HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-01-1983 CITY COUNCIL AGENDACITY OF SARATOGA
AGL.'vDA BILL NO.
Dept. Hd.
DATE: June 1, 1983
C. AtC
DEPT: Administrative Services C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: Contract With State Personnel Board, Cooperative PersonnVl Services
Issue Summary
The City of Saratoga staff is contemplating the use of standardized testing
devices for recruitment of candidates for Community Service Officer, Planning
Aide, and possibly other positions. The California State Personnel Board,
Division of Cooperative Personnel Services (CPS), a non - profit organization,
provides job related written exams on & rental basis. In order to preview
potential exams, and /or rent exams for our use, the.City Council must adopt
a Resolution and enter into a contract for services. Approval of the Resolution
and contract does not.obligate the City to use the services.
Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. and authorize the City Manager to execute contract
agreement.
Fiscal Impacts
None at this time. If specific testing services are to be used, costs will
need to be determined at the time recruitment is initiated.
Exhibits /Attachments
Resolution No. 2061
Cost Service Agreement
Cost Service Contract Rules and Procedures, Exhibits A and B
List of Other Agencies Using CPS
Council Action
6/1: Clevenger /Fanelli moved to adopt. Passed 4 -0.
RESOLUTION.NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
AUTHORIZING A COST SERVICE CONTRACT
AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE PERSONNEL BOARD
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Saratoga desires to
enter into the Agreement entitled "Cost Service Contract Agreement"
with the State Personnel Board, and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager,
Wayne Dernetz, to execute said agreement in the name and on behalf of
the City of Saratoga.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby
authorize the "Cost Service Contract Agreement" with the State
Personnel Board.
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:
109me);�
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
r.
r�
COST SERVICE CONTRACT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this first
day of June
19 83 , at Sacramento, County of Sacramento,
State of California, by and between the STATE PERSONNEL BOARD, through
its duly appointed, qualified and acting Executive Officer or his
authorized representative, hereinafter called the Board, and the
City of Saratoga hereinafter called
the Local Agency.
WITNESSETH
That the parties, for and in consideration of the convenants, conditions,
agreements, and stipulations expressed, and pursuant to authority contained
in Section 18707, Government Code, hereby agree to the conditions as found
in attached "Cost Services Contract Rules and Procedures" marked as Exhibit A
and 'Written Examination Price List" marked as Exhibit B which are incorporated
herein by reference and made a part hereof. Exhibit ,B may be amended by the
Board from time to time without renegotiating the contract.
Further, the parties agree that the Board shall, as a normal course of
action, submit invoices covering those services rendered during a calendar
month and the Local Agency agrees to pay such invoices within thirty days
following receipt thereof.
The provisions of the attached Fair Employment Practices Addendum, Standard
Form 3 (8/7:7), are incorporated by reference and made a part of this contract.
The term of the contract commences June 1, 1983 and terminates
June 1, 1986
. This contract may be terminated by either party
upon giving the other party 30 days written notice of termination.
CPS -2
Page 1
In the event of termination, the Board will be paid such amount as is
due under the contract to and including the effective date of termination.
CPS -2 (4/78)
Page 2
By
STATE PERSONNEL BOARD
Manager, Cooperative Personnel Services
Title
LOCAL AGENCY
City of Saratoga
Name of Agency
By
Name
J. Wayne Dernetz
City Manager
Title
FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES ADDENDUM
1. In the performance of this contract, the Contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant
for employment because of race, color, religion, ancestry, sex *, age *, national origin, or physical handicap *. The
Contractor will take.affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated
during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, ancestry, sex *, age *; national origin, or physical
handicap *. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion
or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compen-
sation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The Contractor shall post in conspicuous places, avail-
able to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the State setting forth the provisions
of this Fair Employment Practices section.
2. The Contractor will permit access to his /her records of employment, employment advertisements, applica-
tion forms, and other pertinent data and records by the State Fair Employment Practices Commission, or any
other agency of the State of California designated by the awarding authority, for the purpose of investigation to
ascertain compliance with the Fair Employment Practices section of this contract.
3. Remedies for Willful Violation:
(a) The State may determine a willful violation of the Fair Employment Practices provision to have
occurred upon receipt of a final judgement having that effect from a court in an action to which
Contractor was a party, or upon receipt of a written notice from the Fair Employment Practices
Commission that it has investigated and determined that the Contractor has violated the Fair Employ-
ment Practices Act and has issued an order, under Labor Code Section 1426, which has become final,
or obtained an injunction under Labor Code Section 1429.
(b) For willful violation of this Fair Employment Practices provision, the State shall have the right to
terminate this contract either in whole or in part, and any loss or damage sustained by the State in
securing the goods or services hereunder shall be borne and paid for by the- Contractor and by his /her
surety under the performance bond, if any, and the State may deduct from any moneys due or that
thereafter may become due to the Contractor, the difference between the -price named in the contract
and the actual cost thereof to the State.
*See Labor Code Sections 1411 - 1432.5 for further details.
STD. 3 (8/77)
Exhibit A
COST SERVICES CONTRACT
RULES AND PROCEDURES
Section I - General Conditions
In performing the services incident to the planning, scheduling, preparation,
construction and scoring of written examinations for classifications to be
mutually agreed upon by the Local Agency and the Board, the following provi-
sions shall govern:
a. Scheduling of Examinations.
Whenever during the term of this agreement, the Local Agency
desires the services of the Board in the preparation of a
written examination for a job classification, the Local Agency
will submit to the Board a request for such services. This
request shall include examination dates and closing dates for
filing applications. These dates shall be set by the Local
Agency within the guidelines of the Board to allow sufficient
time for examination scheduling and preparation.
b. Information to be Furnished by Local Agency.
The Local Agency shall supply the Board with a written descrip-
tion of the work performed in the classes for which the Local
Agency desires an examination prepared, including a statement
of the minimum and /or desirable qualifications and the salary
of the class.
C. Notification of Number of Competitors.
Immediately after the closing date for filing applications, but
not less than 10 working days prior to the examination date,
the Local Agency will notify the Board of the total number of
competitors in each classification.
d. Preparation of Test Materials.
The Board shall construct a written examination, based on the
information furnished by the Local Agency, for each job classi-
fication for which an examination has been requested by the
Local Agency and agreed upon by the Board.
e. Transmittal of Test Materials.
The Board shall transmit to the Local Agency sufficient exami-
nation booklets, instructions for administering the examination
and such other material as the Board may deem necessary.
Rev 4/1/76
f. Administration of Test and Return of Test ?Materials.
The Local Agency shall administer the examination in accordance
with instructions provided by the Board and immediately following
the examination will return to the Board all used and unused
examination booklets, keyed booklets, scoring keys, instructions,
and any other materials furnished by the Board and not consumed
(except that in such cases as provided in paragraphs I(i), I(j),
and I(m) time extensions may be granted by the Board).
g. Re -Use of Test Material.
The Local Agency requesting test material for use on a specific
date will not be allowed to re -use the tests on another date
without prior permission of the Board.
h. Scoring of Tests.
At the discretion of the Local Agency, the responsibility for
the scoring of tests may be delegated to the Board. In such
cases, the Board will score the answer sheets and report the
results, together with a recommended qualifying score, to the
Local Agency within 14 working days after the answer sheets
are returned to the Board, provided that in unusual circum-
stances involving large numbers of competitors or unforeseen
difficulties in administration of the test, the Board may
extend the period for receipt of results.
i. Test Papers Inspection Under Local Agency Policy.
If the Local Agency has an officially adopted rule or established
policy regarding candidates' privilege of inspecting a keyed copy
of an examination or answer sheets following the examination, and
this rule or policy has been submitted in writing to the Board at
least 10 days prior to the first examination scheduled under this
agreement for which such inspection is desired, the Board will
comply with the inspection privileges as officially recognized by
the Local Agency except that no inspection shall be allowed for
standardized test materials, or tests preduplicated as form tests
or semi -form tests, or of questions not scored by an absolute
standard. During key inspection a representative of the Local
Agency personnel or administrative office will be present to
assure that no candidate takes away with him any notes regarding
a test question. Upon request of the Local Agency and when sub-
mitted in writing by a candidate who participated in the examina-
tion, the Board will analyze protests resulting from such review
and recommend the action to be taken by the Local Agency.
j. Test Papers Inspection Under Board Policy.
If the Local Agency has no officially adopted rule or established
policy regarding candidates' privilege of inspecting a keyed copy
of an examination or answer sheet(s) following the examination
and wishes to allow such an inspection privilege, the following
policy of the Board shall govern:
-2-
k.
1. Key Inspection. Inspection of a keyed copy of the
examination question book, which is for the purpose
of requesting a review of such items as the candidate
may believe are incorrect or improperly keyed, will
be allowed for the five working days immediately
following an examination, providing this has been
requested by the Local Agency at least 10 days prior
to the examination. The inspection time allowed a
candidate will not exceed one -half the amount of time
originally allowed to answer the question during the
administration of the examination. During key inspec-
tion a representative of the personnel or administra-
tive office of the Local Agency will be present to
assure that the candidate takes no-notes of an_ v kind
regarding any test materials. Upon request of the
Local Agency and when submitted in writing by a candi-
date who participated in the examination, the Board
will analyze protests resulting from such review and
recommend the action to be taken by the Local Agency.
2. Answer Sheet(s) Inspection. Inspection of a candidate's
answer sheet(s), which is for the purpose of detecting
whether any clerical or other error has been made in
the scoring of the answer sheets, shall be allowed for
a 14- calendar -day period immediately following the
notification to the candidate of examination results.
Upon request, the Board will return the candidate's
answer sheet(s) after scoring and a copy of a keyed
answer sheet(s) to the Local Agency. Candidates are
not allowed to review the question booklet during this
inspection period. Not more than one hour will normally
be allowed for answer sheet(s) review, during which time
a representative of the personnel or administrative office
of the Local Agency shall be present to assure that no
changes or marks of any kind are made by the.candidate on
his answer sheet(s) or the keyed answer sheet(s).
3. Certain Tests Not to be Open for Key Inspection. Stan-
dardized tests, and tests preduplicated as form tests
and semi -form tests, and questions not scored by an
absolute standard will not be available for keyed copy
inspection nor may candidates be allowed to review
copies of these tests at any time.
Retention of Test Material by the Board.
The Board shall, if requested by the Local Agency, retain the
completed question booklets or answer sheet(s) for such reasonable
period of time as the Local Agency's rules may prescribe.
-3-
1. Agency Responsibilities
The Agency shall perform all parts of the examination process, the
performance of which has not specifically been requested of and
agreed to by the Board, and shall assume responsibility for the
conformity of the examination process to any applicable laws, rules,
or ordinances and for the examination as a whole. Under the selection
guidelines of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the
California Fair Employment Practices Commission, the Agency as test
user is responsible for the results of the selection process and must
be prepared to demonstrate that the process is valid and meets other
testing standards if it adversely affects groups protected by fair
employment laws.
The Agency agrees to hold harmless the Board, its officers, agents,
and its employees from, and to indemnify the Board, its officers,
agents, and its employees from, any damages or liability which may
arise from the use by the Agency of any examination or selection
procedure which is the subject of this agreement.
M. Extended Usage
If the Local Agency wishes to administer examinations on a continuous
basis for certain mutually agreed upon classes, the Board may, in its
discretion, supply the examination booklets, a scoring key and instruc-
tions for extended usage. Extended usage is defined as the Local
Agency's retention of examination booklets and instructions after
their initial administration for the purpose of readministering them.
The Local Agency will score such examinations.
n. Security of Test Material
All test materials supplied by the Board under this agreement shall
be and remain the property of the Board, and shall be held and stored
in a manner that will prevent unauthorized persons from having access
to it. The Agency agrees to be responsible for the security of all
test materials supplied to the Agency and agrees to reimburse the
Board for a portion or all of the replacement costs, as determined
by the Board, for test materials that are lost or whose value for
testing purposes, in the opinion of the Board, may have been destroyed
while said test materials were subject to the custody of the Agency.
Question booklets shall not be duplicated nor test questions copied by
the Agency, under any circumstances.
If any test material obtained from the Board should become involved
in legal proceedings by a court or other body vested with legal
authority, the Agency will take appropriate measures to safeguard
the confidentiality of the test material including answer sheets such
as by motion for protective order.
-4-
o. Examination Charges
In consideration of the performance by the Board of the testing
services specifically described in this Exhibit, the Agency agrees
to reimburse the Board in accordance with "Written Examination Price
List" (Exhibit B).
p. Canceled or Postponed Examinations
Agencies may be billed for work done on a canceled or postponed
examination up to the time the Board is notified of such action.
Under certain circumstances, credit may be given for work already
performed if the test is rescheduled.
-5-
Section II - Special Services
r M
Upon the request of the Local Agency, the Board, in its discretion, shall
supply any or all of the following special services:
a. Advice and assistance on examining.procedures and problems.
b. Preparation and distribution of examination publicity.
c. Distribution, receipt, and appraisal of applications.
d. Preparation, administration and scoring of essay, problems
and performance tests.
e. Advice on and conduct of oral interviews.
f. Preparation of eligible lists.
g. Preparation of special information or affidavits regarding
examinations provided, including giving of depositions and
presentations in court required by legal action arising from
use of any Board examination.
h. Other technical personnel services.
Exhibit B to Cost
Service
Effective
Contract Agreement
June 1, 1982
COOPERATIVE PERSONNEL SERVICES
TEST RENTAL RATES
Stock Tests
Number of
Schedule A
_Schedule B
Candidates
(CPS Scored and
(Scored by
Scheduled
Tabulated)
Agency) - -
1 - 10
$189 minimum charge.
$135 minimum charge.- - -
11 - 50
$189 plus $3.50 per
$135 plus $3.15 per `
candidate over 10.
candidate over 10.
51 or more
$329 plus $3.30 per
$260 plus $2.90 per
candidate over 50.
candidate over 50.
Custom Tests
Number. of
Schedule A
Schedule B
Candidates
(CPS Scored and
(Scored by
Scheduled
Tabulated)
Agency)
1 - 10
$303 minimum charge.
$265 minimum charge.
11 - 50
$303 plus $3.90 per
$265 plus $3.75 per
candidate over 10.
candidate over 10.
51 or more
$459 plus $3.75 per
$415 plus $3.50 per
candidate over 50.
candidate over 50.
Stock "K" Tests*
Number of
Schedule A
Schedule B
Candidates
(CPS Scored and
(Scored by
Scheduled
Tabulated)
Agency)
1 - 10
$198 minimum charge.
$144 minimum charge.
11 - 50
$198 plus $3.90 per . "$144
plus $3.75 per
candidate over 10.
candidate over 10.
51 or more
$354 plus $3.75 per
$294 plus $3.50 per
candidate over 50.
candidate over 50.
*A Stock "K" test
is a custom test which an agency
wants to readminister
with no change in
content.
-2-
Exhibit B to Cost Service Effective
Contract Agreement June 1, 1982
Entry Police (Stock Series 1020) and
Entry Fire Tests
Number of Schedule A Number of Schedule B
Candidates (CPS Scored and Candidates (Scored by` -r =-
Scheduled Tabulated) Scheduled Agency
1 or more $89 plus $4.90 1 - 50 $68 plus $4.25 �_•
per candidate. per candidate.`;i.
51 or more $280 plus $3.75
per candidate.
Entry Police Prepaid Units of POST
Test (Form 1022)
By prepackaging in units of five tests and avoiding contracting -, billing, and
related costs, Form 1022 can be furnished at reduced costs. Rental charges
cover all services which go with regular orders, EXCEPT: -
(1) Orders must be paid for in advance; (2) Review copies must be paid for in
advance; and (3) Return shipping costs must be paid for by using agency.
1 Unit of 5 Tests . . . . . . . . $49.00
Each additional unit (if all units scored
and tabulated together) . . . . . . . . . . . . .f. . $52.00
Review Copy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 6.25
Beginning June 1, 1982, we will ship tests within one week of Tyour" test
date. Put your orders and fees in the mail at least two weeks before
your test date. State in your order the test date. All tests, used or
not, must be returned, postage paid, First Class mail, postmarked within
15 working days of the Cooperative Personnel Services shipping date. A
late charge will be made for tests not returned within the time limit.
Rental rates cover a single administration.
To order, send a check to cover the full cost of the -order and the name,
title, address, and telephone number of the responsible agency official to
whom the order is to be shipped. We ship only to a named official who will
.be responsible for the test materials.
Extended Usage Costs
(1) A maximum of 25 test booklets can be released for extended usage; and
(2) The cost for extended usage is the first -time cost from the Cooperativ e
Personnel Services Test Rental rates, and $87.00 each month thereafter.
.-
-3-
Exhibit B to Cost Service
Contract Agreement
Effective
June 1, 1982
Special Services
Listed examination prices cover the cost of normal consultation and exami-
nation preparation services. Additional services beyond normal will be
charged at the appropriate billing rate or fee. Examples of such services
include:
.1. Preparation.of special material or revision of existing mate -
rials which can be utilized in one agency only; for example,
materials covering local building codes, and individual'depart-
went rules and regulations.
2. Research and analysis of candidate appeals, at a cost of $45
for each appeal denied. (If an item is found to be faulty,
Cooperative Personnel Services will absorb the cost of analyz-
ing and responding to the appeal.)
3. An unusually high amount of technical or clerical staff time
being spent to meet an agency's examining needs. Several
examples are:
a. Agencies requesting they be sent review copies of
custom test segments will be charged $3.35 per 15-
item segment. The charge can be waived for agencies
making significant contributions to the quality of the
custom test items sent for the test, by sourcing items,
rewriting outdated items; or by writing new test items.
b. Agencies requesting a lengthy custom written test
(120 or more test items) will be charged for actual
costs for typing time exceeding three (3) hours.
c. Agencies which call in higher candidate counts after
the originally estimated number of test booklets has
been duplicated and assembled, will be charged for
actual costs for any additional press work required
to meet the higher candidate count.
4. Proctor services and arrangements for test administration
arranged for or provided by Cooperative Personnel Services.
5. General consultation on selection systems and other services
not directly related to a specific examination.
6. Scoring or problem and essay type questions.
7. Preparation of special information regarding the content,
coverage, or validity of the provided examination, preparation
of affidavits, giving of depositions, and preparation for an
-4-
Exhibit B,to'Cost Service Effective
Contract Agreement June 1, 1982
appearance in court which is required in connection with
h
any legal action pertaining to the use of any examination
provided by the Board.
Responsibility for Selection Process
. "w1
State and Federal selection guidelines indicate the employer is responsible
for the results of the selection process and must be prepared to demonstrate =:'_"
that the process is validated for their specific jobs and meet other selec-
tion standards if it adversely affects minority or women applicants protected {` -� "-',
by EEO laws and guidelines. Consequently, CPS cannot assume either the legal
responsibility or the cost for litigation or substantive complaints arising
from local agency use of CPS test materials.
Cancelled or Postponed Examinations
Agencies will be billed for work done on a cancelled or postponed examina-
tion up to the time we are notified of such action. Under certain circum-
stances, credit may be given for work already performed if the test is re-
schedueled.
Performance Tests
An additional charge of $5.75 per candidate is assessed for scoring either
typing or stenographic performance tests.
Charges .for other performance test materials and services vary, depending
upon the type of service. For specific information, please contact one of
our offices.
Common Book
Charges for "Common Book" custom examinations will be: full cost for the
base examination, plus half cost for the added class(es). A "Common Book"
examination is one prepared for successive classes in a series (such as
Associate and Senior Engineer). All competitors take the base examination;
only competitors for the higher level take the last several segments.
-5-
Effective
CPS TEST RENTAL RATES*
June
1, 1982
Stock
Tests
Candidates
Agency
CPS
Candidates
Agency
CPS
Scheduled
Scores
Scores
Scheduled
Scores
Scores
1 to 10
135.00
189.00
110
434.00
527.00 _ --
15
150.00
206.50
120
463.00
560.00 --
20
166.50
224.00
130
492.00
593.00
25
182.25
241.50
140
521.00
626.00
30
198.00
259.00
150
550.00
659.00_
35
213.75
276.50
160
579.00
692.00
40
229.50
294.00
170
608.00
725.00
45
245.25
311.50
180
637.00
758.00
50
261.00
329.00
190
666.00
791.00
55
274.50
345.50
200
695.00
824.00
60
• 289.00
362.00
250
840.00
989.00
65
303.50
378.50
300
985.00
1154.00
70
318.00
395.00
350
1130.00
1319.00
75
-332.50
411.50
400
.1275.00
1484.00
80
347.00
428.00
450
1420.00
1649.00
85
361.50
444.50
500
1565.00
1814.00
90
376.00
461.00
550
1710.00
1979.00
95
390.50
477.50
600
1855.00
2144.00
100
405.00
494.00
650
2000.00
2309.00 .
not shown,
see page 1 of
Exhibit B.
*For fees
Effective
CPS TEST
RENTAL RATES*
June
1, 1982
Custom Tests
Candidates
- Agency
CPS
Candidates
-Agency+
w CPS
..Scheduled
Scores
Scores
Scheduled
Scores
^Scores
-•
1 to 10
265.00
303.00
110
625.00
684.00
15
283.75
322.50
120
660.00
721 .50.-
:" - - .;;. -.
20
302.50
342.00
130
695.00
:'.'.759.00
25
321.25
361 .50
140
730.00
:796.50
-
30
340.00
381.00
:- '150.
765.00
:.834.00
35 .•358.75
400.50
160
800.00
.::,871.50
40
377.50
420.00
170
835.00
909.00
4
45
396.25
439.50
1.80
870.00
946.50
50 , ••'
•415.00
459.00
190
905.00
.: 984.00
:<.. • - : .
-55
••432.50
-477-75
200
940.00
-1021.50
60 '.:450.00
496.56
-250
.1115.00
1209.00
:. 65
467.50
515.25
`:300
1290.00
.1396.50
70
485.00
534.00
350
:1465.00
1584.00
.75
502.50
552.75
400
.1640.00
1771.50
•80
520.00
571.50
450
1815.00
1959.00::..
-85
537.50
'590.25
-.500
1990.00
2146.50
9 0
555.00
609.00
550
2165.00
2334.00r
f
95
572.50
627.75
600
2340.00
2521.50
100
590.00
646.50
650
2515.00
2709.00
*For.fees not
shown,
see page 1
of Exhibit B.
-7-
*For fees not shown, see page 1 of Exhibit B.
Effective
CPS TEST
RENTAL RATES*
June
1, 1982
Stock
"K" Tests
Candidates
Agency
CPS
Candidates
Agency
CPS
Scheduled
Scores
Scores
Scheduled
Scores
Scores
1 to 10
144.00
198.00
110
504.00
579.00 - -
15
162.75
217.50
120
539.00
616.50 -
20
181.50
237.00
130
574.00
654.00
25
200.25
256.50
140
609.00
691.50
30
219.00
276.00
150
644.00
729.00
35
237.75
295.50
160
679.00
766.50
40
256.50
315.00
170
714.00
804.00
45
.275.25
334.50
180
749.00
841.50 .
50
294.00
354.00
190
784.00
879.00
55
31.1.50
372.75
200
819.00
916.50
60
329.00
391.50
250
994.00.
1104.00
65
346.50
410.25
300
1169.00
1291.50
70
364.00
429.00
350
1344.00
1479.00
75
381.50
447.75
400
1519.00
1666.50
80
399.00
466.50
450
1694.00
1854.00
85
416.50
485.25
500
1869.00
2041.50
90
434.00
504.00
550
2044.00
2229.00
95
451.50
522.75
600
2219.00
2416.50
100
469.00
541.50
650
2394.00
2604.00
*For fees not shown, see page 1 of Exhibit B.
