HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-07-1996 CITY COUNCIL AGENDAM
Public hearings will start promptly at 8:.00, when the Council will move
from whatever item it is:considering.at that time to public hearings.
Note: Devices to assist the hearing impaired are now available in the
lobby.
AGENDA
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
TIME: Wednesday, July 17, 1996 6:30 p.m.
PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave.
TYPE: Regular Meeting
6:30 in Administration Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Closed Session pursuant to Section 54957.6:
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
Agency negotiator: Harry Peacock
Employee organization: Saratoga Employees Association and Saratoga
Management Organization
7:30 Pledge of Allegiance
so ROLL CALL P
d
2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS
A. Proclamations commending Former Members of Hakone Foundation
Board
31
g- I� o
33
B. Proclamation on Childhood Lead Poisonin g Prevention Week
1
3. REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was
properly posted on July 12.
4. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC
3 A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (limited to 15 minutes)
�I
City Council Agenda 2 July 17, 1996
B. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS None.
C. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
These items will be acted upon in one motion for each section unless
they are removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion by
Councilmembers or any interested party. However, items in Section A
have already been considered by the Council at a previous meeting where
the public was invited to comment, after which the hearing was closed.
Those items are not subject to public discussion at this meeting
because the vote taken at the previous meeting was final. Resolutions
concerning decisions made at previous meetings are for the purpose of
memorializing the decision to assure the accuracy of the findings, the
prior vote, .and --any conditions imposed.
A. Previously Discussed Items None.
B. New Items ��M 9
1 1) Planning Commission Actions, 7/10 Note and file.
2) Heritage Preservation Commission Minutes, 4/9; 5/14;
6/11 -Note and file.
3) Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes, 6/3 Note and
file.
4) Public Safety Commission Minutes, 6/10 Note and file.
5) Award of Contract to L.A.- TEL.S.F. Bay Area to upgrade
Telephone Equipment
6) Memo Authorizing Publicity for Upcoming Hearings weed
and Brush Liens; Giberson Appeal
7)= City Financial Reports for June:
a) Treasurer's Report Receive and file.
b) Investment Report Receive and file.
c) Financial Report Receive and file.
City Council Agenda 3 July 17, 1996
8) Quarterly Quarry Creek Trust Report
8) Approval of Check Register
9) Resolution adjusting Budget to provide funds for
Reopening of Warner Hutton House
10) Rescheduling of Bid Opening Date for Award of
Construction Contract for Saratoga Ave. Traffic Signal,
CIP 9605, to July 23.
11) Ratification of Fee Schedule for Hakone Gardens
12) Resolution authorizing Submission of Applications for
TFCA 60o Funds
C. CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY None.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS None.
7. OLD BUSINESS
A
1 61
Recommendations from Community Recreatio and Parks Task
Force concerning Park Development Funds
lfi-� z 7
j'�a� 15 4 I
OaO A'V
S. NEW BUSINESS
A. Oral Communications (continued) and instructions to staff
regarding actions on current oral communications
City Council Agenda 4 July 17, 1996
B. Resolution calling special elections: Binkley Project and
Utility User Tax
Recommended Action: Adopt resolution.
4 &A
•t�. C. oold Sales Ordina�
Recommended Action: Introduce ordinance by title only,`
waiving reading in full.
B :So D. Resolution delegating authority to conduct business license
revocation hearings to the City Manager
Recom mended Action: Adopt resolution.
9. ROUTINE MATTERS (Note: City Attorney will be excused at this
point if no longer needed.)
.O C A. Approval of Minutes 6/29; 7/3; 7/5; 7/9
10. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS
os A. Agenda items for adjourned regular meeting August 13 No
a. items scheduled (joint meeting with Planning Commission
moved up to July 9)
B. Other
a ;'S 11. ADJOURNMENT to next meeting at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 23, at
Administration Meeting Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue.
/Z)
3S
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need
special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the
Building Maintenance Supervisor, Bob Rizzo, at 408/867 -3438.
Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make
reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. .[28
CFR 35.102- 35.104 ADA Title II]
I
A4A;;:. t., J)�^ 714-000
N
U44. �l
Ae /;IJ P
/C�4 Af
t&l
lv� ;�t 1 0, 4
m,,e4
Pfd s
4 Z-Z
.OP L-
r
1 Ply &ten. G 1o�.�na- r4�v oiab�waf
f4+, 4 as4rZ vtu aWA144- 4,e Gsw��o- spw.0 OW""
ice. A excal
AtZA... 400vuV 4U4:� J�� 7%0� 40Z
�or.,.�0o�i,�Pd fm aso fit v.�ur.
e 'rte
wow -SOO
.e�.
4VI 0 AJ
014,
Aea4�
u 5.,.,�- SkcuG e f�rudL,
d
�3�Jl�fla.:4� ,P.ncP� s� ane�`� "a` ✓S� eiue,.u.�
4 4z�lU4
40 �vtfmu�.c+d,�w
/dZ
mfik
I
ftw 3,
i
i
J
0'
Se�rlL�t `iu,�w✓�t aL��
1
u
04 'c��
Q��-` SAN c4�)J
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
MEETING DATE: JULY 17, 1996
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS
AGENDA ITEM
CITY MGR.:
I
mil/ �di
DEPT. HEAD:
SUBJECT: Community Recreation and Park Task Force Recommendations
on Park Development Fund.
Recommended Motion (s)
1. Accept the Community Recreation and Park Task Force Report
(attached).
2. Move to direct staff to develop Request For Proposals for
consultant services to develop a Feasibility Study and Master Plan
of the Civic Center Hub Project, and to develop a Master Plan for
the Azule and Kevin Moran Park Sites.
3. Move to direct staff to begin negotiations with interested
school districts for joint development of school sites.
Report Summary
The Community Recreation and Park Task Force was created at the
request of City Council following the July, 1995 Town Hall Meeting
which focused on park and recreational needs in Saratoga. The
mission of the Task Force was to make recommendations to the Park
and Recreation Commission and City Council regarding the
Community's recreation and park facility needs. The Task Force has
worked long and diligently toward that goal and they have held 23
meetings beginning in April, resulting in a very successful and
well attended public workshop on June 8, 1996. Approximately 70
people participated in the workshop process and assisted the Task
Force in the prioritization of the community recreational and park
facility needs. In addition, the Task Force received valuable
information and input from schools, sports organizations, the
City's Park and Trail Master Plan, past public hearings, staff
reports and comments from the general public.
The workshop was a very positive experience and the Task Force
stated to those who attended the workshop that they would maintain
momentum and make recommendations in a timely fashion to the Parks
and Recreation Commission. On July 8, 1996 the Task Force
presented their report to the Parks and :Recreation Commission which
was approved, with the recommendation to hire a consultant to
develop the master planning process for the Civic Center "hub"
concept and the Azule and Kevin Moran Park sites, and to start
negotiations with interested school districts to jointly develop
and maintain school district sites adjacent to proposed City park
sites via joint use agreements.
The Master Planning processes for both the Civic Center hub
project, Azule and Kevin Moran sites will include a needs
assessment study which will consist of an inventory and analysis of
what exists and a review of the needs and desires of the community.
The process will deal with how. -to accomplish thw_ goals and
objectives of the needs assessment which will result in a strategy
for developing, renovating and improving the Civic Center complex
and the park sites. These plans will develop an implementation
provision which identifies capital improvements, required
maintenance services, and capital funding requirements. Public
workshops and informational meetings will be held as often as
necessary at certain milestones in the overall planning process.
Fiscal Impacts
If approved, staff will establish a new Capital Project to program
the necessary funds to proceed with the Master Planning processes.
Upon selection of the consultants, the new Capital Project will be
programmed with funds from the Park Development fund to complete
the Master Plans.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Conta
Letters were sent to all workshop participants and residents from
City's mailing list notifying them of the July 8 Commission meeting
and the July 17 Council meeting.
Follow Up Actions
1. Staff will prepare separate RFP's for the Civic Center Hub and
Azule /Kevin Moran Master Plans.
2. Staff will proceed to negotiate joint use agreements with
interested school districts.
3. Staff will establish a new Capital. Project in the adopted FY
96 -97 budget.
Attachments
1. Community Recreation and Parks Task
2. Workshop Funding Priority List
3. Workshop Groups Memories
4. Workshop Information Packet
5. List of Workshop Participants
6. Notification of Meetings Letter to
7. Park Planning Parameters From City
S. Letters
Force Report
Residents
Council
TO: Parks and Recreation Commission July 8, 1996
FROM: Community Task Force
Parks and Recreation Development Fund
SUBJECT: Recommendation on Fund Usage
BACKGROUND:
In March, 1996, the Saratoga City Council requested that a Community Task Force be developed
in order to recommend what needs should be addressed by the Parks and Recreation
Development Fund. The task force was comprised of two Parks and Recreation Commissioners,
Jenny Crotty (Chair), and Kay Whitney; one Council Member, Gillian Moran; two community
members, Jack Mallory and Fran Franklin and one alternative member who served as secretary,
Monique Drumm. In addition, Rich Hughes was contracted by the City of Saratoga as a
consultant. OnJtme 8, 1996, approximately-10- members from the community attended a
workshop to help determine and prioritize the needs of the City. Based on the results of that
meeting, the Task Force makes the following recommendations.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
('o( ODO
1. Community Center Expansion ,000 for the initial phase
This expansion is based on a concept that there is a need to have a community hub which
would meet the needs of all the community and would include a variety of facilities.
a. Create a master plan, for a Community Center Hub
$100,000 to hire an architect/consultant to consider
A new or expanded Community Center and its location
Possible relocation of the corporation yard
Possibility of including an indoor sports center
Joint use /joint development of gym with Redwood School
Possibility of partnering with private organizations to develop joint use
agreement for facility use for Seniors
"Just- for Teens" facility
Method for funding the development or operation of this new facility
(tax/bond issue).
b.
($300
the Master Plan
2. The Community emphasized a strong interest in meeting the needs of youth. This
included a concern about teen programs, development of new fields and upgrade of
existing field usage at school sites. Although the workshop did not discuss location for
these recommendations, the task force looked at existing resources and is making the
following recommendation:
Playing fields for youth sports: 3 new and 4 renovated $1,000,000
a. Joint use playing fields at school sites $700,000
(There are i fields for possible renovation listed alphabetically) r
7
Argonaut School 1 renovated field multi-use
Blue Hills School 1 new, 1 renovated
Foothill School 2 renovated fields softball
Marshall Lane School 1 or more field multi-use
Saratoga School 1 renovated field multi-use
c6R01 Sc
b. Sports fields at City parks $300,000
This would expand the number of fields currently available
Azule Park 1 2 new fields multi-use
C. Teen programs and needs were strongly emphasized by the Workshop. The City
should continue to make the Warner Hutton House available for teen programs
and find a way to fund low cost activities for teens.
