HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-18-1983 CITY COUNCIL AGENDACITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO.
DATE: May 18, 1983
DEPARTMENT: Community Development- Engineering
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C.
C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: Proposed Passenger Loading Zone - Big Basin Way/Plumed Horse
Issue Summary
We have been requested by Klaus Pache (owner of the Plumed Horse) to
establish a passenger loading tone on Big Basin Way, in front of the
Plumed Horse restaurant, with effective time of between 6:00 P.M. and
midnight. Apparently there have been conflicts between the Plumed Horse
patrons and patrons of other Big Basin Way establishments. The restaurant
will be providing a door -man and valet(s) during the above time period to
handle the movement of patrons and the parking of their cars.
This request was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its meeting
of April 27, 1983.
Recommendation - Recommendation from the Planning Commission is to approve
the request and monitor its effect on traffic flow on Big
Basin Way, perhaps quarterly. It is further recommended
that the restaurant bear the cost of implementation if the
request is approved.
Fiscal Impacts - The entire cost of painting the curb and the installation
of signs shall be borne by applicant (Klaus Pache /Plumed Horse)
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Letter from applicant
2. Ordinance
3. Sketch
4. Staff Report dated April 21, 1983
Council Action
5/18: Moyles /Clevenger moved to introduce ordinance by reading title only, waiving further
reading. Passed 5 -0.
6/1: Fanelli/Moyles moved to adopt Ord. 38.110 by title only, waiving further reading. Passed
4 -0.
:moo
n
'16e PCun-ted jforse
r- Ea 2 81983
�..wvirOu,JllY DEUELO °iVIE!`!�f
A 7r Berton In Ftn , Dining
February 24, 1983
2_.ea4 IbM . S� i
Because of the existing parking problem, .I hereby would like to
apply for a passenger loading zone in front of the Plumed Horse Res-
taurant on Rig Basin Way.
On certain evenings when Blondie's Restaurant is featuring live
bands, some nights up to five musicians, it is impossible for patrons
that have been coming to.Saratoga for years to find a parking spot.
It would be interesting to know the amount of cases of break -ins, van -
dalism, as well as disturbances and street fights versus a year ago.
Also, on various occassions, customers leaving my restaurant were oral-
ly insulted in the worst way. Even so the above mentioned incidents
have nothing to do with my request, I still would like the city offi-
cials to know what is happening far too many times.
In the long run it would be in everybody's interest to have a
Saratoga the nice place we all pretend it to be.
Sincerely,
Klaus ache
14555 Btg Ba6in'Way, Saratoga, GA 95070
(408) 867-4711
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING
CHAPTER 9 OF THE SARATOGA CITY CODE BY ESTABLISHING
A PASSENGER LOADING ZONE ON BIG BASIN WAY
The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as
follows:
Section l: Section 9 -22 of the Saratoga City Code, which
establishes certain portions of streets as passenger loading
zones is hereby amended"as follows:
The following described portion of the hereinafter mentioned
public highway in the City is hereby declared to be a con-
gested area and designated as a passenger loading zone, sub-
ject to the prohibition set forth in Section 9 -22 and time
limitation. listed in ...this. - ordinance:
Name of Street Description
Effective Hours
On the northwesterly side
Big Basin Way from 1371- southwesterly 6:00 P.M.
of the centerline of Fourth
Street to 177'- southwesterly to
of said centerline of Fourth Midnight
Street
Section 2: This ordinance will take effect and be in full
force and effect thirty (,30) days after the date of its passage
and adoption and at such time as--the proper signs and /or markings
are installed.
This ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting
time required by law was thereafter passed and adopted at a
regular meeting of the City Council held on the
day of 1983.
AYES:
NOES.';
ABSENT:
ATTEST
CITY CLERK
vF vie- ;
�v
P�
T e Pfunucfj-forse
3
A Tra&tWn, 9n F ne, Dining
10 f"O R C E 7`
4 TH STREE
r
14555�'519'5arinWay, Saratoga, CA 95070
(408) 867-4711
The pfunwcf�orse
k,,
A 7ra.dtttorn, 9n Prove Dtntng
=i'Ji c E C
I fJ fO R C E
� TH SIRE C
14555�Big Bajin'Wag, Saratoga, GA 95070
(408) 867-4711
• PROPOSED
,L-4SSZ-A1C7,ER Z-04DIAIC - ZONE
/
/*
xp''
�IE��IORANDLJM
uguw o2 O&UM&U00Z
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 887 -3438
TO: Planning Commission DATE: April 21, 1983
FROM: Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Plumed Horse request for passenger loading zone
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The owner of the Plumed Horse Restaurant has requested that the two
parking spaces that front the restaurant be designed for passenger
loading zone from 6 P.M. to midnight Monday through.Saturday.
Staff has met with Mr. Pache and has determined the following:
1. There is to be a doorman assisting patrons in and out of
• their cars.
2. Cars will be valet parked in the Village Parking District
No. 1 which is the off street parking for this site.
3. Mr. Pache feels this operation will reduce the amount
of "looking" for parking along Big Basin Way.
The only concern staff has relative to this procedure is the
possibility.- that it becomes so attractive that there may be a
congestion in the traveled way. I would recommend that you set
a review period or periods during which congestion and disruption
to traffic flow in the street can be monitored perhaps quarterly.
If it proves to be a significant problem then the procedure could
be modified or eliminated.
I would further recommend that the restaurant bear the cost of
implementation if you approve this request.
1
APPROVED
RSS /bj c
is P.C. Agenda 4/27/83
AGENDA BILL NO. 441
DATE: Mav 18. 1983
CITY OF SARATOGA
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: ORDINANCE 60, SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, REVISION TO COMPLY WITH MAP ACT
CHANGES AND TO REQUIRE SUBMISSION OF A TITLE REPORT.
Issue Sunu ry
The Subdivision Map Act was revised to allow parcel maps (4 or less lots)
to be valid for 2 years and to allow a potential of 3 one year extensions
on all maps. The attached resolution and ordinance revises the City's
Subdivision Ordinance in compliance with the Act and also applies these
requirements to 50o expansions and single lots, retroactively to the date
of adoption of the Map Act amendments. Additionally the changes would
require a recent title report to be submitted with the tentative map
application. The Planning Commission briefly reviewed these changes at
a Committee -of- the -Whole and recommended them for your action.
Recommendation
Have first reading on ordinance.
At your next meeting, have second reading, adopt ordinance' and pass
resolution.
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Ordinance
2. Resolution No.
3. Map Act Sections 66452.6 and 66463.5
Council Action
5/18: Fanelli /Moyles moved to introduce by title only, waiving further reading. Passed 5 -0.
6/1: Clevenger /Fanelli moved to adopt Ordinance NS 60.15. Passed 4 -0.
Moyles /Clevenger moved to adopt Resolution 2064. Passed 4 -0.
ORDINANCE NO. NS -60.15
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF. SARATOGA
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. NS -60, THE
SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, TO REQUIRE TITLE
REPORTS WITH APPLICATIONS AND REVISING
THE TIME LIMITS FOR EXPIRATION DATES AND
EXTENSIONS
The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: Section 12.4(y) is hereby added to Ordinance NS -60, Section
12.4, entitled "Form of tentative map and accompanying data ", to read as follows:
"(y) A preliminary title report issued within 10 days from date of filing by a
reputable title company doing business. in Santa Clara County issued to
or for the benefit of the City and showing all parties having any interest
in the land."
SECTION 2: Section 18.2 -1 of Ordinance NS -60 is hereby amended to read
as follows:
"Sec. 18.2 -1. Expiration and Extensions of Tentative Subdivision Maps
The approval or conditional approval of a tentative subdivision map shall
expire twenty -four (24) months from the date on which the advisory agency, or
City Council on appeal, granted its approval or conditional approval. An
extension of the expiration date of an approved or conditionally approved
tentative subdivision map may be granted by the advisory agency for a period
or periods not exceeding thirty -six (36) months. Any application for such an
extension shall be made in writing by the Subdivider and filed with the City
Clerk before the map is to expire and shall state the reasons for requesting the
extension. The advisory agency shall review the application for extension and
approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application at the next regularly
scheduled advisory agency meeting. Any decision of the advisory agency
approving or conditionally approving an extension shall specify the new
expiration date of the tentative subdivision map. If the advisory agency denies
a subdivider's application for extension, the subdivider may appeal to the City
Council within fifteen (15) days after the advisory agency has denied the
extension."
SECTION 3: Section 22.3 of Ordinance NS -60 is hereby amended to read
as follows:
"Sec. 22.3. Expiration and Extension of Tentative Parcel Maps
The approval or conditional approval of a tentative parcel map shall
expire twenty -four (24) months from the date on which the advisory agency, or
City Council on appeal, granted its approval or conditional approval. An
extension of the expiration date of an approved or conditionally approved
tentative parcel map may be granted by the advisory agency for a period or
-1-
periods not exceeding thirty -six (36) months. Any application for such an
extension shall be made in writing by the subdivider and filed with the City
Clerk before the map is to expire and shall state the reasons for requesting the
extension. The advisory agency shall review the application for extension and
approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application at the next regularly
scheduled advisory agency meeting. Any decision of the advisory agency
approving or conditionally approving an extension shall specify the new
expiration date of the tentative parcel map. If the advisory agency denies a
subdivider's application for extension, the subdivider may appeal to the City
Council within fifteen (15) days after the advisory agency has denied the
extension."
SECTION 4: Section 24.1 of Ordinance NS -60 is hereby amended to read as
follcws:
"Section 24.1. Application.
Within twenty -four (24) months after approval or conditional approval of
the tentative map by the advisory agency, or within such further extension or
extensions of time as may have been granted by the advisory agency or the
City Council on appeal, application for final approval shall be made by filing
the following with the planning director:
(a) Unless otherwise waived in accord with Section 24.4 hereof, a
parcel map prepared in accord with all requirements of the
Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Sections 66444 through
66450) and in substantial accord with the approved tentative map
or the applicable unit or units thereof, and which shall
diagrammatically show thereon the fulfillment of all conditions or
tentative approval which may be evidenced on such parcel map,
including all required offers of dedication to the public of rights -
of -way, easements or other interests in land. In the event a parcel
or record of survey map is already of record, which at the time of
its recordation was prepared and recorded in accord with the then -
prevailing laws regulating parcel or record of survey maps, and
which parcel or record of survey map otherwise qualifies as being
substantially in accord with the approved tentative map, a new
parcel map need not be recorded and in lieu thereof a copy of said
parcel map certified by the Santa Clara County. Recorder as being
a true and correct copy of the original parcel map on file in his
offices shall be filed;
(b) A preliminary title report issued within ten days from date of filing
by a reputable title company doing business in Santa Clara County,
issued to or for the benefit of the City and showing all parties
having any interest in the land.
(c) Where any required improvements have not been completed, two
copies of the City's standard (or deferred) form of improvement
agreement executed by all owners, the deposit in duplicate of the
required cash or executed improvement bond, a complete set of
any required improvement plans signed by the City Engineer and
any required policy or certificates of liability and property damage
insurance;
-2-
(d) Satisfactory written evidence of payment of all required fees."
SECTION 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid,
such decision shall riot affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would
have passed this ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase
hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections,
sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 6: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days
from and after the date of its passage and adoption.
This ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by
law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council
held on the day of , 1983, by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-3-
Mayor
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SARATOGA EXTENDING THE EXPIRATION DATES OF
APPROVED TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAPS, TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAPS AND TENTATIVE BUILDING SITE APPROVALS
WHEREAS, effective June 11, 1982, California Government
Code Section 66452.6(e) was amended to increase the maximum period
or periods of time for which extensions may be granted on approved
or conditionally approved tentative subdivision maps from two (2)
years to three (3) years; and
WHEREAS, effective September 13, 1982, California Govern-
ment Code Section 66.463.5(a), was amended to increase the initial
expiration date of approved or conditionally approved tentative
parcel maps from twelve (12) months to twenty -four (24) months,
and Section 66463.5(c) was amended to increase the maximum period
or periods of time for which extensions may be granted on such
parcel maps from two (2) years to three (3) years; and
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga has amended Sections
18.2 -1, 22.3 and 24.1 of Ordinance NS -60, the Subdivision Ordi-
nance, to bring said Ordinance into conformity with the above -
mentioned changes in state law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Saratoga has
determined that such amendments should be made applicable to
extensions on tentative subdivision maps approved under Article
Two of Ordinance NS -60 which were viable as of June 11, 1982, and
applicable to the initial expiration and extensions on tentative
-1-
building site approvals and parcel maps approved under Article
Three of Ordinance NS -60 which were viable as of September 13,
1982.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Saratoga as follows:
1. All tentative subdivision maps approved or condi-
tionally approved under Article Two of Ordinance NS -60, which
were still viable as of June 11, 1982, may be extended for a
period or periods of time not exceeding a total of three (3)
years from the initial expiration date of such maps. Application
for extension shall be made and processed pursuant to Section
18.2 -1 of Ordinance NS -60.
2. All tentative building site approvals and tentative
parcel maps approved or conditionally approved under Article
Three of Ordinance NS -60, which were still viable as of September
13, 1982, shall initially expire twenty -four (24) months from the
date on which the advisory agency, or the City Council on appeal,
granted its approval or conditional approval of such building
sites or tentative parcel maps.
3. All tentative building site approvals and tentative
parcel maps approved or conditionally approved under Article
Three of Ordinance NS -60, which were still viable as of September
13, 1982, may be extended for a period or periods of time not
exceeding a total of three (3) years from the initial expiration
date of such tentative building site approvals or tentative parcel
-2-
maps. Application for extension shall be made and processed
pursuant to Section 22.3 of Ordinance NS -60.
4. In the case of any tentative subdivision map,
tentative building site approval or tentative parcel man for
which an extension of time has been granted and the extension
has expired prior to the adoption of this Resolution, and pro-
vided such tentative subdivision map, tentative building site
approval or tentative parcel map qualifies for a further exten-
sion of time under paragraphs 1 or 3 above, application for exten-
sion may be filed not later than sixty (60) days after the date
of adoption of this Resolution. If no application is filed
within said period of time, the expiration shall become final.
The foregoing Resolution was duly adopted at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the
day of
YAES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Cler
, 1983, by the following vote:
-3-
Mayor
I P.
•
r�
§ 66463.5. Expiration of tentative map; effect; extension of
time; appeal from denial. of extension
(a) When a tentative map is required, an approved or condition-
ally approved tentative map shall expire 24 months after its approval
or conditional approval, or after such additional period of time as
may be prescribed by local ordinance, not to exceed an additional 12
months.
(b) The expiration of the approved or conditionally approved
tentative map shall terminate all proceedings and no parcel map of all
or any portion of the real property included within such tentative
map shall be filed without first processing a new tentative map.
(c) Upon application of the subdivider filed prior to the expira-
tion of the approved or conditionally approved tentative map, the time
at which such map expires may be extended by .the legislative body
or by an advisory agency authorized to approve or conditionally ap-
prove such tentative maps for a period or periods not exceeding a to-
tal of three years. If the advisory agency denies a subdivider's appli-
cation for extension, the subdivider may appeal to the legislative
body within 15 days after the advisory agency has denied the exten-
sion.
(Added by Stats.1974, c. 1536, p. 3479, § 4, operative March 1, 1975. Amend-
ed by Stats.1982, c. 923, § 4, urgency, eff. Sept. 13, 1982.)
Historical Note
The 1082 amendment substituted "24 and substituted *'three years" for "two
months" for "12 months" and "12 years" in the first sentence of subd. (c).
months" for "18 months" in subd. (a);
§ 66452.6. Expiration; development moratoriums; pending
lawsuit; termination of proceedings; extension of
time; appeal from denial of extension
(a) An approved or conditionally approved tentative map shall
expire 24 months after its approval or conditional approval, or after
such additional period of time as may be prescribed by local ordi-
nance, not to exceed an additional 12 months.
(b) The period of time specified in subdivision (a) shall not in -'
dude any period of time during which a development moratorium,
imposed after approval of the tentative map, is in existence, provided
however, that the length of the moratorium does not exceed five
years.
Once a moratorium is terminated, the map shall be valid for the
same period of time as was left to run on the map at the time that
the moratorium was imposed. However, if the remaining time is less
than 120 days, the map shall be valid for 120 days following the ter-
mination of the moratorium.
.(c) The period of time specified in subdivision (a) shall not in-
clude any period of time during which a lawsuit has been filed and is
pending in a court of competent jurisdiction involving the approval or
conditional approval of a tentative map if a stay of the time period is
approved by the local agency pursuant to this section. Within 10
days of the service of the initial petition or complaint in the lawsuit
upon the local agency, the subdivider may apply to the local agency
for a stay pursuant to the local agency's adopted procedures. Within
40 days after receiving the application, the local agency shall either
stay the time period for up to five years or deny the requested stay.
The local agency may, by ordinance, establish procedures for review-
ing the requests, including, but not limited to, notice and hearing re-
quirements, appeal procedures and other administrative requirements.
(d) The expiration of the approved or conditionally approved
tentative map shall terminate all proceedings and no final map or
parcel map of all or any portion of the real property included within
the tentative map shall be filed with the legislative body pursuant to
Section 66457 without first processing a new tentative map. Once a
timely filing is made pursuant to Section 66457, subsequent actions of
the local agency, including, but not limited to, processing, approving,
u
0
§ 66452.6. Expiration; development moratoriums; pending
lawsuit; termination of proceedings; extension of
time; appeal from denial of extension
(a) An approved or conditionally approved tentative map shall I
expire 24 months after its approval or conditional approval, or after
such additional period of time as may be prescribed by local ordi-
nance, not to exceed an additional 12 months.
(b) The period of time specified in subdivision (a) shall not in- I
clude any period of time during which a development moratorium,
imposed after approval of the tentative map, is in existence, provided r
however, that the length of the moratorium does not exceed five
years.
Once a moratorium is terminated, the map shall be valid for the
same period of time as was left to run on the map at the time that
the moratorium was imposed. However, if the remaining time is less
than 120 days, the map shall be valid for 120 days following the ter-
mination of the moratorium. i
.(c) The period of time specified in subdivision (a) shall not in-
clude any period of time during which a lawsuit has been filed and is '
pending in a court of competent jurisdiction involving the approval or
conditional approval of a tentative map if a stay of the time period is
approved by the local agency pursuant to this section. Within 10
days of the service of the initial petition or complaint in the lawsuit
upon the local agency, the subdivider may apply to the local agency
for a stay pursuant to the local agency's adopted procedures. Within
40 days after receiving the application, the local agency shall either
stay the time period for up to five years or deny the requested stay.
The local agency may, by ordinance, establish procedures for review-
ing the requests, including, but not limited to, notice and hearing re-
quirements, appeal procedures and other administrative requirements.
(d) The expiration of the approved or conditionally approved
tentative map shall terminate all proceedings and no final map or
parcel map of all or any portion of the real property included within
the tentative map shall be filed with the legislative body y pursuant to
Section 66457 without first processing a new tentative map. Once a
timely filing is made pursuant to Section 66457, subsequent actions of
the local agency, including, but not limited to, processing, approving,
C
LJ
66452.6 SUBDIVISIONS Title 7
and recording, may lawfully occur after the date of expiration of the
tentative map.
(e) Upon application of the subdivider filed prior to the expira-
tion of the approved or conditionally approved tentative map, the
time at which the map expires may be extended by the legislative
body or by an advisory agency authorized to approve or conditionally
approve tentative maps for a period or periods not exceeding a total
of three years. If the advisory agency denies a subdivider's applica-
tion for extension, the subdivider may appeal to the legislative body
within 15 days after the advisory agency has denied the extension.
(f) For purposes of this section, a development moratorium shall
include a water or sewer moratorium or a water and sewer morato-
rium, as well as other actions of public agencies which regulate land
use, development, or the provision of services to the land, other than
the public agency with the authority to approve or conditionally ap-
prove the tentative map, which thereafter prevents, prohibits, or de-
lays the approval of a final or parcel map.
• (Added by Stats.1974, c. 1536, p. 3476, § 4, operative March 1, 1975.
Amended by Stats.1977, c. 883, p. 2652, § 1; Stats.1979, c. 297, p. 1108, § 1,
eff. July 25, 1979;. Stats.1981, c. 482, § 1; Stats.1982, c. 87, § 17, urgency,
eff. )March 1, 1982; Stats.1982, c. 259, § 1, urgency, eff. June 11, 1982;
Stats.1982, c. 518, § 3.)
•
Historical Note
The 1977 amendment added, as the sec-
ond sentence of subd. (a), "The period of
time herein specified shall not include any
period of time during which a water or
sewer moratorium, imposed after approval
of the tentative map is in existence, pro-
vided however, that the length of such
moratorium does not exceed five years. ",
and added the second and third para-
graphs of subd. (a), which read:
"Once such a moratorium is terminated,
the map shall be valid for the same period
of time as was left to run on the map at
the time that the moratorium was im-
posed; provided, however, that if such re-
maining time is less than 120 days, the
map shall be valid for 120 days following
the termination of the moratorium.
"The 1977 amendments to this section
shall apply to a tentative map approved
or conditionally approved prior to Jauuary
1, 1978, including any map which has ex-
pired during a moratorium which was im-
posed on or after April 1, 1977."
The 1979 amendment designated the
former second sentence, added in 1977, of
the first paragraph of subd. (a) as the
first paragraph of subd. (b) so that the
second and third paragraphs of former
subd. (a) became the second and third
paragraphs of subd. (b); substituted
"This subdivision" for "The 1977 amend-
ments to this section" in the third para-
graph of subd. (b) : inserted subd. (c) ;
and relettered former subds. (b) and (c)
as subds. (d) and (e).
The 1931 amendment substituted "the"
for "such" throughout the section; substi-
tuted "24 months" for "12 months" and
"12 months" for "18 months" in subd.
(a) ; substituted "development morato-
rium" for "water or sewer moratorium" in
subd. (b) ; deleted the former third para-
graph of subd. (b) ; deleted, .from subd.
(c), a second paragraph, which read:
"This subdivision may be applied to ten-
tative maps approved or conditionally ap-
proved prior to the effective date of the
act amending this section to add this sub-
division, if the subdivider makes applica-
tion for a stay to the local agency within
60 days after the effective date of sucl,
act." I.
and added subd. (f).
Stats.1982, c. 87, $ 17 substituted "was
imposed. flowever," for "was imposed;
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO._ Dept. Hd.
DATE: May 18, 1983
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
C.
C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: A -861, GERALD BUTLER, MONTALVO ROAD, LOT 4, TRACT 6632
Issue Summary
The applicant applied for design review approval to contruct a two - storysingle
fdmily dwelling. Concern was,.-raised at the public hearing that the size of the
home was too large for the surrounding neighborhood. It was decided to
continue the public hearing so the sizes of surrounding homes,could be
gathered and a comparison of square footage made. At the following meeting
Planning Commission voted 4 -2 to deny the proposal as they felt it was creating an impact
of excessive bulk.
Recommendation
1. Conduct a public hearing on the appeal.
2. Determine the merits of the appeal and approve or deny.
3. Staff recommended approval of the design review to the Planning Commission.
Fiscal Impacts
None Noted
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Letter of Appeal
2. Staff Report dated 3/11/83
3. Planning Commission minutes of 3/23/83 and 4/13/83
4. Exhibits "B & C"
5. Resolution A -861 -1
6. rrespondence received on the project.
Counc Action
5/18: Clevenger /Mallory moved to deny appeal. Passed 5 -0.
it
Date Received:
liGcaVED Hearing Date:
/1 PR 1..193 Fee 4U.
ITY USE ONLY
"101MMUNRY DEICE! QPME!'!;
APPEAL APPLICATION
Name of Appellant: Ca GtAM D- & -t_Ji' (L, r�
Address: I SGi'5' Ulc -KGr2Y AU
Telephone: 66°7- -712R b
Name of Applicant: CTG—rcA -) D- 4�c)T Le
Project File No.: A - 861
Project Address: ekr /IWp t2 o
Project Description: —2 Wt 1.LE ` ffi tAA cj ►-- igyrjcE
Decision Being Appealed: LlkMMINM &��A4M. P&-- -kJ /A,L
Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be 'attached
[f
Ap ellant's Signature
*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
THE DATE OF 'rHF nTT TSTn\j
CS ED
•' APR 141983 r
r�-�•''f fro 7o
h,.1;• �.Fy t�.y CC'riML' NMY DOMORDIT L,-Vt ' / ,4j / 5 a
9 c9 3
rvt.e.1 L.� -t't�c .l. /t- OU . .wt a,c./.�i/ �.e j�� <<,•,
•�fi ce, -C..• 7'G�tr .fit- t���t.a �tc,.� !N"t•�`�r,,.s �'�Gs4. • �
Gl.t�ia -c�"' .// `•4�i� C� �u.4. �ti ...^•�G- �1,.Gyt C�✓ ,�+- t(.fiir.�C.{.,'dGG
a
0
E
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
* Amended 4/6/83
DATE: 3/11/83
Commission Meeting: 3/23/83
SUBJECT: A -861, Gerald Butler, Lot 4, Tract 6632 (Montalvo Road)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
REQUEST: Design Review approval to construct a two story single family dwelling.
OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: None
PLANNING DATA:
PARCEL SIZE: 40,020 square feet GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density
Residential
ZONING: R- 1- 40,000
NOTICING: Notice of this project has been sent to surrounding property owners,
posted on site and advertised in the Saratoga News.
SITE DATA:
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single family residential and Villa Montalvo is located
to the southeast of the subject parcel.
SITE SLOPE: 5% SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 3%
* NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: The site is fairly level in topography and con-
tains several oaks, eucalyptus and pine trees around the periphery of the lot
as indicated on Exhibit "B ".
GRADING REQUIRED: CUT: 40 Cu. Yds.
CUT DEPTH: 1.5 Ft.
SETBACKS: Front - 80' Right Side - 20'
HEIGHT: 30 feet
FILL: 40 Cu Yds
FILL DEPTH: 1 ft.
Left Side - 36' Rear - 81'
. Report to the Planning Coirni ssi on page 2
A -861 3/11/83
SIZE OF STRUCTURE: First Floor (includes garage): 4,560 square feet
Second Floor: 2,390 square feet
Total: 6,950 square feet
FLOOR AREA: 6,200 square feet is the standard allowed for this zoning district
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE:
27% is proposed, 37% is allowed by ordinance
COLORS & MATERIALS: Cobble Stone Veneer,:earth:tone painted stucco with brown wood
trim. Wood shakes will be uti1itzed for the roof.
SOLAR: No solar access is proposed with this application. The structure, however
does have good orientation.
FINDINGS:
1. Avoid Unreasonable Interference with Views & Privacy
Staff did not note any impacts to the viewshed or privacy of adjacent properties
as a result of the proposal. The lots to the north and west are undeveloped
and the lot to the east is protected by existing vegetation. The properties to
the south will not be affected.
2. Preserve. National Landscape
* No trees will be removed with construction of the dwelling. However,
one large 30' diameter eucalyptus tree was removed during grading
for the turn - around for this tract.
A minimum of grading is proposed for this project.
3. Minimize Perception of Excessive Bulk and Compatible Bulk & Height
Staff does not have a concern with.the proposed size and.bulk of the structure as
this is an area of larger homes, and also the site is fairly secluded.
4. Current Grading and Erosion Control Standards
The proposed site development plan incorporates current grading and erosion control
standards used by the City of Saratoga.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve per Staff Report dated 3/11/83 and Exhibits "B & C" subject
to the following conditions:
A. Prior to issuance of building permits:
1. Detailed grading and drainage plans shall be reviewed and approved by the
Division of Inspection Services.
2. Tree removal requires the approval of the Permit Review Division.
3. Minor Modifications to the proposed elevations shall require the review and
approval of the Permit Review Division.
IpReport to the Planning Co mission
A -861
APPROVED:
SL /bic
P.C. Agenda 3/23/83
• Page 3
3/11/83
Sharon Lester
Planner
-- __ I*-
_ng Commission
ing Minutes 3/23/83
SD -lS09 (cont.)
Page 4
map shall be void if 1ublic access from Sunset is not provided by the developer
to the lot line, so t at it does not become the City's problem if the access
is not there.
Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion to approve SD -1509. The motion was
carried 4 -1, with Commi sioner McGoldrick dissenting.
After the break which fdVlowed the Deputy City Attorney clarified that the
approval per se of the m p for SD -1509 was conditioned upon Staff being
satisfied and reporting ack to the Commission on the issue of access. He
stated that he had reques e the developer to obtain a copy of the documents
submitted by Mr. Sachs an the City Attorney's office will review them and
report back to the Commiss on at the next meeting. Therefore, the access
would not be a condition o A the tentative map, which would get the City into
the situation of possibly h wing to condemn a road, but the approval of the
map as a whole is conditions upon the access problem being resolved.
Break - 10:15 - 10:35 p.m.
3. A -852 - Thomas Whitney, 14080 Sobey Road, Request for Design Review Approval
to construct a sec addition to a one -story single family
dwelling in the R -1 40,000 zoning district (near Springbrook Lane)
It was directed that this matter\be continued to the meeting of April 13, 1983.
4. GPA- 83 -1 -A
Consideration oaADraft Housing Element of the City of Saratoga
and Environmenta Impact Report
The public hearing was opened at 10:35 p.m.
Andy Beverett noted that many of the senior citizens had left the meeting
because of the lateness of the hour, and he suggested that he give his comments
at a future hearing on this matter. Staff noted the dates of the scheduled
meetings on this matter. It was directed that it be continued to the meeting
of�kpTi* --k3, 1983.
Gerald Butler, Lot #4, Tract 6632, Montalvo Road, Request for
Design Review Approval to construct a two -story single family
dwelling in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district (near Lira Drive)
Staff described the proposal. They noted that there has been no unauthorized
removal of ordinance size trees from the site. Commissioner Siegfried gave a
Land Use Committee report, indicating that they had discussed the possibility
of moving the home slightly in the easterly direction to increase the setback
on the westerly side, thus increasing the area of parking and access to the
garage. Commissioner Hlava expressed concern regarding the cypress tree because
of the curve of the driveway.
The public hearing was opened at 10:40 p.m.
The applicant stated that he had moved the driveway to the side of the house
because of the wishes of the neighbors. However, he felt he could move it
slightly to save both of the trees in that area.
Dr. Donald Call, representing the Montalvo Homeowners Association, expressed
concern regarding (1) the size of the home on a small lot, (2) the fact that
it is a spec home, and (3) setting a precedent for massivehomes in that area.
Mrs. Marino, who lives one lot away from the proposed home, spoke against the
large size and the fact that it is a spec home. The size of the houses and the
lots in that area were discussed.
Alma Arata, 20400 Hill, spoke against the project, addressing the area and
existing homes.
Fred King, 15159 Montalvo, pointed out that the Commission had denied both of
the applicant's developments because of traffic, and he feels this large home
would produce more cars in the area.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Further discussion followed on the size of the homes in the area and the
- 4 - atm �. oe.5
Lam_.:.
& .
.ing Commission
cing Minutes 3/23/83 U�
A -861 (cont.)
(� Page S
interpretation of the findings, as to whether they apply to the visual impact
of the house on the surrounding sites that are impacted by it as contrasted with
the :s'ze of.the•other homes.in the neighborhood. The .applicant stated that in j
this case the house does not impact any of the neighbors along the developed 1'
part of Montalvo in the sense of.it. being feasible to them.
There was a consensus to have Staff. get input of the size of the homes and
garages in that area. Commissioner Hlava commented that.she would like Staff
to supply the minutes from the subdivision hearing to determine what was said
at that time about size.
It was directed that this matter be continued to April 13, 1983.
6. UP -529 - Public Storage, 122 9 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, Request for Use
Permit to allow a mini-storage facility in the C -V (Visitor -
Commercial) zoning clistrict (north of Manor Drive)
The proposal and site were descried by Staff.
The public hearing was opened at 111:10 P.M.
The applicant stated that he had mkt with the present tenants and facilities
will be made for them. He comment Ad that he would like to address the setbacks
at the site review which is to foll w. He addressed the flood control work they
are planning to do. The potential Araffic was discussed.
Mr. Oliver, representing his mother ho owns property at 12361 Saratoga- Sunny-
vale Road, expressed concern regard'n the flooding that has occurred. He also
expressed concern about the appearanc of the two -story structures. Staff clari-
fied that Design Review Approval is r quired on the structures. They described
the engineering and grading that will be done relative to the flood control work.
Jacques Boubille, 12316 Julie Lane, st ted that he is on the Board of Directors
of the Oak Creek Homeowners Assoc'atio and they are very much against this
project. lie expressed concern relative to the dangerous traffic pattern. He
also asked the Commission to consider w at would happen to this unsightly
building if this business fails.
Don Sifferman, 12400 Green Meadow Lane, lexpressed concerns regarding (1) the
massive two -story structures, (2) light' g to provide security, and (3) the
need for such a facility in Saratoga.
Dick Foley, 20615 Oak Creek Lane, stated that he did not feel that the average
Saratoga citizen is in need of such a fa ility, much less on a problem property.
He cited additional external traffic, sa ety hazard problems, health problems,
and additional crime.
The applicant commented that the lighting will be turned off at closing hours.
He added that he feels that a 2 -story is better design and that this is
an ideal location for mini - storage, which is needed in Saratoga. The traffic
trips were discussed. It was clarified th t there would be a total of 270
trips per day.
Sandy Sifferman, 12400 Green Meadow Lane, expressed concern regarding the
2 -story and length of buildings. She indi ated that she would be looking at
a big wall. She added that other homeowne s in opposition had left the meeting
because of the late hour.
Carl Billianie, 20643 Oak Creek Lane, spoke in opposition to the project, citing
the height and size. I
Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the �ublic hearing. Commissioner Nellis
seconded the motion, which was carried unan mously.
Staff reported that there are deferred improvements along Saratoga- Sunnyvale
Road that would be called upon to be comple ed if this last parcel were to be
developed. They described the basic design of those improvements, which would
be for a frontage type roadway and entrances perhaps just at either end.
Commissioner Nellis expressed concern regarding the road design and access,
specifically the center lane. Staff indicat d that the master plan would call
essentially for two entrances, one at Kirkmont and one at Seagull. They added
that the developments on either side of the highway are under bond for partici-
pating in a signal at Kirkmont when it becomes warranted, if it becomes warranted
- 5 -
nning Commission
eting Minutes 4/13/83 (��
GPA- 83 -1 -A (cont.)
ment that they do not want
units.
Page 3
increase density in single family residential
Andy Beverett, 19597 Via Mon e Drive, urged the Commission to follow a path
of moderation and balance in looking at the Housing Element. He noted that he
understood that the people in the Quito area gave senior housing top priority
among their list of roles and objectives. He commented that Saratoga is aging
and the situation calls for s me compassion in dealing with this problem.
*Addition listed on Page 3a
It was directed that this matt r be continued to a study session on April 26,
1983 and the regular meeting o April 27, 1983.
5a. Negative Declaration - SD -1 12 - Los Gatos Joint Union High School District
5b. SD -1512 - Request for Tenta ive Subdivision Approval for a 5 -lot subdivision
for a site off HeIriman Avenue near River Ranch Circle (with
access from Alta Viista Avenue) in the R -1- 12,500 zoning district
It was directed that this matter be continued-to May 11, 1983, at the request
of the_ap.00icant.
erald Butler, Lot H4, Tract 6632, Montalvo Road, Request for Design
eview Approval to construct a two -story single family dwelling in
the R -1- 40,000 zoning district (near Lira Drive)
Chairman Schaefer noted the concerns of the neighbors at the previous meeting
and stated that this matter had been continued in order to get input on the
approximate size of the homes in the area.
The public hearing was opened at 8:27 p.m.
Gerald Butler, the applicant, stated that he felt the letter from the Montalvo
Homeowners Association regarding the .size of the homes in the area is completely
biased and the sizes of the homes stated in it are not accurate, noting that
Mr. Shortino's home was left completely off. He indicated that he meets the
ordinance requirements and feels that the house is adequate for the area.
Don Call, of the Montalvo Homeowners Association, referenced the letter they
had submitted. He described the homes in the area. He noted that they were
concerned with traffic and specifically setting a precedent since this is the
first of 13 sites on which the applicant will be building in the area.
Winifred Miller, 20560 Montalvo, voiced objection to the large house on a small
lot.
Alma Arata, 20400 Hill Avenue, described the area and asked for a balance. She
commented that if expensive homes were allowed in the area the senior citizens
would be forced to go elsewhere because of increased property taxes.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner McGoldrick commented that she feels the house is too large. She
stated that the house is set up above the road level and the look provides more
bulk because of that fact. She added that she could not make the findings.
Commissioner Crowther agreed, stating that he could not make the third finding.
Commissioner Siegfried commented that he could not make the finding if someone
were attempting to set this house in the middle of homes that were 3,000 or
4,000 sq. ft. He stated that he feels that this house is not impacting visually
anyone else and he feels it is compatible with the area. He noted that a number
of the other homes in the area, while they are single story and smaller visually,
appear to be quite large. He added that he can make the findings, at least for
this particular site.