CPS TEST RENTAL RATES*
Police and Fire Tests
Effective
June 1, 1982
Candidates
Agency
CPS
Candidates
Agency
CPS
Scheduled
Scores
Scores
Scheduled
Scores
Scores
01
72.25
93.90
110
505.00
628.00
05
89.25
113.50
120
542.50
_
677.00
10
110.50
138.00
130
580.00
726.00
15
131.75
162.50
140
617.50
.775.00
20
153.00
187.00
150
655.00
824.00
25
174.25
211.50
160
692.50
873.00
30
195.50
236.00
170
730.00
922.00
35
216.75
260.50
180
767.50
971.00
40
238.00
285.00
190
805.00
1020.00
45
259.25
309.50
200
842.50
1069.00
50
280.50
334.00
250
1030.00
1314.00
55
298.75
358.50
300
1217.50
1559.00
60
317.50
383.00
350
1405.00
1804.00
65
336.25
407.50
400
1592.50
2049.00
70
355.00
432.00
450
1780.00
2294.00
75
373.75
456.50
500
1967.50
2539.00
80
392.50
481.00
.550
2155.00
2784.00
85
411.25
505.50
600
2342.50
3029.00
90
430.00
530.00
650
2530.00
3274.00
95
448.75
554.50
100
467.50
579.00
*For fees not shown, see page 2 of Exhibit B.
_ 'v
CALIFORNIA STATE PERSONNEL BOARD
COOPERATIVE PERSONNEL SERVICES
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES PROVIDED EXAMINATION
SERVICES BY COOPERATIVE PERSONNEL SERVICES
July 1979 - June 1980
CITIES
Alameda
Daly City
Lompoc
Pismo Beach
Albany
Davis
Long Beach
Pittsburg
Alhambra
Delano
Los Alamitos
Placerville
Anaheim
Dixon
Los Banos
Pleasant Hill
Antioch
Dos Palos
Los Gatos
Pleasanton
Arcadia
Downey
Lynwood
Porterville
Arcata
Port Hueneme
Arroyo Grande
El Cajon
Madera
Atwater
E1 Cerrito
Marina
Red Bluff
Auburn
E1 Monte
Martinez
Redding
Escondido
Marysville
Redlands
Bakersfield
Mendota
Redondo Beach
Banning
Fairfield
Merced
Redwood City
Bell Gardens
Fillmore
Millbrae
Reedley
Belmont
Folsom
Milpitas
Rialto
Berkeley
Fortuna
Modesto
Richmond
Beverly Hills
Fremont
Monrovia
Riverside
Blythe
Fresno
Montclair
Rohnert Park
Brawley
Montebello
Roseville
Buena Park
Gardena
Monterey
Burlingame
Garden Grove
Monterey Park
Sacramento
Gilroy
Morgan Hill
Salinas
Calexico
Glendale
Morro Bay
San Anselmo
Campbell
Glendora
Mountain View
San Bernardino
Capitola
Grass Valley
San Bruno
Carlsbad
National City
San Carlos
Carpinteria
Half Moon Bay
Newark
San Clemente
Carson
Hanford
Newport Beach
San Gabriel
Ceres
Hawthorne
Sanger
Chico
Hemet
Oceanside
San Jose
Chowchilla
Hillsborough
Ojai
San Leandro
Chula Vista
Hollister
Ontario
San Luis Obispo
Claremont
Huntington Beach
Orange
San Mateo
Clovis
Oroville
San Pablo
Coachella
Indio
Oxnard
San Rafael
Colton
Inglewood
Santa Ana
Compton
Irving
Pacifica
Santa Barbara
Concord
Palm Springs
Santa Clara
Corona
Lakeport
Pasadena
Santa Cruz
Coronado
La Mesa
Paso Robles
Santa Fe Springs
Costa Mesa
La Palma
Petaluma
Santa Paula
Covina
Livermore
Piedmont
Santa Maria
Culver City
Lodi
Pinole
Santa Rosa
i
CITIES - Contd.
COUNTIES - Contd.
SCHOOL DISTRICTS
Sausalito
E1 Dorado
Alameda County Office of Education
Scotts Valley
Antioch Unified School District
Seaside
Fresno
Sebastopol
Selma
Humboldt
Simi Valley
California Polytechnic State University,
Sonoma
Imperial
Pomona
South Lake Tahoe
Inyo
California Polytechnic State University,
South Pasadena
San Luis Obispo
South San Francisco
Kings
California State University, Bakersfield
Stanton
California State University, Northridge
Stockton
Madera
California State University, Sacramento
Sunnyvale
Marin
California State University, San Diego
Mariposa
California State University, San Jose
Taft
Mendocino
Charter Oaks Unified School District
Torrance
Merced
Compton Unified School District
Tracy
Monterey
Compton Community College District
Turlock
Tustin
Nevada
Desert Sands Unified School District
Ukiah
Orange
E1 Dorado County Office of Education
Union City
Upland
Placer
Fremont Unified School District
Plumas
Vacaville
Hawthorne Unified School District
Vallejo
Riverside
Ventura
Los Angeles County Superintendent of
Vernon
Sacramento
Schools
Victorville
San Diego
Lynwood Unified School District
Visalia
San Joaquin
San Luis Obispo
Martinez Unified School District
Walnut Creek
San Mateo
Montebello Unified School District
Watsonville
Santa Barbara
Morongo Unified School District
Westminster
Santa Clara
Whittier
Santa Cruz
Ontario- Montclair Unified School District
Woodland
Shasta
Solano
Pittsburg Unified School District
Yuba City
Sonoma
Plumas Unified School District
Stanislaus
Sutter
Richmond Unified School District
COUNTIES
Rowland Unified School District
Tehama
Alameda
Trinity
Sacramento County Office of Education
Tulare
Santa Monica Unified School District and
Butte
Community College District
Ventura
Simi Valley Unified School District
Contra Costa
Sunnyvale Unified School
Yolo
Del Norte
Yuba
Torrance Unified School District
Washoe, Nevada
SCHOOL DISTRICTS - Contd.
University of California, Berkeley
University of California, Irvine
University of California, Riverside
University of California, San Francisco
University of California, Systemwide
Ventura County Community College District
Walnut Creek Unified School District
Yuba City Unified School District
Yuba Community College District
SPECIAL DISTRICTS AND OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
Arcade Fire District
Arden Fire District
Atascadero Fire Department
Barstow Fire Department
Bay Area Rapid Transit District
Big Bear Lake Fire Protection District
Carmichael Fire District
Carpinteria - Summerland Fire Protection District
Central Valley Fire Protection District
Danville Fire Protection District
Dublin /San Ramon Services District
East Bay Regional Park District
Emeryville Fire District
Encinitas Fire Protection District
Fallbrook Fire Protection District
Foothill Fire Protection District
Goleta Water District
Kelseyville Fire Protection District
Kensington Fire District
Los Angeles City Housing Authority
North San Mateo County Sanitation District
Oakland Housing Authority
Port of San Diego
SPECIAL DISTRICTS AND OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES - Contd.
Rio Linda Fire District
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
Sacramento Regional Transit
Salinas Rural Fire Department
Santa Clara Valley Employment and Training Board
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Southern California Rapid Transit
Southern Coast Air Quality Management District
West Contra Costa Sanitation District
Woodbridge Fire District
Yucca Valley Fire Protection District
i.
r CITY OF SARA` OG:
A=MA BILL NO. � Initial:
Dept. Hd.
DATE: June 1, 1983
DEPARTMENT: Administrative Services
SUBJECT: Performance Based Management Compensation Plan
C. Atty-
C. Mgr.
Issue Summary
During September and October of 1982 the City Council and the City Manager
had discussions regarding the development of a performance based management
compensation plan. The City Council: adopted Resolution 85 -9.56 on October 20,
1982, establishing salary ranges for all management positions and directing
the City Manager to prepare a written document of policies and procedures for
implementing a performance based management compensation plan. The Plan has
been finalized and is before the City Council for adoption.
Recommendation
Adopt Resolution 85 -9.57 Establishing a Performance Based Management
Compensation Plan.
Fiscal Impacts
No fiscal impacts will result from adoption of the Plan. The next period of
review for management compensation will commence on or before September 1, 1983.
Exhibits /Attachments
Resolution No. 85 -9.57
Background Memo
Performance Based Management Compensation Plan
Management Performance Evaluation Report
Resolution 85 -9.56
Council Action
6/1: Consensus to take up at study session 6/7.
8/3: Fanelli /Mallory noved to adopt Res. 85 -9.57 with change in Pt. V. of plan. Passed 5 -0.
s
C�
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: May 17, 1983
COUNCIL MEETING: June 1, 1983
SUBJECT: Management Compensation Program
BACKGROUND:
The City of Saratoga adopted a Management Compensation Program in
September, 1974. The main elements of the program were to:
1. Provide for salary increases for management positions to
be based upon-merit and performance.
2. Establish pay ranges for management employees to be reviewed
annually by the City Manager, with recommendations for changes
to be approved by the City Council.
3.. Provide for a management development program based upon manage-
ment by objectives, and
4. Provide for a management training program to be funded in
order to develop a "management team."
Several elements commonly found in more recently developed management
compensation programs were absent in the 1974 plan - a written evaluation
report, specific criteria for evaluating performance, specified times
for the evaluation, and a method and time frame for reviewing ranges
and appropriating funds. These missing elements combined with changes
in management resulted in abandonment of the plan in 1981, at which time
flat salary rates were adopted.for all management employees.
During salary discussions with management employees in 1982, management
employees requested a return to salary ranges and expressed an interest
in re- establishing a performance based management compensation program.
Management Compensation Program
May 17, 1983
Page two
In the fall of 1982, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 85 -9.56
which:
1. Directed the City Manager to re- establish a Performance Based
Management Compensation Plan.
2. Established that the Plan would provide adjustment to manage-
ment salaries based upon performance as evaluated by the City
Manager.
3. Established that the City Council would authorize salary
ranges for each management position and will review the ranges
annually.
4. Required a written plan be prepared to document the policies
and procedures to be followed in the Management Compensation
Plan, and
5. Provided that the City Council annually determine the amount
of total appropriations for management compensation, at an
annualized rate.
Concurrent with the adoption of Resolution No. 85 -9.56, a written evalu-
ation form was developed to be used as the basis for the new performance
based management compensation program. The new form was used by the City
Manager and Department Heads to complete the review of the current eight
management positions and establishment of appropriate pay levels within
the adopted pay ranges.
Attached to this report is the completed Performance Based Management
Compensation Plan. The Plan consists of a description and policy state-
ments, instructions for the Evaluation Report, and a copy of the
Management Performance Evaluation Report.
Patri(ia M. Mullens
Assistant City Manager
ck
CITY OF SARATOGA
PERFORMANCE BASED MANAGEMENT
COMPENSATION PLAN
The City of Saratoga Performance Based Management Compensation
Plan establishes a policy for the evaluation of management
personnel and establishes a process for setting appropriate
salary and benefit levels. The Plan consists of three
elements:
Objectives of the Plan
Instructions for the Management Compensation
Program and the Performance Evaluation Report
Forms to be used for completing the Management
Performance Evaluation Report
5 -83
OBJECTIVES OF THE PLAN
The following statements are a reflection of the intent of the
City of Saratoga-Management Compensation Plan.
- To motivate each individual to work at highest capacity by
providing a means for the periodic review between the City
Manager and each manager to delineate work responsibilities,
jointly establish realistic job and performance standards
and objectives, review progress towards achieving- results,
and planning future professional growth and development.
- To provide incentives for encouraging outstanding job per-
formance and for improving job performance.
- To increase management productivity and morale through the
use of a performance based compensation plan.
- To set compensation levels which permit the City to attract,
recruit, retain and reward competent managers.
- To establish procedures for an annual review of management
salary and benefits by the City Council.
- To establish appropriate salary and benefit levels based
upon a variety of 'factors including, but not limited to,
prevailing labor market conditions, ability of the City to
pay, local cost of living, miscellaneous employee group
compensation levels, internal organizational relationships,
value of the position to the organization and the community.
- To provide a performance evaluation and compensation system
which provides continuity, consistency and equity for manage-
ment personnel.
- To establish individual management salaries based upon per-
formance as evaluated by the City Manager.
- To provide a management link between the goals of the com-
munity, the City Council, the City Manager, and the work
objectives of the individual managers.
5 -83
INSTRUCTIONS FOR MANAGEMENT COMPENSATION PROGRAM
AND THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT
GENERAL PROCEDURES
Following adoption of the annual budget, the City Manager will provide
the City Council with survey.information regarding current management
positions. The information to be presented will include salary levels
of comparable positions from other cities in Santa Clara County,
fringe benefit information, and other pertinent information as re-
quested by the City Council. The information collected will be avail-
able to management personnel.
Management personnel have the right under State law to meet as a group
to discuss salary and benefit information. As a group, or as indivi-
duals, they have the right to meet with the City Manager to communicate
their concerns relating to salaries and benefits. The City Manager
shall transmit these concerns to the City Council.
Following a review of information presented to them, the City Council
may adjust authorized pay ranges and /or benefit levels, as appropriate.
The City Council shall authorize sufficient funds to cover annual ex-
penditures for management salaries and benefits, as approved.
MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT
After the annual review of salary ranges and benefits by the City Council,
the City Manager shall review the performance of each Department Head.
Department Heads with other management personnel in their respective
departments will be responsible for reviewing the performance of those
managers, with input from the City Manager, as appropriate. Performance
reviews shall take place at least once annually, or more often if
necessary.
The Performance review process will utilize a written form designated
as the Management Performance Evaluation Report.
The evaluator (City Manager or Department Head) will review the Evalu-
ation Report from the previous review period before beginning to complete
an updated report.
The Evaluation Report is composed of five major sections as described
below.
PART I - Individual Qualities
This section asks the evaluator to rank the person being evaluated in
the areas of management skills, interpersonal skills, competency in field
of work, attitude toward work, reliability, and professional growth and
development.
5 -83
The choice of performance indicators for each quality are: not appli-
cable, below expectations, meets expectations, above expectations.
The evaluator is asked to check off an overall rating for each skill
grouping. The overall rating is to be checked off on a numerical
scale ranging from 0 as the lowest to 10 as the highest rating. Each
skill grouping has a section for comments to allow the evaluator to
clarify, highlight, or expand upon any item within that section of the
evaluation.
PART II - Performance Evaluation
The evaluator is asked to identify and evaluate the employee's progress
and performance in meeting specific goals or objectives that previously
had been set. Referral back to the evaluation from the previous review
period is necessary to complete this portion of the evaluation.
Each previously set goal or objective is to be stated as simply as
possible. Space is provided for the employee to comment and for the
evaluator to comment. The evaluator is asked to check off if the goal
or objective was not met, met, or exceeded.
PART III - General Rating
This section asks the evaluator to indicate an overall performance
rating.-..for the.employee.. Choices provided are:
1. a superior manager in most or all areas
2. a competent manager with some areas of exceptional ability
3. a competent manager in most or all respects
4. a competent manager with some significant areas needing
improvement
5. currently below acceptable level of competence; major improve-
ments are needed
Space is provided for evaluator comments and for employee comments.
PART IV - Performance Improvement Plan
The performance improvement section is intended to be completed follow-
ing a discussion between the evaluator and the employee in order to
identify up to five (5) significant goals and /or objectives for the
employee. The goals or objectives listed need to be mutually agreed
upon and may relate to individual qualities or work plans, or both. The
goals or objectives listed will form the basis for the next performance
evaluation.
Each goal or objective is to be clearly and simply stated. The method
by which performance will be measured is to be stated as measurement
criteria. Space is provided for additional comments by the evaluator.
5 -83
PART V - Employee's Comments
This section is to provide the person being evaluated with an oppor-
tunity to add any comments pertinent to the evaluation.
After the entire Evaluation Report has been completed and reviewed with
the employee, both the evaluator and employee must sign and date the
report. The employee will receive a complete copy and a copy will be
kept in a confidential personnel file.
The Evaluation Report is intended to be completed on an annual basis.
However, under certain circumstances the evaluator and the employee
may decide to complete.the Evaluation Report on.a more frequent basis.
It is also recommended-- that periodic reviews be held during the year
between the evaluator and the employee to check progress on goals and
objectives, or, if necessary to make amendments to the Evaluation Report.
PROCEDURE FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIFIC SALARY WITHIN AUTHORIZED
SALARY RANGE
Responsibility for the Performance Evaluation of each manager rests with
the City Manager. Following completion of the annual Evaluation Report,
the City Manager shall determine the placement of each manager within
the salary range authorized by the City Council. The City Manager may
take into consideration such factors as current and past performance
evaluations, internal organizational relationships, value of the position
to the organization, scope of responsibility, experience, and other
factors as deemed appropriate by the City Manager. Information regarding
specific placement of each manager within the authorized salary range.
shall be considered as confidential And not a part of the public record.
5 -83
City of Saratoga
MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT
Manager
Position
Date of Appraisal
Evaluator
Position
Date of Hire
Time in Position
Last Appraisal Date
Length of Time Under
Evaluator's Supervision
May 1983
PART I INDIVIDUAL QUALITIES
1. Manaqement Skills:
Personnel Handling
Supervision Practices
Time Management
Work Planning & Organization
Budgeting
Report Preparation
Oral Presentation
Overall Rating:
roor Below
Standard
Specific Comments:
2. Interpersonal Skills:
Communicating
Listening /Understanding
Conflict Handling
Developing Positive Relations
Overall Rating:
0 Z
Poor Below
Standard
Specific Comments:
r
Standard
M
6 8 1
Above Outstanding
Standard
V)
N
N
c
�
c
O
o
o
•r
•r
•r
ra
ra
fo
(0
b
U
U
U
U
U
U
Q)
U
QJ
O_
d
Q
X
X
X
W
W
W
3
�n
Q)
¢
o
+�
>
¢
a
v
�°
6 8 1
Above Outstanding
Standard
1 1
Above Outstanding
Standard
N
N
N
C
O
C
O
•r
O
•r
O
a--)
i--)
•r
i-)
ra
ra
+
4-)
4
U
U
U
a
a
Q)
Q
d
Q
X
X
X
W
W
W
3
Un
(1)
o
+�
>
¢
r
1 1
Above Outstanding
Standard
N
C
V1
C
to
�
O
•r
O
•r
O
•r
ro
�
+.)
U
+>
U
4-)
U
N
Q
X
QJ
II.
X
QJ
a.
X
W
W
W
3
vi
ej
3. Competency in Field of Work:
z
m
W
a
Accuracy of Work
Thoroughness /Completeness of Work
Judgement /Relevancy
Knowledge of Field
Creativity /Innovativeness
Overall Rating:
0 2 4
6
8
10
Poor Below Standard
I Above
Outstanding
Standard
Standard
Specific Comments:
+;
U
+;
U
+•
U
N
Q
X
U
d
X
N
d
X
W
W
W
4. Attitude toward Work:
Q
3
°
0
a
d1
o'
z
a,
m
a�
g
Self- Motivation
Initiative
Support of Organizational Policies
and Goals
Organizational Participation
Overall Rating:
0 2 4
6
8
10
I
Poor Below I Standard
Above
Outstanding
Standard
Standard
Specific Comments:
5. Reliability:
Performance lender Stress
Time at Work
Integrity
Manages Commitments
Overall Rating:
0 2
4
1
1
roor below Standard
N
N
N
Standard
�
O
C
O
O
O
i--)
4-)
4-j
(TJ
(10
M
3 N W
O +> >
Ci
4-)
.i--'
+-)
Interest in Skills Development
U
U
U
aJ
aJ
ai
CL
d
II,
Goal Definition and Attainment
x
x
x
W
LJ
W
8 lc
3
N
QJ
Standard
Standard
Specific Comments:
¢
N
O
z
m
<
1
roor below Standard
I Above
Outstanding
Standard
Standard
Specific Comments:
U U v
aJ aJ aJ
� n a
x x x
w w w
6. Professional Growth and Personal Development:
3 N W
O +> >
Ci
Interest in Skills Development
Maintains Technical Competence
Concern for Others
Manner, Bearing, Appearance
Goal Definition and Attainment
Overall Rating:
0 2 4
6
8 lc
Poor Below Standard
I Above
Outstanding I
Standard
Standard
Specific Comments:
PART II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Identify here and evaluate the employee's progress and
performance in meeting goals or specific objectives
that previously had been set.
1. a. Goal /Objective:
b. Employee's Comments:
c. Evaluator's Comments:
2. a. Goal /Objective:
b. Employee's Comments:
c. Evaluator's Comments:
3. a. Goal /Objective:
b. Employee's Comments:
c. Evaluator's Comments:
4. a. Goal /Objective:
b. Employee's Comments:
c. Evaluator's Comments:
5. a. Goal /Objective:
b.. Employee's Comments:
c. Evaluator's Comments:
(3)
CU
i-)
a-J
U
O
O
X
Z
w
PART III GENERAL RATING
A superior manager in most or all respects.
A competent manager with some areas of exceptional ability.
A competent manager in most or all respects.
A competent manager with some significant areas needing
improvement.
Currently below acceptable level of competence; major
improvements are needed.
Evaluator's Comments:
Employee's Comments:
PART IV PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Identify significant goals and /or objectives that result from this evaluation.
These may relate to improvement in individual qualities or setting work plans
or both. Do not overlook this step! The specific goals or objectives identi-
fied here form the basis for the next performance evaluation. Include how
performance will be measured.
1. Goal /objective:
Measurement Criteria:
Evaluator's Comments:
2. Goal /objective:
Measurement Criteria:
Evaluator's Comments:
3. Goal /objective:
Measurement Criteria:
Evaluator's Comments:
4. Goal /objective:
Measurement Criteria:
Evaluator's Comments:
5. Goal /objective:
Measurement Criteria:
Evaluator's Comments:
PART V EMPLOYEE "S COMMENTS (OPTIONAL)
I have met with my supervisor to review and discuss this performance appraisal.
The opportunity to comment on or respond to the evaluation has been provided.
I have received a copy of the completed evaluation.
Employee:
PART VI
Date:
Supervisor: Date:
RESOLUTION NO. 85 -9.56
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SARATOGA AMENDING RESOLUTION 85 -9.55, ESTABLISHING
A PERFORMANCE BASED MANAGEMENT COMPENSATION PLAN
AND MAKING APPROPRIATION FOR ADJUSTMENTS TO
MANAGEMENT COMPENSATION
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga has maintained the policy of
annual review of compensation policies and rates for management emplovees
and has fixed September 1 as the review date; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed with the City Manager
various surveys and other data regarding levels of compensation for
other cities in the area; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered appropriate policies for
the compensation of its management employees and directed the City Manager
to consult with these employees as required by State law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is concerned about meeting the needs of
management employees, and addressing_ their concerns, within a framework
of fair and objective policies that also observe practical and economical
restraints in the overall public interest;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1. Establishment of Performance Based Compensation Plan
The City Manager is directed to re- establish a Performance
Based. Management Compensation Plan in keeping with the outline
draft of such a policy which was presented to and reviewed by
the City Council. The Performance Based Compensation Plan
,will provide for the adjustment of salaries for management
personnel based solely on performance. The City Council shall
establish appropriate salary ranges for each management posi-
tion, within which the salary rate to be paid will be determined
by the City Manager according to his evaluation of the indi-
vidual's performance. The City Council annually will review the
salary ranges and make adjustments as deemed appropriate. The
policies and procedures to be followed in the Plan are to be
defined in a written document which the City Manager shall pre-
pare and present to this Council for its consideration of
adoption.
2. Appropriation for Salary and Benefit P_diustments
Pursuant to establishing a Performance Based Management Com-
pensation Plan and its annual review of appropriate salary
ranges, taking all other conditions into account, the City
Council annually will determine the amount of adjustments
needed to total appropriations for management compensation, at
an annualized rate. These appropriations will be available to
the City Manager for allocation to individual management employees,
according to the Compensation Plan.
