobey Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
(408)354 -2139
April 25, 1983
c �
TO: Saratoga - s-sfon
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
SUBJECT: Statement of appeal toward the Commission's Approval of
Project File No. SDR -1533, Foley's Tentative Map for 3
lots with Building Sites and variances.
REFERENCE:
1) Staff report to Planning Commission on same subject
dated 2 -4 -83, revised 3 -2 -83, by Kathy Kerdus
2) Preliminary Title Report, dated, 2- 4- 83- SJV3 -7B,
order no. 132666 -HJJ by W. R. Willis to the attention
of Mike Foley
3) Individual Joint Tenancy Deed granting to Tom &
Norma Coe their properties at 15217 Sobey Road, dated
October 2, 1967
4) Resolution No. V- 311 -1, File No. V -311, City of
Saratoga Planning Commission dated November 27, 1967
for the application of Thomas Coe for a sideyard
setback variance
5) Variance application by Mr. & Mrs. Larry Stock of
15249 Sobey Road for garage setback allowance in
approximately 1978
6) Other attachments
1
Grounds for the Appeal: It is our opinion, that there are at
least six specific aspects to this approved project that are not
in conformance with the objectives of the General Plan and /or the
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City. These in brief
are:
1) The applicants third lot would take access from Sobey Road
from a right of way on which 4 (not 3 as indicated in the
Staff report) homes presently take access. The approval of
this project will now cause 5 homes to take access from the
same private driveway /portal to Sobey.
2) Variance for the 10' side yard setback of the garage.
3) Variance for the 23' rear yard setback of the garage
caused by the new proposed lot line.
4) Standard conditions would require a cul -de -sac at the end
of Monte Vista Drive (at the barrier) which would preclude
the applicants from having the required net lot site area.
5) Waving the standard condition which would require the cul-
de -sac at the end of Monte Vista Drive.
6) Waving the standard conditions requiring the improvement
to the entire footage on Monte Vista Avenue.
7) Waving the standard condition requiring the improvement to
the right of way to Sobey.
8)- This project has a "lot yield" factor of 2.64 lots
allowed rounded up to 3. This is in conflict to your
approval on 2 -23 -83 to the Amendment to Section 13.9 -3 of
Subdivision Ordinance providing for the rounding down of
slope density calculations.
The approval and allowance of these concessions and aspects; 1,
2, 3, 4, & 8 defined above will synergistically create an
improvement and structure density which will be inconsistent with
the General Plan; be a deterioration of the openness and beauty
of the Sobey Road area; as well as devalue the adjoining
Droperties.
There is also a serious question as to whether the Foley's have
the legal right to use a 20' "right of way" to Sobey Road for the
4
purposes of a "permanent and main access and egress road way
and /or for the required utilities. If the Foley's legal right to
this "right of way" for the stated purposes should be
substantiated then there becomes the question as to whether they
can physically develop the minimum road way improvement
requirements (18' of pavement with 1' shoulders) within the 20'
without excavation and grading easements which they do not have.
We will be elaborating on each of these aspects and concerns as
well as expressing additional concerns and considerations in the
text to follow. It is our objective to show and convince you
that, perhaps not individually, but synergistically all these
aspects and concerns come together to form an undesireable, non-
conforming, and untenable "improvement project to this area of
our city. We will be urging you to reconsider your approval of
this project as planned.
Expansion to the aspects of non - conformance:
1) The approval of this project will now cause 5 homes to
take access from the same private drive way /portal to Sobey.
This would be in violation of the applicable general and
specific plans and standard practices. Please refer to
figures #1 & #2, attached. Figure #1 depicts the "Right of
Way" over which the Foley's propose to take access for their
third lot. This "Right of Way" and access to Sobey Road is
already currently being used by 4 homes, the Anderson's,
the Belik's, the Bonacina's and the Coe's. Section "A" is
expanded in detail,to scale in Figure #2. Figure #2 depicts
the current pavement configurations and apron /portal to
Sobey. The staff (Mr. Robert Shook) has felt that this main
(1 of 2) Anderson driveway (shown) really has separate
access to Sobey. Figure #2, however, illustrates that in
fact the Anderson driveway and the Belik /Bonacina /Coe drive
cross each other completely prior to intersecting Sobey and
that in fact they share the same Apron /portal and /or access
to Sobey.
2) The ten foot side yard setback of the garage is an
existing condition and this variance by itself would not be
of great importance. It does, however, become a significant
factor by allowing for a greater density of improvements &
structures .in an area that normally would not be allowed
or tolerated.
3) The twenty three foot rear yard setback variance for the
garage to accomodate the new proposed lot line creates
another even more significant factor in allowing higher
structure density than normally allowed in this area. In
the past (refer referenced documents), the Planning
3
commission has denied garage set back variance requests for
adjacent properties; for the Coe's in November 1967, and the
Stocks in 1978. Why are you allowing this now and if you
do, will you also be willing to grant the Coe's and the
Stock's their variance requests of the past?
4) As stated earlier, standard conditions would require a
cul -de -sac at the end of Monte Vista Drive which precludes
the applicant from having the required net lot site area.
In the referenced report, the Staff recommends "denial of
the subdivision application since the required site area is
not adequate in Parcel "B" given the standard practice of
requiring a cul -de -sac at the end of Monte Vista Drive."
This aspect alone should be enough to cause you as a
commission to deny this application. If not, it becomes a
major link in this synergestic chain that will allow
significant substandard improvement densities in this area
of our city.
5) Waving the standard condition which would require the
cul -de -sac at the end of Monte Vista Drive could allow this
subdivision to come into place "today ", but please consider
tomorrow. If in the future, this cul -de -sac should become a
mandatory requirement and has to be put into place, it now
creates a substandard, undersize, developed lot. This would
now become another factor allowing even further substandard
improvement density.
6) Waving the standard conditions requiring the improvement
to the entire footage on Monte Vista Avenue seems to us,
inconsistent and inappropriate. If we have put such
standards into place, let us conform to them and inforce
these standards. If not, we should do away with these
standards so that at least we are fair & equitable to all.
By inforcing these standards on some and at our whim waving
them for others we are doing an injustice to individuals as
well as to our community.
7) The same thoughts would apply to the waving of the
standard conditions requiring the improvement to the right
of way to Sobey Road. In this case, this involves our own
personal property as well as our deeded easements to Sobey.
Because of this, we would like to insist that you enforce
the minimum improvement standards in this area and request
that these improvements are done in such a way so as to
conform to the existing improvements, i.e.; a) that AC
pavement be used where AC currently exists, etc. b) that
after all the appropriate widening and grading is
accomplished, that a conformal coating of a double seal coat
of oil and screenings be applied to cover the patch work so
as to match the existing drive ways for cosmetics as well as
4
for preventive maintenance in preserving the integrity of
this patch work.
As mentioned earlier we are concerned as to whether the
Foleys can in fact physically develop these minimum 20' road
way improvement requirements in their alleged 20' right of
way without disturbing the adjacent properties and their
improvements. For these reasons, and in the event that you
should continue to approve this project, we would ask that
you would make your approval contingent to the following:
a) That the Foley's survey this right of way, establishing
it's boundaries and ascertaining all interferences to
existing improvements and grades.
b) Based on this survey submit a detailed plan and
specification as to how they will implement this minimum
20' wide improvement in this 20' right of way without
disturbing the adjacent properties.
c) This proposed plan and specification should then be
approved by all the applicable municipal agencies, that it
will meet or exceed all the requirements including storm
drainage and any other required utilities.
d) This implementation plan and specification should also
be approved by all the adjacent property owners that they
can be assured that all the required work can be done
without disturbing their adjacent properties and
improvements. And /or that the Foley's obtain all the
necessary grading or applicable easements that might be
required from the adjacent owners to complete their
project.
8) As discussed earlier this project has a "lot yield"
factor of 2.64 lots which you are allowing rounded up to 3.
This is in conflict to your approval on 2 -23 -83 to the
Amendment to Section 13.9 -3 of Subdivision Ordinance
providing for the rounding down of slope density
calculations. This aspect now becomes yet another factor to
further allow substandard higher improvement density into
this Sobey Road area.
To date, it has not been substantiated as to whether the Foley's
have the legal right to this "right of way" to Sobey Road. If
they infact do, then the question arises as to whether they have
the right to use it for a "permanent and main access and egress
roadway" and /or for any required utilities. Their alleged right
5
of way across our property does not appear in any way on our
referenced Individual Joint Tenancy Deed. Title reports do
indicate that such a 20' "right of way" might exist but certainly
not for this specified use. It is our opinion as well as our
title officer's, that this right of way was never intended for
these purposes and is not appropriate for such purposes today.
Our opinion is derived from and substantiated by the following:
a) The Foley properties already have 30' and 40' "easements"
specified for road purposes to both sections of Monte Vista
Drive (refer to referenced Preliminary Title Report, dated 2-
4-83)
b) The Foley properties also have established "easements"
specified for public utility purposes.
NI
Should you as a capon decide to continue the approval of
this subdivision project, we ask that in consideration of the
above facts, you make your approval contingent to the Foley's
substantiating their legal right to the Sobey Road "right of way"
for these specific purposes. We feel that this contingency would
be to the best interest of our City, as well as all those
individuals concerned, from a legal standpoint.
Please give consideration again to the synergetic effect that all
these aspects and factors will have on this area. We believe
that the net effect would be substantially inconsistent with the
general and specific plans for this area of our City. We urge
you to reconsider your decision and deny the approval of this
project.
In the event that you should continue with your approval of this
project, we would respectfully ask that you formally respond to
this letter of appeal, answering it's questions, and stating your
position on each of the issues presented. This should be done by
making specific findings in support or warrant on each of your
positions.
We would like to thank each of you for your interest and
consideration to our appeal.
Thomas U. Coe Norma J. Coe
Attachments
G7
%I
/des\
/'7 1
i
(• 1
Q/,
1
S. 1
i I
/ Lfw /f •j 'pep f•."a
� L •wIi •% ,•f 1 t
� M
•t
1
It
I I /
I
MONTE VISTA DRIVE
L.•alf .t
Qw.vw
VA tX5 ,.
r
. ;•.... .•s+ �r. +r
• 1.S& Ac. W .
C,ay go-oft
A AAA
d I
L •
f
TRACT NO. 3 219
g j 'MONTEV000'
'r
i
l
•
%lC� USE #�
I
I
N
SC N,[ ,E : � , - Z /.
V
O
LSE r,g 14 �
T0: Saratoga
RE: Letter to you from Tom & Norma Coe, dated 4 -25 -83
concerning the appeal of your approval of the Sobey
Project File No. SDR -1533.
We the undersigned share in the concerns stated in Tom & Norma
Coe's letter to you and urge you to reconsider your approval and
deny this project:
NAME ADDRESS DATE
ift-
I
JJV/r�eJt.
1
oK 7892 PACE 1 EOOR 1092 PACE
RSCwdad at the rngv-t of
`�Deettvs aide
�X OCT.181%7 A
U �ORGG & FOW ReeordaE,
seats clay. C"3110F oR1°"t
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
AFFIX I.R.S. $ 56 • 10 IN THIS SPACE
3lttbibibuaY point Tenancp 74
WESTERN TITLE FORM NO. 105
FOR VALUE RECEIVED, nnhTQ.TT'?T.n QR T'3!c;I h� cpr.q r ^f ? T T+nnc ntyl
GRANT G to TT, ^,07 any 1117� ;A NEWMAN COE, his wife,
as JOINT TENANTS all that real property situate in the C' t y n T Sara *.O r?
County of C 1 ? ra , State of California, described as follows:
T, ^ ^n7Tn'PTnnT �-, f'Z ^' "T:�"c aq^ r-', "iTnTT Nr," A'nm: ^TT-7n
00CUMEliTARY =
OCT 13167
poR METER
�` y
-INTf R[FL REVEn Uf
� 4 i.: :: 00CUMENTARY
VOCT OCT1 3'67 7 xw�yw�U.lU218
Dated n ^`nb?r 19 .; 1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA l
Snnhn Apra (ss.
County of 11
on OC t 3 . 19� before me, the undersigned,
a Notary Public, in and for said State, personally appeared
r,."", n, () q„i rem S•
known to me to be the person— whose name
subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that
-he— executed the same.
'/ A dfary Public
S. J. peters
Name (Type or Printed)
• ^+-,rn '!'i €QRD�(1G REOU FSTFfp^BY �r ,
Ir,
^era ri�r� C ^i,n— Dlvisinn
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO
F-
NAM[ MW. & Mrs 'Thomas Coe
A...... 15217 Sober Road
C,TT6 Saratoga, California
aTAT[
Title Order No. Escrow No
�
MAIL TAI [TATKMENTS TO
rfdr
NAM[ . & ml's. Thomas Coe
A.—... 15217 Sobey Road
CITY a Saratoga, California
BTAT[ L
I
JJV/r�eJt.
1
oK 7892 PACE 1 EOOR 1092 PACE
RSCwdad at the rngv-t of
`�Deettvs aide
�X OCT.181%7 A
U �ORGG & FOW ReeordaE,
seats clay. C"3110F oR1°"t
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
AFFIX I.R.S. $ 56 • 10 IN THIS SPACE
3lttbibibuaY point Tenancp 74
WESTERN TITLE FORM NO. 105
FOR VALUE RECEIVED, nnhTQ.TT'?T.n QR T'3!c;I h� cpr.q r ^f ? T T+nnc ntyl
GRANT G to TT, ^,07 any 1117� ;A NEWMAN COE, his wife,
as JOINT TENANTS all that real property situate in the C' t y n T Sara *.O r?
County of C 1 ? ra , State of California, described as follows:
T, ^ ^n7Tn'PTnnT �-, f'Z ^' "T:�"c aq^ r-', "iTnTT Nr," A'nm: ^TT-7n
00CUMEliTARY =
OCT 13167
poR METER
�` y
-INTf R[FL REVEn Uf
� 4 i.: :: 00CUMENTARY
VOCT OCT1 3'67 7 xw�yw�U.lU218
Dated n ^`nb?r 19 .; 1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA l
Snnhn Apra (ss.
County of 11
on OC t 3 . 19� before me, the undersigned,
a Notary Public, in and for said State, personally appeared
r,."", n, () q„i rem S•
known to me to be the person— whose name
subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that
-he— executed the same.