Commissioner Schaefer agreed, stating that she did not see this as a precedent
setting kind of situation and would only see it as applying to this one lot,
since she understands the neighbors' concerns.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve A -861 per the Staff Report dated April
6, 1983 and Exhibits "B" and "C ". The motion failed for lack of a second.
3 -
4._ .-1
%ft
.anning Commission
teeting Minutes 4/13/83((
A -861 (cont.)
C/ Page 4
Commissioner Crowther moved to deny A -861, based on the discussions. Commis-
sioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried 4 -2, with Commissioners
Siegfried and Schaefer dissenting.
Commissioner Hlava commented that the major reason why she voted to deny this
application is because she does see it as setting a precedent. She added
that she feels that this subdivision in its entirely impacts the other homes
in the area, and there is a problem with compatibility. Commissioner Nellis
also noted that he cannot make the findings regarding compatibility. The 10-
day appeal period was noted.
7a. A -852 - Thomas hitney, 14880 Sobey Road, Request for Building Site
7b. SDR -1536 - Approva and Design Review Approval to construct a two -story
addition to a one -story single family dwelling in the R -1- 40,000
zonine district (near Springbrook Lane)
Commissioner McGoldrick ave an on -site inspection. Staff described the pro-
posal.
The public hearing was op ned at 8:55 p.m.
The conditions of the Staf Report were clarified to Roger Kohler, the architect.
Commissioner Crowther move to close the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried
seconded the motion, which as carried unanimously.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve A -8S2 per the Staff Report dated April
6, 1983 and Exhibits "B" and "C ", and SDR -1536 per the Staff Report and Exhibit
"B ". Commissioner Crowther s conded the motion, which was carried unanimously
6 -0.
8. V -541 - J. Brozda, 14503 B'g Basin Way (Maddalena's), Request for Variance
Approval from the arking requirements described in Section II.2
of the Zoning Ordin nce for a restaurant /retail sales in the C -C
zoning district (ne r 3rd Street)
Chairman Schaefer gave the histo y of the application. She noted that some
cities are now requiring in lieu ayments for parking spaces not provided from
a business. It was the consensus that this matter be continued to May 11, 1983
so that this information may be ob ained from Carmel and Monterey.
The public hearing was opened at 9: 2 p.m. Mr. Doug Adams stated that he would
give comments at the next meeting. The Deputy City Attorney asked Mr. Adams
to coordinate with his office prior o the next meeting. He added that he will
review the legislation from Carmel a d Monterey to determine if it would be an
option. He stated that if it is an o tion it would be an option possibly to be
adopted on a much broader scale, no d ubt in connection with the Village as a
whole and not just simply confined to addalena's.
It was directed that this matter be con nued to May 11, 1983.
Break - 9:05 p.m. - 9:20 p.m. (Commissi ner Crowther left at 9:05 p.m.)
9a. V -605 - Campbell and Van Valer, 1472}
9b. A -8S7 - Review and Variance Approval
two -story dwelling which will
where 25' is required in the
sideration)
Sixth Street, Request for Design
o add a multi -story addition to a
maintain a 16' front yard setback
�1- 10,000 zoning district (recon-
Staff described the proposal and gave the history of the project. The issues
of the project were noted. A letter from the\residents on the street stating
their concern about parking, the driveway and Setting a precedent was noted.
The public hearing was opened at 9:21 p.m.
Vicki Van Valer, the applicant, thanked the Commission for their reconsidera-
tion. She addressed the petition of the four neighbors and also submitted a
letter in support of the project. She commented that they had shown their plans
to all of the neighbors. She described the proposal and existing landscaping.
Mary Moss, 20777 Pamela Way, spoke to the exit of th \�@ driveway and the dangerous
corner at Sixth Street. She indicated that the exist`�ng building is at the
highest point on the street and if a second floor were built it would be tower-
ing over the street. She also noted the springs in the hillside.
4 -
FILE ha: A-861
. RFSOLUTI O` ti'0 . A-861-1
CITY OF SARATOGA PLA.'^VING CCT��IISSI�1
STATE OF CALIFOR:yIA
IMEAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application
=: -for Design Review Approval of a two -story single family dwelling in the
R- 1- 40,000 zonipg district, Lot #4, Tract 6632 and
-=- MMEAS, the applicant .(hu j- (has -_not) met the burden of proof required to
-support- his said application,
-M11, M EREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that -after careful consideration of the site
--plan, architectural drawings, landscape plans and other exhibits submittedin connec-
:- tion with this matter, the application of
GERALD BUTLER
:for Design Review Approval be and the same is hereby (gxanted) (denied) subject to
the following conditions:
1
Per Exhibits "B" and "C"
- "`PASSED AM ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Ca-mission, State of -
-:.California, this 13th -day of April , 19 83-by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Crowther, Hlava, McGoldrick and Nellis •
-NOES: Commissioners Schaefer and. -- Siegfried •
:.ABSENT: Commissioner Bolger _
in,-an, anniA9 L ualssion
j-
crctary, i aruiing Coc;rnisslon
c
fV
PERMIT
v
Ole ` &12-7
WEST SIDE OF MONTALVO ROAD
PROPOSED MONTALVO HEIGHTS ROD
McDONNAL information not available, estimated
at less than 10 %
LAPARELL 40,000 41,833
LANDS OF BUTLER
MARINO
1.91
(839200)
49404
HOUSE TO
CNAME
ACREAGE
31000
SQ. FT. oS HOUSE
LOT PERCE
- PARSONS
1.208
(52,620)
41000
7.6 %
PINN
40,000
(407000)
47000
10. %
ALTAFI
40,000
(40,000)
49500
11.25%
KING
1.019
(44,388)
41500
10.1 %
PROPOSED MONTALVO HEIGHTS ROD
McDONNAL information not available, estimated
at less than 10 %
LAPARELL 40,000 41,833
LANDS OF BUTLER
MARINO
1.91
(839200)
49404
HARDY
1.00
(43,560)
31000
FOLLMAR
3.67
(1597865)
47300
MILLER
2.02
(877991)
3,000
DORSA
2.00
(877120)
3,600
EAST SIDE OF MONTALVO ROAD
CALL 1.418 (61,768) 59150
METZ 409000 (40,000) 31,00
FU166 407000 (407000)
BENSON 1.333 (58,065)
SH6RTIN0
1.340 (58,370)
4,000
12. %
5.3 %
6.9 %
2.7 %
3.4 %
4.1 %
8.3 %
9.25%
10. %
NO HOUSE ON SITE
14.6 %
THE ABOVE INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE MONTALVO GRIFFINS - AREA
RESIDENT'S ASSOCIATION AT THE REQUEST OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
PROPOSED HOUSE 407020 (407020) 61950 17.4 %
AVERAGE FOR EXISTING HOUSES - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8.25%
x
MAY 12 11963 ,
May 12, 1983
City of Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, Ca 95070
Dear Saratoga City Council Members,
On April 13, 1993, the City of Saratoga Punning Commission denied
design approval to Gerald Butler to construct a two -story single
family dwelling of 6950 square feet on Lot #4 of Tract #6632. The
members of the commission studied the proposal at Length, viewed
the site, listened to the builder and to the protests of the area
homeowners before making their decision. On May 19, 1993, you are
being asked to reverse the decision of the planning commission.
The proposed house is far larger than the average house in this area
but would be built on a lot only 50 square feet larger than the
smallest lot in the area. Only one other house is of comparable size
but 2,000 square .feet of that house is below the level of the road
and not visible from the road, is on 1.3 acres and is adjacent to
lands of Montalvo so that visually the property is unlimited. All
6950 square feet of the proposed house would be visible from the
road and to the neighbors.
The Montalvo Road area is a desirable one because of the low density
and should not be destroyed by a structure that is far too large for
its site.VA urge you to protect the rights of the homeowners by sup-
porting the decision of your city planning commission.
Sincerely,
Earl Millerr
Winifred Miller
Mr. and Mrs. Earl W. Miller
20560 Montalvo Lane
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
May 9, 1983
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Butler (Lot #4 TR6632)
Dear Council Member Callon:
The Montalvo Griffins Homeowners' Association would like to urge
you to uphold the recent Planning Commission decision to deny
approval of a 6,950 sq. ft. house on a 40,020 sq. ft. lot.
The Planning Commission, after requesting the homeowners of
Montalvo Road to submit the square footage of each house in
relation to the square footage of each lot, found the proposed
home would not be in keeping with the existing homes in the area.
The Homeowners' Association is also very concerned that approval
of this house would be precedent setting in view of the fact that
it is only the first of a 13 parcel development. The Homeowner
members agree that if 13 such homes are dropped into the existing
area it will completely change the character and feeling of our
neighborhood which is considered by many to be a pleasant,
uncrowded part of Saratoga. For this reason residents as well as
visitors enjoy a drive up Montalvo Road where deer and squirrels
can be seen daily. Most Saratogans would agree that the pleasant
uncongested feeling of the Montalvo -area is worth preserving.
Please carefully consider before making exception to City
standards that could so drastically alter the historic country
feeling of one of the oldest of Saratoga's neighborhoods.
Respectfully,
Dr. Donald Call
D . William Breiten ac
Dr. Charles Aring
� . Fred Ring
Mr. e n th Hi ins
( L�L ) iC' zg u�.Lt,r..
Mrs. Wendell Hammon
Mm e s Marino
Montalvo Griffins Homeowners' Association
Board of Directors
CI'.'. OF SA!:; ii CC.
AGa•DA BILL NO. 3 Initial:
Dept. f1d.
DATE: May 18. 1983 C. Att�
Community Development
C. Mgr.
------- — ----- — --- -------- ---------- - - - - -- —7
SU3T"Cr: A -831, Steven Scialabba, 12501 Woodside Drive
Issue SL--m, ary
The applicant originally requested design review approval for a second story
addition which at that.time also required a variance to exceed the floor area
requirements. The applicant then appealed to the City Council, who directed
the applicant to reapply to the Planning Commission when the new Design Review
Ordinance (which does not require variances) was adopted.
At the second Planning Commission meeting the plans as previously submitted
were again denied. The primary concern was that, since the neighborhood was
predominantly single story, the second story addition would not be compatible
in terms of bulk. The Planning Commission, at the request of the applicant,
reconsidered their vote on April 13, 1983 and again denied the application,
with a 3 -2 vote.
Rec�mmenrlatinn•
I. Conduct a public hearing on the. appeal.
2. Determine the merits of the appeal and approve or deny.- 1
3. Staff recommended.denial of the design review to the Planning Commission.
Fiscal Im=acts
None noted.
Cxhibits /Att--&^ -nts
1. Letter of Appeal
2. Staff Report dated 1/28/83
3. Planning Commission minutes of 2/9/83 and 4/13/83 (Also 8/11/82 and CC of
4. Exhibits "B" and—"C" 10/6/82)
5. Resolution A -831 -3
6. Correspondence received on the project.
Council Action
5/18: Fanelli /Clevenger moved to grant appeal under conditions of staff report, making
findings as necessary.: Passed 4 -1 (Mallory opposed).
APPEAL APPLICATION
Date Received: OJ
Hearing Date: - - -
Fee
CITY USE ONLY
Name of Appellant: 7 jam— ��,g GAA,g,4
Address: p
Telephone: A67— &Z 9
Name of Applicant: —S, - 4 A -g/j�q
Project File No.: ---831
Project Address.: 1Sd/ lv�70QS"i��'
Project Description:
Decision Being Appealed:
Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached):
k/-V ,
Appellant's- Signature
*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
THE DATE OF THE DFCTSTn -
aw
City of Saratoga
I would like to appeal the Planning Commissions denial of my
application for a second story addition to my property located at
12501 Woodside Drive. I do not agree with their findings that;
a) my proposed second story addition showed 'excessive' bulk
b) and that a two story home does not fit in with the rest
of the neighborhood. The neighborhood is predominately
single story however there are several two story homes.
I was not notified of the Planning Commission staff findings
or the date of the Planning Commissions public hearing in the normal .
letter sent to each applicant. I. did therefore not know to appear
at the public hearing and was not able to work with planning staff
on any changes required to reduce the perception of 'excessive' bulk.
I have written a letter to the Planning Commission requesting
another public hearing for the above reasons. If I am denied that rehearing
I wish to appeal to the city council.
867 -w79
t
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
City Cf Sor +o,
r:
DA'c'IE:_ DATE: 1/28/83
Commission Meeting: 2/9/83
SUBJECT* A -831, Steven Sciallabba, 12501 Woodside Dr.
REQUEST: Design Review Approval to construct a two -story addition to an existing
one -story single family dwelling.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Categorical Exemption
PUBLIC NOTICING: Notice of this project has been posted on site, mailed to
surrounding property owners and advertised in the newspaper.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
ZONING: R -1- 10,000
Medium Density Residential
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single Family Dwellings
SITE SIZE: 10,000 sq. ft.
SITE SLOPE: 3%
HEIGHT OF STRUCTURE: 22 ft.
SIZE OF STRUCTURE: Existing: 2,365 sq. ft. 2nd Floor Addition: 1,044 sq. ft.
TOTAL: 3,409 sq. ft.
ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA: 3,500 sq. ft. is allowed by ordinance.
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE:
45% (60 % allowed by ordinance standards).
SETBACKS: Front: 34' Right Side: 35' Left Side: 10' Rear: 31'6"
(By Planning Commission Policy, the rear yard setback will not be non - conforming
because there is less than a 100 sq. ft. encroachment within the addition).
Report to Planning Com tCsion
A -831, Sciallabba, Woodside Dr.
1/28/83
Page 2
STAFF ANALYSIS: The applicant is proposing to add a second story addition to an
existing single story structure.
The structures immediately surrounding the proposed structure are all one -story in
design. However, there are three (3) two -story structures within 500' which appear
to be approximately the same square footage.
The design of the proposed structure will match the existing structure, also using
the same materials (stucco & lap siding) and color (light brown).
Upon site inspection, staff found limited area on site for single -story expansion
due to the shape of the site and the way the existing structure is situated on the
site (See Exhibit "B ")
FINDINGS:
1. Avoid Unreasonable Interference with Views & Privacy - The proposed second
story addition would not impact the viewshed of adjacent properties, as
the view of the western hillsides is not highly visable from this area.
The site contains a solid 12 ft. bamboo hedge along the southern and western
boundaries as indicated on Exhibit "B ". The northern boundary is also well
screened with various types of shrubs. Also indicated on Exhibit "B" are two
12 inch trees, a sycamore (deciduous) and a loquat (evergreen). These trees
along with the existing hedge, create an adequate screen to protect the privacy
of the adjacent neighbor to the rear. Staff recommends that if the project is
approved, the proposed window on the rear elevation be fixed, and no second
story deck be constructed which could increase privacy impacts.
No windows are located on the southern elevation and the windows on the northern
elevation will not pose an impact due to the distance and the obstruction of the
existing single story roof.
2. Preserve Natural Landscape.- The proposed addition will not impact the natural
landscape of the site.
3.& 4. Minimize the Perception of Excessive Bulk and Compatible Bulk and Height -
The site is fairly well vegetated with trees and shrubs, which tend to mitigate
privacy impacts. However, the view of the addition from Woodside Dr. itself
will not be completely screened by the existing vegetation in the front yard.
A 14" diameter eucalyptus (evergreen) is located in the front to the left of
the addition. This tree, along with a mature walnut tree ( dediduous) located
along the northern property in the front, add some screening, however, the
majority of the addition will be visable. Therefore, staff has difficulty
in making this finding as the addition will be visable and due to its location
in a predominantly one -story neighborhood, would appear out of scale.
5. Compatibility, Views, Privacy and Natural Features - Staff has a problem in'
making this finding in that the proposed addition does not appear to be compatible
with the surrounding single story dwellings.
RECOMMENDATION: Since staff cannot making finding nos. 3, 4 and 5, staff recommends
denial of the proposal.
Report to Planning Comm(,ssion 1/28/83
A -831, Sciallabba, Woodside Dr. Page 3
COMMENTS:
If the Commission wishes to approve the design review, staff recommends the
following conditions:
I. Any modification to the approved plans require the review and approval of
the Permit Review Division.
2. No second story deck located in the rear shall be allowed.
Approved:
Sharon ester
Planner
SL /dsc
P.C. Agenda: 2/9/83
Planning Commission f % Page 8
Meeting Minutes 4/13/83` \
V -606 and A -864 (cont.)
It was the consensu, that a similar condition be added regarding the second
dwelling unit. Com issioner Siegfried moved to approve V -606 and A -864, per
the Staff Report dat d April 6, 1983 and Exhibits "B" and "C ", making the find-
ings, with the added ondition that this cannot be a second dwelling unit and
220 volt wiring is pr ibited. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion.
The motion was carried -1, with Commissioner Hlava dissenting, stating that
she cannot make the varince findings. She added that it does appear that it
will have a cluttered appearance and she could not make the physical hardship
finding.
MISCELLANEOUS
14. A -831 - Steve Scialabba, 12501 Woodside Drive, Reconsideration of Design
Review Approval for construction of a two -story addition to an
existing one -story dwelling
Staff gave the history of the project and described the proposal. Commissioner
Nellis gave an on -site visit. He described the site and noted that there were
not many two -story homes in the area. Commissioner Hlava added that in the
immediate neighborhood the lots are much smaller and the two -story homes in the
area are primarily on lots that are larger.
Mr. Scialabba submitted a map of the general neighborhood and pictures of the
two -story homes in the area. He also submitted additional signatures of neigh-
bors in favor of the proposal. He indicated that he is now renting the home
but plans to live in it when the addition is completed.
Commissioner Hlava commented that she does not feel the addition is compatible
with the neighborhood. She noted that there is only one second addition on
that block of smaller lots.
Commissioner McGoldrick pointed out that all of the people on the cul -de -sac
approve, and the people in opposition live several doors away. She commented
that she feels this neighborhood will have to either move or increase the size
of their home. She indicated that she had voted against this previously because
the applicant did not come to the meeting; however, he is present and he seems
to have some neighborhood support.
Commissioner Nellis indicated that he had come very close to making the compati-
bility findings; however, he was unable to do so. He stated that it bothers
him that this is a rental home and he would have felt better about it if the
applicant had actually resided in the home for some years. He added that there
are only a few homes in the area that are two -story and it is not the predomi-
nant character of the neighborhood.
The Deputy City Attorney commented that there is no reference in the ordinance
to the nature of the occupant. `It is basically geared to the physical compati-
bility of the structure, although he thinks that as a matter of practice the
Commission sometimes takes.that into account if someone is building for specu-
lation as opposed to occupancy; however, in terms of the ordinance itself that
is not one of the criteria.
Commissioner Hlava moved to deny A -831, based on the fact that the findings
cannot be made. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried 3 -2,
with Commissioners Siegfried and McGoldrick dissenting.
Commissioner Schaefer stated that she voted to deny because she feels that the
particular configuration of the lot and the size of the lot creates more of a
visual concern for the design of the home. She added that she would not be
completely opposed to a two -story on that site, but she feels that the design
of the proposed two -story is a concern. She noted the 10 -day appeal period.
Mr. Scialabba asked for direction, stating that in August the Commission had
indicated that they had no problem with the two -story design but could not make
the findings for the necessary variance at that time. He added that he is
within the ordinance and does not have room for a single -story addition. Fie
commented that this is not a spec home; he does intend to live in the home.
Commissioner Nellis commented that in the final analysis it was the compatibility
finding that he could not make that prompted his vote, and not the fact that it
was a rental.
Commissioner Siegfried commented that he feels part of the problem is that
Planning Commission Page 9
:Meeting Minutes 4/13/83
A -831 (cont.)
the applicant is one of the first coming into a neighborhood of essentially
single story homes and the Commissioners who dissented could not make the
compatibility findings. Chairman Schaefer suggested that the applicant should
get signatures in support from the people in back of him. The following options
were pointed out to Mr. Scialabba: (1) consider some other design for a second -
story that has less visual impact, and (2) appeal to the City Council.
COMMUNICATIONS
Oral
1. It was noted that the Commission has requested that a tree be placed
in Hakone Gardens in memory of R. S. Robinson. Discussion followed on resolu-
tions for his daughters from the City.
2. Chairman Schaefer thanked former Mayor Kraus, Councilmember Fanelli,
and the Saratoga News for attending the meeting and the Good Government Group
for attending and serving coffee.
A n Tnrrnmx4rxiT
Commissioner Siegfried moved, seconded by Commissioner Hlava, to adjourn the
meeting in memory of R. S. Robinson. The motion was carried unanimously and
the meeting was adjourned at 11:03 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
9_ I
Robert S. Shook
Secretary
RSS:cd
_ , �\
Planning Commission Page 6
Meeting Minutes 2/9/83
UP -457 (co'Vt.)
Commissione Siegfried commented that he has no problem with the tennis court;
it will be intained as open space and is a reasonable usage of one small
part of the en space. lie added that he feels that berming and fencing will
help the appe ranee.
It was clarifiAA NTe hat this area had been dedicated as open space with develop-
ment of the suision through Los Gatos, and Los Gatos has approved the
tennis court. Deputy City Attorney noted that the use permit would be for
the tennis counly; it would not allow any other or additional use.
Commissioner Bolge moved to approve UP -457, per Exhibit B and the Staff
Report dated Februa y 1, 1983, amending Condition No. 2 to read stucco instead
of wood and adding at the fence shall be shielded by vegetation on the
exterior. Condition 8 and 9 were also added ner the Staff memo of February
9, 1983. Commissione Siegfried seconded the motion.
Commissioner Crowther owed to amend the motion to add a condition which says
that access shall be fr m a foot bridge across the creek connecting to the
townhouse units. The am ndment failed due to lack of a second.
The vote was taken on the otion to approve UP -457. The motion was carried
5 -2, with Commissioners Ne 1is and Crowther dissenting.
11. A -852
Thomas Whitney, N4880 Sobey Road, Request for Design Review
Approval to cons ruct a second -story additon to a one -story
single family dwe ling at Sobey Road near Springbrook Lane in
the R- 1- 40,000 zoning district
It was directed that this item
12. A -853 - Kenneth J. Naber, 126
Approval to construct\
single family dwelling
R -1- 10,000 zoning dist
continued to March 23, 1983.
0 Ted Avenue, Request for Design Review
a second story addition to a one story
3t Ted Avenue near Zorka avenue in the
Pict
It was directed that this item be continued to February 23, 1983.
13. A -854
Eugene and Jane Zambetti,\20680 Marion Road, Request for Design
Review Approval to construct a one -story single family dwelling
which exceeds the standard \floor area at 20680 Marion Road (near
Saratoga - _Sunnyvale Road) in the R- 1- 12,500 zoning district
It was reported that the applicant has requested a continuance. It was directe,
that this item be continued to February 23, 1983.
SCELL, \NE S
14. A -831 - teven Sciallabba, 12501 Woodside Drive, Request for Design Review
Approval to construct a two -story addition to an existing one -
story dwelling (Referral from City Councill
Staff discussed the background of the proposal, stating that under the new De-
sign Review Ordinance the variance is not needed. Staff indicated that they
are unable to make all of the findings of the new ordinance and recommend _
denial. The findings were discussed. A letter from a neighbor in opposition
was noted into the record.
No one appeared to address the Commission on this matter. Commissioner
Siegfried moved to deny A -831 per the Staff Report dated January 28, 1983.
Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7 -0.
Commissioner Nellis commented that he might have been able to vote for this
application if there was someone at the meeting to answer questions regarding
his concerns, i.e. the glass doors or windows in the rear of the home as they
relate to the privacy impact on the rear lots and if the applicant's needs
could have been accomplished by adding on to the first story only. Staff stater
that the applicant had been notified of the date of the meeting. The 10 -day
appeal period was noted.
6 -
J Vii_
2- 10/6/82
A. Appeal of denial of tentative building site approval for two lots on
a private access road off Sobey Road near Sperry Lane in the R- 1- 40,000
zoning district and the associated Negative Declaration (Appellant/
applicants, Mr. and Mrs. G. Jacobsen)
City Manager and Community Development Director explained appeal, noting that
Planning Commission had felt project was inconsistent with City ordinances
and the General Plan. The public hearing was opened at 8:02 p.m.
Dick Kier, engineer for the project, spoke for the appeal, stating that no
changes had been made from the previously- approved map. He also asserted that
the previous approval had expired because another party had not fulfilled his
obligation to record the map. Councilmember Clevenger noted that the Zoning
Ordinance provides that private streets are not to be included in site area,
although that had been done on this application. Staff and City Attorney dis-
cussed whether that provision applied to this size lot, agreed that it did not,
and decided to meet to review procedures. The public hearing was closed at
8:20 p.m., no one further appearing to speak.
Council discussed issues, including the importance of consistency and good
faith on the part of the Council.
FANELLI/MALLORY MOVED TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Passed 4 -0.
FANELLI/NDYLES MOVED TO GRANT APPEAL, APPROVING SDR 1523 PER THE CONDITIONS
OF THE STAFF REPORT DATED 8/17/82 AND MAKING THE FINDING THAT IT IS CONSISTENT
WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. Passed 4 -0.
B. Appeal of denial of variance request and design review for construction
of a two -story addition to an existing one -story structure at 12501
Woodside Dr. (Appellant /applicant, S. Scialabba)
Community Development Director explained appeal, and the public hearing was
Opened at 8:35 p.m.
Mr. Scialabba rose to speak as the appellant /applicant, stating that the
Zoning Ordinance placed too - stringent restrictions on floor area ratio. He
felt the addition was not too large and would have no privacy impacts because
it is screened by vegetation. The only neighbors affected, he said, have sub-
mitted a letter stating they do not object to the addition. No one further
appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 8:45 p.m.
Council discussed issues, including possibility of changing the character
of the neighborhood, the issue of consistency, whether the project was
in violation of the ordinance, the role of the Planning Commission in making
decisions, and whether the possibility that the ordinance might be changed
was relevant.
FANELLI /MOYLES MOVED TO DENY VARIANCE V 589. Passed 3 -1 (Clevenger opposed).
Consensus that the denial was without prejudice.
FANELLI/MAILORY MOVED TO APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW UNDER CONDITIONS OF STAFF REPORT
AND WITH REDUCTION OF SQUARE FOOTAGE ACCORDING TO ORDINANCE REQUIRmms.
Failed 2 -2 (Moyles and Mallory opposed).
MOYLES/MAIWRY MOVED TO SEND THE APPLICATION BACK TO THE PLANNING COO IISSION
WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD SUBMIT REVISED DRAWINGS CON -
SISTRNT WITH THE CURRENT DESIGN REVIEW ORDINANCE. Passed 4 -0.
Mayor Mallory then returned to items on the agenda preceding public hearings,
IV. PETITICNS, ORDINANCES, AND RESOLUTIONS (continued)
B. Petition from residents of Carnelian Glen Court requesting abandonment
Of equestrian easement
Ralph Rodriguez, Alex Manicucci, and Gary Hanson spoke in favor of the abandon-
ment as residents of Carnelian Glen Court, submitting photographs showing the
easement and its surroundings. Jim Omsberg then spoke as 'a representative of
Dividend Development Corporation, which owns lots 3 and 4 of the area. He
also favored abandoning the easement. Louise Schaefer spoke as a member of
the Planning Commission, recommending that the matter be referred to that body
and the Parks and Recreation Commission.
CONSENSUS TO RIFER MATTER TO PLANNING CCMMISSION, PARKS AND RECREATION M2,IIS-
SION, AND THE CEQR M PLAN PROCESS.
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes 8/11/82
UP -523 (cont.)
Page 4
r� I
Warren Jacobs n, representing One World Montessori, discussed Conditions
2 and 3 of th Staff Report regarding parking spaces and Building Site
Approval. Di cussion followed on the needed parking spaces for the
various uses nd staff. A possible alternative for parking spaces for
staff people, i.e., oil and screening, was discussed, and it was the
consensus tha this temporary parking could be provided without requir-
ing paving.
Commissioner S egfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
The Deputy City ttorney commented that the code section pertaining to
conditional use ermits allows the Planning Commission to vary require-
ments for parking He explained that if the Commission makes the inter-
pretation that fo purposes of the use permit they will allow the appli-
cant on a temporar basis to oil and screen the side area, a reasonable
interpretation cou d be made that it would not be paving and the appli-
cant would not need Building Site Approval. He suggested that a sentence
be added to Conditi n No. 2 to read: "The Planning Commission reserves
jurisdiction to review the parking, and if circumstances so require, to
direct that the parking area be paved and the applicant obtain Building
Site Approval at tha time." It was determined that Condition 3 would
be deleted.
It was also determine that the following conditions be added: "Noise
or traffic which cause severe safety or other problems in the neighbor-
hood shall not be permitted." "The approval of this use permit cancels
and supersedes UP- 510." "There shall be an 18 -month review of the use
permit."
Commissioner Siegfried m�ved to approve UP -523 per the Staff Report,
amended to include the above conditions. Commissioner Bolger seconded
the motion, which was car ied unanimously 5 -0.
S. UP -524 - Raymond Jacobsen, Request for Use Permit to construct a struc-
ture (solar panel ) over 6 ft. in height (12 ft. max.) in the
required rear yar at 14358 Old Wood Road in the R- 1- 40,000
zoning district 1
Staff described the proposal` Commissioner Nellis gave a report on his
on -site visit.
The public hearing was opened\at 9:37 p.m.
Mr. .Jacobsen, the applicant, Ave a representation on the proposal,
describing the neighbor's site \and visibility of the structure. Com-
missioner Crowther expressed co cern that there will be a major legal
problem created between the app icant and the neighbor by permitting
this structure to be located , lose to the property line. Staff
discussed the Solar Shade Act,
Siegfried moved to c111 ese the public hearing. Commissioner
Bolger seconded the motion, which w�s carried unanimously.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve UP -524, per the Staff Report
and Exhibits B and C. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion. Com-
missioner Crowther suggested a condition which requires appropriate
plantings that minimize the visible impact of the structure. Commis-
sioner Siegfried Nellis accepted that amendment. The motion was carried
unanimously 5 -0.
a. A_831.- Steve Scialabba, Request for Design Review and Variance Approval
6h. 9 - to construct a two -story addition to an existing one -story
structure which exceeds the maximum allowed floor area at 12501
Woodside Drive in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district
The project was described by Staff. They stated that they cannot make
all of the findings for the variance and recommend denial of the variance
and approval of the design review subject to deletion of the nonconforming
floor area. Commissioner Nellis gave a report on his on -site visit.
- 4 -
Planning Commission Page S
Meeting Minutes 8/11/82
A -331 and V -S89 (cont.)
The public hearing was opened at 9:54 p.m.
The applicant explained the project and referenced the letter from
his neighbor regarding rental of the property. He stated that he did
not intend to rent the property after the project is complete.
Commissioner Crowther commented that he was particularly concerned about
this application because there are no two -story homes directly adjacent
and because of the opposition of the neighbor. The applicant noted
that there were other two -story homes in the area.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
There was a consensus that the necessary five findings for the variance
could not be made. Commissioner Nellis moved to deny V -589, based on
the inability to make the findings. Commissioner Crowther seconded the
motion, which was carried unanimously 5 -0.
Discussion followed on the design review application and the ordinance.
It was noted to the applicant that there will be a joint meeting of the
City Council and Planning Commission in October, at which time the
Design Review Ordinance will be discussed. It was also noted that there
had been a consensus of the Commission at their last study session on
the ordinance to increase the range of discretion on Floor Area Ratio
to 20 %.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to deny A -831 without prejudice. Commis-
sioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was. carried unanimously S -0.
It was pointed out to the applicant that he has the options of appealing
to the City Council within 10 days, redesigning and deleting the square
footage that is covered by the variance, or reserving the present plan
until the ordinance is reviewed and revised.
7a. A -832 - Sloboden Galeb, Request for Variance and Design Review Approval
7b. V -S90 - to construct a single family dwelling which.exceeds the maximum
allowed floor area at 19143 Via Tesoro in the R -1- 40,000 zon-
ine district
Staff gave a report o the proposed project. They stated that they
could not make all of he necessary findings and are recommending
denial of the variance and approval of the design review subject to
deletion of the noncon orming square footage. Discussion followed on
the site plans under t e previous owner.
The public hearing was �pened at 10:12 p.m.
Marty Oakley, representAng Galeb Paving, appeared to answer any questions.
Ron Mancusso, 14330 Ches 't er Avenue, of the Emerald Hills Tesoro Home-
owners Association, stated that much planning had gone into this develop-
ment, and he felt that the ordinance, as far as this property is concerned,
should be maintained and respected.
It was the consensus that`a lot of study had been done on this site in
the past, and it should be continued to a study session to consider
the size and also the grading, tree removal, and amount of impervious
coverage. It was directed that this matter be continued to a study
session on August 17, 1982tand the regular meeting of august 25, 1982.
3a. A -833 - Walter Muir, Request for Design Review and Variance Approval
8b. V -S92 to construct a ones -story addition which exceeds the maximum
allowed floor area at 14156 Short Hill Ct. in the R- 1- 40,000
zoning district
Staff pointed out that the plans show that there is a second floor
framing plan for an attic, an� this has not been calculated into the
figures for floor area. They described the proposal, stating that they
could not make all of the findings and were recommending denial of the
variance and approval of the design review subject to deletion of the
nonconforming square footage.
- 5 -
F
RESO=ON N0. A-831-3
CITY OF SARATOGA PLAMNING Ca', IISSICN
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
'i FILL ha: A-831
NEMAIS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application
=.-for Design Review Approval of _ a two -story addition to an existing one -story
dwelling, at 12501 Woodside Drive and
•j ERFAS, the applicant - (has :not) met the burden of proof required to
support his said application,
- • MIN, THEZEFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that -after careful consideration of the site
--plan, architectural drawings, landscape plans and other exhibits submitted'in connec-
-- tion with this matter, the application of -•- STEVE SC IALAB &A ' •
:for Design Review Approval be and the same is hereby (grzntezl� (denied) subject to
the following conditions:
- � t
Per the Staff Report dated January 28, 1983 and
Exhibits "B" and "C
PASSED AIM ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Cam. fission, State of
-:.California, this 13th day of April. , 19 83-by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Hlava, Nellis, and Schaefer •
—NOES: Commissioners Siegfried and McGoldrick
:.ABSENT: Commissioners Bolger and Crowther
ir,;.irl, i uLU �yrr.:Ussion
ATTLS`.I`
cr- ctzt)•, ► aruunE lOimllssion
City of Saratoga
I have reviewed Mr. Scialabba's plans for the second story addition
to his home at 12501 Woodside dr. I have no objection to the
second story addition or the size of the addition.
/o C )I� o <
(Ly g5tly M41-14� /�-� I
C
Cj
C
RFECEIVED
TO: Planning Commission AUG 31982
City of Saratoga PERMIT REVIEW
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA. 95070
FROM: Mr. and Mrs. James C. Buchan
12553 Woodside Drive
Saratoga, CA. 95070
August 2, 1982
RE: Public Hearings on Wednesday, August 11, 1982
A -831, V -589 - Steve Scialabba (Woodside Dr. near Bellwood)
We wish to direct our comments to public hearing A -831, V -589 -
Steve Scialabba (Woodside Dr. near Bellwood). We ask that our letter
be included as a part of this public hearing and on public record.
We ask the Planning Commission to deny approval to construct a two -
story addition to the existing one -story structure at 12501 Woodside
Drive.
We object to the construction of a two -story addition at this ad-
dress because the owner of this structure does not reside at this
address. The structure at 12501 Woodside Drive is currently a rental
unit belonging to Steve Scialabba. We do not believe it is appropriate
for ar,.two -story addition to be constructed without the owner living on the
premises. There have also been problems recently with tenants in this
same structure causing neighborhood disturbances.
It is also our belief that a two -story addition does not fit in with
the general spirit and architecture of our neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Jam s C. Buchan
Susan C. Buchan
CODSENTS ON SCIALABBA AFTER CLOSE OF PUBLIC HEARING - 5/18/83
Fanelli: I felt there was ambivalence at Planning Commission hearing. Vote was 3 -2.
Square footage was only concern because it would have required variance under old
design review ordinance. No one appeared to oppose. In February, only opposition stated
by letter. We have letters in favor of it. I feel it is compatible. With economic
circumstances, people add to homes instead of moving. This is proper use of new design
review ordinance.
Moyles: I agree. I can make findings 3, 4, and 5. (Perception of excessive bulk and
compatibility.) Strongest indicateion is support of neighbors. If people who live
there don't see it, we don't need to look for objections. Ordinance change should not
become a strait jacket.
Clevenger: I asked neighbors, since they did not appear. They thought'it was good
idea to put on second story. In absence of protest, we should let him do it.
Shook: Staff had suggested that if Council approved there be two conditions -- requirement
of plan approval by Permit Review and no second story deck located as shown.
Mallory: I will vote against motion for same reasons as Nellis.
TIME:
PLACE:
TYPE:
AGENDA
ACTION
AGENDA BILL NO. 4
DATE:. May 18, 1983 -
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C.