For the balance, commencing September 1, 1982, of the current
fiscal year, the appropriation of $32,100 is hereby made from
the appropriate Reserves set aside for this purpose in the
current adopted budget. This amount represents an adjustment of
11% of total compensation on a yearly basis.
4 `
3. Authorization for Adjustments to Fringe Benefit Programs
Pursuant to the Compensation Plan and the limits of the appro-
priation made above, the City Manager is hereby authorized to
increase auto allowance reimbursements and insurance benefits
package allowances by the amount of $25.00 and $35.00 per month,
respectively. Sections 2 and 3 of Resolution 85 -9.55 are hereby
amended accordingly.
4. Designation of Management Po.sitions and Establishment of
Salary Ranges
The following classifications are designated as the management
positions of the City of Saratoga and the salary ranges for each
are established as shown:
Monthly Salary
Range
Community Development Director/
City Engineer $3,080 -3,850
Maintenance Director
(effective 11/1/82) 2,680 -3,350
Finance Director 2,840 -3,550
Planning and Policy_ Analysis
Director 2,840 -3,550
Administrative Services Director/
Deputy City Manager 2,680 -3,350
Senior Planner 2,400 -3,000
Senior Building Inspector 2,490 -3,050
Community Center Manager 2,200 -2,750
Section 1 of Resolution 85 -9.55 is hereby amended accordingly.
5. Next Period of Review
In order to maintain salary ranges at appropriate levels, con-
sistent with the overall needs of the City, the next period of
review of the compensation for these management positions shall
commence on or before September 1, 1983.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a
regular meeting of the Saratoga Citv Council on the 20tlUay of October, 198q
by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Clevenger, Fanelli, Mallory, Moyles, and Mayor Callon
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST: MAYOR
ht -3 -cu C„ (J-C'
CITY CLERK
VW;
R
ACmDA BILL NO.
41 SoL,
DATE: June 1, 1983
CITY OF SARATOGA
DEPARTMENT:-Administrative Services
SUBJECT: BLANEY PLAZA BANNER POLICY
Issue Summa
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C.
C. Mgr.
The City has allowed groups to hang banners in Blaney Plaza for a number of
years for promotion of local events. The Saratoga Fire Department has done
the actual hanging of the banners as a service to the residents and the City..
In recent months some difficulties have arisen as a result of the absence of
any approved written policies or regulations on the use of the banners. The
Community Center Director drafted a policy with input from the user groups
and Saratoga Fire Department personnel.
Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. and the attached policy.
current users will be sent a copy of the policy.
Fiscal Impacts
None
Ext. bits /Attachments
Following adoption, all
Resolution No.
Rules and Regulations for Hanging of Banners in Blaney Plaza
Reservation Form
Council Action
BANNER POLICY - 6/1/83 Council Meeting
Mullens: Changes suggested by Toppel:
Item 4 to read "Only advertisements of Saratoga -based community
non- profit events may hang banners in Blaney Plaza."
Explained intent.
Fanelli: I disagree because VITA, for instance, is non- profit but puts on events
which are profit - making. Let's word both ways.
Toppel: My wording means event should not be profit-making.
Fanelli: We should allow non -profit organizations to advertise profit - making
events.
Toppel: If you limit to non -profit organizations you may exclude profit - oriented
compianies wishing to sponsor community events as civic contribution.
Fanelli: Let's put, instead of period at the end, put a mmma and say "or a company
sponsoring a non -profit event."
Toppel: Either way.
Fanelli: "Non -profit organizations advertising Saratoga -based community events,
or organizations advertising Saratoga -based non -profit events ..." so that both
sides can hang banners there.
Mullen: Add. #11 to page indicating " Banners not claimed within 10 days from the date
of their removal may be disposed of at the discretion of the Fire Department." Explained
intent. On reservation form, after third line, put parentheses (You may also attach
a sample drawing.) Below note at bottom of page, add clause "Neither the City of Saratoga
nor the Saratoga Fire Department assumes responsibility or liability for banners nor
for theft, damage or injury that may result from or incident to the placement of banners
at Blaney Plaza."
Callon: 7a is worded peculiarly.
Mullens: Banners need to be at least four feet wide and 25 feet long or else they are
too small to be visible. If they are prepared properly they can be up to 45' long.
Callon: Can it read "Banners must be 4' by at least 25' long "? Is it also the width.
It shouldn't be wider than 4' but it could be longer? So if we put "at least" in front
of the 25' that would do it?
Mullens: Yes.
Fanelli /Clevenger moved approval with amendments. Passed 4 -0.
CITY OF SARATOGA
S�
AC =.A BILL NO. ,
DATE: June 1, 1983
DEPAR'ITIENT• Administrative Services
SUBJECT: REVISION OF CIVIC THEATRE USE POLICY
Issue Summa
Initial:
Dept. Hd.��
C. At
In the fall of 1982, responsibility for scheduling and use of the Civic Theatre
was assigned to the Department of Administrative. Services, Community Oenter.
A review of the usage policy and scheduling process was done in order -to
clarify, simplify,and to make the process more consistent with other City
rental use policies. There are a few noteable changes in the policy and
those are footnoted with an explanation. All major user groups have been
notified of the proposed changes.
Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. and the attached Civic Theatre Use Policy and
Rental Agreement
Fiscal Impacts
None
Eyhibits /Attachments
Resolution No.
Civic Theatre Use Policy and Rental Agreement
Current Rental Rates
Civic Theatre Rental Form
Council Action
6/1: Moyles /Clevenger moved to adopt Resolution 2063. Passed 4 -0.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ESTABLISHING
A CIVIC THEATRE USE POLICY AND RENTAL AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City Council of Saratoga has the authority to
establish use policies for all governmental buildings, and
WHEREAS, there has been a demonstrated need to update and
clarify the Civic Theatre Use Policy and Rental Agreement,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the
City of Saratoga does hereby adopt the "Civic Theatre Use Policy
and Rental Agreement" herein incorporated by reference.
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
CITY OF SARATOGA
CIVIC THEATRE USE POLICY
AND RENTAL AGREEMENT
A. RESERVATIONS AND FEES
1. Organized theatre groups will be given priority usage of the Civic Theatre. Six
to eight months before September of each year a scheduling meeting will be held.
Preceding this meeting, each theatre group will be asked to submit their requests for
preferred dates from September 1 to August 31 for performances and rehearsals.) A
City staff member will consider all requests and draft a tentative schedule. At the
scheduling meeting all theatre groups will have the opportunity to review the schedule
before it is finalized.
2. The City of Saratoga reserves the right to make any additions, cancellations or schedul-
ing changes. It also reserves the right to refuse rental of the Civic Theatre to
groups or individuals.
3. City of Saratoga Council and Planning Commission meetings will have exclusive use of
Wednesdays throughout the year.
4. The non - refundable Processing Fee ($25) is to be paid at the time the Rental Agreement
is completed.2
5. The Security Deposit is to be paid at the time the Rental Agreement is completed and
it is to be in the form of a check or money order. Cash is not accepted. Security
deposits are refunded 10 to 14 days after the last day of the rental. If there is
damage to the building or its contents, a deduction will be made from the deposit and
the balance refunded. If the deposit does not cover the charges, the Licensee will
be responsible for additional fees. If clean -up is not completed, the entire deposit
will be forfeited. If a cancellation occurs, the Security Deposit will not be
refunded.
6. All checks are to be made payable to the City of Saratoga.
7. Groups or individuals will be billed on the last day of their rental. Payment of the
bill is due within 14 days.
8. The Civic Theatre Rental Agreement must be completed at the Saratoga Community Center,
19655 Allendale Avenue, Saratoga, 95070, main office. Office hours are Monday through
Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The completed form must be accompanied by the
Processing Fee and Security Deposit. For more information, call 867 -3438 x 46.
B. GENERAL REGULATIONS
1. No stand, platform, booth, partition, railing, enclosures, overhead structure, or any
other structure shall be erected or installed, nor shall any change, addition or al-
teration be made by the renter unless it is first approved in writing by the City
Manager, or his authorized representative. If such is approved, the premises must be
put back in the prior condition. The renter accepts the premises in an "as is"
condition.
r �
2. The renter shall immediately upon the expiration of each rental period as stated
on their contract vacate the premises and remove all personal property, debris,
rubbish, boxes, greenery, etc. The premises.must be left in a clean and orderly
condition and repair. The renter shall remove all exhibits, booths and other
structures from the premises before the expiration of each rental period.
3. Rental groups or individuals will be required to furnish a certificate of liability
insurance naming the City of Saratoga as an additional co- insured for the protection
of the public. This Agreement shall not be effective until the certificate has been
filed with the City.3
4. The renter, at all times during the use and occupancy of the premises, shall comply
with ordinances, laws, rules and regulations affecting the use and occupancy thereof,
including all state, local and district fire, health and safety laws, ordinances and
regulations.
5. The prevailing party in any action or proceeding between the parties, whether by
suit, arbitration or otherwise, as to their rights or obligations under this agreement,
shall be entitled to all costs incurred in connection therewith, including reasonable
attorney's fees.4
6. The renter shall hold the City of Saratoga free and harmless from any liability or
claim for damages or suit for or by reason of any injuries to any person or property,
of any kind whatsoever, from any cause whatsoever arising out of the use and occupation
of the premises by the renter; and the renter hereby covenants and agrees to idemnify
and save harmless the City from all liability and damage on account of or by reason
of any such injuries or damages, whether by the claimed fault or negligency of the
City of Saratoga or not.4
Signature of Applicant Date
Name of User Group
Signature of City Representative Date
AM
FOOTNOTED CHANGES IN
CIVIC THEATRE USE POLICY
1. Previously the theatre was booked from January through December.
At the request of theatre groups, the schedule has been changed
to book from September through August to coincide with the
theatre season.
2. The non - refundable processing fee is to cover the administrative
cost of processing and scheduling. If a cancellation occurs,
this fee would also offset costs of rescheduling.
3. This policy regarding liability insurance coverage has not been
strictly enforced in the past. In order to protect the City
from potential liability, City staff intends to require the filing
of an insurance certificate before the reservation becomes effective.
4. Paragraphs 5 and 6 are new and were added after consultation with
Steve Baird from the City Attorney's office.
01
SARATOGA CIVIC THEATRE RENTAL RATES
A. PROCESSING FEE
The non - refundable processing fee of $25 is to be paid at the time the Reservation Form
is completed.
B. SECURITY DEPOSIT (Separate Check)
The Security Deposit of $100 is to be paid at the time the Reservation Form is completed.
C. RENTAL RATES
1 . Moves
If Day Shared
2. Auditions
3. Rehearsals
4. Performances
5. Partial Use of
Stage
$20 per day
$10 per day
$55 per day
$55 per day
$185 per day
$ 55 per day
454 not assigned.
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO. Hd.
DATE: June 1, 1983 C.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. mgr.
SUBJECT: A -871, Klein, Mc Bain & Thomas, Lot 3, Tract 6628 (Tollgate)
Issue Summary
Applicant applied for design review approval to construct a two story
structure. The primary concern regarding this project was the amount of
grading proposed, and thus, the dwelling's compatibility with the natural
contour of the site.
It should be noted that if the Council wishes to approve this proposal,
the Fire Chief requests that you add a condition which states: "A heat
and smoke detector system shall be installed in the dwelling as required
by the City of Saratoga Fire Department ". The Planning Commission denied
the application unanimously 7 -0.
Recommendation
1. Conduct a public hearing on the appeal.
2. Determine the merits of the appeal and approve or deny
3. Staff recommended denial of the design review to the Planning Commission.
Fiscal Impacts
None Noted
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Letter of Appeal
2. Staff report dated 4/20/83
3. Planning Commission minutes dated 4/27/83
4. Exhibits "B & C"
5. Resolution A- 8.71 -1
6. Correspondence Received on project
Council Action
6/1: Moyles /Clevenger moved to deny appeal. Passed 4 -0.
RECEIVED
MAY 04 1983
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
APPEAL APPLICATION
Name of Appellant: Klein, McBain and Thomas, Inc.
Address: P.O. Box 2187, Saratoga, CA 95070
Telephone: 866 -4255
Name of Applicant: Klein, McBain and Thomas, Inc.
Project File No.: -
Project Address: Lot 3, Tract 6628, Tollgate Road
Project Description: Single family dwelling
Date Received:
Hearing Date:
Fee
CITY USE ONLY
Decision Being Appealed: Denial by Planning Commission for site and
architectural approval -�/
Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached):
pp llant's Signature
o Klein, President
.ein, McBain and Thomas, Inc.
*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 DATF. OF THE nFrTz TnN
a;t&t.4-4,-q41
City of Saratoga
RE: Attachment to Appeal Application
RECEIVED
MAY 0 41983
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
We are appealing the decision rendered by the Planning Commission
on April 27, 1983, regarding a house that we want to construct on
Lot # 3, Tract 6628.
We feel that both the staff and the commission erred in the
interpretation of our drawings. We have designed a house to
fit the lot requirements based upon previously approved site
and grading and requirements for access and turnaround spaces.
We will submit for the council sketches that will illustrate
our reasoning and beliefs that this house is appropriate for
this lot.
i
Arturo Klein
President
Klein, NcBain and Thomas, Inc.
- l
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
City of S^rotogcr
APPROVED, PY: -
C:`,'. DATE: 4/20/83
Commission Meeting: 4/27/83
SUBJECT: A -871 - McBain & Gibbs, Lot #3, Tract 6628
REQUEST: Design Review Approval to construct a two -story dwelling
0_THER APPROVALS REQUIRED: None
PLANNING DATA:
PARCEL SIZE: 3.4 acres GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Slope Conservation
ZONING: NHR NOTICE: This project does not require noticing
cTTG nATA-
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single family residential
SITE SLOPE: 33% SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 27%
NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: The site slopes down steeply from Tollgate Rd.
to a moderate slope toward the rear of the lot. The site contains orchard trees
along the upper portion and several oak trees. The oak trees will be preserved.
The lower portion of the site contains grasses, brush and trees and is contained
in a scenic easement.
PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS:
HISTORY: As per the negotiated settlement between McBain and Gibbs, Inc. and the
City of Saratoga, this site is required to meet HC -RD (Hillside Conservation -
Residential District) standards rather than NHR (Northwest Hillside Residential
District) requirements in addition to the conditions of the subdivision (SD -1354)
and design review ordinance.
GRADING REQUIRED: CUT: 2,964 Cu. Yds.
CUT DEPTH: 12 Ft.
FILL: 2,964 Cu. Yds.
FILL DEPTH: 12 Ft.
G.;Mx&L- a;k
j
Report to Planning Commiss�n
A -871 - McBain & Gibbs, Lot #3, Tr. 6628
SETBACKS: Front: 33' Rear: 154' Right Side
HEIGHT: 25'
4/20/83
Page 2
195' Left Side: 61'
SIZE OF STRUCTURE: First Floor: 3,220 sq. ft. Second Floor: 1,996 sq. ft.
TOTAL: 5,216 sq. ft.
FLOOR AREA: The standard floor area allowed for this site is 6,200 sq. ft.
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 6%
COLORS & MATERIALS: The exterior materials consist of natural stained plywood and
dark trim,with grey shake roofing material.
SOLAR: Fair orientation
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING: A landscaping plan has not been submitted with this proposal.
Staff recommends that a plan indicating erosion control mitigation measures be sub-
mitted for review if the project receives approval.
1. Avoid Unreasonable Interference with Views and Privacy
The structure, as proposed, does not impact adjacent sites in terms of the viewshed
or privacy. The approved building site sits downhill from Tollgate Road,and is not
highly visable to the area, due to the existing topography and surrounding vegetation..
Also, the amount of scenic easement which surrounds the property to the west acts
as a buffer.
2. Preserve Natural Landscaping
Staff has trouble making this finding which stipulates that the natural appearance
of the site will be maintained by minimizing soil removal and'grade changes. Where
the building site area contains a significant slope, the applicant proposes to
grade by cutting and filling a level pad which staff does not feel is in keeping
with the natural appearance of the site.
Also contained in the subdivision requirements, is a condition which states;
"All grading to be contoured so as to form smooth transitions. All grading to be
smooth transitions between natural and man -made slopes. " -
Staff does not feel the design review ordinance or subdivision requirements have
been met in terms of preserving.the natural contour of the site.
3. Minimize Perception of Excessive Bulk & Compatible Bulk & Height
Staff noted no impacts to the area in terms of bulk, as the structure is within the
standard floor area allowed for this zoning district, and appears compatible with
surrounding dwellings in terms of size and design.
4. Current Gradinq and Erosion Control Standards
Staff has reviewed the grading plan and has determined that the site work can be
accomplished according to the City's grading ordinances.
Report to Planning Commis o 4/20/83
A -871 - McBain & Gibbs, Lot #3, Tr. 6628. Page 3
5. Preservation of Natural Contours
Staff cannot make this finding, as the structure is not designed to follow the
natural contour of the site.
RECOMMENDATION: Since staff cannot make findings #2 and #5, staff recommends denial.
APPROVED:
Sharon Les er
Planner
SL /dsc
P.C. Agenda: 4/27/83
RICT
HR
' 1
51TE
1\ y
Y LIMIT
�l
t
u
wpip
'04
R c
P
. • ••• �.....
r.
CV
Planning Commission Page 5
Meeting Minutes 4/27/83 g
9. A -871 - McBain $ Gibbs, Request for Design Review Approval to construct
two -story dwelling in the NHR zoning district on Lot N3, Tract
6628
Commissioner Bolger gave a Land Use Committee report, stating that they had
concern regarding the moving of about 3,000 cubic yards of dirt. Staff des-
cribed the proposal, pointing out the extensive grading and the fact that the
Staff feels that this design is not sensitive to the site. They commented
that they were not able to make the findings and were recommending denial.
Bob McBain, the applicant, addressed the project, explaining that this house
was originally designed with a full retaining wall built into it along the
northern part of the house. He indicated that when the grading plan was done
it was discovered that in order to get enough dirt to make the required turn-
around it generated more fill. He discussed the grading for the driveway and
turnaround, stating that he feels the engineering solution to putting in fill
is better and safer than a retaining wall.
After considerable discussion on the-design of the home, it was the consensus
that the Commission had concerns about the design of the structure and the
amount of cut needed. They suggested that an alternate more creative design
that tailors the house more to this particular site be studied at a Committee -
of- the- IVhole. However, the applicant stated that he would rather have the
Commission deny the proposal to allow him to appeal to the City Council.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to deny A -871, per the Staff Report dated April
20, 1983 and Exhibits "B" and "C ". Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion.
The motion was carried unanimously 7 -0. The 10 -day appeal period was noted.
MISCELLANEOUS
10. SDR -1527 - William Johnson, 2 -lot subdivision at 18935 Monte Vista, Request
for Clarification and /or Reconsideration of Condition No. II -4
of Staff Report
Staff gave the history of the project and stated that they were recommending
that the condition for the minimum access road improvements from the Johnson
property to E1 Camino Grande be maintained.
Dr. Johnson, the applicant, stated that he had checked with the neighbors and
it is the unanimous opinion that the rural atmosphere should remain and that
the road not be widened. He submitted a letter in support of his position.
Dr. Johnson indicated that, even though there is a barrier at the end of the
road, a number of cars come in and turn around in that area. He stated that
if it is widened it will invite more cars to do this. He added that if the
road were widened there would be a couple of trees and poles that would have
to be removed.
Commissioner McGoldrick asked if there was any safety factor with the road
being left the way it is. Staff stated that the purpose for the requirement
on private roads for the width is to provide room for emergency vehicles to
access and room for cars to pass as that occurs. They added that it is now
substantially less than 18 ft. and they feel that there would not be the possi-
bility of both emergency vehicles and cars to remain on the pavement. They
commented that there appear to be no obstructions on one side of the road for
its entire length.
Commissioner Crowther commented that he feels the logical thing to do in this
case is to grant the neighbors' request of waiver. He asked if there was a
past precedent, and the DiManto property, on the entrance to the rock area, was
cited. It was noted that the Commission wanted to allow that because of the
unique nature of the road. Staff commented that there are private roads exist-
ing in the City that are not standard, but they predate the City's establishing
this rule; they would not think it would be a good precedent to establish.
Commissioner McGoldrick asked about the City's liability if this condition
were to be waived and there is a fire and the apparatus cannot get through.
The Deputy City Attorney stated that Ile would not say that the City would be
liable; however, if the City deliberately has a road that is below laity standards,
it would give someone an argument., Fie concurred with Staff that, not with-
standing the desires of the neighbors, he does not recall a situation where
the City had an application and there has been the opportunity to widen the
road, that they did not require the applicant to bring it up to City standards.
5 - �V
. l;ESlc�t r�:JIL;r
RESOLUTION \'0. A - 8 71- 1
CTTY OF SARATOGA PLA ,INI?NG CCt,',IISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
. I.
FIL% ha: A-.871
3ti�itEAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application
=:for Design Review Approval of a two -story dwelling on Lot #3, Tract
#6628 (near Tollgate Road) and
hHER A.S, the applicant ..(i=) - (has -:not) met the burden of proof required to
-support his said application,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that -after careful consideration of the site
--plan, architectural drawings, landscape plans and other exhibits submitted"in ccnnec-
- tion with this matter, the application of -- MC BA I N & G I B B S
-_for Design Review Approval be and the same is hereby (gr ) (denied) subject to
the follocring conditions:
Per the Staff Report dated April 20, 1983 and Exhibits
"B" and "C".
`PASSED AM ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Ca- zu-ssion, State of
= California, this 27th day of April 19 83- by -the
follo•,%-ing roll call vote: '
AYES: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther, Hlava, McGoldrick, Nellis, Schaefer
and Siegfried
—NOES: None
:ABSE%T: None
in;an, amung Lcimu!3s A,6n
ATTEST:
G� Ci�GGt.�y if
c cr -ark• i a. ling ��Tunis - on
City Council.
City of Saratoga.
Saratoga, California.
Our .residence is located at
Saratoga, California. Because Dur residence is located
in the vicinity of Tract 6628 on Tollgate Road, we are
interested in the type and location of construction at
Tract 6628. We feel that the proposed residential con-
struction on Lot 3 of Tract 6628 is befitting the lot
and will be a compliment to our neighborhood. We ask
your approval of the drawings for Lot 3, Tract 6628,
as submitted.
City Council
City of Saratoga
Saratoga, California
Our residence is located at ' 2 1 q o 0 ' o L- L G- /'9 i A�- R1)
Saratoga, California.' Because our residence is located in the
vicinity of Tract 6628 on Tollgate Road, we are interested in
the type and location of construction at Tract 6628. We have
reviewed the drawings for the proposed residential construction
on Lot 3 of Tract 6628 and feel that the residence as proposed
is befitting the lot and will be a compliment to our neighborhood.
I urge the approval of the drawings for Lot 3, Tract 6628, as
submitted.
K L ZE IAi
City Council.
City of Saratoga.
Saratoga, California.
Our residence is located at A4701 i 6myt"eP Q'oy,►' j
Saratoga, California. Because Dur residence is located
in the vicinity of Tract 6628 on Tollgate Road, we are
interested in the type and location of construction at
Tract 6628. We feel that the proposed residential con-
struction on Lot 3 of Tract 6628 is befitting the lot
and will be a compliment to our neighborhood. We ask
your approval of the drawings for Lot 3, Tract 6628,
as submitted.
City Council.
City of Saratoga.
Saratoga, California.