3. Improvements to existing parks $469;660 0 01
Because of possible development of sports fields at Blue Hills and Azule, special
considerations should be given to those areas.
a. Azule Park (undeveloped)
Trees, picnic tables, BBQ
playground area, paths
Landscaped, off street parking area
b. Kevin Moran Park
Trees and benches
Picnic benches, BBQ
Playground equipment for older children
Community garden or garden plots
Landscaped off Street parking area
(to support both Kevin Moran and Azule users)
C. Gardiner Park
New Playground equipment
d. Hakone Garden
Replace hand rails if existing are unsafe
,k e Idc.e res-tro�rns
4. Reserve Fund --$200 400 t O':�'
a. Use to complete projects 1 through 3 above (if under- funded)
b. Create a long term plan for developing and funding parks, recreation areas, trails
and open space.
Park and open space acquisition e.g. Mountain Winery, school sites, etc.
Trail improvements.
RECREATION AND PARKS TASK FORCE
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP JUNE 8, 1996
Group Funding Priority List
11
1.
Community Center Renovation /Expansion
$21.0
million
2.
Play Fie.1d Improvements (At_�xisting
School "Sites)
19
million
3.
Development of Multi -Use Sports Fields
12.6
million
4.
Teen Facilities
11.6
million
5.
Land and Park Acquisition
11.1
million.
6.
Park Improvement in Existing Sites
10.3
million
7.
Trail Improvements
9.3
million
8.
Indoor Sports and Activity Center
7.3
million
9.
Community Gardens
3.4
million
10.
Development of a Large Community Park
2.3
million
11.
Hakone Gardens Improvements
2.2
million
12.
Swimming Pool (Outdoor Facility)
1.8
million
13.
Construction of a Dog Run in a Park
1.4
million
69 People participated in this workshop
Parks Task Force
Demand Recreation programs
School Enrollment
Organized Youth Sports
Adult Organized sports
Wait list Community Gardens
Special Teen Needs
Active Pet Groups.
Traffic
Budgets
PURPLF- GouP
Need to spend money on existing park sites to enhance neighborhoods and improve family image
of Saratoga.
"G" meets the broader needs of the community. #1.
Schools have the land, but no money to make improvements. Schools want/need improvements.
School sites work best because they already exist and can accommodate traffic, put
restrooms/snack shacks on City property, parking, etc.
Community Center is in bad shape. Needs more space for programs. Losing participants to other
program providers. Return on investment.
Need to reopen Warner Hutton House as teen center. Interior needs renovation (attic). Exterior
not conducive to teens. Popularity dwindled when user fees charged. Teens can do fundraising/
get donations. Concerns about cost to operate and care of facility by the teens.
Teen Center needs to be separate "hang out Not connected to other City facility.
Acquire the Spaich property. Locate new Library on site.
School sites give most bang for the buck. Can also accommodate facilities for adults. Property
values reflect Saratoga Schools.
City needs bike paths/trails that are safe for school kids. Reduces traffic at schools.
Community needs a "hub" where the Community can gather and get to know one another.
Community Center is not adequate. Consider relocation of Maintenance Yards to expand Civic
Center.
Increase usage potential of park and school sites by adding lights.
Kevin Moran Park not suitable for "A" due to size, location, etc. School fields are already used to
capacity.
West Valley College is at capacity from 7:30 -12:00 noon, vacant from Noon 6:00. Look at
scheduling to provide additional classroom and facility space for schools and City recreation
programs. Develop joint use agreements.
Expand Community Center to encompass "A "B "J" and "M Keep orchard.
"C" Playground Equipment
Community Gardens
Locate dog run near school and park sites and trails. Would free up time spent by existing
Maintenance Staff.
Expand Community Center by going
Who will maintain improvements at school site? Schools don't have resources.
Teen facility at West Valley College? Open up Attic space at Warner Hutton House for study.
Community Gardens on school property.
Swimming pool aet a major focus.
Consider disposal of certain park sites to acquire better sites.
Lobby to change laws on how money can be spent. "O" "M"
Rc� GRou P
Conscious Conunitment from City Group conscience.
11
Quimby Act Allows cities to charge developer according to formula limits parks/recreation
facilities.
Joint use with West Valley possible? Is possible per Harry.
Park Master Plan can update per Harry.
How many acres is a large park? Wildwood is not big enough 4.5 acres. Need 10± acres.
Cost of field development gone up?
eens
No place to go, hang out
Need place to go.
Police problem hanging out
Library disruption
Is Warner Hutton House neat? Yes.
Club fee stopped attendance.
Plans for fundraising.
Merchant involvement with fund raising.
Warner Hutton House only house with couches.
With landscaping, now multi-use.
May need new spacelexpansion.
Yard expansion.
Bands in Warner Hutton House free, popular
Warner Hutton House keep historical.
Community. Center maxed out.
Air inadequate.
Interruptions.
Need for exercise of this kind (aerobics)
Hard floor
Locker showers
Sitting/Need space for babies/kids.
Now not built for current uses.
Work with schools, maximize use.
Improve
City participation in Maintenance
More cost efficient
Increase City role
Cannot mix middle school with high school.
Need separate area/time
Saratoga High School joint use
Wildwood under -used interest, Gardner, too
Market what we have
Acquisition cost prohibition
Land trade?
Separate ages and activities.
Seniors have needs but youth does too.
Trail improve, yes. Tennis, too.
City outreach, joint use of facilities.
extends available resources
Have we seen Los Gatos teen center?
Travel to and from difficult.
Excellent center.
Good opportunity
Good level of participation in sports.
Foothill, outhouse needs improvement (whole facility)
Congress Springs fabulous.
Can combine "B" "D basketball, multi -use, expansion/build new
Normal cost, fabulous. addition
How much space available?
Cannot go into parking
Heritage Orchard no way
Can go into City Corp Yard (will have to be moved)
Can go into grounds to fence (back)
Double decker parking lots
Parking and expansion go together. Back side of orchard OK?,
Argonaut School softball field needs development.
Integrate teens into- Community.
Trails would like to walk to town.
Saratoga Avenue obstructs
San Jose has best community trails.
Creek trails OK but be careful of animal population/CCO sys.
Not develop whole creek (Saratoga Creek)
Lease with West Valley outdoor.
Maintenance Community Service to Maintenance
Save expenses
exercise and affordable
Youth Sports
Wonderful way to challenge youth
Cupertino anxious to cooperate
Blue Hills not adequate now
Can expand
Angry, frustrated with City
City needs to step forward to support schools with joint use.
City lacks parks with same quality as schools which whole City uses.
City does not support schools with money.
Benefits more than school kids.
School volunteers have been sidetracked.
State funds only maintain salaries.
Has seen this type of workshop fail in past
Need conscious commitment
1
We are maxed out sports fields
Neighbor of Azule
traffic, freeway
day care safety
aware of kids needs, but balance with neighbors
Joint park space with schools
Gym at Redwood, expansion
Kevin Moran inadequate for major sports complex
Poor access, parking
Minor practice OK
Overcrossing used by school.
Park development traffic will affect safety of students.. Increased traffic affects student safety.
88 -95 teams will sue field 8:00 AM 5PM
Collaborate -with bus
6 months of use 1/2 kids in Saratoga use
AYSO closed turned away kids
Need kids input of activities
Trails/Traffic /Connect/ECO
Ue CRot,t P
Hakone handrails
Road conditions
Bathrooms ADA compliance
Shared use of undeveloped acreage
Teen facilities
Improvements to existing structure
Return to drop in program
2nd Floor study area
Large enough for numbers?
Heritage orchard possibility?
Park Improvements
Heritage Orchard development for many needs/mixed use
Strong opposition will arise
Maintain visual open space
Maintains historical link
Land Acquisition
Loss of land for public
Stop losing
Saratoga has lowest percent of land per resident. 90 .acres for City is minimum needed.
Not currently there.
Immediate need now is the time to buy before gone
Identify all open land. School/parks/churches
Information in open space task force
Catalog all space/acreage and use possibilities
Year 2000 projection
1600 soccer youth players
out of fields today
AYSO is adapting games to require less space than traditional fields
AYSO creating matching funds program
Use matching funds for Maintenance
Use State funds for acquisition
Schools have 29 acres_to be used cooperatively
Need to keep balance os sports and arts
Multi- functional outside areas, i.e., band still at playing field
West Valley College has undeveloped outdoor areas
May not have to buy if all land is used more efficiently and cooperatively
Baseball fields area also currently maxed out. No new age groups can be added.
General Comment
Need Community partnership for sports, youth,.-teens,- arts,. etc.
West Valley College building relationship
Community usage
High school usage
Condition of facilities
Sizes
TASK FORCE
Master scheduling of all facilities
City
School
College
Maintenance
Arts Complex Task Force
Practice Rooms, performance space
Teens have nothing currently
Before creating anything, must have something
Teens have been consistently neglected past history over 25 years give then take away
Reopen House now
Free
Under 4 age facilities are very poor.
1 -2 sites like Vasona. Expanded play structures the correct size for preschool and younger
Use school sites add play equipment for younger
Master Youth Plan Needed.
Indoor facility similar to Fisher Middle School
Develop ways to fund teens.
Trail improvements
50+ residents
Walking, biking, etc. Need comfortable space not endangering younger people
All sites need to have small community gardens.
Multi use for different ages and interests
Communities with developed trails have stronger senses of community and extensive use.
Fund it/Do it regardless of small interest groups
Other Issues
Possible purchase of Paul Masson site
Possible purchase of school sites on other one -time opportunities.
Raising public funds through bonds/taxes to fund recreational/park needs.
Virtual Park Web site.
Renovate Warner Hutton House
Saratoga Creek Trail
Skateboard Ramp
Serene site
Library
Nelson Gardens
Re: Market it. Learn from your failures with an eye toward the future.
How to get to yes.
Sum
Community task forces for partnership
Spirit of cooperation
Sports, art, etc.
Land usage on current facilities
Do what's right for the greater community.
Do something for teens now.
Balanced look at City to include diversity.
�i_uE� GF, 0 U v( TIE
To 4 ori_ties
Land Acquisition 1
Teen Facilities C 3 ?J
Development of Multi-use
Play Field Improvements G 2. 3)
6
Warner Hutton House regarded now asDay Care Center
Teen Center at 8
Needs to be a Teen Center
Re -open and expand
Should be free
Schools:
Fields improved. Winter becomes swamp. Improve so AYSO, Little League, neighbors,
etc. can use.
Land is already there.
Enrollme is increasing.
Buying Property is prohibitive
Combine forces
Open school libraries to public
Use facilities outside City Boundaries
Cooperate with West Valley College
Parks need improvement.
Safety of structures is an issue.
Kevin Moran Park can be developed into a "good neighborhood" park.
Use as playing fields.
We are a poor City. Everything is dollars. Utilize schools in cooperative effort.
Purchasing property should be a highest priority. Once developed, it's gone. Buy land. Adding
park.land is a bond issue. Money should go on things on board.
Schools are mandated to improve playground equipment.
Hakone has no phone
Volunteers have no uniform
Soccer fields are low maintenance once they are put in.