C. Mgrl___-
APPEAL OF'SD -1509, PEACH HILL DEVELOPMENT -15840 PEACH HI ROAD (WITH
SUBJECT: ACCESS FROM SUNSET DRIVE) REQUEST FOR TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION APPROVAL -
--- - - - - -- 3 LQT 5 -------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Issue Summary
The Planning Commission approved a 3 lot subdivision on a 7.2 acre parcel be-
tween Peach Hill Road and Sunset Drive. Two adjacent County parcels were also
involved in the original application - one of which has been proposed for a lot
line adjustment to encompass- the existing house - but were withdrawn from the
current application. The approved access for the 3 lots was an extension of
Sunset Drive as a minimum access road of over 400'. The potential access for
the two County lots would be one onto Sunset and the existing residence onto
Peach Hill. Additional concerns also related to ownership of Sunset Drive
and the amount of grading. and height of retaining walls. It is Staff's position
that Sunset Drive is public right /way.A title insurance policy has been sub-
mitted as back up to this position. The retaining walls, to support the
roadway extension, are to 18' and 11' in height.
Recommendation
Uphold the Planning Commission decision.
Fiscal Impacts
l reWk
Exhibits /Attacim -ents
1. Appeal Letter
2. Staff Report, as revised dated 3/4/83
3. Planning Commission Minutes dated 3/23/83, 3/9/83, 2/9/83 and 12/8/82.
4. Exhibit B -7
5. Resolution SD- 1509 -1
6. Title Report
-7. Negative Declaration
8. Correspondence received on project
Council Action
and approve SD 1509
5/18: Fanelli /Moyles roved to deny appeal /with conditions set by Planning Commission. Passed
3 -2 (Clevenger, Mallory opposed).
Date Received:
Hearing Date:
Fee . a-) —
CITY USE ONLY
APPEAL APPLICATION
Name of Appellant: Asl-er C. Saes
Address: l q qlf% 15anse f /q9 -I- San sef �gg3o �Sunsc�
Telephone:nE�)
Name of Applicant: �rn auer-
o
Project File No.:
Project Address: ��� k4771
Project Description: ,3 kof
Decision Being Appealed: n;IroVet A-if Ce_-Is
Urn Sa h S 614' y pla h Yt x-g
Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached):
;6
Appellant's Sig
gat ure h�
*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
THE DATE OF THE DECISION.
f'
TO: The City Clerk
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
NOTICE OF APPEAL
RE: Subdivision - Peach Hill Development, Peach Hill Road
City File No. SD -1509
The below designated persons hereby appeal the March 23, 1983
decision of the City of Saratoga Planning Commission pertaining to:
(a) The approval of a Negative Declaration applicable to
Peach Hill Development (Tom Lauer) SD -1509; and
(b) The approval of the Peach Hill Development (Tom'Lauer)
Request For Tentative Subdivision for a three (3)
lot subdivision of a site at 15840 Peach Hill Road,
Saratoga, California.
The Appellants intend to challenge the findings by the Planning
Commission on matters contained in California GC §66473, 366473.5
or §66474, and pursue all grounds for appeal including but-.not
limited to the following specific items:
(1) The dangerous and adverse traffic conditions and road
design being permitted;
(2) The failure to divide access of the subdivision between
Peach Hill Road and Sunset Drive;
(3) The failure.to have the subdivision first obtain access
to the proposed subdivision from the County Planning
Commission of the County of Santa Clara;
(4) The failure of the subdivision to have access to Sunset
Drive as proposed by the Subdivider;
(5) The extensive excavation and imported fill being permitted
by the Subdivider; and
(6) The creation of a Cul de Sac in excess of ONE THOUSAND
EIGHT HUNDRED (1,800) FEET in violation of Saratoga City
Code §13.3 -4.
You are further re uested._to..,_.furnish all Notices pertaining to the
appeal to each of the A.ppellants at the addresses below set forth.
DATE;.,� March 31,, 19 8 3
LESTER G. SACHS
19941 Sunset Drive, Saratoga, CA
DR. CHAIDO KIM
19977 Sunset Drive, Saratoga, CA
DR. WILLIAM MOLINEUX
19930 Sunset Drive, Saratoga, CA
.. J
t
C C
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMIS$IQN 3/23/8
Revised 3/18/83
City of Sar o Revised 3/3/83
APPROVED QY DATE: 3/4/83
ti
DATE, Commission Meeting: 3/9/83
SUBJECT' SD -1509, Peach Hill Development - 15840 Peach Hill Road
Request for Tentative Subdivision Approval - 3 Lots
REQUEST: Applicant requests Tentative Subdivision Approval for 3 lots on a 7.2 acre
parcel between Peach Hill Road and Sunset Drive which requires an exception to allow
a cul -de -sac exceeding 400 ft. in length.
OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Design Review Approval
PLANNING DATA:
PARCEL SIZE: Lot, #1 - 3.2+ Ac., Lot #2 - 1.4± Ac., Lot #3 - 2.5± Ac.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Very Low Density Residential
ZONING: R -1- 40,000
SITE DATA:
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Low Density Residential
SITE SLOPE: 30.83%
AVERAGE SLOPES AT BUILDING SITE:
Lot 1: 14.4%
Lot 2: 9% to 23%
Lot 3: 17% to 24%
NATURAL FEATURES AND VEGETATION: The site ranges from gentle to steep hillside topography.
Numerous significant oaks, pines, cedars and acacia trees exist on the site along with
dense brush. Drainage swales are located along the eastern and western edges of the
property.
PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS:
HISTORY: The residence on the property is located on the City boundary and its loca-
tion has been the subject of litigation for several years. One objective of this
proposal is to "clean up" this situation. 64m
.a
1'
Report to Planning Commissin 3/4/83
SD -1509, Tom Lauer, Peach Hill Development - Peach Hill Rd. Page 2
GRADING REQUIRED: The proposal would place retaining walls up to 18' and 11' in height
along the minimum access road in order to save trees and minimize grading, and cross the
grade at Sunset Drive.
Locating the access road and residences on the site is difficult due to terrain and the
shape of the site.
RELATIONSHIP WITH ADJACENT STRUCTURES: The site is nearly surrounded by residential de-
velopments which have views onto the site across the swales.
CIRCULATION: Proposed access for the three (3) lots will be off of a minimum access road
from Sunset Drive, -kwith the development of an additional County lot (517- 23 -20), this would
create 4 lots on the minimum access road. The applicant has insured his title to Sunset Dr.
An emergency access connection between Sunset and Peach HIll is proposed with this map. I.
The cul -de -sac from Hume Drive is approximately 1500' and the distance form the proposed'
emergency access road to the cul -de -sac bulb is 520' (480' from the turnaround).
The improvement conditions recommended by the County are to be shown on the tentative
map.
GEOLOGY: A letter approving this tentative map by the applicant's geologist, has been
reviewed by the City Geologist and.he has recommended the map for your consideration.
ADDITIONAL CONCERNS OR COMMENTS: The applicant has submitted slope density calculations
as follows:
City Parcel - R -1- 40,000
Site Size: 7.21 Acres
Slope: 30.83%
1
1.089 - .01778S
= 1.489 acres /dwelling unit
= 3.899 rounding up to 4 units
By current slope density formulas, the subject site is allowed to be subdivided into a
maximum of 4 lots.
COMMENT: If the Commission wishes to deny the map, it needs to make one or more of the
following findings:
(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.
Report to Planning Commission 3/4/83
SD -1509, Peach Hill Development - Peach Hill Rd. Page 3
(c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.
(d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of
development.
(e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely
to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
(f) That the design of the subdivision or type of improvement 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:
The Staff Report recommends approval, per the following findings and- conditions:
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. There are special cir-
cumstances (the physical terrain and shape of the parcel) affecting the property which
allow the Planning Commission to grant exception to Section 13.3 -4 of the Subdivision
Ordinance. Granting this exception will not be materially detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which said
subdivision is located. The map, as provided, is the only feasible method of developing
the property for the use for which it is zoned.
A Negative Declaration was prepared and will be filed with the County of Santa Clara
Recorder's Office relative to the environmental impact of this project, if approved
under this application. Said determination date: March 3, 1982
Any approval of the tentative map for SD -1509 (Exhibit "B -7" filed March 18, 1983) should
be subject to the following conditions:
I. GENERAL CONDITIONS
A. Comply with Standard Engineering Conditions dated April 11, 1977.
B. Comply with the Conditions of the Transportation Agency letter dated 2/22/83
and obtain necessary County permits (after review and approval by the City)
prior to Final Approval for work done within County jurisdiction, i.e.,
grading, encroachment, improvement plans).
II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
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 and recordation fees).
C. Dedicate 20 ft. Half - Street on Peach Hill Road and Sunset Avenue.
Report to Planning Commission 3/4/83
SD -1509, Peach Hill Development - Peach Hill Rd. Page 4
D. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide easement as required.
E. Improve Peach Hill Road to City Standards including the following:
(Deferred Improvement Agreement)
1. Designed Structural Section 13 ft. between centerline and flowline.
2. P.C. Concrete Curb and Gutter (R -36)
3. Undergrounding existing overhead utilities.
F. Construct storm drainage system as shown on the "Master Drainage Plan" and
as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey storm runoff to
street, storm sewer or watercourse, including the following:
1. Storm Sewer Trunks with necessary manholes.
2. Storm Sewer Laterals with necessary manholes.
3. Storm Drain Inlets, Outlets, Channels, etc.
G. Construct Access Road 18 ft. wide plus 1 ft. shoulders using 22 inches asphalt
concrete on 6 inch aggregate base from public street to within 100 ft. of
proposed dwelling. Slope of access road shall not exceed 15% without adhering
to the following:
1. Access roads having slopes between 15% and 172% shall be surfaced using
4 inches of P.C.C. Concrete rough surfaced using 4 inch Aggregate Base.
Slopes in excess 15% shall not exceed 50 ft. in length.
2. Access roads having slope in excess of 172% are not permitted.
Note: °The minimum inside curve radius shall be 42 ft.
°Bridges and other roadway structures shall be designed to
sustain 35,000 lbs. dynamic loading.
°Storm runoff shall be controlled through the use of culverts
and roadside ditches.
H. Construct turnaround having 32 ft. radius or approved equal within 100 ft.
of proposed dwelling.
I. Construct Standard Driveway Approach.
J. Construct "Valley Gutter" across driveway or pipe culvert under driveway
as approved by the Director of Community Development.
K. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required
at driveway and access road intersections.
L. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or
prevent flow.
M. Protective planting required on roadside cuts and fills.
c Repot to Planning Commission 3/4/83
SD -1509, Peach Hill Development - Peach Hill Rd. Page 5
N. Obtain Encroachment Permit from the Dept. of Community Development for
driveway approaches or pipe crossings of City Street.
0. Engineered Improvement Plans required for:
1. Street Improvements
2. Storm Drain Construction
3. Access Road Construction
P. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement Plans.
Q. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed
within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval.
R. Enter into "Deferred Improvement Agreement" for the required improvements
marked "D.I.A."
S. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements.
III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DIVISION.OF INSPECTION SERVICES.
I. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional
a) Geology
b) Soils
c) Foundation
2. Plans to be reviewed by geotechnical consultant prior to building permit
being issued.
3. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing:
a) Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross - sections, existing and
proposed elevations, earthwork quantities).
b) Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etc.)
c) Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for walls 3 feet
or higher.
d) All existing structures, with notes as to remain or be removed.
e) Erosion control measures
f) Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using record
data, location map, north arrow, sheet nos., owner's name, etc.
4. Grading shall conform to the Grading Ordinance and Section 3B.8(d)
cut and fill slopes of the Zoning Regulations.
5. Maximum height of retaining walls shall be 5 feet except where specifically
approved by the Planning Commission.
Report to Planning Commission
SD -1509 - Peach Hill Development,
Peach Hill Rd.
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4
3/4/83
Page 6
A. Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance with requirements
of Sanitation District No. 4 as outlined in letter dated November 18, 1982.
V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT
A. Property is located in a potentially hazardous fire area. Prior to issuance
of building permit, remove combustive vegetation as specified. Fire retardant
roof covering and chimney spark arrestor details shall be shown on the building
plan. (City Ordinance 38.58 and Uniform Fire Code, Appendix E).
B. Construct driveway 14 ft. 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
22 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 surfaced on 4 inch aggregate base
and shall not exceed 50 ft. in length.
3. Driveways with greater slopes or longer length will not be accepted.
C. Construct a turnaround at the proposed dwelling sites having a 32 ft. inside
radius. Other approved type turnaround must meet requirements of the Fire
Chief. Details shall be shown on building plans.
D. Provide a parking area for two (2) emergency vehicles at proposed building
site, or as required by the Fire Chief. Details shall be shown on building
plans.
E. Extension of existing water system adjacent to site is required for fire pro-
tection. Plans to show location of water mains and fire hydrants.
F. Fire hydrants in all hazardous fire areas as designed pursuant to Section
6 -2.42 of the Saratoga City Code shall be located so that no part of any
residential structure shall be further than five hundred feet (500') from
at least one (1) hydrant and the fire protection system shall be so designed
and charged with water under pressure so that each hydrant for residential
fire protection shall deliver no less than 1,000 gpm of water. Water storage
or other availability shall be such that for any one hydrant of the system,
the 1,000 gpm minimum shall be maintained for a sustained period of two hours
(Ordinance No. 60.4).
G. Provide 15 foot clearance over the road or driveway (vertical) to building
site. Remove all limbs, wires or other obstacles.
H. Developer to install two (2) hydrants that meet Saratoga and Fire District's
specifications. Hydrant to be installed prior to issuance of building permits.
Report to Planning Commission 3/4/83
SD -1509 - Peach Hill Development, Peach Hill Road Page 7
I. Construct passing turnouts 10 feet wide and 40 feet long as required
by Fire Department. Details shall be shown on building plans.
VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers installed 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.
C. Existing spring to be abandoned and existing septic tank to be pumped and
backfi,lled to County Standards. A $400 bond to be posted to insure com-
pletion of work.
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.
VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PERMIT REVIEW DIVISION
A. House locations and driveway designs to be reviewed and approved by Saratoga
Fire District.
B. Public Hearing 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 re-
viewed by the Planning Department to evaluate the potential for solar accessi-
bility. The developer shall provide, to the extent feasible, for future
passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities on /in the subdivision/
building site.
E. Design Review Approval for any retaining walls over 3' in height prior to
Final Approval.
*F. Residence on Lot No. 1 shall be removed prior to Final Map Approval. If,
however, adjacent lot is annexed to the City and lot line adjustment is
approved, the existing residence shall be allowed to remain.
*G. Applicant shall submit a revised tentative map for Staff review and approval
(prior to Final Map Approval or any extensions), showing a scenic easement on
Lots 1 and 2 on all that property east of the road, and on Lot 3 from approxi-
mately the center of the creek up to the easterly and northerly portions of the
property. ,
Approved:
Kathy:Kerdus i
Planner
KK /dsc
Attachments
County of Santa Clara
California -
February 22, 1983
N FJ ;
Ms. Kathy Kerdus
Planner PLUII REVIEW
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Subject: Peach Hill Development
Peach Hill Road
City file No: SD -1509
Dear Ms. Kerdus:
Transportation Agency
1555 Berger Drive
San Jose, California 95112
Your Janaury 28, 1983 letter along with the Tentative Map entitled Peach
Hill Development and addressed to Mr. Jim Sirr, Land Development Engineering
and Surveying was received by us on February 8, 1983. We have reviewed the
referral and our comments and recommendations are as follows:
Please note that our comments and recommendations related to that portion
of the proposed subdivision within the County's jurisdiction.
1. Dedication and Improvements:
A. Dedicate 30 ft. half street for the site's frontage along Peach Hill
Road. All rights -of -way to be curvilinear.
B. Submit street and drainage improvement plans and construct 30 ft. half
_ street for the site's frontage along Peach Hill Road per Detail A/8
(collector streets) of the 1982 Standard Details Manual.
C. Install driveway approach per 1982 Detail B/5 at the site's access on
Peach Hill Road if access road is to be a private roadway.
If the extention of'Sunset Drive is planned to be a public roadway the
following dedication and improvement are required:
A. 42 feet radius turn around and a 60 feet right -of -way for Sunset Drive
extension. All rights -of -way to be curvilinear.
B. Submit street and drainage improvement plans and construct street and
drainage improvements for Sunset Drive extension and turnaround at the
terminus per Detail A/6 (for the turnaround) and Detail A/8 (for
the extension) of the 1982 Standard Details Manual.
C. Obtain encroachment permit and install driveway approach per Detail
B/2 (without sidewalk) for access to each parcel to be served by new
improvements.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
.f
c
Ms. Kathy Kerdus
February 22, 1983
Page 2
D. If the extension of Sunset Drive as shown on-the Tentative Map is to
be improved to private road status, then dedicate and improve a
standard turnaround at the end of the County maintained portion of
Sunset Drive.
E. For the requirements of improving roadways to private road status,
Land Development Engineering and Surveying should be contacted.
F. Obtain encroachment and /or construction permit from the County.
G. Enter into Land Development improvement agreement and submit
accompanying bonds fees and related documents.
2. Drainaqe:
Show that the site has positive drainage based upon the County Drainage
Manual. Submit drainage calculations that demonstrate that the surface runoff
from the site is carried to an acceptable outfall of adequate capacity.
Drainage Design to be in conformance with the County Master Storm Drainage Plan
and the 1982 Standard Details Manual.
3. Retaining Walls: (Reference Engineer's Feb. 15, 1983 letter)
Conceptually, we have no objection to the use of the Reinforced Earth
Retaining Walls Within the right- of -kav of Sunset Drive and Peach Hill Road
provided the following conditions are met:
A. Submit a Soils /Geotechnical Report substantiating the foundation and
wall design of the Retaining Wall.
B. A recommendation from the Engineer regarding the need to provide
Filter fabric on the inside surface of the Rataining Wall to prevent
loss of material due to-high water infilteration.
C. It is recommended that to insure life of steel straps used in the
Reinforced Earth Retaining Wall, corrossive properties of soil and
water should be tested and precautionary measures should be taken.
D. This is only a conceptual approval and the applicant's Engineer should
submit detailed design calculations, soils /geotechnical report, plans
and specifications for our review and approval along with reproducible
tracing of plans for our files.
E. Additional comments may be made after we review detailed plans.
Ms. Kathy Kerdus
February 22, 1983
Page 3
Note: Per letter of February 15, 1983 the Engineer has subrnitted
additional information regarding the Retaining walls for the subject
development. We have not yet finished the review of the Engineers'
submittal. We will send a copy of our response to the Engineer's
submittal to the City of Saratoga.
If you have any questions, please call me at 299 -2362.
Very truly yours,
ASHOK VYAS
Transportation Engineer
AV:kk
cc: Mr. Jack N. Christenson. Project Engineer
Jim Sirr, LDE & S, EMA
JHW/JRR
RMS
RGH
VVI
William Cokon
and Associates
Kathy Kerdus, Associate Planner
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
SUBJECT: Lauer, SD 1509
Dear Kathy:
GEOTECHNICAL Ck.-ATANTS
314 Tait Avenue, Los Gatos, California 95030
(408) 354 -5542
March 18, 1983
MAR 16 1983
PERMIT REVIEW
At your request, we have.completed a geologic review of the subject
application using the.following documents:
- Tentative Map (40- scale) prepared by C.B. Engineering, Inc., dated
May 1982 and revised as recently as March 3, 1983, and
- Revised Grading Plan Review (letter) prepared by P.S.C. Associates,
Inc. dated March 3, 1983.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION
The Tentative Map has been recently revised to show the ,;-���,os ?d three
parcel subdivision. While the configuration, and number of lots has been
revised, the proposed grading and building sites have not changed significantly.
Our review of the referenced map indicates that the concerns raised in our
most recent review (February 18, 1983) have been addressed satisfactorily.
In addition, the applicant's geotechnical consultants have reviewed the
referenced map and determined that it is in general conformance with their
recommendations. Considering the above, we recommend approval of the
Tentative Map with the following conditions:
I. Geotechnical Plan Review - The applicant's geotechnical consultants
shall review an approve the geotechnical aspects of the development
plans (i.e. grading, drainage, foundation, retaining wall, etc.).
A letter describ;ng the results of these reviews should be submitted
to the City to be reviewed by the City Engineer and Geologist prior
to Final Map approval.
2. Geotechnical Field Inspection -• The applicant's geotechnical consul-
tants sa 1 pry - ?cie testing and inspection services for all future
earthwork opera�-icns. These services shall include, but not necess-
arily be lirn-ic-�d to testing, inspection and approval of all site
preparation :;.:,,,I grading, site drainage, excavations for residential
foundati,:,ii; - I - taining s prior to the placement of concrete
or steel, and utility trench backfilling.
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES • FOUNDATION ENGINEERING
Lauer, SO 1509
Page 2
Prior to final approval of the project, the applicant's geotechnical
consultants shall submit a report and map describing the results of their
inspections and the as -built conditions of the project.
Respectfully submitted,
WILLIAM(AM COTTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
William R. Cotton
City Geologist
CEG 882
William Cotton and Associates
R L 4
AL VA
VII
William Cokon
and Associates
Kathy Kerdus, Associate Planner
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
SUBJECT: LAUER, SD 1509
GEOTECHNICAL dALTANTS
314 Tait Avenue, Los Gatos, California 95030
(408) 354 -5542
February 18, 1983
RECEIVED
FEz3 2 2 1 � 9! i3,3'
P .RIvIIT REVIEW
At your request we have completed a geologic review of the subject applica-
tion using the following documents:
.Tentative Map (40- scale) prepared by C. B. Engineering, Inc.
dated May 1982 and revised as recently as January 14, 1983;
• Private Road Cross - Sections (5- scale) prepared by C. B. Engi-
neering, Inc. dated January 31, 1983; and
• Revised Grading Plan Review (letter) prepared by PSC Associates,
Inc. dated February 8, 1983.
DISCUSSION
Our review of the referenced Tentative Map indicates that significant revisions
have been incorporated into the overall design and layout of the subdivision.
While the number of proposed lots (six) has not changed, the configuration
and location of the proposed lots, building sites, driveways and the private
road have been modified. The presently proposed plan indicates that grading
and the use of retaining walls will be less extensive than proposed on previous
plans.
Our.review of the referenced revised grading plan review by PSC Associates, Inc.
indicates that the project geotechnical consultants have reviewed the currently
proposed Tentative Map. The consultants have concluded that the proposed grading
in general, conforms to the recommendations presented in their Soil and Geologic
Investigation, provided the recommendations outlined in their letter of Feb-
ruary 8, 1983 are incorporated into the plans. To facilitate this task, the
geotechnical consultants have summarized these recommendations on a lot to lot
basis (Table 1, Revised Grading Plan Review).
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION
The Tentative Map reviewed by our office is in general conformance with the
geotechnical recommendations presented by the applicant's consultants in their
Soil and Geologic Investigation dated January 26, 1982. The recommendations
in the referenced Revised Grading Plan Review, however, have not been incor-
porated into the Tentative Map. In addition, we have noted the following items
which should be addressed prior to Tentative Map approval.
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES • FOUNDATION ENGINEERING
City of Saratoga
February 18, 1983
Page 2
Lot 1 - Suitable erosion protection (eg. rip rap) has not been
shown for the outlet and inlet and outlet of two storm
drains located along the access road extending from
Sunset Avenue northeast of the proposed building site.
Lot 4 - Erosion protection is not shown for the storm drain out-
let in the steep -sided drainage swale south of the pro-
posed building site. In addition, the proposed fill in
this swale southwest of the proposed building site does
not have a subdrain.
Lot 6 - Suitable erosion protection is not shown for the proposed
storm drain outlet north of the proposed building site.
In addition,.it should be noted that erosion protection measures are not shown
for the portion of the extension of Sunset Avenue which crosses the major
drainage swale east of the subject property.
While the items outlined above, and the recommendations in the letter by PSC
Associates, Inc. dated February 8, 1983 are, in general, fairly minor issues,
it is our judgement, that they should be incorporated into the plans and /or
addressed prior to City approval of the Tentative Map. Consequently, the
applicant's geotechnical consultant should address the issues raised herein,
and the resulting recommendations, along with those in the PSC Associates
letter of February 8, 1983 should be incorporated into the Tentative Map.
The revised Tentative Map should be reviewed and approved by the applicant's
geotechnical consultants.
Prior to Tentative Map approval, the revised map and a letter from the appli-
cant's geotechnicalconsultants, stating that the map reflects all of their
recommendations, should be submitted to the City for review and approval by
the City Engineer and Geologist.
WRC:jw
Respec tfu i i y subm-i i.ted,
WILLIAM COTTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
�� 1-� 9 ��
William R. Cotton
City Geologist
CEG 882
William Cotton and Associates
William Cotton
and Associates
TO: Kathy Kerdus, Associate Planner
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
GEOTECHNICAL XALTANTS
314 Tait Avenue, Los Gatos, California 95030
(408) 354 -5542
December 7, 1982
SUBJECT: Peach Hill Development, SD 1509
At your request we have completed a geologic review of the subject
application using the following documents:
• Tentative Map, Peach Hill Development (40- scale) prepared by
C. B. Engineering, Inc. dated May 1982 and revised as recently as
October 12, 1982
• Grading Plan Review (letter) prepared by PSC Associates, Inc.,
dated November 30, 1982.
In addition, we have reviewed a number of technical maps and reports
which were previously submitted for this application.
DISCUSSION
Our review of the referenced Tentative Map indicates that significant
revisions have been incorporated into the overall design of the sub-
division. The currently proposed plan makes extensive use of retaining
walls up to nine (9) feet in height, for support of the access roadway
and driveways. Previously submitted plans included extensive grading, and
utilization of the retaining walls presently proposed will significantly
reduce the height of cut slopes and areal extent of grading. The present
plan utilizes minimal fills for the access road and driveways. Most of
the proposed fills are where roadways cross natural swales. In addition,
a few sliver fills (supported by retaining walls) are proposed for portions
of the access road and driveways.
While the number of proposed lots (six) has not changed, the configuration
of the lots and the locations and proposed grading for individual building
sites have been modified somewhat from previous plans. The present
configuration of the lots is generally the same as on previous plans;
however, the lot line between Lot 1 and Lot 2 has been moved so that the
building site for Lot 1 is on the ridge south of Lot 2 rather than in the
swales. This adjustment has required that the building site for Lot 2
be moved downslope to the northeast. All of the presently proposed building
sites are located on proposed cut slopes and some extend onto the adjacent
natural slopes. Most of the building sites, with the exception of Lot 1,
are within a few tens of feet of previously proposed building locations.
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES • .FOUNDATION ENGINEERING
Peach Hill Develop' .t, SO 1509
' Page 2
The building site for Lot 1 was previously located in a swale area which
was to be filled in order to create a relatively level pad. As previously
pointed out, however, the building site has been relocated and the fill has
been limited to that which is necessary for the access driveway.
Our review of the Plan Review (letter ) by PSC Associates indicates that
they have reviewed the referenced Tentative Map and find it to be in
general agreement with their recommendations provided the comments contained
in the letter are incorporated into the development plans. The consultants
indicate that their review was primarily a review of the proposed grading,
and they have made additional recommendations for control of drainage in
the areas to be graded. The consultants indicate that previously submitted
preliminary design parameters for residential foundations should be appro-
priate for the proposed building sites; however, they indicate that these
recommendations are subject to review and modification during grading. In
addition, the consultants indicate that the extensive use of retaining
walls may require additional investigations in order to formulate detailed -
design parameters.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION
In our opinion, the referenced Tentative Map is in general conformance with
the geotechnical recommendations supplied by PSC Associates. Additionally,
the map has been reviewed by PSC Associates, and they have concluded that
it is in general agreement with their recommendations provided the items
outlined in their review letter are incorporated into the development plans.
The extensive use of retaining walls in the project will require additional
geotechnical investigations to formulate detailed design parameters, and
these investigations will be required prior to approval of the Final Map.
In addition, all future earthwork operations will need to be closely
monitored by both the geotechnical consultants and the City. Consequently,
we recommend approval of the Tentative Map with the following conditions:
1. Supplemental Geotechnical Investigations - The applicant's
geotechnical consultants should conduct additional geotechnical
investigations (field and laboratory) to provide the necessary
data to assure a soundly designed project. These investigations
should address, but not necessarily be restricted to providing
detailed design parameters for retaining walls and the supporting
data. The results of the supplemental studies should be submitted
to the City to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and
Geologist prior to Final Map approval.
2. Geotechnical Plan Review - The applicant's geotechnical consultants
shall review and approve the geotechnical aspects of the development
plans (i.e. grading, drainage, foundation, retaining walls, etc.).
A letter, describing the results of these reviews should be sub-
mitted to the City, and reviewed by the City Engineer and Geologist
prior to Final Map approval.,
William Cotton and Associates
Peach Hill
Page 3
Developilk..nt, SD 1509
3. Geotechnical Field Inspections - The applicant's geotechnical
consultants shall inspect and approve all future earthwork
operations. The inspections shall include but not necessarily
be limited to; site preparation and grading, site drainage,
excavations for retaining walls and residential foundations prior
to placement of steel and concrete and utility trench backfilling.
Prior to final approval of the project, the applicant's geotechnical
consultants shall submit a report and map describing the results of the
inspection and the as -built conditions of the project.
Respectfully submitted,
William R. Cotton
City Geologist
CEG 882
William Cotton and Associates
a
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
DATE: Wednesday, March 23, 1983 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
Roll Call
Present: Commissioners Hlava, McGoldrick, Nellis, Schaefer and Siegfried
(Commissioner Siegfried arrived at 7:45 p.m.)
Absent: Commissio ers Bolger and Crowther
Minutes
Commissioner Nellis m ved to waive the reading of the minutes of March 9, 1983
and approve as distri uted. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was
carried unanimously.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Dr. Head, 14684 Pike Road, Request for Site Modification to construct a
structure on a site o over 10% in slope
Commissioner Nellis moved �o approve the item on the Consent Calendar listed
above. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously
4 -0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2a. Negative Declaration - SD \1509 - Peach Hill Development (Lauer
Peach Hill Development (Tom Lauer), Request for Tentative Sub-
division Approval for a 3 -lot subdivision for a site at 15840
Peach Hill Road
Chairman Schaefer gave the history of the project, citing the issues. Staff
described the proposal, pointing out that if the Commission approves the pro-
ject they would have to make an exception relative to the length of the cul -de-
sac.
The public hearing was opened at 7:35 p.m.
Dr. Molineux, Sunset Drive, representing three neighbors, raised the issue of
ownership of Sunset Drive. The Deputy City Attorney indicated that Staff is
of the opinion that it is a public road and was dedicated to and accepted by
the County. He added that it would remain a County road unless that property
in the future was annexed to the City. Dr. Molineux stated that he had a letter
a, from the County, dated 1963, refusing to maintain the road. Dr. Molineux was
:} s requested to give a copy of that letter to the Deputy City Attorney.
1•,Dr. Kim, 19977 Sunset Drive, addressed the following issues: (1) safety aspect
regarding access on Sunset, (2) the dedication of Sunset, (3) maintaining and
possible failure of the Sunset extension walls, and (4) geological conditions
of two of the lots.
Bill Elving, Peach Hill Road, described Peach Hill Road as a very narrow
winding road and stated that Sunset is the more appropriate access.
Daryl Dukes, Peach Hill Road, agreed and discussed the traffic on Peach Hill.
Joan Bose, Peach Hill, agreed with the two previous speakers, adding that
another house on Peach Hill would impact her privacy. She also inquired about
the ordinance relative to ham radio aerials and discs. It was determined that
the Commission will review that subject at a future study session.
Robert Dale, Peach Hill, addressed the safety factor relating to access on
Peach Hill.
ca-
Planning Commission < Page 2
Meeting Minutes 3/23/33
SD -1509 (cont.)
Martin Messinger, Peach Hill, stated that Peach Hill Road is at the saturation
point now relative to traffic.
Jack Zaches, Peach Hill, discussed the safety of the children on that road.
The Deputy City Attorney addressed the two lots in the County, explaining that
they are existing lots of record, but a development proposal was not approved
by the County. He commented that the review at this time by the County is in
connection with this application and specifically the road. He indicated that
the applicant's original intention had been to annex those two lots, but that
procedure is now on hold because of other legal complications involving the
County.
Lester Sachs, Sunset Drive, discussed the traffic and safety aspects of both
Sunset and of Peach Hill. He commented that the residents were asking for, as
a compromise, a total development of 4 homes instead of 5, with 2 lots off of
Sunset and an additional home off of Peach Hill. He questioned the ownership
of Sunset Drive, indicating that the acceptance of the dedication refers to
Map Book N, page 47, which is in fact an acceptance of a dedication of Sunset
Drive in the City of Los Altos, not in Saratoga. Mr. Sachs submitted a packet
with this material and other letters referencing the dedication. He also noted
that there is a 50 -70 ft. area on parcel 30 that is actually not connected to
Sunset Drive, and it is still their position that the applicant does not have
direct access. He added that they feel that there should be an Environmental
Impact Report on the project because of (1) traffic, (2) neighborhood objec-
tion, and (3) substantial amount of grading. Mr. Sachs also asked that there
be a coordinated hearing with the County on this project in order to have con-
sistency.
Chairman Schaefer stated that a Negative Declaration had been prepared instead
of an EIR because it is felt that the problems with this.development can be
alleviated by mitigating measures. She cited the various mitigating conditions
in the Staff Report.
The Deputy City Attorney commented that they had reviewed the maps and there
has been an endorsement from a. title company which addresses the issue of
access; therefore, they would stand by the opinion that the applicant does have
access to Sunset. He suggested that if Mr. Sachs has any doubt on the access
issue he should meet with the City Attorney's office so that his arguments can
be reviewed in more detail. He added that the Commission could add a condition
in the tentative map, if approved, that satisfactory evidence of access be
given.
Discussion followed on the procedure to be used to avoid having the City get
in a posture of having to condemn property in order to get access if it is
found that the applicant does not have access to Sunset. The Deputy City
Attorney stated that it could be conditioned that no building permits could
be issued for the development of any lots until the access to those lots has
been established to the Commission's satisfaction. Staff commented that it
might be more appropriate to condition the approval on the verification of
access, since recent changes in the Subdivision Map Act indicate that a final
map should not be denied simply because of the lack of access that was shown
at the time of approval of the tentative map, and that the jurisdiction is then
placed in that position of acting in the condemnation or providing that access
at the expense of the builder.
Mr. Lauer, the applicant, commented that he has provided the information from
the title company, as previously requested by Mr. Sachs. He added that he
intends to annex the remaining two parcels as soon as possible and would like
the Commission to give him the alternative of annexing the property where the
existing house is and adjusting the lot line.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Siegfried commented on the DiManto property which had previously
been approved. He explained that it is a rather unusual piece of property
because of some of the rock work and work that had been done historically over
many years. In approving that map the Commission in fact approved two minimum
access roads, one over 1400 ft. and one approximately 1000 ft. in length. Ile
added that in fact those roads could have been connected, either by an emergency
- 2 -
.'Planiting Commission / Page 3
Meeting Minutes 3/23/83 l
SD -1509 (cont.)
access or a through road. He explained that the Commission agreed that the
property was so unique: that they were willing to approve those two very long
minimum access roads and not opt for any through construction to preserve
all the work that had been done. Commissioner Siegfried added that this is
a different situation because, while Sunset is some considerable length, the
applicant has proposed an emergency access to Peach Hill which is not a
through road but would be there as a form of emergency access. Therefore,
that leaves the issue of the cul -de -sac from that point to the end, which in
fact exceeds the 400 ft. requirement by approximately 80 feet. fie stated that
he feels that the finding can be made that that 80 ft. deviation from the
requirement, given t11e emergency access, is not a problem. He commented that,
relative to Dr. Kim's concerns, there are detailed conditions required for the
road construction and any street improvements that meet those concerns. He
added that the applicant is allowed 4.1ots on this property under the ordi-
nance; he could not have voted for 4 but is prepared to vote tonight for the
approval of 3 lots accessing off of Sunset, with no additional access off of
Peach Hill because it cannot take any additional access from this subdivision,
other than the emergency access.
Commissioner McGoldrick stated that she has a problem with the retaining walls
and the fact that the road splits the property on the 3 lots into two sections.
She commented that she is influenced at this time by the rain and the property
damage and could approve 2 lots off of Sunset, but could not vote for 3.
Commissioner Nellis indicated that he could support the 3 lots with access
totally off of Sunset, since he feels that the Doint has been well made that
Peach Hill is a very winding curvy road. He added that he can make the find-
ings necessary for the exception to the cul -de -sac.
Commissioner Hlava agreed that she does not feel it is appropriate to put more
homes accessing on.Peach Hill. She also agreed with Commissioner McGoldrick
that there is a definite problem with the Sunset access because of the high
retaining walls. However, she added, whether there are 2 houses or 3 houses
approved, the same access has to be built and the 3 building lots that are
there do seem to be appropriate. She commented that she would like to see a
condition that all of the property on the bottom side of the road where there
is no building be put into a scenic easement, not only as a buffer for the
neighbors but also to prevent any further building there. She added that she
feels the Sunset access question should be a condition in the tentative map.