Our raci ri nnrra i c l nr n +ari n+ —OZ, Z_ Y AT —&;
Saratoga, California. Because .cur residence is located
in the vicinity of Tract 6628 on Tollgate Road, we are
interested in the type and location of construction at
Tract 6628. We feel that the proposed residential con-
struction on Lot 3 of Tract 6628 is befitting the lot
and will be a compliment to our neighborhood. We ask
your approval of the drawings for Lot 3, Tract 6628,
as submitted.
CITY OF SARATOGA
� Initial:
AGENDA AGENDA BILL NO. 46 Dept. Hd.
DATE: June 1, 1983 C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. mgr.
SUBJECT: A -857, V -605, Hap Campbell & Vicki Van Valer, 14721 6th Street
Issue Summary
The applicant applied for design review and variance approval to construct
a multi -story addition to an existing two -story structure which maintains
a 16 foot front yard setback where 25 feet is required.
The primary concern expressed on this item was the proposal's compatibility
with other single story structures in the neighborhood.
At the first hearing on this item the Commission denied the application.
3 -2. Upon a reconsideration requested by the applicant at a following
hearing the Commission approved the item 5 -0.
Recommendation
1. Conduct a public hearing on
2. Determine the merits of the
3. Staff recommended approval
Fiscal Impacts
None noted
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Letter of Appeal
2. Staff Report dated
3. Planning Commission
4. Exhibits "B & C"
5. Resolutions A -857 -2
Council Action
the appeal
appeal and approve or deny.
of the variance and design review.
6. Correspondence received on the item.
2/11/83
minutes dated 2/23/83 and 4/13/83
& V -605 -2
6/1: Moyles /Clevenger moved to grant appeal, waiving fees for applicant if he files different
application within 6 months, because of irregular procedure. Passed 3 -1 (Fanelli opposed)
Date Received:
J Hearing Date:
Fee
CITY USE ONLY
APPEAL APPLICATION
Name of Appellant: Gaylen W. Leishman
Address: 20770 Pamela Way
Telephone: 867 -0123
Name of Applicant: Hap Campbell and Vicki Von Valer
Project File No.: V -605, A -857
Proj ect Address • 14721 -6.th Street
Project Description: Add a third story, and convert the existing
non - conforming garage to living space. New garage propsed to be constructed and
Decision Being Appealed: access is,proposed to change from 6th Street to
Pamela Way where the new garage will be constructed.
Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached):
See letters and signature attached
LE
`AppV lant I s ignature
*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 TFI nnR- T.CTnV
izla{
April 26, 1983
City Council of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
RES"
RE: Variance #V -605 and
Design Review #A -857
Campbell & Van Valer
14721 Sixth Street
Saratoga, California 95070
Attention: Linda Callon, Mayor
and Council Members:
Martha Clevenger
Virginia Famelli_
John Mallory
David Moyles
Dear City Council Members:
Initially the Planning Commission turned down the application
V -605, H -857 because of concern regarding exiting near a corner
on a driveway with a grade, as well the third -story appearance
from Pamela, and the danger of traffic on the corner of Sixth and
Pamela. After reconsideration, and much lobbying by the applicant
it was back on their agenda, without any revisions, and the
commission then approved it. We are appealing the April decision
of the planning commission. My wife and I reside directly behind
the Campbell's.home. When we purchased our property 14 years ago
it was predicated on the fact that the surrounding homes were one
story and fit the "quaint" atmosphere of the village. The home
on our right (presently owned by the Campbell's) was in our def-
inition a two story, but due to adequate foliage and a small
family (one woman and husband) we felt that our privacy could
be maintained. We now feel this important right is in jeopardy.
After fourteen years in our home and 20 years as a Saratoga
resident it is frightening and appalling to think we should have
to move because a home which has been sold at least four times
in the last seven years might be allowed to jeopardize the
privacy and property value of our home as well as our neighbors.
If the Campbell's had truly intended on "growing old in the
village they love ", as expressed in their letter, then why were they
trying to sell their home and move south just months ago. This
move didn't occur because the home didn't sell, and as Mr. Campbell
stated to us he felt it was because the house was small. It seems
logical to us that after the addition, and with the added space, the
house might be more apt to sell in todays market, a definite
underlying motive. This would leave us with a towering monster,
loss of privacy, and possibly a decrease in the value of our home.
Our den is on the east side of our home with a glass slider which
opens to a deck that is roughly 18 feet from the Campbell's home.
The close proximity of the dwellings make it tough enough to main-
tain privacy without another level added. It was stated in the
Campbell's letter to the City Council that their eucalyptus trees
would hide the addition but these trees are not between our house
and theirs thus it isn't a solution to the problem. Usually an
ordinance sized tree is only removed if it is diseased or dying
and even then it must be replaced by another.
We feel that due to this situation an on -site inspection by the
members of the City Council would be helpful to fully understand
the basis for our appeal.
In the staff report there was a letter from Mr. & Mrs. Dutro that
stated the addition would not interfere with the views or privacy
of the neighbors. The Dutro =s live a block away at the end of the
street.
It has been previously stated that there have been accidents enter-
ing Pamela Way from 6th Street. We would like to emphasize the
apparent danger that would be added to this already "blind corner"
if the Campbell's driveway was to be moved to Pamela Way. Granting
of .this variance would be most detrimental to the future safety
of Pamela residents. The Campbell's home has had the driveway
off of Sixth Street for thirty years without any problems. Changing
access to Pamela will propose quite an added burden.
The consultants report stated the land is safe for the addition,
but consultants have been known to be wrong. The fact is, there
are springs under the ground. The original owner, Mrs. Sillstrop
was frightfully aware of the underground springs. During a time when
mudslides on Bowman have been prevalant and after witnessing streams
of water flooding 6th Street during the winter, we don't feel
comfortable with the stability of the ground, as well as the
foundation, to tolerate another story.
This neighborhood was developed over 30 years ago. The neighbors
have lived here for decades, and always conformed to the architectural
continuity of the other homes on the block. This addition will not
meet these requirements. It's not right for someone that just moved
in four years ago to upset the privacy and characteristics of the
long time residents. We are very concerned with the fact that if
this is approved it may set a precedent for all the other homes on
Pamela. If any of the homes to our left did the same thing, and they
said they would, we would lose our view. This would put our home in a
canyon and we wouldn't be able to see anything. The view of the
beautiful Saratoga hills has enchanted us for 14 years, we cannot
bear the thought of losing something thats so much a part of our
everyday life.
Enclosed is a list of the neighbors that would be directly affected
by this proposal, not the neighbors that live blocks away. Some,
after careful reconsideration to the impact and repercussions of
this issue have changed their stand and would like to stop this
addition, they are included in this list.
In conclusion, we sincerely hope and feel confident that careful
consideration will be given to our views and feelings in order to
render a fair decision.
„ p S' cerely, .
ay en Leishman
Galin K. Leishman
Betty Leishman
WE, THE UNDERSIG:viD, WISH TO APPEAL
RECEIVED
THE ACTION TAKEN MAY 19193
B -,
SARATOOA PLANNING COMMISSION AT THE APRIL 13 MEETING, TOPER MIT E�OPMENT
THE ADDITION OF A SECOND STORY TO THE RESIDENCE AT THE CORNER OF
SIXTH STREET AND PAIME •A WAY. THE COMMISSION'S ACTION SETS A
PRECEDENT IN A NEIGHBORHOOD OF ONE STORY HOMES.
Date Name Address
ff �� 8$3
f,3
U �
7/
j /
FOAF 11
/)A
Gq�,t
C33�
3 J � k/ z�i
/ J /
a08D (7 a �ee
a Q
apt.
RECEIVED
MAY 191983
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN'o�
I
�
R —M, 4,00
20777 Pamela `lay, Saratoga
April 15, 1983
To: Mayor Linda Callon and City Council members
From: Mary J. Moss
Re: Permit for third story remodeling at 14721 Sixth Street
This statement is to explain why I oppose the action of the
Saratoga Planning Commission in granting a permit for a
third floor addition to the residence of Hap Campbell at
14721 Sixth Street.
This is a substandard lot with a 16 ft. setback and a 26%
slope. Altho the planning Commission overlooked the precedent
this sets in a neighborhood of predominately modest single
story homes, and the encouragement this approval gives to
others to remodel. (A neighbor who is interested in selling,
attended the April .1.3 appeal meeting to observe the procedure
necessary to get a permit.) The possibility of a row of three
story structures on the high side of the street would change
the character of the neighborhood. To emphasize the differences
in elevation of the two sides of the street, the floor of the
proposed garage.will be higher than the peak of the roof of
the -home acrbss._the street. The view from the living room
windows of the homes on the north side of Pamela !May will be
a three level structure.
Second floor additions *PnErally are quite obvious and do not
follow the lines of the 7- iginal design. A horrible example,
approved by the Planning Commission, is at 20825 Pamela Way,
and now used for rental. "Trees will screen the house." This
is only partially true. One tree must be removed for the
entrance to the proposed garage. These trees cannot be consid-
ered permanent. Former owners have kept the eucalyptus trees
topped to prevent wind damage. Grading for the proposed drive-
way (2 ft. excavation) could distrubethe root systems making
the likehood of wind damage greater.
Page 2 of(
Rd
The entrance onto Pamela ['Jay from behind a. brick wall to a
blind corner at Sixth Street appears hazardous to me.
The owner has lived at this address for four years. (Those
most concerned have lived here from 14 to 33 years.) During
these four years the owners have remodeled a bedroom and
added a deck. They had the property up for sale for a number
of months. The owner stated at the appeal neeting that the
reason for remodeling is to have a dining room. This omission
was obvious when they purchased the property. Question: rust
• neighborhood be saddled with a three story structure so that
• couple may have a dining room?
Those who support this remodeling venture must be unable to
visualize the impact of an additional floor; or they have an
ulterior motive; or they are victims of a snow job.
Those who oppose this permit are interested in preserving the
aesthetic and protecting property values. I hope the City
Council agrees.
, AXot4,�
April 22nd, 1983
TO : Saratoga City Council
City ±all
Sarato,a, CA. 95070
IN gF : Request for
FRO"-I: H. J. 7Harlor Pamela i'ay
20824 Pamela Way Variance
Saratoga, CA. 95070
Dear ;;.embers -
Since the late 1940s, the Carlton
Tract (principally Pamela Way) has been, and was
intended to be, a development of small, one-story,
single family dwellings. Until now, with the excep-
tion of one residence, that is the zoned condition
of this immediate area. The majority of the present
residents wish it to remain so. In view of the appli-
cation for the change in the structure of the house
at the corner of Pamela s,7ay and 6th Street, coupled
with the hazard of a driveway fronting unnecessarily
near the junction of the above two streets, along
with the reported intent of the occupants of ;;20782
Pamela ffay wishing to also add to their structure
- - both to have a 2nd story above ground in addition
to there being garages underneath presenting a 3rd
level - - it is obvious that the appearance and char-
acter of this small corner of Saratoga would be mark-
edly changed, in addition to a trespass upon the
wishes and conformity of the several residents v-ho
oppose this change.
The old "saw" - - "once bitten - twice shy" - is applicable here for those of us who like our
"hideaway" without more changes than have occurred.
Respectfully submitted,
H. J ' Harlor
c
RECIE I "I �D ,'.: t 2 9 ISU'
L=c v February 18th, 1983
TO Flanning Cor,Tr:issicn I. t_J l
City of Saratoga -
PERMIT REVIEW
FPO?` Residents cf ?a^iela i ay
IN PE : application for Variance to Property at #E 14721 Sixth (6th) Street
The undersigned residents of Pamela Iffay :
Glace s Al. Duncan # 20801
'ZA"4� '61, - -, _
Charles C. Long # 793
"ary ?;oss rc 20777
I
_V
Jean & Harry Hafric` ;# 2062u
being unable to attend the public hearir_r to be held - .ednesday, _ebruary
23rd, 1983 (due to hospitalization - or other cor1- mitments) cence-,n ng the
abcve application, wish to express cur considered cnir_ion and ocncern
regarding said requested variance.
The primary objecticn is to the proposed drive opening on the almost
irmediate junction of Pamela i".ay and 6th Street. This is a partially
"blind" junction now, and any added vehicle openino(s) at this point,
.or nearby, ,•;ould without question add to the potential danger. This
hazard was considered when the tyro ccrner houses were built, and therefore
drives were made for same on 6th Street (as well as being_ less expensive
and more convenient) .
Also,
in ]:een_ng
the orif -;inal
subdiv s_ion Vu pose
of single, one -
stop r
'-c uses - - 'ic.,
most cf the
1on7-t ..e rest Cents
have su:;scribed to
ana is not in t.:e neic d
�orhoo '
s aestL7etic interest to
;e lap e t,:o stop; str.:cture at variance i,:4Lt:r tie rest of
- .e h07!es .
'fr a1 o^.;ler, •,a5 a_.iC a� arE t
� e lcr:er
that � ��..
hillside is undermined w:lth snri::•-s.
TO Saratoga
City Hall
Saratoga,
C C i
RECEIVED ;1ay 12th, 1983
City Council
CA. 95070
FROM : Jean C. Harlor
20821 Pamela i ay
Saratoga, CA. 95070
MAY 191983
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECT
Application for V -605 & A -857
at 14721 6th St.
I was one of the signers of the letter to the Saratoga Planning
Commission dated February 18th, 1983 objecting to the Application for
Variance of Property at 14721 Sixth Street. 111y objection was based upon
the potential danger of the proposed driveway opening on to Pamela 'day
only 20 feet from the corner of Pamela ':fay and Sixth Street, and also on
the appearance of a multi -story house in a neighborhood of modest one -
story homes. I also attended the Planning Commission hearing on February
23rd, 1983 at which the Request for Design Review and Variance Approval
was denied.
Vicki Van Valer came to my home several days later and showed me
the architect's plans for remodeling their home, and explained their
reasans_:, for wishing to make these changes. She asked me to sign a state-
ment of approval of their building plans, which I did. Since our home is
at the opposite end of the Pamela ti`lay Cul -de -sac, their house is not
visible from ours.
I now have been told that another recent resident of Pamela Way
has said that if the Campbell - Van Valer addition is approved, he would
like to add another story to his house in order to make it more saleable.
This justifies the fears of long -time home owners on Pamela ',-,iay of changes
which would detract from -the appearance and character of this neighborhood,
if such variations are approved.
Therefore, I am signing the attached Change of Position and Appeal
of Action of the Planning Commission forms.
C.
1WJ
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
ci'y of caraiora
SUBJECT V -605, A -857, Hap Campbell,
DATE: 2/11/83
Commission Meeting: 2/23/83
Vicki Van Valer, 14721 6th St.
REQUEST: Design Review and Variance approval to construct a third story addition to
a two - story, single family dwelling which encroaches into the front yard of a corner
lot, 16' where 25' is required.
OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: None
PLANNING DATA:
PARCEL SIZE: 8,733 sq. ft.
ZONING: R -1- 10,000
SITE DATA:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
SITE SLOPE: 26%
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Denisity
NOTICING: Notice of this project has been
mailed to surrounding property owners posted
on site and advertised in the Saratoga News.
Single family residential
SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 12%
NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: Existing landscaping consists of several non -
ordinance sized oaks, 3 ordinance - sized eucalyptus and one 30" diameter monterey
pine. Evergreen shrubbery also grows along the boundaries of the site.
The site slopes down north to south approximately 26 %.
GRADING REQUIRED: CUT: 60 cu. yds. FILL: 10 cu. yds.
CUT DEPTH: 2 ft. FILL DEPTH: 2 ft.
SETBACKS: Front -16' Exterior Side -33' Interior Side & Rear -8' Since this is a
substandard lot in width, 10% of the lot width, 8' is allowed by ordinance
Report to the Planning Commission Page 2
V -605, A -857 2/11/83
HEIGHT: 29'6 ", 30' is the maximum allowed
SIZE OF STRUCTURE: Existing (including garage) 2,431 sq. ft. 2nd Floor Addition:
1,024 sq. ft. Total 3,455 sq. ft.
ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA: 3,500 sq. ft. is allowed by ordinance
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 53 %, 60% is allowed by ordinance
COLORS & MATERIALS: Tan stucco at basement level & horizontal woodsiding painted
"medium brown" will cover the mainstr.ucture. Natural cedar shakes will be utilized
for the roof.
SOLAR: None proposed.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to add a third story, and convert
the existing non - conforming garage to living space. A new garage is proposed to be
constructed where storage area presently exists under the first.floor on the northern
side of the structure.: Some 60 cubic yards of grading will be required to accomplish
this. Access is proposed to change from 6th Street to Pamela Way where the new garage
will be constructed.
The plans have been reviewed by William Cotton & Associates. Their recommendation
is included.
The design review findings shall follow the variance findings in this report.
FINDINGS V -605 (Front Yard Setback)
1. Physical Hardship
There is a physical hardship associated with the site in that it is substandard
in lot width, 80' is existing where 100' is required; and in .lot depth, 110' is existing
where 115' is required; and,in size, 8,733-sq.--ft. is existing where 1 1,500 sq.
feet is the minimum required. Staff feels that this is a significant hardship in
maintaining the street -side setbacks. ..
2. Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances
There is an exceptional circumstance associated with the property in terms of lot
width, depth and size. There is also an exceptional circumstance in that the existing
subject garage is located approximately 8' lower than the neighboring structure
to the south. This provides an adequate barrier between the parcels so that
privacy impacts from converting the garage to livable space will be mitigated.
3. Strict or Literal Interpretation
Strict or literal interpretation will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed
by property owners in the same zoning district. Other variance requests have been
granted in this zoning district primarily,in the front yard,when exceptional
circumstances were present.
C
Report to Planning Commission Page 3
V -605, A -857 2/11/83
4. Grant of Special Privilege
Granting of this variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege, as
other variances with similar circumstances have been granted. V -576 (Jones),
V -580 (Sprague), V -582 (Rohleder)
5. Health, Safety & Welfare
Granting of this Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety
or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
FINDINGS A -857 (Design)
1. Avoid Unreasonable Interference with Views & Privacy
The applicant has indicated that they have spoken to their surrounding neighbors,
and determined that visual or privacy - related impacts would not result from the
proposed addition. Staff's review of the site found that existing landscaping
appears to mitigate privacy impacts and noted no visual impacts as a result of
the addition.
2. Preserve Natural Landscape
The plans indicate that one ordinance size eucalyptus tree will be removed to
accommodate the proposed driveway. However, there are numerous other trees on
site which balance the loss of this tree.
3. Minimize Perception of Excessive Bulk & Compatible Bulk & Height
The structure will appear to be three -story from the north, east and west ele=
vations. From the north elevation, the structure will appear approximately 8'
higher than the adjacent two -story structure to the east. However, this height
difference does not appear to make a significant impact in terms of bulk, as the
subject site and surrounding sites along 6th St. do contain gently to moderately
sloping topography, so that the multi - leveled design does not appear unusual.
In addition, the site does contain several (60'± tall) eucalyptus trees which
tend to buffer the structure visually.
4. Current Grading and Erosion Control Standards
Staff has reviewed the plans and has determined that the site work can be accom-
plished according to City ordinances.
5. Infills: Compatibility, Views, Privacy, and Natural Features
The proposed major addition will be compatible in terms of bulk, and will not
obstruct views or impact privacy of adjacent parcels.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve per staff report dated 2/11/83 and Exhibits "B" & "C" subject
to the following conditions:
A. Prior to issuance of building permits:
Report to Planning Commission \ Page 4
V -605, A -857 - Hap Campbell 2/11/83
1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the letter
by William Cotton & Associates dated 2/15/83.
2. Minor modifications to the approved elevations require the review and approval
of the Permit Review Division.
3. Submit detailed grading and drainage plans to the Community Development
Department for their review and approval.
Approved: I•
Sharon Lester
Planner
SL /dsc
P.C. Agenda: 2/23/83
J$
4��,Io,000
II
C� -S�
Planning Commission Page 4
Meeting Minutes 4/13/83 C
A -861 (cont.)
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 Whitney, 14880 Sobey Road, Request for Building Site
7b. SDR -1536 - Approval and Design Review Approval to construct a two -story
addition to a one -story single family dwelling in the R -1- 40,000
zoning district (near Springbrook Lane)
Commissioner McGoldrick gave an on -site inspection. Staff described.the pro-
posal.
The public hearing was opened at 8:55 p.m.
The conditions of the Staff Report were clarified to Roger Kohler, the architect.
Commissioner Crowther moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve A -852 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 seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously
6 -0.
8. V -541 - J. Brozda, 14503 Big Basin Way (Maddalena's), Request for Variance
Approval from the parking requirements described in Section II.2
of the Zoning Ordinance for a restaurant /retail sales in the C -C
zoning district (near 3rd Street)
Chairman Schaefer gave the history of the application. She noted that some
cities are now requiring in lieu payments 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 obtained from Carmel and Monterey.
The public hearing was opened at 9:02 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 to the next meeting. He added that he will
review the legislation from Carmel and Monterey to determine if it would be an
option. He stated that if it is an option it would be an option possibly to be
adopted on a much broader scale, no doubt in connection with the Village as a
whole and not just simply confined to Maddalena's.
It was directed that this matter be continued to May 11, 1983.
Break - 9:05 p.m. - 9:20 p.m. (Commissioner Crowther left at 9:05 p.m.)
5 - Campbell and Van Valer, 14721 Sixth Street, Request for Design
9b. A -857 Review and Variance Approval to add a multi -story addition to a
two -story dwelling which will maintain a 16' front yard setback
where 25' is required in the R -1- 10,000 zoning district (recon-
sideration)
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 the driveway and the dangerous
corner at Sixth Street. She indicated that the existing 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.
oft - 4 -
Planning Comm ission Page 5
Meeting Minutes 4/13/83
V -605 and A -857 (cont.)
Sue Robertson, 14730 Sixth Street, spoke in favor of the project.
Mr. Leishman, 20770 Pamela Way, voiced his objection to the project. He
stated that the existing home is now a two -story home and a three -story home
would be an eyesore to the neighborhood, would depreciate his property and
take away his privacy. He noted that he had given up his previous plans for
a second story because of the neighbors' wishes.
Dennis Burrow, the architect, described the driveway and addressed the slope
of it.
Mary Lynn Dutro, Pamela Way, spoke in support of the project.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Hlava stated that she had voted for the application at the previous
meeting because she did not have a problem making the variance or design review
findings. She commented that she feels that it is a very unique lot and sub-
standard in size. She added that she feels this will be an enhancement and the
driveway access will be safer than what is currently there.
Commissioner McGoldrick agreed. She stated that, although she is very sensitive
to the neighbor's feeling about privacy, she feels that with the existing land-
scaping it will not impact, and the height falls within the range of the ordi-
nance.
Commissioner Nellis commented that he can support the variance and design
review. Commissioner Schaefer asked Mr. Leishman if removal of some of the
windows and adding sky lights, specifically in the rear, would help mitigate
some of his privacy concerns. Mr. Leishman commented that this would not help;
he would still be opposed to the project.
Commissioner Siegfried stated that he feels that the applicants have done a
nice job with the plans and have offered to do everything possible in terms of
their not being able to look down on the adjacent property.
Commissioner Hlava moved to approve V -60S, making the findings in the Staff
Report dated February 11, 1983, per Exhibits "B" and "C ". Commissioner Siegfried
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5 -0. Commissioner Hlava
moved to approve A- 857,,per the Staff Report dated February 11, 1983 and Exhi-
bits "B" and "C ", making the findings. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion,
which was carried unanimously 5 -0.
Chairman Schaefer added that she would encourage the applicant to work with the
neighbor to see if something can be done to mitigate his concerns. The 10 -day
appeal period was noted.
10a.A -862 - Michael Elder, Request for Design Review and Building Site
10b.SDR -1535 - Approval to construct a second story addition to an existing
single story structure at 19208 Panorama Drive (near Via Colina)
in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district
Commissioner Nellis gave an on -site report, noting the site and mitigating
privacy impacts. Staff described the proposal, stating that the sport court is
not part of the approval.