'/ A dfary Public
S. J. peters
Name (Type or Printed)
The real property referred to is described as:
BOOK 09� PACE 2
Those parcels of land in the City of Saratoga, County of
Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows:
PARCEL ONE
Parcel 2, Map of Record of Survey portions of the Southwest
1/4 of Section 8, To 8 S,, R, 1 W,, M.D.B. & M., filed June
3, 1960, Book 121 of Maps, page 13, Santa Clara County Records,
EXCEPTING FROM PARCEL 1 ABOVE:
That portion thereof described as follows:
A portion of Parcel 2, Map of Record of Survey portions of
the Southwest 1/4 of Section 8, To 8 S,, R. 1 W,, M.D.B. & Moll
filed June 3, 1960, Book 121 of Maps, page 13, Santa Clara
County Records, described as follows:
Beginning at the Northerly common corner of Parcels 1 and 2 of
said Record of Survey; thence S, 890 419 45" W. along the North
line of said Parcel 22 100 feet; thence South and parallel with
the line dividing said Parcels 1 and 2, 20 feet; thence No 890
419 45" E. and parallel with said North line 100 feet to the
.said dividing line between Parcels 1 and 2; thence North along
said dividing line 20 feet to the point of beginning,
PARCEL TWO
A portion of Parcel 1, Map of Record of Survey portions of the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 83, To 8 S,, R. 1 W,, M.D.B. & M., filed
June 3, 1960, Book 121 of Maps, page 13, Santa Clara County
Records, described as follows:
Beginning at the Southwest corner of said Parcel 1; thence North
along the line dividing Parcels 1 and 2 of said Record of Survey
100 feet; thence No 890 419 45" E. and parallel with the North
line of said Parcel 1, 20 feet; thence South and parallel with
said dividing line 100 feet to the Southerly line of said Parcel
1; thence S, 891 419 45" W. along said line 20 feet to the point
of beginning.
PARCEL THREE
Rights of way granted by Deed to Samuel E. Briggs, et ux, recorded.
March 27, 1964, Book 6440 Official Records, page 326;
to A Right of Way over a portion of the Southwest 1/4 of Section
819 T. 8 S,, R. 1 W,, M.D.B. & Mo, being a strip of land 20
feet wide, the East line of which is described as follows:
.. '7"l Tip 1 �• '1,1.7 1 ' •.171'l
r _
BOOK . /.092 PACE
Beginning at the Northeast corner of Parcel 1 Map.of Record
of Survey portions of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 8, T. 8
S,, R. 1 Wo, M.D.B. & M., filed June 3,.1960, Book 121 of Maps,
page 13; thence North 120.96 fe.et to the Southwest line of
Sobey Road.
2. A right of way over t•he•East'20 feet of Parcel 1, Map of
Record of Survey portions of the Southwest 1/4 of Section
8, T. 8 S,, R. 1 W.$ VI.D.B. & M., filed June 3, 1960, Book
121 of Maps, page.13, Santa Clara County Records.
MOST)' 11111
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
* *Amended 3/9/83
�r
Ci:; or *Revised 3/2/83
kry ED u� DATE: 2/4/83
i
Commission Meeting: 3/9/83
SUBJECT SDR -1533 James & Michael Foley, 18927 Monte Vista Drive
Tentative Building Site Approval - 3 lots
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
REQUEST: Approval of a Tentative Map for 3 lots with access from
Monte Vista Drive and Sobey Road.
OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Variance to continue existing garage with
10 side setbacks where 20' is required and 23' rearyard setback
where 50' is required.
PLANNING DATA:
* PARCEL SIZE:
Total (including property from Johnson's) - 3.3 acres
Lot A 51,020
Lot B 41,354 (excludes min. access road)
Lot C 46,200
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
ZONING: R -1- 40,000
Very Low Density
* LOT YIELD: 2.64 lots allowed rounded up to 3.
STTF. nATA
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Very Low Density Residential
* SITE SLOPE: 16.2%
* SLOPE OF PROPOSED LOT: Parcel A 18.1%
Parcel B 13.70
Parcel C 16.50
NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: Orchard and grasslands with
some significant trees around the existing house.
Report to Planning Commission Page 2
SDR -1533 3/2/83
PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS:
HISTORY: The applicants are proposing to split a 3.3 acre parcel
whit ncludes a portion of the neighboring property (Johnson).
A barrier has been constructed on Monte Vista Drive so that through
public access does not exist with a 1' strip reserved to the City.:
This parcel takes access from the private portion of Monte Vista
Drive but has the option to take access from the public portion
on the southerly side of the barrier. The applicants propose 2
lots (including that with the existing residence) to take access
from the public portion of Monte Vista which would reduce the
lots taking access from the private road by one. (The neighbors,
the Johnsons, hope to take advantage of this reduction by splitting
their lot and adding one additional home to the private road).
The application's third lot would take access from Sobey Road
from an easement on which 3 homes presently take access.
Two lots of record are located on the proposed site, although
a swimming pool straddles the common property line. .
SETBACKS: Existing garage requires a variance for its 23' rear and
10' side setbacks.
*DRIVEWAY & CIRCULATION: The applicants are proposing to revise the
access for the existing house to Montewood /Monte Vista. Thus the
access for the 3 lots is: one residence from Sobey Road, and two
from Montewood /Monte Vista. The Staff Report conditions an emergency
access to E1 Camino Grande from Monte Vista. The access from Montewood/
Monte Vista is located along an existing easement partially on the
property to the south. Standard conditions would require a cul -de -sac
at the end of Monte Vista Drive (at the barrier) but the aggreement
on this barrier may preclude this condition.
GEOLOGY: Cotton has recommended this application for your action.
(:attached)
ADDITIONAL `CONCERNS OR COMMENTS: Each net lot is required to contain
40,000 square feet of site area, (which is to now be exclusive of
minimum access road). The slope density calculations, however, include
the entire parcels to be subdivided. The applicants' map has now been
revised to show that they have required site area. However, with a
condition for a cul de sac at the end of Monte Vista, the site area
would then be less than the required amount.
VARIANCE FINDINGS:
1. The property has no physical hardship associated with it for
location of the garage since there are viable option for its
relocation.
2. Exceptional circumstance applying to the lot and setbacks relate
to the construction of the garage done with a permit from the
City in 1957, allowing the 10' side setback. Privacy impacts
caused by the side setback of the garage are minimal since it's
elevation is lower than the adjoining property. The 23' setback
Report to Planning Commission page 3
SDR -1533 3%2/83
in the ;.rear is caused by a new proposed lot line*(where 50' is
required).
3. Denial of this variance for the garage would not deprive the
applicant of the right to develop the property similar to others
classified in the same zoning district since there are viable.
options.
4. The granting of this variance would not be a grant of special
privilege since exceptional circumstances exist.
5. The use will not be detrimental to the community or injurious.
to the properties in the vicinity.
RECOMMENDATION:
*Staff recommends denial of the variance for the garage setbacks since
all of the required findings cannot be made; and denial of the sub-
division application since the reauired site area is not adequate
in-Parcel "B ",given the standard practice of requiring a cul de sac I
at the end of Monte Vista Drive. A denial of the map is required if
the Commission makes one or more of the following findings:
i
(a)_ -That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general
and specific plans as specified in Section 65451. "
(b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is
not consistent with applicable general and specific plans.
(c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of
development.
(d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed den-
sity of development.
(e) That the design of the subdivision of the proposed improvements
are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or sub-
stantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat.
(f) That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is
likely to cause serious :public health problems.
(g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements
will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large,
for access through or use of, property within the proposed
subdivision.
* DRAFT PROJECT STATUS: If the Commission determines that the cul-
de -sac at Montewood is not necessary, the following findings and
conditions are recommended:
Said project complies with all objectives of the 1974 General Plan
and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the
City of Saratoga.
Report to the Plannir' ,ommission ( Page 4
SDR -1533 3/2/83
The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been
balanced against the public service needs of its residents and avail-
able fiscal and environmental resources.
Any approval of the tentative map for SDR -1533 (Exhibit "B -1 " .filed
March 2,. 1983).' ' - should be subject to the following conditions:
I. GENERAL CONDITIONS
Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance
No. 60, including without limitation, the submission of a Record.
of Survey or parcel map; payment of storm drainage fee and park
and recreation fee as established by Ordinance in effect at the
time of final approval; submission of engineered improvement plans
for any street work; and compliance with applicable Health Department
regulations and applicable Flood Control regulations and requirements
of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to s6Ad Ordinance
for further particulars. Site approval in no way excuses compliance
with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances,-nor with any other
Ordinance of the City. In Conditions which are hereby required and
set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60.
II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining
Final Approval.
B. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for Checking and Recordation
(Pay required Checking & Recordation Fees).
** C. 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,
- - - - - - -- - - - -- with ..specific. - attention on access.. to Sobey "Road.-... .......
** D. Construct Access Road 18 ft. wide plus 1 ft. shoulders using
double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6--in. aggregate
base from Sobey Road to within 100 ft. of proposed dwelling.
Slope of access road shall not exceed 122% without adhering
:.. to the following:
1. Access roads having slopes between 122% and 15% shall be
surfaced using, 22% and 15% shall be surfaced using, 22 in.
Asphalt Concrete on 6 in. Aggregate Base.
2. Access roads having slopes between 15% and 172% shall be
surfaced using 4 in. of P.C.C. Concrete rough surfaced using
4 in. Aggregate Base. Slopes in excess of 15% shall not ex-
ceed 50 ft in length.
3. Access roads having slope in excess of 172% are not permitted.
a. The minimum inside curve radius shall be 42 ft.
b. The minimum vertical clearance above road surface shall
be 15 ft.
C. Bridges and other roadway structures shall be designed to
sustain 35,000 lbs. dynamic loading.
d. Storm Runoff shall be controlled through the use of
culverts and roadside ditches.
C-
Report to Planning Commission Page 5
SDR -1533 3/2/83
E. Construct turnaround having 32 ft. radius or approved equal
using double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6 in.
aggregate base within 100 ft. of proposed dwelling.
F. Construct Standard Driveway Approach
G. Construct "Valley Gutter" across driveway or pipe culvert under
driveway as as approved by the City Engineer.
H. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view
as required at driveway and access road intersections.
I. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change,
retard or prevent flow.
J. Protective Planting required on roadside cuts and fills.
K. Engineered Improvement Plans required for:
1. Storm Drain Construction
2. Access Road Construction
L. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement
Plans.
M. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be
completed within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval.
N. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements.
0. Emergency Access Gate at north end of Monte Vista Drive.
III. SPECIFIC CONDITI "ONS - DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTION SERVICES
A. Plans to be reviewed by geotechnical consultant prior to building
permit being issued.
B. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing:
1. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross - sections,
existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities).
2. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etc.)
3. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E.
for wall 3 feet or higher.
4. All existing structures, with notes as to remain or be removed.
5. Erosion control measures
C. $400 bond required fo backfill of septic tank.
D. Comply with City Geologist letter dated 1/17/83.
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4
A. Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance with
requirements of Sanitation District No. 4 as outlined in
letter dated January 20, 1983.
Report to Planning Commission \ Page 6
SDR -1533 3/2/83.
V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CENTRAL FIRE DISTRICT
A. Construct driveway 14 feet minimum width, plus one foot
shoulders using double seal coat oil and screening or better
on 6-inch aggregate base from public street or access road to.
proposed dwelling. Slope driveway shall not exceed 122%
without adhering to the following:
1. Driveways having slopes between 122% to 15% shall be
surfaced using 24 inches of A.C. on 6 inch aggregate
base.
2. Driveways having slopes between 15% to 172% shall be
surfaced using 4 inches of P.C.C. concrete rough sur-
faced on 4 inch aggregate base and shall not exceed
50 feet in length.
3. Driveways with greater slopes or longer length will not
be accepted.
B. Construct a turnaround at the proposed dwelling sites more
than 150' from the street having a 32 foot inside radius.
Other approved type turnaround must meet requirements of
the Fire Chief. Details shall be shown on building plans.
C. Driveway shall be a minimum inside curve radius of 42 feet.
D. Proposed dwelling must have a minimum recongnized water
supply capable of delivering 1000 gallons per minute for
2 hours. This is based upon the Insurance Service Office
grade for determining a required Fire Flow to maintain a
Grade Five (5) rating. Minimum required fire flow for the
subject facility shall be 1000 gallons per minute from any
three hydrants flowing with 20 psi residual.
E. Provide 15 foot clearance over the road or driveway
(vertical) to building site. Remove all limbs, wires or
other obstacles.
VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4
A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers installed
and connected by the developer to one of the existing trunk
sewers of the Sanitation District No, 4. Prior to final
approval, an adequate bond shall be posted with said district
to assure completion of sewers as planned.
B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works.
VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans
showing the location and intended use of any existing wells
to the SCVWD for review and certification.
Report to Planning Commission Page 7
SDR -1533 3/2/83
VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PERMIT REVIEW DIVISION
A. House locations and driveway designs to be reviewed and
approved by Central Fire District.
B. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance
of permits.
C. Any modifications to the Site Development Plan shall be
subject to Planning Commission approval.
D. Prior to issuance of building permits individual structures
shall be reviewed by the Planning Department to evaluate
the potential for .solar accessibility. The developer shall
provide, to the extent`' "feasibile, for future passive or
natural heating or cooling opportunities on /in the sub-
division/building-site.—
E. Agree to participate in any future private road maintenance
association prior to Final Approval.
F. Design Review of Emergency Access Gate required prior to
Final Map Approval.
G. Comply with requirements of action on variance application
for location of garage on Parcel "A ".
** H. Design Review Approval required for barrier and driveway
access onto Monte Vista Drive.
IX. COMMENTS
A. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable
City Ordinances.
Approved:
KK /bjc
P.C. Agenda 1/25/83
Kathy Kerd "s, anner
*kAs amended by the Planning Commission on 3/9/83
"K
Planning Commission ( Page 2
Meeting Minutes 3/9/83
SD -1509 (cont.)
Molineux propel y and was intending to build the road in a 40 ft. right -of -way.
He stated that h would not be able to put the road anywhere else without a
slope easement o access to the Molineux property. The possibility of using the
40 ft. reservatio behind the Molineux property was discussed. The access of
the other site in he County, if developed at a later time, was also addressed.
Staff noted that t y do get County referrals for conditioning. They commented
that they would sus ect the site would have to be annexed because it is con-
tiguous to the City.
Commissioner Hlava que tioned the layout of the subdivision, particularly the
location of the road in the middle of the lots,and asked the applicant if he
had considered shortenin the cul -de -sac. Mr. Lauer explained that he had
looked at it but felt th the problem was the minimum depth requirement of
160 feet.