Commissioner Schaefer stated that she was here in two roles, one as a neighbor
and the other as a Commissioner. She commented that subjectively as a neigh-
bor there is no question she would want only 2 lots accessing on Sunset because
the traffic is going to affect her. However, her role as a Commissioner must
overrule her feelings, and she does not see any legal reason why she could
deny having 3 lots. She added that she feels that consideration has been given
to the geological problems and the process, and she feels that people have a
right to develop individual property if an appropriate job in building it is
done. Therefore, she would vote for 3 lots off of Sunset, with conditions
addressing the scenic easement, the access, and annexation and a lot line
adjustment. Discussion followed on a condition for the lot line problem.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve the Negative Declaration on SD- 1509,
referencing the reasons previously given by Chairman Schaefer as to why a
Negative Declaration is appropriate. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion,
which was carried 4 -1, with Commissioner McGoldrick dissenting.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve SD -1509, per the revised Staff Report
and Exhibit B -7, subject to the following additional conditions: (1) The
applicant shall develop and submit a map, subject to Staff approval, showing
a scenic easement on Lots 1 and 2 on all that property of the parcel east of the
road, and on Lot 3 a scenic easement approximately from the center of the creek
up to the easterly and northerly portions of the property; (2) The residence on
Lot No. 1 shall be removed prior to Final Map Approval. If, however, adjacent
lot is annexed to the City and a lot line adjustment is approved, the existing
residence shall remain, and (3) At the time of recording of the Final Map the
City shall still be satisfied that there is public access on Sunset to the lot
lines.
Discussion followed on the wording of the condition regarding access. It was
determined that the approval would be granted on the basis that a condition
be properly worded to carry out the intent of the Commission that the tentative
- 3 -
.Plagming Commission r
Meeting Minutes 3/23/83
SD -1509 (cont.)
Page 4
map shall be void if public access from Sunset is not provided by the developer
to the lot line, so that it does not become the City's problem if the access
is not there.
Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion to approve SD -1509. The motion was
carried 4 -1, with Commissioner McGoldrick dissenting.
After the break which followed the Deputy City Attorney clarified that the
approval per se of the map for SD -1509 was conditioned upon Staff being
satisfied and reporting back to the Commission on the issue of access. He
stated that he had requested the developer to obtain a copy of the documents
submitted by Mr. Sachs and the City Attorney's office will review them and
report back to the Commission at the next meeting. Therefore, the access
would not be a condition of the tentative map, which would get the City into
the situation of possibly having to condemn a road, but the approval of the
map as a whole is conditioned upon the access problem being resolved.
Break - 10:15 - 10:35 p.m.
3. A -852 - Tho as Whitney, 14880 Sobey Road, Request for Design Review Approval
to c nstruct a second -story addition to a one -story single family
dwel ing in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district (near Springbrook Lane)
It was directed t at this matter be continued to the meeting of April 13, 1983.
4. GPA- 83 -1 -A - C nsideration of Draft Housing Element of the City of Saratoga
a d Environmental Impact Report
The public hearing vas opened at 10:35 p.m.
Andy Beverett noted that many of the senior citizens had left the meeting
because of the late, s of the hour, and he suggested that he give his comments
at a future hearing o this matter. Staff noted the dates of the scheduled
meetings on this matt r. It was directed that it be continued to the meeting
of April 13, 1983.
S. A -861 - Gerald But er, Lot #4, Tract 6632, Montalvo Road, Request for
Design Rev ew Approval to construct a two - :story single family
dwelling in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district (near Lira Drive)
Staff described the pro osal. They noted that there has been no unauthorized
removal of ordinance siz trees from the site. Commissioner Siegfried gave a
Land Use Committee repor , indicating that they had discussed the possibility
of moving the home slight y in the easterly direction to increase the setback
on the westerly side, thu increasing the area of parking and access to the
garage. Commissioner Hla a expressed concern regarding the cypress tree because
of the curve of the drive Y.
The public hearing was opened at 10:40 p.m.
The applicant stated that h had moved the driveway to the side of the house
because of the wishes of th neighbors. However, he felt he could move it
slightly to save both of the trees in that area.
Dr. Donald Call, representin the Montalvo Homeowners Association, expressed
concern regarding (1) the s of the home on a small lot, (2) the fact that
it is a spec home, and (3) se •t ing a precedent for massivehomes in that area.
Mrs. Marino, who lives one lot away from the proposed home, spoke against the
large size and the fact that it1is a spec home. The size of the houses and the
lots in that area were discussed.
Alma Arata, 20400 Hill, spoke against the project, addressing the area and
existing homes.
Fred King, 15159 Montalvo, pointed out that the Commission had denied both of
the applicant's developments because of traffic, and he feels this large home
would produce more cars in the are
Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner 11lava
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Further discussion followed on the s \ze of the homes in the area and the
- 4 -
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
DATE: Wednesday, March 9, 1983 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - --
ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
Roll Call
Present: Commissi ners Bolger, Hlava, McGoldrick, Nellis, Schaefer and Siegfried
Absent: Commissi, er Crowther
Minutes
The following changes were made to the minutes of February 23, 1983: On page
2, the last sentence i the first paragraph under A -853, add "at the rear ".
The last sentence in th last paragraph on that page should be added to the
first paragraph. In the second paragraph under A -857, Commissioner Hlava noted
that all of the houses o that side of the street have garages underneath. On
page 7, in the first sent nce, "this" should be replaced with "the idea of
businesses sharing parkin On page 9, the first sentence should read "rela-
tively flat lands ". Commi sioner Hlava moved to waive the reading and approve
the minutes of February 23, 1983 as amended. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded
the motion, which was Carrie , with Commissioners Nellis and Siegfried abstain-
ing since they were not presknt at the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ia. Negati_ue,Declaration - SD -1509 - Peach Hill Development (Lauer
c
lb. SD -1509 - each Hill Development (Tom Lauer) , Request for Tentative Sub-
division Approval for a 4 -lot subdivision for a site at 15840
Peach Hill Road; continued from February 9, 1983
Staff gave the status of the application, explaining that the applicant has sub-
mitted a new map showing 3 lots in the City area and 2 existing lots in the
County. They stated that they had received information on the access from
Sunset late this afternoon, indicating that the dedication of Sunset Drive,
which was made in 1919, was accepted by the Board of Supervisors on February 10,
1941.
Chairman Schaefer gave the history of the project and noted the existing home
that is partly in the City and partly in the County, listing options of (1) a
lot line adjustment or (2) removal of the home.
Commissioner Nellis inquired as to what jurisdiction the City has over the roads
traversing the County property and the retaining walls proposed on the County
property. The Deputy City Attorney stated that the City has no direct jurisdic-
tion but the City does have control in the sense that the map takes into account
those improvements in the County area. Therefore, the City would not allow
construction of the improvements to proceed on the City property until they have
received indication from the County that they have approved the road and the
retaining walls and other improvements on the County land. Commissioner Nellis
indicated that he was trying to clarify the fact that if the City approves the
map, could the County change the location of the road in the County area. The
Deputy City Attorney stated that he could not anticipate exactly what the County
may or may not require, but he would recommend to the Commission that the con-
dition of their approval should be receipt from the County that they have in
fact approved the location of the road and other improvements anticipated to be
done on County land. If the Commission requires that indication from the County
that they have approved the improvements as a condition of the map, and then
the County says they're not approving them, the applicant is going to have to
resolve the situation either by coming back to the Commission or trying to get
the County to change its mind.
The public hearing was opened at 7:45 p.m.
Mr. Lauer gave a presentation on the project, addressing the retaining walls,
the road and access. He indicated that lie did not have an easement on the
•P'lanriing Commission
Meeting Minutes 3/9/83
SD -1509 (cont.)
C
Page 2
Molineux property and was intending to build the road in a 40 ft. right-of-way-
He stated that he would not be able to put the road anywhere else without a
slope easement or access to the Molineux property. The possibility of using the
40 ft. reservation behind the Molineux property was discussed. The access of
the other site in the County, if developed at a later time, was also addressed.
Staff noted that they do get County referrals for conditioning. They commented
that they would suspect the site would have to be annexed because it is con-
tiguous to the City.
Commissioner Hlava questioned 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 shortening the cul -de -sac. Mr. Lauer explained that he had
looked at it but felt that the problem was the minimum depth requirement of
160 feet.
Staff indicated that they would recommend conditioning for precluding any
activity on the area of the property following the creek.
Dr. Kim, 19977 Sunset Drive, stated that he was still researching some of the
issues and would like to address them at a later date. It was pointed out that
this matter will be continued to the March 23, 1983 meeting.
Lester Sachs, Sunset Drive, discussed the proposed access. He cited the
dangerous traffic situation on Sunset and indicated that there is a consensus
of residents on Sunset that they are willing to accept a 4 -lot development, with
2 lots accessing from Sunset and 2 from Peach Hill. He commented that the City
and County should get together so that the residents can review one set of
plans. He added that as a compromise they would be willing to withdraw their
objection to the 1800 ft. cul -de -sac on 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
2b. SDR -1527 - William Joh
for a 2 -lot
Grande)
3a. Negative Declaration -
SDR -1527 - William Johnson
on, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval
ubdivision at 18935 Monte Vista (near E1 Camino
-1533 - James & Michael Fol
3b. SDR -1533 - James & Mich el Foley, Monte Vista and Sobey Road, Request for
3c. V -604 - Subdivision proval to a 3 -lot subdivision for a site with
access on Mon e Vista Drive (between Montewood and E1 Camino
Grande) and S bey Road in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district and
Variance Appr val -to allow an existing garage to continue with
nonconforming ide (10' where 20' is required) and rear yard
(23' where 50' is re uired) setbacks
The two above applications were discussed simultaneously. Commissioner Siegfried
gave a report on the previous o -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 an improvement of the private road. He discussed
the existing garage on the Foley property.
The public hearing was opened at V :26 P.M.
Jim Foley, the applicant, discuss d relocation of the barrier. He also dis-
cussed the cul -de -sac and the tur around, stating that the Fire District has
indicated that the turnaround tha 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 ma y times and repaired by the City. He ex-
pressed his concern about moving th barrier. It was determined that a con-
dition could be added to the Staffteport to require Design Review Approval for
the barricade and appropriate lands aping. The applicant stated that they
share the concerns regarding the barricade and want to make sure that the inte-
grity of it is maintained. 1
t' Planning Commission r Page 3
Meeting Minutes 2/9/83 l
A -845 and V -602 (cont.)
Commissioner Hlava moved t approve A -845, per the Staff Report dated January
18, 1983, amended to refle t Exhibits B -1 and C -1 and adding conditions that
(1) the building be earth t ne and use natural stone, (2) additional land-
scaping to be required on t e side of the deck on the other side of the creek
for screening purposes, and 3) the length of the single portion of the
building be indented 1 ft. ommissioner Siegfried seconded the motion.
Commissioner Crowther moved to amend the motion to shorten the deck as to the
size shown on page 6 of Exhibit B -1, and to lower it to the maximum extent
feasible as determined by Staffwithout damaging the tree or causing extensive
grading. Commissioner Bolger s conded the amendment. The motion on the amend-
ment failed 5 -2, with Commission Hlava, McGoldrick, Nellis, Schaefer and
Siegfried dissenting.
The vote was taken on the motion to approve A -845. The motion was carried
5 -2, with Commissioners Bolger and Crowther dissenting.
7a. Ne-g_tive Declaration - SD -1509 - Peach Hill Development (Lauer
Peach Hill Development (Tom Lauer), Request for Tentative Sub-
division Approval for a 6 -lot subdivision for a site at 15840
Peach Hill Road
Chairman Schaefer noted that the map has been changed and a planned on -site
visit had been rained out. She indicated that the following concerns had been
expressed at the study session on this item: (1) ownership of Sunset Drive,
(2) number of lots, (3) length of cul -de -sac, (4) geotechnical work has not been
submitted or approved by City Geologist, (5) emergency access road not desig-
nated on map, (6) retaining walls required for access from Sunset Drive,
(7) 5 units on a minimum access road, (8) increase in traffic, and (9) safety
of roads.
The Deputy City Attorney stated that, regarding the number of lots, he has
no problem with Staff's report that there are 5 lots available, rather than 6.
He commented that the applicant has two existing lots of record which are
included within the proposed subdivision. Apparently the applicant has made
the argument that those lots should somehow be preserved and his density would
thereby be increased because he is assured of those lots and the density should
be calculated on what is left. The Deputy City Attorney commented that, from
his point of view, the land being subdivided is everything within the boundaries
of the proposed map. Once that subdivision is made the existing lots are no
longer there; the lot lines are being changed. If the applicant wants to pre-
serve those lot lines and work within the confines of what is left he can do
that or exclude the two existing lots from the rest of the land he owns. How-
ever, this proposed map encompasses those lots, so it is a resubdivision and
the new boundary lines will be determined by the area of land within his pro-
posed map and the zoning classification of that land.
Chairman Schaefer questioned whether if 4 lots only now were considered,
irregardless of the two lots of record in the County, and at a future time
those 2 lots come in, is it true that there is a court order saying that that
lot line does need to be adjusted, and would that change the situation? The
Deputy City Attorney stated that he had not seen any court order concerning
adjustment of lot lines. Chairman Schaefer asked if it was his understanding
that 4 lots could be developed now with a totally different map, and then at
a later time the 2 other lots could be developed. He indicated that that was
not his understanding. He stated that, given the present resubdivision that
the applicant is proposing, the fact that there may be 2 lots included within
that total has no significance, because those 2 lots following the recordation
of this map would no longer exist. The new lots the applicant proposes to
create will then become the manner in which that property is subdivided. He
stated that he does not know and cannot comment on what other options the
applicant may have that would work within the City's ordinances. He added
that the applicant is likely to run into some rather serious circulation pro-
blems by eliminating those lots, because it may impact the manner in which the
roads are laid out through the subdivision. When asked if the applicant could
place a road across one of those existing lots that is not otherwise included
in the subdivision except for purposes of the road crossing, the Deputy City
Attorney answered that the applicant can create an easement on land that lie
owns, or he could even offer a dedication of that road. He added that if the
applicant can fit a subdivision complying with all of the City's ordinances
within the remaining undivided land that he owns, he could do that in theory;
whether it fits in this situation would have to be determined.
- 3 -
Planning Commission r Page 4
` Meeting Minutes 2/9/83
SD -1509 (cont.)
Discussion followed on setting a study session and possible site visit. There
was a consensus that individual Commissioners will make an on -site inspection
of Sunset Drive, and there will be a study session on this matter on February
22, 1983.
The Deputy City Attorney stated that if the applicant does not agree to the
point of number of lots, perhaps the best procedure would be to set up a meet-
ing with Staff and him and the applicant's attorney, so the arguments can be
reviewed.
Commissioner Crowther questioned whether an aerial topo map is accurate enough
on this type of terrain. He stated that he did not feel it is sufficiently
accurate to make a decision on the slope, and he would like to see an ortho-
photo contour map as a basis for this subdivision. Staff was directed to
review this issue.
The public hearing was opened at 8:40 p.m.
Dr. Molineux, 19930 Sunset Drive, addressed the notcing procedure and the
ownership of Sunset Drive. He stated that he has reason to doubt that the
applicant has access through Sunset, and he feels that that issue should be
determined before further discussion is held on this matter.
Staff commented that the applicant has submitted additional information and
the applicant's engineer will be meeting with Staff on February 15th. There
was a consensus that this issue should be resolved before the study session.
The Deputy City Attorney commented that unless it is established to the satis-
faction of the City that there is access and ownership of Sunset Drive, and if
that manner of circulation is required for this map, the map is not going to
be approved.
Mr. Lauer, the applicant, stated that he and his engineer are quite satisfied
that they have access and information from the County indicates that in fact
it has been dedicated. There was a consensus that the study session on Febru-
ary 22, 1983 will be postponed if the City Engineer is not satisfied that
Mr. Lauer has the access.
Lester Sachs, 19941 Sunset, representing the neighbors on Sunset and Hume,
stated that they would like a reasonable time period to be able to review
what has been said and what is being done regarding the access issue. It was
determined that the neighbors will have the information that the applicant is
presenting to Staff the next day after the meeting, on February 16, 1983. Mr.
Sachs also stated that the homeowners would like to be notified if there is
a change in the opinion of the City Attorney as to the maximum being only 5
lots. He also requested a copy of any other contour map that may be presented
on this application. Other issues that he asked be addressed were: (1) if
retaining walls are going to be built, who is going to have responsibility of
those walls; (2) who will maintain the existing Sunset Drive if in fact is is
a dedicated road; (3) elevations, location and square footage of residences;
(4) are tennis courts permitted; (S) are horses permitted; (6) is annexation
going to be required; and (7) in the opinion of City Attorney whether annexa-
tion can now proceed in view of a recent court decision.
Dr. Kim, 19977 Sunset, expressed concern regarding (1) access, (2) responsi-
bility for maintaining road, (3) responsibility for retaining walls, and
(4) existing slope. He added that he would like to review the geology before
the study session.
Discussion followed on the availability of the geology reports. Mr. Lauer
commented that he will be more than happy to supply Staff with extra copies
of the geology reports to be used for review by the neighbors.
Commissioner Crowther addressed the Negative Declaration, stating that he
feels strongly that an EIR ought to be required on this project. He commented
that there is a lot of public concern and one advantage of requiring an EIR
is that the information the public is requesting would be prepared and the
Commission would have better facts on which to make a decision.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to deny SD -lS09 subject to a letter of extension
to March 9, 1983. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was
carried unanimously 7 -0.
- 4 -
Planning Commission ( Page 6
Meeting Minutes 12/8/82
SD -1454 (cgnt.)
that in this instance the environmental impact is one which it seems is bas-
ically orien ed toward geologic conditions and the topography of the site,
which seem to have been very thoroughly studied. He added that he believes
that the judg ent of Staff was predicated on the fact that, with the geologic
soil tests and other studies that have been done, there is basically a Dro-
e
fessional det ination by the applicant's geologist, concurred in by the
City's geologis that whatever risks that may be presented from the fault and
the soils conditions have been recognized and designed with respect to those
risks in mind. ter discussion it was the consensus of the balance of the
Commission that t ey are satisfied that the Negative Declaration is appropriate.
Placing restrictio s on the maximum size of homes for this subdivision at this
time was considered and it was the consensus that this should be done at the
time of design revi w, rather than limiting the size of the homes in the CC&Rs.
The length of the mi imum access roads was discussed. Commissioner Hlava stated
that it concerns her that the Commission would be making an exception and setting
a precedent; however, she does not feel that the road should go through.
Commissioner Siegfried stated that he shares her concern; however, what he feels
is unique about this si e is the fact that the road could go through and the
standards could be met, but the uniqueness of the front of that property would
be destroyed. He added hat he does not feel that the Commission would be
setting a precedent beca se it is not the normal situation.
Commissioner Crowther com nted that he would like to see a condition that the
scenic impacts constructed on the site will be strictly controlled, particularly
on lots #3 and #4. Staff p inted out that the individual sites will be before
the Commission at design re iew, and they will have a chance to review the
scenic impacts at that time.
Commissioner Siegfried moved 'rho approve the Negative Declaration for SD -1454.
Commissioner Hlava seconded tlye motion, which was carried 6 -1, with Commissioner
Crowther dissenting.
Mr. Heiss commented that, regar in the visual and scenic aspect for lot #3,
the applicant has committed to p ant a significant additional landscape buffer
on the downhill side of that lot on both sides of the driveway. There was
a consensus that both the additio 'al plantings and scenic easement should be
required, and the height will be etermined at design review.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to co ditionally approve SD -1454, subject to change
in the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan, per the Staff Report dated December
2, 1982 and Exhibit B, with the following additional conditions: (1) planting
along the driveway for lot #3, (2) tie scenic easement approximately 100 ft.
long and 20 ft. wide, with trees approximately 30 ft. high to be determined at
time of design review, (3) requirements contained in the letters from the City
Geologist and the Fire Department dat d December 7, 1982, (4) satisfactory evi-
dence of access, and (5) restriction o removal of trees. Commissioner Bolger
seconded the motion. 1
Discussion followed on possible bonding\of trees and strengthening of the Tree
Removal Ordinance. It was determined that this subject will be considered in
the future at a study session.
Commissioner Crowther indicated that he Heels that this is a beautiful site and
the applicant has done an excellent job. ,However, he stated that he will vote
against the project for the following reasons: (1) He believes that an EIR
should have been prepared, and (2) He is still concerned about lot #5 and does
not feel it is wise to build there; (3) He Nfeels there should only be 4 lots.
The vote was taken to conditionally approve1SD -1454. The motion was carried
6 -1, with Commissioner Crowther dissenting.
9a. Negative Declaration - SD -1509 - Peach Hill Development (Lauer
Peach Hill Development (Tom Lauer), Request for Tentative Sub-
division Approval for a 6 -lot subdivision for a site at 15840
Peach Hill Road
Chairman Schaefer reported that the current plan has been withdrawn and a new
- 6 -
F11
a`
Commission l
nutes 12/8/82
Page 7
SD -1506 (coast.)
an for the project will be submitted next week. She noted that the matter
will be continued to a study session on January 25, 1983 and the regular meet-
ing of February 9, 1983. It was pointed out that the Commission and neighbors
had walked the site on Sunday, December 5th.
The public hearing was opened at 10:10 p.m.
Lester Sachs, 19941 Sunset Drive, commented that the neighbors were not par-
ticularly aware of the fact that they could participate in the site review
which took place. He indicated that they would like to request that (1) once
the new application is submitted, that there be an additional site review in
order that the people on Hume and Sunset can actively participate in it, and
(2) when the developer presents a new plan, that he submits several additional
copies, one of which can be made available to them so they can physically
review an original large tentative map. He added that they would like to be
noticed of any meetings or site visits that take place.
Commissioner Crowther questioned the road grades on the tentative map and the
slope calculations. Staff indicated that they would check into this issue.
Bill Molineux, 19930 Sunset Drive, stated that he and the residents on Sunset
are 100% against the use of this road for the entrance into a subdivision. He
stated that he would like to know about the new plan and whether it involved
the people on Sunset.
Tom Lauer, the applicant, stated that when he has a definite plan he will give
all of the neighbors a map. He discussed possible alternate accesses for the
project.
It was directed that this matter be continued to a study session on January 25,
1983 and the regular meeting of February 9, 1983.
nFCTCN RFVTFIV
10.A -844 - Gerald Butler, Tct 6732, Vickery Lane, Request for Design Review
Approval for feast ng at end of access road
Staff described the proposal. Discussion followed OP. the material to be used.
Mr. Butler, the applicant, desc ibed the gate and fence and the existing chain
link fence in the area.
Commissioner Monia moved to approve A -844, per the Staff Report dated 11- 29 -82,
with the added condition that the gate be painted black.
Joe Montgomery, Vickery Lane, spok regarding the gate and pedestrian pathway,
which is a condition of the Tentati e Map. He stated that all of the neighbors
who live on Vickery Lane are oppose to the pedestrian pathway and the 3 ft.
opening. He referenced the petition which had been submitted to this effect.
Commissioner Hlava seconded the motio to approve A -844. The motion was carried
unanimously 6 -0.
MISCELLANEOUS
11. Consideration of General Plan - Elem nts
It was directed that this matter be conti ued to a regular adjourned meeting
on January 4, 1983 at 7:30 p.m.
COMMUNICATIONS
Written
1. Letter from Mr. R. Saxe re UP -9, yon Lod e. Staff explained that
Mr. Saxe, attorney or bir. Montgomery, owner t e Toyon Lodge, was requesting
that the Planning Commission act on its own mo ion to modify the use permit,
inasmuch as the cost for the applicant to do so would be approximately $3500.
The Deputy City Attorney stated that the matter\is already before the Commis-
sion in a sense because of a complaint being made and their investigation of
that complaint. After discussion it was determined that if the use permit is
modified to change the number of kitchens allowed \'it will require a public
hearing and the applicant should be required to pa y those costs.
- 7 -
C C
RESOLUTION NO. SD- 1509 -1
RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF
PEACH HILL DEVELOPMENT (TOM LAUER)
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. SD -1509 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 March 4, 1983 (revised)
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
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.
NOTI, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for
the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated the
18th day of March , 19 83, and is marked Exhibit "B -7"
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) (lYci�?CC�iX��fiX) at
a meeting thereof held on the 23rd day of March
19 q P I
83, at which a uoruni�•�as resent, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Hlava, Nellis, Schaefer and Siegfried
NOES: Commissioner McGoldrick ,
ABSENT:Commissioners Bolger and. Crowther
ADVISORY A ENCY
ATT tT:
/ ( By:
J �•`� Cili1.L 'n'a
.inn In rr nm RI1 CCnn n ��
SCHEDULE A
Date of Policy: February 16, 1983 at. 8:00 a.m.
Amount of Insurance $ 86, 000.00
1. Name of Insured:
PEACH HILL DEVELOPMENT
RECEIVED
MAY 111983
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
GF No. 903014 RC
Charge s 388.00
2. The estate or interest in the land described herein and which is covered by this policy is: (A fee, a leasehold.
etc.)
A Fee as to Parcel One; An Easement as to Parcels Two, Three, Four and Five
3. The estate or interest referred to herein is at Date of Policy vested in:
PEACH HILL DEVELOPMENT, a Limited Partnership
Santa Clara,
4. The land referred to in this policy is situated in the State of California, County of
and described as follows:
SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF.
f t TA CTAun Aen -nvcn a^r •..mow
l .
PARCEL ONE:
'' 1 EXHIBIT "A" 41903014
BEGINNING at a 4" x 4" post standing at common corner for Section 12 and 13, in
Township 8, South, Range 2 West M.D.B. and M., and Sections 7 and 18 in Township 8
South, Range 1 West, M.D.B. & M., and running thence North 89° 38'- East 1.117
chains to a point in the center line of Willow Creek; thence along the center line .
of said Willow Creek, South 8° 30' East 3.21 chains and South 40 48' West 1.45
chains to a point; thence leaving the center line of said Creek South 650 35' West
4.506 chains to a 2" x 3" stake; thence South 88° 32' West 2.351 chains to a 2" x
3" stake; thence North 9° 11' West 1.433 chains to a 2" x 3" stake, North 39° 46'
East 1.825 chains to a 2" x 3" stake, North 37° 35' East 3.355 chains to a 2" x 3"
stake, and North 62° 14' East 2.253 chains to the point of beginning and being a
portion of Lot 32 as said Lot is shown and delineated upon that certain Map entitled,
"Map No. 2 of the W.S. Clayton, Jr. Chase, E. Shillingsburg and J.P. Dorrance
Subdivision of part of the Glen Una Ranch in Sections 7, 13 and 18, TWP 8, South,
Range 1 West and 2 W., M.D.M., Map No. 2, being in Section 7 and 18, TWP 8 South,
Range 1 West and Section 13, TWP 8 South, Range 2 West, M.D.M., which Map was filed
for record February 9, 1921 in the office of the County Recorder of the County of
Santa Clara, State of California in Volume "P" of Maps, pages 53 and 54.
PARCEL TWO:
AN EASEMENT for ingress and egress over the following described parcel of land as
reserved in the Deed from Irvine A. Marler, et ux, to Calvin 0. Walters, Jr., et
ux, recorded February 28, 1973 in Book 256, page 730, Official Records.
BEGINNING at a 4" x 4" post standing at the common corner for Section 12 and 13, T.
8, S.R. 2 W. and Sections 7 and 18 T. 8, S. R. 1, W., M.D.B. & M.; thence from said
point of beginning South 62° 14' West 148.69' to a 2" x 3" stake; thence South 370
35' West 221.43' to a 2" x 3" stake; thence South 39° 46' West 120.45' to a 2" x 3"
stake and the true point of beginning of the parcel of land to be described thence
from said true point of beginning, Southwesterly to a point in the centerline of
Peach Hill Road which bears North 8° 18' West 100' from the Southerly corner of
that parcel of land shown as Parcel 4 in the Deed from Wells Fargo Bank to Irvine
A. Marler and Sharon E. Marler, which said Deed was recorded June 11, 1971 in Book
9370 of official Records, at page 134, thence South 80 18' East 100 feet to said
Southerly corner; thence North 34° 48' East 116.82 feet to a 2" x 3" stake thence
North 9° 11' East 94.71' more or less to the true - -point of beginning.
f-'
1�
EXHIBIT "A" 4903014 (CONTINUED)
PARCEL THREE:
AN EASEMENT and right of way for ingress and egress and road purposes over that
certain "40' Reservation ", from the intersection 'of the Southerly line of Sunset
Drive Southwesterly to the Easterly line of Parcel One above as said Sunset Drive
and "40' Reservation", are shown on that certain Map entitled, "Map No. 2 of the
W.S. Clayton, J.H. Case, E. Shillingsburg and J.P. Dorrance Subdivision of part of
the Glen Una Ranch ", which Map was recorded February 9, 1921 in Book "P" of Maps,
pages 53 and 54, and as dedicated by Deed recorded October 9, 1919 in Book 501 of
Deeds, page 232, and as reserved by Deed recorded April 21, 1925 in Book 146, page
572 of Official Records, and by Deed recorded May 2, 1925 in Book 155, page 288 of
Official Records, County of Santa Clara.
r.
PARCEL FObR:
AN EASEMENT for ingress and egress over the following described parcel of land as
reserved in the Deed from Irvine A. Marler, et ux, to Calvin 0. Walters Jr., et ux,
recorded February 28, 1973 in Book 256, page 730, Official Records.
BEGINNING at a 4" x 4" post standing at the common corner for Sections 12 and 13 T.
8, S. R. 2 W. and Sections 7 and 18 T. 8, R. 1 W, M.D.B. and M.; thence in a
Westerly direction along the dividing line between said Sections 12 and 13, a
distance of 40 feet; thence at right angles.to said dividing line Soutehrly to the
intersection with a Southeasterly line of that certain parcel of land shown as
Parcel 4 in the Deed from the Wells Fargo Bank to Irvine A. Marler and Sharon E.
Marler, his wife, which said Deed was recorded June 11, 1971 in Book 9370 of
Official Records at page 134; thence Northeasterly along the Southeasterly line of
said parcel conveyed to Marler to the point of beginning.
PARCEL FIVE:
A right of way for ingress and egress over that portion of Glen Una Drive, now
known as Sunset Drive, as dedicated on the Map of Glen Una Ranch Map No. 1, filed
for record on May 20, 1919 in Book P of Maps, Pages 34 and 35, extending from the
common corner of Sections 7, 12, 13 and 18 in Township 8 South, Range 2 West,
Easterly to Hume Drive.
Policy No. 038660
' ' GF No. 903014
PART 11
(The specific exceptions applicable to the estate or interest covered by the policy should be typed in this Part II.)
1. A. Taxes for the fiscal year 1982 -83, a lien shown as follows:
1st Installment $488.62 DELINQUENT PENALTY $48.86
2nd Installment $488.62 OPEN
Assessor's Parcel No.: 517 -23 -020 Code Area: 60 -008
Land: $88,434.00 Imps NONE PP: NONE Exemp: NONE
B. Such additional amounts which may be assessed by reason of:
(a) Improvements added subsequent to March 1, 1975;
(b) Changes of ownership occurring subsequent to March 1, 1975;
(c) Any final judgment determining that constitutional article
XIII A has been applied improperly;
(d) Reappraisal of property values as of March 1, 1975.
2. Any Adverse Claim based upon the assertion that:
(A) "Some Portion of said land has been created by artificial means,
or has accreted to such portion so created."
(B). "Some Portion of said land has been brought within the boundaries
thereof by and Avulsive Movement of Willow Creek, or has been formed
by accretion to any such portion."
3. "Such rights and easements for navigation and fishery which may exist over
that portion of said land lying beneath the waters of Willow Creek."
4. An Easement affecting the portion of said land and for the purposes stated
herein, and incidental purposes,
In Favor Of: San Jose Water Works, a corporation
For: Underground pipes
Recorded: March 26, 1920 in Book 506 of Deeds, Page 379, Official
Records
Exceptions continued:
The endorsements issued simultaneous with and as a part of this Policy are:
NONE
CLTA STANDARD COVERAGE —1973
Exc`aptions continued:
i" Easement affecting the portion of said land and for the purposes stated
herein, acid ihc'idental purposes,
Executed By: A.B. Finch Shaw
For: Right of way for road purposes, water pipes, sewer pipes,
and other public utilities
Recorded: May 2, 1928 in Book 393, Page 589, Official Records
Affects: The Northerly 15.00 and a strip of land 40.00 feet wide
within said land
6. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS, but omitting restrictions therein,
if any, based on race, color, religion, or national origin, as contained
in the instrument recorded June 6, 1944 in Book 1205, Page 127'of
Official Records.
Containing: No Mortgage Protection Clause
Express forfeiture or reversion
Reference to the records is hereby made for further particulars.
7. An Easement affecting the portion of said land and for the purposes stated
herein, and incidental purposes,
Executed By: James A. Clayton and Co., Trustee
For: Right of way for road purposes and water & sewer pipes
and other public utilities
Recorded: June 6, 1944 in Book 1205, Page 127, Official Records
Affects: A strip of land 15 feet wide and 40 feet wide over said land
8. DEED OF TRUST showing an original amount of $213,656.56, dated August 3, 1981,
recorded October 7, 1981 in Book G 378, Page 74 of Official Records.
TRUSTOR: PEACH HILL DEVELOPMENT, a Limited Partnership
TRUSTEE: TRANSAMERICA TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a California corporation
BENEFICIARY: IRVINE A. MALER AND SHARON E. MARLER, husband and wife,
as joint tenants
Notice of Default under the terms of said Deed of Trust recorded January 20, 1983
in Book H 285, Page 487 of Official Records.
County of Santa Clara
California
EMA/GSA
Environmental Management/
General Services Agency
May 2, 1983
Mr. Tom Lauer
15803 Hidden Hill Road
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Subject: Sunset Drive
Dear Mr. Lauer:
Land Development Engineering b Surveying
70 West Hedding Street
7th Floor, East Wing
San Jose, California 95110
299-2871 Area Code 408
I have reviewed your letter of April 7, 1983 and the attached information,
and I have the following comments:
1. Improvement of any portion of Sunset Drive that is maintained by the
County of Santa Clara will require issuance of an encroachment permit by the
Transportation Agency. You may contact Art De Mattei at (408) 299 -2454 to apply
for such a permit.
2. If you propose to improve the privately maintained portion of Sunset
Drive in the unincorporated area, and the proposed improvements are of the mag-
nitude that a grading permit is not required, then this office would not be in-
volved in the review of plans and issuance of permits.
3. If you propose to improve the privately maintained portion of Sunset
Drive in the unincorporated area, and the proposed improvements are of the mag-
nitude that a grading permit is required, then you would be required to apply
for a grading permit. If the grading permit were conditionally approved, and
if you met all the conditions, this office would issue a grading permit for the
approved work. One of the conditions of approval would be that you would be
required. to demonstrate that you have legal access in all those areas where you
are proposing to do work. The policy of title insurance that you submitted in-
dicates that you have an easement along a portion of Sunset Drive but it does
not clearly delineate which portion. At the time that you apply for a grading
permit the County will review all the evidence before it with regard. to legal
access and determine if enough has been presented so that a grading permit can
be issued.
If you have any questions, please call me at (408) 299 -2871.
Very truly yours,
JAMES F. SIRR
Manager /County Surveyor
JFS: GHQ: mp
cc: Art De Mattei
An Equal Opportunity Employer
County of Santa Clara
California
EMA/GSA
Environmental Management/
General Services Agency
May 4, 1983
Mr. Tom Lauer
15803 Hidden Hill Road
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Subject: Sunset Drive
Dear Mr. Lauer:
Land Development Engineering A Surveying
70 West Hedding Street
7th Floor, East Wing
San Jose, California 95110
299 -2871 Area Code 408
The purpose of this letter is to amend paragraph 3 of my
May 2, 1983 letter (copy attached) with regard to the evidence
that you have provided to show that you have an easement over
Sunset Drive. Based on the most recent Title Report you sub-
mitted dated February 16, 1983, it appears you have an ease-
ment over Sunset Drive "from the common corner of Sections 7,
12, 13, and 18 in Township 8 South, Range 2 West, Easterly to
Hume Drive."
As I stated in my previous letter, at the time you apply
for a grading permit, the County will review all evidence be-
fore it. If any evidence is submitted that contradicts your
latest title report, it will be evaluated at that time and a
decision will be made.
All other conditions and comments of my May 2, 1983 let-
ter still apply.
JFS:GHQ:mp
Attachment
cc: Art De Mattei
v
Very truly yours,
JAMES F. SIRR
Manager /County Surveyor
An Equal Opportunity Employer
EIA -4
Saratoga
DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED
(Negative Declaration)
Environmental Quality Act of 1970
File No: SD_ 1509
The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the
CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation
has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable
provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Sections 15080
through 15083 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653 -
of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have
no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment
within the terms and meaning of said Act.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION - Applicant proposes to subdivide a 7.2 acre parcel into 3 lots.