The public hearing was opened at 9:45 p.m.
Stan Winbeck, the neighbor on the westerly side, expressed his support for the
project. Ile noted that he felt it would be an enhancement and the windows on
the second floor pose no problem.
Mr. Elder, the applicant, clarified that the neighbor across the street has
no problem with the plans.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Nellis
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Hlava stated that, in making the findings for compatibility, they
had noted that there were a lot of two -story homes in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Nellis moved to approve SDR -1535 per the Staff Report dated
0% - S -
0 - KS i7
Planning Commission Page 2
Meeting Minutes 2/23/83
CZ _E Campbell and Van Valer, 14721 Sixth Street, Request for Design
3b. V -605 - Review and Variance Approval to add a multi -story addition to a
two -story dwelling which will maintain a 16' front yard setback
where 25' is required in the R -1- 10,000 zoning district
Staff described the proposal. The correspondence received on the project was
noted.
Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee Report, stating that
could not see that the project would hamper the view. Commissioner Hlava noted
that all of the houses on that side of the street have garages underneath.
Staff described the entry into the driveway.
The public hearing was opened at 7:S5 p.m.
Dennis Burrow, the architect, gave a presentation on the project and discussed
the driveway. Chairman Schaefer expressed her concern regarding setting a
precedent for three-story structures. Mr. Burrow explained that the three - store
aspect is primarily a technical definition, because the lower level where the
garage is going is an illegal space for any kind of habitation from the stand-
point of the Building Department. He indicated that it would be partially
screened by a deck, shrubs and landscaping. Staff noted that there are three
levels.
Harold Blair, 20761 Pamela Way, spoke in opposition to the driveway on Pamela
because of the steepness of the grade. Staff explained the construction of the
driveway, indicating that it would enter onto Pamela near the corner, approxi-
mately 20 -25 feet from the pavement on Sixth Street. They added that there is
a lesser slope across this direction than coming straight out to Pamela. They
indicated that they did not believe that the location of the driveway would be
a hazard, since it enters onto Pamela rather than Sixth Street.
Commissioner Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Bolger
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Hlava moved to approve V -605, making the findings as stated in the
Staff Report dated February 11, 1983. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the
motion. The motion failed 3 -2, with Commissioners Crowther, Bolger and Schaefer
dissenting.
Commissioner Crowther moved to deny A -857. Commissioner Bolger seconded the
motion, which was carried 3 -2, with Commissioners Hlava and McGoldrick dissent-
ing.
Commissioner Schaefer and Commissioner Bolger indicated that they had voted
against the three -story aspect and because of concern regarding exiting near
a corner on a driveway with a grade. Commissioner Schaefer added that she
had no opposition to converting the garage into living space if a new driveway
could be a little bit further from the corner. Commissioner Crowther stated
that his basis for denial was the third -story appearance from Pamela, the drive-
way being at the slant that it is near the corner of Sixth, and the traffic
coming down Sixth. The 10 -day appeal period was noted.
4. A -853 - Kenneth J. Naber, 12460 Ted Avenue, Request for Design Review
Approval to construct a second -story addition to a one -story single
family dwelling at Ted Ave. near Zorka Ave. in the R -1- 10,000 zoning
district; continued from February 9. 1983
The proposal was described by Staff, noting that there is sufficient area on
the site for a single -story addition.
Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee Report. She commented that
Commissioner Nellis had noticed that the present deck outside' seemed to have
a pool in it and it appeared to be very close to the lot line. She indicated
that they saw no problem with the screening at the rear. Possible landscaping
for screening purposes from a new subdivision was discussed.
The public hearing was opened at 8:15 p.m.
The applicant spoke on the project, indicating that there is a two -story directl
behind his property. lie stated that he did not have room on the site for a
one -story addition.
- 2 -
DF tCI ru:1ia;
RESOLUTION \0 . A-857-2
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANCNING CU-71ISSIal
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIL% ED: A -857
IMRFM, the City of Saratoga Planning Coumiissio-n has received an application
=:for Design Review Approval of a multi -story addition to a two -story dwelling
which will maintain a 16' tront yard setback w ere ZbI is required in
the R- 1- 10,000 yzoning district and
=-=- WHERE11.S, the applicant - -(has) - (hmxxat) met the burden of proof required to
•-support his said application,
- - mil, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that-after careful consideration of the site
-plan, architectural drawings, landscape plans and other exhibits submitted in. cennec-
-- tion kith this matter, the application of -CAMPBELL AND VAN- VALER
-_for Design Review Approval be and the same is hereby (granted) (dwdx # subject to
'the folloti ring conditions:
- I t
Per the Staff Report dated February 11, 1983 and
Exhibits. "B" and "C ". (jteconsideration)
`PASSED ADD ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Camaission, State of
= California, this 13th ..day of April - 19 8 3- by the
follcrAdng roll call vote:
AYES:
—NOES:
:.ABSEN7:
Commissioners Hlava, McGoldrick, Nellis, Schaefer and Siegfried
None
Commissioners Bolger and Crowther
1 pan, aniung Loi ❑fission
ATTEST:
cretzr , tl-Wr, l�iiL111S�1On
•VARIANCE
UDC X@MWM
C. FILE NO.: V -605
RESOLUTION NO. V -605 -2
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received
the application of CAMPBELL AND VAN VALER for a Variance to
add a multi -story a lE on to a two-story we ing which win main ain
a 16' front yard setback where 25' is required in the R -1- 10,000 ;
zoning district
and
WHEREAS, the applicant (has) (kxxxxak) 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 Variance
be, and the same is hereby
(granted) (daxxxd� subject to the following conditions:
Per the Staff Report dated February 11, 1983 and
Exhibits "B" and "C ". (Reconsideration)
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that (the Report of Findings attached
hereto be approved and adopted)
�x�c�cxsax]��x�tssxics�xsg) , 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 13th day of April 19 83 ,
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Hlava, McGoldrick, Nellis, Schaefer and Siegfried
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Bolger and Crowther
ATTE 4,_
� C airman, Plannin Commission
Secretary, arming ommission
March 4, 1983
City Council of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Attention: Linda Callon, Mayor
and Council Members:
Martha Clevenger
Virginia Fanelli
John Mallory
David Moyles
Dear City Council Members:
Q x:1983
RE: Variance #V -605 and
Design Review #A -857
Campbell & Van Valer
14721 Sixth Street
Saratoga, CA 95070
On February 23, 1983 our request for Design Review and Variance Approval was
denied by the Saratoga Planning Commission. We are appealing that decision.
We have filed the necessary papers requesting this appeal, but are asking
for an-extension of time to April 1st as we have contacted the Planning
Commission for approval for a continuance due to extenuating circumstances.
We understand that they will vote on whether or not to approve the continuance
in their meeting of March 9th. If there is a majority approval, then we are
told that we would have an opportunity for further hearing at their March 23rd
meeting. Because of phone calls placed by my husband, Hap Campbell to members
of the commission,we have reason to believe that we may gain their approval.
We are hopeful that granted a continuance, we will not need to speak before
the City Council but as no decision has been rendered,we are proceeding with
our appeal to you.
We are appealing the February 23rd decision of the Planning Commission based on
what we feel is either a misunderstanding or incorrect interpretation of our
building plans due to the following:
1) "MULTI" STORY MISLABELING - We feel that our residence is incorrectly, and
therefore unfairly, termed a two -story building since one of those "stories"
is not (according to City code), legally inhabitable due to headroom space
of less than 6 1/2 feet.
2) VARIANCE - The request for a variance of a 16 foot setback where 25 feet
is required, will not change that section of the exterior of the house,
in terms of size, since it was originally constructed at the 16 foot set-
back when the house was built in approximately 1952.
Vari�_gce #V- 605,and
D( gn Review #A -857
Campbell & Van Valer
-2-
3) PAMELA STREET DRIVEWAY - There was some question as to the safety of moving
the garage from Sixth Street to Pamela Street. Here, on -site review would
clearly show that backing down onto Sixth Street, as we do now, is obviously
much more dangerous since the street is at such a severe angle that it can
cause (and has caused) our car to slip backwards. When backing onto Sixth
Street, it is almost impossible for any driver comina from the top of Sixth
Street from Oak Street to see us backing out of our current driveway (nor
can we see them, an equally dangerous situation.) Contrastingly, Pamela
is a safe cul -de -sac consisting of 8 -10 houses and is almost flat at street
level.
We feel that due to the somewhat unusual nature of our residence, an on -site
inspection by either the members of the P('anning'Lommi_s-ion or members of
the City Council is desirable.
In order to further understand the basis for our appeal we would like to address
each of the three points listed above more specifically.
1) "MULTI" STORY MISLABELING - Our uninhabitable "story" is merely a walled -in
portion of the support posts of the existing one story house. It is built
into the side of the hill, and is a very small fraction, in size, of the
house itself, being at most only 10 feet wide. We feel that it was not
part of the original construction, and merely stuccoed in in later years.
It was never intended to be structurally, or architecturally, part of the
livinq quarters, but rather as a storage or crawl space to reach the under-
side of the house itself.
Because of our hillside situation, we have neighbors both above and below us.
Adding what we, and our neighbors, consider a second story would not appreciably
alter that situation. In fact, because of the many very tall trees and lush
shrubbery in our yard, many of our neighbors would notice little, if any,
change in the overall bulk of our residence. Our neighbors, Ivan and Jaleen
Holmes, who live directly behind and above us, were our greatest concern when
considering the addition of a second story. They told us that they had no
objections to our plans and, in fact, invited us into their living room to
determine whether or not their-view would be altered in any way. -Not only
did all of us determine that our second story would not affect their view
but that their viewing windows faced towards the southwest rather than
northerly, towards our house.
2) VARIANCE - Again, in terms of the 16 foot setback variance, we are requesting
a permit for a change in use of the interior of the garaqe rather than a
permit for construction to change the existing 16 foot setback. By conver-
ting the garage to living space we can then remove the existing asphalt
driveway in the front of the house and replace it with additional trees,
flowers, and shrubbery. This, by the way, has been met with enthusiastic
response by our neighbor directly across the street, Susan Robertson, who
looks down at our house and its asphalt drive, from her living room windows.
Variu> ce #V -605 and
D4 In Review #A -857
Campbell & Van Valer
-3-
3) PAMELA STREET DRIVEWAY - Because of our need and desire to change our
existinq garage into part of our existing living quarters, we are pro-
posing that a new garage and driveway be installed on the Pamela Street
side of our property. Current City law denies us the use of the under
portion of our house for living purposes so we are requesting use of
it as a garage. We have paid both the City as well as a private concern,
Dodge- Shepherd Assoc. Surveying, for a report on the effect of grading
and digging out this area to allow for a two car garage. Neither
report found that this would be detrimental to the existing structure,
an additional story, or geological conditions.
Four neighbors on Pamela Street submitted (without notice to us) a
written petition against our proposed driveway . Apparently, they were
concerned as to the danger of an opening on Pamela as well as the use-
fulness and esthetics of a proposed driveway. One neighbor, Mr. Blair,
who spoke out against us at the meeting had never seen our plans for
the proposed driveway and, like these other neighbors, assumed that it
would be a vertical driveway, coming up directly from the street level.
This they felt would result in non -use and additional cars parked on
the street. We agreed that this objection was certainly understandable
and therefore met with Mr. Blair and the four people who had signed the
opposing petition to clear up this misunderstanding. We explained that
the driveway would gradually slope to the new garage. It would be kept
to a minimum width, 10 feet, would be tastefully paved in brick, stone,
or other appropriate material, and then would be bordered by shrubs and
other plants. Here, again, existing concrete would be taken out adding
further landscaping to the existing property. This driveway would be
strictly for our own use; we do not intend to turn it into a parking
lot, and because it would be easily accessible our garage would be
Put to its intended use, that of hiding the cars rather than parking
them on Pamela.
At __present we have a brick wall around the Pamela Street (and a portion
of the Sixth Street) side of our property. This wall would remain as it
now stands except for an opening beginning approximately 20 feet from the
corner of Sixth and Pamela. At,the opening, an iron gate would be installed
which would match the existinq one on our Sixth Street side. We intend to
have it operated by remote control, from our automobiles, which would
eliminate any possibility of our driveway being entered or exited quickly,
without care for oncoming traffic, as well as without our knowledge. This
driveway will sit below the eye level of the existing brick wall making it
virtually impossible to see from any of our neighbors' yards.
Varrnce #V -605 and
K.,ign Review #A -857
Campbell & Van Valer
-4-
Again, Pamela is almost flat whereas Sixth Street is a fairly steep climb.
Because of the cul -de -sac feature, the street is traveled primarily by
those who live on it. Sixth Street is traveled on by those coming from
Big Basin, (only 500 feet from our driveway), St. Charles, Oak, and
Bohlman Road, many going much faster than speed limit laws. On Sixth
Street we are forced to back out onto the street. If we were to install
a driveway on Pamela, because of a turnaround area to be installed just
outside of the proposed garage, we would be able to travel "headfirst"
along the drive onto Pamela, enabling us to see the oncoming traffic as
it approaches. This would substantially eliminate the traffic danger
we now experience.
In conclusion, we would like to state that we love our village neighborhood and
would like to grow old here. It is ideally located to the local grocery store,
the pharmacy, and many other businesses which can serve us well both now and
in our senior years. We too, are concerned about non - offensive buildings in
Saratoga both in terms of their effect on our neighbors as well as on the natural
environment. Had we not felt this way we would not have spent considerable time
talking and explaining our plans to our neighbors, nor would we have gone to the
expense in hiring a skilled architect, a geologist, and then putting our dreams
into action by submitting these plans to the City.
We do not feel we are setting a precendent,since any one who physically views our
property will see that the substructure below our one story residence is not a
story in itself. Also, there are other two story structures in our immediate
neighborhood such as the condominium complex just 250 feet north of us. We feel
our remodeling will only add to our neighborhood and have received both the verbal
and written support of our neighbors as can be verified by the attached petition.
We appreciate your time spent on our behalf, and would only ask that careful con-
sideration be given to each of the three areas of controversy in order to render
a fair decision.
Si erely,
T an V al �
Happer P. Campbell
N
RE: VARIANCE #V -605 AND DESIGN REVIEll #A -857
RESIDENCE: CAMPBELL & VAN VALER
14721 SIXTH STREET
SARATOGA, 95070
DATED March 4, 1983
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HAVE PERSONALLY MET WITH BOTH HAPPER P. CAMPBELL AND HIS 1,1IFE,
VICKI VAN VALER, TO DISCUSS THEIR PLANS FOR REMODELING, INCLUDING THE ADDITION OF
A SECOND STORY AS WELL AS INSTALLATION OF A DRIVEWAY AND GARAGE ON THE PAMELA STREET
SIDE OF THEIR PROPERTY. WE OFFER OUR APPROVAL OF THEIR BUILDING PLANS AND OUR
SUPPORT IN THEIR APPEAL TO BOTH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF
SARATOGA.
NAME
Gtr
JXW147t1.1,lw A)1,1�,00'l*
ADDRESS
Al
/ 1-17 30 '/' 4�sS-�-
aG �%
1
William CoCin
and Associates
GEOTECHNICAL N _JLTANTS
314 Tait Avenue, Los Gatos, California 95030
(408) 354 -5542
February 15, 1983
Kathy Kerdus, Associate Planner
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
SUBJECT: Campbell -Van Valer Alterations
At your request, we have completed a geologic review of the subject applica-
tion using the alteration Plans (sheets 1 -5 of 5 sheets) prepared by F. Dennis
Burrow dated January 27, 1983. -
Our review of the referenced plans indicates that the proposed alterations
include three major elements: (1) the existing main floor is to be remodeled
and the existing garage will be converted to living space; (2) a second floor
will be constructed above the main floor; and (3) the existing basement is to
be converted into a garage.
The subject property, in general, is characterized by moderately steep to
steep (14 to 20 degrees) natural hillside topography which has been modified
by past grading activities associated with the existing residential develop-
ment. The site is underlain by older alluvial materials which consist of
poorly sorted, poorly consolidated gravel, sand, silt and clay. These mate-
rials are, in turn, locally overlain by soil and colluvium of undetermined
thickness.
The proposed alterations, in general, do not appear to be constrained by any
unusual soil or geologic conditions. Conversion of the existing basement to a
garage, however, will require excavation below the existing grade and this
could have an adverse impact on the existing foundation which may require
modification. In addition, the second story addition will create an addi-
tional load on the foundation system, and we assume the cumulative load will
be light and within the range of typical one- and two -story wood -frame
structures.
With these considerations in mind, we recommend approval with the following
condition:
.Qeotechnical Plan Review - The applicant should retain the services of a
soil engineer to review and approve the geotechnical aspects of the
improvement plans. In addition to the typical plan review, the appli-
cant's soil engineer, as a minimum requirement, should inspect the site
and existing foundation and provide appropriate recommendations necessary
to assure a properly constructed project. Particular emphasis should be
placed on, but not necessarily limited to the concerns outlined above.
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES • FOUNDATION ENGINEERING
Prior to construction, a letter from the soil engineer describing the results
of the review should be submitted to the City, along with the approved plans,
to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and Geologist.
Respectfully submitted,
WILLIAM COTTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
William R. Cotton
City Geologist
CEG 882
William Cotton and Associates
CITY ®F SARATOGA
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 �.� -'y4
(408)867 -3438
DUTRO MARION F AND MARY L 51707007
20825 PAMELA WY
SARATOGA CA 95070
NOTICE OF HEARING
CITY OF SARATOGA'S PLANNING COMMISSION announces the following
public hearing on WEDNESDAY the 23RD day of FEBRUARY , 1983
at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 13777 Fruitvale
Ave., Saratoga, CA., a copy of which application is on file in the
Permit Review Division at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA.
V -605 E A -857 HARPER E VICKIE CAMPBELL, 14721 SIXTH STREET 7"i- t-!,-q
"GRANT DESIGN REVIEW E VARIANCE APPROVAL TO ADD A SECOND STORY
ADDITION TO A SINGLE STORY DNELLING 14HICH WILL MAINTAIN A 16' FRONT
YARD SETBACK WHERE 25' IS REQUIRED AT 14721 SIXTH STREET (NEAR PAMELA
WAY) IN THE R -1- 10,000 ZONI14G DISTRICT AS PER ORDINANCE NS -3,
ARTICLE 3.54 AND ARTICLE 17 ".
ROBERT S. SHOOK
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DE ELOPNENT
n
" , � ,��r��..o -.�- 11 �-�� .�.,� ,G�•��' "-rte. C6Z� . �/� -�`3`. c'�
u
DUTRO MARION
20825 PAMELA
SARATOGA CA
C
CITE' OF-
SARATOGA
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408)867 -3438
F AND MARY L
WY
95070
NOTICE OF HEARING
51707007 �/� �3
�
n
CITY OF SARATOGA'S PLANNING COMMISSION announces the following
public hearing on WEDNESDAY the 23RD day of FEBRUARY , 1983
at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 13777 Fruitvale
Ave., Saratoga, CA., a copy of which application is on file in the
Permit Review Division at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA.
V -605 E A -857 HARPER E VICKIE CAMPBELL, 14721 SIXTH STREET7,"i" qI
"GRANT DESIGN REVIEW E VARIANCE APPROVAL TO ADD A SECOND STORY
ADDITION TO A SINGLE STORY DUELLING WHICH WILL MAINTAIN A 16' FRONT
YARD.SETBACK WHERE 25' IS REQUIRED AT 14721 SIXTH STREET (NEAR PAMELA
WAY) IN THE R -1- 10,000 ZONING DISTRICT AS PER ORDINANCE NS -3,
ARTICLE 3.54 AND ARTICLE 17 ".
ROBERT S. SHOOK
DIRECTUR OF Cu'rlriUriITy liEvELOPNENT
We
1
May 17, 1983
TO: Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Calif., 95070
FROM: T. K. Matsumura & K. M. Milius
20808 Pamela Way
Saratoga, Calif. 95070
SUBJECT: Request for variance and design review, V -605, A -857,
Hap Campbell, Vicki Van Valer, 14721 6th street.
i�I AY 2 4 1983
We hereby withdraw our blanket approval of the subject variance and
review. By virtue of this letter, we wish to resubmit our position.
1. We approve the addition of a second story with the condition that the
Saratoga City Council will neither grant nor consider any other such
permits to residences on Pamela Way for a period no less than ten
years henceforth.
2. We approve the conversion of the existing garage into additional liv-
ing space.
3. We approve the conversion of the storage area below the home into a
garage and the addition of a driveway to exit onto Pamela Way with the
following contingencies:
a. A permanent sign at the entrance to Pamela Way be erected indicat-
ing that Pamela Way is not a thru street.
b. A permanent bump be placed across Pamela Way between its inter-
section with 6th street and the proposed new driveway.
Attached is our rationale for each of the above points.
Tad K. Matsumura Karen M. Milius
cc: H. P. Campbell
M. F. Dutro
G. M. Duncan
M. J. Moss
C. C. Long
H. J. Harlor
G. W. Leishman
H. P. Blair
K. McElwain
14721 6th Street
20825 Pamela Way
20801 Pamela Way
20777 Pamela Way
20793 Pamela Way
20824 Pamela Way
20770 Pamela Way
20761 Pamela Way
20792 Pamela Way
7
Rationale
1. Mr. Campbell's house is not visible from our house. We have driven by
it many times envisioning the additional story. If in fact the addi-
tional story has less than half the floor area of the current house
(including garage) and the eucalyptus and oak trees remain, then we
don't see a problem. Even then we're not sure we can disapprove since
we are not directly affected. However, the granting of Mr. Campbell's
request, although not a precedent, promotes a trend supported by the
domino theory. We would not be in favor of neighbors on either side
of us adding another story at this time.
The neighborhood ten years from now may not have the same neighbors as
today and perhaps not the same attitudes. This issue can be revisited
then.
2. We have no objection in converting a garage into living space.
3. Safety appears to be the primary concern here. We would like to see
our conditions met regardless of whether a driveway is built or not.
Too many cars come down Pamela Way with no business being there. A
sign warning them that it's a dead end street and a bump to discourage
them would solve much of the safety concerns.
It would also discourage the casual or opportunistic thief who just
happens to be lost or looking for a shortcut or bypass and who just
happens to spot something he wants and just happens to opportunisti-
cally take it.
Safety and security is of major concern to us because we have two
children, ages 6 and 9.
In all cases, we assume that Mr. Campbell will perform those tasks in his
letter to you of March 4, 1983, such as remove the current driveway, plant
shrubs, install a gate, etc. We also assume that the nature of the ter-
rain, the subsoil and the house physically permits the requested alter-
ations.
F
March 4, 1983 �
City of Saratoqa Planning Commission
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoqa, CA 95070
RE: Resolution No. V- 605 -1& A -857 -1
Campbell R Van Valer
14721 Sixth Street
Saratoga, CA 95070
Attention: Louise Schaefer, Chairperson
Ed Bolger, Commissioner
Russell Crowther, Commissioner
Joyce Hlava, Commissioner
Kathy McGoldrick, Commissioner
Greg Nellis, Commissioner
Richard Siegfried, Commissioner
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
Due to what we feel are extenuating circumstances, we are asking for a continuance
on our appeal to the majority of dissenting planning commissioners. We understand
that a ten (10) calendar day period is given to formally appeal to the Saratoga
City Council; however, we feel that the dissenting planning commissioners didn't
have a full understanding of what we are trying to accomplish by our proposed
addition, the ambiguities of the term "multi- story ", and the relationship to our
hillside. Also, we found out that there was a misunderstanding with the four
neighbors who signed a petition opposing, our plans, and have since spoken with
each of them.
We would like to address what we feel are the major misunderstandings or incorrect
interpretation of our building plans.