Staff indicated that they wipuld recommend conditioning for precluding any
activity on the area of the \P roperty following the creek.
Dr. Kim, 19977 Sunset Drive, ated that he was still researching some of the
issues and would like to addre s them at a later date. It was pointed out that
this matter will be continued the March 23, 1983 meeting.
Lester Sachs, Sunset Drive, disc ssed the proposed access. He cited the
dangerous traffic situation on Su set and indicated that there is a consensus
of residents on Sunset that they a e willing to accept a 4 -lot development, with
2 lots accessing from Sunset and 2 €rom Peach Hill. He commented that the City
and County should get together so t at the residents can review one set of
plans. He added that as a compromis they would be willing to withdraw their
objection to the 1800 ft. cul -de -sac n the basis that there would only be 2
residences that will be served off of it.
Bill Elving, Peach Hill, spoke in favor \of the present plan in terms of access.
He noted the traffic from Montalvo and the DiManto site on Peach Hill, and
commented that it would be most fair and \logical to have access off of Sunset.
It was directed that this matter be continued to March 23, 1983.
2a. Negative Declaration - SDR -1527 - Will am Johnson
2b. SDR -1527 - William Johnson, %equest for Tentative Building Site Approval
for a 2 -lot subdivision at 18935 Monte Vista (near E1 Camino
Grande)
Negative Declaration - SDR -1533 - James & Michael Fol
03c. SDR -1533 - James & Michael Foley, Monte Vista and Sobey Road, Request for
V -604 - Subdivision Approval to a 3 -lot subdivision for a site with
access on Monte Vista Drive (between Montewood and E1 Camino
Grande) and Sobey Road in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district and
Variance Approval to allow an existing garage to continue with
nonconforming side (10' where 20' is required) and rear yard
(23' where 50' is required) setbacks
The two above applications were discussed simultaneously. Commissioner Siegfried
gave a report on the previous on -site visit. He stated that the issues were:
(1) whether or not there should be a cul -de -sac at the end of Monte Vista Drive;
(2) whether the barrier should be moved and preservation of the trees; and
(3) whether there needs to be any improvement of the private road. He discussed
the existing garage on the Foley property.
The public hearing was opened at 8:26 p.m.
Jim Foley, the applicant, discussed relocation of the barrier. He also dis-
cussed the cul -de -sac and the turnaround, stating that the Fire District has
indicated that the turnaround that is there is adequate now for their needs.
Mr. Sven Simonsen, 18433 Montewood Drive, spoke on the barrier, stating that the
barricade has been knocked down many times and repaired by the City. He ex-
pressed his concern about moving the barrier. It was determined that a con-
dition could be added to the Staff Report to require Design Review Approval for
the barricade and appropriate landscaping. The applicant stated that they _
share the concerns regarding the barricade and want to make sure that the inte-
grity of it is maintained.
- 2 -
11"
M
Planning Commission ( Page 3
Meeting Minutes 3/9%33
SDR -1527 and SDR -1533 (cont.)
Dr. Lipton, owner of the house closest to the barricade, requested that atten-
tion be paid to the drainage while designing the barricade and road.
James Foley, Sr. stated that he had insisted that the original barricade be
there. and agreed that it has to remain and be a practical barricade.
Tom Coe stated that he is adjacent to the Foleys on the northern boundary at
the other end. He expressed the following concerns: (1) increased density,
(2) requirement of a variance, (3) drainage, and (4) more than 4 homes on a
roadway. He explained that the subdivision will have to go through four right -
of -ways that already exist for access. Staff noted that they did not consider
the Andersons taking access off of the minimum access road, since they are
essentially fronting on Sobey Road and taking direct access to Sobey.
Bob Berry, 15225 Sobey, expressed concern about the drainage, stating that there
is a drainage problem now and this will add to it. Mr. Foley stated that he
shares the concern and the access will be engineered with that in mind.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Siegfried commented that he did not have any great concerns with
either site except for (1) the condition for a cul -de -sac at the end of the
public part of Monte Vista Drive should be deleted to retain the natural
appearance of the site, (2) a condition that the developer bring back to the
Commission a design plan for the barrier and driveway, including any berming
on his property, should be added, and (3) the drainage problem at the Coe and
Berry sites should be taken care of. He noted that the size of the lots are
well within the comparable sites within the neighborhood. He pointed out that
one of the Foley accesses on the minimum access road would be deleted, but one
would be added from the Johnsons; therefore, he does not feel that that is in-
consistent with past actions in the sense that there will be no addition to the
existing condition on that minimum access road.
Commissioner Bolger commented that, even though he recognizes that the neighbors
of Dr. Johnson are in favor of this lot split, it does place more than 4 lots
on a minimum access road and he has concerns with that.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve the Negative Declaration for SDR -1527.
Commissioner Hlava seconded the „motion, which was carried unanimously 6 -0.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve SDR -1527, subject to the conditions of
the Staff Report and making the findings. Commissioner Schaefer suggested that
Condition VIII -D be eliminated, regarding the removal of the corral, since it
is near the existing house and will not affect any neighbors.. Commissioner
Siegfried accepted that amendment. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion,
which was carried 5 -1, with Commissioner Bolger dissenting.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve the Negative Declaration for SDR -1533.
Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6 -0.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve V -604, making the findings because of
the terrain involved in these sites. He explained that the terrain from the
Johnsons' site slopes down quite dramatically to the Foley property at that
point, so that the roof of the existing garage is hardly visible from anywhere
other than the Foley house. He added that it is surrounded by a considerable
amount of foilage and existing vegetation. Commissioner Bolger seconded the
motion, which was carried unanimously 6 -0.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve SDR -1533, subject to the conditions of
the Staff Report and making the findings, with the additional conditions added:
(1) design review on the barrier and the driveway access onto Monte Vista Drive
to preserve as much as possible the natural appearance and existing trees and
foilage, (2) the drainage problem at the Coe -Berry end of the property will be
taken care of, (3) deleting the requirement for a cul -de -sac at the end of
Monte Vista Drive, and (4) elimination of the condition that states that the
road must be improved to 13 feet, leaving it as is. Commissioner Nellis
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6 -0.
Staff explained to Mr. Simonsen that, with the relocation of the barrier, the
Foleys can be required to make an additional dedication such that the barricade ` _
Planning Commission Page 4
Meeting Minutes 3/9/83
SDR -1527 and SDR -1533 (cont.)
would be on City property or they could be conditioned for the maintenance of
that barricade. Commissioner Siegfried suggested that that could be done
at the time of design review, since the Commission does not know at this time
what the plan will be.
The Deputy City-Attorney commented that the Commission could condition it at
the time of design review, or if it is not on City -owned property the City
could record some sort of agreement pertaining to the maintenance of the barri-
er, assigning a responsibility and have it recorded to run with the land.
4a. Negative Declaration -\ SDR -1512 - Saratoga High School
4b. SDR -1512 - Saratoga Hi School, Request for Tentative Subdivision Approval
for a 5 -lot ubdivision for a site off of Herriman Avenue near
River Ranch ircle in the R- 1- 12,500 zoning district
It was noted that the applicAnt has asked for a continuance to explore all the
alternatives for access.
The public hearing was opened t 9:00 p.m. No one appeared, and it was directed
that this matter be continued o April 13, 1933.
S. UP -528 - Dwight Caswell (Sa Jose Symphony), 15095 Fruitvale Avenue, Request
for Use Permit App val to conduct a "decorator's showhouse" for
a one -month period n the R- 1- 40,000 zoning district (near Alondra
Lane)
Chairman Schaefer described the p�pposal. Traffic and parking were discussed.
The public hearing was opened at 9\:1,15 p.m.
Charles Robbins, 19348 Monte Vista rive, expressed concern about parking on
Valley Vista, stating that it is a v ry narrow road. Staff noted that one of
the conditions is for the applicant o post no parking signs along Valley Vista
and Alondra.
Carolyn Salciccia, legal adviser to thb San Jose Symphony, requested a change
of dates to April 30 -May 31, due to pr blems with getting the house prepared.
She addressed the parking and the shutt e system. Discussion followed on the
enforcement of parking, and Staff comme ted that they would expect that expense
to be borne by the applicant.
Commissioner Bolger moved to close the pudic hearing. Commissioner Siegfried
seconded the motion, which was carried un nimously.
Commissioner Schaefer suggested that the n parking signs on Valley Vista and
Alonda be placed 40 -50 ft. back and parkin allowed in the street, because
of older people who find it difficult to wa t for shuttles. Commissioner
Bolger noted that the organization has done a good job of organizing the shuttle
aspect, and he would prefer that there not b parking in those streets because
of possible property damage to people's lawn or fences.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve V -528 making the findings in the Staff
Report dated 9, 1983, with the condition added that any enforcement expenses
would be borne by the applicant. Commissioner'b1cGoldrick seconded the motion,
which was carried 6 -0.
Break - 9:10 -9:30 p.m. 1
l
6. UP -530 - St. Andrews Church, Request for Ato&nification to the Use Permit to
allow the construction of a 5,300 sq. ft. playground at 13601
Saratoga Avenue (near Crestbrook) in,,the R- 1- 20,000 zoning district
Staff described the proposal. The public hearing`,was opened at 9:35 p.m.
Father Snary, Head Master of St. Andrews Church, discussed the application.
Warren Hoid, architect, noted that Mr. and Pars. Joro,ensen have requested that
the cyclone fence be extended parallel with their fence. The existing trees
were discussed. Mr. Heid suggested that, if the Commission feels that the
improvement of Saratoga Avenue is necessary, a Deferred Improvement Agreement
should be entered into, so that the improvements would'-happen for hoth the
4-
Planning Commission j
Meeting Minutes 2/23/83 C
Page 4
A -854 (cont.)
because she feels that wh n it is appealed to the City Council they will
approve it. She added th t she did vote against the Wilson house because
there was a question of co atibility regarding the height and size.
The vote was taken to deny A�854. The motion was carried 3 -2, with Commissioners
Hlava and Schaefer dissenting\ The 10 -day appeal period was noted.
6a. Negative Declaration - SDR 1527 - William Johnson
6b. SDR -1527 - William Johnson, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval
for a 2 -lot subdivision at 18935 Monte Vista (near E1 Camino
Grande); continued from February 9, 1983
7a. Negative Declaration - SDR -1533 -- James $ Michael Foley
r 7b. DR -1533 - James & Michael Foley, Monte Vista and Sobey Road, Request for
7c. -506 - Subdivision Approval for a 3 -lot subdivision for a site with
access on Monte Vista Drive (between Montewood and E1 Camino
Grande) and Sobey Road in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district and
Variance Approval to allow an existing garage to continue with
nonconforming side (10' where 20' is required) and rear yard
(23' where 50' is required) setbacks; continued from February
9, 1983
It was noted that SDR -1527 and SDR -1533 will be continued.
The public hearing was opened at 8:40 p.m.
Jim Foley stated that they were concerned about the timing of the Rounding
Down Ordinance, since it adversely affects the project. He asked for a con-
tinuance to March 9, 1983. Dr. Johnson commented that he would be out of town
for six weeks but would agree to the continuance to March 9th if Mr. Foley
could represent them.
It was directed that these items be continued to the meeting on March 9, 1983.
8. UP -528 - Dwight Casw ll (San Jose Symphony), 15095 Fruitvale Avenue,
Request for se Permit Approval to conduct a "decorator's show -
house" for a one -month period in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district
Chairman Schaefer discussed this proposal and noted concerns regarding parking
and traffic on Fruitvale an Saratoga -Los Gatos Road. It was reported that
Staff is asking that this it be continued so that the applicant may provide
additional parking informatio .
It was directed that this item \econtinued to March 9, 1983.
9. A -85S - John Bergman, 14341 ey Road, Request for Design Review and
Site Modification Aval to construct a first and second story
addition to an exisgarage on a site of greater than 10% in
slope in the R -1 -40 zoning district
Staff described the proposal. Comm \ssioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee
Report, indicating that they had found no problem with the project.
The public hearing was opened at 8:50\ .m.
Steve Elmore, the architect, gave a pre entation on the project. The existing
retaining wall was discussed.
Commissioner Bolger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Crowther moved to approve A -855 per the Staff Report dated Febru-
ary 15, 1983 and Exhibits "B" and "C ". Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion,
which was carried unanimously 5 -0.
10. A -8S6 - David Myers, Farr Ranch Court (Parker Ranch), Request for Design
Review Approval to construct a two -story single family dwelling
in the NHR zoning district
Commissioner Crowther stepped down and abstained'from the discussion as a
- 4 -
RESOLUTION NO. SDR - 1533 -1
RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF
JAMES AND MICHAEL FOLEY
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency
under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and un-
der the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for tenta-
tive map approval of a lot, site or subdivisions of 3 lots,
all as more particularly set forth in File No. SDR -TTT7 of this
City, and
WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed
subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and im-
provement, 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 gen-
eral land use and programs specified in such General Plan, refer-
ence to the approved Staff Report dated February 4, 1983(amended)
being hereby made for further particulars, and
WHEREAS, this body has heretofor received and considered the
(Negative Declaration) prepared for
this project in accord with the currently applicable provisions
of CEQA, and t:
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 the conditions as hereinafter set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for
the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated the
2nd day of March , 19 83, and is marked Exhibit "B -1"
in —the hereinabovereferred to file, be and the same is hereby
conditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as
more particularly set forth on Exhibit "A" and incorporated
herein by reference.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly passed and adop-
ted by the (Planning Commission) (g�il�iX�����#iXXi?�GXt') at
a meeting thereof held on the 9th day of March
19 at which a quorum was present, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bolger, Hlava, McGoldrick, Nellis, Schaefer and
Siegfried
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Crowther
ADVISORY AGENCY
ATTEST :`- , -
/ C 111 ZZ, . rran
•
StUafr7cCZ Narni cl. &rm_44.wn
1; 1-aui-�vu(e live,
SarllLtUC a, Ca Lf o /"L a 95070
f e(i�ua�ri l8, 1983
'r :Ri':-111• htVIE'�'J
Deaa Pler ems;
,9 am, OAz:.tiny ;M-i4 -�o be on Pecv/zd cvncean, nn Ae, new cleve.Coz,3vrze,,4
o 1 f Svbe y Xond _ Fzi e :7�,1538. (7e /,Lzj:C v;'. alj mr , tv be no pd a.j
v9pv,14 ink t,�e Orrd chance chr ge,
C?urz 7KztA concern, howeveZ, .cam ,the acCe.4.4 /road off vl'Sobey winch
bvrrderA Darr prrvoerz ry r oe i 4 e L&Ae )CnOA- We aLeadiy have cC,zainace-
�rwb C wiuc we have hu ed #v �v l ve w.i-jh czv b j and dru- ina�, -e 19�oe j.