The hillside heavily vegetated topography ranges from gentle to very steep. The Berrocal
fault is located near the site but not within it. The site is constrained by relatively
weak, poorly consolidated earth materials and drainage concerns on the site. The proposal
would excavate approximately 9,104 cubic yards of dirt while 5,703 cubic yards would be
used as fill. Access is proposed via a 1,000'+ cul -de -sac from Hume /Sunset. Use of re-
taining walls, up to 18' in height, are proposed with the development.
NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT
REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Peach Hill Development
Tom Lauer - Quadrep
2713 N. First St.
San Jose, Ca. 95134
This proposal is an infill project. Slope density calculations allow a maximum of 4 lots.
Geotechnical reports have been reviewed by the City Geologist and must receive his recom-
mendation prior to action by the Planning Commission, mitigating known geological hazards
on the site. Additionally, the grading and drainage will be subject to the Grading Ordi-
nance and review by the City Engineer. Physical impacts will be mitigated to the extent
possible by applicable City Codes and Ordinances as well as the required review by the
Planning Commission. Water for fire protection and sewers will be required for the de-
velopment of the site per the Subdivision Ordinance.
Executed at Saratoga, California this. 3rd day of March , 1983 .
ROBERT S. SHOOK
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL OF THE CITY OF
SA:7 O.GA f
DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER
��1
Town Council
City of Saratoga
Saratoga, California
Dear Council Member:
15803 Hidden Hill load
Los Gatos, Ca. 95030
May 9, 1983
RECEIVED
MAY 111983
COMMUNITY. DEVELOPMENT
I am writing to you about SD1509 which is known as Peach Hill Development.
This particular development has been appealed to you by neighbors living
along Sunset Drive. Unfortunately, these are the same neighbors that caused
a tremendous delay at the Planning Cearmission level and have necessitated
a large investment of time on the part of the City Staff, the Planning
Ccarmission and myself. I would like to give you briefly some background
on the project as you consider your decision.
What is before you is a 3 -lot subdivision on 7 acres in the city of Saratoga.
In going through the calculations 4 lots would be allowed under the code.
In an attempt to compromise with my neighbors and with the commission, I
voluntarily reduced my request to 3 lots.
The property has limited access, one route is an 800 foot easement out the
back end of the property to Piedmont. It goes through a creek that is popu-
lated with very large mature trees and it is not a practical access. A
second approach would be across an adjoining lot out to Peach Hill. Due
to the narrowness of Peach Hill in several places it was the joint decision
of both the City Staff and the Planning Commission that increased traffice
on Peach Hill was not a good idea. My third and final access is across
Sunset. Although Sunset is a public road, the appelants consider it to
be their private drive. The Sunset access happens to be a straight road
with a stop sign at Hume and continuing across Hume you ultimately cane
to a signal at Highway 9 and Glen Una. Obviously the best and only choice
that is practical.
The appelants are unhappy that the traffic was not divided between Sunset
and Peach Hill. Due to the terrain it is not posEible, it would have to
be one or the other. They further claim th-t I did not have correct access.
At an earlier planning commission study session, one of the appelants suggested
that if I, infact, had access I should have no problem getting a title company
to endorse it. At his suggestion, the Planning Commission requested that I
get such an endorsement. At additional expense, I obtained another title
policy which specifically calls out ingress and egress from my property on
to Sunset Drive. After having delivered that, the appelants are still chal-
lenging it. The city geologist as well as my own geologist have looked at
the plans submitted and have given their approval, obviously subject to the
proper working being done during construction.
City of Saratoga May 9, 1983
Saratoga, California Page two
I am forced to use retaining walls to cross Sunset. The appelants had
objected to the retaining walls. If they would grant a slope easement,
no retaining walls would be necessary. Clearly the control is in their
hands. The area close to the creek is used more as a garbage dump than
anything else. In exchange for a slope easement, I would clean up and
landscape the subject area and have offered this to the appelants sev-
eral times.
The best time to complete the grading and road work is obviously during
the dry summer months. I request your denial of their appeal; and in
turn, ask you to support the Planning Ccomissions decision that was
not cane to lightly. There were several public hearings along with
several onsight visits by the ccnrnission and the staff prior to arriving
at their decision.
Sincerely,
�7
'Ian Lauer
TL /dl
DARRELL DUKES
INSURANCE ASSOCIATES, INC.
1156 NO. FOURTH STREET
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95115
(408) 288 -9800
inure' (in- shoor'; 84) v.c ( ME. enauren, prob. for auuren,
by a change of prefix) 1. To assure against loss by a con.
tingent event; to give, take, or procure an insurance on or
for; to enter into, or carry, a contract of insurance of insur.
ante on. 2. To ensure: make certain. —v.i. To give, take.
or procure insurance; specif., to underwrite. —Syn. See
ENSURE.
,1
March 21, 1983
Saratoga Planning Commission
Saratoga City Offices
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, Ca 95070
Subject: Proposed Subdivision, Owner Tom Lauer
Gentlemen:
.�� -� y
i .
T' I ('.I • . 11. ..
n
A map has been proposed by the above named individual to
develop 3 lots within the City of Saratoga and 2 lots in
the County of Santa Clara.
The primary ingress and egress would be from either Sunset
Dr. or Peach Hill Rd. across from the property owned by
Mrs. Henry & Joan Bose.
I would like to put my feeling into this matter before
it comes before the Board on the 23rd of March in regards
to how you are proposing these lots be serviced off of a
main road. I believe if you drive by and look at the property
you will see that the Sunset property is flat;. it is easily
40 feet wide and enters into a street which has a two lane
road access of 4,0 feet. If you enter the property from
Peach Hill Rd. or exit the property from Peach Hill Rd.,
you are ending on a very high cliff to a road that is less
than 30 feet. It is impossible to pass two cars on this
property if they meet at the same time or a bigger vehicle
such as a firetruck and an automobile or a small commercial
vehicle and an automobile. They would be unable to pass
side by side within 100 feet of Mrs. Bose's property and
the property below where you are developing.
I would hope that your Planning Commission would consider
using Sunset as a main thoroughfare for this property when
entering or leaving the subdivision. I feel that it is almost
Saratoga Planning Commission
Page 2
March 21, 1983
impossible, unless you and your developer, want to widen Peach
Hill Rd. from the Bose property all the way down to Dr. Dale's
to eliminate the problem of a car rounding the bend at the
property site and someone leaving the property onto Peach
Hill Rd.
Please drive by and review your decision before your Planning
Commission meeting,.
I certainly do not want to keep this gentleman from developing his
property since I realize he has purchased the property for
development purposes. All I want you to do is to be sure if
he does develop that you realize the number a new vehicles
that will be on Peach Hill Rd. The majority of the people
on Peach Hill Rd. including myself, have between 4 and 5
vehicles because of children and the road cannot handle
that amount of traffic when you think about adding 15 -20
more cars per day going up and down Peach Hill Rd.
I will personally attend the meeting on March 23rd and if you
would like me to get up and re -read my letter I would be happy
to do so.
Sincerely,
DARRELL E. DUKES
DED:vm
• lAe,;EST OWNER OF PHOTOGRA MMETRNf 'PMENT IN THE USA
• k
C
AERO- GEODETIC CORPORATION
CONSULTING PHOTOGRAMMETRIC ENGINEERS
1600 WARBURTON AVENUE • SANTA CLARA. CALIFORNIA 97050 • TEL 24&3000
March 3, 1983
Mr. Jack Christenson
CB Engineering, Inc.
21 Harrison Avenue
Suite 210
Campbell, CA 95008
Dear Jack:
COMPLETE PHOTOGRAMMETRIC
AND GEODETIC SERVICES
In December of 1981 we mapped, at your request, the Peach Hill Development
Site, at scale 1" = 40' with 5' contour intervals. This map conforms to
or exceeds the U.S. National Standards for Map Accuracy for this scale and
contour interval.
A question has been raised regarding the accuracy of line type maps as
compared to orthophoto maps. There really is no comparison between the
two.
COrthophoto instruments are made to prepare maps at scales 1" = 100'
1" = 200' or larger. This new system of map- making was not invented
because it was more accurate than conventional methods, but because
it is less expensive to prepare maps by rectifying photographs with
orthophoto instruments than to compile the same area with a stereoplotter.
Naturally, any layman can read photographs better than topographic maps
prepared for an engineer.
Our company has orthophoto instruments, and we can prepare orthophoto maps
of the Peach Hill Development from existing photographs, at scale 1" =
100' with 5' contour intervals. This map would never be as accurate as
the map you have now.
If you have any further questions, or if we may be of any further assistance
to you, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
AERO- GEODETIC CORPORATION
' Bob Raznatovich
r' Consulting Engineer
BRL:jr
. I..
C�t,,,li. 6Y .. ... DA7L Joe NU D ...
. ... ....................... ........ se.r --r-T. 3 0 No. Ns 9.......i....
%. GALC v� ATiO.rS .�o,Q S.CO/oF I��NsiT/' _ ,�Xis��.✓G
A C. PK,ccx
O.` - SiI/t'-P TOGA
Q. C.tccv.C/!Tf' /t�iie�i.rivs..4v,E.e.�G.� ,l.sr.�/v ���y licc LvT
.5 = O.DO 229 I
A
S= 0.00 229isiC(9,� /G) 71 of
7. si oSc tom.✓ ES eti
P�t�z c F� � A = Guess .4 •c F� p /-" ��1.t�E�
6. u. _..,,:.• -, �f.C.E� Pf/c •CoTCAVC- .�•��E�
(0.01776)(30.17)
C ,E.¢ o f ,Cars rye r c,4,61 I3F Al
,, B�9 - 3. s 9 R•�.���o vP � � Lo rs
�d:�,Sirr_
P /�i� F'P i.✓To 2 � O TS � PALO Pos E!> Z o,�iNC a 1z -i -yso, � •. S
R
•¢. 73 — .34. / 7
2.077 4,f,
2.28
3 , r4,A c v.< ?T /O.�r
n/y!L C IF, livW- C' co 7 Vi1c .
Q . C.I c c v .0 � T..•= iYi //�,!/1y !/., - l•v.�o /¢<L E? P�"it L vT'� �
Q,S =
b• SAL �` v/TF_ ��'�11i= �( O� .GiTr = N
Al
4111, -
1, .Q•�.� l�` °moo
0
P,
U
p.
• LAW OFFICES
FOLEY & FOL.FY
WILLIAM J. FOLEY go0
co.- r..sl 4
SAN JOSE 1;!. CALIFORNIA
C"', rA
-a z.
Auuuct 12, 1957
..OPri of Surerviro).,0
7irst -nd
San Jo =e, Celifornio
Gentlemen:
TI1P lindcrsip-nod are the 01•-7110:•s of a portion of Lot 26
as s"Icim upon jrqo "io:'2 of the W.
S. Cl:-yton, J. R. Chace,
S. --"' Ill -InSsburg an(i J . 11. 1,orrance Gubd.l vision of part of the
Glen U;-M 11_2o beimp recorded in Book P of Labs, at
pat-es 53 and 54. The pronerty of the undersi-ned front . s on
t;,at r•ortion of S:,nset Drive in &iid Subdivision running cast
c;.nd ireot, is outlined in red in the attached I-ID. There
Is also n L;c foot wide reservation s,ioi•m on the attached I.: aP
,which entirely tvaverses from north 'to south the westerly
portion of t"'"Ic., --ro-3erty oumed by the undersigned,
The -)ortion of s-hn::et Drive )ut-lined in red on the
- ' the 40 foot wide res(�rvcetion
attached. 1f, a" o, -nd the portion Of --
ou Clin ed In red on the att,•ched ;!Pp, <ire not presently in use
except for u-idesiraable uur,--ooes which conrtitute a mulGance
and hazard to the under'sicried and o-u!ler nrocerty owners in the
tree., The County does not presently maintain any
pert of these roodweya.
it Is resDectfuily requested that the Board of
Supervisors offic.1:'My ab.-ridon the 'oortjonr, of therUada rr, e n-
tioned, ,.'-,Jch are outlined In red. on the attached ,an, --ad to
t"at e-id institute arpropriote proceed-ins to effect the
Pbandon'!iient thereof.' -
Yours very truly,
TB&
of
12.
i J I
PC
,7✓ o
ii•, l Ac `a
� ,,
q
oo
Pze " ��o.. s' "'�DJ
, %Or ,yi I _01_0• i�
" G
L
q;
. rte. �;` ��.•% a:,,,dy `
� I
�i
C
N
PSC ASSOCIATES, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
C
215 CASTRO STREET MOUNTAIN V IE W, CAL IFOR NIA 94041
March 3, 1983
Job No. A81150 -01
Mr. Thomas Lauer
Quadrep
2713 N. First Street
San Jose, CA 95134
BRANCH OFFICES
PACHECO, CA
SAN FRANCISCO, CA
HONOLULU, HAWAII
P H O N E ( 4 1 5 ) 9 6 9. 1 1 4 4
RECEIVED
MAR 1�Q33
PERMIT REVIEW
Subject: Revised Grading Plan Review for Proposed Three Lot Subdivision at
15480 Peach Hill Road, Saratoga,California
References: 1. Our Soil and Geologic Investigation Report dated January 26,
1982, Job No. A81150.
2. Tentative Yap for Peach Hill Development, Scale 1 "=401,
dated May 1982, last revised March 3, 1983, by
C. B. Engineering Inc., their Job No. 81 -09.
Dear Mr. Lauer:
This letter presents our comments and recommendations for the proposed site
grading as outlined on the latest grading plan. These comments and
recommendations are based upon our review of the grading plan or "Tentative
Map" as referenced above. This Tentative Map has been recently revised to
show a three parcel subdivision. Lot 1 (original Lot 4) now includes the
existing house (original on Lot 3) and one new proposed residence. Lot 2
(original Lot 5) has not been significantly changed. Lot 3 (original Lot 6)
has the revised house location as discussed in our letter dated February 8,
1983.
Based upon our review of the latest Tentative Nap, dated March 3, 1983, it
is our opinion that the proposed grading generally meets the intent of the
recommendations contained in our referenced Soils and Geologic Investigation
report. This letter is intended to present a review of the Tentative Yap and
Proposed rough grading only. Review of final plans for retaining walls,
foundations, individual site drainage, etc• should be made prior to
construction of the corresponding improvements.
Limitations
Please be advised that we are performing a profession,. , service and that our
finished report is a professional opinion only. All work done is in
accordance with generally accepted geotechnical el-3ineering principles and
practices. No warranty, expressed or implied, of lrler, hantability or fitness,
Mr. Thomas Lauer
Job No. A81150 -01
March 3, 1983
Page 2
is made or intended in connection with our work by the furnishing of oral or
written reports of findings. If client desires assurances against project
failures, -he agrees to obtain appropriate insurance through his own
insurance broker.
We are appreciative of the opportunity to be of continued service to you on
this project. If you have any questions concerning our conclusions or
recommendations, please feel free to call us at any time.
Very truly yours,
P S C ASSOCIATES, INC.
Gary Parikh, P. E.
` R.C.E. 24227
GP: j an
w PSCASSOCIATES, INC.
C
William CoC n
f and Associates
TO: Kathy Kerdus, Planner I
FROM: William Cotton, City Geologist
GEOTECHNICAL CC, _(ANC
314 Tait Avenue, Los Gatos, California 95030
(408) 354 -5542
November 10, 1981
SUBJECT: Lauer - Peach Hill Development, SDR 1509
We have completed a geologic review of the subject property using the Tentative
Map for Peach Hill Development, prepared by C. B. Engineering, Inc., dated
August 1981.
SITE CONDITIONS
The subject property is characterized by gentle (6 degrees) to very steep (40
degrees) hillside topography. The earth materials which underlie the property
are composed of relatively old, poorly consolidated alluvial sediments (i.e.
gravel, sand, silt and clay) deposited by nearby San Tomas Aquinas Creek and
Wildcat Creek. These earth materials are, in turn, overlain by soil and
colluvium of variable thickness. Recent mapping by the U.S. Geological Survey
indicates that the potentially active Berrocal fault appears to cross the
southern portion of the subject property; however, it is concealed by
alluvial deposits and the exact, location of the fault within the subject
property is presently - unknown. The mapped location is based upon bedrock
exposures of the fault located several thousand feet to the northwest and
southeast of the property. Consequently, with respect to the subject property
and the individual building sites, the location of the fault as shown on the
USGS map should be regarded as only approximate. Our field inspection also
revealed that portions of the property are affected by shallow ground -water
conditions.
DISCUSSION
The presently proposed development plan would subdivide the property into six
(6) lots. One lot (Lot 3) contains an existing residence which will remain;
improvements to the remaining lots (Lots 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6) will consist of
grading to create building pads, driveways, and an access road. As presently
proposed, the buiding pads on Lots 1, 4, 5 and 6 would be entirely in cut. The
cut slopes on these lots vary from 15 to 25 feet in height and are designed to
have a slope ratio of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). On the other hand, the
building pad for Lot 2 will be a compound pad (i.e. part cut and part fill)
with cut and fill slopes approximately 10 feet high and slope ratios of 2:1
(horizontal to vertical).
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES • FOUNDATION ENGINEERING
Foundation and Retaining Wall Design Parameters - General recommendations
or esign of residential oun ations and retaining walls have been pro-
vided and are considered acceptable as general recommendations. It is
our understanding that all structures will be supported on pier and grade
beam foundations and that the piers are estimated to extend approximately
twelve feet into the ground.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION
At this time, it is' appropriate to review the role of the engineering geolo-
gist and soil engineer in projects of this type. It is the responsibility
of geotechnical consultants to identify, properly characterize and evaluate
the impact of geologic and soil conditions on the proposed development. When
the level of impact is considered unacceptable, the geotechnical consultants
recommend appropriate measures to reduce the impact to acceptable levels.
It is our judgment that the consultants have identified the geologic and soil
conditions which pose some constraint on the proposed development. These con-
ditions have not, in all cases, been properly characterized, and consequently,
the specific impacts of these conditions have not been evaluated. In addi-
tion, specific and appropriate mitigation measures have not been provided.
The approach adopted by the consultants is one of identifying problems during
construction and dealing with them as they are encountered. Although this
represents a valid approach employed in many large projects, our experience
in Saratoga and other communities indicates that it is not the most prudent
approach to projects of this scale where there are severe spatial restric-
tions. Experience has shown that it is more appropriate to identify, charac-
terize and evaluate the specific geologic and soil conditions that will con-
strain the development in as much detail as possible prior to grading or con- C
struction. In so doing, the scope, complexity and cost of the project can
be realistically evaluated as early as possible.
We recommend that the Tentative Map be denied until the geotechnical con-
straints on the proposed development are defined in sufficient detail so that
specific.and realistic mitigation measures can be provided and evaluated
prior to site grading and construction. The applicant's consultants may wish
to contact our office to arrange a meeting to discuss in more specific terms
the content of this review and their report prior to proceeding further with
this application.
The results of this work should be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer
and Geologic Consultant prior to Tentative Map approval.
Respectfully submitted,
C, J i Q;t o,,w. Q.
William R. Cotton
City Geologic Consultant
CEG 882
William Cotton and Associates
William Cot(,-A-.
r and Associates
TO: Kathy Kerdus, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Lauer, SDR 1509
GEOTECHNICAL CO .,\� NTS
314 Tait Avenue, Los Gatos, California 95030
(408) 354 -5542
March 8, 1982
We have completed a geologic review of the subject application using the Soil
and Geologic Investigation (report) prepared by PSC Associates, Inc. and dated
January 26, 1982
DISCUSSION
In our previous review (November 10, 1981), we described the general site con-
ditions and outlined a minimum scope of geotechnical work which should be com-
pleted prior to Tentative Map Approval. This scope of work included both geo-
logic work (i.e. geologic mapping, seismic setting, slope stability and ground
water). and soil and foundation engineering (i.e. site preparation and grading,
slope stability, site drainage and preliminary design parameters for residen-
tial foundations and retaining walls).
The captioned report by PSC Associates, Inc. is intended to address these
items. In general, the report does address each of these in one way or
another. At this time, it is appropriate that we discuss the consultants'
overall approach to the project and their specific approach to the items
listed above.
Earth Materials - The distribution of earth materials (bedrock and sur-
icia as not been shown on an original geologic map and cross sec-
tion(s) as requested in our previous review. Consequently, it is diffi-
cult to evaluate the impact of the local geologic conditions on the pro-
posed development. In addition, the structure of the bedrock has not
been defined, and the geologic conditions have been defined only to
relatively shallow depths (i.e. 10± feet).
Seismic Setting - The consultants appear to have adequately defined the
seismic setting of the subject property and they have evaluated the
impact of these conditions on the proposed development, and strong ground
shaking and its associated effects will be the most significant seismic
hazard. Their evaluation of the seismic setting, however, draws heavily
upon a previous fault investigation conducted by JCP Geologists. It
should be noted that this report has not been submitted to our office
to be reviewed for this application.
Ground Water - The consultants report that no ground water was encoun-
tere�ing their subsurface investigation. The presence of phreato-
phytes (i.e. water seeking plants) in portions of Lot 2, 4 and 5 suggests
that local shallow ground water conditions may exist.
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES • FOUNDATION ENGINEERING
r
• a Slope Stability - The consultants have identified several potentially
unstaBTe s opes; however, it is our judgment that they have not adequate-
ly evaluated the impact of these conditions on the proposed development
(i.e. roadway, driveways and building sites). For example, in Lot 6 the
consultants have identified an unstable slope that will impact the pro-
posed driveway and building pad. There is virtually no discussion, how-
ever, of the level of impact or specific remedial measures to reduce the
impact of these conditions to acceptable levels. Similar situations
exist in other portions of the property (e.g. Lot 1 and the proposed
access roadway).
The consultants have performed stability analyses on the slopes for Lot
1 and 6 and the proposed cut and fill slopes. This represents an
approach to the slope stability question; however, we have some reserva-
tions about this approach:
1) The soil parameters used in the analyses have not been clearly
defined.
2) The geologic conditions (materials and structure) have not been
adequately defined to the depths that the potential failure circles
are shown.
3) The psuedo- static ground acceleration of 0.25g is considered to be
a minimum value since the anticipated repeatable high ground accel-
eration is 0.5g. It is our judgment that this is not necessarily
a prudent approach.
In view of the above, the appropriateness of this approach is questionable
at best.
Site Preparation and Grading - The consultants have provided general
recommendations for site preparation and grading; however, they have not
specifically addressed a number of potential problems associated with
the proposed grading. For example, cut slopes are recommended to be no
steeper than 2:1, and these are to be "laid back" during grading if they
appear unstable. The practicality of this approach is doubtful. In many
instances (i.e. Lot 1, 3 and 6), this will result in grading off -site
and this is not deemed acceptable. In the case of Lot 1, the gra ing
will cut into the side cast fill for Peach Hill Road even if the slope
is graded at 2:1 as recommended. This is definitely not acceptable.
The grading proposed for Lot 4 (Site Plan accompanying report) daylights
in Lot 3 which is already developed. In addition, a number of cut and
fill slopes shown on the Site Plan which accompanies the PSC report do
not conform to the design recommendations in the report (i.e. slopes
exceed the maximum recommended inclination).
Site Drainage - The consultants have recognized that significant volumes
of water flow through the drainage swales on the subject property and
that a potential erosion problem exists. Although general recommenda-
tions for controlling site drainage have been provided, it is our judg-
ment that appropriate specific measures to mitigate specific problems
have not been addressed. This is largely due to the fact that potential
problem areas have not been specifically identified. For example, the
consultants indicate that riprap may be needed to reduce bank erosion,
yet specific areas that this problem is anticipated and the severity of
the problem have not been identified or evaluated.
William Cotton and Associates
M
The access road and driveways will be predominantly in cut; however, at several
locations they will be supported by relatively small prisms of side cast
fill. In addition, the cul -de -sac for the access road will be underlain by a
10 -15 foot thick prism of fill placed in the major drainage swale that
divides the property.
The proposed cut slopes for the access road and driveways vary from slope
ratios of 1 -:1 to 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) and in height from a few feet
to 30 feet. The fill slopes will be constructed at slope ratios of 2:1 (hori-
zontal to vertical) and will vary in height from a few feet to 17 feet. It
should be clearly understood that the presently proposed grading plan. requires
an extensive amount of cut and a relatively minor amount of fill. In short,
the grading plan does not appear to be balanced and may require the disposal
of a significant amount of excavated material, either on or off the property.
In conclusion, the proposed development plan is constrained by: (1) excavation
and grading in relatively weak, poorly consolidated earth materials (i.e. old
alluvium and colluvium); (2) shallow ground water conditions in Lots 2, 4 and
possibly 5; and (3) the uncertainty of the location of the Berrocal fault.
Consequently, a careful approach to development of the subject property is
required.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
We recommend that, prior to Tentative Map approval, the applicant retain the
services of an engineering geologist and soil engineer to conduct a detailed
geotechnical investigation of the subject property. This investigation should
address, but not necessarily be limited to, the following:
1. Earth materials - The type and distribution of earth materials (i.e.
alluvium, old alluvium and colluvium), should be shown on an original
geologic map and cross section(s). The base map for this task should
be the project Tentative Map.
2. Slope stability - The long -term stability of both the natural and pro-
- posed cut slopes should be evaluated under both seismic and aseismic
conditions. This may require a subsurface exploration program of stra-
tegically placed bore holes and /or test pits to sample and determine
the strength characteristics of the subsurface soil and rock materi-
als.
3. Seismic setting - The seismic setting of property should be evaluated.
Special attention should be given to freeing each building site with
regards to the potential seismic hazard of ground rupture associated
with the Berrocal fault.
4. Ground -water - The shallow ground -water conditions on the property
should a evaluated. Special attention should be given to Lots 2, 4
and 5.
5. Soil and foundation engineering - Preliminary design criteria for
residential-foundations and retaining walls should be provided. Recom-
mendations for site preparation and grading, site drainage and the
location of septic tank drainfields should be provided. Special atten-
tion should be given to the design of the subdrains that will
conduct surface drainage around the building pad for Lot 2 and under
the canyon fill that is proposed for the cul -de -sac near Lot 5.
William Cotton and Associates
C
6. Development plan review - The proposed development plan should be
evaluated in light of the findings of the geotechnical investigation.
Appropriate modifications, recommendations and mitigating measures
should be provided.
The results of this investigation should be reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer and Geologist prior to Tentative Map approval.
Respectfully submitted,
WILLIAM COTTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
1
1�
William R. Cotton
City Geologist
CEG 882
111 %�
C
William Cotton and Associates
JA
County of Santa Clara
California
Transportation Agency
1555 Berger Drive
San Jose, California 95112
RECEIVED a
MAY 121983 May 6 1983
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Harold S. Toppel
Atkinson- Farasyn
660 West Dana Street
Mountain View, CA 94042
Subject: Sunset Drive (Peach Hill Development Co.)
File No: 736- 23- 54- 79CC -79S
Dear Mr. Toppel:
Your April 21, 1983 letter has been reviewed and our comments
are as follows:
RE_ QUEST
You requested that we send you a letter with a clear statement
that the entire length of Sunset Drive is a public road and that it
was the intention of the County to accept all of Sunset Drive as
offered for dedication on the original subdivision map (gook P.
Page 34 -35).
RESPONSE
To clarify our response we will list page and paragraph number
of your April -21, 1983 letter followed by our comments:
Page 1, Paragraph 1 and 2
No comments.
Page 1, Paragraph 3
Our February 23, 1983 letter to Mr. Jack N. Christenson
was in response to a request by Mr. Christensen per his February 142
1983 letter. The following extract from Mr. Christenson's February 14
1983 letter will clarify the request: ,
"Indicate the extent of the county maintained portion and
the portion dedicated to the public by recorded maps."
Response per Question 2 of our February 23, 1983 clarified
that extent of the county maintained portion of Sunset Drive is
0.12 miles + west from Glen Una Drive. Also, we clarified that based
upon the in -formation on the subdivision map, Sunset Drive is dedicated
to public use.
It should be noted that the question raised by the Engineer
was regarding extent of county maintained portion and dedication to
An Equal Opportunity Employer
1
Mr. Harold S. Toppel
Page 2
May 6, 1983
public use of Sunset Drive and not regarding the length of Sunset
Drive accepted by Board or Superisors. Therefore, our February 23,
1983 letter should not be interpreted to conclude that the entire
length of Sunset Dr vi has been accepted by the County as a public'
road. The County is maintaining 0.12 miles + length of Sunset Drive
which was the length accepted by the Board OT Supervisors per
November 5, 1962 Resolution (Book 5787 Page 195).
Page 2, Paragraph 1
No comments.
Page 2, Paragraph 2
The standard format for the resolution used in 1962
included the information such as Road number, Name, Length, Width,
from and to for the road proposed to be accepted into the System .
In this case, from Glen Una to end" means 648.75 feet from the
westerly right -of -way line of Glen Una Drive.
At the time Board of Supervisors accepted 648.75 feet
of Sunset Drive into the County Roadway System per November 5, 1962
Resolution, it is our understanding that there was no road built to
County Standard beyond 648.75 feet because of the existing creek
across the road.
Page 2, Paragraph 3
From the above clarification, it is apparent that although
the entire length of Sunset Drive was offered for dedication for
public.use (according to the Owner's Certificate on "Glen Una Ranch
Map No. 1) the Board of Supervisors accepted a length of 648.75
feet along Sunset Drive. As already stated above, the County,
maintains only that portion of the roadway that was accepted by
the Board of Supervisors into the County roadway system.
We hope above comments clarify the difference between "an offer
of dedication for public use" and 'the acceptance of the said offer
by the Board of Supervisors' Resolution."
Mr. Harold S. Toppel
Page 3
May 6, 1983
If you have questions, please call me at 299 -2362.
Very truly yours,
ASHOK WAS
Project Engineer
AAV:ai
cc: As. Kathy Kerdus, Planner
Mr. Jack N. Christenson, Project Engineer
Bob Menifee, County Counsel's Office
AEB
RMS
RGH
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO. Dept. Hd.
DATE: May 18, 1983 C. At
DEPARTMENT: Commun'i'ty Development C.
SUBJECT: UP -531, Martin Oudewaal, 14629 Big Basin Way
Issue Summary
The applicant received use permit (UP -500, 8/12/81), and-design review
(A -793, 4/28/83) and building site approvals (SDR -1508, 4/28/83) for the
project. However, the use permit was allowed to expire, so a new use permit
application was filed, which included plans as previously approved.
At the second public hearing on the use permit, concern was raised by the
adjoining .neighbors to the east (the Caldwell Condominiums) regarding solar
shading and privacy impacts to their property as a result of the project.
The Planning Commission denied the application without prejudice unanimously
5 -0.
Recommendation
1. Conduct a public hear'iri g on the appeal.
2. Determine the merits o-f.the appeal and approve or deny.
3. Staff recommended approval of the use permit to the Planning Commission.
Fiscal Impacts
None Noted.
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Letter of Appeal 6.
2. Staff report dated 3/10/83 UP -531, 7.
3. Planning Commission Minutes dated 3/23/83
4. Staff reports A -793, SDR -1508, UP -500
5. Exhibits "B & C"
Council Action
Resolution UP -531 -1
Correspondence received on project
5/18: Continued to public hearing 7/6; study session 6/21.
7/6: Callon /Clevenger moved to continue to 9/7. Passed 4 -0.
Consensus to refer to Planning Commission study session 7%19; regular Planning
Commission meeting 8/24.
9/7: Fanelli /Moyles moved to approve with conditions, making findings. Passed 3 -1 (Clevenger
opposed).
Date Received:
Hearing Date:
Fee. _
CITY USE ONLY
APPEAL APPLICATION
Martin J. Oudewaal
Name of Appellant: By Warren B. Heid, Architect for Project
Address: 14629 Big Basin Way, Saratoga, Ca. 95070
Telephone: 867 -5659
Name of Applicant: Martin J. Oudewaal
Project File No.: UP -531
Project Address.: 14629 Big Basin Way, Saratoga, Ca. 95070
Project Description: four unit condominium
Decision Being Appealed: Denial without prejudice of UP -531
Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached):
Insufficient study of alternate uses of site by Planning Commission
or the future growth of the neighborhood in accordance with the
new General Plan guidelines.
Appellant's Signature
*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
THP DATP nP TPP M1 rTCTnM
WARREN B. HBII) AIA
A N D A S S O C I A T E S
A R C H I T E C T S . P L A N N E R S
1 4630 BIG BASIN WAY • P.O. BOX 14 . SARATOGA . CALIFORNIA 95070 • 867 -9365
March 31, 1983
City Council for City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council:
I am writing on behalf of my client, Martin J. Oudewaal, to appeal the decision
of the Planning Commission at their meeting of March 23, 1983 for UP -531. Since
Mr. Oudewaal is still out of the country because of family reasons he cannot make
this appeal directly within the time period. He was not able to attend the Plan-
ning Commission meeting but felt that since there was a favorable Staff Report he
could leave due to his mother's health.
The grounds for the appeal are basically that a decision was made, in my opinion,
without a complete study by the Planning Commission of this project with regards
to the entire neighborhood and the new direction by the General Plan for high
quality apartments and condominiums in this area. As you know the recent hearings
for the General Plan indicate that the people of Area J wish multi -use structures
west of Fifth Street. Their wish as indicated by the General Plan study for for
multi -use to be a permitted use, however it has been changed to be a Guideline for
the Village Specific Plan.
During the hearing, which was heard after midnight due to a lengthy agenda, there
was a emotional appeal by the neighbors to the east that their condominiums would
loose privacy, view, and have shadows due to this project. I met with these owners
prior to-the Planning Commission meeting to present the alternative uses of the
site. The zoning around these condominiums is Visitor Commercial and there are many
uses that are approved that would damage them more than this project, and would
conform to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
At the start of the hearing I stated that the Use Permit UP -500 had expired for
several reasons, with one reason was that due to the economy problems the owner
could not move ahead even though this office had completed 75% of the working draw-
ings and specifications, and the other reason was that he had let the Use Permit -"
expire accidently due to a confusion of dates. He did not reapply for the new
use permit until he was sure that he could obtain financing.
I also explained that it was my opinion that this use was the best use for the site
and the neighborhood because other approved uses could be more damaging. The hear-
ings for UP -500 had taken into consideration the alternate uses and granted approval
because this project was an appropriate use and structure for the site. During
City Council
City of Saratoga
March 31, 1983
Page 2.
the hearing of March 23, 1983 I was not able to present the alternative uses or
how the neighborhood could grow for this area of narrow lots. I made this request
for a continuation of the hearing twice and was denied the continuation.
I appreciate your consideration to permit this project as designed under UP -531 be
reconsidered and that the Planning Commission give this site as designed and the
whole area a complete study. This project was designed to meet the requirements
of the Zoning Ordinance as indicated by previous approval and by the recent Staff
Report, as well as meeting the present economic requirements for quality condominiums
requested by the new General Plan. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Std rely, /
WBH:hw
cc: Martin J. Oudewaal
FSN""Ta'
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 3/10/83
Commission Meeting: 3/23/83
SUBJECT: UP -531 - Martin Oudewaal, 14629 Big Basin Way
REQUEST: Use Permit Approval to construct four (4) condominium units in the C -V
zoning district.
OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: None. Design Review and Building Site Approval have been
• previously granted.
PLANNING DATA:
PARCEL SIZE: 15,952 sq.ft. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Retail Commercial
ZONING: C -V NOTICE: Notice of this site has been mailed to
property owners within 500',posted on site and
advertised in the Saratoga News.
CTTG nATA-
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Multi- family residential to the north and east;
commercial and residential to the south; single family residential to the
west.
SITE SLOPE: 13%
SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 3%
NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: Saratoga Creek runs through the northern end of
the parcel. Large oaks and bay trees are located on the creek banks, which will
not be affected by this proposal. As was recommended with design review, large
box sized evergreen trees were to be added in front of the second story windows
to protect privacy of adjacent properties to the west and east. These trees are
not illustrated on the landscape plan submitted with this application, thus, staff
recommends Condition #6.
• PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS:
HISTORY: This project has previously received design review, building site and
use permit approvals. However, the use permit was allowed to expire, so the appli-
cants have reapplied. The plans have been modified from the originally approved
.a
Report to Planning Commission
UP -531 - Martin Oudewaal, Big Basin Way
3/10/83
Page 2
use permit to comply with the plans later approved with design review. This
involves the redesign of the parking area underneath the structure and removal
of the "tower" at the rear of the structure, leaving one "tower" at the front.
GRADING REQUIRED: CUT: 900 Cu. Yds. FILL: None
CUT DEPTH: 5 Ft. FILL DEPTH: None
SETBACKS: Front: 35' Right Side: 10' Left Side: 10' Rear: 78'
HEIGHT: 20' at mid -point of gambrel roof; 27' at peak of gambrel roof; 36' to peak
of "tower.
SIZE OF STRUCTURE: Garage: 5,276 sq. ft. First Floor: 4,192 sq. ft.
Second Floor: 3,920 sq. ft.
COLORS & MATERIALS: The exterior of.the structure would utilize brick, off -white
plaster, and brown stained timber. Wood shakes would be used for the roof.