1) "MULTI" STORY MISLABELING - We feel that our residence is incorrectly, and
therefore unfairly, termed a two -story building since one of those "stories"
is not (according to City code), legally inhabitable due to headroom space
of less than 6 1/2 feet.
2) VARIANCE - The request for a variance of a 16 foot setback where 25 feet
is required, will not change that section of the exterior of the house,
in terms of size, since it was originally constructed at the 16 foot setback
when the house was built in approximately 1952.
a
Ke5UIULlon nu. v -OUu -I & m-oD / -1
Campbell & Van Valer
WA
3) PAMELA STREET DRIVEWAY - There was some question as to the safety of moving
the garage from Sixth Street to Pamela Street. Here, on -site review would
clearly show that backing down onto Sixth Street, as we do now, is obviously
much more dangerous since the street is at such a severe angle that it can
cause (and has caused) our car to slip backwards. When backing onto Sixth
Street, it is almost impossible for any driver coming from the top of Sixth
Street from Oak Street to see us backing out of our current driveway (nor
can we see them, an equally dangerous situation.) Contrastinoly, Pamela
is a safe cul -de -sac consisting of 8 -10 houses and is almost flat at street
level.
We feel that due to the somewhat unusual nature of our residence, an on -site
inspection by the members of the planning commission is certainly desirable.
In order to further understand the basis for our appeal we would like to address
each of the three points listed above more specifically.
1) "MULTI" STORY MISLABELING - Our uninhabitable "story" is merely a walled -in
portion of the support posts of the existing one story house. It is built
into the side of the hill, and is a very small fraction, in size, of the
house itself, being at most only 10 feet wide. We feel that it was not
part of the original construction, and merely stuccoed in in later years.
It was never intended to be structurally, or architecturally, part of the
living quarters, but rather as storage or crawl space to reach the under-
side of the house itself.
Because of our hillside situation, we have neighbors both above and below
us. Adding what we, and our neighbors, consider a second story would not
appreciably alter that situation. In fact, because of the many very tall
trees and lush shrubbery in our yard, many of our neighbors would notice
little, if any, change in the overall bulk of our residence. Our neighbors,
Ivan and Jaleen Holmes, who live directly behind and above us, were our
greatest concern when considering the addition of a second story. They
told us that they had no objections to our plans and, in fact, invited us
into their living room to determine whether or not their view would be
altered in any way. Not only did all of us determine that our second
story would not affect their view in any way, but that their viewing windows
faced towards the southwest rather than northerly, towards our house.
2) VARIANCE - Again, in terms of the 16 foot setback variance, we are requesting
a permit for a change in use of the interior of the garage rather than a
permit for construction to change the existing 16 foot setback. By conver-
ting the garage to living space we can then remove the existing asphalt
driveway in the front of the house and replace it with additional trees,
flowers, and shrubbery. This, by the way, has been met with enthusiastic
response by our neighbor directly across the street, Susan Robertson, who
looks down at our house and its asphalt drive, from her living room windows.
Res0lution NO. V bus -I& A -bbl -1
Campbell & Van Valer
-3-
3) PAMELA STREET DRIVEWAY - Because of our need and desire to change our
existing garage into part of our existing living quarters, we are pro -.
posing that a new garage and driveway be installed on the Pamela Street
side of our property. Current City law denies us the use of the under
portion of our house for living purposes so we are requesting use of
it as a garage. We have paid both the City as well as a private concern,
Dodge- Shepherd Assoc. Surveying, for a report on the effect of grading
and digging out this area to allow for a two car garage. Neither
report found that this would be detrimental to the existing structure,
an additional story, or geoloqical conditions.
Four households on Pamela Street submitted (without notice to us) a
written petition against our proposed driveway. Apparently, they were
concerned as to the danger of an opening on Pamela as well as the use-
fulness and esthetics of a proposed driveway. One neighbor, Mr. Blair,
who spoke out against us at the meeting had never seen our plans for
the proposed driveway and, like these other neighbors, assumed that it
would be a vertical driveway, coming up directly from the street level.
This they felt would result in non -use and additional cars parked on
the street. We agreed that this objection was certainly understandable
and therefore met with Mr. Blair and the four people who had signed
the opposing petition to clear up this misunderstanding. We explained
that our driveway would gradually slope to the new garage. It would be
kept to a minimum width, 10 feet, would be tastefully paved in brick,
stone, or other appropriate material, and then would be bordered gy shrubs
and other plants. Here, again, existinq concrete would be taken out
addinq- further landscaping to the existing property. This driveway
would be strictly for our own use; we do not intend to turn it into a
parking lot, and because it would be easily accessible our garage would
be put to its intended use, that of hiding the cars rather than parking
them on Pamela.
At present we have a brick wall around the Pamela Street (and a portion
of the Sixth Street) side of our property. This wall would remain as it
now stands except for an opening beginninq approximately 20,feet from the
corner of Sixth and Pamela.. At the opening, an iron gate would be installed
which would match the existing one on our Sixth Street side. We intend to
have it operated by remote control, from our automobiles, which would
eliminate any possibility of our driveway being entered or exited quickly,
without care for oncoming traffic, as well as without our knowledge. This
driveway will sit below the eye level of the existing brick wall making it
virtually impossible to see from any of our neighbors' yards.
KeSUI UL. IU1I 11U. v-vvJ -I (X n oZ)i -I
Campbell & Van Valer
-4-
Again, Pamela is almost flat whereas Sixth Street is a fairly steep climb.
Because of the cul -de -sac feature, the street is traveled primarily by
those who live on it. Sixth Street is traveled on by those coming from
Big Basin, (only 500 feet from our driveway), St. Charles, Oak, and
Bohlman Road, many going much faster than speed limit laws. On Sixth
Street we are forced to back out onto the street. If we were to install
a driveway on Pamela, because of a turnaround area to be installed just
outside of the proposed garage, we would be able to travel "headfirst"
along the drive onto Pamela, enablinq us to see the oncoming traffic as
it approaches. This would substantially eliminate the traffic danger
we now experience.
In conclusion, we would like to state that we love our village neighborhood and
would like to grow old here. It is ideally located to the local grocery store,
the pharmacy, and many other businesses which can serve us well both now and
in our senior years. We too, are concerned about non - offensive buildings in
Saratoaa both in terms of their effect on our neiahbors as well as on the natural
environment. Had we not felt this way we would not have spent considerable time
talking and explaining our plans to our neighbors, nor would we have gone to the
expense in hiring a skilled architect, a geologist,.and then putting our dreams
into action by submitting these plans to the City.
We do not feel we are setting a precedent, since any one who physically views.ou -r
property will see that the substructure below our one story residence is not a
story in itself. Also, there are other two story structures in our immediate
neighborhood such as the condominium complex just 250 feet north of us. We feel
our remodeling will only add to our neighborhood and., have received both the verbal
and written support of our neighbors as can be verified by the attached petition.
We appreciate your time spent on our behalf and would only ask that careful con-
sideration be qiven to each of the three areas of controversy in order to render
a fair decision.
Si cerely,
Van 1Na1 e
Happer P. Campbell
RE: VARIANCE #V -605 AND DESIGN REVIEW #A -857
AV* RESIDENCE: CAMPBELL & VAN VALER
14721 SIXTH STREET
SARATOGA, 95070
DATED: marcn 4, ivbj
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HAVE PERSONALLY MET WITH BOTH HAPPER P. CAMPBELL AND HIS WIFE,
VICKI VAN VALER, TO DISC!_ISS THEIR PLANS FOR REMODELING, INCLUDING THE ADDITION OF
A SECOND STORY AS WELL AS INSTALLATION OF A DRIVEWAY AND GARAGE ON THE PAMELA STREET
SIDE OF THEIR PROPERTY. VIE OFFER OUR APPROVAL OF THEIR BUILDING PLANS AND OUR
SUPPORT IN THEIR APPEAL TO BOTH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF
SARATOGA.
NAME
R�.�1u12 v <40 k,
G
r`
ADDRESS
Zo z, w 1
/x/730 ���5�
Hap Campbell & Vicki
14721 Sixth Street
Saratoga, CA 95070
May 18, 1983
Mr. & Mrs. Gaylen W. Leishman
20770 Pamela Way
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Leishman:
Van Valer
We are truly sorry that you are concerned that our proposed remodeling plans will
infringe upon your privacy. We feel that if you would allow us to talk to you
and to show you our plans you would not only have a clearer picture of what we
are attempting, but would see that our plans include greater privacy for the
both of us.
As our houses are now situated, we look at one another through windows facing
one side of each of our houses. Our remodeling plans would elimate those viewing
'windows and replace each of them on both the first and second story with a fire-
place wall along with beveled /stained glass windows which cannot be seen either
into nor out of. Therefore, we would no longer be able to see the three windows
alonq the side of your house (two bathrooms, one bedroom ( ?)) as well as your
sliding glass door. We value privacy as much as you do. This solution offers
both of us greater comfort.
We plan on having a second bedroom situated over the back side of our house
which will have a high window looking out. Here again, you will not lose
any of your privacy, but rather gain more since this is a bedroom window rather
than a viewing window, and it will look directly into our sycamore tree and
bushes by the fence separating both of our yards. Hap and I have no desire
to damage anyone's privacy, nor their view, so we have carefully walked the top
of our roof in order to determine the best placement of windows as well as
whether they should be clear or opaque.
What I have described above are the only windows looking in your direction,
none of which will take away any of your privacy, but rather afford you even more.
We really do hope to stay in this house up to and through our senior years, but
are finding 1300 square feet of living space much too cramped. Because of the
shape and size of our property we cannot oo out but only up. Believe me, we
gave a great deal of thought as to its impact upon our neighbors.
We would welcome any opportunity to speak with you and /or any suggestions you
might have.
Sincerely,
June 19 1983
Deputy City Clerk of
Saratoga City Council and
Saratoga City Council Members:
3595 STEVENS CREEK`
P.O. BOX 330 -A
SANTA CLARA, CALIF. 95052
(408) 244 -9800
We had planned to attend the Hearing before the
City Council, June 1, 1983 on the design review and
addition at 14721 Sixth Street ( Leishman- Campbell,
Von Valer). Unavoidable committments have made our
attendance impossible. However, we hope this communication,
though not filed before May 26, will become an included
item at the Hearing.
Our home is located at 14761 Bohlman Road and shares
a common property line with the Campbell -Von Valer
property as well as a portion of the Leishman property.
We are "uphill" of both properties and since 1977 have
enjoyed our marvelous view and seclusion.
We have examined the architectural drawings
and sketches and "sighted" the approximate height
of the proposal. We will be directly effected by
the proposed addition. Two bedroom windows and a
corner window in our living room will be on the "same
level" with the proposed addition.
It is our understanding, after discussion with
Campbell -Von Valer and assurances by written communication,
that there will be but one window facing our property
(bathroom) - opaque.
It is our belief that every attempt is being made
in planning this addition to protect the privacy of
all parties concerned.
We do not object to but rather endorse the proposal
before the Council.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA l On ....... June ..-- 1., .... 1.9,H.......... before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County
1> SS. and State, personally appeared ............................................................................................... ..... .........................
COUNTY OF.S 41 ..... — ;1T 1.... -.l............ ..................................... J ....... I Van... Holm ............................................. known to me to be the
person........ whose name......... 1S ........................... ............subscribed to the within instrument, and,a nowledged to me that......... �e.......... executed the same.
Notary's Signature ....................�fl.l!' .......Y... fL.:..... .%i ' ............................
OFFICIAL SEAL Type or Print Notary's Name ............................ .e .Tl a ...M R
.. ..-
............
VERLA M RYAN
NOTARY PUBLIC - CALIFORNIA
SANTA CLARA COUirir
My Comm. expires )AN 21, 1985
Play 28, 1983
TO: Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
FROM: Mr. and Mrs. M. F. Dutro
20825 Pamela Way
Saratoga, CA *5070
SUBJECT: Campbell -Van Valer Variance and Design Review
V -6057 A -6579 14721 6th Street, Saratoga, CA
(Corner of 6th Street and Pamela Way)
It was noted that there are objections to some features
of the remodeling plans for this property, and that you
will review the previously approved proposal, to which
we had no objections.
We wish to assume a neutral position in the matter at
this time, because we do not live in direct proximity to
the Campbell -Van Valer property.
Please re- examine the facts of the proposal, consider the
site by personal inspection, satisfy yourselves that you
have accurate information, and resolve the issues fairly.
This method of review should enable you to continue to
concentrate totally on the merits of the proposed plan
for this particular property, no matter who the owners
might be now or in the future for this property or
adjacent properties.
Our main concerns are that the aesthetics of the
neighborhood be maintained and that the safety for
all -- young and old -- be a major consideration.
We appreciate youwontinuing dedicated service to the
City and to the citizens, and we thank you.
Sincerely,
7", �- 4 �"_
M. F. Dutro
cc: Hap Campbell and
G. W. Leishman
M. J. Moss
H. P. Blair
Mary y n Dutro
Vickie Van Valer
Tad Matsumura and Karen Milius
Mal and Karen McElwain
Gladys Duncan
H. J. Harlor
May 18, 1983
City Council of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Re: Variance #V -605 and
Design Review #A -857
Campbell & Van Valer
14721 Sixth Street
Saratoga, CA 95070
Attention: Linda Callon, Mayor
and Council Members:
Martha Clevenger
Viriginia Fanelli
John Mallory
David Moyles
Dear Mayor Callon and Members of the City Council:
My husband and I are greatly distressed by the appeal which was filed by our next -
door neighbor, Gaylen Leishman. We feel that his letter contains much misinformation
as well as an incorrect assessment of our proposed remodeling plans and their affect
upon him. We, therefore, are sending you this letter prior to the Council meeting of
June lst in order that you have an opportunity to carefully examine our remodeling
plans.
We feel that the primary reason for opposition to our remodeling plans is two - fold.
1. Mr. Leishman is opposing us primarily because his building
request of 14 years ago was denied by the City of Saratoga.
2. Mary Moss, Mr. Blair, and Mr. Harlor are residents who have
lived here for many years and are simply opposed to.change
of any kind.
We realize that in their letters they have stated many other reasons for their opposition,
which we have responded to and hopefully corrected in our attached rebuttals, but
that the two reasons stated above are the underlying reasons that an appeal was filed.
Hap and I understand that i.t is probably very difficult,when new and younger people
move into a neighborhood,for the older residents to understand why a change might be
desirable. Hap and I have. no other motive in mind but to give ourselves more room.
Our house currently has approximately 1300 square feet of living space, which includes
two bedrooms, a living room, and a kitchen. After living here for 4 112 years and
being married-for the same amount of time we are quite cramped. We would merely
like to add another bedroom, a couple of baths, and a dining room. Because of
the size and shape of our property we cannot build out but only up. That second
story has been planned to gracefully follow the lines of the house as it currently
stands and rather than looking box -like, the second story will actually be smaller
than the first. During the 1950's and the 1960's people could easily afford to
move when a house became too small for them. Those days, as we all know, are gone.
More and more people are having to upgrade and enlarge what they have. Such is
the case with us.
Campbell & Van Valer
-2-
Since last August we have been working very closely with our architect and the
City of Saratoga in order to carefully design a remodeling project which is
tasteful, in keeping with the current architectural design of the house, and
does not, in any way, affect any of our neighbors views or privacy. We feel
we have done that. The City inspectors have carefully viewed our plans and
our property and submitted a four page written report granting their approval.
The members of the City Planning Commission have also viewed our plans and
our property site and voted unanimously for approval. Also,as can be verified
by the enclosed copy of our peition,a majority of our neighbors have given
their approval and support to our project. We sincerely hope that the members
of the City Council will support us as well.
In order to better provide you with a clear and accurate understanding of our
plans we are enclosing copies of the following:
1) Our letter to members of the Planning Commission requesting a reconsideration.
(This was approved and we were heard again Apri1'23, 1983.)
2) Our signed petition listing the 'neighbors who,-approve and support our plans.
3) City of Saratoga- Report To Planning Commission.
4) Report by William Cotton and Associates, geotechnical Consultants.
5) Map showing site location.
6) Resolutions No. A -857 -2 & V -605 -2 showing unanimous approval of our plans.
7) Rebuttals to the letters of Leishman, Moss, and Harlor.
8) Letter to Mr. and Mrs. Leishman.
9) Architectural drawings of interior of proposed remodeling showing its effect
on the Leishman house.
10) Photographs of our house and surrounding neighborhood.
We very much appreciate your time given to our project. We feel that our plans will
only improve what we now have and in doing so Saratoga Village will continue to be
a desirable place in which to live. As a couple in our mid - thirties we feel that
we have much. to contribute to the City of Saratoga and would very much like to do
so from our home base on.Sixth Street.
FSinc rely,
9'9W
P.S. We welcome anv and all calls and visits from members of the Council as well as
any other interested party. Our phone numbers: 741 - 1441 -HomE or 293 - 7977 -Work.
REBUTTAL TO LEISHMAN LETTER
When we first went to our neighbors, to tell them of our plans, Mr. Leishman was not
at home. We spoke to his wife who said she had no objection to our plans and would
tell her husband we'had dropped by. At the first meeting of the planning commission,
Mr. Leishman neither showed up to'register his disapproval nor did he ever contact us
prior to the meeting to tell us of his feelings.
Before the second planning commission meeting (reconsideration) Hap and I went to
each of our neighbors, plans in hand,to show and talk to them about what we had in
mind. Again, Mr'. Leishman was not at.home but his wife and son were, and they said
that ;they had no objection :..`The told us that Mr. Leishman was generally home by 7:00
P.M. and that we could stop by again in order to talk to him.
We tried on several occasions to make contact with Mr. Leishman, but with.no luck.
On one particular evening, seeing his car parked in the street, I knocked upon
his door but no one would answer. WeLbbtl tried to telephone his home several times
but no one would answer. It seemed clear on both of these accasions that someone was
home, but apparently they did not wish to speak to us. Finding the meeting of April
23rd drawing near, my husband called Mr. Leishman at work and received the following
response:
"Well yeah, I've heard about your proposed addition and I'm
not sure if I approve of it. After all, the City of Saratoga
wouldn't let me do what I wanted to several years ago, and,
I'm not so sure about how I feel about having a family live
next to me."
Hap then apologized for calling him at work and asked Mr. Leishman to call us if he
would allow us to go over the plans with him. We never heard from him until he spoke
against us at the April 23rd meeting. At that meeting he,again, brought up the fact
that the City had denied his building plans of 14 years ago.
While we are sorry that his plans were denied, we did not live here then and do not
feel responsible. I would ask if his plans were turned down because they did not
meet City Code, or because of their affect on someone else's view or privacy.
I would now like to. address the points of Mr: Leishman's letter upon which we do
not agree.
Third Story Appearance From Pamela: Our proposed garage would be under the house
as are five other neighbors homes on both Pamela & Sixth Streets. While this may
give a split -level appearance, it will not be that of a three story since the
garage will be under the house. It will not have windows, and it will be mostly
hidden by trees, shrubs, and the brick wall running along the perimeter of our
property. Also, as noted in the Report to Planning Commission, we are within the
maximum height allowed by City Code.
Danger Of Traffic On Sixth & Pamela: This is simply not true - please see enclosed
pictures of Pamela Street as compared to our current, Sixth Street driveway.
Revisions: None were needed since the Planning Commission members personally visited
our site and could see for themselves what our plans included. At the April 23rd
meeting, Louise Schaefer asked Mr. Leishman for ideas or suggestions - he offered
none.
-2- Leishman Letter
"Quaint ": Although many of the homes in the village area are, indeed, quaint and
worthy of preserving, Pamela St. and Sixth St. do not contain such homes. Our
streets are comprised of ranch style homes, a large two story condominimum, and
small, and in many cases, run -down cottages dating from the time Saratoga was
once a village of summer /vacation 'homes. These homes do not follow any particular
architectural design, such as many of the charming Victorians seen on other streets
of our village. In fact, many of'the run -down cottages are in such a state of
disrepair and are so-small that - the owners refuse to live in them and as a result
they have become rentals - hardly the stability valued by other Saratoga homeowners
as well as village merchants.
In Our Definition A Two Story. If Mr. Leishman insists on calling our present home
a two story certainly that must also include his own home. (,SEE ENCLOSED PHOTO)
The difference is that while Mr. Leishman has a full sized, code approved garage
under his 2nd story, we only have a space approximately 10 feet wide having less
than 6 112 feet headroom which the City code defines as legally uninhabitable.
We are only asking for the same privileges granted Mr. Leishman as well as our
other neighbors who currently enjoy a garage lying underneath their homes which
is necessitated by our hillside property.
Small Family: I take great offense at this. Does this mean Mr. Leishman or others
have the right to decide who lives next door to them? And, if we were.fortunate
enough to have one child we would not have been allowed to move in? I think that
this is a very private matter and if Mr. Leishman is concerned that by allowing
us to have a three, rather than a two bedroom house that my husband and I will
start mass production of offspring we can assure him that that is not an option
available to us.
Sold At Least Four Times: I don't know where Mr. Leishman obtained his figures but
we have owned the house for 4 112 years, which would mean that the three other
families have moved in and out over a period of 2 112 years. I find this hard to
believe, b.ut if it were true then I would think.that our neighbors would be happy
to find that Hap and I plan to live here for many long years (_if we can be allowed
to live In more than our current 1300 square feet), rather than have the home sold
again or perhaps rented out if it cannot be sold.
Privacy and Property Value: As our house currently sits, we look upon what we
consider the backside of the Leishman house. Apparent to us are two bathroom
windows, what appears to be a bedroom window, and a sliding glass door, all of
which. are covered by closed (90 %;of Ahe time) curtains. If we are allowed to
proceed with our remodeling plans the window through which we now view hips house
will be changed to allow Mr. Leishman complete privacy since the wall of both the
lower and upper stories will become a fireplace wall with. beveled /stained glass
windows on either side. This plan would not only allow Mr. Leishman greater privacy
than he now enjoys, but would also afford us the privacy which. we value equally.
The only room where there would be a clear window would be from the second bedroom
which. would look into the trees and shrubs which hide Mr. Leishman's backyard from our
view. Also, because of the layout of this room, it is not a room which would
encourage viewing of any sort, but rather privacy and sleeping. PLEASE SEE
ENCLOSED PICTURES AS WELL AS ARCHITECT'S DRAWINGS to better visualize the affect
of our proposed second story on Mr. Leishman's home.
-3- Leishman Letter
Trying To Sell Home -Move South: Mr. Leishman is correct that approximately one
year ago we had our house on the market for several months. Vie found 1300 square
feet of living space a rather cramped situation and felt that we should look for
a larger home. Aside from the fact that our house would not sell, in spite of
the fact that we lowered the price by $60,000, we also discovered that of the
many houses we viewed none were as desirable in terms of physical beauty, or
location, as our present house. Also, since homes in the Saratoga area are
in the $300 - $400,000+ price range they were clearly out of our means. We then
decided to contact.our architect in order to remodel our house to include an .
additional bedroom and a dining room. Moving South - we never spoke to Mr.
Leishman, at any time, about our.plans. Had Mr.. Leishman or anyone else been
interested, our plans to.move went as far as another area in Saratoga or in
Los Gatos - my husband's.home.town. (.In fact, because of the local family
business and the fact that both my husband and I are Santa.; %Clara Valley natives,
having both our families still living here, we have neither the desire nor the
inclination to live anywhere else.)
Definite Underlying Motive: Our one and our only definite underlying motive is
to stay where we are now and remodel. This would allow us only the same privileges
which most of our neighbors now enjoy.
Towering Monster: We are not building a towering monster. We have carefully
thought out how to best remodel without changing either the character of the
house nor the privacy or view of any of our neighbors. Our second story will
be smaller in size than our first, and because of the large eaves (a duplicate
of our present one story) the house will have a graceful, rather than box -like
appearance.