(:`e ¢ne cern ,tfzrL� no/re develv�,xzen and widvunaz v f ze wad wi.(�
cruz�je moire d.ea.irza .e pow l emw a-td e zo j i vn on &) v cot �"opei -64
(Je a ze in hopea an# e4 , n .the woad oq 4uzlwurzo-,� arzea i
would be c zfgin.eezed zlo pzevert ,the above,
lhvnf; you.
S.irzcPrre.f -
�✓r. r `�Z4. %06 �ne/rrr,
15225 Sobezf %vad
Sa,.a-10 a, Cu-L/oArzka 9,070
Phone-,- 354 -9158
QC�CQMD
APR 2 91983
19175 Monte Vista Dr.
Saratoga, CA 95070
April 28, 1983
Hon. Linda Callan, Mayor
City Council Members
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Dear Mayor Callan and
Members of the City Council:
I am aware of the plans of Mr. and Mrs.
James W. Foley, 18927 Monte Vista Dr., Saratoga, to
subdivide their property, subject to your approval,
in order to construct several new homes thereon. I
am also informed that, while Planning Commission
approval was forthcoming, an appeal was filed against
the proposal by a neighbor of the Foleys.
As a longtime neighbor of the Foleys, I
wish to express to you my personal agreement with their
plans, and I recommend your approval likewise. Mrs.
McInerny and I live very close to the Foley property,
and I cannot imagine any detriment to the neighborhood
or the area by the granting of the Foley request.
Thank you for considering this letter; please
feel free to contact me if you desire any further
information.
Sincerely,
S��CG 7f
ohn S. McInerny
JSM:bh
cc: Mr. and Mrs. James W. Foley
n
RECEIVED APR 2 1983
April 29, 1983
James W. Foley, Jr.
Michael E. Foley
18927 Monte Vista Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070
Mr. Robert S. Shook
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mr. Shook,
We hereby request a deferral of the protest by Mr.
Thomas U. Coe to the tentative map submitted by
James W. and Michael E. Foley and approved by the
Saratoga Planning Commission on March 9, 1983.
This item is scheduled to be heard by the City
Council on May 4, 1983.
As of April 27, 1983 Mr. Coe had not submitted a
final copy of his protest. Due to the extensive
nature of the protest we feel that there is not
enough time to prepare an adequate response to Mr.
Coe's concerns. We request that the item be de-
ferred to the next appropriate council meeting.
Sinc re ,
l �
ames W. Fo ey, Michael E. Foley
MEF /mf
'Al
T0: Saratoga Planning Commission
RE: Letter to you from Tom & Norma Coe, dated 4 -25 -83
concerning the appeal of your approval of the Sobey
Project File No. SDR -1533.
We the undersigned share in the concerns stated in Tom & Norma
Coe's letter to you and urge you to reconsider your approval and
deny this project:
NAME ADDRESS DATE
- - -------3
• .,TO: Saratoga Planning Commission
RE: Letter to you from Tom & Norma Coe, dated 4 -25 -83
concerning the appeal of your approval of the Sobey
Project File No. SDR -1533.
We the undersigned share in the concerns stated in Tom & Norma
Coe's letter to you and urge you to reconsider your approval and
deny this project:
NAME
ADDRESS
DATE
L, -�Jz, �-i -, - --------
----- - ------ -
------ - - - - -- ---- - - - - --27- -- -1 - - --
C
6J!wv
P
------------------ oo S�� -------------- -- = - - -"��
3
--------------------------- - - - - -- - - -- -- -- - - - - --
� 1.11 11
----------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
T0: Saratoga Planning Commission
RE: Letter to you from Tom & Norma Coe, dated 4 -25 -83
concerning the appeal of your approval of the Sobey
Project File No. SDR -1533.
We the undersigned share in the concerns stated in Tom & Norma
Coe's letter to you and urge you to reconsider your approval and
deny this project:
NAME ADDRESS DATE
Lu � A2 F} c. s c----) P&=L=PL y Cp ft"c -2--yL .c c p t7 t3dc-r � r)rZ I ro �4 0 cz-- a7S
D /`S ccr S S N " `% - C . /ik-4-- c 2 Ocz. l-f ?- ev, t cxjrl •- j 10
%� -�-►
_ - `-/ �� -� - -
-- - - - - -- -- - - - -- - --
`f i
y- - - - - -- -------------------------------- - - - - --
W-2---- - - - - -- -------------------- - - - -. ----------------------------------- --
• �AnlOS c tAwoE.e so,v � \,
y
L'
•ry.w/ �
v
I
i
MONTE VISTA DRIVE
�NVM
Pi
I;
L•w�• .t d� /iL
I
1
I w
i
I
I
•1 IP
I I•
& SA As. Aw . .A.
2 . 1..
' \ FA# Amoy
M \ /y -bA.
ob Aw�l
off•' �
TRACT NO. 3219
r
•� ! �` 'MONTE WOOD*
t .7
~� l
t
•
e
T0: Saratoga Planning Commission
RE: Letter to you from Tom & Norma Coe, dated 4 -25 -83
concerning the appeal of your approval of the Sobey
Project File No. SDR -1533.
We the undersigned share in the concerns stated in Tom & Norma
Coe's letter to you and urge you to reconsider your approval and
deny this project:
NAME ADDRESS DATE
,r
1 � ----------- 4-1— ------
T0. Saratoga Planning lanning Commission
RE: Letter to you from Tom & Norma Coe, dated 4 -25 -83
concerning the appeal of your approval of the Sobey
Project File No. SDR -1533.
We the undersigned share in the concerns stated in Tom & Norma
Coe's letter to you and urge you to reconsider your approval and
deny this project:
NAME ADDRESS DATE
- -1 - --
T0: Saratoga Planning Commission
RE: Letter to you from Tom & Norma Coe, dated 4 -25 -83
concerning the appeal of your approval of the Sobey
Project File No. SDR -1533.
We the undersigned share in the concerns stated in Tom & Norma
Coe's letter to you and urge you to reconsider your approval and
deny this project:
NAME ADDRESS DATE
Ao 4szt C see it
-------------------------------- ----G- --------------------- - - - - --
T0: Saratoga Planning Commission
RE: Letter to you from Tom & Norma Coe, dated 4 -25 -83
concerning the appeal of your approval of the Sobey
Project File No. SDR -1533.
We the undersigned share in the concerns stated in Tom & Norma
Coe's letter to you and urge you to reconsider your approval and
deny this project:
NAME ADDRESS DATE
.J►
. T0: Saratoga Planning Commission
RE: Letter to you from Tom & Norma Coe, dated 4 -25 -83
concerning the appeal of your approval of the Sobey
Project File No. SDR -1533.
We the undersigned share in the concerns stated in Tom & Norma
Coe's letter to you and urge you to reconsider your approval and
deny this project:
NAME ADDRESS DATE
r
.moo o d
--------------- - - - - -- - - - -1 - --- - - -- ------------------------
M
T0: Saratoga Planning Commission
RE: Letter to you from Tom & Norma Coe, dated 4 -25 -83
concerning the 'appeal of your approval of the Sobey
Project File No. SDR -1533.
We the undersigned share in the concerns stated in Tom & Norma
Coe's letter to you and urge you to reconsider your approval and
deny this project:
NAME
ADDRESS
DATE
f S - D �Ca �6
-------- -- - - - - - -- - - - -- ------ - - - - --
L(
------- - - - - -' - - - - --
Z-4f
/�
/O
T0: Saratoga Planning Commission
RE: Letter to you from Tom & Norma Coe, dated 4 -25 -83
concerning the appeal of your approval of the Sobey
Project File No. SDR -1533.
We the undersigned share in the concerns stated in Tom & Norma
Coe's letter to you and urge you to reconsider your approval and
deny this project:
NAME
IZZ
ADDRESS
DATE
T0: Saratoga Planning Commission
RE: Letter to you from Tom & Norma Coe, dated 4 -25 -83
concerning the appeal of your approval of the Sobey
Project File No. SDR -1533.
We the undersigned share in the concerns stated in Tom & Norma
Coe's letter to you and urge you to reconsider your approval and
deny this project:
NAME ADDRESS DATE
May 13, 1983
To the Honorable Mayor and City Council
of the City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Subject: Appeal of SDR -1533, James & Michael Foley
18927 Monte Vista Drive
Tentative Subdivision Approval - 3 lots
Dear Mayor Callon and Members of the City Council:
In connection with the appeal in this matter we will attempt
to respond to the various objections made in the order in which
they are raised.
Objection No. 1, Access by 5 homes from Sobey.
Three homes presently take access from Sobey via private
road, namely, Belick, Bonacina and Coe. Appellant assumes that
the Anderson access is also via private road. This is. incorrect.
The Anderson property fronts on,Sobey. The Anderson driveway to
Sobey is on Anderson owned property. The easement used by the
three above named _owners crosses�Anderson property and their
driveway. Andersons do not depend on any easement for access to
Sobey. The access of Anderson to Sobey is subject to an ease-
ment for the benefit of others, not by right of easement over
property of someone else. Saratoga City Code, App. B, Sec. 1.5,
para. WW, defines a private street as one "in private ownership,
not dedicated as a public street and not an alley, which affords
the principal means of access to one or more lots which do not
have frontage on a public street."
Objection No. 2 and 3, Variances for garage.
The variances granted are for an existing garage. This
structure was built in 1957.- It met all setback and other require-
ments in effect at that time. It is only visible from the Johnson
property. The argument that a variance will allow for increased
density is specious. Density means square footage of buildings
allowed per area of building site.. Setback means.proximity of
structure to an adjacent building site.
To the Honorable Mayor and City Council
of the City of Saratoga
May 13, 1983
Page 2
The Coe and Stock denials of garage variances are.not com-
parable situations. Coe already had a garage integral with his
home, He desired to build a separate garage. The commission
felt that his purpose was to provide additional living space in
his home.. Allowing a variance for a garage for this purpose was
found to be for convenience rather than for necessity. Therefore,
the request was denied.. (Application 10- 13 -67; file No. V- 311.).
Stock wished to build a garage because he had none. The
variance requested was denied because the applicant's property.
was one acre and it was felt that the site afforded adequate
space for a garage without the necessity of a variance. (Application
11 -2 -66; file No. V- 286..)
Objection No. 4 and 5, Waiver to Cul de sac at end of
Monte Vista Drive.
All of the residents on the private portion of Monte Vista
Drive are on record in writing as desiring to maintain the
"Country Lane" character of the street, and as being opposed to
its enlargement and improvement (see Exhibit A).
To provide a cul de sac would eliminate or alter the existing
barrier, which the residents desire to maintain to prevent their
street from becoming a thoroughfare. There is ample surfaced area
now for turn around at the end of Monte Vista Drive.
Objection No. 6, Waiver of Improvement of Foley frontage
on Monte Vista Drive.
If this application is approved, the Foley property will
no longer use the private portion of Monte Vista Drive. The
only user will be Mrs. Craycroft. This portion of Monte Vista
will become her private driveway. In this status improvement of
the same by Foley is not required.
Objection No. 7, Improvement of right of way to Sobey Road.
There is no proposal that standard conditions of improvement
of the right of way to Sobey Road be waived, nor is there any
waiver of them. The right of way to Sobey will be improved as
required by the City. In that connection, adequate drainage will
be provided for the protection of adjacent property. All necessary
plans, specifications, etc., will be provided in accordance with
city requirements and procedures. There is no need to provide
To the Honorable Mayor and City Council May 13, 1983
of the City of Saratoga Page 3
them for tentative map approval.
Objection No. 8, Rounding up; validity.of easement to Sobey Rd.
(a) Appellant's Claim that three lots have been achieved
by "rounding up" in violation of City d'nance is erroneous.
The City Council, at its meeting of 1983, continued
in effect the "rounding up" rule, and rejected a proposal for
"rounding down.."
(b) Appellant questions our right of way to Sobey Road:
We have established our right by the following:,
(1) Title report dated September 26, 1967, wherein
the Coe property is stated to be subject to such right of way
(Exhibit B, p. 1, para. 5, and property plat thereto; this
report. is on file in Coe application for variance dated 10- 13 -67,
File No. V -311).
(2) Ticor Title Insurance letter dated April 25, 1983,
(.Exhibit C hereto).
The term "right of way" has been defined by the Supreme
Court of California.as "a right of .ingress and egress to and
from the grantee's lands." (San Raphael Ranch-Co. v. Ralph
Rogers Co., volume 154 California Supreme Court Reports page .76
and 77.)
Utilities and sewer services can be provided.by virtue of
the above right of way or by an existing easement through the
Stock property and across lot A of Foley lands.
CONCLUSION
It is our firm belief that the proposed lot division is in
accordance with our rights as property owners and residents of
Saratoga, and is in accordance with the General Plan and with all
pertinent ordinances of the city. We respectfully urge that the
appeal be� denied and the unanimous - action of the Planning
Commission be affirmed.
s mit�
G�
Ley
`�'
Saratoga. California
Aprtl 21, 1983;
Too The Saratoga PUraking Commission
Res Proposed qf.Monte Vista. Drive
We the ',undersighe4,are pleased that'the Saratoga Planning
Commission hag granted, approval. to +. ie --joh noon$, appliq 4tion
for a lot split. ,
HoWevero me. do. not. wisih to'. hivw�. Monte V i s_t,* Drive shlarged.:
and improved.' We, t44..'priop.qrty owners. maintain our road at
our own expens..ee we..Gnj6r; Its*.'. country. lane" character'and
W ' t,
wish q maintain' it it we
/9927
/Y--�Monte Vista'Dri4e,
&00/
4-�7 G-3Monte Vista Drive''
Monte Vi sta.jjriv*-,,, .
Monte Vista Drive.
,Cl '�'�i
Monte Vista Drive
Monte Vista Drive
c>
Monte Vista n-jum
-
,ill...._
Cl
.. .. .. _�:J:'.