Community Center is well used and needs expansion.
No need for dog run
85 Corridor was lost to people who walk their dogs. Schools have problems with dog poop.
Lawn bowling
There are a lot of pools in area. Waste of money and space.
Want more City employees.
Too marry layoffs.
More money for Hakone Gardens
Rollerblading is very popular. Concrete is best surface. Can be incorporated into a site.
Don't see a need for development of large community park.
Combine ideas that are inter related.
Community Garden was used as an Education Garden. Need Community Garden.
Need storage space at Community Center Mediation Garden
Need day care space -for class participants
Need more outdoor space
Basketball teams need indoor space.
Seniors need indoor space.
Kids need outdoor space.
Would a bond issue pass?
Get free restrooms from French Co. which gave SF street bathrooms.
Use KSAR Bulletin Board for Parks/Recreation information.
Give college credit to develop /maintain
Collaboration with schools
Land acquisitions best handled by bond issues
Playing on practice fields
GR-e�
Pools
Midwest meeting place
Used by all
Great.exercise
Access to other pools
Teens
City layout /non- integrated
Demographics
Politics /NIMBY
Land available
Center of City is Recreation Center
Focus efforts here
Elderly
Teens, etc.
West Valley Pool?
#1 issue: where
Heritage Orchard
Purpose is for heritage only
Use for Central Development
Hakone Adios!
Need 10 acres minimum
Virtual Site to Provid p RPtr, GE
Complete and current info i.e. availability, events,
trail maps.
Communication device to access, use by staff
Include video, etc.
Safety
Play equipment
Lights
Drive to Hakone
Trail Improvements:
Jogging
Trail corridor along creek
Children's daycare at Community Center to be used
(1 -2 rooms) as babysitting space.
Address needs of non English speaking
Secure, safe restrooms
Stadium -type seating /bleachers
Trail Improvements, cont'd.
Toddler equipment /age
Bike trails off street (streets too dangerous)
Duel Use: Families and Community:
Kindergarten playground unsafe at Argonaut
Add par course for kids and adults
Indoor Sports:
Multi -use collaborators
School and City-
Community Center
Bond performing arts
Redwood gym, stage, (shouldn't close at 3:00)
10 year plan
Dec. Schools, City
Teens, i.e. Skateboard
Insurance Issue collaborative
Comprehensive programs
Let teens plan it
Dog run
Recreate outside Preserve Open Space
Garden
Park Improvement i.e. Kevin Moran Community Garden
J.V.
Include visibility and access
Private schools collaboration
Emphasis on playing fields
School sites should be used as adult education centers
Void in Teen Programs
Connections w /outdoors vs. indoors (TV)
"Virtual Site" Central Clearing House
Cameras necessary
Maps
Communication in general
Printed Materials
Brochures, maps, newspapers
Redwood Site:
Basketball, badminton, volleyball, board, ping pong,
billiards Teens, Srs., Education
L/P Acquisition:
Other cities have more
Ours is inferior
No tax base, land expensive
Congress Springs not that nice (no trees, dusty) on a
main street, so won't impact neighborhoods.
Trails
Safety feed into Redwood
Traffic Corridor: Redwood, 85, W. Valley
Lights, signs
Violations
Get kids to school thru existing neighborhoods
Railroad tracks are a danger to kids
Aesthetic improvement flowers, trees
R 9 T
O
1 et 6
Q'
9 L1 FOO R��
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ann Mane Burger
Paul E. Jacobs
GiPlan Moran
haven Tucker
Donald L. Wolfe
Community Recreation and Park Task Force
Information Packet
Printed on recycled paper.
Parks Recreation Community Task Force
Mission Statement
April 25, 1996
The Parks Recreation Community Task Force will provide
recommendations to the Saratoga Parks Recreation Commission, and to
the Saratoga City Council regarding the community's recreational and
park /facility needs, now and in the future.
These recommendations shall be based on community input gathered
from a wide variety of interested community members, along with current
and projected demographics, the Parks Trails Master Plan, while
considering information gathered by the Task Force members and the City
staff.
These tasks are to be completed by the end of July 1996, at which date
this Task Force will be dissolved.
Desired Needs List
A. Development of Multi -Use Sports Fields
Soccer, baseball softball on a 4 acre
site.
B. Indoor Sports Activity Center
C. Park Improvements in existing sites
Expand and improve playground equipment.
D. Community Center RenovatidhX?.xpansion
To enlarge the existing facility to meet
increasing recreational needs.
E. Hakone Gardens Improvements
Improvements to entrance and roadway,
handrail system and restroom improvements.
700,000
1,000,000
100,000
70 0 0 000
500,000
F. Swimming pool (outdoor facility)
G. Play field improvements to mulit- purpose fields
at existing School sites.
H. Community Gardens
I. Trail Improvements
Trails designed to interconnect the
neighborhoods, school sites, parks
and public open space.
J. Development of a Large Community Park
Designed to handle large community events.
K. Construction of a dog run in a park
500,000
175,000 p \acre
50,000
1,000,000
175,000 (per acre)
15,000
i
CITY OF SARATOGA
Projected Growth 1995 2015
The population of the City as estimated by the State of California and the
Association of Bay Area Governments will grow by 1% with construction of new
dwellings and the increases in school age population currently being experienced
by- the school districts which service t4e._City.
Persons Per Household: 1995 2000
2.85 2.88
2015
2.76
Saratoga Union School District
Enrollment number for K through 8th
1991 1992 1993
1,698
1,772
1,818
1994
1,939
1997 through 1998 projected to be at a 5A growth rate.
-0.09
1995
2,063
1996
(projected)
2,200
OUTDOOR FACILITIES
YOUTH SPORTS
Organization I of Facilities currently Proiected need
participants usin
AYSO Soccer
Fall 1995 1030 5 Congress Springs Projected Player
2 Redwood Middle increase to 1584
practice Only by year 2000
1 Redwood Middle lower additional 4
2k -A gonaut School fields
1'h Saratoga School
2 Foothill School
1 Kevin Moran
Spring 1996 140 Currently using 2 game Projected players
fields and 3 practice 1020 by year 2000
f ields game fields 7
practice 18
Little League 600+ Congress Springs Park Little League
(5 -12 yr old) Little League -4 fields Additional 3
Pony League Pony League -1 field fields
(13 -15 yr old)
Little Leagues cannot increase their program due to lack of fields.
Los Gatos /Saratoga 450 Foothill School -3 fields Renovation of
Girls Softball Argonaut School -1 field fields at
Association Redwood Middle -1 field Foothill and
Saratoga High -1 field Argonaut Schools
Adult Sports
Recreation Dept. 380 E1 Quito Park -1 field 3 fields
Softball West Valley -1 field
5
INDOOR FACILITIES
YOUTH SPORTS
Organization of Facilities currently
participants usin
Projected need
National Junior Basketball
Boys /Girls 200. Saratoga High -2 courts Additional indoor
3rd thru 8th grade (Sundays only) facility
Redwood Middle -1 court
practise only
NJB cannot expand program to include 9th through 12th grades due to lack of a
facility
Recreation Departmen
Youth Basketball 250 Saratoga High -2 courts Additional indoor
Program (Saturday only) facility
3rd thru 8th grade
Program Redwood Middle -1 court
This program on several occasions has been bumped due to School Activities
scheduled at these facilities.
Adult Sports
Recreation Department
Men's over 35 192
Men's over 45 256
West Valley College
Redwood Middle School
Women's Basketball 66+ Redwood Middle School A d d i t i o n a l
facility to be
used year around
for this program
These programs on several occasions have been bumped due to School Activi }tes
scheduled at these facilities
Community Center Facility
This facility was constructed in 1967 as a Youth Center
through a major volunteer effort. The Senior Wing was added in 1981
and the lobby area was remodeled in 1991. Currently, the Recreation
Department offers approximately 550 classes each year in the
Community Center along with the.. Community Center renta.1s..:equates to
approximately 20,000 participants per year.
The projected need for this facility would be to renovate and
expand the Community Center to meet increasing demand for
additional recreational programming and to expand the rental
program.
CITY OF SARATOGA PARKS
PARKS DEVELOPED
1. Beauchamps Park
2. Brookglen Park
3. Central Park (Hertiage Orchard)
4. Congress Spring Park
5. E1 Quito Park
6. Foothill Park
7. Gardiner Park
S. Hakone Gardens 9.5 acres undeveloped
9. Historial Park
10. Kevin Moran Park 4.0 acres undeveloped
11. Ravenwood Park
12. Wildwood Park
Total Developed Parks
UNDEVELOPED PARK'SITES
1. Azule Park
2. Pollard is Quito Rd.
3. San Marcos Wilderness
Total Undeveloped Parks
Total Acres
ACRES
2.2
.7
14.
9.97
6.3
.8
1.2
15.5
1.0
10.3
.65
4.L2
66.62
4.3
.5
10.0
14.8
81.42
Inventory of School District Playfield Sites
Saratoga Union School District
Redwood Middle School
5.6 acres
Foothill School
2.4 acres
Argonaut School
2.3 acres
Saratoga School
3.1 acres
Cupertino Union School District
Blue Hills School 4.6 acres
Christa McCuliffe 2.3 acres
Campbell Union School District
Marshall Lane School 9.0 acres
summary of City /School Recreational Facilities
M
Softbl Bsktbl
Tenis
Socer
stRm
Vbl
Bbl
P1
Argonaut School
1
2 4
2
1
Beauchamps Park
1/2
1
2
Blue Hills Elem.Sch
1
1
1
1
1
Brookglen Park
1/2
1
Central Park
Christa McAuliffe Sch
1
Congress Springs Park
1
2
5
1
5
2
E1 Quito Park
1
1
1
1
Foothill Park
Foothill School
1
3
2.5
1
1
Gardiner Park
2
Historical Park
Kevin Moran Park
2
Marshall Lane
4
1
1
2
Prospect High Schl
2
1
4
6
1
1
Quito /Pollard
Ravenwood Park
1
Redwood Middle Sch
1
1
12
3
Sacred Heart Schoo
4
1
2
Saratoga High School 2
1
8
8
2
1
Saratoga School
1
2
1
St. Andrews
1
1
6
1
1
3
West Valley College
1
2
4
1.6
3
1
1
1
Wildwood Park
F
1
.2
Key; MP Multipurpose Rm /Gym
Softbl Softball field
Bsktbl Basketball court /outdoor
Tenis Tennis court
Socer Soccer field /multipurpose field
RstRm Restrooms
Vbl Volleyball court
Bbl Baseball field
P1 Play structures
FACILITATOR: Mary Lynn Bernald
RECORDER: Monique Drumm
Chuck Corr
Jerry Daniel
Anthony Hoffman
Sally Johnson
Carolyn King
Mark Linsky
Brian Luskey
Gary Pastre
Roma Rieker
Elaine Roth
Stephanie Weidert
Bill Weller
FACILITATOR: John Mallory
RECORDER: Barbara Dutra
Al Abshire
Marcia Block
Laurel Euler
Pam Hoffman
Wayne Kao
R.G. Lawson
Debbie Lilb
Sofia Poullada
Cindy Ruby
Beth Wyman
Christine Gulrich
FACILITATOR: Kay Whitney
RE CORDER: Larry Perlin
Sarah Adolphson
Steve Benzing
Christy Coleman
Frank Dutro
Tom Green
Gary Lord
Catherine Quinonez
Robert Strayer
Venise Taaffe
Barbara Takahashi
Sally Towse
FACILITATOR: Kathy Weiner
RECORDER: Beverly Tucker
Gladys Armstrong
Connie Birdsall
Mary Gardner
Laurie Girand
Patricia Ann Johnstone
Sandy Lewis
Sally McElrovey
Dave Mount
Dick Peterson
Greig Rose
Jim Shaw
Rosanne Wydeczak
FACILITATOR: Jenny Crotty
RECORDER: John Clark
Ron Adolphson
Angel Cheng
Barbara D'Angelo
C. Holly Davies
Judy Jimenez
Pam Kenady
Anne Kolb
Dave Lazares
Craig Northrup
Brian Robertson
Steve Yuen
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
June 27, 1996
Ann Mane Burger
Paur c. Jacobs
&'iian Moran
haren Tucxer
Darz.;:a L. WoMe
Dear Resident
You are invited to a July Sth meeting in the Senior Day Care Center
of the Community Center. At 7:30 p.m., the Community Recreation
and Parks Task Force will present its recommendations to the Parks
and Recreation Commission.