Loss of Privacy: Mr. Leishman's privacy will increase rather than decrease.
SEE ENCLOSED PHOTOS AND DRAWINGS. This will also increase rather than decrease
the value of his home.
Our Den, 18 Feet From Campbell Home: Mr. Leishman states that it is "tough
enough. to maintain privacy" on this side of his home. Mr.' Leishman built his
home, himself, 14 years ago knowing full well of the windows on this side of
our house. (Our house was built in 1952.) I would think he would be happy
knowing our plans would afford h-im privacy with which. he has done without over
the past 14 years.
On -Site Inspection: On this we all clearly agree, an on -site inspection is not
only helpful, but weJeel, necessary in order to understand our remodeling plans.
Blind Corner -Most Detrimental: We do not agree that the corner of Sixth and
Pamela is a blind corner. In fact, in deciding that a Pamela Street driveway
would eliminate our present Sixth Street danger, we tested it first. We found
that approaching Sixth. Street from Pamela affords us an opportunity to carefully
view oncoming traffic before proceeding. The street is practically flat on
Pamela, whereas Sixth. Street is quite a slope. Unless an individual has lived
in our house and backed out of the driveway morning after morning onto Sixth
Street, he has no idea of how many times I have been narrowly missed by traffic
coming up Sixth St. or down from Oak (Bohlman.) In fact, from the top of Oak
our driveway cannot be seen at all, so even if a driver rounding that corner
is very careful,he is still surprised to come upon me backing out of my driveway.
-4-
Consultants Known To Be Wrong: While,
that the general public tends to trust
layperson. Not only did we pay the Do
property was safe for such remodeling,
to pay William Cotton & Associates for
concurred in their findings.
Leishman Letter
in some cases, that my be true, I believe
the judgment of experts rather than the
ige- Shephard Co. in order to make sure our
but were required (_by the City of Saratoga)
a second geological report. Both reports
Always Conformed: The houses on Sixth Street and on Pamela were built in the
1890's, 1940-'50's, the '60's"( Mr. Leishman's house) and the decades in between.
There are many varying architectural styles but cottages and ranch style homes
are most prominent. Our addition will not change the style of our home other
than making it a two story ranch style. (.The color of the house, the roof line,
and the eaves will all remain the same. This will continue to be a smallish house,
rather than a sprawling ranch style.)
Upset The Privacy: Our remodeling will not affect anyone's privacy nor their view.
Set A Precedent: We are not setting a precedent since there are currently existing
two story homes in this area (Pamela, Sixth., and Oak) including the large condominium
on the corner of Big Basin & Sixth Street, 250 feet from our home. Also, we feel
that no one can second guess what other neighbors might intend to do - if anything.
If another neighbor applies to the planning commission for remodeling we feel their
plans should be judged on the same basis as ours: meeting City Code, and how
it will affect the privacy and views of neighbors.
Not The Neighbors That Live Blocks Away: We have not consulted with any of the
neighbors that live "blocks away" but rather, Mr. and Mrs. Holmes who live directly
behind us on Bohlman Road; Susan Robertson and Mr. & Mrs. Higgenbothem who live
directly across the street from us; and each and every one of the neighbors on
Pamela Street. As can be seen by the copy of our enclosed petition we have
majority support from these neighbors and as can be verified by an on -site
inspection, as well as our photographs,we will affect no ones privacy nor their
view.
REBUTTAL TO HARLOR LETTER
!R "
Please Note: Mrs. Harlor signed our petition. Mr. Harlor did not as he was in
the hospital at the time. We asked Mrs. Harlor if, when her husband returned,
they would contact us if he would like to see our plans or had any further
questions. We were quite suprised by his letter to the City Council, since he
registered no complaint with us.
Small One- Story, Single Family Dwellings: This depends upon which side of the
street one lives, either the hill side or the flat side.
Majority of Present Residents Wish It To Remain So: Please see I our petition
listing residents who support us. I don't believe four residents constitute a
majority. Actually, in the Harlor residence, Mr. Harlor seems to be against us
while Mrs. Harlor is for us. While at the very first meeting Mr. Blair spoke
against us (he had not seen our plans and had a misconception of our proposed
driveway). We spoke to both he and his wife after that meeting in order to
show them our plans. Upon viewing the plans they then said they didn't see a
problem. Here too, Hap and I don't understand why they didn't let us know that
they had again changed their minds and why they did so.
Reported Intent: Is this conjecture or based
again, one family should not be penalized for
i- another. Each plan must be weighed only when
Without More Changes: As with Mary Moss, the
of the fact that it could (and we feel it cer
difficult to deal with.
on some factual evidence? Here
the (perceived ?) intentions of
submitted to City.
attitude f no change regardless
tainly Wiol)).be a positive one is
REPORT
I
TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 6 -21 -83
COUNCIL MEETING: 6-21-83
SUBJECT: A -857 and V -605, Hap Campbell and Vicki Van Valer
The Planning Commission has requested that I relay to you their
comments relative to the A -857 and V -60S, Hap Campbell and Vicki
Van Valer, application.
The Commission was concerned with the Council's indication that
they had handled the application improperly, when in fact they
had taken precautions to assure full and complete disclosure,
public noticing and public input.
The application was first heard on February 23, 1983, when it was
denied by a 3 -2 vote. The applicant filed a timely appeal and
sought reconsideration of this application by the Planning Com-
mission. At the Planning Commission meeting of March 9, 1983
the City Attorney advised the Commission that it could vote to
reconsider this matter if they felt it appropriate. The Commis-
sion, by a unanimous vote, did decide to reconsider the application
and directed that there be renoticing and the application be agen-
dized for the meeting of April 13, 1983.
At the Planning Commission meeting of April 13, 1983, after having
received substantial public input, the Commission, by a unanimous
vote, approved this application.
The Commission feels that proper procedures were followed and that
the public was noticed and renoticed to ensure that they were aware
that the matter was being reconsidered. That being the case, they
were disturbed by the Council's comments and the suggestion that
future fees be waived as a result of this process.
, 14-
Robe S. Shook, Secretary
Saratoga Planning Commission
RSS:cd
Attachments
C
Planning Commission Page 4
Meeting Minutes 4/13/83 C
A -861 (cont.)
Commissioner Crowther moved to deny A -861, based on the discussions. Commis-
sioner McGoldrick sec nded the motion, which was carried 4 -2, with Commissioners
Siegfried and Schaefe dissenting.
Commissioner Hlava com ented that the major reason why she voted to deny this
application is because he does see it as setting a precedent. She added
that she feels that thi subdivision in its entirely impacts the other homes
in the area, and there i a problem with compatibility. Commissioner Nellis
also noted that he canno make the findings regarding compatibility. The 10-
day appeal period was not d.
7a. A -852 - Thomas Whit ey, 14880 Sobey Road, Request for Building Site
7b. SDR -1536 - Approval an Design Review Approval to construct a two -story
addition to one -story single family dwelling in the R -1- 40,000
zoning distr ct (near S rin brook Lane)
Commissioner McGoldrick gave an on -site inspection. Staff described.the pro-
posal.
The public hearing was opened at 8:55 P.M.
The conditions of the Staff Report were clarified to Roger Kohler, the architect.
Commissioner Crowther moved to lose the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve A -852 per the Staff Report dated April
6, 1983 and Exhibits "B" and "C ",'sand SDR -1536 per the Staff Report and Exhibit
"B ". Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously
6 -0.
8. V -S41 - J. Brozda, 14503 Big Basin Way ( Maddalena's), Request for Variance
Approval from the parking requirements described in Section II.2
of the Zoning Ordinance 'for a restaurant /retail sales in the C -C
zoning district (near 3rd Street)
Chairman Schaefer gave the history of,`\the application. She noted that some
cities are now requiring in lieu payments for parking spaces not provided from
a business. It was the consensus thatl.this matter be continued to May 11, 1983
so that this information may be obtaine "d from Carmel and Monterey.
-The public hearing was opened at 9:02 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 to the next meeting. He added that he will
review the legislation from Carmel and Monterey to determine if it would be an
option. He stated that if it is an optiont\it would be an option possibly to be
adopted on a much broader scale, no doubt ip connection with the Village as a
whole and not just simply confined to Maddalena's.
It was directed that this matter be continued to May 11, 1983.
Break - 9:05 p.m. - 9 :20 p.m. (Commissioner Crowther left at 9:05 p.m.)
Commiss inners - 5 - Campbell and Van Valer, 14721 Sixth Street, Request for Design
Hlava, MCGO1- 9b. A -857 Review and Variance Approval to add a multi -story addition to a
two -story dwelling which will maintain a 16' front yard setback
drick, Nellis, where 2S' is required in the R -1- 10,000 zoning district (recon-
Schaefer and sideration)
Siegfried Staff :described the proposal and gave the history of the
project.
present. of the project were noted. A letter from the residents on the street estating
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 the driveway and the dangerous
corner at Sixth Street. She indicated that the existing 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 - `
Planning Comm ission Page 5
Meeting Minutes 4/13/83('
V -605 and A -857 (cont.)
Sue Robertson, 14730 Sixth Street, spoke in favor of the project.
Mr. Leishman, 20770 Pamela Way, voiced his objection to the project. He
stated that the existing home is now a two -story home and a three -story home
would be an eyesore to the neighborhood, would depreciate his property and
take away his privacy. He noted that he had given up his previous plans for
a second story because of the neighbors' wishes.
Dennis Burrow, the architect, described the driveway and addressed the slope
of it.
Mary Lynn Dutro, Pamela Way, spoke in support of the project.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Hlava stated that she had voted for the application at the previous
meeting because she did not have a problem making the variance or design review
findings. She commented that she feels that it is a very unique lot and sub-
standard in size. She added that she feels this will be an enhancement and the
driveway access will be safer than what is currently there.
Commissioner McGoldrick agreed. She stated that, although she is very sensitive
to the neighbor's feeling about privacy, she feels that with the existing land-
scaping it will not impact, and the height falls within the range of the ordi-
nance.
Commissioner Nellis commented that he can support the variance and design
review. Commissioner Schaefer asked Mr. Leishman if removal of some of the
windows and adding sky lights, specifically in the rear, would help mitigate
some of his privacy concerns. Mr. Leishman commented that this would not help;
he would still be opposed to the project.
Commissioner Siegfried stated that he feels that the applicants have done a
nice job with the plans and have offered to do everything possible in terms of
their not being able to look down on the adjacent property.
Commissioner Hlava moved to approve V -60S, making the findings in the Staff
Report dated February 11, 1983, per Exhibits "B" and "C ". Commissioner Siegfried
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously S -0. Commissioner Hlava
moved to approve A -8S7, per the Staff Report dated February 11, 1983 and Exhi-
bits "B" and "C ", making the findings. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion,
which was carried unanimously 5 -0.
Chairman Schaefer added that she would encourage the applicant to work with the
neighbor to see if something can be done to mitigate his concerns. The 10 -day
appeal period was noted.-
10a.A -862 - Michael Eld r
10b.SDR -1535 - Approval to
single story
in the R -1 -40
, Request for Design Review and Building Site
onstruct a second story addition to an existing
tructure at 19208 Panorama Drive (near Via Colina)
000 zoning district
Commissioner Nellis gave an on \bd te report, noting the site and mitigating
privacy impacts. Staff descri the proposal, stating that the sport court is
not part of the approval.
The public hearing was opened at 9 \45 p.m.
Stan Winbeck, the neighbor on the we terly side, expressed his support for the
project. fie noted that he felt it wo ld be an enhancement and the windows on
the second floor pose no problem.
Mr. Elder, the applicant, clarified tha the neighbor across the street has
no problem with the plans.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the ublic hearing. Commissioner Nellis
seconded the motion, which was carried unan�imongi v
Commissioner Hlava stated that, in making the findings for compatibility, they
had noted that there were a lot of two -story ho\ s in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Nellis moved to approve SDR -1535 per the Staff Report dated
Flann ng Commission
Meeting Minutes 3/9/83
Page 7
A -858 (cont.
Commissioner ava moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried
seconded the m tion, which was carried unanimously.
There was a conss�ensus that Mr. Toppel should research the issue of Mr. Martin's
relationship; ho�rever, the Commission did not feel that that issue was relevant
to this applicat\on and therefore they could proceed with a vote.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve the Site Modification, approving the
change in the siti g of the driveway, and also approving the amendment to the
Staff Report for S R -1496, changing Condition II -C to read 25 feet instead of
40 feet, for purpos s of maintaining an emergency access road, and deleting
Condition II -E rega ding the turnaround, per Exhibits "B" and "C" and the letter
of March 3, 1983 from the Fire District. Commissioner Bolger seconded the
motion, which was ca ried unanimously 6 -0.
Commissioner Bolger m ved to approve A -858 per the Staff Report dated March 2,
1983 and Exhibits "B" nd "C ". Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion,
which was carried unan mously 6 -0.
8. A -859 - Sami $ Lucie Asfour, Request for Design Review Approval to construct
a second sto y addition to a single story structure at 20522 Sevilla
Lane (near T elma) in the R- 1- 12,500 zoning district
Commissioner Siegfried gage an on -site report, noting that it appears that no
surrounding homes are directly impacted. Discussion followed on the proposal.
The letter from the neigZ s, in favor of the application, was noted.
The public hearing was opened at 11:05 p.m. Condition No. 2 of the Staff Report
was clarified to Mrs. Asfour\ the applicant.
Commissioner Bolger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava
seconded the motion. Commissioner Nellis suggested a condition requiring land-
scaping along the western property in addition to the southern property line.
He moved to approve A -859 per the Staff Report of February 20, 1983 and Exhibits
"B" and "C ", with the added condition for that landscaping. Commissioner Bolger
seconded the motion, which was cNarried unanimously 6 -0.
9. A -860 - M. C. Johnson, Inc.,NRequest for Design Review Approval to allow the
construction of a two s tory single family dwelling on Lot 5, Tract
6526 (near Burnett Drive) in the NFIR zoning district
Commissioner Siegfried gave an on -s\ite report. The public hearing was opened
at 11:10 p.m. The applicant appeared to answer questions. Since no one else
appeared to address the Commission, Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the
public hearing. Commissioner Nellis \econded the motion, which was carried
unanimously.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve A -860, making the findings in the Staff
Report dated March 1, 1983 and-:per Exhibits "B" and "C ". Commissioner Hlava
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6 -0.
COMMUNICATIONS
Written
1. Letter from Steve Scialabba dated February 24, 1983 regarding recon-
sideration of A -831. Staff gave the history of the request. Commissioner Hlava
moved to reagen ize A -831 for reconsideration. Commissioner Siegfried seconded
the motion, which was carried unanimously 6 -0. It was directed that this matter
will endized for the meeting of March 23, 1983.
Commissioners
2� Letter from H. Campbell and V. Van Valer dated March 41 1983 regard -
Bolger, Hlava,
ing esi e- ation o OS a nd A-85 /- ommissioner Schaefer moved to reagen-
� n
ize - 5 an A -857 or reconsi eration. Commissioner Nellis seconded the
McGoldrick,
motion, which was carried unanimously 6 -0. It was directed that this matter will
Nellis, Schaefer
be renoticed and agendized for the meeting of April 13, 1983.
and Siegfried
3. Letter from Mike Cocco and Tom Phipps dated March 1, 1983 regarding
present.
�
proposed berry and tree farm operation. Staff noted t at the area being proposed
is t e area that has the use permit by the Horticultural Foundation. After con-
siderable discussion it was the consensus of the Commission that they are favora-
ble toward this type of operation in concept. However, they noted concerns of
- 7 -
oft
Planning Commission Page 2
Meeting Minutes 2 /23/83
_�
Commissioners Bolger, �A -857 Campbell and Van Valer, 14721 Sixth Street, Request for Design
Crowther, Hlava, 3b. V -60S - Review and Variance Approval to add a multi -story addition to a
McGoldrick and Schaefer two -story dwelling which will maintain a 16' front yard setback
present. where 25' is required in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district
Staff described the proposal. The correspondence received on the project was
noted.
Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee Report, stating that
could not see that the project would hamper the view. Commissioner Hlava noted
that all of the houses on that side of the street have garages underneath.
Staff described the entry into the driveway.
The public hearing was opened at 7:55 p.m.
Dennis Burrow, the architect, gave a presentation on the project and discussed
the driveway. Chairman Schaefer expressed her concern regarding setting a
precedent for three -story structures. Mr. Burrow explained that the three - store
aspect is primarily a technical definition, because the lower level where the
garage is going is an illegal space for any kind of habitation from the stand-
point of the Building Department. He indicated that it would be partially
screened by a deck, shrubs and landscaping. Staff noted that there are three
levels.
Harold Blair, 20761 Pamela Nay, spoke in opposition to the driveway on Pamela
because of the steepness of the grade. Staff explained the construction of the
driveway, indicating that it would enter onto Pamela near the corner, approxi-
mately 20 -25 feet from the pavement on Sixth Street. They added that there is
a lesser slope across this direction than coming straight out to Pamela. They
indicated that they did not believe that the location of the driveway would be
a hazard, since it enters onto Pamela rather than Sixth Street.
Commissioner Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Bolger
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Hlava moved to approve V -605, making the findings as stated in the
Staff Report dated February 11, 1983. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the
motion. The motion failed 3 -2, with Commissioners Crowther, Bolger and Schaefer
dissenting.
Commissioner Crowther moved to deny A -857. Commissioner Bolger seconded the
motion, which was carried 3 -2, with Commissioners Hlava and McGoldrick dissent-
ing.
Commissioner Schaefer and Commissioner Bolger indicated that they had voted
against the three -story aspect and because of concern regarding exiting near
a corner on a driveway with a grade. Commissioner Schaefer added that she
had no opposition to converting the garage into living space if a new driveway
could be a little bit further from the corner. Commissioner Crowther stated
that his basis for denial was the third-story appearance from Pamela, the drive-
way being at the slant that it is near the corner of Sixth, and the traffic
coming down Sixth. The 10 -day appeal period was noted.
4. A -8S3 - Kenneth J. Naber\aed 460 Ted Avenue, Request for Design Review
Approval to cons t a second-story addition to a one-story single
family dwelling Ave. near Zorka Ave. in the R -1- 10,000 zoning
district; continfrom February 9. 1983
The proposal was described by StaNff, noting that there is sufficient area on
the site for a single -story addition.
Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee Report. She commented that
Commissioner Nellis had noticed that the present deck outside seemed to have
a pool in it and it appeared to be very close to the lot line. She indicated
that they saw no problem with the screening at the rear. Possible landscaping
for screening purposes from a new subdivision was discussed.
The public hearing was opened at 8:15 p\.m.
The applicant spoke on the project, ind ` ating that there is a two story directl
behind his property. He stated that he did not have room on the site for a
one -story addition.
- 2 -
REBUTTAL TO MOSS LETTER
Predominately Modest Single Story Homes: I'm not sure what Ms. Moss means by modest.
We purchased our home 4 112 years ago for $148,000 which we do not consider modest.
If she is concerned that we intend to build a mansion, I assure her, as much as
we might like to, it is not possible. Here, as with Mr. Leishman's letter, our
house is termed a two -story with a "multi- story" addition. It simply is not.
Because the homes facing the Moss house are on a hill, with garages underneath,
they too would be called two -story houses - a most inaccurate description. But,
however ambiguous the term.two- story, if that is the case so be it. We would then
like to be able to make use of that "first" story and have our garage underneath
our house as do our neighbors.
Encouragement For Others To Remodel: I- think this clearly.shows that Ms. Moss
wants the neighborhood to remain as it has been since she moved in 23 years ago.
Second Floor Additions Do Not Follow The Lines Of The Original Design: Simply
not true unless the addition is not designed by a competent architect. The whole
idea behind our plans is to make the house look as though the remodeling never
took place, but that the house was built that'way when it was originally constructed
in 1952.
Eucalyptus Trees Cannot Be Considered Permanent: Why not? We have absolutely -no
intention of cutting them down, and the one tree which would have to be removed
for our garage entrance is small enough that I doubt that anyone will notice the
difference. As most Saratoga residents know, Saratoga is very protective of its
trees and residents are not allowed to remove any trees without permission from
the City. I also question Ms. Moss on the likehood of wind damage. The eucalyptus
trees have been topped to make them fuller and bushier, a treatment we intend to
continue.
Blind Corner: The corner is not blind.. It is far safer than backing onto Sixth.
Street where not only am I in danger by 'those drivers racing up from Big Basin,
but by those coming down from Oak /Bohlman Road who come upon me without any
warning.
Omission Of Dining Room Obvious When They Purchase The Property: Does this mean
that anyone buying a house must be satisfied forever, with that which met his
needs at the date of purchase (or move on)? Hap and I married a few weeks before
we bought this house and as most married couples can remember, their first house,
while meeting a couple's demands during the first year or two or marriage, rarely
remains so throughout their lives. Practically every room of our house can be
viewed when entering through the front door. We have only two bedrooms. We have
no dining room and only a four foot bar affair in the kitchen, necessitating our
placement of a small dining table in the living room. While all of this was
very cozy 4 1/2 years ago, we now find it very difficult.
Those Who Support This Remodeling Venture: Have personally spoken to us. They
have been shown our plans. We have encouraged all neighbors to call us with
questions and /or suggestions. Each of these neighbors feels that we will be
improving the neighborhood and most likely property values as well. Neither
they nor we have "an ulterior motive" nor are "they victims of a snow job."
I would like to add that when I called Mary Moss to ask if I might visit
her in order to show her our plans she stated, "well okay, but I'm sure
nothing you can show me will change my mind" (about our remodeling.) Hap
and I have encouraged each and every one of our neighbors to talk to us
with their ideas and suggestions, but find it very defeating when someone
has her mind made up before even having knowledge of the plan.
It , .
rRECEI V E D ,'i 2 9 1,983
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, WISH TO APPEAL THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AT THE APRIL 13 MEETING, TO PERMIT
THE ADDITION OF A SECOND STORY TO THE RESIDENCE AT THE CORNER OF
SIXTH STREET AND PAMELA WAY. THE COMMISSION'S ACTION SETS A
PRECEDENT IN A NEIGHBORHOOD OF ONE STORY HOMES.
Date Name Address
AI
hVE A, R f`-- !y J
20777 Pamela Way, Saratoga
April 15, 1983
To: Mayor Linda Callon and City Council Members
From: Mary J. Moss
Re: Permit for third story remodeling at 14721 Sixth Street
This statement is to explain why I oppose the action of the
Saratoga Planning Commission in granting a permit for a 4L. I
third floor addition to the residence of Hap Campbell at
14721 Sixth Street.
This is a substandard lot with a 16 ft. setback and a 26%
slope. Altho the planning Commission overlooked the precedent
this sets in a neighborhood of predominately modest single
story homes, and the encouragement this approval gives to
others to remodel. (A neighbor who is interested in selling,
attended the April :43 appeal meeting to observe the procedure
necessary to get a permit.) The possibility of a row of three
story structures on the high side of the street would change
the character of the neighborhood. To emphasize the differences
in elevation of the two sides of the street, the floor of the
proposed garage will be higher than the peak of the roof of
ithe.,home across_the street. The view from the living room
windows of the homes on the north side of Pamela Way will be
a three level structure.
Second floor additions rerErally are quite obvious and do not
follow the lines of the o- iginal design. A horrible example,
approved by the Planning Commission, is at 20825 Pamela Way,,
and now,used ;for;,re'ntal. "Trees will screen the house." This
is only partially true. One tree must be removed for the
entrance to the proposed garage. These trees cannot be consid-
ered permanent. Former owners have kept the eucalyptus trees
topped to prevent wind damage. Grading for the proposed drive-
way (2 ft. excavation) could distrubethe root systems making
the likehood of wind damage greater.