L:U CH::JL]J::J tJL�'L1L I,i_7 LJ`, ]?li '] -i�r't_iu:$'u�.'.SZS'L52."i i5i! 575 .12J��Vii[::5•'_��5:.]i5C5: `iuJ�'S-la_'ij�l iu1f�'8 u^.256"!)' us 258 2j, LJJ:J:Jr L::
C
�?
M-10
JLSTERN TITLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
SANTA CLARA
COUNTY DIVIESION
70 "011711 &CCONO Sliff.C1
TELCPHONE 2H]•2.1 10 DAN J06E. CALIFORNIA
PRFLIMINARY REPORT for a policy of title insurance in the sum of $
W. to be issued by
ORIG. & . EST13RN TITLE. INSURANCE COMPANY
TO LITTLE VILLAGE REALTY Escrow No. IG 401791 -•A
350 No. Santa Cruz Ave. DF /jg
Les Gatos, Cal. Escrow Officer: Claude Sherman
A1I1TN: Ken Kenn dy
6cc :TRIPP REALTY
15714 So. Fa.scom Ave.
Los Gatos, Cal.
3cc :SALINAS VALLF;Y SAV7Nu LCAN
P. 0. Box 5969
San Jose, Cal. Buyer: TlAomas U. Coe et ux.
WEST'}: RN TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY Santa Clara County Division, a corporation, h;;r4by
reports that title to die real property hereinafter described is on Septetrfber 26, 1967 at 7:30 a
vested in:
CONSUE1_'0 BR:::C'.(,S,
as hell sel :,a at'e p-CpC.1,4
SUBJECT TO:
1- Taxes for 1967 -•68 a lien, not yet dtie or payable.
As to Parcel 2 and other property,.
Assessment No. 8 Project County Sanitation District No. 4
Sanitary Sewcr Project No, 63 -'l. Balance of Pri.nci.pal (12)
years is $1.50116.211 plus $28770 interest. Total to pay in
full until July 2, 1967, is $1,1103.911 Exclusive of $141028
Installment on 1966• -67 taxes. (County Code 00. 95`1')
3-• As to Parcel 1 and other property:
Assessment No. 9 Project County Sani.tati.on District No. 4
Sanitary Sevier Project No. 63 -1. Balance of Principal (12)
years is $1,116.211 plus 5287.70 interest. Total to pay in
full until July 2, 1967, is $1,403.94.1?xclusive of $1111.28
Installment on 1966-67 taxes. (County Code No. 95T)
4- As to Parcel 1:
Right of way-for water and gas mains over the most Easterly 10
.feet of the premises as res -6rved in Deed from George F. Shaner,
et al, to Maude Call, recorded July 9, 1937, Book 838 Official
Records, page 2011.
5- As to the Easterly 20 feet of Parcel 1 and Parcels 3 and 4:
Right of I-lay as granted to Department of Veterans Affairs of
the State of California by Deed recorded March 111, 1958, Book 4029
Official Records, pane 5711.
EXHIBIT "B"
f
NOTE: Taxes for 1966 -67, $1,026,68, paid, Receipt No. 397 -7 -60, Code
Area 15 -270 (Includes $58066 personal property tax).'
NOTE: Taxes for 1966 -67, $1,026,68, paid, Receipt No. 397 -7 -60, Code
Area 15 -270 (Includes $58066 personal property tax).'
The real. property referred to is described as:
Those parcels of land in the City of Saratolra, County of
Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows:
PARCEL ONE
Parcel 2, Map
of
Record of
Survey portions
of the Southwest
1 /11 of Section
8.,
m• 8 S. ,
R. 1 W. , M. D.H.
& M, , filed June
3, 1960, Book
1.21.
of Maps,
pa.f;e 13, Santa
Clara County Records.
EXCEPTING FROM PARCEL 1 ABOVL;:
That portion thereof described as follows:
A portion of Parcel 2, Hap of Record of Survey portions, of
the Southwest 1/11 of Section 8, To 8 S • , R . 1 VI. , M.1).B.M• ,
filed June 3, 1960, Bool: In of Maps, pare 1.3, Santa Clara
County Records, described as follows:
Bel inning at 'the Northerly common corner of Parcels 1 and 2 of ;
said Record of Survey; thence S. 891 111.' 115" W..alonfr the North
line of said Parcel. 2, 100 feet; thence South and parallel with
the line dividing 'said Parcels 1 and 2, 20 feet; thence N. 890
111.1 115" E, and parallel with said Morth line 100 feet to the
said dividing line between Parcels 1 and 2; thence North al.on�
said dividing line 20 feet to the point of beginning,
PARCEL TWO
A portion of Parcel. 1, Map of Record of Survey portions of the
Southwest 1 /11 of Section 8, T. 8 S. , R. 1 41, , M.D.B. & M.,- filed
June 3, 1960, Book 121. of Maps, pare 1.3, Santa Clara County
Records, described as follows:
Beginning at the Southwest corner of said Parcel.l; thence North
along the line dividinv Parcels 1 and 2 of said Record of Survey
100 feet; thence I1•, 89° 111' 115" E. and parallel with the North
line of said Parcel 1, 20 feet; thence South and parallel with
said dividing; line 100 feet to the Southerly line of said Parcel
1; thence S. 891 1110 115" W. alone* said line 20 feet to the point
of beginning.
-:
PARCEL THRI:F.
Rights of way granted by Deed to Samuel E. Briggs, et ux, recorded
March 27, 19611, Book 0010 Officia.l Records, page 326;
1. A Right of Way .over a portion of the Southwest 1 /11 of Section
8, T. 8 S., R. 1 W.,'M.D.B. & M., being a strip of land 20
feet wide, the East- line of which is described as follows:
Beginning at the Ilortheast corner of Parcel 1 Map of Record
of Survey portions of the Southwest 1 /!1 of Section 8, T, �
S., R. 1 W., M.D.B. & M., filed June 3, 1960, Book 121. of Maps,
page 13; thence North 120.96 feet to the Southwest line of
Sobey Road.
2. A right of way over the Fast 20 feet of Parcel 1, Map of
Record of Survey portions. of the Southwest 1 /II of Section
8, T. 8 S.) R. 1 V1. , M.D.B. & M-31 filed June.3, 1960, Book
12.1 of Maps, paFre 13, Santa Clara County Records.
r
The information herein set forth is supplemental. to Preliminary
Report No, LC 401'191 -A and is made a part thereof. According; to
the public records, there have been no deeds conveying, the property
described int}pis report recorded within a period of six months
prior to the date of this report extent as follows:
NONE
�r
n
d
' o
Z
• (r
Iry�
I
i
r
i
I f'
6
�p
I
4
or S7r
/0' G^'4
WA7-cj% KA1W
()INV 83S OR ADq
J TICOR TITLE INSURANCE
April 25, 1983
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
RE: Saratoga Property of Mr. and Mrs. James W. Foley
APN Number 397 -08 -029
We have examined the title of Mr. and Mrs. Foley to the above referenced
parcel': As of this date they are the owners of a 20 foot right of way
from said property to Sobey Road. Said right of way was insured by
our company as valid and subsisting when they acquired the property in
1955. To date it has not been changed, modified or extinguished. It
is still an insured right of way under our policy of title insurance,
numbered B- 164702.
Yours very truly,
William L. Reed
Assistant Vice President
".
EXHIBIT "C"
Ticor Title Insurance Company of California 110 West Taylor Street, P.O. Box 818, San Jose, California 95106 (408) 292 -4212
T0: The Honorable City Council of
the City of Saratoga:
Subject: Johnson and Foley lot split applications -
File Nos. SDR 1527 & 1533
The undersigned, residents and property owners in the
immediate area of the Johnson and Foley properties,
hereby approve the above applications subject to the
retention of an adequate barrier between the public
and private portions of Monte Vista Drive, and request
that said applications be granted.
Name
Address
Date
c(
/s31aa /1wAe/ z?r it
dhe?
6- - 1s -ors
s �73
RECEIVED
MAY 17 X983
�So f PERMIT REVIEW
I 6O May 15, 1983
Jean Craycroft
18940 Monte Vista Dr.
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
To the Honorable Mayor and City
Council of the City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
Subject: Appeal of SDR -1533, James and Michael Foley
18927 Monte Vista Dr.
Tentative Subdivision Approval - 3 lots
Dear Mayor Callon and Members of the City Council:
Please withdraw my name from the petition circulated by
Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Coe objecting to the above referenced
project.
My main concern with the proposed development is that adequate
drainage be provided so that my property will not be adversely
affected, and that the existing barrier at the end of Monte
Vista Dr. be maintained.
Subject to this concern I am in favor of the Foley project
and recommend approval.
Sincerely,
au, &a
Jean Craycroft
rA
0-4 CA S-// 03
P
'ROUNDS FOR, OUR L 1.
T H E AP PRc��/�► L OF THIS P�2i0`7 EGT A L Lp�n/S
�/ACZIANCES AND�02 CpNC ESS� ONS �� T �-+�.
GEN ER�L PLAN AND -r-� -1� Z�t�11 NG AND
SUgL�IV ISION OrZai�ts�.t�CES.
1. ) If>VE2,BU/-ZC>EN/ /N q A JAR/ ✓ATE" LYR1VjE-
S H oM�S TO TA►�E "Ch. C-c- PRAM SAM E
oc���EwA�r To sc�a�Y.
2, j/,Ca %1 /SINCE f=0�2 10" SmE7 yA R� .SJF Z- CK .
Mo 1
4)-z7"AoEQu4TE
Ga1VF---N THE S7AV-40A1::;La PR4,r --rICE OF P.F
oui FZii�C�
CUL DR -
5)h/AV 1Nlq THE REQV /REO CUL cif SAL .
7)
E
VE
8,ARQVWl�/L /G c1� ��--rE "LOT Y /ELD��CTOr''
fR EQQU /Re7Mg=—JV T.S TAO
/M,DRO VE
f�T�S�E'
�N MITE 1� /STi4
�4�/ENU�
7)
E
VE
8,ARQVWl�/L /G c1� ��--rE "LOT Y /ELD��CTOr''
HUD /T /oNq.0 Con �cE,PNS:
OO -7;;;,E / -6.4Ey -S
/e /GN T —,rO- L ole C oV
T
12 0 1,2 /n, 1v T A,,�V
z� CAly -75�E .0E VEl C,4 TE ao o c
%�EQv /.�E d I/✓i/d�0� /E'/y�NT� 1w Tr/E 2D /
O v T V/ 0 A i? T /AV G
e
r
O/V //lESE
rlNb CON CE X-2 N S")
/ssucs
i',A�o vq4
�F �/s �•e o ✓ e c T.
YO U C ON 7-1,VJ f7'0 4 VE -7Z1i �/ z,
T,09 7- YO 4,14. APA; Ov�,c. /S COAvTi vaE'/✓r T TE / 0/ E y ),5
Sv,B a�A�vr�Ari�G %E /,� I-Ee.A/ 1916,Y7- T Z. o 6-oexy eo,
OF WAY Fo,c ES ,
2) WE- �J, 6 D 4e or Ts,/,9 T yo CJ /��%.9�rE YO 4�, p i�i°N,e o V4 X.
CON T/N GENT TG TAE / - 0A,40W1A16
a) That the Foley's survey this right of way, establishing
it's boundaries and ascertaining all interferences to
existing improvements and grades.
b) Based on this survey submit a detailed plan and
specification as to how they will implement this minimum
20' wide improvement in this 20' right of way without
disturbing the adjacent properties.
c) This proposed plan and specification should then be
approved by all the applicable municipal agencies, that it
will meet or exceed all the requirements including storm
drainage and any other required utilities.
d) This implementation plan and specification should also
be approved by all the adjacent property owners that they
can be assured that all the required work can be done
without disturbing their adjacent properties and
improvements. And /or that the Foley's obtain all the
necessary grading or applicable easements that might be
required from the adjacent owners to complete their
Project.
TfU.0 kY A96K /i/AT yoU /-0/E/�A4y A7,55 ONO
Ave wox /N G
17'6 Q0057 10NS AMO �T/pT /�✓G YOv�2 /dOS /7 /obi ON Eivd v
OF �E �SSt�E� %�ieESE/✓T,E.D. '?,�/ /S 6'S Oeld- A) A6 ,dO,✓E /N
Woe T//✓ G �y M.v/r /.V� �Pt—c yF'ic ,C /�v,o /A✓G S /.V �4.'A - � y
Die Wol9deXNAI T ON 4;9C oV OF Y04,1,0- dos , rio.vS
���s�N f�- Yo u
1 u,
V'
41' �
MDN7
DR
(LAW/VA
: - c 1-1
BO /VA C 11VO
y c
� 2
�t MON7EWOOD DRIVE
2IO
I-
)W
e v..
wrIv
to �
•
May 13, 1983
To the Honorable Mayor and City Council
of the City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Subject: Appeal of SDR -1533, James & Michael Foley
18927 Monte Vista Drive
Tentative Subdivision Approval - 3 lots
Dear Mayor Callon and Members of the City Council:
In connection with the appeal in this matter we will attempt
to respond to the various objections made in the order in which
they are raised.
Objection No. 1, Access by 5 homes from Sobey.
Three homes presently take access from Sobey via private
road, namely, Belick, Bonacina and Coe. Appellant assumes that
the Anderson access is also via private road. This is incorrect.
The Anderson property fronts on Sobey. The Anderson driveway to
Sobey is on Anderson owned property. The easement used by the
three above named owners crosses Anderson property and their
driveway. Andersons do not depend on any easement for access to
Sobey. The access of Anderson to Sobey is subject to an ease-
ment for the benefit of others, not by right of easement over
property of someone else. Saratoga City Code, App. B, Sec. 1.5,
para. WW, defines a private street as one "in private ownership,
�► not dedicated as a public street and not an alley, which affords
the principal means of access to one or more lots which do not
have frontage on a public street."
Objection No. 2 and 3, Variances for garage.
The variances granted are for an existing garage. This
structure was built in 1957. It met all setbi -Ick and other require-
ments in effect at that time. It is only visible from the Johnson
property. The argument that a variance will allow for increased
density is specious. Density means square footage of buildings
allowed per area of building site. Setback means proximity of
structure to an adjacent building site.
14
•
To the Honorable Mayor and City Council
of the City of Saratoga
May 13, 1983
Page 2
The Coe and Stock denials of garage variances are not com-
parable situations. Coe already had a garage integral with his
home.. He desired to build a separate garage. The commission
felt that his purpose was to provide additional living space in
his home. Allowing a variance for a garage for this purpose was
found to be for convenience rather than for necessity. Therefore,
the request was denied. (Application 10- 13 -67; file No. V -311.)