Many of you who receive this letter participated in the June 8th
workshop which prioritized the parks and recreation needs for the
community. We very much appreciate your help; your ideas were
important in our deliberations.
The Task Force is now completing its report. Using the prioritized
results of the workshop, we are taking it one step further by
recommending locations based on available resources in the
community. In addition, we have reviewed the current Master Plan
and have given full consideration to letters from residents and
staff reports.
Another meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, July 17. At that time,
the Parks and Recreation Commission will present its recommendation
to the City Council. Community input is welcome at all meetings.
Again, we thank you for your ideas, support, and your commitment to
the Saratoga community. If you have any questions, please feel
free to contact Joan Pisani or Bob Rizzo at 867 -3438.
Sincerely,
The Community Recreation and Park Task Force
MEMORANDUM
TO: PARRS AND RECRgATION COIMSSION
FROM: CITY 1GMQER
SUBJECT: PARK PLANNING PAR2 gTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL
I am transmitting to you the twelve general parameters discussed
and agreed upon by the Council at its meeting on January 23rd for
your review on February 5th and for discussion with the Council on
February 27th.
1. Improvements to the park and recreation facilities system of
the City should allow the system to meet the needs of the overall
community and, to the extend possible, provide improvements which
make facilities convenient for as many different types of users as
possible.
2. Planning for improvements should assume that there is a
greater need for more active use facilities.
3. When considering the need for improvements, all city
facilities should be considered including parks, the Community
Center, the Warner Hutton House, and Hakone Gardens to the extent
that improvements for the latter help assure the successful
operation of the Gardens by the Hakone Foundation.
4. Recreation facilities and parks needs should be addressed
.within the current inventory of land devoted to or potentially
available for -such use i.e., city parks, city owned buildings,
and public schools.
5. Use and improvement of school facilities should be a vital
part of the overall planning effort and should be done with maximum
involvement from the schools themselves. Specific proposals to
consider should include:
a. Redevelopment of the Saratoga School field area for better
sports and /or community use in exchange for the school
allowing improved parking on the site which could be used
by the business community.
b. Redevelop the Foothill School field area with Foothill Park
into an integrated facility.
c., Improve and develop facilities for community use at
Saratoga High School.
d. Develop new practice sports .fields at all public school
sites using the following guidelines:
1. One soccer field and baseball field at each
school.
2. City would build or renovate as needed.
3. Fields would be available to City /Leagues during
non school hours.
4. Joint use agreements to be executed before City
starts work.
5. City would maintain 'fields built or renovated,
schools would maintain playground areas.
6. Schools would have to agree to help financially
with maintenance of new or renovated
facilities.
7. Congress Springs Park would be reserved primarily
for league play not practice.
6. In making recommendations for improvements, how they would be
financed should not be a constraint on the mwmmendations,
however, recommendations should include not only the estimated cost
of the improvement but the cost of maintaining the improvement as
well. If certain improvements would reduce current costs that
information should also be included.
7. The design of proposed improvements should be developed with
neighborhood input.
8. Proposals for improvements should be based upon a demonstrated
community need over the long term and prioritized based upon degree.
of immediate need, ease of implementation, and /or cost. Avoid
making proposals for improvements which may be merely a current
fad.
9. In proposing improvements at parks the following
criteria should be considered:
a. the improvement should add beauty to the area.
b. improvements should emphasize use by the school
age population through high school but also
provide improvements which would encourage use
by older users as well.
c. proposed improvements should be limited to those
which would allow daylight hours use of parks
only.
d. proposals for intensive use improvements should
include major buffers placed between the use
and neighboring residences.
e. the parking needs of users who don't walk to
parks should be anticipated.
10. Improvements to trails which will improve stability and reduce
the need for long term maintenance should also be considered in
recommendations for improvements.
11. Attention should be paid to improving access to Wildwood Park
from the downtown area and to improvements, either on site or off
site, which would encourage the community to make better use of the
park.
12. A proposal should be made as to how to develop either a park
or a school site as a location where major community events can be
held.
CC:City Council
To: Editor, Saratoga News
cc: City Council
From: Jack Mallory, Saratoga Resident
Subj: Community works with Parks and Recreation Commission to make
recommendations and move forward
Date: July 9, 1996
Several moms ago I was invited by the Pairks and Recreation Commission to
participate on a task force. The main objective was to organize a community
workshop that would allow Saratoga residents to join together to provide input on
how the limited amount of Park Funds would be spent and make a recommendation
to the Parks and Recreation Commission. We held twenty three meetings over three
months to achieve our objective! I am happy to say that it was worth the effort.
As a former City Council member and follower of the Saratoga political scene, I was
skeptical that we would achieve our objective and come to a reasonable concensus.
So when 70 positive Saratogans came together on June 8 for the Community
Recreation and Park Workshop, I was very pleased. Residents came from many
different interests, varied backgrounds, and in many cases, with specific agendas.
They came, they talked to each, they listened and participated in a group process to
prioritize our Parks and Recreation community needs. I was impressed that citizens
were enlightened regarding the needs of others and the greater community. This
was a great example of a commission and task force that truly wanted and got
community involvement to -make tough decisions. From the workshop, we learned
that our community highly values recreation programs and facilities for our children,
playfield partnerships with schools, and land acquisition as required.
Monday night, July 8, the Parks and Recreation Commission voted unanimously to
accept the recommendations of the task force and send them to the City Council for
their approval. These recommendations closely mirrored the community workshop
input. We hope the City Council will move quickly on the recommendations as the
Parks and Recreation funds, although very limited, are available and the children
need the facilities now not in five years.
After the City Council acts on these recommendations, the next step will be for the
Parks and Recreation Commission and staff to work with neighborhoods, school
districts, sports leagues, teens, and others involved in parks and recreation to help
in the detailed planning phase. Let's keep moving forward with positive, healthy
programs for our young children, teens, and yes, ourselves.
Jack Mallory
Task Force Member
30 year Saratoga resident
May 18, 1996
The Community Recreation and Park Task Force
City of Saratoga
Fruitvale Avenue
Dear Committee members:
The Hakooundati on is very pleased to acceptyour invitation to participate in the Community
Recreation and Pdr7r Task Force. In response to this invitation we would like to call to the Task Force members'
attention the following major needs at Hakone Gardens. These needs are discussed in order of priority as
determined by the Board of Trustees. The Hakone Foundation's representative to the Task Force, Gladys
Armstrong will address these issues and answer questions you may have concerning Hakone Gardens.
1. ENTRANCE ROAD EVEMOVEMENTS.
It has long been the priority to seek improved access to Hakone Gardens both for safety reasons and to
enable the access of larger tour buses. Frequent inquiries from tour organizations require warnings about
Hakone's steep access road with narrow turns which cannot easily accommodate large buses. This deters group
access as well as the accompanying revenue. Another factor is the access at the base of the hill, which is difficult
and somewhat dangerous, especially on days of high traffic. Access coming from the uphill direction is also very
difficult because of the very sharp turn that is necessary. In addition, some major repairs, including retaining
walls, will soon be needed
In the past the City budget has included $50,000 for the initial phase of this improvement project. We
request that, at least, this funding be returned to the budget and that plans be initiated to fund these necessary
improvements.
2. HAND RAIL REPLACEMENT.
For safety and aesthetic reasons the handrails, particularly in the steeper portions of the gardens, need to
be replaced. The "peeler-pole" handrails currently in Hakone, although fine for a wilderness park, are too large
and bulky for the delicate environment of a Japanese Garden. They are also badly in need of repair. Several
railings are missing (a liability problem?) and support poles are leaning downhill. We recommend replacement of
these peeler poles with a steel post/rail system of handrails which will be safer, more durable and have less visual
impact on the garden. Es_unatd costs for materials and installation of this railing along the upper paths and at
some of the steps is $8000- 12,000.
3. RESTROOM FACH ITIES.
The current facilities are old, shabby, and smelly. More important, the facilities do not meet the
requirements of the "ADA" for the disabled Future funding for this upgrade must be considered for this City of
Saratoga public garden. Since it probably is not possible to simply "fix" this problem it is necessary to plan for a
future expenditure of an estimated $100,000 for improved restroom facilitates at Hakone Garden.
(Continue)
Post Office Box 2324, Saratoga, California 95070 0324 408/741 -4994
Hakone Foundation
The Hakone Foundation continues to succesdully manage the rental program, parking fee collection and
Gift Shop at Hakone Gardens, as well as carry out cultural exchange and art programs. Funds earned from these
endeavors provide the means for the Hakone Foundation to continue to meet its commitment to the City of
Saratoga to repay the loan for the completion of the the Cultural Exchange Centel.
Also working actively in support of gardens, the Garden Committee of the Hakone Foundation meets
regularly with the Parka Superintendent and staff of Hakone Gardens in order to implemen need repairs and
upgrades. Bruce ftkinson is the Chair of this Committee as well as the volunteer who canes for the Bamboo
Garden. For your information, we have included some of the accomplishments of this past year. Unfortunately,
the above listed major projects are expenditures that the Hakone Foundation is not in a position to implement at
this time.