April 22nd, 1983
TO +: Saratoga City Council
City Hall
Saratoga, CA. 95070
IN RE : Request for
FROM: H. J. Harlor Pamela Way
20824 Pamela Way Variance
Saratoga, CA. 95070
Dear Members -
Since the late 1940s, the Carlton
Tract (principally Pamela Way) has been, and was
intended to be, a development of small, one - story,
single family dwellings. Until now, with the excep-
tion of one residence, that is the zoned condition
of this immediate area. The majority of the present
residents wish it to remain so. In view of the appli-
cation for the change in the structure of the house
at the corner of Pamela Way and 6th Street, coupled
with the hazard of a driveway fronting unnecessarily
near the junction of the above two streets, along
with the reported intent of the occupants of #20782
Pamela Way wishing to also add to their structure
- - both to have a 2nd story above ground in addition
to there being garages underneath presenting a 3rd
level - - it is obvious that the appearance and char-
acter of this small corner of Saratoga would be mark-
edly changed, in addition to a trespass upon the
wishes and conformity of the several residents who
oppose this change.
The old "saw" - - "once bitten - twice shy" - is applicable here for those of us who like our
"hideaway" without more changes than have occurred.
Respectfully submitted,
7
H. J Harlor
RECE I'VE D ntPR 2 9 15003
. " . % - Page 2 of 2
The entrance onto Pamela VVay from behind a brick wall to a
blind corner at Sixth Street appears hazardous to me.
The owner has lived at this address for four years. (Those
most concerned have lived here from 14 to 33 years.) During
these four years the owners have remodeled a bedroom and
added a deck. They had the property up for sale for a number
of months. The owner stated at the appeal neeting that the
reason for remodeling is to have a dining room. This omission
was obvious when they purchased the property. Question: Must
• neighborhood be saddled with a three story structure so that
• couple may have a dining room?
Those who support this remodeling venture must be unable to
visualize the impact of an additional floor; or they have an
ulterior motive; or they are victims of a snow job.
Those who oppose this permit are interested in preserving the
aesthetic and protecting property values. I hope the City
Council agrees.
"ii. IV f;1 February 18th, 1983
TO Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
CRMIT REVIEW
FRO?,' Residents of Pamela Way
LN RE Application for Variance to Property at # 14721 Sixth (6th) Street
The undersigned residents of Pamela lay :
"✓'"' cr� vUt_�tut�'cc.tic _
Glad, s Al. Duncan # 20801
Charles C. Lon+#2 93
ary ':loss 20777
-�' 7Z ! �
Jean & Harry Harl0 ; 208214
being unable to attend the public hearincr to be held :ednesday, ?;ebruary
23rd, 1983 (due to hospitalization - or other commitments) concerning the
above application, wish to express our considered opinion and ccncern
regarding said requested variance.
The primary objection is to the proposed drive opening on the almost
immediate junction of Pamela ',._:,ay and 6th Street. This is a partially
"blind" junction now, and any added vehicle openinn(s) at this point,
_or nearby, mould without question add to the potential danger. This
hazard was considered when the two ccrner houses were built, and therefore
drives were made for same on 6th Street (as well as being less expensive
and more convenient).
Also in 'k1ee -)ing wit'-, the original subdivlsion purpose of single, one-
story houses - - ::hich most of the long -tine residents have subscribed to
and -a= retained - - :` -t snot in tine neighborhood's aest hetic interest tp
i a lar -e t1-;o uor.i structure at variance with the rest of the homes.
.rs. Jo: ?n a!1StrCD (the ..or:iginal ezner) ;;a5 al.SG ati' {arE ttilai, t ^2 1C1'rer
h'-lls ide is undermined w`..th sprig: -s .
I
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO:
DATE: June 1, 1983
DEPARTMENT: Maintenance
SUBJECT: Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1 (Existing)
Issue Summar
Initial:
Dept. Head:
City Atty :
Ci ty Mgr
At the May 4, 1983 meeting, City Council adopted Resolution No. 2051 -B, A Resolution
of Preliminary Approval of Engineers Report and Resolution No. 2051 -C, A Resolution
of Intention to Order the Levy and Collection of Assessments Pursuant to the
Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. Resolution No. 2051 -C also set the time and
date for the public hearing at June 1, 1983 at 8 :00 p.m.
Recommendation
Utilize the agenda provided by Wilson, Morton, Assaf and McElligott for the public
hearing. Upon closing the public hearing, adopt Resolution No. 2051 -D, A Resolution
Overruling Protests, Ordering Improvements and Confirming the Diagram and Assessments.
Fiscal Impacts
The costs for the administration, maintenance and servicing and lighting costs are charged
to the various zones within the district based on benefit received. The Santa Clara
County Assessor's Office will collect the amounts through the taxes and, in turn, send
to the City.
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Resolution No."-:2051 -D.
2. Engineer's Report - (available in City Clerk's office)
3. Summary -and Comparison -of Assessments
4. Agenda .for'-Public Hea,rin'g
5. Mayor's statement and declaration that'the "Public Hearing is open
6.— Statement -of the Clerk of the City verifying 'Affidavit of Publication and Certification
of Posting Resolution of Intention are on file
Council Action
6/1: Moyles /Fanelli moved to adopt Resolution 2051 -D. Passed 4 -0.
2080C -535a WMAM :JEB:om 05/18/83 12c
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OVERRULING PROTESTS AND ORDERING
THE IMPROVEMENTS AND CONFIRMING
THE DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT
CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1
FISCAL YEAR 1983 -1984
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga,
California, as follows:
WHEREAS, on the 20th day of April, 1983, said Council adopted
its Resolution No. 2051, Describing the Improvements and Directing
Preparation of Engineer's Report for Fiscal Year 1983 -1984 for the
"City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1" Pursuant to
the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, and directed the City
Engineer to prepare and file with the City Clerk of this City a written
report called for under said Act and by said Resolution No. 2051;
WHEREAS, said report was duly made and filed with the Clerk of
said City, whereupon said Clerk presented it to the City Council for
its consideration;
WHEREAS, said Council thereupon duly considered said report and
each and every part thereof and found that it contained all the matters
and things called for by the provisions of said Act and said Resolution
No. 2051, including (1) plans and specifications of the existing
improvements and the proposed improvements; (2) estimate of costs; (3)
diagram of the District; and (4) an assessment according to benefits;
all of which were done in the form and manner required by said Act;
WHEREAS, said Council found that said report and each and every
part thereof was sufficient in every particular and determined that it
should stand as the report for all subsequent proceedings under said
Act, whereupon said Council pursuant to the requirements of said Act,
appointed Wednesday, the 1st day of June, 1983, at the hour of
7:30 o'clock p.m. of said day in the regular meeting place of said
Council, City Hall, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, as
the time and place for hearing protests in relation to the levy and
collection of the proposed assessment for said improvements, including
the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, for Fiscal Year
1983 -1984 and directing said Clerk to give notice of said hearing as
required by said Act;
WHEREAS, it appears that notices of said hearing were duly and
regularly published and posted in the time, form and manner required by
said Act, as evidenced by the Affidavits and Certificates on file with
said Clerk, whereupon said hearing was duly and regularly held at the
time and place stated in said notice; and
WHEREAS, persons interested, objecting to the improvements,
including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, or to the
extent of the proposed assessment district, or any zones therein, or to
the proposed assessment or diagram or to the Engineer's estimate of
costs thereof, filed written protests with the Clerk of said City at or
before the conclusion of said hearing, and all persons interested
desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard, and all
matters and things pertaining to the levy and collection of the
assessments for said improvements, including the maintenance or
-2-
servicing, or both, thereof, were fully heard and considered by said
Council;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED and ORDERED, as
follows:
1. That protests against said improvements, including the
maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, or to the extent of the
assessment district or any zones therein, or to the proposed assessment
or diagram, or to the Engineer's estimate of costs thereof, for Fiscal
Year 1983 -1984 be, and each of them are hereby, overruled.
2. That the public interest, convenience and necessity require
and said Council does hereby order the levy and collection of
assessments pursuant to said Act, for the construction or installation
of the improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both,
thereof, more particularly described in said Engineer's Report and made
a part hereof by reference thereto.
3. That the City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District
LLA -1 and the boundaries thereof benefited and to be assessed for said
costs for the construction or installation of the improvements,
including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, are situate
in Saratoga, California, and are more particularly described by
reference to a map thereof on file in the office of the Clerk of said
City. Said map indicates by a boundary line the extent of the
territory included in said district, and of any zone thereof.and the
general location of said District.
4. That the plans and specifications for the existing
improvements and for the proposed improvements to be made within the
-3-
assessment district or within any zone thereof contained in said
report, be, and they are hereby, finally adopted and approved.
5. That the Engineer's estimate of the itemized and total costs
and expenses of said improvements, maintenance and servicing thereof,
and of the incidental expenses in connection therewith, contained in
said report, be, and it is hereby, finally adopted and approved.
6. That the public interest and convenience require, and said
Council does hereby order the improvements to be made as described in
and in accordance with said Engineer's Report, reference to which is
hereby made for a more particular description of said improvements.
7. That the diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the
assessement district referred to and described in said Resolution
No. 2051, and also the boundaries of any zones therein and the lines
and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within said District as
such lot or parcel of land is shown on the County Assessor's maps for
the fiscal year to which it applies, each of which lot or parcel of
land has been given a separate number upon said diagram, as contained
in said report, be, and it is hereby, finally approved and confirmed.
8. That the assessment of the total amount of the costs and
expenses of the proposed improvements upon the several lots or parcels
of land in said District in proportion to the estimated benefits to be
received by such lots or parcels, respectively, from said improvements,
including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, and of the
expenses incidental thereto, contained in said report, be, and the same
is hereby finally approved and confirmed.
-4-
9. That said Engineer's Report for Fiscal Year 1983 -1984, be,
and the same is hereby, finally adopted and approved as a whole.
10. That the Clerk shall forthwith file with the Auditor of
Santa Clara County the said assessment, together with said diagram
thereto attached and made a part thereof, as confirmed by the City
Council, with a certificate of such confirmation thereto attached and
of the date thereof.
11. That the order ordering the levy and collection of
assessment for the improvements and the final adoption and approval of
the Engineer's Report as a whole, and of the plans and specifications,
estimate of the costs and expenses, the.diagram and the assessment, as
contained in said Report, as hereinabove determined and ordered, is
intended to and shall refer and apply to said Report, or any portion
thereof, as amended, modified, revised or corrected by, or pursuant to
and in accordance with any resolution or order, if any, heretofore duly
adopted or made by this Council.
-5-
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct
copy of a resolution duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the
City of Saratoga, California, at a meeting thereof held on the
day of , 19 , by the following vote of the members
thereof:
AYES, and in favor thereof, Council Members:
NOES, Council Members:
ABSENT, Council Members:
APPROVED:
Mayor
City Clerk of the City of Saratoga
SUMMARY AND COMPARISON OF ASSESSMENTS FOR 1982 -83 & 1983 -84
ZONE NUMBER
TOTAL ASSESSMENT
1982 -83
PER PARCEL ASSESSMENT
1982 -83
TOTAL ASSESSMENT
1983 -84
PER PARCEL ASSESSMENT
1983 -84
1
0
0
272.51
10.90
2
523.65
6.16
562.70
6.62
3
Y
0
0
4
1390.50
2.06
5
226.53
2.12
89.88
.84
6
0
1003.52
15.68
7 Commercial
7128.88
92.58
4203.20
56.80
7 Residential
4887.72
6.66
4271.42
5.78
8
2080C -535a
AGENDA
CITY OF SARATOGA
PUBLIC HEARING JUNE 1, 1983
CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1
FISCAL YEAR 1983 -1984
A. PUBLIC HEARING
1. Mayor's statement and declaration that the Public Hearing is
open.
2. Statement of the Clerk of the City verifying Affidavit of
Publication and Certificate of Posting the Resolution of
Intention are on file.
3. Statement of Engineer as to the nature of the Project.
4. Reading of written protests.
5. Hearing of oral testimony and comments.
6. Closing of Public Hearing.
B. POSSIBLE COUNCIL ACTION
1. A Resolution Overruling Protests and.Ordering the
Improvements and Confirming the Diagram and Assessment.
2080C -535a
OPENING STATEMENT BY THE MAYOR
OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
JUNE 1, 1983
CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1
This is the time and place set for hearing on the levy and
collection of the proposed assessment for Fiscal Year 1983 -1984 for the
City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District. Notices have been
published and posted pursuant to law and the certificates and
affidavits of publishing and posting are on file in the office of the
City Clerk. These proceedings were undertaken pursuant to the
Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. This hearing is a hearing on the
Engineer's Report prepared pursuant to the provisions of the 1972 Act.
The Engineer's. Report prepared by the City Engineer consists of
the proposed improvements, the boundaries of the Assessment District
and any zones therein, the proposed diagram, the estimate of cost
thereof and the proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels
of land within the District. Any one of these items may be the subject
of protests or endorsements.
You are asked to clearly identify yourself and the property owned
by you so that your statements may be correctly recorded.
The hearing is declared open and I will ask the City Clerk to
report on the various notices given in connection with the hearing.
I
2080C -535a
CLERK'S STATEMENT
JUNE 1, 1983
CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1
Notices have been published and posted as required by the
Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. Affidavits and certificates of
publishing and posting are on file in my office. A copy of the
Engineer's Report prepared by the City Engineer was filed in my office
on May 4, 1983, and has been open to public inspection since that time.
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO: 45-9 Initial:
Dept. Head:
DATE: June 1, 1983
City Atty
DEPARTMENT: Maintenance
City Mgr
------------------------------------------------=---------------------------------------- - - - - --
SUBJECT: Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1 (Annexation)
Issue Summary
At the May 4, 1983 meeting, City Council adopted Resolution No. 2052 -B, A Resolution
of Preliminary Approval of Engineers Report and Resolution No. 2052 -C, A Resolution
of Intention to Order the Levy and Collection of Assessments Pursuant to the
Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. Resolution No. 2051 -C also set the time and
date for the public hearing at June 1, 1983 at 8:00 p.m.
Recommendation
Utilize the agenda provided by Wilson, Morton, Assaf and McElligott for the public hearing.
Upon closing the public hearing, adopt Resolution No. 2052 -D, A Resolution Overruling
Protests, Ordering Improvements and Confirming the Diagram and Assessments.
Fiscal Impacts
The costs for the administration, maintenance and servicing and lighting costs are charged
to the various zones within the district based on benefit received. The Santa Clara
County Assessor's office will collect the amounts through the taxes and, in turn, send
to the City.
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Resolution No. 2052 -D
2. Engineer's Report (available in City Clerk's office)
3. Agenda -for Publ i c Hearing' • I , -
4. Mayor'-s statement anddeclaration. that thea�Rublic Hearing is open
5. Statement of theXlerk.- of`the;City verifying Affidavit of Publication and Certification
of Posting Resolution of Intention are on file
Council Action
6/1: Fanelli /Clevenger moved to adopt Resolution 2052 -D. Passed 4 -0.
2080C -535a WMAM :JEB :ohk 05/20/83 12c
RESOLUTION NO,
A RESOLUTION OViRRUfrl4 G- -PRGLT-ES- T- S —AN.D- ORDERING
THE ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO AN EXISTING
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT, ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENTS
AND CONFIRMING THE DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT
CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1
ANNEXATION 1983 -1
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga,
California, as follows:
WHEREAS, on the 20th day of April, 1983, said Council adopted
its Resolution No. 2052, Determining to Undertake Proceedings for the
Annexation of Territory to an Existing Assessment District Known as
"City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1" Pursuant to
the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, and directed the City
Engineer of said City (herein the "Engineer ") to prepare and file with
the City Clerk of this City a written report called for under said Act
and by said Resolution No. 2052;
WHEREAS, said report was duly made and filed with the City Clerk
of said City, whereupon said Clerk presented it to this Council for its
consideration;
WHEREAS, said Council thereupon duly considered said report and
each and every part thereof and found that it contained all the matters
and things called for by the provisions of said Act and said Resolution
No. 2052, including (1) plans and specifications of the existing
improvements and the proposed improvements; (2) estimate of costs; (3)
diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the area proposed to be
annexed to the existing assessment district, which is also the area
proposed to be assessed; and (4) an assessment according to benefits;
all of which were done in the form and manner required by said Act;
WHEREAS, said Council found that said report and each and every
part thereof was sufficient in every particular and determined that it
should stand as the report for all subsequent proceedings under said
Act, whereupon said Council pursuant to the requirements of said Act,
appointed Wednesday, the 1st day of June, 1983, at the hour of
8:00 o'clock p.m. of said day in the regular meeting place of said
Council, City Hall, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, as
the time and place for hearing protests in relation to the annexation
of territory to an existing assessment district and the levy and
collection of the proposed assessment pursuant to the Landscaping and
Lighting Act of 1972, and to said proposed improvements, including the
maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, and directing said City
Clerk to give notice of said hearing as required by said Act;
WHEREAS, it appears that notices of said hearing were duly and
regularly published and mailed in the time, form and manner required by
said Act, as evidenced by the Affidavits and Certificates on file with
said Clerk, whereupon said hearing was duly and regularly held at the
time and place stated in said notice; and
WHEREAS, persons interested, objecting to the annexation of
territory to an existing assessment district, or of said improvements,
including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, or to the
extent of the proposed assessment district, or any zones therein, or to
the proposed assessment or diagram or to the Engineer's estimate of
costs thereof, filed written protests with the City Clerk of said City
-2-
at or before the conclusion of said hearing, and all persons interested
desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard, and all
matters and things pertaining to the annexation of territory to said
existing assessment district and said improvements, including the
maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, were fully heard and
considered by said Council]
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED and ORDERED, as
follows:
1. That protests against the annexation of territory to said
existing assessment district or of said improvements, including the
maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, or to the extent of the
assessment district or any zones therein, or to the proposed assessment
or diagram, or to the Engineer's estimate of costs thereof, were not
signed by the owners of a majority or more of the area of assessable
lands within said territory proposed to be annexed and assessed herein,
and that said protests be, and each of them are hereby, overruled.
2. That the public interest, convenience and necessity require
the annexation of territory to an existing assessment district and the
levy and collection of assessments pursuant to said Act, for the
construction or installation of the improvements, including the
maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, more particularly described
in said Engineer's Report and made a part hereof by reference thereto,
which annexation is hereby ordered.
3. That the annexed territory and the boundaries thereof
benefited and to be assessed for said costs for the construction or
installation of the improvements, including the maintenance or
-3-
servicing, or both, thereof, are situate in the City of Saratoga,
California, and are more particularly described by reference to a map
thereof on file in the office of the City Clerk of said City. Said map
indicates by a boundary line the extent of the annexed territory
included in said assessment district, and of any zone thereof and the
general location thereof.
4. That said annexed territory be, and it is hereby, designated
as "City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1 Annexation
1983 -1" by which name it may hereafter be referred to.
5. That the plans and specifications for the existing
improvements and for the proposed improvements to be made within said
assessment district or within any zone thereof contained in said
report, be, and they are hereby, finally adopted and approved.
6. That the Engineer's estimate of the itemized and total costs
and expenses of said improvements, maintenance and servicing thereof,
and of-the incidental expenses in connection therewith, contained in
said report, be, and it is hereby, finally adopted and approved.
7. That the public interest and convenience require, and said
Council does hereby order the improvements to be made as described in
and in accordance with said Engineer's Report, reference to which is
hereby made for a more particular description of said improvements.
8. That the diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the
annexed territory referred to and described in said Resolution
No. 2052, and also the boundaries of any zones therein and the lines
and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within said annexed
territory as such lot or parcel of land is shown on the County
Assessor's maps for the fiscal year to which it applies, each of which
-4-
lot or parcel of land has been given a separate number upon said
diagram, as contained in said report, be, and it is hereby, finally
approved and confirmed.
9. That the assessment of the total amount of the costs and
expenses of the proposed improvements upon the several lots or parcels
of land in said annexed territory in proportion to the estimated
benefits to be received by such lots or parcels, respectively, from
said improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both,
thereof, and of the expenses incidental thereto, contained in said
report, be, and the same is hereby finally approved and confirmed.
10. That said Engineer's Report be, and the same is hereby,
finally adopted and approved as a whole.
11. That the.City Clerk shall forthwith file with the Auditor of
Santa Clara County the said assessment, together with said diagram
thereto attached and made a part thereof, as confirmed by the City
Council, with a certificate of such confirmation thereto attached and
of the date thereof.
12. That the order ordering the annexation of territory to an
existing assessment district and the final adoption and approval of the
Engineer's Report as a whole, and of the plans and specifications,
estimate of the costs and expenses, the diagram, the assessment, as
contained in said Report, as hereinabove determined and ordered, is
intended to and shall refer and apply to said Report, or any portion
thereof, as amended, modified, revised or corrected by, or pursuant to
and in accordance with any resolution or order, if any, heretofore duly
adopted or made by this Council.
-5-
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct
copy of a resolution duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the
City of Saratoga, California, at a meeting thereof held on the
day of , 19 , by the following vote of the members
thereof:
AYES, and in favor thereof, Council Members:
NOES, Council Members:
ABSENT, Council Members:
APPROVED:
Mayor
City Clerk of the City of Saratoga
2079C -535a
AGENDA
CITY OF SARATOGA
PUBLIC HEARING JUNE 1, 1983
CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1
ANNEXATION 1983 -1
A. PUBLIC HEARING
1. Mayor's statement and declaration that the Public Hearing is
open.
2. Statement of the Clerk of the City verifying Affidavit of
Publication and Certificate of Mailing the Resolution of
Intention are on file.
3. Statement of Engineer as to the nature of the Project.
4. Reading of written protests.
5. Hearing of oral testimony and comments.
6. Closing of Public Hearing.
B. POSSIBLE COUNCIL ACTION
1. A Resolution Overruling Protests and Ordering the Annexation
of Territory to an Existing Assessment District, Ordering
the Improvements and Confirming the Diagram and Assessment.
2080C -535a
OPENING STATEMENT BY THE MAYOR
OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
JUNE 1, 1983
CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1
ANNEXATION 1983 -1
This is the time and place set for hearing on the annexation of
territory to the City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District and
the levy and collection of the proposed assessment. Notices have been
published and mailed pursuant to law and the certificates and
affidavits of publishing and mailing are on file in the office of the
City Clerk. These proceedings were undertaken pursuant to the
Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. This hearing is a hearing on the
Engineer's Report prepared pursuant to the provisions of the 1972 Act.
The Engineer's Report prepared by the City Engineer consists of
the proposed improvements, the boundaries of the territory to be
annexed and any zones therein, the proposed diagram, the estimate of
cost thereof and the proposed assessments upon assessable lots and
parcels of land within the area proposed to be annexed to the
District. Any one of these items may be the subject of protests or
endorsements.
All written protests to be computed in the protest percentage in
relation to the annexation of territory to the District including the
Engineer's Report should be filed with the City Clerk at or before the
conclusion of this hearing. Protests or endorsements may be made by
any person interested, but only written protests filed by property
owners of assessable lands in the territory proposed to be annexed may
be considered in determining the percentage of protests.
You are asked to clearly identify yourself and the property owned
by you so that your statements may be correctly recorded.
The hearing is declared open and I will ask the City Clerk to
report on the various notices given in connection with the hearing.
2080C -535a
CLERK'S STATEMENT
JUNE 1, 1983
CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1
ANNEXATION 1983 -1
Notices have. been published and mailed as required by the
Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. Affidavits and certificates of
publishing and mailing are on file in my office. A copy of the
Engineer's Report prepared by the City Engineer was filed in my office
on May 4, 1983, and has been open to public inspection since that time.
It