Stock wished to build a garage because he had none. The
variance requested was denied because the applicant's property
was one acre and it was felt that the site afforded adequate
space for a garage without the necessity of a variance. (Application
11 -2 -66; file No. V -286.)
Objection No. 4 and 5, Waiver to Cul de sac at end of
Monte Vista Drive.
All of the residents on the private portion of Monte Vista •
Drive are on record in writing as desiring to maintain the
"Country Lane" character of the street, and as being opposed to
its enlargement and improvement (see Exhibit A).
To provide a cul de sac would eliminate or alter the existing
barrier, which the residents desire to maintain to prevent their
street from becoming a thoroughfare. There is ample surfaced area
now for turn around at the end of Monte Vista Drive.
Objection No. 6, Waiver of Improvement of Foley frontage
--,n Monte Vista Drive.
If this application is approved, the Foley property will
no longer use the private portion of Monte Vista Drive. The
only user will be Mrs. Craycroft. This portion of Monte Vista
will become her private driveway. In this status improvement of
the same by Foley is not required.
Objection No. 7, Improvement of right of way to Sobey Road.
There is no proposal that standard conditions of improvement
of the right of way to Sobey Road be waived, nor is there any
waiver of them. The right of way to Sobey will be improved as
required by the City. In that connection, adequate drainage will
be provided for the protection of adjacent property. All necessary •
plans, specifications, etc., will be provided in accordance with
city requirements and procedures. There is no need to provide
•
To the Honorable Mayor and City Council May 13, 1983
of the City of Saratoga Page 3
them for tentative map approval.
Objection No. 8, Rounding up; validity of easement to Sobey Rd.
(a) Appellant's Claim that three lots have been achieved
by "rounding up" in violation of City, d.�'nance is erroneous.
The City Council, at its meeting of 1983, continued
in effect the "rounding up" rule, and rejected a proposal for
"rounding down."
(b) Appellant questions our right of way to Sobey Road.
We have established our right by the following:
(1) Title report dated September 26, 1967, wherein
the Coe property is stated to be subject to such right of way
(Exhibit B, p. 1, para. 5, and property plat thereto; this
report is on file in Coe application for variance dated 10- 13 -67,
• File No. V -311).
(2) Ticor Title Insurance letter dated April 25, 1983
(.Exhibit C hereto).
The term "right of way" has been defined by the Supreme
Court of California as "a right of ingress and egress to and
from the grantee's lands." (San Raphael Ranch-Co. v. Ralph
Rogers Co., volume 154 California Supreme Court Reports page 76
and 77.)
Utilities and sewer services can be provided by virtue of
the above right of way or by an existing easement through the
Stock property and across lot A of Foley lands.
CONCLUSION
It is our firm belief that the proposed lot division is in
accordance with our rights as property owners and residents of
Saratoga, and is in accordance with the General Plan and with all
pertinent ordinances of the city. We respectfully urge that the
appeal be denied and the unanimous action of the Planning
Commission be affirmed.
r s miti ,
/ G
G �t
Ley .
Saratoga, California
Aprtl 21, 1981
To The Saratoga Pliaj�r4r&4 Commission
Res Proposed .'Onlargs'ment qt.Monte Vista Drive
We the'.undersigned.ar6 pleased that*the Saratoga Planning
Commission has granted, ed, approval to the johnsonst applic''atiori
for a lot splits.
Howevero-we do not* wish to have :Monte V I qtA Drive erilarged..
and improved. We, thA property owners, maintain.our road at
our own expense. We , :pnjoy It s ."country -lane" character and
wish to maintain At'Av it
/Y----Ia�Monte Vista 'Dri,44
&00/
Monte Vista Drive
Monte Vista Drive.
7monte Vista Drive
,Ll _1_'T
Monte Vista Drive
� Monte Vista Drive
Monte Vista Drive
•
•
1
' ..
iJ�:..uL::JL_:J:.J L�L��JLI��LIJ'���]"�f ]JL/ �JIJ LJJU�I�S L1L]�: ISMS' S25u'' �5u:. �t::' S•_;:. S: �u?5�5u�� :S,u'',yI•:U_I`LSU:JrS �'i�1:J1.:,♦S 1�.S iJJI.JJ:J::J rr L::: _.:_:_. 1
.t
.I •1�1U t,t
WESTERN TITLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
��<.■ �.�o
G,
SANTA CLARA COUNTY DIVIc—ION
70 NORT11
!.LCONU 5111LIT
TELUPHONE 2Y3•243U GAN JOSE. CALIF'ON111A
Y' -oaAtL
�
G1
1
Gt
PRELIMINARY REPORT for a
policy of title insurance in the sum of $ F�
to be issued by
�
t
W. ESTERN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
ORIG. &
�
TO
LITTLE VILLAGE RI"Ai::"'Y"
i
Escrow No. IIG 401791 -•A �
350 No. Santa Cruz Ave.
DF/ jg �
i
Lcs Gatos, Cal.
Escrow Officer: Claude Sherman
ATI'TTN: Ken Kenn; dy
6cc:TR1PP
REALTY
1571.11 So. Bascom Ave.
i
Los Gatos, Cal.
3cc :SALINAS VALLF Y SAV_.NuJ LCIAII
P. 0. Box 5969
San Jose, Cal. Buyer: 'Thomas U. Coe et ux.
WLS'ITMN TITLE GUARANTY ComPANY Santa Clara County Division, a corporation, h,;r6y
reports that title to the real property hereinafter described is on Sept ember 26, 1967 at 7:30 a M
vested in: CONSUt1'7 1J
1 J..J
as he - -.�L separat.e1 l- .rcper,•Y
SUBJECT TO:
1- T ,xe•s for 1967 -•68 a lien, not yet dui or p'iyable .
As to Parcel 2 and other property-,
Assessment No. 8 Project County Sanitation District No. 11
Sanitary Sewer Project No, 63 -'1. Balance of Pr•incj.pal (12)
years is $1,11.6.211 plus $28770 interest. Total to pay in
full until July 2, 1967, is $1,1103911 E ?xclu:;ive of ?dllll.28
Installment orI 1966 -67 taxes. (County Code No� 95T)
3- As to Parcel I and other property:
Assessment No. 9 Project County Sanitation District No, 4
Sanitary Sewer Project No. 63 -1. Balance of Principal (12)
years is $1,,116.211 plus, '287.70 interest, Total to pay in
full until July 2, 1967, is $1,403.911 I ?xclusive of "'1111.28
Installment on 1966 -67 taxes. (County Code: No. 95T)
4-. As to Parcel 1:
Right of way-for water and gas mains over the most Easterly 10
feet of the premises as reserved in Deed from George P. Shaner,
et al, to Maude Call, recorded July 9, 1937, Book 838 Official
Records, page 2011.
5- As to the Easterly 20 feet of Parcel 1 and Parcels 3 and 4:
Right of Way as granted to Deparr.mlent of Veterans Affairs of
the State of California by Deed recorded March 14, 1958, Book 4029
Official Records, pane 5711..
EXHIBIT "B"
NOTE: Taxes for 1966 -67, $1,026,68, paid, Receipt No. 397 -7 -60, Code
Area 1.9 -2.70 (Includes $58.66 personal property tax)
C
The real. property referred to is described as:
Tho -,e parcels of land in the City of Saratoga, County of
Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows:
PARCEL OIII?
Parcel 2, Hap of Record of Survev portions of the Southwest
1/11 of Section 8, m. 8 S. 31 R. 1 W. , M.D.B. & M filed June
3, 1960, Boo]: 111. of Maps, Dare 13, Sn.nta Clam County Records.
EXCI;PTIIIC F- 11,0 1 PARCEL 1 ABOVE:
That portion thereof described as follows:
• A portion of Parcel 2, Nap of Record of Survey portions of
the Southwest 1/11 of Section 8, T. 8 S . , R. 1 111.) M. ll. B.M. ,
filed June 3, 1960, Bool: 1 ?1 of f9rll�s, paf�e 13, Santa Clara
County Records, described as follow.,;:
Bef;inninf; at the Northerly common corner of Parcels 1 and 2 of
said Record of Survey; therice S. 891 111.' 115" W..alonfT the Morth
line of said Parcel. 2, 100 feet; thence South and parallel with
the line dividing said Parcels 1 and 2, 20 feet; thence N. 89°
41' 115" E. and parallel. with said North line 100 feet to the
said dividing line between Parcels 1 and 2; thence North along
said dividirifr. line 20 feet to the point of beginning.
PARCEL TWO
A portion of Parcel. 1, Map of Record of Survey portions of the
Southwest 1/11 of Section 83, `1'. 8 S.$ R. 1 W.11 M.D.R. & M... filed
June 3, 1960, Book 121. of Maps, pare 1.3, Santa Clara County
Records, described as follows:
Beginning at the Southwest corner of said Parcel. l; thence North
along the line dividinv, Parcels 1 and 2 of said Record of Survev
100 feet; thence 11. 890 111' 45" E. and parallel with the North
line of said Parcel 1, 20 feet; thence South and parallel with
said dividing line 1.00 feet to the Southerly line of said Parcel
. 1; thence S. 890 41' 45" W. along said line 20 feet to the point
of befTinninf7..
.j
1
l
r�
•
PARCKL THREIF
Rights of way granted by Deed to Samuel E. Briggs, et ux, recorded
March 27, 19611, Book 611)10 Official Records, page 326;
1. A Right of Way over a portion of the Southwest 1/11 of Section
8, T. 8 S., R. 1 1.1.5 M.D.B. & M., being a strip of land 20
feet wide, the East line of'which is described as follows:
Beginning at the Northeast corner of Parcel 1 Map of Record
of Survey portions of the Southwest 1/11 of Section 8, T. 8
S., R. 1 14., M.D.11. & M., filed June 3, 1960, Book 121 of Maps,
page 13; thence Ilorth 1 ?0.96 feet to the Southwest line of
Sobey Road.
2. A right of way over the East 20 feet of Parcel 1, Map of
Record of Survey portion:; of the Southwest 1/11 of Section
82 T. 8 S., R. 1 W., M.D.B, & M., filed June.3, 1960, Boot:
121 of Maps, pafre 13, Santa Clara County Records.
The information herein set forth is S,uppl.emental. to Preliminary
Report No, L,G 1101'191 -A and is made a pert thereof. According; to
the public records, there have been no deeds conveying; the property
described in this report recorded within a period of six months
prior to the date of this report extent as follows:
NONE
a ,
I
i
O
i Jo
�Y
o.,►;
l � 'N
K.-
~ �•!
Tf
n.ao PARcI_�
Jac 2-.
- -- ��� i r� a ►� s 13
4L a
re \0.
PINV 838 OR 1o`i
�58'J °l{1'X15 "W 531.E; j
pxw,
i
4
41COR TITLE INSURANCE
April 25, 1983
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
RE: Saratoga Property of Mr. and Mrs. James W.
APN Number 397 -08 -029
ley
We have examined the title of Mr. and Mrs. Foley to the above referenced
parcel: As of this date they are the owners of a 20 foot right of way
from said property to Sobey Road. Said right of way was insured by
our company as valid and subsisting when they acglired the property in
1955. To date it has not been changed, modified for extinguished. It
is still an insured right of way under our policylof title insurance,
numbered B- 164702.
Yours very truly,
William L. Reed
Assistant Vice President
EXHIBIT "C"
Ticor Title Insurance Company of California 110 West Taylor Street, P.O. Box 818, San Jose, California 95106 (408) 292 -4212
•
•c
41COR TITLE INSURANCE
April 25, 1983
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
RE: Saratoga Property of Mr. and Mrs. James W.
APN Number 397 -08 -029
ley
We have examined the title of Mr. and Mrs. Foley to the above referenced
parcel: As of this date they are the owners of a 20 foot right of way
from said property to Sobey Road. Said right of way was insured by
our company as valid and subsisting when they acglired the property in
1955. To date it has not been changed, modified for extinguished. It
is still an insured right of way under our policylof title insurance,
numbered B- 164702.
Yours very truly,
William L. Reed
Assistant Vice President
EXHIBIT "C"
Ticor Title Insurance Company of California 110 West Taylor Street, P.O. Box 818, San Jose, California 95106 (408) 292 -4212
r
WILLIAM E. GO❑DROW, JR., M. D.
PRACTICE LIMITED TD CHILDREN
250 BLOSSOM HILL ROAD
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA 95030 5,
� / 9
'.
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO.
DATE: May 4, 1983
DEPARTMENT: Community Development- Engineering
SUBJECT: SDR -1100 - Brandywine Drive - Final Acceptance
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
Issue Summary
The cul -de -sac bulb constructed at the end of Brandywine Drive, that was constructed under
SDR -1100, received construction acceptance on April 12, 1977,
Recently it was brought to our attention that the offer of dedication for this portion
of street had not been accepted by the City, and was being put up for sale at a public
auction for non - payment of taxes. This portion of street is in satisfactory condition.
Reconrw-ndation
Accept the offer of dedication for the portion of Brandywine Drive constructed
under SDR -1100, release the improvement security and adopt Resolution No.
Fiscal Impacts
Future maintenance
Exhibits /AttacYurents
1. Memo for final acceptance
2. Resolution accepting offer of dedication
3. Location map
Council Action
5/4: Resolution 36 -B -205 approved on Consent Calendar 5 -0.
t
r
%1ENIOO RANDUNI
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
TO: City Council DATE: April 22, 1983
FROM: Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Final Acceptance for SDR -1100
Location: Branvwine Drive
The one (1) year maintenance period for SDR -1100, A.R. Woolworth
has expired and all deficiencies of the improvements have been corrected.
Therefore, I recommend the streets and other public facilities be accepted
into the City system. Attached for City Council consideration is Resolu-
tion , which accepts the public improvements, easements
and rights -of -way.
Since the developer has fulfilled his obligation described in the improve-
ment contract, I also recommend the improvement securities listed below be
released. The following information is included for your information and
use:
1. Developer: A. R. Woolworth
Address: 10099 Brandywine Court, Saratoga, CA. 95070
2. Date of Construction Acceptance: April 12, 1977
3. Improvement Security:
Type: Surety
Amount: $7,200.00
Issuing Co: Insurance Company of North America
Address: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Receipt, Bond or
Certificate No.': MNR- 906730
4. Miles of Public Street: 0.0
5. Special Remarks:
Robert S. Shook
RSS /dsm
:N
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF RIGHT -OF -TRAY
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves, as
follows:
SECTION 1: Reference is hereby made to the following Offer of
of Dedication to the City of Saratoga covering
rights -of -way over portions of streets:
a.) Offer recorded on
B515 at Page 51
July 22, 1975
in Book
of Santa Clara County Records.