1995 -6 EMPROVEMENT_PROJECTS ACCO— NOMISHED OR IN PROGRESS
1. PERFORMANCE PLATFORM constructed between the main buildings. (HF, funds and contractor)
2. BRIDE'S DRESSING ROOM refurbishing and decorating. (HFjiwds and volunteers)
3. FENCE REPAIR of deer exclusion fencing and replacement of bamboo garden fencing (BF volunteers.)
4. EfrERLOC ING PAVING STONE PATIO outside Bride's Dressing Room. (HFfrnids and volunteers)
S. BOOK SHELVES AND CATALOGUING of Foundation's library collection. (BFf oafs and volunteers)
6. NEW TELEPHONE answering system. (HFfurds)
7. WEDDING BROCHURE design, printing and distribution of Wedding Brochure. (HFfundr.)
S. GATE BROCHURE. Revision and reprinting. (HF)unds volunteers)
9. CHAIR STORAGE HANGERS installed in storage shed (HFjiands volunteers)
10 REPLACEMENT OF STEPS to the Upper House. (Eagle Scout project)
11. LANDSCAPING completed on new pond filter mound (HF volunteers
12 TRAIL REPAIR an Wilderness trail. (Scout project)
13 BENCH CONSTRUCTION in Docent waiting area (RFfunds Scout project.)
14. NEW ENTRY SIGN. (HFf i nds Rotary Club project.)
15. GIFT SHOP continued upgrading and maintenance of facilities. (HFfutds and volunteers)
16. LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS added lights in the CEC to accommodate business meetings. (HF funds)
Sincerely,
Kay Duffy, President
Post Office Box 2314, Saratoga. Califomia 95070 -0324 408/741 -4994
Hakone Foundation
il
t
SflflMBfl NOR SCHOOL OISMICT
20460 FORREST HILLS DRIVE
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3424
November 30, 1995
Harry Peacock, City Manager
Saratoga City Offices
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Y
Dear Harry,
D rte`' ri
c r n E
CITY OF SARNFOiJ:6
CITY 144- NAGk:!! &S OFFICE
I understand the Parks Recreation Commission and the City
of Saratoga are contemplating a task force to review use of
the community's parks and recreation needs.
Saratoga Union School District is interested in joining the
task force, based on the fact that our clients are the same
and because a joint effort appears to be the most practical
way to make use of fields.and grounds.
I will call you about the possibility of a representative
from the District joining the task force. I look forward to
talking with you.
Sincerely,
Mary G er, Superintendent
MG /bm
SflRMBfl Un10fl SCHOOL DISTRICT
20460 FORREST HILLS DRIVE
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3424
Mary Ann Swan
Parks and Recreation Commission
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mary Ann,
We have been delighted to think of the following ways to use the $1.000.000 funds available for
field and park improvements for the Saratoga community. Our dreams includ
JLe
i0 ro 17 M1
Argonaut S c h oo l
Enhance par course
Gardens
Picnic table area with landscaping
Foothill School
Drains for fields
Trike path
Foothill Park
Fences
Preschool play area
Bleachers
Gardens
Enhance par course
Redwood School
Portable bleachers
Enhance par course
Expansion of amphitheater
Covered picnic area
Saratoga School
Level fields
Par course
Drains for fields
Gardens
Develop a small outdoor theater if field is drained
Community
Swimming Pool
Indoor Sports Center
Sand Volleyball Court
Gardens
Elevated Tennis Courts
Dog run (away from schools)
Of course, we understand that not all projects can be completed. Priorities and details
regarding specific improvements and plans can be provided as needed. We would be willing
to look at any of our property for possible space. We look forward to working with you in
this endeavor.
Sincerely,
Mary G do
Superintendent
March 20,1996
Dear Saratoga City Council Member,
A
l'
I am writing on behalf of many members of the Blue Hills Elementary community
who would urge you to consider entering into a partnership with the Cupertino Union
School District to upgrade the playing field at Blue Hills School.
CUSD is currently drawing up the plans for facility improvement at Blue Hills.
They have expressed interest in working with you to improve the field area as part of the
remodel. Since you are in the process of determining the best sights to add badly needed
playing fields in Saratoga, this would be the perfect time to arrange such a partnership.
The -'aEd at Blue Hills School is used3aity during the school year: Z,uirently, we
do not have a safe long- distance running surface for the children, and the field is pothole
laden. CYSA, AYSO, Blue Hills Bobby Sox, and Little League clubs are always looking
for safe places to hold practices and games in our area, but consistently express concern
about the condition of our field. Our community children are very involved in these sports
clubs, and Blue Hills families appear to be very supportive of upgrading Blue Hills to be
able to better serve the children. Community runners would be delighted to have a track
strip available to them to use on weekends and in the evening.
It is my understanding that there has been mixed community input regarding the use
of Azule Park as an additional playing field. While I would hope that you would look at
the expansion of Blue Hills field into the park as one option, I would also hope that you
would consider upgrading the Blue Hills field regardless. With or without Azule, there
should be room to run a single -lane track around the field, place a baseball diamond in one
corner, and still have enough area to keep groomed as a soccer field. What an asset to our
community such a schoolyard would be!
Thank you for your timely consideration.
Sincerely,
0'"
Debbie Lillo
12054 Kristy Lane
Saratoga, Ca 95070
252 -4160
l'
r
12308 Walden Court
Saratoga, CA 95070
6/8/96
The Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
c-
i
On June 8, 1996, I attended the Saratoga Parks Recreation
"Community Recreation Park Task Force Workshop" which was held"
at the Saratoga Community Center. Approximately 70 people
attended. However, I found the workshop to be an good eye
opening and learning experience before and after I attended.
When I first called the Saratoga Recreation Center on 5/21/96 to
register for the workshop, I was informed by a Recreation Center
employee that there was only one workshop, and it was for the
Kevin Moran Park...my address was unknown to the employee. I
indicated to the employee that the Saratoga News stated that it
was for "Citizen advice sought on $1.2 million for city parks
however, the employee insisted that it was for Kevin Moran.Park.
I registered.
I was then contacted by Joan Pisani, Recreation Director, and
when I.asked her why the workshop was only for Kevin Moran Park,
she stated that it was for all parks as the Saratoga News had
stated. She completed a questionnaire over the phone by asking
me several specific questions. Two of those questions were: a)
Would I be interested in new Sports Fields? And, b) would I be
interested in Joint Use Agreements with schools? At this point,
I realized that I was being surveyed for my opinions ahead of the
workshop. The reason given for such.questions was that it would
help "balance" the workshop groups.
Never -the -less, I attended the workshop and during the
presentation of the workshop, I questioned the Workshop
Facilitator on Section (A) of the "Desired Needs List"
(Development of Multi -Use Sports Fields Soccer, Baseball
softball on a 4 acre site) of where the four acre site was
located and /or where the new Multi -Use Sports Fields would be
located. The Facilitator, the Recreation Commissioner and other
members of the Parks Recreation Department all stated.and
insisted that they had no knowledge of the location of either the
4 acre site mentioned in the "Desired Needs List" or where the
new sports fields would be located. However, I find it extremely
difficult to believe that administrative employees of the Parks
and Recreation Department would not have the knowledge of where
the 4 acre site /new sports fields would be located since there
has been no new acquisition of land lately by the City of
Saratoga.
r
Page two
Furthermore, in my workshop group, one citizen worked for the
Saratoga Recreation Department and another worked for our school
district. I acknowledge that they both had good input, but I
believe that their presence created a conflict of interest since
they would be advising where the city's funds should be spent.
Consequently, I now question as to whether there were other
people with conflict of interests involved in the remaining
workshop groups.
I did enjoy the workshop. However, because of the inconsistency
of details about the workshop and the surveying of my opinions
when I first called the Parks Recreation Department to
register, the unanswered question by the Workshop Facilitator and
Parks and lKetreation Commissioner and employees of—the-
location
of the 4 acre site and /or the new Mlti -Use Sports Fields during
the presentation, and the learning of two citizens in my debate
group were in conflict of interest, I now question the overall
integrity of the Community Recreation Park Task Force Workshop.
Therefore, I can only trust that the Council will use their good
judgment and share the $1.2 million plus funds fairly to be used
for the good of all Saratoga citizens and not just one special
interest group.
Sincerely,
z
Christin lrich
Anthony Jane KofFinan
PO Box 22T3
Sarato8a, a %070
Mr. Paul Jacobs
13 777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga CA 95070
Tel. (408) 446 -3730
July 8, 1996 f.
J'UL 1 Q J.ys
Cl ily Ur' SA 4
C;TY INMNAGEK-Z3 r'F10E
Dear Mr. Jacobs:
The July 8, 1995 Town Hall Meeting videotape should be viewed by all involved in developing Kevin Moran and
Azule parks. As well as neighborhood input, several other individuals, including presidents past and present of
youth organizations such as AYSO, Little League, etc. qualified to assess the value, impact and utility of various
improvements are on the tape. The videotape can be viewed or dubbed at the Saratoga City Hall. .I have
dubbed these individuals onto a twenty minute 'summary' version. Some of their conclusions are summarized
below. I will gladly provide this tape to anyone wishing to borrow it.
According to Dave Lazarus (President of the Saratoga Little League), as he stated on the videotape of the July
1995 Town Hall Meeting, Kevin Moran Park is not practical for softball. It is too small, has inadequate parking
potential, and has poor access through restricted streets designed only for low traffic.
Ron Lawson, head of the City of Saratoga Girl's Softball program states there would be no advantage to using
the Kevin Moran location. There is not room for sufficient parking, and the narrow, circuitous residential streets
make access poor.
Dick Priest, past president of Little League stated that thirty-one years ago, studies were done and the master
plan drawn up recommending that Congress Springs be developed as a sports complex, but that Kevin Moran
was not suitable due to inadequate potential parking, small size, and poor access through neighborhood streets
not designed for increased traffic flow. Kevin Moran was not suitable then, and is not suitable now.
Mary Gardner, superintendent of the Saratoga School District has said she would encourage co- operative
development of the parks with schools in Campbell, Cupertino, and Sunnyvale as well as Saratoga.
Recommendations
Due to narrow, circuitous neighborhood street access, daily use by walking and biking grade school children to
and from Blue Hills School, poor potential parking, and its triangular shape and size, Kevin Moran park does n
appear to be feasible for a sports complex, or any organized sports field other than perhaps as a minor soccer
practice field. Some things that would be of great value, however, include;
Expand the playground area and equipment at Kevin Moran Park. Currently, a play structure for 3 to 5 year old
children exists, and three swings for older children. Equipment suitable for large muscle development in five to
twelve year old children is needed, such as the structure at Brookglen Park.
A community garden area should be created at one end of Kevin Moran Park.
An area for natural, unstructured play, discovery, and exploration by children, including those at Blue Hills
School should be left at one end of the park. Blue Hills currently utilizes the orchard area on the north for this,
since it is in close proximity to the park and easily accessed by the Blue Hills pedestrian overcrossing. The
Heritage park is too far away to be used for this purpose.
Jointly develop sports play fields at Azule Park along with Blue Dills School, The Cupertino Union School
District has expressed a strong desire to cooperate in this. They have successfully shared projects with two other
cities, Sunnyvale and Saratoga, in mutually beneficial projects of this nature in the past few years, notably at
Homestead High school, Cupertino Jr. High, Kennedy (off Bubb), and Eaton. Among other benefits, the
existing school parking and restroom facilities may be utilized, fiveeing up more land for play field area and saving
maintenance ,.and monitoring costs, as we as eliminating a needless duplication of facilities. Sonia
Scher with Cupertino Union School District has offered to help implement such a program. She can be
contacted at 252 -3000.