REFUSE: Garbage will be contained behind a fenced and landscaped enclosure at the
front of the property.
•
LANDSCAPING & LIGHTING: The applicant has submitted a landscape plan which indicates
various evergreen groundcover, shrubs and small, fast growing trees around the front
and sides of the proposed structure. The rear portion of the lot will be left largely
natural. •
SOLAR:
Existing structures to the east and west are about 21' from the edge of the property.
Portions of the property to the east will be shaded by the proposed structure between
the hours of 1:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. However, the orientation of the buildings to
the east indicates that they would be unable to adequately utilize solar energy even
if the structure were not built.
PRIVACY IMPACTS /RELATIONSHIP WITH ADJACENT STRUCTURES
The structure would be about 13' higher (from flat portion of roof) than the existing
single - family dwelling on the site and adjacent structures. The architectural style
of the structure would be compatible with the Village and similar in height to other
condominium projects approved by the Commission.
The project may have an adverse impact on the privacy of adjacent properties due to
second story window and balcony locations. These impacts can be mitigated by land-
scaping and removal of the balconies. It is suggested that evergreen trees be used
to protect privacy.
PARKING: The applicant proposes to have 8 occupant and 4 visitor parking spaces
as was approved with the design review. Staff has a concern over parking space number
8, as it would require backing out to the entrance of the garage and also blocks
access to two of the storage cabinets. Eight spaces are required for the project.
FINDINGS:
The proposed location of the four condominium units is in accord with the objectives
Report-to Planning Commission
UP -531 - Martin Oudewaal, Big Basin Way
3/10/83
Page 3
C of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site
is located.
2. The proposed location of the four condominiums and the conditions under which
it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity if the conditions under recommended action are complied with.
3. The proposed conditional use will comply with the General Plan but will not comply
with each of the provisions of the ordinance in that 10' sideyards will be pro-
vided where 18' is required. However, the Commission should approve these variations
if the project is modified to reduce potential adverse impacts.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve per Staff Report dated 3/10/83 and Exhibits "B & C" subject
to the following conditions:
A. Prior to issuance of building permits:
I. Detailed grading and drainage plans shall be reviewed and approved by the
Communi'ty Development Department. Only these approved plans shall be im-
plemented during construction.
2. Any minor modifications to the proposed elevations shall require Community
Development Department review and approval.
C 3. Design details of the proposed trash enclosure and deck shall be submitted
for review and approval by the Community Development Department.
4. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the Department of Transportation shall
review grading and drainage plans for the site to evaluate the effect on
State Highway drainage.cohditions.
5. Applicant shall comply with the Santa Clara Valley Water District in terms of
required easements and the location of the proposed deck near the creek area.
6. The landscape plan shall be modified to include 24" box -size evergreen trees
to be placed adjacent to the second story windows to mitigate privacy impacts.
7. Applicant shall submit to the Permit Review Division,for their review, a study
on the feasi 'lity of parking space #8.
Approved:
Sharon Lester
Planner
SL /dsc
P.C. Agenda: 3/23/83
I*-
-Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes 3/23/83
UP -S29 (cont.)
Page 6
C
within five ye.rs of the completion and acceptance of those improvements.
Staff added th t because of the proximate location of the railroad and its
associated Prot ctive equipment, left turns would probably not be allowed in
at the Seagull ntrance but would be controlled at Kirkmont.
Commissioner Hla a commented that she would like to see this area developed
because she feels it is a health hazard and when it is developed the City can
proceed with the ssessment district. She noted that during the General Plan
discussions in thi area mini - storage was one of the uses that was brought up
as appropriate at hat time. She added that she is concerned about the comments
and concerns from t' e neighbors.
Commissioner Schaefer stated that she feels that the expressed concerns are
very valid but feels some things can be done to mitigate them. She commented
that she would prefe not to have any variances at all on the setbacks and
would like the heighand size of the structures reduced. She noted that she
would like a change i the proposed hours to alleviate traffic and provide
privacy. She indicated that she feels there is a demand for mini - storage;
however, she does have a concern about the control of dangerous objects being
stored.
Commissioner Siegfried greed that he would like to have this area developed
so that the improvement can be made. He commented that he is concerned that,
while there are not as any trips generated here as the previously proposed
project, the type of veh'cles may be a greater safety hazard than work traffic.
fie added that he is trou led by the size of the two -story building and he is
not really sure that Saratoga needs mini - storage.
Commissioner McGoldrick pointed out that the General Plan meetings had speci-
fically requested that thins site be for low intensity commercial or office
use. She commented that itl is obvious that this use, no matter what the
number of trips is, is lower than any other use and she feels this would
probably be the best use fo the neighborhood. She expressed concern with
the size of the two - stories and the general bulk of the building. However, she
indicated that she feels th se problems could be mitigated in Design Review.
She added that she would wan no variances on the setbacks and would not approve
the proposed hours.
Commissioner Nellis stated tli t the possibility of the Deferred Improvement
Agreements had minimized much of his concern about the traffic. He noted that
lie would have difficulty appr ving the two - stories and would support a 5:00
p.m. closing time.
Discussion followed on the two story design and the setbacks. There was con-
sensus that the design and siz of the structures and the setbacks will be deter-
mined at Design Review.
Commissioner Nellis moved to ap rove UP -529, per the Staff Report dated March
15, 1983, amended to delete the Japproval of Exhibits B and C; making the find-
ings, and with the additional co dition that the lighting and hours of opera-
tion shall be determined at a la er date by the Planning Commission. Commis-
sioner McGoldrick seconded the m tion. Discussion followed on the access.
Commissioner Nellis suggested that a condition be added that the access be off
of Kirkmont. The Deputy City Att rney commented that the access can be address-
ed at the time of Building Site A%proval and this approval would be for the
use only. The vote was taken to approve UP -529. The motion was carried 4 -1,
wit mi ioner Siegfried dissen \ing.
7. UP -531 - Martin Oudewaal, 1462 Big Basin Way, Request for Use Permit to
allow the construction of four condominiums in the C -V (Visitor
Commercial) zoning district (west of 4th St.)
The proposal was described by Staff, who stated that the previous approval had
expired.
The public hearing was opened at 12:25 p.m.
Warren Ileid, architect, explained the project and the history of it. He stated
that he feels that this is a good use for the land, since it will be a less
dense use of the site than the commercial and the impact as far as privacy
would be less. Ile added that lie feels that this use will maintain the property
value better than an office or commercial building.
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes 3/23/83
UP -S31 (cont.)
C Page 7
A letter from Stone Pine Condominiums, asking that the proposed project be
redesigned as a single level 4 -unit cluster design,was noted. Mr. Heid indicated
that lie had done studies to attempt to use that design; however, it was not
feasible and was a wasted use of the land.
Mary Boscoe, a member of Stone Pine Condominiums, spoke in opposition to the
impact of this building on a very small lot. She noted that it is not in
character with the Village and addressed the financial impact. She commented
that they had not been notified of the previous use permit, since the notices
had been sent to the former owners, even though it was known that they no longer
lived there.
Lynne Gillmartin Lindsey, of Unit B of Stone Pine, commented that she had mis-
takenly approved the previous plan that Mr. Heid had approached her with for
this property because he did not explain the ramifications. She noted the
privacy impacts and commented that the architect has not looked at the project
for their benefit.
The owner of Unit No. C commented that he would have to change his life style
if this were approved, since it would impact his privacy greatly. He added
that it would take away the sunlight and would decrease property values.
Mr. Heid commented that the notices for the original application were sent to
the owners listed at the'County at the time. He added that this is a commer-
cial piece of land and it is entitled to commercial consideration under the
ordinance. Mr. Heid requested that the item be continued so that he could
present more data on the project and because his client is out of town.
There was a consensus to vote on the matter at this time. There was also a
consensus that the project as proposed is inappropriate for the neighborhood.
Commissioner Nellis moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Staff noted that this project has an approved Design Review which has not
expired. There was a consensus that this item should be denied without preju-
dice, in order to allow the applicant to come back with a revised design
significantly different in terms of height, size, parking and privacy concerns.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to deny UP -531 without prejudice. Commissioner
Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5 -0. The 10 -day
appeal period was noted.
DESIGN REVIEW
8. A -863 - Union 76\eA atoga-Sunnyvale Road (Blue Hills Center), Request for
Design R A proval of Landsca ing and Si n
Staff described the sed landscaping and sign. They commented that they
were requesting modiion to the sign and recommending that it be lowered
to a monument type aved back from the street by 2 feet.
Mr. Heid, architect, ssed the landscaping, the curved side walk and the
proposed sign. Staf ented that the reason they have suggested that the
sign be lowered is be of so many complaints about signage along Saratoga -
Sunnyvale Road.
Jeff Heid discussed re and plantings being used. After further dis-
cussion on the sign wa a consensus that a condition should be added that
the sign be no highean 4 eet, made of wood except for the inserts, and be
of natural colors. issio er Nellis commented that orange and blue colors
are the corporate coand h felt they should be allowed. Chairman Schaefer
noted that other appnts al g that road had been required to have natural
colors.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to pove A-863 subject to the Staff Report,
amended to include the above cond pion, with final design of the sign to be
approved by Staff. Commissioner M Goldrick seconded the motion, which was
carried 4 -1, with Commissioner Nellis dissenting.
- 7 -
W
C
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 10/21/81
Commission Meeting: 10/28/81
SUBJECT* A -793 Martin Oudewaal (Saratoga Real II)
14629 Big Basin Way
---------------------------------------------- - - - - --
REQUEST: Design Review Approval for a 4 unit condominium
structure.
ENVIRONMENTAL.ASSESSMENT: A Negative Declaration for this
project was prepared under UP -500.
PUBLIC NOTICING: This project has been dvertised already
t nde UP -5 ?0. A public nearing is not requited
or tiffs app ication.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Retail Commercial
ZONING: "C -V" (Visitor - Commercial)
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
SITE SIZE: 15,952
SITE SLOPE: 130+
HF.T('U4T nP CTP11rT1TAT: -
Multi- family residential to the north
and east; commercial and residential
to the south; single - family residential
to the west.
20' at mid -point of gambrel roof; 27' at
peak of gambrel roof; 36' to peak of
"tower ".
SETBACKS: Rear: 74' Left Side: 10' Right Side: 10'
Front: 35'
BUILDING SIZE:
Garage Level:
First Floor:
Second Floor:
SITE COVERAGE BY STRUCTURE
35.60+
5,676
sq.
ft.
4,192
sq.
ft.
3,920
sq.
ft.
�1
C
•
•
C
REPORT TO PLANNIN\ COMMISSION
A-793.- Oudewaal
EXTERIOR FACADE: Materials:
Color:
ROOF MATERIALS: Wood Shake
10/21/81
Page 2
Plaster, used brick, and wood
trim
Off- white, red (earthtone), and
dark brown
GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 900+ cu. yds. Fill: 0 cu. yds.
Cut Depth: S'+ Fill Depth: 0'
STAFF ANALYSIS: On August 12, 1981 the Planning Commission
approved UP -S00 (attached) which allowed the
subject property to be occupied by condominiums.
The issue of density and structure design were to be dealt with
at Tentative Building Site Approval and Design Review. The issue
of density is dealt with in SDR -1508, also on this agenda. The
design of the structure is the subject of this report.
The elevations of the proposed structure are essentially the same
as those presented to the Commission during the use permit hear-
ing. However, the roof of the main portion of the structure has
been changed from a mansard roof to a gambrel roof. This changes
the way height is measured for the structure. With a mansard
roof, height must be measured from the highest point of the
roof to average finished grade. Using a gambrel roof the Ordinance
(Section 14.8) states the height is to be measured from the mid-
point of the roof to average finished grade. Thus, the applicant
has complied with the 20' height limit required in the "C -V" dis-
trict.
The applicant also considers the higher pyramidal portions of the
roof as towers. Towers are allowed to be 25' higher (a maximum
of 45' in this case) than normal zoning district limits per
Section 14.9 of the Ordinance if not more than 100 of the ground
area of the structure is covered by the towers. This would allow
one tower to exceed the 20' limit if the Commission determines
those roof sections are towers. The other two towers would have
to be removed or the existing Use Permit (UP -500) modified to
allow the towers.
With the modifications proposed by the applicant (plus the elimina-
tion of two towers) the proposed structure would technically be
in compliance with the Ordinance and Condition 3 of the Use Permit.
However, it should be noted that the mass of the proposed structure
is the same as the original proposal. If the Commission determines
that the proposed structure is too massive it can still require
it to be reduced in size to be compatible with adjacent structures.
One of the concerns expressed during the Use Permit process was
the potential impact on privacy of the proposed structure. Con-
dition 9 of UP -500 required detailed landscaping plans at the
time of Design Review which illustrated how the structure would
be screened so as to protect privacy. The landscaping proposed
by the applicant along the eastern and western portion of the
REPORT TO PLANNIN( COMMISSION C, 10/2'1/81'
A -793 - Oudewaal Page 3
property consists mostly of shrubs or hedges which will be too
low to screen the windows of the second floor. Staff suggests
that, at a minimum, large box sized evergreen trees be planted
immediately in front of the second story windows to protect
privacy.
The proposed trash enclosure will be adequately screened by
vegetation but details of the enclosure itself have not been
submitted.
A total of 12 parking spaces (8 for residents, 4 for guests)
will be provided on site. This complies with Ordinance require-
ments, and provides guest parking not normally required by
Ordinance.
The setbacks for the proposed structure are the same as the
setbacks proposed under UP -500.
CONCLUSION: The major issues which have to be resolved are the
compatibility of the proposed structure with adja-
cent structures in terms of mass and its impact on privacy.
Privacy impacts can be mitigated by the use of mature landscaping
elements. The question of compatibility is more subjective. The
applicant has submitted a street elevation which shows the pro-
posed structure 16' higher (peak of tower) than the adjacent
single -story condominiums but only about 3' higher than the two -
story Caldwell house. If the Commission decides the design of the
proposed structure is appropriate, then the Use Permit (UP -500)
should be modified to allow all the towers to remain to preserve
the integrity of the proposed design.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve per Staff Report dated October 21,
1981 and Exhibits "B" and "C" subject to
the following conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of building permits:
A. Detailed grading and drainage plans shall be reviewed
and approved by the Community Development Department.
Only these approved plans shall be implemented during
construction.
B. Any modifications to the proposed Site Development Plan
or elevations shall require Community Development Depart-
ment review and approval.
C. Detailed landscaping and irrigation plans illustrating
how the privacy of adjacent properties will be protected
shall be submitted for review and approval by the
Community Development Department.
D. Design details of the proposed trash enclosure and deck
shall be submitted for review and approval by the
Community Development Department.
•
•
•
REPORT TO PLANNIN( .OMMISSION
A -793 - Oudewaal
C
Approved:
Michael-Flores'
Assistant Planner
MF /clh
Attachment: Approved Staff Report - UP -S00
P. C. Meeting: 10/.28/81
10/21/81
Page 4
I
REPORTTO PLANNING COMMISSION
a; Sara,a��
*Amended (10/28/81)
DATE: 10/22/81
Commission Meeting: 10/28/81
SUBJECT' SDR -1508, Martin Oudewaal (Saratoga Real II)
14629 Big Basin Way
--- - - - - -- Tentative Building Site Approval -1 lot
------------------------------------------
(Commercial-4 Condominiums)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
(Please see A -793, also on this agenda, for the basic data on
this project.)
On August 12, 1981 the Planning Commission granted use permit
approval for this project but the Commission indicated that
the density of the project would be determined at the tentative
building site approval. The applicant is proposing the same
number of units as requested under the use permit. Deducting the
3,535 sq. ft. of the site encompassed by the proposed Santa Clara
Valley Water District easement leaves a site area of 12,417 sq. ft.
(per Section 1.5(tt) of the zoning ordinance). This means that
the project would have a density of one dwelling unit per 3,104
sq. ft. if four units were constructed on the site. This density
is equivalent to the density allowed under R- M- 3,000 zoning
which can be found on the north side of Oak Street and the north
side of St. Charles Street in the Village Area. It therefore
appears that the density proposed by the applicant is suitable
for the area.
Other details of the project are described in the Design Review
application A -793 and the Use Permit application UP -500.
PROJECT STATUS: 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.
The housing needs of the region have been considered and have
been balanced against the public service needs of its residents
C - C
Report to Planning Commission 10/22/81
SDR -1508, Oudewaal Page 2
and available fiscal and environmental resources.
A Negative Declaration was prepared and filed with the County
of Santa Clara Recorder's Office relative to the environmental
impact of this project. Said determination date: June 8, 1981.
The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for
SDR -1508 (Exhibit B filed September 18, 1981) subject to the
following conditions:
I. GENERAL CONDITIONS -
Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of
Ordinance No. 60, including without limitation, the sub-
mission 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; sub-
mission of engineered improvement plans for any street
work; and compliance with applicable Health Department regu-
lations and applicable Flood Control regulations and re-
quirements of the.Fire Department. Reference is hereby
made to said Ordinance for further particulars. Site ap-
proval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning
and Building Ordinances, nor with any other Ordinance of
the City. In addition thereto, applicant shall comply with
the following Specific Conditions which are hereby required
and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No.
60.
II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS.- ENGINEERING SERVICES
A. Construct standard driveway approach.
B. Provide adequate sight- distance and remove obstructions
of view as required.
C. Watercourses must be -.kept free of obstacles which will
change, retard or prevent flow.
D. Convey drainage water to street, storm sewer or water-
course as approved by the Director of Community Development.
E. Obtain encroachment permit from CAL TRANS for work done
within State right of way.
F. Install one (1) Big Basin Way style street light on
Big Basin Way.
G. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit
grading and drainage plans to CAL TRANS for review and
approval.
C
Report to Planning Commission
SDR -1508, Oudewaal
10/22/81
Page 3
C
H. Replace existing concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk
along Big Basin Way as directed by the Director of
Community Development.
I. All access ways to be a minimum of 18 ft. wide.
J. All access ways, parking areas, and other quasi- public
paved areas are to be surfaced using a minimum of
2z" A.C. on 6" aggregate base.
K. Pay Storm Drainage Fee-in effect at the time of obtaining
Final Approval
L. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for Checking and Recordation
(Pay required Checking & Recordation Fees). (If Parcel
is shown on existing map of record, submit three (3)
to -scale prints).
M. Obtain encroachment permit from Santa Clara Valley
Water District.
III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES
1. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed
professional
a. Geology
b. Soils
C. Foundation
2. Plans to be reviewed by geotechnical consultant prior
to building permit being issued.
"3. Prior to issuance of building permits detailed on -site
improvement plans showing the following shall be sub-
mitted to the Department of Community Development for
review and approval:
a. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross - sections,
existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities)
b. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall,
location, etc.)
C. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or
R.C.E. for walls 3 feet or higher.
Report to Planning Commission 10/22/81
SDR -1508, Oudewaal Page 4
d. Erosion control measures
e. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using
record data, location map, north arrow, sheet nos., owner's
name, etc.
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4
A.
Sanitary sewer service is available to this project from Big
Basin Way.
B.
The sewer within the complex must be a public one with the
necessary grant of a sanitary sewer easement.
C.
Applicant's engineer shall submit a grading plan showing a suitable
location for the sewer within the complex for district review and
approval.
D.
Upon receipt of the grading plan necessary fees will be determined
and paid to the district.
V. SPECIFIC
CONDITIONS - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT
C1.
Install an automatic fire sprinkler system for the parking garage
and storage rooms in accordance with NFPA pamphlet #13.
2.
Provide a 1 hour self closing door for the Parking Garage level
stairway.
3. Provide one portable fire extinguisher with a minimum UL rating of
2- A/10 -B:C for each level. The specific locaticn on each level will
be designated by the Fire Chief. It is recommended that said ex-
tinguishers be installed in break glass cabinets.
4. Provide a fire department.hose connection for each level. Hose
connections shall be supplied from the street main and controlled =
with an approved shutoff valve. The size and type of thread for
the hose connection will be designated by the.Fire Chief. The
specific location for each hose connection will be- designated by the
Fire Chief.
S. The entire building shall have an early warning smoke detection system
throughout. The signal is to be transmitted by a telephone dialer
to a central system to be designed so as to operate 24 hours on stand-
by power.
6. Provide emergency lighting for hallways and stairways on each level
as well as the Parking Garage. Said lighting shall be illuminated
when power to the building is disconnected.
Report to Planning Commission 10/22/81
SDR -1508, Oudewaal Page 5
C
7. Fire places shall be maintained with spark arrestors constructed
with heavy wire mesh or other non - combustible material with
opening not to exceed one half inch
8. All electric gates shall be approved by the Fire Chief prior to
installation.
VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
A. A sanitary sewer connection will be required. 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. Erosion protection of the bank shall be provided by the owner prior
to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.
B. Right -of -way along creek to be dedicated as shown on map to Santa
Clara Valley Water District and /or City of Saratoga. Owner shall
contact the Real Estate Division regarding transfer of right -of-
way.
C. Owner shall accept all liability for the proposed concrete pad in
the right -of -way.
-D. Incorporate site drainage into an existing storm drain system.
Design any new outfall into the creek to serve the general area
to minimize the number of future outfalls. Outfall structure
details shall be submitted to the District for review and issuance
of a permit to advertising for construction.
E. Owner shall show any existing well(s) on the plans and inform the
District of their proposed use.
F. A fence at least 42 inches high shall be installed between the
development and top of creek bank. Show details of any fencing in
the improvement plans.
VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PERMIT REVIEW DIVISION
A. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of
permits.
B. Prior to issuance of building permits individual structures shall
be reviewed by the Permit Review Department to evaluate the potential
for solar accessibility. The developer shall provide, to the extent
feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportuni-
ties on /in the subdivision /building site.
L'
3
Report to Planning commission 10/22/81
SDR -1508, Oudewaal Page 6
C. The applicant shall landscape all portions of the public right -
of -way that are to remain unimproved. Landscaping and irrigation
plans shall be submitted to the Permit Review Department for review
and approval. Landscaping and irrigation improvements shall be
installed and established within 90 days of completion of the right -
of -way improvements.
D. The applicant shall enter into a Landscape Maintenance Agreement
with the City for those landscaped areas within the public right -
of -way. The applicant shall maintain these landscaped areas for a
minimum of one year after which the homeowners association shall
be responsible for maintaining the landscaped areas.
E. All individual lot owners shall be required to become members of a
homeowners association for the express purpose of maintaining all
landscaped areas within the public right -of -way. The C.C. & R's
of the homeowners association shall be reviewed and approved by
the Permit Review Department, prior to final approval.
F. C.C. & R's shall state that the City has the right but not the
duty to enforce the C.C. & R's. The C.C. $ R's shall not be
amended without written consent from the City of Saratoga.
* G. A Geotechnical Investigation shall be conducted as described
in the City Geologist's letter dated October 22, 1981. The
results of the investigation shall be reviewed and approved
.by the City Engineer and City Geologist prior to issuance
of a building permit.
IX. CONVENTS
- Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City
Ordinances.
's
Approved:
Michael Flores
Assistant Planner
MF:jd
P.C. Agenda: 10/28/81
*As amended 10/28/81 Planning Commission Meeting
William Cott _)n
and Associates
GEOTECHNICAL COC ATANTS
314 Tait Avenue, Los Gatos, California 95030
(408) 354 -5542
C
October 22, 1981
TO: Kathy Kerdus, Planner
FROM: William Cotton, City Geologist
SUBJECT: Oudewaal SDR 1508
We have completed a geologic review of the subject property using the
Site Plan, 4 Unit Condominium for: Mr. Martin Oudewaal (Saratoga
Real. 11), prepared by Warren B. Heid, dated Sept. 1, 1981, revised
Sept. 15, 1981.
SITE CONDITIONS
The subject property is underlain by old alluvial materials (i.e.
gravel, sand, silt and clay) deposited by Saratoga Creek.
Saratoga
Creek, located in the northern portion of the property, has
since
eroded down through these materials to form the present stream
channel
and to expose these sediments within the stream bank.
The southern two- thirds of the property is generally flat and
a wood
frame residential structure occupies the southeastern portion
of this
area. The northern one -third of the parcel is characterized by
the high
(35 foot) and steep (35 to 50 degrees) stream bank. Portions
of this
stream bank show evidence of past slope instability (i.e.
shallow
landslides) .
RECOMMENDED ACTION
We recommend that, prior to issuance of a building permit, the
applicant be required to retain an engineering geologist and soil
engineer to conduct a :geotechnical investigation of the subject property.
This investigation should address, but not necessarily be limited to,
the following:
1. Earth materials - The type and distribution of earth materials
i.e. bedrock and surficial) should be shown on an original
geologic map and cross sections.
2. Slope stability - The long -term slope stability of the high steep
creek bank should be evaluated under both seismic and aseismic
conditions and, if necessary, mitigating measures provided.
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES • FOUNDATION ENGINEERING
3. Soil and foundation engineering - Preliminary recommendations
should be provided for design of foundations and retaining walls,
site preparation and grading and site drainage.
The results of this investigation should be reviewed and approved by
the City Engineer and Geologist prior to issuance of a building permit.
Respectfully submitted,
WILLIAM COTTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
L\'� �L Q��'t
William R. Cotton
City Geologist
CEG 882
William Cotton and Associates
*
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
q f
> Saratcgp
AI.F:.
DATE:
SUBJECT UP -500, Martin J. Oudewaal
14629 Big Basin Way
*(amended 8/12/.81)
DATE: 6/18/81
Commission Meeting: 6/24/81
-----------------------------------------------------------
REQUEST: Allow the construction of four (4) Condominium units in the "C -V"
(Visitor Commercial) District.
ENVIRONMEWAL ASSESSMENT: A Negative Declaration for this project has been
prepared.
PUBLIC NOTICING: This project has been advertised by publishing in the news-
paper, posting, and by mailings to 200 nearby property owners.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Retail Commercial
ZONING: "C -V" (Visitor Commercial)
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Multi - family residential to the north and east;
Commercial and residential to the south; single - family residential to the
west.
SITE SIZE: 15,952 sq. ft.
SITE SLOPE: 13 %+
HEIGHT OF STRUCTURE: 31' from average finished grade to flat portion of
roof; 36.5' from natural grade to peak of tower; 28' from natural grade to
flat portion of roof (front elevation).
SETBACKS: Rear: 78' Left side: 10' Right side: 10' Front: 35'
STAFF ANALYSIS: Currently the site is occupied by a single -story single
family dwelling. This structure would be replaced by a single structure
4,192 sq. ft. - first floor; 3,920 sq. ft. - second floor) which would con-
tain four units. Two units would be contained in the lower floor and two
units would be contained in the upper floor. A garage (8 spaces) and a
storage area are contained in the lower level (5,376 sq. ft.) which is
primarily below natural grade. The density for the project works out to one
unit per 3,988 sq. ft. of site area. No density guidelines are contained in the
•
•
Staff Report
UP -500
6/18/81
Page 2
"C -V" ordinance so the Commission must decide what a reasonable density for
the site is.
Approximately 33.7% of the site would be covered by structure and an additional
9.4% would be covered by paving. Nine hundred cubic yards of cut (maximum
depth 5') would be necessary to acconanodate the structure. The exterior of
the structure would utilize used brick, off white plaster and brown stained
timber. Wood shakes would be used on the roof. The applicant also proposes
a deck near the top of bank of the creek. This location must be approved by
the Santa Clara Valley Water District prior to construction.
The applicant proposes 2 guest parking spaces in addition to the 8 garage spaces
required by ordinance. The Commission previously required 1.5 spaces per
dwelling unit for a recently approved.mutli- family project in the same vicinity
(Kennani site - UP -448). Using that ratio, 6 guest spaces would be necessary
for this site. Staff has some concern that spaces 1 and 8 of the garage area
will be difficult to get into and out of because of the tight spacing (21'
from back of stall to wall). Staff recommends that a study be done by the
applicant to determine the feasibility of those two spaces.
The Saratoga Fire District has indicated a concern with the fire hazard poten-
tial of the lower level garage and storage area. The District recommends that
this lower level be fitted with sprinklers to reduce fire hazard.
The structure exceeds the 20' height limitation of the "C -V" District, however,
the Commission under Section 16.1 -1 may vary the height of the structure if
it feels the proposed height would not adversely impact adjacent properties
(as in UP -448).
No standard setbacks for multi - family residential setbacks in the "C -V" District
are specified in the ordinance. However, if commercial building setbacks are
required the front and rear yards comply with ordinance requirements. The
sideyards would have to be 18'. If these side yards were to be used, a building
only about 26' wide (at the proposed height) would be allowed. (Note: The
same side yards would be required in an R -M District).
Existing structures to the east and west.are about 21' from the edge of the
property. Portions of the property to the east will be shaded by the proposed
structure between the hours of 1 p.m. and 3 p.m. However, the orientation
of the buildings to the east indicates that they would be unable to adequately
utilize solar energy even -if the structure were not . built.
The structure would be about 13' higher (flat portion of roof) than the existing
single - family dwelling on the site and adjacent structures. The architectural
style of the structure would be compatible with the Village and similar in
height to other condominium projects approved by the Commission.
. The project may have an adverse impact on the privacy of adjacent properties
due to second story window and balcony locations. These impacts can be miti-
gated by landscaping and removal of the balconies. It is suggested that ever-
green trees be used to protect privacy.
No ordinance size trees will be removed to accommodate the project.
Staff Report 6/18/81
UP -500 Page 3 •
OPTIONS:
1. Approve the project as it is proposed or with minor modifications (i.e.,
landscaping to protect privacy, etc.).
2. Reduce the number of units and structure size. This would provide more
guest parking and would allow the height of the structure to be reduced.
This would help keep the structure more in scale with adjacent structures.
3. The size of the units could be reduced but the number would remain the
same. This would reduce building size but some of the luxury qualities
of the proposed units would be lost.
4. Lower the height of the structure.
CONCLUSIONS: The applicant has indicated in an attached letter that during
the General Plan meetings addressing. the Village Area it appeared that there
was a consensus for greater housing density of high quality in the Villaqe to
help support the commercial uses. This project seems to fit those criteria.
However, the Commission must resolve the issue of aesthetic compatibility.
The project in and or itself is well designed but adjacent structures are lower
and the project utilizes higher roof pitch than those structures.
FINDINGS:
1. The proposed location of the four condominium units is in accord with the •
objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in
which the site is located.
2. The proposed location of the four condominiums and the conditions under
which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties
or improvements in the vicinity if the conditions under reced action
are complied with.
3. The proposed conditional use will comply with the General Plan but will
not comply with each of the provisions of the ordinance in that 10' side -
yards will be provided where 18" is required and the structure will be
over 20' in height. However, the Commission should approve these
variations if the project is modified to reduce potential adverse impacts.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that Option #4 be utilized to reduce
potential incompatibility with adjacent structures and that the Commission
approve this use permit per Exhibit B and revised elevations and the Staff
Report dated June 18, 1981, subject to the following conditions:
1. Tentative and Final Building Site Approval is required.
2. Design Review Approval is required.
3. Revised elevations reflecting lower building height shall be submitted .
for Planning Commission review and approval at the time of Design Review.
4. Applicant shall comply with the conditions of the Saratoga Fire District
as described in their letter dated June 18, 1981.
Staff Report 6/18/81
UP -500 Page 4
•
5. Prior to issuance of Building Permits the Department of Transportation
shall review grading and drainage plans for the site to evaluate the
effect on State Highway drainage conditions.
6. Applicant shall comply with the Santa Clara Valley Water District in
terms of required easements and the location of the proposed deck near
the creek area.
7. Grading and drainage plans to be reviewed by the Department of Inspection
Services and the Department of Public Works prior to Design Review
Approval.
8. The applicant shall submit plans illustrating has the proposed trash
enclosure shall be screened.
9. Detailed landscaping plans indicating how the privacy of adjacent properties
will be protected by submitted at the time of Design Review.
Approved W ,r,C.L -eu
Michael Flores, Assistant Planner
MF /dra
• P.C. Agenda: 6/24/81
*Number of units to be determined during site development
and design review process (amended by the Planning Commission
Meeting on 8/12/81).
40
OLVI11%
41Lt AVFI
cs
R-1-4 3000
see
At
. _ �
� ' �
,mss
SAM
ICA
1
OLVI11%
41Lt AVFI
cs
R-1-4 3000
LE NO.: UP -531
USE PERMIT
RESOLUTION NO. UP -531 -1
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received
the application of MARTIN OUDEWAAL
for a Use Permit to
allow the construction of four condominiums in the C -V zoning district
at 14629 Big Basin Way
and
WHEREAS, the applicant W) (has not) met the burden of proof
required to support his said application;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration
of maps, facts, exhibits and other evidence submitted in this matter,
the application for the USE PERMIT be, and the same is hereby
( nQxxk) (denied) subject to the following conditions:
(without prejudice)
Per Exhibits "B" and "C"
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that (b�xecoaetcxocxx�cxacac�dxec
��ec�cx�ccdcQgxbcecdc) (the Planning Commission could not
make all of the requisite findings), and the Secretary be, and is
hereby directed to notify the parties affected by this decision.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by
the
City
of
Saratoga Planning
Commission,
State of California, this
23rd
day
of
March
19 83 ,
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Hlava, McGoldrick, Nellis, Schaefer and Siegfried
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Bolger and Crowther
AT ST:
Secretary, Planning-commission
airman, Plann' g Commission
. �#6
0
uw - V s /
STONE PINE CONDOMINIUMS
14605 BIG BASIN WAY
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
1983
'Tg 111JU TY OLVELOPiME1
March 14, 1983
Robert S. Shook
Director of Community Development
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Subject: UP -531 - Martin Oudewall
14629 Big Basin Way
Application for Use Permit
Dear Mr. Shook:
The Stone Pine Condominium Homeowners Association wishes to express
its deep concern for, and objection to, the above referenced project
proposal. The Association (referred to on the plans of the project
0
s "The Lands of Caldwell ") is the adjoining property to the project.
he concerns, regarding the proposed plans, are as follows.
1) The height of the proposed structure as it relates to the total
loss of privacy of the Stone Pine units by virtue of first and
second story windows (living room and kitchens) open to view
each backyard, and ultimately into each living room of the
Stone Pine units. The rights of privacy will seriously be violated
should the Use Permit be approved.
2) The height of the proposed structure as it relates to the loss
of sunlight and solar heat to the units of Stone Pine. Each
of the Stone Pine units, immediately adjoining the proposed
project, have living rooms with sliding glass window access to
their backyards. The light from these backyards is vital to the
interior natural lighting of the units.as the window is the only
source of natural light to the living room and dining room areas
of each unit.
3) The design of the proposed structure as it relates to the incompat-
ability with the Stone Pine units, which resemble single level
clapboard summer cottages.
The above three (3) objections to the proposed project are supported
by the General Plan. Specifically, Chapter 2, entitled GOALS AND
#LICIES OF the Plan indicate the following:
Robert S. Shook
March 14, 1983
Page 2
LU. 5.0. The City shall use the design review process to assure
that new construction and major additions thereto are
compatible with the site and the adjacent surrounding.
LU. 6.2 Proposed land uses and development proposals shall be
evaluated against ordinance standards to assure that the
related noise, light, appearance and intensity of use have
limited adverse impact on the area.
The General Plan, additionally, includes the protection of clapboard
summer cottages in Area J., The Village; specifically the area of.
Oak Street and St. Charles Street. The Plan reads that "new buildings
should blend into and reinforce the clapboard summer cottage
appearance of the area." The Stone Pine units, while not directly
located on Oak or St. Charles, should certainly not be ignored in this
respect.
The architect of the proposed project, Warren B. Heid, contends that
the project will enhance the value of the Stone Pine units. The
homeowners do not deny that residential development on the adjacent
property will certainly enhance the value of the Stone Pine Units.
However, residential development, such as the proposed project, will
have depreciating effect. The Commissioners and.the.City Council
must consider the dollar value lost with the loss of light and
privacy. If the proposed project is approved the marketability
of the Stone Pine Units will be greatly affected by that loss.
The Stone Pine Condominium Homeowners Association urges the City
Council and the City Planning Commission to make a cautious and
responsible review of the proposed plan. The Association further
urges the City to make an on -site inspection of the project and
view it from the properties of Stone _Pine. The Association has had
property surveyed and wishes to demonstrate to the Commission the
realities of the proposed structure.
The Stone Pine Condominium Association submits that the proposed
project be redesigned as a single level four (4) unit cluster
design compatible to the single level cluster design of Stone Pine
Condominiums so as to maintain "compatability to the adjacent
properties "; to "as.sure that light and appearance have limited
adverse impact on the area "; to assure privacy to existing
adjacent property; and, to "reinforce the clapboard summer cottage
appearance of the area."
the
•
•
Cbert S. Shook
March 14, 1983
Page 3
The members of the Association find it difficult to understand that
they must remphasize the goals and policies of the General Plan
to an architect who sits on the General Plan Committee and whose
own office (across the street from the proposed project) on Big
Basin Way is of a single level clapboard summer cottage design.