SECTION 2: The aforesaid Offer of Dedication is hereby accepted
by the City of Saratoga and the above portions of
said streets covered thereby are hereby declared to be public streets
of the City of Saratoga.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the following described Improvement Bond is hereby ordered released:
That certain Improvement Bond (Type) Surety
No. MNR- 906730 Dated: June 25,
issued by: Insurance Company of North-America, Phliadeiphia, PA.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on the
day of
, 19 , at a regular meeting
of the City Council of Saratoga by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF RIGHT- OF -TATAY
N
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves, as
follows:
SECTION 1: Reference is hereby made to the following Offer of
of Dedication to the City of Saratoga covering
rights -of -way over portions of streets:
a.)
Offer recorded on
B515 at Page 51
July 22, 1975 , in Book
of Santa Clara County Records.
SECTION 2: The aforesaid Offer of Dedication is hereby accepted
by the City of Saratoga and the above portions of
said streets covered thereby are hereby declared to be public streets
of the City of Saratoga.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the following described Improvement Bond is hereby ordered released:
That certain Improvement Bond (Type) Surety
No. MNR- 906730 Dated: June 5,
issued by: Insurance Company of North-America, P i a e p ia, PA.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on the
day of
19
, at a regular meeting
of the City Council of Saratoga by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
A
0 SEA
W NA
r010 K A ♦` T _i
F
u
AROCLL
7
L
DOW
iti
O
0 Q 1 u
J 3 S Y O
W O J •
� Z
Q
Q
O
SDRI
�II
K(� AROOH�'U� CHA
Z
4
C �
u c
z
HICK Y OR. Z
T 1 la W HILLS WAY F
3
U �
F Q �IL•A1 r `
c T.
•
a n O
I
< C) a O <
Y j
2 -
a
Z
' \ ^1f TH[LMA
1
.. i. AGENDA BILL NO. 3 q
CITY OF sldF 1IGCA
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
DATE: C. Atty.
DEPAEUM :, Community Development C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: FINAL ACCEPTANCE FOR S D R 1487
Issue Suannary
The one year maintenance period for the subject - %Si9R has expired and all deficiencies
have been corrected. At this time, the City must take action to accept the streets and
easements offered on the.!Pd_oel Map and-release the Improvement Bond.
Recom;nendation
1. Adopt Resolution 36 -B-
2. Authorize release of the attached described Improvement Bond.
Fiscal Impacts
The City assumes future maintenance responsibility'of the street and storm drains.
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Memo describing SDR- and bond
2. Res. 36 -B-
Council Action
5/4: Approved Res. 36 -B -206 on Consent Calendar 5 -0.
Aeft
�1 E NI O R A N D �1 NI
09191T oa §&M&1XQ)0&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
TO: City Council
FROM: Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Final Acceptance for SDR -1487
Location: Aloha
DATE: April 22, 1983
The one (1) year maintenance period for SDR -1486
has expired and all deficiencies of the improvements have been corrected.
Therefore, I recommend the streets and other public facilities be accepted
into the City system. Attached for City Council consideration is Resolu-
tion , which accepts the public improvements, easements
and rights -of -way.
Since the developer has fulfilled his obligation described in the improve-
ment contract, I also recommend the improvement securities listed below be
released. The following information is included for your information and
use:
1. Developer: Saratoga Union School District
Address: 14675, Aloha Avenue, Saratoga
2. Date of Construction Acceptance: October 21, 1981
3. Improvement Security:
Type: Surety Bond
Amount: 35,000.00
Issuing Co: Western Surety Co.
Address: 1731 Embarcadero Road
Palo Alto, CA.
Receipt, Bond or
Certificate No.: 2429441
4. Miles of Public Street: 0
5. Special Remarks:
Robert S. Shook
RSS /dsm
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF RIGHT -OF -WAY
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves, as
follows:
SECTION 1: Reference is hereby made to the following Offer of
of Dedication to the City of Saratoga covering
rights -of -way over portions of streets:
a.)
Offer recorded on
485 at Page- 37 & 38
June 4, 1981 , in Book
_of Santa Clara County Records.
SECTION 2: The aforesaid Offer of Dedication is hereby accepted
by the City of Saratoga and the above portions of
said streets covered thereby are hereby declared to be public streets
of the City of Saratoga.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the following described Improvement Bond is hereby ordered released:
That certain Improvement Bond (Type) Surety Bond
No. 2429441 Dated: May 12, 19 8 1, Amen e e
ovem r 1 81
issued by: Western Surety Company
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on the
day of
19
at a regular meeting
of the City Council of Saratoga by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO. `-t 3 S Dept. Hd.
DATE: May 4, 1983 C. Atty
DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr. j
-- ----- — ---------------------- ------------------------------ - - - - -� - - - - - --
SUBJECT: SDR -1272 - Padero Court - Final Acceptance
Issue Summary
Padero Court was constructed, under SDR -1272, from Chiquita Way to the cul -de -sac at
the end, and received construction acceptance on January 3, 1979. Padero Court is
in satisfactory condition.
The first 324± feet of Padero Court lies within.Tract No 5461, and has a separate
document offer of dedication (this portion has been put up for sale at a public auction
for non - payment of taxes)
Recommendation
Accept the two (2) offers of dedication ofr Padero Court, release the improvement
security posted under SDR -1272 and adopt Resolutions No. and
Fiscal Impacts
Future maintenance
Exhibits /Attachments.
1. Memo for Final acceptance
2. Resolutions accepting offers of dedication
3. Location Map
Council Action
5./4: Approved resolutions 36 -B -207 and 208 on Consent Calendar 5 -0.
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 887 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Director of Community Development
Final Acceptance for SDR -1272
Location: Padero Court
DATE: April 22, 1983
The one (1) year maintenance period for SDR -1272, Valley High Associates
has expired and all deficiencies of the improvements have been corrected.
Therefore, I recommend the streets and other public facilities be accepted
into the City system. Attached for City Council consideration is Resolu-
tion , which accepts the public improvements, easements
and rights -of -way.
Since the developer has fulfilled his obligation described in the improve-
ment contract, I also recommend the improvement securities listed below be
released. The following information is included for your information and
use:
1. Developer: Stan Finberg (Valley High Associates)
Address: 137 E. Hamilton Avenue, Suite 208, Campbell, CA. 95008
2.
3.
Date of Construction Acceptance:
Improvement Security:
Type: Letter of Credit
Amount: $25,500.00
Issuing Co:
Address:
Wells Fargo Bank
475 Sansome Street
January 3, 1979
San Francisco, CA. 94111
Receipt, Bond or
Certificate No.: 56998
4. Piles of Public Street:
5. Special Remarks:
0.13
Robert S. Shook
RSS /dsm
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF RIGHT -OF -WAY
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves, as
follows:
SECTION 1: Reference is hereby made to the following Offer of
of Dedication to the City of Saratoga covering
rights -of -way over portions of streets:
a.) Offer recorded on
of Maps at Page
45
July 22, 1977 in Book 40
of Santa Clara County Records.
SECTION 2: The aforesaid Offer of Dedication is hereby accepted
by the City of Saratoga and the above portions of
said streets covered thereby are hereby declared to be public streets
of the City of Saratoga.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the following described Improvement Bond is hereby ordered released:
That certain Improvement Bond
No. 56998 Dated:
issued by: Wells Fargo Bank
(Type) Letter of Credit
January 25,
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on the
day of
19
, at a regular meeting
of the City Council of Saratoga by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
I RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF RIGHT -OF -WAY
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves, as
follows:
SECTION 1: Reference is hereby made to the following Offer of
of Dedication to the'City of Saratoga covering
rights -of -way over portions of streets:
a.) Offer recorded on
''G807 at Page- 11
May 26, 1982 , in Book
of Santa Clara County Records.
SECTION 2: The aforesaid Offer of Dedication is hereby accepted
by the City of Saratoga and the above portions of
said streets covered thereby are hereby declared to be public streets
of the City of Saratoga:
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on the
day of 19 , at a regular meeting -
of the City Council of-Saratoga by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
-N
. SDR 1272
r
U
CO T
Ot
ARp utLL O
Y
W
W
� 2
U J
j
�l
wAVI[w
OYC! LN
w
•
t
3�h
EA 11
i
0
U �
J ;
0
T
n 1
LO I
I
cu
PL�
c�
cti
e�
D v
i.
is
O
V T
! O
u n
VERD! VISTA [
NF
u
u u � r
I. i i
> ��r >
T n m 0 z
WO OWAR T f =
Q
O •
T I
I t
� e
� o
l
e
SOH
A
Drl Rte.. r.�
V
� n
v�
AGENDA BILL NO. 14 3
DATE:. May 40 19RR
DEPARTMENT: Community Developmext
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
SECT: OFFER OF DEDICATION - SARATOGA AVENUE
C. Atty.
C.
Issue Sunmary
In 1970 Saratoga Foothills Development Company developed an apartment complex on
Saratoga Avenue, opposite La Paloma Avenue and were conditioned to dedicate to the
City a portion of Saratoga Avenue conforming to our adopted Official Plan Line. This
portion of land has now been put up for sale at a public auction for non - payment of
taxes.
Recommendation
Accept the offer of dedication for a portion of Saratoga Avenue and adopt Resolution
No.
Fiscal Impacts
Future Maintenance
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Resolution accepting offer of dedication
2. Location Map
Council Action
5/4: Adopted Resolution 36 -B -209 on Consent Calendar 5 -0.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF RIGHT -OF -WAY
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves, as
follows:
SECTION 1: Reference is hereby made to the following Offer of
of Dedication to the City of Saratoga covering
rights -of -way over portions of streets:
a•) Offer recorded on August 13, 1970
in Book
9020 at Page 430 of Santa Clara County Records.
SECTION 2: The aforesaid Offer of Dedication is hereby accepted
by the City of Saratoga and the above portions of
said streets covered thereby are hereby declared to be public streets
of the City of Saratoga.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on the
day of 19
, at a regular meeting
of the City Council of Saratoga by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
W S
Z
I
.)WARD CT ~
1¢
p
3
I
MD
4
ty
I
_/v�J I DURN AN CT.
/
I'
GQ
rOs
�� RO
MW_�
{
O
0
F
8
a
s
r
e
:
0
0
RU,
a
1
e
e
O
a
�
w
CIR
A� Cr
MD
4
ty
I
_/v�J I DURN AN CT.
/
I'
GQ
rOs
�� RO
MW_�
{
O
0
F
8
a
1.
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO: Q
DATE: May 4, 1983
DEPARTMENT: Maintenance
SUBJECT: Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1 (Existing)
Issue Summary
Initial:
Dept Head:
City Atty:
City Mgr :
At your April 20, 1983 meeting, you adopted Resolution No. 2051, a resolution describing
the improvements and directing preparation of the Engineer's Report for fiscal year
1983 -84 for the continuation of the Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1. Additional
Council action is required for this district to proceed.
Recommendation
Adopt the following:
Resolution 2051 -B "A Resolution of Preliminary Approval of Engineer's Report"
Resolution 2051 -C "A Resolution of Intention to Order the Levy and Collection
of Assessments Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972"
This Resolution also sets the time and Place of the public hearing
for said district at June 1, 1983.
Fiscal Impacts
The costs for the administration, maintenance and servicing and lighting costs are
charged to the various zones within the District based on benefit received. The Santa
Clara County Assessor's office will collect the amounts through the taxes and, in turn,
send to the City.
Exhibits /Attachments
Engineer's Report to be presented Wednesday night
Resolution No. 2051 -B
Resolution No. 2051 -C
Council Action
5/4: Fanelli /Moyles moved adoption of Res. 2051 -B. Passed 5 -0.
Clevenger /Moyles moved adoption of Res. 2051- C,vith time of public hearing changed
to 8:00. Passed 5 -0.
' 1926C -529a
WMAM:JEB :mat 04/19/83 12c
RESOLUTION NO. 2052 -B
A RESOLUTION OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF ENGINEER'S REPORT
CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1
ANNEXATION 1983 -1
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga,
California, that
WHEREAS, on the 20th day of April, 1983, said Council did adopt
its Resolution No. 2052, A Resolution Determining to Undertake
Proceedings for the Annexation of Territory to an Existing Assessment
District Known as "City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District
LLA -1" pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, for the
City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1 Annexation
1983 -1 and did refer the proposed annexation and the proposed
improvements therein to the City Engineer of the City (herein the
"Engineer ") and did therein direct said Engineer to prepare and file
with the City Clerk of said City a report, in writing, all as therein
more particularly described, under and pursuant to the Landscaping and
Lighting Act of 1972;
WHEREAS, said Engineer prepared and filed with the City Clerk of
said City a report in writing as called for in said Resolution No. 2052
and under and pursuant to said Act, which report has been presented to
this Council for consideration;
WHEREAS, said Council has duly considered said report and each
and every part thereof, and finds that each and every part of said
report is sufficient, and that neither said report, nor any part
thereof should be modified in any respect;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED and ORDERED, as
follows:
1. That the plans and specifications for the existing
improvements and the proposed improvements to be made within the area
proposed to be annexed to City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting
District LLA -1 or within any zone thereof, contained in said report,
be, and they are hereby, preliminarily approved.
2. That the Engineer's estimate of the itemized and total costs
and expenses of said improvements, maintenance and servicing thereof,
and of the incidental expenses in connection therewith, contained in
said report, be, and each of them are hereby, preliminarily approved.
3. That the diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the area
to be annexed to said assessment district referred to and described in
said Resolution No. 2052 and also the boundaries of any zones therein
and the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within said
area as such lot or parcel of land is shown on the County Assessor's
maps for the fiscal year to which the report applies, each of which lot
or parcel of land has been given a separate number upon said diagram,
as contained in said report, be, and it is hereby, preliminarily
approved.
4. That the proposed assessment of the total amount of the
estimated costs and expenses of the proposed improvements upon the
several lots or parcels of land in the area proposed to be annexed to
said assessment district in proportion to the estimated benefits to be
received by such lots or parcels, respectively, from said improvements
including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, and of the
-2-
expenses incidental thereto, as contained in said report, be, and they
are hereby, preliminarily approved.