Build a gymnasium at Redwood Middle School, that could be jointly utilized by the school and the City of
Saratoga's basketball program, as per Matthew Crosby, Director of City of Saratoga's basketball program.
Ask for children's input regarding the development of playgrounds. This was done for one in Kauai, resulting in
an internationally acclaimed park, with many unique and highly useful features. This park also had many
elements donated by local businesses and organizations, with donation plaques placed accordingly. The adoption
of some of these elements could make Saratoga's parks equally outstanding.
I welcome any comments or discussion on the above statements, and stand ready to help in any way I can.
Please contact me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Anthony Hoffm
Anthony Jane Hoffman
19664 Northampton Drive
6araloSp, C1 95070 Tel. (408) 446 -3230
June 8. 1996
To all persons interested in the development of Kevin Moran and Azule Parks;
The July 8, 1995 Town Hall Meeting videotape should be viewed by all involved in developing Kevin Moran and
Azule parks. As well as neighborhood input, several other individuals, including presidents past and present of
youth organizations such as AYSO, Little League, etc.and former qualified to assess the value, impact and utility
of various improvements are on the tape. The videotape can be viewed or dubbed at the Saratoga City Hall. .I
have dubbed these individuals onto a half-hour 'summary' version. I have also included specific shots of a
comprehensive playground on Kauai, Hawaii, considered to contain one of the best children's playgrounds in the
world. which I will be happy to provide to anyone wishing to borrow it. Some of their conclusions are
summarized below;
According to Dave Lazarus (President of the Saratoga Little League), as he stated on the videotape of the July 8,
1995 Town Hall Meeting, Kevin Moran Park is not practical for softball. It is too small, has inadequate parking
potential, and has poor access through narrow neighborhood streets.
According to Ron Lawson, head of the City of Saratoga Girl's Softball program, there would be no advantage to
using the Kevin Moran location. There is not room for sufficient parking, and the access is poor.
Dick Priest, past president of Little League stated that thirty-one years ago, studies were done and the master
plan drawn up recommending that Congress Springs be developed as a sports complex, but that Kevin Moran
was not suitable due to inadequate potential parking, small size, and poor access. Kevin Moran was not suitable
then, and is not suitable now.
Mary Gardner, superintendent of the Saratoga School District has said she would encourage co- operative
development of the parks with schools in Campbell, Cupertino, and Sunnyvale as well as Saratoga.
Recommendations
As such, Kevin Moran park does not appear to be feasible for a sports complex, or any organized sports field
other than perhaps as a minor sports practice field. Some things that would be of great value, however, include;
Expand the playground area and equipment at Kevin Moran Park. Currently, a play structure for 3 to 5 year old
children exists, and three swings for older children. Equipment suitable for large muscle development in five to
twelve year old children is needed, such as the structure at Brookglen Park.
A community garden area should be created at one end of Kevin Moran Park.
An area for natural, unstructured play, discovery, and exploration by children, including those at Blue Hills
School should be left at one end of the park. Blue Hills currently utilizes the orchard area on the north for this
since it is in close proximity to the park and easily accessed by the Blue Hills pedestrian overcrossing. The
Heritage park is too far away to be used for this purpose.
1
Jointly develop sports play fields at Azule Park along with Blue Dills School. The Cupertino Union School
District has expressed a strong desire to cooperate in this. They have successfully shared projects with two other
cities, Sunnyvale and Saratoga, in mutually beneficial projects of this nature in the past few years, notably at
Homestead and high schools. Among other benefits, the existing school parking and restroom facilities may be
tilized, freeing up more land for play field area and saving construction, maintenance, and monitoring costs, as
well as eliminating a needless duplication of facilities. Sonia Scher with Cupertino Union School District has
offered to help implement such a program. She can be contacted at 252 -3000.
Build a gymnasium at Redwood Middle School, that could be jointly utilized by the school and the City of
Saratoga's basketball program, as per Matthew Crosby, Director of City of Saratoga's basketball program.
Ask for children's input regarding the development of playgrounds. This was done for the one in Kauai, and
resulted in an internationally acclaimed park, with many unique and highly useful features. This park also had
many elements donated by local businesses and organizations, with donation plaques placed accordingly. The
adoption of some of these elements could make Saratoga's parks equally outstanding.
I welcome any comments or discussion on the above statements, and stand ready to help inmny way I can.
Please contact me at your ctsnVenience.
Sincerely,
Anthony Hoffman
JUN-03 -1996 06:32 NSD R&D 408 SM 3628 P.02/03
June 3. 1996
I have attached a table showing the data for the Fall Season. As for estimates for the
Spring Season, this is more difficult because it is such a new program but why don`t you
use the following:
Saratoga AYSO Spring Season
If you have any questions, please give me a call at 553 -3790.
Regards,
Mark Ms
Saratoga AYSO Regional Commissioner
mslfile= Page 1
f '\wordproclayso spmgest.doc Printed: 6/3/96
1996
1 1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Teams
101
30
45
60
70
75
80
Players
1401
420,
630
840
1020
1090
1160
Gm Flds
2
5
6
Prc Flds
3
8
12
15
18
19
20
If you have any questions, please give me a call at 553 -3790.
Regards,
Mark Ms
Saratoga AYSO Regional Commissioner
mslfile= Page 1
f '\wordproclayso spmgest.doc Printed: 6/3/96
Saratoga AYSO Field Requiremejits for FAIT Soccer
1992-2002
Notes:
These increases are conservative estimates.
1. Assumes conservative 10 increase i>41997 dropping to 5 0 /a/year in 2002.
2. Assumes conservative 1.0 increase i# 1997 dropping to S %/year in 2002.
3. Only these divisions (t 6) require practi4ficids.
4. This assumes that there are an average of 1'0 teams or 5 games per field per day.
6. These include the 5 fields at Congress Springs Paris and, for 1995 and later, the 2 fields at Redwood Middle School.
7. This assumes that teams share a field for practice and that there are an average of 2 practices per week.
This assumes that fields are utilized an average of 4 days per week, primarily Monday through Thursday, from after school to sundown.
In 1994, had to go to split shifts at Congress Springs Park to make up practice field shortfall.
8. These numbers show the fields with goal posts, and the total number of fields available for practice-,
ASSUMING that the Blue Hills School field is not available.
0
i
W
5,5
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996"
1997*
1998*
1999"
1 2000*
2001*
2002*
Player Count 1.
720
760
910
1030
1145
1259
1372
14811
1584
1679
1762
Player Increase
N/A
5.6%
19.7%
13.2%
11.2%
10.0
9.0%
7.9%
7.(W.
6.0%
4.9%
Team Count 2.
54
59
70
84
88
96
104
112
119
126
132
Player to Team Ratio
13.33
12.88
13.001
12.26
13.01
13.111
13.19
13.22
13.31
13.33
13.35
Team Count (Div 1-6 3.
50
51
62
70
74
81
88
95
101
107
11.2
Team (Div 1-6) Increase
2.0g/o
21.6%
12.9%
5.7%
9.5%
8.6%
8.0
6.3
5.9%
4.7%
Game Fields Needed 4.
5
5
S
7
8
9
10
11
11
12
13
Teams to Game Fields Ratio 5.
10.80
11.80
14.00
12.00
11.00
10.67
10.40
10.18
10.82
10.50
10.15
Game Fields Available 6.
5
5
5
7
7
Practice Fields Needed 7.
13
13
l6
l8
19
21
22
24
26
27
28
Practice Fields Available 8.
5.13
5,13
5, 14
7,16
7 16
Notes:
These increases are conservative estimates.
1. Assumes conservative 10 increase i>41997 dropping to 5 0 /a/year in 2002.
2. Assumes conservative 1.0 increase i# 1997 dropping to S %/year in 2002.
3. Only these divisions (t 6) require practi4ficids.
4. This assumes that there are an average of 1'0 teams or 5 games per field per day.
6. These include the 5 fields at Congress Springs Paris and, for 1995 and later, the 2 fields at Redwood Middle School.
7. This assumes that teams share a field for practice and that there are an average of 2 practices per week.
This assumes that fields are utilized an average of 4 days per week, primarily Monday through Thursday, from after school to sundown.
In 1994, had to go to split shifts at Congress Springs Park to make up practice field shortfall.
8. These numbers show the fields with goal posts, and the total number of fields available for practice-,
ASSUMING that the Blue Hills School field is not available.
0
i
W
5,5
Congress Springs Park
2,3
Red►vood Middle School, upper (gained these fields in 1995)
0.1
Rcdvvwd Middle School, lover
0, 2.5
Argonaut School (1� half a Geld in 1995)
0, 1.5
Sarntoga School (los6alf a field in 1995)
0.2
Foothill School
0, 1
Kevin Moran Park (began using for practice in 1994)
1,1
Blue Hills School (not included due to reservation problems)
Mark Linsky krUMLDREQ.XI.S)
IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT SARATOGA AYSO HAS BEGUN TO RUN A SPRING SOCCER PROGRAM AND THE
FIELD SITUATION HAS BECOME CRITICAL. IN THE SPRING OF 96, SARATOGA HAD ESSENTIALLY NO PRACTICE to
FIELDS AND LIMITED GAME FIELDS FORIG TEAMS. IN 97, WE EXPECT MANY MORE TEAMS AND PLAYERS. i fto
RAA*!t
*AA**
Printed: 6/2/06, 1:55 PM
V V CO) 1 r_ T O o V
TO: PARRS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: PARR PLANNING PARAMETERS FROM CITY COUNCIL
I am transmitting to you the twelve general parameters discussed
and agreed upon by the Council at its meeting on January 23rd for
your review on February 5th and for discussion with the Council on
February 27th.
1. Improvements to the park and recreation facilities system of
the City should allow the system to meet the needs of the overall
community and, to the extend possible, provide improvements which
make facilities convenient for as many different types of users as
possible.
2. Planning for improvements should assume that there is a
greater need for more active use facilities.
3. When considering the need for improvements, all city
facilities should be considered including parks, the Community
Center, the Warner Hutton House, and Hakone Gardens to the extent
that improvements for the latter help assure the successful
operation of the Gardens by the Hakone Foundation.
4. Recreation facilities and parks needs should be addressed
within the current inventory of land devoted to or potentially
available for such use, i.e., city parks, city owned buildings,
and public schools.
5. Use and improvement of school facilities should be a vital
part of the overall planning effort and should be done with maximum
involvement from the schools themselves. Specific proposals to
consider should include:
a. Redevelopment of the Saratoga School field area for better
sports and /or community use in exchange for the school
allowing improved parking on the site which could be used
by the business community.
b. Redevelop the Foothill School field area with Foothill Park
into an integrated facility.
c. Improve and develop facilities for community use at
Saratoga High School.
d. Develop new practice sports fields at all public school
sites using the following guidelines:
1. One soccer field and baseball field at each
school.