The members of the Association wish the Council and the Commission to
be aware that the recent notice for public hearing on this project
was the first notice received by EACH homeowner dispite many requests
by the unit homeowners to the city offices.
The following members have signed this letter to reconfirm their
opposition to the proposed project.
Sincerely,.
ry Bos6,oe
resident
Stone Pine Homeowners Association
Lynn Lindsey
C �rol Slu -sher
Al Duarte
Doreen Croft
Gary L nr sey
Steve Slusher
S,am Buntin
Barbara Caldwell
DeAnza College 21250 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Cupertino, CA 95014
Mr. Robert S. Shook
Director of Community Development
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga,, CA 95070
Dear Mr. Shook:
ui' -sad
-1983
March 10, 1983
I would like to register my deep concern to you and the planning
commission about the proposed construction of four condominiums
at 14629 Big Basin Way.
I strongly urge members of the commission to examine adjacent
properties to see the amount of soil damage and drop off into
the creek since the heavy rains. I fear further development
of the sort proposed will erode the surrounding soil even more.
I am hopeful that you and commission members will take a cautious
and responsible approach toward development which might jeopardize
the health and safety of people situated in the area of proposed
construction.
Sincerely,
L �
Doreen J. Croft, Director
Child Development Center
FootndbDeAnza Community College District
WARREN B. HEIR • AIA
A N D A S S O C I A T E S
A R C H I T E C T S • P L A N N E R S
1 4630 BIG BASIN WAY • P.O. BOX 14 • SARATOGA • CALIFORNIA 95070 • 867 -9365
May 12, 1983
City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California
Re: Use Permit No. UP -531
Martin J. Oudewaal
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council:
This letter is submitted to you as an explanation to you of a
procedure this office would like to follow for the appeal hear-
ing for the subject project and Use Permit. As explained in
my letter of March 31, 1983 and appeal application I have appealed
the decision of the Planning Commission based on.incompl'ete know-
ledge of the project and the neighborhood.
My concern is regarding an appropriate use of this property and
the neighboring property to be developed, along with the exist-
ing uses. I would like to present to you a brief statement on my
previous studies of the area and project as to use, along with
previous drawings presented to the Planning Commission which ap-
proved UP -500, and then request that the appeal be continued to
a study session at your Committee of the Whole.
Since this project does set a criteria for future developments in
the area, and the neighbors were shown the project originally pre-
sented, I am enclosing at this ;time for your review a plan of the
neighborhood and a copy of a petition showing the support of some
of the immediate neighbors contacted for UP -500.
Thank you for your review of the project.
Warren B, Heid
WBH:hw
cc: Martin J. Oudewaal
1
.4
12.
6.
4.7.
.19 9.
3.
n 9
_�
ii
dO
1, ISITTE
.Fl
2.]
0
a
LOCATION OF NEIGHBORS SIGNING IN SUPPORT OF
CONDOMINIUM PROJECT -.Martin J. Oudewaal (U.P. -500
NNI OT /IX N D NEI
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
TO: City Council DATE: 6/30/83
FROM: Kathy Kerdus
SUBJECT: UP -531, Martin J. Oudewaal, Bi.g. Basin Way - 4 Condominiums
At your Committee -of -the Whole on June 21, 1983, a question was raised concerning
the height of the structure. The following information is meant to clarify and
correct the staff report.
Height: 20 ft. at midpoint of roof; 27 ft. at peak of gambrel roof;
36 ft. to peak of tower.
The 20 ft. height (as measured per the Zoning Ordinance) means that the standard
10 ft. sideyard is increased to a 13 ft. required sideyard. The Council may
approve this variation with the approval of the Use Permit.
Additionally, the comments referring to the solar suitability of adjacent structures
to the east should indicate that as they exist, they do not have the best orienta-
tion for solar.
thy K rdbs
Tanner
KK /dsc
I "
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 8 -26 -83
COUNCIL MEETING: 9-07-83
SUBJECT' UP -531 - Martin Oudewaal, 14629 Big Basin Way
At their August 24, 1983 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed
the present proposal for UP -531. After taking testimony from the
neighbors and considerable discussion, the Commission unanimously
moved to recommend that UP -531 as modified not be approved. The
unapproved minutes from that meeting, containing their comments,
are attached.
R ert S. Shook
Director of.Community Development
RSS:cd
Attachment
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes 8/24/83
UNAPPROVED
Present: Commissioners Crowther, Hlava, McGoldrick and Nellis
Absent: Commissioners Schaefer and Siegfried
UP -531 - Martin Oudewaal, 14629 Big Basin Way, Request for Use Permit
to allow the construction of condominiums in the C -V zoning
district
Commissioner Nellis explained that this matter has been referred from
the City Council for the Commission's comments and recommendation.
He summarized the concerns, i.e., the single long dwelling, the massive-
ness, the amount of lot used, compatibility, bulk and encroachment on
the creek bank. He noted the changes that have been made to the plans:
(1) the number of units reduced to 3, (2) reduction of height to 20 ft.,
(3) size, (4) entry stairway, (5) front setback, and (6) parking. Staff
pointed out that the exhibits submitted show the height at approximate-
ly 21 and 23 ft. The current proposal was discussed.
Martin Oudewaal, the applicant, clarified that the height of the struc-
ture will be 20 ft. He added that the height of the tower is only
important for the design of the building and can be lowered.
Mary Boscoe, of Stone Pine Condominiums, stated that the coverage of
the lot is still basically the same and the building is still straight
up and down. The setbacks and the solar shade study were discussed.
Ms. Boscoe indicated that they lose their sun about 1:00 p.m. and com-
mented that any two -story building on that lot will encroach on their
light. She addressed the Negative Declaration and indicated that she
felt circumstances have changed with the last winter and it should be
revised. She submitted pictures of slides in the area.
Ms. Boscoe asked for a continuance of the matter to allow her time to
review the City Geologist's report and some of the other information.
Commissioner Nellis explained that the public hearing on the appeal has
been continued by the City Council to September 7th, and therefore the
Commission will be reviewing the matter this evening and passing their
comments and recommendation to them. He added that Ms. Boscoe could
pass on any additional information to the Council at the public hearing.
Ms. Boscoe commented that the project was reducing their light and
privacy and quoted the Land Use Goals and Policies. It was noted by
Commissioner Nellis that both the Goals and Policies and the ordinances
are addressed by the City when reviewing a project.
Lynn Gillmartin Linsey, of Stone Pine Condominiums, stated that the
structure is still massive. She indicated that she felt the tower
should be eliminated and the project is not in keeping with the design
of the Village. She expressed a concern regarding her loss of privacy
and stated that she feels the size is too great for condominiums. If
approved, she added, she would like materials keeping with the Village.
Mr. Oudewaal stated that he is allowed to build a two -story building
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes 8/24/83
UP -531 (cont.)
Page 2
Unapproved
on this site. He commented that if he does not build the condominiums
he would have to go back to a commercial building. He added that he
is meeting all of the requirements of the City. Staff noted that
commercial setbacks are less than residential setbacks.
Commissioner Crowther commented that he likes the design of the build-
ing; however, one of the things that makes the project so intense is
that the large area in the back is not being used and the smaller part
of the site is being used too intensely. The creek area was discussed.
Commissioner Crowther added that he does not like deviating from the
ordinance on the side yard setbacks.
Commissioner McGoldrick commented that she appreciates the attempt by
the applicant to solve the problems, but she does not believe they are
being solved. She stated that she can't imagine asking anyone to give
up that much of the daylight. She added that she feels that the struc-
ture could be two -story if it were set further away from the adjacent
property. She commented that it would then be a smaller size but it
would still be viable and the.applicant would not be prevented from
building what he wants.
Commissioner Hlava agreed that the building is too big for the size of
the lot, and the use too intense. She commented that she feels three
condominiums is appropriate density, but thinks it would be possible to
build three on this particular lot without losing so much sun by making
them somewhat smaller.
Commissioner Nellis agreed, stating that the size of the lot is too
small to put this size of structure on it. He commented that the
neighbors will have no view and the privacy impacts are still going
to be there. He added that he personally would not want to see that
type of structure in his. back yard so close to his property line. He
indicated that he cannot support this use on this site, and the only
way he could accept it would be if it were a single story.
Commissioner Crowther moved to recommend to the City Council that they
not approve UP -531 as modified, and that the comments of the Commission
be transmitted to the City Council so they have a strong feeling of
their thoughts. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was
carried unanimously 4 -0.
WARREN. B.
• A N D A S S
A R C H I T E C T S
HEID e AIA
O C I _A T E S
• P L A N N E R S
1 4630 BIG BASIN WAY • P.O. BOX 14 • SARATOGA • CALIFORNIA 95070 • 867 -9365
September.2, 1,983
City Council of City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California.
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council:
Once again I wish to prese'nt.information'to you prior to your hearing of Sept-
ember 7, 1983 on the appeal of UP -531 for the condominiums for Martin J: Oude
waal at.14629 Big Basin Way and after the work session at the Committee of the
Whole and Planning Commission meeting last week. This office, representing
Martin Oudewaal, has worked on this project since 1979 with the interest of
designing a structure'.on a'lot that'has been in existance since a Plat of Sara-
toga dated 1876 (copy en.cl.osed) with the interest of'the client and the neigh-
borhood as my prime objective. I am presenting some new information, including
an office building design that meets the Zoning.Ordinance and is an approved use,
for your review prior.to.your hearing so that you can once again know why I feel
• that the revised design,,of the condominiums does not damage the adjacent property
any more than an approved use for the CV Zoning. In my opinion an office build-
ing is mor..e' damaging to privacy and noise than a residential use.
In my letter of July 1; 1983 to you (copy enclosed) I presented information to
you stating the changes.-to the condominium structure that this office made in
response the the Planning Commission denial'of UP -531 in March 1983 and your
comments.during the Study Session of your Committee of the Whole. The changes
in design included number. of units changed to three units, height to not exceed
20' -0" except for the..front.tower element, break in the side elevations to reduce
the mass, and other such items. These changes were made at Mr. Oudewaal's sug-
gestion to.keep the design theory of the site requirements (the theorgy being
to maintai.n.,exposure to the street and the creek for the condominiumns) and yet
meet the suggestions by your body and the Planning Commission to reduce height,.
number of units, and "elevation.
After reviewing -the comments of the various Planning Commissioners at the meeting
of August 24, 1983 I find that the reason this last design was disapproved was for.
the-same reasons as before - height, intensity of use, lot size too small, mass,
loss of light by structure to neighbors, privacy, and other similar items. The .
nefghbors--s.till have..stated that they do not wish a building with the height and-
size pr.es,emted w.i:th these condominiums, and they do not want the loss of sunlight
because'of'a` two story building. Included with the drawings presented with this
letter are two sections with one of the condominiums, and the.other the office
building, showing the shadow lines for noon and 3 PM-for both structures. The
shadow:lthes for the office..b.uilding are slightly less than the condominiums be-
cause of the difference in-set-back, and in my opinion the impact of sunlight by
either type of use will be about the same, Loss of.privacy by both.uses will ..be
City Council.- City of Saratoga
• Appeal of UP -531 - Martin J. Oudewaal
September 2, 1983
the same as will be the mass of the structure.
I am including for your review the Review of Site Information dated May 16, 1983
which was presented for the original four condominiums. Several items have
changed, such as front yard set -back for the three units is 30' in lieu of 35' and
the parking requirements has changed to omit the'four guest spaces, Again this
document.is to show the uses by ordinance and the application for Use Permit
requirements. One item not given on the Review is the site coverage, which is 60%
maximum for the CV zone and this project has site coverage of only 29%.
There are several other considerations for the condominium use for the site and
they are that.a valid Tentative Map approval exists, Design Review approval is
still valid indicating that the Planning Commission.approved the overall appear-
ance of the project, and that the General Plan for 1983 recommends that condomin - ",�
ium use be a guideline for this area of the Village.
As the project architect, with numerous studies of uses and structures for the
site, I have strongly recommended that the condominium use as designed will not
be as damaging to the neighborhood as some other use. I have attempted to show
my reasons before the Planning Commission and your body at all types of hearings.
I have not attempted to have the support of the entire neighborhood, approximately.
200 who have received notices of the hearings, but have tried to assist four neigh-
bors to the east who have fought this project. Staff has recommended approval in
the past and there was previous approval by the Planning Commission. As previously
explained in this letter my client has attempted to meet the neighbors concerns
with the reductions. We are at the final review of the use of this site and I'
once again present my comments.
Included with this letter for your use and review are,:copies of the modified design
of the three unit condomium.including the section with shadow lines, a design of
an office building that meets the Zoning Ordinance and including the section with
shadow lines, a copy of the Review of Site Information previously submitted, a
copy of my letter to you of July 1, 1983, and a copy of the Plat of Saratoga dated
1076 showing the subject property. I thank you, the members of the City Council,
and the Planning Commission, for your assistance with this important application,
and sincerely request that you accept the appeal to.the decision of the Planning
Commission by supporting the modified design for the condomiums.
S'n rely,
Warren B. Heid
WBH :hw
Encl:
cc: Martin. J. Oudewaal
T.L%t,4-
FLA*4
iv
Orr 041%. 4..-b
.10". 0'
II I
1090 O 1510 C' Fill
Nh-14 Ot.Ck- KAI'-
i� ' I \ .JI �•I I { 1,,� \ \� \ � \ �\ \ \ \� \ 1 ;:i i � it 1 t � �' �`�, , / � f I , \• .
Io,
VAUA,*VPVZ
ur
f�
pawN
5.
Fr
u
J
Cr.Gr Wr.ii
.m 0
ill-117
J,
gliu Hb
� D�CKv4+1 - -i-
'
v.MC1� -U V i I+�• Q�•1
u.a.r • o'
U.Y�9% Ufil.G wu••��
»PG�ao��� uwT'o
U,4T -e
u"T `C•
nvmon Ivy
J,
°
0
m m °
QH! W
< o
�lud
x p
x�U�
z°1 u .
< W
z v °
•
J
\J
esmoie n
e e ;
H W �
F z
• z
< < e
U A
xo. •
o w e
z
z u D
a '
�S
a
J Q_
o+ 7• h�j
,or no'�fb'
o... PM W
jr epL�F
0" ^
a }UI ari
0
6".,T V
_ HHC aob WyJ-
- HvIN6r Ic1m.q/
6�9 �f+ne
�� �tL1OK Lbvlr��
POO - d0 YL'a Mlr�i1 W'1��
lyf Fi410K L.-..4-
8 P.R.. L -•�
• i
i
f
1
i
1.
b
i
LJ
•
0
0
.�
I
{
j
i
WARREN B. HEIID • AIA
• A N. D A S S Q. C I A T E S
A RCHITEC.TS • PLANNERS
14630 BIG BASIN WAY • P.O. BOX 14 . SARATOGA • CALIFORNIA 95070 • 867 -9365
Four Unit Condominium
For Martin J. Oudewaal
14629 Big Basin Way, Saratoga, California
May 16, 1983
Review of Site Information.
Permitted Uses: Include Food Store (i /11).
Liquor Store
Professional /Administration Offices
Furniture Specialty Store
Arts and Crafts School
Sporting Goods Store
Delicatessen
Conditional Uses: Include Motel
Recreational Center
• Veterinarian
Restaurant
Mortuary
Zoning: Visitor Commercial - CV
Fire District: Fire Zone.l - Grade 5
Set -Back Information By Ordinance. By Application
Front yard 15' 35'
Side yard 10' 10'
Rear yard 30' 78' min.
Height: 20' 20' plus l tower
Parking Requirements:
For shops 1/200 sq,ft.
For offices 1/400 sq.ft.
Application 2 /unit 2 /unit plus 4 guest
Neighborhood Information:
Condominiums to East - 22' from wing to property line - existing
48' from main building to property line - existing
Old residence to West -21' from building to property line - existing
Motel across Big Basin Way - 26'± in height
• Condominiumns at southwest corner of 6th and Big Basin Way - 24't in height
18' between units - no privacy problem g
Condominiums for Martin Oudewaal
Page 2 - May 16, 1983
Undeveloped property to west is CV District with Guidelines of 1983..
General Plan recommending quality condominiums and /or
apartments - presently 4 residences and 1 office.
Impact on Neighborhood:
This application will not invade the privacy of adjacent properties any
more than any two story building that is of permitted use.
For use of solar heating only property to east could be-affected, however
solar use for these existing condominium's to east is not practical because .
of major trees. Solar use is not best in Saratoga because this area has
only 2,410 Degree -Days, and that the sun's angle.will be.30 degrees on
December 21st at noon for lowest and 75 degrees on June 21st at noon for
the highest.
Visual impact of a well designed and approved Normandy style building will
be prefered by neighbors over office or shop structures, even though they
can be properly designed.
Information was sent to approximately 199 neighbors and only opposition was
from condominium owners directly to east. .Neighbors have recently told
this, office that they support these . condominiums per original signatures,
with exception of Stone Pine Condominiums.
• Community Impact:
•
This project would establish the end of Big Basin Way as quality buildings.
in accordance with Neighborhood Study for General Plan
Project would maintain property values for area as one of the Objectives
of Zoning Ordinance.
Project would preserve the natural beauties of creek bank and site.
Residential use would promote a safer traffic situation rather than a
commercial or office us-e.
Project does not increase population densities in accordance with Gen'l Plan.
Use Permit would strengthen good planning for neighborhood and Village as
project would be asset to community.
Small lots in area have right to develop, and if developed in similar way
as if all one unit they will serve.community.
WARREN B. HEIR • AIA
A N D A S S O C I A T. E S
lk RCHITECTS .. PLANNERS
1 4630 BIG BASIN WAY • P.O. BOX 14 • SARATOGA • CALIFORNIA 95070 • 867 -9365
July 1, 1983
City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California
Re: Appeal to Planning Commission Decision
Use Permit No. 531 - Condominiums for
Martin J. Oudewaal
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council:
After the meeting of the Committee of the Whole and a meeting at the project site,
and after hearing such concerns of the Council as lower the height of the building
and reduce the number of units, my client has requested that .I rework the existing
project as previously approved to see how the original concept of the design be
maintained and yet meet the concerns of the Council. Enclosed are the Plot Plan,
the two Floor Plans, and the four Exterior Elevations that this office has produced
..to meet these concerns.
The original design that was
the side elevations, especia
lot to give the occupants at
street and mountains for the
that this is -the best use of
neighborhood.
approved provided for a minimum invasion of privacy at
Ily to the east. This used the property as a narrow
view to the creek from their major rooms, or to the
other major view. After many studies this office feels
the property for condominiums for the occupants and
When asked to review this design and the concerns the original design was used as
the basic design and two major - changes were made. The first was that the first
floor condominium was eliminated and used for the garage for the building. This
meant that the garage floor under the structure could be eliminated and the building
could be lowered to natural grade. The second change was to again break the long,....
roof line to the east at the entrance stairs and again lower the back units to nat-
ural grade. As a result the following,was obtained
1. The height of the bu ilding was lowered approximately 7' -0" at the rear
units.
2. The height of the building was lowered approximately 6' -0 ".at the front.
units.
3. The building now has three condominiums in lieu of the four units on the
original design.
? 4. The gutter line and eave are..at normal height for a one story structure
instead of being raised due to the split level garage of the original design.
City Council - City of Saratoga
U.P. No. 531 - Martin J. Uudewaal
July 1, 1983 - Page 2.
5. The windows at the kitchen, .den and laundry at the first floor have sight
lines below the existing fence at the east.
6. The exterior elevation at the east has been broken into two units at the
entry and entry stairs.
It is the opinion of this office, having studied the project for numerous types of
uses and condominium use since 1979, that the new submittal as submitted with this
letter does meet the concerns of the City Council. I would appreciate that.you
consider this new layout that reduces height and number of units as a modification
of the original use permit and appeal, and grant the appeal'based on the facts as
presented. I will be happy to review any questions -on this modification with you
at the Council meeting of July 6, 1983, or before if you wish to call me.
Thank you for your assistance with this project and your consideration of the
modification.
Warren B. Heid
WBH :hw
Encl:
cc: Martin J. Oudewaal
l
PLAT OF
w
A R ATQGA
Lo AS 7-esu.rvc }-ecL71EC.) 63 by
C. T. Xru.Ler S- om-file u.Lth.e
Cou,eLy7frcorders Office as
M � CAHTIf Z E.
Sr a, Lc 300 cnrh.
3 �
Plat of Saratoga from the 1876
Thompson and West Atlas.
fr
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial :
AGENDA BILL NO: 444 De4Head,4--�
DATE: May 18, 1983 CiDEPARTMENT: Maintenance Ci
SUBJECT: Saratoga Foothill Club's Memorial Day Parade
Issue Summary
The Saratoga Foothill Club is requesting permission to hold its 61st Memorial Day
Parade. The parade marches from the Memorial Arch, down Oak Street to Madronia
Cemetery and culminates with ceremonies at Madronia Cemetery.
Recommendation
Authorize the Saratoga Foothill Club to hold its annual Memorial Day Parade. Allow
an on duty Sheriff's officer to assist with the crossing of Saratoga -Los Gatos Road.
Fiscal Impact
None, the on duty officer will only be needed for approximately 20 minutes.
Exhibits /Attachments
Letter requesting permission to hold parade.
Council Action
5/18: Approved on Consent Calendar 5 -0.
in
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California, 95070
Dear Members of the Council;
Saratoga, California
April 199 a963
�l AY 0 4 1963
The Memorial Day Committee of the Saratoga Foothill Club requests:
(1) permission for a parade which will march from the Memorial Arch in the
downtown area to Madronia Cemetery between 9 :30 and 10:00 on Monday, May 30,
1983, and (2) traffic control, if necessary, for this parade.
The parade will consist of representatives from the Veterans of Foreign
Wars and its' Ladies Auxiliary, the Saratoga High School Marching Band, the
Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, 4 -H Clubs, and interested citizens.
The ceremony at the Memorial Arch includes the placing of a symbolic wreath
of laurel at its' base in commemoration of Saratoga World War II heroes whose
names are engraved thereon. Fitting ceremonies will begin at Madronia Ceme-
tery when the parade reaches there—approximately 10 o'clock, and will include
an address by Colonel Grieg Rose, a Vietnam veteran, and a long time resident
of Saratoga.
This Memorial Day activity has been sponsored and coordinated by the Saratoga
Foothill Club every year since 1922. 'Tnis will be our 61st year.
We of the committee thank you for your consideration of our requests, and will
be anticipating your reply.
Sincerely,
Mrs. W. L. Teeple, Jr.
(member of the committee)
Judith Loveland Teeple
20480 Williams Avenue
Saratoga, CA. 95070
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO. 4r/ Dept. Hd._
DATE:-May 18, 1983 C. Atty.�
DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr.
i
SUBJECT: FINAL BUILDING SITE APPROVAL, SDR -1496, ROBERT ARALDI, CANYON VIEW
Issue Summary
1. The SDR -1496 is ready for final approval,
2. All Bonds and Agreements have been submitted to the City.
3. All requirements for City Department and other agencies have been met.
Recommendation
Adopt resolution 1496 -2 attached, approving the final map of SDR -1496.
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Copy of tentative map approval
2. Resolution No. 1496 -2
3: Location Map
4. Status report for building site approval
5. Report to Planning Commission
Council Action
5/18: Approved on Consent Calendar 5 -0.
r �
�J
RESOLUTION NO. 1496 -2
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF Robert Araldi
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as
follows: -
The 21,780 square feet parcel shown as parcel one on the Record
of Survey prepared by Creegan and D'AnaPlo recorded, in Book 151
Of Maps at Page 50, and submitted:. to the City Engineer, City_-of
Saratoga, be approved as one (1) individual builsing site.
The above and foregoing resolution.was duly and regularly intro-
duced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular
meeting held on the th day of May 19 83 ,
by the following vote:
•
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
•
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
off`
a
LOCATION
MAP
1 1
I
-Li Ofd ~f1 Gt
b,
O J
ebb `f
s ti'
c
P�� C
N
u
OA D
Y
u
•
o
Q
L
V
Q
Off`
s
LOCATION
MAP
l�
l�
r,
1 �
1 1
1 ;
o �
s ti
c
'SDK ! 496
O
�C
PC
u
u
ROAD
r
u
0
U
X
W
W
U
Q
U
C
V
v
C
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DAY,-
* *(amended 3/9/83)
DATE: 7/2/81
Commission Meeting: 7/8/81
SUBJECT: SDR- -1496, Robert Araldi, Canyon View Drive, TBSA - 1 lot
REQUEST: Tentative Building Site Approval for a Lot of Record at the end of
Canyon View Drive.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSM1 M : A Negative Declaration for this project has been
prepared.
PUBLIC NOTICING:
This project has been advertised with the variance application.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Very low density.
ZONING: R -1- 40,000
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
Single family residential and to the west, vacant land
in the Measure A area.
SITE SIZE: 21,780 square feet (net)
SITE SLOPE: 38.1%
STAFF ANALYSIS: The subject lot was created by a Record of Survey recorded on
September 7, 1962. The applicant has requested a variance
concurrently in order to place the house on the site with
minimal grading.
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at their Committee-
of-the-Whole on May 19, 1981, and expressed concern about the
access for emergency situations (looking for a smooth transition
to the emergency access road proposed for the end of Canyon View
Drive), the right -of -way shown and its impact on the proposed
setback and the slope of the site. With the revised proposals
for the variance,access between the emergency access road, Canyon
View Drive and the driveway will be viable for emergency vehicles.
The staff report, again, conditions the site for the dedication
of the right -of -way shown on the map for extension of Canyon View
Drive.
C
Report to Planning Commission 7/2/81
SDR -1496 Page 2
PROJECT STATUS: 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.
The housing needs of the region have.been considered and have
been balanced against the public service needs of its residents
and available fiscal and environmental resources.
A Negative Declaration was prepared and will be filed with the
County of Santa Clara Recorder's Office.relative to the environ-
mental impact of this project, if approved under this application.
Said determination date: June 8, 1981.
The Staff Report reccumends approval of the tentative map for
SDR -1496, (Exhibit "B -1" [to be so noted after action in variance]
filed June 8, 1981) 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 require-
ments of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to said 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
addition thereto, applicant shall comply with the following Specific Conditions
which are hereby required and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance
No. 60.
II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval
(Currently ftt-. let) . /r ra ,o 00
B. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for Checking and Recordation (Pay required
Checking & Recordation Fees). (If Parcel is shown on existing map of
record, submit three (3) to -scale prints).
** C. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to Provide for a 25 ft. Street
Right -of -Way on Canyon View Drive for purpose of emergency access.
D. Frontage on Canyon View Drive to construct 18 ft. wide plus 1 ft. Shoulders
using double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6 in. aggregate base.
Slope of access road shall not exceed 122% without adhering to the following:
• Access roads having slopes between 122% and 154 shall be surfaced using
22 in. Asphalt Concrete on 6 in. Aggregate Base.
e Access roads having slopes between 15% and 17% shall be surfaced using
4 in. of P.C. Concrete rough surfaced using 4 in. Aggregate Base.
c r
Report to Planning Commission 7/2/81
SDR -1496 Page 3
Slopes in excess of 15% shall not exceed 50 ft. in length.
o Access roads having slope in excess of 172% are not permitted.
Note: o The minimum inside curve radius shall be 42 ft.
o The minimum vertical clearance above road surface shall be
15 ft.
o Bridges and other roadway structures shall be designed to
sustain 35,000 lbs. dynamic loading.
o Storm Runoff shall be controlled through the use of culverts
and roadside ditches.
* *
E. �on�t�uet�ottnig2 f.- Pius approvedra1 us -igle
seal coat- of -1- end scr,eerring9- or better txr -& irt-.- eggr-eg -E, base- fv-i -bhirr 1-00
-ft-.-of- proposed dwe- l- l -ing. (Deleted)
F. Construct Driveway Approach 16 ft. wide at property line flared to 24 ft.
at street paving. Use double seal coat oil and screenings or better on
6 in. Aggregate Base.
G. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required
at driveway and access road intersections.
H. Engineered Improvement Plans required for:
1. Access Road Construction
I. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement Plans.
J. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed
within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval.
K. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements.
III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTION SERVICES:
A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional
a) Geology
b) Soils
c) Foundation
B. Plans to be reviewed by geotechnical consultant prior to building permit
being issued.
_ r •
Report to Planning Commission 7/2/81
SDR -1496 Page 4
C. 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 walls
3 feet or higher
4. Erosion control measures
5. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using record
data, location map, north arrow, sheet nos., owner's name, etc.
D. Final construction details to be coordinated with Tract 6628 improvements
at time of building permits.
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4
A. Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance with require-
ments of County Sanitation District No. 4 as outlined in letter dated
May 20, 1981.
V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT
A. Property is located in a potentially hazardous fire area. Prior to
issuance of building permit, remove combustive vegetation as specified.
Fire retardant roof covering and chimney spark arrestor details shall be
shown on the building plan. (City Ordinance 38.58 and Uniform Fire Code,
Appendix E).
B. 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
22 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 surfaced 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.
* C. Construct a turnaround at the proposed dwelling site having a 32 foot
inside radius or other approved type turnaround which must meet requirements of
the Fire Chief. Details shall be shown on building plans.
D. Driveway shall have a minimum inside curve radius of 42 feet.
r
•
Report to Planning Commission 7/2/81
SDR -1496 Page 5
/^
E. Provide a parking area for two (2) emergency vehicles as required by
the Fire Chief (on the roadway, 8' x 50'). Details shall be shown on
building plans.
F. Proposed dwelling must have a minimum recognized water supply capable
of delivering 1000 gallons per minute for 2 hour(s). 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.
G. Provide 15 foot clearance over the road or driveway (vertical) to
building site. Remove all limbs, wires or other obstacles.
H. Developer to install 1 hydrant(s) that meet Saratoga Fire District's
specifications.
VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers installed and connected
by the developer to one of the existing trunk sewers of the County
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.
VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PLANNING DEPARTMENT
A. House locations and driveway designs to be reviewed and approved by
Saratoga 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.
D. At time of Design Review, individual structures shall be reviewed by the
Planning Department to evaluate the potential for solar accessibility.
The developer shall provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive
or natural heating or cooling opportunities on /in the subdivision/
building site.
w r
Report to Planning Commission 7/2/81
SDR -1496 Page 6
IX. COMMENTS
A. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City Ordinances.
Approved:
KK /dra
'/�� -,.eMegew�
Kathy.Kerd sistant Planner
*clarified at Planning Commission meeting 7/8/81.
* *amended at Planning Commission meeting 3/9/83.
William Coon
and Associates
GEOTECHNICAL CONSUL TTS
314 Tait Avenue, Los Gatos, Ca , iia 95030
(408) 354 -5542
April 22, 1981
TO: Kathy Kerdus, Planner
FROM: William Cotton, City Geologist
SUBJECT: Araldi, SDR 1496
We have completed a geologic review of the subject property using the
following documents:
• Tentative Map for Robert Araldi (20- scale) prepared
by Jennings-McDermott- Heiss, Inc. and dated March 1981.
• Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared
by Site Characteristics, Inc. dated April 1, 1981.
SITE CONDITIONS
The subject property is situated on a north - facing hillside character-
ized by moderately steep to steep (i.e. 17° to 27 °) hillside topography.
The property is underlain by gravel sand silt and clay of the Santa
Clara formation. These bedrock materials are, in turn, overlain by
soil and colluvium of variable thickness.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The geotechnical report prepared by Site Characteristics adequately
describes the geotechnical conditions of the subject property and
satisfactorily addresses the geotechnical conditions which somewhat
constrain the development potential.
We recommend approval of the Tenatative Map with the following
conditions:
1) Geotechnical Plan Review - The applicant's geotechnical
consultants shall review and approve the development plans.
Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, a letter
describing the results of this review should be submitted
to the City to be reviewed by the City Engineer and Geologist.
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY FOUNDATION ENGINEERING
Kathy Kerdus
April 22, 1981
Page Two
2) Geotechnical Field Inspection - The applicant's geotechnical
consultants shall inspect and approve all site grading,
foundation and retaining wall excavations and all site
drainage improvement facilities. A letter describing the
results of the inspections, and the final as -built conditions
of the project should be submitted to the City for review
prior to final project approval.
Respectfully submitted,
William R. Cotton
City Geologist
CEG 882
William Cotton and Associates
o-. 0
P CAST 395 34 p
_T IL__ —y'0pe
� -f 45T - 34 6.11
—
p
R =42.00
�_ s ,•1,, -_ -fit (-- -- - -- - -- - 1
E45 ~30.00 h o
.,T � � •� Y / ,ld 4 1 _ - --
�hY�y 569•',4
.do�epcFpR1A - - ' ' -
— -i �P°K J fRE�
o �
• FR SERER �pRO -- �. - - -- h I1h Z
EE5 �E�EGE f0 ro" j Sr ter,, I
f p IO
1 ,y
5r ` WEST 171,.61,•
1�
153, 0
A
\9 /s
3
_W
>
Z >
0
Z�
Q
U
L;)j
� I
EQ /9•I 935.5
91QLiL � vrr�aF
OGAL ( \ \* I• O. VARIANCE NOTE
- ,• w• ��e. VARIANCE APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED FORT 115
Ir d SOSAVED AND TTHERE IISNLESS GRADIINGA, WAIL LE
AL O AND PAVING REQUIRED DUE TO 20'LESS
DRIVEWAY.
s
_ ._.._ 7:�� S �.• S NOTE
7 .. 3, o TITLE REPORT FOR SITE NOTES EASEMENT S
FT ` • RECORDED IN BOON 571 O.R: 391, BOON 4311
9- $ O.R. 569 AND 8001( 50700.R. 483 FOR AU ESS
............_._AC AND UTILITIES WHERELOCATION IS NOT
..._....... -...._ DEFINABLE OR HAVE NO EFFECT ON SITE
,� � _ V /C //V /Ty MAP TREE TO BE REMOVED
SCALE / •SLR• �' SSW OENi TE WALL AND HEIGHT
L -112
LOS GATOS. ': (. 95030
3. CIVII. EI:G1N1 -F.RS 6 LANE' At-NERS: JFNNH'C.S- MCDERMOTT- HEISS, INC.
915 PIGINT STREET
SAN JOSE, CA. 95110
2RG -451,5
4. LOT S12E: ." r� 36,000 SQUARE FEET GROSS
5. C %I ST II:G AN'D PROPO SEi ND USE: { VA(. Al!1 8 SINGLE FAMILY -HOME
G. EXISTIf'G 20OING 1- -1 40,000
PPOr'ISED 7GI'I FIG P -1 40.00n
i
SAJ'ITAR.Y SEWER TO CO' -I'I SANITATION DI STR II :T •I' LINT IN ADJACENT STREETS
R. cASL:•IEr TS F(7P, DkA IN:11 • SEWAGE A.110 PUBLIC. UT II -ITI11 TO BE rk OVIOLD 11
REQ(I IRLD BY TI IE CITY 1' .SAIeATOGA AND AIFFCTED F`UHL IC UTILITIES.
9. F'PTER SYSTEM TO 01: P- 1':IDtD RY SAN JOSE WATER WORKS FROM EXISTINC
FACILITIFS AOJACI'NT tiI TL.
10. 11.'CTRICITY AND GAS .t I'.(:.E E. TO FACILITIES AD•IACENT TO SITE.
11. ST(`'iM DkAINAC.I Still! F.I- TO CANYON VICW DRIVE AS REQUIRED BY TIII; CITY O!
- SARAIGGA.
1). STRF'- TREE: PLANTIN'L TO BE PROVIDED AS RFQUIRED OT TIII' CITY OF SAPATOG
15. '..I`. -I AvEIlAGC SI.OPF 15 38.1 :. TEN FOOT CONTOUR IENGTII =1380.
14. TI-I AREA IS NOT S(!13.1LCT TO INUNDATION.
15, SITE IS API: •In3-24 -92 AND I< P:.P(:CL I AS SHOWN ON THE RECORD OF •�';kV =Y
I'E CURD En 9/7,'G2 It GOOK 141 OF MAPS, PnCF sn.
ti W
C Z
Z
Q
(n J
� a u
11J 2
=Qw
J �
O
2�
I N o
Cc F m
W II N N
zgLa
ui
(n W A:
Z 2 m
Z w
LLj
Z J
� U
Q •i
U
Q
Q
W
O
LLI U.
as
a.
QCO
O
z X Fr-
W
F-
D,i, MAR. 1981
Joe 2450
Sn••I
ALT.1
VARIANCE
Of Se••n
<
DIh r
91
-'I'PL ICANT: ROBERT eRALJI
234 MA « VE F
7 ON A U
1
3.