5. That said report shall stand as the Engineer's Report for
the purpose of all subsequent proceedings to be had pursuant to said
Resolution No. 2052.
r
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct
copy of a resolution duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the
City of Saratoga, California, at a meeting thereof held on the
day of , 19 , by the following vote of the members
thereof:
AYES, and in favor thereof, Council Members:
NOES, Council Members:
ABSENT, Council Members:
APPROVED:
Mayor
-4-
City Clerk of the City of Saratoga
1927C -529a WMAM :JEB :mat 04/19/83 12c
RESOLUTION NO. 2052 -C
A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ORDER THE ANNEXATION
OF TERRITORY TO AN EXISTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
AND THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS
WITHIN SAID TERRITORY PURSUANT TO THE
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972
CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1
ANNEXATION 1983 -1
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga,
California, as follows:
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 2052, A Resolution
Determining to Undertake Proceedings for the Annexation of Territory
to An Existing Assessment District Known As "City of Saratoga
Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1 ", adopted on April 20, 1983,
by the Council of said City, pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting
Act of 1972, the City Engineer of said City (herein the "Engineer "),
has prepared and filed with the City Clerk of this City the written
report called for under said Act and by said Resolution No. 2052.
which said report has been submitted and preliminarily approved by
this Council in accordance with said Act;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED and ORDERED, as
follows:
1. In its opinion the public interest and convenience require
and it is the intention of this Council to order the annexation of
territory to an existing assessment district and the levy and
collection of assessments therein pursuant to the provisions of the
Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2, Division 15 of the
Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, for the
construction or installation therein of the improvements, including
I
the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, more particularly
described in Exhibit "A" hereto attached and by reference incorporated
herein.
2. The cost and expenses of said improvements, including the
maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, are to be made chargeable
upon the area proposed to be annexed to an existing assessment district
designated as "City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District
LLA -1 Annexation 1983 -111, the exterior boundaries of which are the
composite and consolidated area as more particularly described on a
map thereof on file in the office of the City Clerk of said City, to
which reference is hereby made for further particulars. Said map
indicates by a boundary line the extent of the territory included in
the proposed annexation and area to be assessed and of any zone
thereof and the general location of said area.
3. Said Engineer's Report prepared by the Engineer,
preliminarily approved by this Council, and on file with the City
Clerk of this City is hereby referred to for a full and detailed
description of the improvements, the boundaries of the area proposed
to be annexed herein and any zones thereof, and the proposed
assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within said area.
4. Notice is hereby given that Wednesday, the lst day of June,
1983, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m. in the regular meeting place of
said Council, City Hall, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California,
be and the same are hereby appointed and fixed as the time and place
for a hearing by this Council on the question of the annexation of
territory to an existing assessment district and the levy and
collection of the proposed assessment and when and where it will
-2-
consider and determine whether the owners of a majority of the area of
the property to be assessed in the area proposed to be annexed herein
have, at or before the conclusion of said hearing, filed written
protests against said improvements, the boundaries of the area
proposed to be annexed herein and any zone therein, the proposed
diagram or the proposed assessment, the Engineer's estimate of cost
thereof, and when and where it will consider and finally act upon the
Engineer's Report.
5. The Clerk of said City be, and is hereby, directed to give
notice of said hearing by causing a copy of this Resolution to be
Published once in the Saratoga News, a newspaper published and
circulated in said City, said publication to be had and completed at
least ten (10) days prior to the date of hearing specified herein.
6. Said Clerk is hereby further directed to mail or cause to
be mailed a copy of this Resolution by first class mail, postage
prepaid, to all persons owning real property in the area proposed to
be annexed and assessed herein, whose names and addresses appear on
the last equalized County assessment roll or, where applicable, on the
State Board of Equalization assessment roll, said mailing to be had
and completed at least fifteen (15) days prior.to the date of said
hearing.
7. The office of the Assistant Director of Maintenance
Services of said City be, and is hereby designated as the office to
answer inquiries regarding any protest proceedings to be had herein,
and may be contacted during regular office hours at the City Hall,
13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070 or by calling
( 408) 867 -3438.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct
copy of a resolution duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the
City of Saratoga, California, at a meeting thereof held on the
day of , 19 , by the following vote of the members
thereof:
AYES, and in favor thereof, Council Members:
NOES, Council Members:
ABSENT, Council Members:
APPROVED:
Mayor I.
-4-
City Clerk of the City of Saratoga
T
CITY OF SARATOGA
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1
Annexation 1983 -1
The construction or installation, including the
maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, within Zone 9
as hereinafter described, of landscaping, including
trees, shrubs, grass, or other ornamental vegetation,
statuary, fountains and other ornamental structures and
facilities, including the cost-of repair, removal or
replacement of all or any part thereof, providing for the
life, growth, health and beauty of landscaping, including
cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing
or treating for disease or injury, the removal of
trimmings, rubbish, debris and other solid waste, water
for the irrigation of any landscaping, the operation of
any fountains or the maintenance of any other
improvements.
EXHIBIT "A"
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO: `t
DATE: May 4, 1983
DEPARTMENT: Maintenance
SUBJECT: Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1 (Annexation)
Issue Summar
Initial:
Dept. Head:
City Atty :
City Mgr
At your April 20, 1983 meeting you adopted Resolution No. 2052, a resolution describing
the improvements and directing preparation of the Engineer's Report for fiscal year
1983 -84 for the continuation of the Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1. Additional
Council action is required for this district to proceed.
Recommendation
Adopt the following:
Resolution 2052 -B "Resolution of Preliminary Approval of Engineer's Report"
Resolution 2052 -C "Resolution of Intention to order the Annexation of Territory
to an Existing Assessment District and the Levy and Collection
of Assessments within said Territory Pursuant to the Landscaping
and Lighting Act of 1972"
This Resolution also sets the time and place for the public hearing
for said district at June 1, 1983.
Fiscal Impact
The costs for the administration, maintenance and servicing, and lighting costs are
charged to the various zones within the District based on benefit received. The Santa
Clara County Assessor's Office will collect the amounts through the taxes and, in turn,
send to the City.
Exhibits /Attachments
Engineer's Report to be presented Wednesday night.
Resolution No. 2052 -B
Resolution No. 2052 -C
Council Action
5/4: Mallory /Clevenger rroved adoption of Res. 2052 -B. Passed 5 -0.
Fanelli /Clevenger moved adoption of Res. 2052 -C with time of public hearing 8:00. Passed 5 -(
1934C -259a
WMAM:JEB:mat 04/19/83 12c
RESOLUTION NO. 2051 -B
A RESOLUTION OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF ENGINEER'S REPORT
CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1
FISCAL YEAR 1983 -1984
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga,
California, that
WHEREAS, on the 20th day of April, 1983, said Council did adopt
its Resolution No. 2051, Describing Improvements and Directing
Preparation of Engineer's Report for Fiscal Year 1983 -1984 pursuant to
the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, for the City of Saratoga
Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1 in said City and did refer the
proposed improvements to the City Engineer, and did therein direct
said City Engineer prepare and file with the Clerk of said City a
report, in writing, all as therein more particularly described, under
and pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972;
WHEREAS, said City Engineer prepared and filed with the Clerk
of said City a report in writing as called for in said Resolution No.
2051 and under and pursuant to said Act, which report has been
Presented to this Council for consideration;
WHEREAS, said Council has duly considered said report and each
and every part thereof, and finds that each and every part of said
report is sufficient, and that neither said report, nor any part
thereof should be modified in any respect;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED and ORDERED, as
follows:
1. That the plans and specifications for the existing improve-
ments and the proposed improvements to be made within the assessment
district or within any zone thereof, contained in said report, be, and
they are hereby, preliminarily approved.
2. That the Engineer's estimate of the itemized and total
costs and expenses of said improvements, maintenance and servicing
thereof, and of the incidental expenses in connection therewith,
contained in said report, be, and each of them are hereby, prelimi-
narily approved.
3. That the diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the
assessment district referred to and described in said Resolution No.
2051 and also the boundaries of any zones therein and the lines and
dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within said district as such
lot or parcel of land is shown on the County Assessor's maps for the
fiscal year to which the report applies, each of which lot or parcel
of land has been given a separate number upon said diagram, as
contained in said report, be, and it is hereby, preliminarily approved.
4. That the proposed assessment of the total amount of the
estimated costs and expenses of the proposed improvements upon the
several lots or parcels of land in said district in proportion to the
estimated benefits to be received by such lots or parcels, respec-
tively, from said improvements including the maintenance or servicing,
-2-
or both, thereof, and of the expenses incidental thereto, as contained
in said report, be, and they are hereby, preliminarily approved.
5. That said report shall stand as the engineer's report for
the purpose of all subsequent proceedings to be had pursuant to said
Resolution No. 2051.
-3-
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct
copy of a resolution duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the
City of Saratoga, California, at a meeting thereof held on the
day of , 19 , by the following vote of the members
thereof:
AYES, and in favor thereof, Council Members:
NOES, Council Members:
ABSENT, Council Members:
APPROVED:
Mayor
-4-
City Clerk of the City of Saratoga
1933C -259a WMAM :JEB :mat 04/19/83 12c
RESOLUTION NO. 2051 -C
A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ORDER THE
LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS PURSUANT
TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972
FISCAL YEAR 1983 - 1984
CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga,
California, as follows:
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 2051, Describing
Improvements and Directing Preparation of Engineer's Report for Fiscal
Year 1983 -1984 for City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District,
adopted on April 20, 1983, by the City Council of said City, pursuant
to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, the City Engineer of said
City has prepared and filed with the Clerk of this City the written
report called for under said Act and'. by said Resolution No. 2051,
which said report has been submitted and preliminarily approved by
this Council in accordance with said Act;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED and ORDERED, as
follows:
1. In its opinion the public interest and convenience require
and it is the intention of this Council to order the levy and
collection of assessments for Fiscal Year 1983 -1984 pursuant to the
provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2,
Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of
California, for the construction or installation of the improvements,
including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, more
particularly described in Exhibit "A" hereto attached and by reference
incorporated herein.
2. The cost and expenses of said improvements, including the
maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, are to be made chargeable
upon the assessment district designated as "City of Saratoga
Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1 ", the exterior boundaries of
which district are the composite and consolidated area as more
particularly described on a map thereof on file in the office of the
Clerk of said City, to which reference is hereby made for further
particulars. Said map indicates by a boundary line the extent of the
territory included in the district and of any zone thereof and the
general location of said district.
3. Said Engineer's Report prepared by the Engineer of said
City, preliminarily approved by this'Council, and on file with the
Clerk of this City is hereby referred to for a full and detailed
description of the improvements, the boundaries of the assessment
district and any zones therein, and the proposed assessments upon.
assessable lots and parcels of land within the district.
4. Notice is hereby given that Wednesday, the 1st day of June,
1983, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m. in the regular meeting place of
said Council, City Hall, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California
95070, be and the same are hereby appointed and fixed as the time and
place for a hearing by this Council on the question of the levy and
collection of the proposed assessment for the construction or
installation of said improvements, including the maintenance and
-2-
C
servicing, or both, thereof, and when and where it will consider all
oral statements and all written protests made or filed by any
interested person at or before the conclusion of said hearing, against
said improvements, the boundaries of the assessment district and any
zone therein, the proposed diagram or the proposed assessment, to the
Engineer's estimate of the cost thereof, and when and where it will
consider and finally act upon the Engineer's Report.
5. The Clerk of said City be, and is hereby, directed to give
notice of said hearing by causing a copy of this Resolution to be
published once in the Saratoga News, a newspaper published and
circulated in said City, and by conspicuously posting a copy thereof
upon the official bulletin board customarily used by the City Council
for the posting of notices, said posting and publication to be had and
completed at least ten (10) days prior to the date of hearing
specified herein. '
6. The office of the Assistant Director of Maintenance
Services of said City be, and is hereby designated as the office to
answer inquiries regarding any protest proceedings to be had herein,
and may be contacted during regular office hours at the City Hall,
13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070 or by calling (408)
867 -3438.
-3-
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct
copy of a resolution duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the
City of Saratoga, California, at a meeting thereof held on the
day of It 19 , by the following vote of the members
thereof:
AYES, and in favor thereof, Council Members:
NOES, Council Members:
ABSENT, Council Members:
APPROVED:
Mayor
-4-
City Clerk of the City of Saratoga
0
Ii
CITY OF SARATOGA
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1
a) The construction or installation, including the maintenance or
servicing, or both, thereof, within Zones 1, 2 and 3 as herein-
after described, of landscaping, including trees, shrubs, grass,
or other ornamental vegetation, statuary, fountains and other
ornamental structures and facilities, including the cost of
repair, removal or replacement of all or any part thereof,
providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of land-
scaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying,
fertilizing or treating for disease or injury, the removal of
trimmings, rubbish, debris and other solid waste, water for the
irrigation of any landscaping, the operation of any fountains or
the maintenance of any other improvements.
b) The construction or installation, including the maintenance or
servicing, or both, thereof, within Zones 4, 5, 6 and 7, as
hereinafter described, of public lighting facilities for the
lighting of any public places, including ornamental standards,
luminaires, poles, supports, tunnels, manholes, vaults, conduits,
pipes, wires, conductors, guys, stubs, platforms, braces,
transformers, insulators, contacts, switches, capacitors, meters,
communication circuits, appliances, attachments and appurtenances,
including the cost of repair, removal, or replacement of all or
any part thereof, electric current or energy, gas or other
illuminating agent for any public lighting facilities or for the
lighting or operation of any other improvements.
c) The construction or installation, including the maintenance or
servicing, or both, thereof, within Zone 8 as hereinafter
described, of landscaping, including trees, shrubs, grass or other
ornamental vegetation, statuary, fountains and other ornamental
structures and facilities and public lighting facilities for the
lighting of any public places, including ornamental standards,
luminaires, poles, supports, tunnels, manholes, vaults, conduits,
pipes, wires, conductors, guys, stubs, platforms, braces,
transformers, insulators, contacts, switches, capacitors, meters,
communication circuits, applicances, attachments and
appurtenances, including the cost of repair, removal or
replacement of all or any part thereof, providing for the life,
growth, health and beauty of landscaping, including cultivation,
irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing or treating for
disease or injury, the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris and
other solid waste, electric current or energy, gas or other
illuminating agent for any public lighting facilities or for the
lighting or operation of any other improvements, water for the
irrigation of any landscaping, the operation of any fountains, or
the maintenance of any other improvements.
EXHIBIT "A"