2. City would build or renovate as needed.
3. Fields would be available to City /Leagues during
non school hours.
4. Joint use agreements to be executed before City
starts work.
5. City would maintain fields built or renovated,
schools would maintain playground areas.
6. Schools would have to agree to help financially
with maintenance of new or renovated
facilities.
7. Congress Springs Park would be reserved primarily
for league play not practice.
6. In making recommendations for improvements, how they would be
financed should not be a constraint on the recommendations,
however, recommendations should include not only the estimated cost
of the improvement but the cost of maintaining the improvement as
well. If certain improvements would reduce current costs that
information should also be included.
7. The design of proposed improvements should be developed with
neighborhood input.
8. Proposals for improvements should be based upon a demonstrated
community need over the long term and prioritized based upon degree
of immediate need, ease of implementation, and /or cost. Avoid
making proposals for improvements which may be merely a current
fad.
9. In proposing improvements at parks the following
criteria should be considered:
a. the improvement should add beauty to the area.
b. improvements should emphasize use by the school
age population through high school but also
provide improvements which would encourage use
by older users as well.
c. proposed improvements should be limited to those
which would allow daylight hours use of parks
only.
d. proposals for intensive use improvements should
include major buffers placed between the use
and neighboring residences.
e. the parking needs of users who don't walk to
parks should be anticipated.
10. Improvements to trails which will improve stability and reduce
the need for long term maintenance should also be considered in
recommendations for improvements.
11. Attention should be paid to improving access to Wildwood Park
from the downtown area and to improvements, either on site or off
site, which would encourage the community to make better use of the
park.
12. A proposal should be made as to how to develop either a park
or a school site as a location where major community events can be
held.
CC:City Council
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY N0. 2% (o °L
MEETING DATE: AUGUST 7, 1996
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS
AGENDA ITEM J ��
CITY MGR.:
DEPT. HEAD:
SUBJECT: Final acceptance of subdivision public improvements within
Tract 8671 (Heritage Oak Lane)
Recommended Motion(s):
1. Move to grant final acceptance of the subdivision public
improvements within Tract 8671.
2. Move to adopt the Resolution rescinding the previously rejected
Offers of Dedication, accepting Heritage Oak Lane into the City's
publicly maintained street system, and releasing the subdivider's
maintenance /warranty bond.
3. Move to accept the Grant Deed of a storm drain easement.
Report Summary:
The public improvements within Tract 8671 (Heritage Oak Lane) have
been completed and satisfactorily maintained by the subdivider for
the required one year maintenance /warranty period. Consequently,
I am recommending that the City Council grant final acceptance of
these improvements and assume the maintenance responsibility for
them as contemplated by the Subdivision Improvement Agreement dated
November 2, 1994. This can be accomplished by adopting the
attached Resolution which rescinds the previously rejected Offers
of Dedication made on the Final Map and which also authorizes the
release of the subdivider's maintenance /warranty bond. Lastly, it
is recommended that the Council adopt the attached Resolution
accepting the Grant Deed for a Storm Drain Easement from the
Saratoga Union School District obtained by the subdivider on behalf
of the City in connection with the public storm drain system
installed to serve the subdivision.
Fiscal Impacts•
There will be an incremental increase in the City's street and
storm drain maintenance expenses over time as a result of adding to
the inventory of City maintained streets and storm drains. Roughly
220 feet of cul -de -sac street and 671 feet of storm drain will be
added to the City's infrastructure inventory.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact:
Nothing additional.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
Final acceptance of the improvements would not be granted. The
improvements would continue to remain the responsibility of the
subdivider until whatever additional requirements of the City
Council are completed. The City would continue to hold the
maintenance /warranty bond, and the Grant Deed from the SUSD would
not be accepted.
Follow Up Actions:
The Resolutions will be recorded and the subdividers
maintenance /warranty bond will be released.
Attachments:
1. Resolution Accepting improvements. (to be submitted at meeting)
2. Resolution accepting Grant Deed.
3. Site Map.
CALIFORNIA ALL - PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT No. 5193
State of
County of�
On 101131141 before me, L" 4- ZZ ,0115
DATE NAME, TITLE OF OFFICER - E.G., -JANE DOE, NOTARY PUBLIC -
personally appeared
ME(S) OF SIGNER(S)
❑ personally known to me - OR - ffproved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence
to be the person(s) whose name(s) is /are
subscribed to the within instrument and ac-
knowledged to me that he /she /they executed
the same in his /her /their authorized
■_ ����>, ��������������� >lu.o�unrinonmttn� capacity(ies), and that by his /her /their
SoOFFICIAL SEAL' signature(s) on the instrument the person(s),
CECELIA STAMPS
NOTARY PUBLIC• CALIFORNIA or the entity upon behalf of which the
SANTA CLARA COUNTY : acted, executed the instrument.
My Comm. Exp. F*U. 3, 1983 person(s)
�IIIti1111U�Ip�ucalal eF:uunn011OW�
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
&ax-) A05
SIGNATURE OF N6TARY
OPTIONAL SECTION
OPTIONAL SECTION �
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER
Though statute does not require the Notary to
fill in the data below, doing so may prove
invaluable to persons relying on the document.
❑ INDIVIDUAL
❑ CORPORATE OFFICER(S)
TITLE(S)
❑ PARTNER(S) ❑ LIMITED
[:]GENERAL
❑ ATTORNEY -IN -FACT
❑ TRUSTEE(S)
❑ GUARDIAN /CONSERVATOR
[OTHER: �B(JS /At_SS
o uA?�L
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES)
THIS CERTIFICATE MUST BE ATTACHED TO TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT OJI47' je&a
THE DOCUMENT DESCRIBED AT RIGHT:
NUMBER OF PAGES 2 DATE OF DOCUMENT PG VQ
Though the data requested here is not required by law,
it could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form.
SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
01993 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION - 8236 Remmet Ave., P.O. Box 7184 - Canoga Park, CA 91309 -7184
I
4
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application No./Locati= SD -94 -001, 14024 Saratoga Ave.
Applicant /Owns. BEAN
Staff Planner. Lynette Stanchina
Date: April 13, 1994
Am: 397 -16 -052 Dbwtw Approval:
W4, �
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR STORM DRAIN EASEMENT
over
Lands of Saratoga Union School District
A 12 foot wide Storm Drain Easement for purposes of construction,
reconstruction. and maintenance of storm drains and appurtenances
thereto, over, under and upon that certain parcel of land more
particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at a granite monument at the most easterly corner of that
certain parcel of land described as Parcel 1 in that certain Decree of
Final Distribution of Estate recorded October 7, 1957 as Document
Number 1391461, Santa Clara County Records, said point also being along
the northerly line of that certain parcel of land described as Parcel 2
in that certain Decree of Final Distribution recorded October 7, 1957
as Document Number 1391461 Santa Clara County Records; thence from said
POINT OF BEGINNING, along the northerly line of said Parcel 2, in part,
and along the northerly line of Lot 29, in part, as said Lot is shown
upon that certain map entitled "Tract No. 1112" recorded October 13,
1954 in Book 53 of Maps, at page 9, Santa Clara County Records, North
89 047'20" East 361.13 feet to the westerly line of Shadow Oaks Way;
thence along said line, NORTH 12.00 feet to the northerly line of Lands
of Saratoga Union School District, also being the southerly line of Lot
9 as said Lot is shown upon that certain map entitled "Tract No. 5319"
recorded February 28, 1973 in Book 317 of Maps, at pages 34 and 35,
Santa Clara County Records; thence along said southerly line, in part,
and along the southerly line of Parcel B, in part, as said Parcel B is
shown upon that certain Parcel Map recorded October 5, 1978 in Book 427
of Maps, at page 44, Santa Clara County Records, South 89047'20" West
357.02 feet; thence continuing along said southerly line of said Parcel
B, North 52 005'31 West 5.86 feet; thence leaving said line, South
31 °54'29" West 12.00 feet to the northerly line of Parcel 1 as said
Parcel is hereinabove described; thence along said line, South
52 005'31" East 10.00 feet to the said point of beginning of this
description, containing 4404 square feet of land, more or less.
tANO
P 9�
N4. LO 6917 ,
EXP. 9 -30 -96
�T c;.•
�q
�F CAU`�
_ I +'� "- -IIQCtIME1�LZNUMBER . - -
PARCEE
M 1461
5.37'54' 29 "W 12.00'
S. 52'05'31 "E 10.00-' ... N .52'05'31 "W.
5.86
POINT OF BEGINNING1
(GRANITE MONUKeNT)
. -:- PARCEL 2
_DOCUMENT NUMBER
-.: 13914GI
LAT TO ACCOMPANY_LEGAL.DESCRIPTION FOR-STORM DRAIN EASEMENT
Design, By: N .M. L oft Nowack & Associars, Inc. Scae: 1 "� 60' ...
aA Engineers / Surveyors
DraMrn :8y: W.r. g Dotrw= Y } 19'94
2775 Paris Avg.
4p1Od` M (ft 2 06a X060 ,Job No. 93-241A
12.00
WIDE 5TORM GRAIN
-
EASEMEPIT
J
O
_
o
R1
r
r
U
d)
to
. �
`A
3
Z
O
W
N
Z
Q v
PARCEL B�
m
44o 4
MAPS PG
LOT 29 z
Qr
TRACT NO. 4412
Q
U)
SAND
v� LO Crs,� F�
O
v Q�G�
z} N°-. LO 817
Z
EXP. 9 -30 -96
Q
OF CAY&� \�
,J
o
LOT 9
TRACT
NO. 5319
- NORTH
CENTERLINE ~' SHAOOW OAKS-
`IYAY
LAT TO ACCOMPANY_LEGAL.DESCRIPTION FOR-STORM DRAIN EASEMENT
Design, By: N .M. L oft Nowack & Associars, Inc. Scae: 1 "� 60' ...
aA Engineers / Surveyors
DraMrn :8y: W.r. g Dotrw= Y } 19'94
2775 Paris Avg.
4p1Od` M (ft 2 06a X060 ,Job No. 93-241A
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2� G I AGENDA ITEM: (fB
MEETING DATE: August 7, 1996 CITY MGR:
ORIGINATING DEPT.: Community Development
SUBJECT: Offer of Setback Easement for P
or Side Yards Facing Via Colina (named
original subdivision map)
.operties Having Frontage
El Camino Grande on the
Recommended Motion: Reject Offer of Setback Easement.
Report Summary: In May 1946, Santa Clara County approved the Montecito
Heights Subdivision (Tract No. 373) . As part of the subdivision
approval, the developer "dedicate(d) for public use easements for light
and air (emphasis added) under, on or over those certain strips of land
to be kept open and free from buildings and structures of any kind."