L
1
LOS (:AT U S. '.. . 95030 I '
„j,T1C
(?WFERS: MEPEDIT" E /ANG b0 LEONARD WADE
441 A BERTO MAY 0
� I
EQ /9•I 935.5
91QLiL � vrr�aF
OGAL ( \ \* I• O. VARIANCE NOTE
- ,• w• ��e. VARIANCE APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED FORT 115
Ir d SOSAVED AND TTHERE IISNLESS GRADIINGA, WAIL LE
AL O AND PAVING REQUIRED DUE TO 20'LESS
DRIVEWAY.
s
_ ._.._ 7:�� S �.• S NOTE
7 .. 3, o TITLE REPORT FOR SITE NOTES EASEMENT S
FT ` • RECORDED IN BOON 571 O.R: 391, BOON 4311
9- $ O.R. 569 AND 8001( 50700.R. 483 FOR AU ESS
............_._AC AND UTILITIES WHERELOCATION IS NOT
..._....... -...._ DEFINABLE OR HAVE NO EFFECT ON SITE
,� � _ V /C //V /Ty MAP TREE TO BE REMOVED
SCALE / •SLR• �' SSW OENi TE WALL AND HEIGHT
L -112
LOS GATOS. ': (. 95030
3. CIVII. EI:G1N1 -F.RS 6 LANE' At-NERS: JFNNH'C.S- MCDERMOTT- HEISS, INC.
915 PIGINT STREET
SAN JOSE, CA. 95110
2RG -451,5
4. LOT S12E: ." r� 36,000 SQUARE FEET GROSS
5. C %I ST II:G AN'D PROPO SEi ND USE: { VA(. Al!1 8 SINGLE FAMILY -HOME
G. EXISTIf'G 20OING 1- -1 40,000
PPOr'ISED 7GI'I FIG P -1 40.00n
i
SAJ'ITAR.Y SEWER TO CO' -I'I SANITATION DI STR II :T •I' LINT IN ADJACENT STREETS
R. cASL:•IEr TS F(7P, DkA IN:11 • SEWAGE A.110 PUBLIC. UT II -ITI11 TO BE rk OVIOLD 11
REQ(I IRLD BY TI IE CITY 1' .SAIeATOGA AND AIFFCTED F`UHL IC UTILITIES.
9. F'PTER SYSTEM TO 01: P- 1':IDtD RY SAN JOSE WATER WORKS FROM EXISTINC
FACILITIFS AOJACI'NT tiI TL.
10. 11.'CTRICITY AND GAS .t I'.(:.E E. TO FACILITIES AD•IACENT TO SITE.
11. ST(`'iM DkAINAC.I Still! F.I- TO CANYON VICW DRIVE AS REQUIRED BY TIII; CITY O!
- SARAIGGA.
1). STRF'- TREE: PLANTIN'L TO BE PROVIDED AS RFQUIRED OT TIII' CITY OF SAPATOG
15. '..I`. -I AvEIlAGC SI.OPF 15 38.1 :. TEN FOOT CONTOUR IENGTII =1380.
14. TI-I AREA IS NOT S(!13.1LCT TO INUNDATION.
15, SITE IS API: •In3-24 -92 AND I< P:.P(:CL I AS SHOWN ON THE RECORD OF •�';kV =Y
I'E CURD En 9/7,'G2 It GOOK 141 OF MAPS, PnCF sn.
ti W
C Z
Z
Q
(n J
� a u
11J 2
=Qw
J �
O
2�
I N o
Cc F m
W II N N
zgLa
ui
(n W A:
Z 2 m
Z w
LLj
Z J
� U
Q •i
U
Q
Q
W
O
LLI U.
as
a.
QCO
O
z X Fr-
W
F-
D,i, MAR. 1981
Joe 2450
Sn••I
ALT.1
VARIANCE
Of Se••n
<
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF SARATOGA
TO: PLANNING'dOMMISSION
FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
SUBJECT: Status Report for Building Site Approval
All conditions for Building Site Approval SDR 1496 1 Robert
Araldi (have) (#AY*�XYM) been met as listed on the
Land'Oevelopment Committee Report dated 7/2/81 & 3./9/8.3.. below are
the amounts, dates and City receipt numbers for all required items:
Offer of Dedication yes
Date Submitted
4 /26/83
Record of Survey or Parcel Map existing
Date Submitted
_ 4 26 83
Storm Drainage Fee $1100.00
Date Submitted 4/26/83 Receipt #02327
All Required Improvement Bonds None
Date
Submitted - --
Receipt # --
All Required Inspection Fees 100.00
Date
Submitted 4/26/83
Receipt # 0232
Building Site Approval Agreement None
Date
Signed - - --
Park and Recreation Fee 1300.00
Date
Submitted 4/26/83
Receipt #02327
It is, therefore, the Public Works Department recommendation that (-
UbMl) (Final) Building Site Approval for Robert Araldi SDR 1496
be granted.
If Conditional Building Site Approval is recommended, it shall become un-
conditional upon compliance with the following conditions:
Conditions) Reason for Non - Compliance
ROBERT S SHOOK
w
CITY Ur' S11Kf11(X1
AGENDA BI7L NO. (� Initial:
Dept. Hd.
DATE: May 18, 1933 C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT:. Community Developmnt C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: CONSTRUCTION ACCEPTANCE FOR SDR -1331, ALBERT SPEARS, SPRINGER AVENUE
Issue Sum ry
The public improvements required for the subject Tract or Building Site have been
satisfactorily completed. This "Construction Acceptance" will begin the one (1)
year maintenance period.
Recommendation
Grant "Construction Acceptance" to the subject Tract or Building Site.
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Memo describing development and bond.
Council Action
5/18: Approved on Consent Calendar 5--0.
'v
v
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
:.1 (408) 867 -3438
I��IEMOO RANDLIM
TO: City Council DATE: May 9, 1983
FROM: Director of 'Community Development
SUBJECT: Construction Acceptance for SDR -1331
Name & Location: Albert Spears, Springer Avenue
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Improvements required for SDR -1331
have been satisfactorily completed. I, therefore, recommend the
City Council accept the improvements for construction only.
This "construction acceptance" will begin the one (1) year maintenance
period. During that year, the improvement contract, insurance and
improvement security will remain in full force.
The following information is included for your use:
1. Developer: Albert Spears
Address: 36 Ro4ers Street
Los Gatos, CA. 95030
2. Improvement Security:
Type: Certificate of Investment
Amount: $1500
Issuing Company: Wells Faro Bank
Address:
Receipt, Bond or Certificate No.: 6501 -00 -6787
3. Special Remarks:
RSS /dsm
Rob rt S. Shook
4.
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO:
Initial:
Dept. Head
DATE: May
18, 1983
City
N
DEPARTMENT:
Maintenance
City
Mg
SUBJECT: Acceptance and Acknowledgement of Donations
Issue Summary
Since the first of the year, the City has received several donations. These donations
include four for Hakone Garden, one for a tree to be planted in a median strip and
one for dividers for the Village Library.
Recommendation
Accept and acknowledge these donations by way of a letter from the Mayor.
Fiscal Impact
These donations together total $3,237.
Exhibits /Attachments
Memo itemizing donations to Hakone and median strip.
Letter from Jean Kvamme regarding dividers.
Council Action
5/18: Accepted donations on Consent Calendar 5 -0.
IE�IOR�NDLI�I
TO: CAROLYN KING
09UW @:T 0&UUSUQ)0&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
DATE: MAY 10, 1983
FROM: MARIJO STEVENS
SUBJECT: DONATIONS TO PROGRAMS WITHIN MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is a list of people or organizations who have contributed
monies to Hakone Garden or other landscaped areas since January 1, 1983:
Mary Stuart Awbrey
86 Ri.ttenhouse Avenue
Atherton, CA 94025
Dr. Juergen Stork
124.McLellan Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
Jack Tomlinson
Japanese Garden Specialist
19051 Barnhart Aver:ue
Cupertino, CA 95014.
Saratoga Rotary Club
P.O. Box 96
Saratoga, CA 95071
Dorothy Cady
2263 Chaparral
San Jose, CA 95130
$285
3 Pear Trees
Hakone Garden
$100
For Spreading of Wife's Ashes
Hakone Garden
$200
Bamboo
Hakone Garden
$1 ,422
Chairs and tables
Hakone Garden
$ 30
flowering plum tree for median.
at Via Monte & Saratoga Avenue as
a memorial for Tom Dines
In addition, the donation boxes located at Hakone Garden have collected
$1,777.93 since January lst and $5687,36 since the beginning of the fiscal year.
Mari' StreDepartment ens, Department Secretary
Main tenan
April 27, 1983
Miss Pat Mullins
City of Saratago
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, Calif. 95070
Dear Pat:
This letter is in regard to the wrought iron
dividers that my husband and I donated to the
Village Library for the use of Friends of the
Library and Valley Institute of Threatre Arts.
Mr. Lupe Mancias at 510 Horning St., San
Jose, Calif., designed, made and installed the
wrought iron dividers. He charged only for his
time, since it was for the City, and since he had
done so much work for me. He charged $575.00,
however, the minimum charge would have been
$1200.00, if he had not donated the materials.
I would appreciate it if you would send Mr.
Mancias a letter noting his donation of $625.00, and
a letter to us noting our donation of $575.00.
It has been my pleasure to help out in this
small way, as I appreciate Saratoga so much.
Sincerely, >
Jean Kvamme
CITY OF SARATOGA
At= BILL NO. Initial:
Dept. Hd.
DATE: May 27, 19 8 3
DEPAFTM=: City Manager
SUBJECT: Resolution Changing Order of Business
•
F1- -
Issue Summary
Saratoga Municipal Code spells out the Order of Business (Agenda) for Council
meetings. Over the years, the amount of business coming before the Council has
expanded. Council meetings now are held later into the evening. Many-indivi-
duals have expressed concern that Order of Business could be improved.* The City
Council directed staff to recommend changes to the Order of Business to improve
the conduct of meetings. The attached report outlines the changes recommended
and the Resolution would implement these. The.meeting time would be advanced
to 7:00 p.m. on a trial basis.
Recommendation
Adopt the Resolution
Fiscal Impacts
There are no added costs associated with these changes. A more efficient
meeting schedule Could produce savings to the City and to the public for any
paid representatives. In some.instances, these savings could be substantial.
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Resolution
2. Report from City Mnaager
Council Action
6/1: Fanelli /Moyles moved to adopt Resolution 2069. Passed 3 -0.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
REVISING THE ORDER OF BUSINESS TO BE TAKEN UP BY THE CITY
COUNCIL AT ITS REGULAR MEETINGS AND TEMPORARILY ESTABLISH-
ING NEW STARTING TIME FOR REGULAR MEETINGS
WHEREAS, Sections 2 -4 of the Saratoga Municipal Code establish
the time of regular meetings of the City Council to begin at 7:30 p.m.
and Section 2 -6 of the same code sets the order of business to be
taken up by the Council at each meeting, and allows that such order
of business may be changed by resolution of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, since the last review of the order of business of the
City Council, there has been a great increase in the amount of business
coming before the City Council and the nature of the business has
shifted with more time required for public hearings; and
WHEREAS, the effect of these changes over time has resulted in
Council meetings being held later into the evening with less time avail-
able for the Council to consider items now scheduled in the latter part
of the order of business; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to maintain and improve its
effectiveness in conducting the business of the City Council and recog-
nizes the importance of a well structured meeting agenda in achieving
this goal;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
(1) That Order of Business of the City Council, pursuant
to the Saratoga Municipal Code, is hereby changed to
be as follows:
I. Organization
A. Roll Call
B. Minutes
II. Oral Communications
(An opportunity for the public to address the City
Council on any item that does not appear on the
Agenda. Presentations limited to three minutes each,
not more than 15 minutes total. Any follow -up or
discussion of matters presented, with the approval of
the City Council, will be taken up under "New Business. ")
III. Consent Calendar
IV. Scheduled Matters (Not Requiring Public Hearings)
A. Administrative Reports
B. Reports from Commissions and Committees
C. Ordinances and Resolutions
D. Award of Bids and Contracts
E. Subdivisions and Site Approvals
V. Public Hearings (To Begin at 8 :00 P.M.)
A. General Matters
B. Appeals
VI. New Business
A. Discussion of Oral Communications, if any
B. Written Communications from Public
C. New Business from Council Members
D. New Business from Staff, Administrative Reports
not Scheduled
VII. Adjournment (suggested adjournment by 10:00 p.m.)
(2) That in order to maintain the commencement of public hearings
at the usual scheduled time of 8:00 p.m. for the convenience
of the public, while allowing adequate time for completion of
scheduled matters as outlined above, the starting time for
regular Council meetings shall be advanced from 7:30 p.m.
to 7:00 p.m., beginning with the regular meeting of June 15,
1983, on a trial basis to determine if this schedule is
convenient for the public.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga on the day of
, 1983, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
IlgDge
�- IEMOORAND�II� -1
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
097T .@:T 0&M&1900&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438 .
SUBJECT: Order of Business at Council Meetings
DATE: May 27, 19 8 3
Because of the amount of business routinely being brought before the
City Council in recent years and the length of Council meetings, the
City Council has considered changes in the order of business of the
Council Agenda. Some of the results being sought by considering these
changes are to give scheduled matters of importance more time at the
beginning of the meeting, to end the meeting earlier in the evening,
and to retain, as much as possible, the customary time for public
hearings and oral communications. Council had directed me to draft
a revised order of business along these lines.
The attached resolution is presented for your consideration. It would
revise the order of business as you have outlined and it would tempor-
arily set the time of regular meetings to begin one -half earlier at
7:30 p.m. If you wish to adopt the resolution, these changes would be
in effect for the June 15 meeting. A public notice would be made of
the changes.
Order of Business
The order of business suggested in the attached resolution is based
primarily on the customary method of "Unfinished Business" first, "New
Business" next. The order of business is classified into seven major
categories, with sub- catego "ries, described as follows.
I. Organization
A. Roll Call
B. Minutes
No change in this category from the current.
Order of Business
May 27, 1983
Page two
II. Oral Communications (3 minutes per person, 15 minutes total)
This category is essentially unchanged regarding Oral Communi-
cations, except that individual time allowance is extended
from two minutes to three.. The maximum time allowed remains
at 15 minutes.
At this portion, if the Council wishes to take up any matter
presented, or respond, it is intended that the current practice
of setting this item (by majority vote of the Council) to a
later time on the agenda (in this case, under New Business) be
continued.
Written Communications, for the most part being New Business,
have been moved in the order to the latter part of the Agenda.
III. Consent Calendar
The same procedures for the Consent Calendar as now used would
be continued, but since the item is generally handled very
quickly and routinely, it is moved to the early part of the
Agenda in order to dispense with it. This change allows those
who may have interest in an item on the Consent Calendar to .
request removal of an item early or to see that it is approved
and be able to leave.
IV. Scheduled Matters (not requiring public hearings)
A. Administrative Reports
B. Reports from Commissions and Committees
C. Ordinances and Resolutions
D. Award of Bids and Contracts
E. Subdivisions and Site Approvals
This category is intended to include all items on which previous
consideration (by staff or Council) has been given and for
which material and recommendations have been prepared. It is
believed that since prior staff work has been performed and
recommendations are before the Council, these matters can be
disposed of quickly and smoothly. The idea here being to try
to dispose of this portion before 8:00 p.m. This would allow
those (staff and public) who have interest only in these
matters also to leave relatively early.
On the other hand, if any item in this group does require more
time than is available, it can be either referred back to staff
for more work, or continued to a later time on the same agenda,
or later date. We expect this would be an infrequent need,
however.
Order of Business
May 27, 1983
Page three
The order of the sub - categories is not critical.
order is arranged, again, for the convenience of
and staff) who may be attending the meeting for
V. Public Hearings
A. General Matters
B. Appeals
The suggested
those (public
only one item.
This category remains essentially unchanged. The sub - categories
are added to reflect our actual practices. This portion.of the
meeting typically is the most time consuming portion because of
the hearing requirements and often on items of very limited
interest such as an appealed planning decision.
The Council also may wish to consider setting overall time limits
or guidelines as to the number of public hearings to be held at
any one meeting.
VI. New Business
A. Discussion of Oral Communciations (set by the
City Council from earlier on the Agenda)
B. Written Communications
C. New Business from Council members
D. New Business from Staff
This category provides opportunities to address issues from the
public, which the Council has accepted from Oral Communications
or which have been submitted in writing, and those issues to be
brought up for the first time by Council members or staff. This
approach would allow the Council to give direction on the dis-
position of the matter (i.e. to "table it," refer it to com-
mittee or to staff for report and recommendation at a later
meeting, or to direct an immediate response by the City.
VII. Adjournment
With the Council meeting beginning at 7:00 p.m., and the order
of business as outlined above, it is possible that most meetings
could be adjourned by 10:00 p.m. The Council may wish to set
this time for adjournment as a guideline. A 10:00 p.m., or
earlier, adjournment also provides some opportunity for the
Council to recess into closed session for litigation or personnel
related matters without creating too much hardship on indivi-
dual Council members.
Order of Business
May 27, 1983
Page four
Change of Meeting Time
Saratoga Municipal Code, Section 2 -4, sets the starting time of the
Council meeting at 7:30 p.m. We believe the Council has the authority
to waive that requirement, with adequate advance notice, on a temporary
schedule. This procedure is recommended to test an earlier starting
time before formalizing the change. Therefore, a 2 or 3 month test
period is suggested before deciding whether to make a permanent change
in the starting time, or not.
Other Meetina Procedures
The Saratoga Municipal Code also outlines other procedures and require-
ments for the conduct of Council meetings. A copy of Article II,
Sections 4 through 27, are attached for your review. The Council members
may wish to review these provisions and advise me if there are further
changes desired. There are also some procedures defined that are not
part of Roberts Rules of Order with which the Council.members should be
familiar, as in the instance of considering ordinances and resolutions.
J. Wa fe D netz
ck
4r '-
_
• � r
} r« 1
83
PA
u f �}
§ 2 -2 Saratoga City Code § 2 -6
C
Sec. 2 -2. Prerequisites to consideration of bills, claims,
etc. , by city council.
The city council shall not consider nor allow any claim or bill unless the
same is itemized and is presented and filed with the city clerk within thirty
days after the last item of the account or claim accrued. (Ord. No. 7, § 2.)
Sec. 2 -3. Depository of city funds.
All funds belonging to the city shall be deposited by the city treasurer in
such banks or depositories as the council may direct. (Ord. No. 7, § 1.)
Article II. City Council.2
2. For state law as to local legislative bodies
generally, see Gov. C. , § § 36800 to 40460.
As to meetings of local legislative bodies
generally, see Gov. C., §§ 54950 to 54960.
Sec . 2 -4. Regular meetings.
The regular meetings of the city council shall be held on the first and third
Wednesdays of each month unless such date be a holiday, in which case such
meeting shall be held on the day following which is not a holiday. The time of
such meeting shall be 7:30 P.M., and the place shall be the Saratoga City Council
Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, in the city. (Ord. No. 1 -B, § 1; Ord. No.
1 -C, § 1; Ord. No. 38.5, § 1.)
Sec. 2 -5. Agendas; submitting matters not included in agendas.
All reports,. communications, ordinances, resolutions, contract documents
or other matters to be submitted to the city council at their regular meeting shall
be delivered to the city clerk not later than 5:00 P.M. on the Thursday preceding
such meeting. The city clerk shall prepare an agenda of all such matters according
to the order of business and shall furnish each member of the city council, the
city administrator, the city attorney and each department head with a copy of the
same prior to the council meeting. Except as otherwise provided in this article, C1
no matter not included on the agenda may be presented to the council without first
obtaining the unanimous consent of all councilmen present at the meeting. (Ord.
No. 29, § 2.)
Sec. 2 -6. Order of business -- Generally.
The business of the city council shall be taken up for consideration and dis-
position in the following order, unless otherwise changed by resolution of the
city council:
(1) Organization.
(a) Roll call.
(b) Minutes.
10
Supp. 10 -65
§ 2 -7 Administration § 2 -7
(2) Bids and contracts.
(3)
Ordinances and formal resolutions.
(4)
Subdivision and site approvals.
(5)
Public hearings.
(6)
Administrative matter's and reports.
(a) Mayor.
(b) Finance.
(c) Council committees.
C
(d) Department heads and officers.
(e) City administrator.
(7) Communications.
(a) Written.
(b) Oral.
(8) Adjournment.
The public hearings in subsection (5) shall be held at 8:00 P.M. or as soon
thereafter as the course of business permits, regardless of position on the agenda.
(Ord.. No. 29, § 2.)
Sec. 2 -7. Same -- Changes; suspension.
The order of business provided in section 2 -6 may be changed from time to
time by resolution of the city council. In addition, the regular order of business
may, for any particular meeting, be suspended for any purpose by the presiding
officer with consent of a majority of the city council members present. (Ord.
No. 29, § 2.)
10.1
Supp. 10 -65
§ 2 -8 Administration § 2 -12
.Sec. 2 -8. Roll call; entering names of members present.
Before proceeding with the business of the city council, the city clerk or his
deputy shall call the roll of the members.. The names of those physically present
shall be entered in the minutes. (Ord. No. 29, § 2.)
Sec. 2 -9. Quorum.3
.A majority of all the members elected to the city council shall constitute a
quorum at any regular or special meeting of the council. The presence or ab-
sence of a quorum shall be determined by the presiding officer. (Ord. No. 29, § 2.)
3. For state law as to quorum of local legisla-
tive bodies, see Gov. C. , § 36810.
Sec. 2 -10. Distribution of minutes; reading minutes.
At least two days prior to each regular meeting of the city council, the city
clerk shall furnish each member of the city council a copy of the minutes of the
preceding regular or special meeting. Unless a reading of the minutes of the coun-
cil meeting is requested in open meeting by a member of the council, such
minutes may be approved without reading if the city clerk has previously fur-
nished each member with a copy thereof.
Notwithstanding the above, reading of the minutes may always be waived by
a duly carried motion to waive the reading thereof. (Ord. No. 29, § 2.)
Sec. 2 -11. Voting.
A vote by roll call shall not be required in the city council unless a council
member specifically requests a roll call after a motion is made and before the
presiding officer calls for the vote.. Unless a member of the city council audibly
states he is not voting, his silence shall be, and shall be recorded as, an af-
firmative vote. (Ord. No. 29, § 2.)
CSec. 2 -12. Presiding officers-- Generally. 4
The presiding officer of the city council shall be the mayor, or in his ab-
sence, the mayor pro tempore.. He shall take the chair precisely at the hour ap-
pointed for the meeting and shall immediately call the city council to order. In
the absence of the mayor or mayor pro tempore, the city clerk shall call the
city council to order, whereupon, a temporary presiding officer shall be elected
by the council members present.. Upon the arrival of the mayor or mayor pro
tempore, the temporary presiding officer shall immediately relinquish the
chair upon the conclusion of the particular business immediately before the
council at that time. Wherever in this. article the term mayor is used, it shall
apply equally to the presiding officer as defined in this section. (Ord. No. 29, § 3.)
4. For similar state law, see
Gov. C. , § 36802.
11
§ 2 -13 Saratoga City Code § 2 -14
C
Sec. 2 -13. Same -- .Powers and duties generally.
The presiding officer of the: city council shall have a vote, but no veto power,
and may move, second and debate from the chair., He shall preserve strict, order
and decorum at all regular and special meetings of the city council. He shall state
or call upon the city clerk to state every question before the city council, call for
the vote and announce the decision of the council on all subjects. He shall decide
all questions of order, subject however to an appeal to the council by any council-
man, in which event a majority vote of the council shall govern and conclusively
determine such question of order. He shall have and exercise such other powers
and duties as are contained elsewhere in this article and as authorized by law. C
The presiding officer shall have power and authority in his discretion and
without a vote of the city council, to do the, following:
(a) Refer any matter, whether or not on the city council agenda, to a com-
mittee for study and report. Such power shall not be exercised while a motion
is on the floor covering such matter, until the motion is disposed of. Once a
matter has been referred to a committee and a report rendered thereon, it shall
not thereafter be referred to such committee a second time under this power but
only by city council action.
(b) Set time limits on city council discussion on any matter.
(c) Set time limits on any communications from members of the public to
the city council.
(d) Declare the opening and closing of public hearings.
(e) Rule any motion on a subject not on the agenda as being out of order, in
which case the motion shall thereafter be void and the city clerk shall set the
subject matter thereof down on the. agenda of the next regular or special council
meeting.
(f) Table any motion on any matter until the next regular or special city
council meeting, whenever the city attorney advises that there is a serious ques-
tion as to the validity or constitutionality of the particular proposed course of
action which is the subject matter of such motion.
(g) Require any witness testifying to facts at any public hearing to be sworn
before proceeding further with any such testimony. (Ord. No. 29, § 3.)
Sec. 2 -14. Preparation of ordinances.
All ordinances considered by the city council shall be prepared by or under the
direction of the city attorney. No ordinance shall be prepared for presentation to
the city council unless ordered by a majority vote of the city council or requested
by the mayor or city administrator or prepared by the city attorney on his own
initiative. (Ord. No. 29, § 4.)
12
C)
C�
C
§ 2 -15
Sec. 2 -15
Administration
§ 2 -16
Approval by city attorney and city administrator
of ordinances, resolutions, etc.
Before presentation to the city council, all ordinances, written resolutions
and contract documents shall have been approved as to form by the city attorney
or his authorized representative. Where there are substantive matters of ad-
ministration involved, such ordinances, resolutions or contracts shall have been
examined for administration by the city administrator, who shall indicate his ap-
proval or disapproval from an administrative standpoint at the time of presenta-
tion to the city council. (Ord. No. 29, § 4.)
Sec. 2 -16. Procedure in considering ordinances, resolutions
etc.
In consideration of matters requiring action by the city council, the following
procedure shall be observed:
(a) Ordinances, resolutions and other matters requiring action by the city
council must be introduced and sponsored by a member of the city council; except,
that the mayor, city administrator or city attorney may present the same and any
councilman may assume the sponsorship thereof by moving that such ordinance,
resolution or matter or subject be adopted.
(b) An ordinance maybe introduced by the reading of the title only. All
ordinances shall be read in full at least once prior to final passage and adoption,
unless the reading thereof is dispensed with by the unanimous vote of the city
council present at a regular meeting. Notwithstanding the above provision,
all emergency ordinances shall be read in full prior to passage and adoption.
(c) Resolutions may be presented in written or oral form. Where written,
the resolution need only be read by title and number prior to action thereon, and
only the motion adopting it need appear in the minutes.. Where oral, the same
shall be stated in full by the moving party, 'and if adopted, shall either be tran-
scribed in full in the minutes or thereafter be reduced to written form separate
from the minutes, executed by the presiding officer and attested by the city
clerk. The presiding officer shall direct which final form a verbally presented
resolution shall take.
(d) No motion_ shall die for lack of a second and the presiding officer shall
call all motions to a vote whether seconded or not.
(e) All motions for enactment of any ordinance, resolution or other city council
action which do not receive the required vote for passage shall nevertheless be
entered in the minutes. (Ord. No. 29, § 4.)
13
§ 2 -17 Saratoga City Code § 2 -17
Sec. 2 -17. Rules of debate.
The following rules shall be observed in debate in the city council:
(a) Presiding officer may debate. The mayor or such other member of the
city council as may be acting as presiding officer may move, second and debate
from the chair, subject only to such limitations of debate as are imposed by this
section upon all members. He shall not be deprived of any of the rights and
privileges of a councilman by reason of his being mayor or acting as presiding
officer.
(b) Getting the floor. Every council member desiring to speak shall
address the chair, and upon recognition by the presiding officer, shall confine
himself to the question under debate, avoiding all personalities and indecorous
language.
(c) Interruptions. A member, once recognized, shall not be interrupted
when speaking unless it be to call him to order or as otherwise provided in this
article. If a member, while speaking, be called to order he shall cease speaking
until the question of order be determined and, if in order, he shall be permitted
to proceed..
(d) Privilege of closing debate. The councilman moving the adoption of
an ordinance or resolution or other council action. shall have the privilege of
closing the debate..
(e) Motion to reconsider. A motion to reconsider any action taken by the
city council shall be made only on the day such action was taken.. It may be made
either immediately during the same session or at a recessed or adjourned ses-
sion thereof. Such motion shall be made by one of the prevailing side, and may
be made at anytime and shall have precedence over all other motions and shall
be debatable. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prevent any mem-
ber from making or remaking the same or any other motion at a subsequent meet-
ing of the city council.
(f) Remarks of councilmen; synopsis of debate. A councilman may re-
quest, through the presiding officer, the privilege of having an abstract of his
statement on any subject under consideration by the city council entered in
the minutes. If the council consents thereto, such statement shall be entered
in the minutes. The city clerk may be directed by the presiding officer, with
consent of the council, to enter in the minutes a synopsis of the discussion on
any question coming regularly before the council.
(g) Rules of order. Except as otherwise provided in this article, proceedings
of the city council shall be governed under Roberts' Rules of Order on all matters
pertaining to parliamentary law.
No action of the city council shall be invalidated nor the legality thereof af-
fected by the failure or omission to observe or follow the rules of debate or Roberts'
Rules of Order as provided in this section. (Ord. No. 29, § 5.)
14
§ 2 -18 Administration § 2 -20
C,
Sec. 2 -18. Addressing the council -- Generally.
Any person desiring to address the city council, shall first secure the per-
mission of the presiding officer; provided, that under the following headings of
business, unless the presiding officer rules otherwise, any qualified and interested
person shall have the right to address the city.council upon obtaining recognition
by the presiding officer:
(a) Written communications. Interested parties or their authorized repre-
sentatives may address the city council by written communication. If copies
C1 of such communications are furnished to each councilman present, such written
communications need not be read aloud at the meeting unless so ordered by a
majority vote of the city council.
(b) Oral communications. Taxpayers or residents of the city or their
authorized legal representative may address the city council by oral communi-
cations on any matter concerning the city's business or any matter over which
the city council has control; provided, that preference shall be given to those
persons who may have notified the city clerk in advance of their desire to speak.
(c) Public hearings. Interested persons or their authorized representatives
may address the city council by reading a protest, petition or communication re-
lating to matters the subject of public hearing under this category, and the order
of presentation and the time thereof shall be under the direction. and control of
the presiding officer. (Ord. No. 29, § 6.)
Sec. 2 -19. Same -- Manner.
Each person addressing the city council shall stand and give his name and
address in an audible tone of voice of the record, and shall speak into the micro-
phone provided at all times that the electronic public address system is in opera-
tion. All remarks shall be addressed to the city council as a body and not to any
individual member thereof. No person, other than the city council and the person
having the floor, shall be permitted to enter into any discussion, either directly
or through a member of the council without the permission of the presiding officer.
No person shall address or question a council member, the city attorney,, the dir-
ector of public works, the city administrator or any other official at the council .
table without the prior consent of the presiding officer. (Ord. No. 29, § 6.)
Sec. 2 -20. Rules in presentation of communications
The following rules shall be applicable to communications to the city council:
(a) Written communications on a particular matter for city council discus-
sion shall be read by the council at the time of such discussion rather than under
the agenda item of "written communications. "
(b) Written communications from the administrative staff shall not be read a-
loud unless requested by the writer or any councilman.
15
§ 2 -21 Saratoga City Code § 2 -21
(c) Anonymous communications shall. not be read.
(d) The presiding officer shall not permit any communication, written or
oral, to be made or read where it does not bear directly on an agenda item then
under discussion.
(e) After a motion is made by a councilman, no person shall address the
council without first securing the permission of the council to do so. (Ord. No.
29, § 6.)
Sec. 2 -21. Public hearings._
The following general rules shall be applicable to all public hearings by the
city council, except hearings on appeal which are not de novo hearings, and to
all public hearings by the planning commission until such time as separate rules
are adopted by ordinance for planning commission public hearings:
(a) No written communication considered after hearing closed._ No written
communication received by the city council or planning commission after the close
of a public hearing shall be read or considered in determining the issue in ques-
tion, unless prior to the close of such hearing, the presiding officer has specifical-
ly directed that such written communications be received.
(b) Referral to committee for report. Subject to the limitations set forth in this
article, the presiding officer may, and on hearings de novo on appeal to the city
council on zoning variances, adjustments and use permits the presiding officer
shall, prior to close of the hearing, refer the matter to a committee for report
and recommendation. The hearing shall be continued to such date as the report
is ordered filed, and at that future time, the continued hearing, shall be restricted
solely to the point raised in the committee report and thereafter shall be closed.
No matter which is the subject of a public hearing shall be referred to a commit-
tee, nor shall a report therefrom be considered by the city council or planning
commission after a public hearing is closed, unless the same is reopened on
rendition of the report for the limited purpose of discussing the report.
Any matter referred to a' committee for a report may be acted on without
such report if the same is not rendered at the time required.
(c) Opportunity to be heard on proposed conditions. Whenever in the approval
of a tentative subdivision map or building site, the granting of a zoning variance or
adjustment or of a use or architectural and site control permit, conditions are
imposed or to be imposed, a reasonable opportunity shall be provided the applicant
to discuss such proposed conditions and the effect thereof prior to the imposition
of the same.
For the purposes of this subsection, "reasonable opportunity" shall mean any
one of the following:
(1) Where the matter is referred to committee prior to action thereon,
the committee shall discuss any proposed conditions with a representative of the
16
C§ 2 -22 Administration § 2 -24
J
applicant prior to rendition of the report. A copy of such report shall be filed
with the city clerk or secretary of the planning commission at least three days
prior to the date of the continued hearing.
(2) Where the public hearing is closed and action taken directly thereon '
by the city council or planning commission without a committee report, after a -_
motion to approve with conditions and before a second to such motion, a single
representative of the applicant may address the council and briefly discuss the -
proposed conditions.
C) (3) . Such other reasonable method in lieu thereof as may be ordered by
the presiding officer.
(d) Applicability of rules for addressing the council. In all other respects,
the rules for addressing the council shall be applicable to public hearings.
(Ord. No. 29, § 7.)
Sec. 2 -22. Hearings on appeal from planning commission
Hearings de novo on appeal before the city council shall be conducted in the
same manner as required for the original hearing before the planning commission.
In other than de novo hearings, no member of the public may address the city
council, except one speaker for the appellant and one for the respondent, with a
limitation of fifteen minutes per side. These limitations may be modified, changed
or suspended by resolution of the city council at any time. (Ord. No. 29, § 7.)
Sec. 2 -23. Decorum of meetings -- Generally.
.While the city council is in session, the members must preserve order and
decorum. A member shall neither, by conversation or otherwise, delay or
interrupt proceedings or the peace of the city council nor disturb any member
while speaking or refuse to obey the orders of the city council or its presiding
officer except as provided in this article.
Any person not a member of city council making personal, impertinent or
C slanderous remarks or who becomes boisterous while addressing the city council
shall be forthwith, by the presiding officer, barred from further audience before
the city council, unless permission to continue be granted by a majority vote of
the council. (Ord. No. 29, § 8.)
Sec. 2 -24. Same - - Enforcement; violations.
The county sheriff and his deputies or such one of them as shall be present
at a city council meeting shall be sergeant at arms of the council meeting. He
shall carry out all orders of the presiding officer for the purpose of maintaining
order and decorum at the city council meeting. Upon instructions from the pre-
siding officer, it shall be the duty of the sergeant at arms to place any person
who violates the order and decorum of the meeting under arrest and cause him
to be prosecuted under the provisions of this article. The complaint for such
violation shall be signed by the presiding officer of the city council. (Ord.. No. 29,
17
8.)
§ 2 -25 Saratoga City Code § 2 -28
Sec. 2 -25. Contempt of city council. 5
While the city council is in session, any person who acts in a disorderly,
contemptuous or insolent manner towards the city council or any member
thereof, or who becomes boisterous while addressing the city council or any
member thereof, which conduct tends to interrupt the due course of such meet-
ing, or any member of the public in attendance who fails, on demand of the
presiding officer, to comply with any rule set forth in this article or any
order of the presiding officer made in accord with the authority of this
article shall be guilty of a violation of this article. (Ord. No. 29, § 8.)
5. For state law as to authority of city
council to establish rules of conduct
for meetings and to punish disorderly
conduct at a meeting, see Gov. C. § 36813.
Sec. 2 -26. Adjournment of meetings; continuance of meet -
ings.
Any meeting may either be terminated or continued to another time, place
or date by adjournment, regardless of whether or not all matters on the agenda
or under discussion have been covered, acted on or concluded. Notwithstanding
the above provision, no meeting shall be terminated before closing all public
hearings noticed for that meeting, without first continuing such public hearings
to another time, place and date. Otherwise, a motion to adjourn shall always
be in order and decided without debate. Where a meeting is continued to a
future date, if either the time or place is not stated in the order of adjourn-
ment, it shall be deemed to be at the hour and place specified for regular
meetings of the city council. (Ord. No. 29, § 9.)
Sec. 2 -27. Failure to follow provisions of article.
Failure to observe the rules set forth in this article shall not invalidate
any action taken which is otherwise lawful, and defective only for failure to
follow the procedure outlined in this article. (Ord. No. 29, § 1.)
Article III. Officers and Employees. "
6. As to appointment of building official, see § 3 -2
of this Code. As to director of civil defense and
disaster, see § 5 -5. As to appointment of pound -
master and assistants, see § 8 -1.
Division 1. Generally.
Sec. 2 -28. Bonds of city clerk and city treasurer. 7
Pursuant to the State Government Code, section 36518, the bond of the city
clerk is hereby fixed at twenty -five thousand dollars corporate surety, and the
18
c
C