The easements varied in width from 40 -60 ft. These eventually became
the "unofficial" building setback lines. Typically, offers of easement
similar to this are for future street widening purposes. The "light and
air" reference seems to imply setback requirements. Upon incorporation,
the subdivision and all development regulations and requirements became
part of the City of Saratoga. The Offer of Easements was never accepted
by either the County or the City.
Dr. James Carrigan, 19311 Via Colina, has requested that the City
"reject the offer of easement" along the Via Colina frontage only. All
other easements in the subdivision would remain in effect unless
rejected following any future requests. Dr. Carrigan's property is a
corner lot containing 50 ft. easements (setbacks) along both street
frontages (Via Colina and Monte Vista).
By rejecting the Offer of Easement, the current Zoning Ordinance
regulations would become effective for all future development. The R1-
40,000 setback standards are 30 ft. front yard and 25 ft. for a side
yard abutting a street.
Environmental Determination: None required.
Fiscal Impacts: None.
Advertising. Noticing and Public Contact: This is not a public hearing
item. However, staff sent letters to all property owners of the 7 lots
having frontage along Via Colina announcing the City Council meeting
date and agenda.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: Future
development would be required to provide a 50 ft. building setback along
Via Colina.
Follow Up Actions: If approved, a Resolution will be placed on the next
City Council agenda for adoption.
Attachments:
1. Letter to Via Colina property owners, dated July 29, 1996.
2. Subdivision Map and Offer of Easement, Tract No. 373.
i
(o)
00�00� 00 O ° ID" ° UOO
July 29, 1996
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438
Dear Property Owner:
COUNCII. MEMBERS:
Ann Marie Bulger
Paul E. Jacobs
Gilban Moran
iv'ltco ]ucRor
00n,10 / Wolte
Santa Clara County Assessor records indicate that you are an owner
of a lot in Tract No. 373. Your lot was created while the property
was under the jurisdiction of the County of Santa Clara prior to
the incorporation of the City of Saratoga.
In 1946, as part of the original approval of Tract No. 373, the
County of Santa Clara required an "Offer of a Dedication of an
Easement" on certain street frontages in your neighborhood. One of
those easements was a 50 ft. building setback requirement along the
Via Colina street frontage. This "offer" was never accepted by
either Santa Clara County or the City of Saratoga after
incorporation.
The City of Saratoga has received a request that the offer of
easement dedication be officially rejected. If the City rejects
the easement dedication, the building setbacks along Via Colina
would be subject to the current zoning regulations which are 30 ft.
for properties that "front" on the street and 25 ft. for properties
that have "side yards" adjacent to the street.
The City Council of the City of Saratoga will consider the request
for rejection at its next regular meeting:
Date: Wednesday, August 7, 1996
Time: 7:30 PM
Location: City Council Chambers
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
If you have any questions regarding this item, please call me at
867 -3438, ext. 231.
Since ly,
Paul L. Cu tis
Community Development Director
h ml,d on w( Y( p» pri
Im
ONTECITO HE 3H'FNS.-..
CAMINd
1.052 AG
1 049 AC 22 not 36, Wb 36
1.074 AG.
02 AG
24 10 16 1 OOG AC
1021 AC
1008 AC
1-004 AC
)02 AC
1*012 AC.
32 1.004 AC
1.002 19
1001 AC
ZI
33 051 AC 13
1.004 AG
L�3654 PL w 4u
ac
U29 1029 AC.
1 070 AC. /017c/ -ka0divle
CERTIFICATE OF OWNER
We hereby certify that we ore the Owner_:, Of or hove sorr,e
right /irle Or interest in and /o the real Properly rrnc /tided with
in ttne subdivision shown upon /his mop, and /ha/ we ore the on
ly persons whose consent is - ?ece_5sory to pos_s o cleor /d /e to
sold property, and we consent to the mokin9 and r&'ordotion of
sold mop and subdivision a5 shown within the border tines and
hereby dedcate to Public use ol/ the "streets' ond'eosemenrs
for storm drains "shown upon sold mop within solo' subdivis.on.
We o/so hereby ded/cole for public use eosernenis for public
utilities under on or over those cerlaln strips of 10,00' lying be -
tween the reor /fines and /or side /ones of lots and the Braes each
designoted a5 Public utilities eosctnent Awe; os shown on sold
mop within sold subdivision, such strips of land to be kept oPen
and free from bui /dir�ps and structures cif any kind
We o /so hereby dedicate for Public use eOSeMen/5 for /igh/ oral
oar under ; on or over chose cerloin strips of loud lying belween
the /yne,5 of sheets or?d highways and the tines eoch a�s�gnoted
as bui /ding /rne," as shown op sold mop within sod subdlvlsion;
.such strips of loi;d to be kept open and free fl-om buildings and
structures of ony kind exceptirxq IrrIgolion ord sprinkling sys -
terrs and 0Ppurte1?0nce.5 thereto. )/
SA RACT 6 T/ TL E
- resider
0
INSURANCE CO - TRUSTEE.
cretory
Co /�forn�o res� %':
sono //y oPpeorea
vvhc�5 ° /�Orne i�
.i noyv /e 96- ire,
fixed my offic,a/
above wr tten
ACKNOWL EDGMEI
Stole of Cali forr
Counly of Sonto C
On #7/5..-"'ahy
a IVotory Public
Colifornio, resrdin,
sonolly aPecred
oenl, and CJ Clor,
Jose A bstroc/ & T1
the w1th1n lnstrurr,
Persons who e."c ec t
homed therein,
Lion executed the
//v W/rNESS
fixed my officio/
otOve writlen
y
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL //--
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2% 6-D AGENDA ITEM l�
MEETING DATE: August 7, 1996
ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Clerk
CITY MGR. APPROVA
SUBJECT: Confirmation of Report and Assessment of Weed Abatement
Charges
Recommended Motion:
Adopt resolution.
Report summary:
Under State and local laws, local governments routinely abate the
seasonal fire hazards of weed growth on undeveloped property. For
the County and several cities, including Saratoga, this weed abatement
program is administered by the County Fire Marshal's Office. In many
cases, property owners find it convenient to have government take care
of weed removal and to pay through a property tax lien.
This past year, the County performed weed abatement on
parcels on the attached list in Saratoga. Tax liens and assessments on
the owners of these parcels totalled $16,259.48. In order to recover
this cost, it is necessary for the Council to adopt a resolution
confirming the assessments and directing the County Auditor to enter
and collect the assessments on the property tax bill.
Fiscal Impacts:
None upon City if resolution is passed. City may be liable for
work performed by contractor for any assessments not levied.
Follow Up actions:
None; this is the last City action in the weed abatement cycle.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
See Fiscal Impacts.
Attachments:
Resolution with list of assessments.
7/26/96
1996 WEED ABATEMENT ASSESSMENTS BY THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Page 1 `
FOR THE CITY OF SARATOGA SBE PARCELS
j
SITU$
APN
OWNER ADDRESS
cm
STATE
ZIP
TAX ROLL AMT
SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE RD
366 -20 -033
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO 111 ALMADEN BLVD
SAN JOSE
CA
95125
$189.62
COX AV
386 -44 -040
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO 111 ALMADEN BLVD
SAN JOSE
CA
95125
$226.14
386 -53 -019
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO 111 ALMADEN BLVD
SAN JOSE
CA
95125
$21.38
COX AV
393 -17 -004
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO 111 ALMADEN BLVD
SAN JOSE
CA
95125
$382.95
COX AV
393 -17 -006
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO 111 ALMADEN BLVD
SAN JOSE
CA
95125
$659.41
TAX ROLL AMT TOTAL
$1479.50
1
7/26/96
1996 WEED ABATEMENT ASSESSMENTS BY THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Page 1 -
FOR THE CITY OF SARATOGA
;
SITUS
APN
OWNER
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE ATE
ZPP
TAX ROLL AMT
BURNETT DR
366 -05 -026
DE LA CRUZ MICHAEL
75 CONGRESS ST
PORTSMOUTH
NH
03801-
$371.95
PARKER RANCH RD
366 -43 -008
ARIMA RONALD H AND MASAYE L
627 W HOMESTEAD RD
SUNNYVALE
CA
94087 -5601
$197.92
2496 PARKER RANCH RD
366 -48 -001
SINSLEY KRISTINE M
1512 JARVIS CT
SAN JOSE
CA
95118 -1639
$123.38
2206 VISTA ARROYO CT
366 -48 -011
SCHINELLA RICHARD D AND MARIE D
12206 VISTA ARROYO CT
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -6547
$82.25
1415 CONTINENTAL CL
36649 -012
SYMONDS JOHN R AND ELIZABETH A
21415 CONTINENTAL CIRCLE
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -6505
$164.51
CONTINENTAL. CL
366 -49 -022
VALLEY TITLE CO
426 -7 GALLERIA DR
SAN JOSE
CA
95134
$196.70
2624 PASEO FLORES
386 -12 -040
KLINE ROGER G AND PEGGY S
12624 PASEO FLORES
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -4117
$82.25
TED AV
386 -53 -027
GALEB SLOBODAN ET AL
12340 SARATOGA - SUNNYVALE RD
SARATOGA
CA
95070
$164.51
LAND ONLY SOUSA LN
389 -19 -006
ARNDT BYRON C TRUSTEE & ET AL
2744 S BASCOM AV
SAN JOSE
CA
95124
$164.51
4131 TEN ACRES CT
397 -01 -053
WORTHINGTON J R AND BARBARA A
14131 TEN ACRES CT
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -5637
$146.12
4153 TEN ACRES CT
397 -01 -054
KOURETAS PANAGIOTIS N AND VASILIKI P
14153 TEN ACRES CT
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -5637
$130.09
14175 TEN ACRES CT
397 -01 -055
JOHANSEN KIM A AND PATRICIA L
14175 TEN ACRES CT
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -5637
$263.64
4195 CHESTER AV
397 -01 -057
SALCEDO ALFREDO L AND MARILYN V
100 DAWN LN
WAVERLY
OH
45690 -9664
$248.09
14374 MACLAY CT
397 -03 -035
JUDY HUI
14374 MACLAY CT
SARATOGA
CA
$82.25
14510 SOBEY RD
397 -03 -074
GAUDREAU DANIEL A AND NASRIN
14510 SOBEY RD
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -0056
$226.15
TEN ACRES /EMERALD HILL
397 -03 -081
SALAMATJAVADETAL
PO BOX '1261
SAN MATEO
CA
94401
$53.70
4478 SOBEY RD
397 -04 -022
CHAU ROSSANA B AND EUGENE Y
P O BOX 9270
RANCHO SANTA FE
CA
92067
$82.25
4812 GYPSY HILL RD
397 -04 -112
DION C N TRUSTEE & ET AL
3160 E DESERT INN UNIT 3 -518
LAS VEGAS
NV
89121
$287.88
SOBEY RD
397 -05 -099
ALKORAISHI ALI H
P.O. BOX 700400
SAN JOSE
CA
95170
$82.25
5209 BLUE GUM CT
397 -08 -082
HORVATH FRANK J AND DAGMAR M
15209 BLUE GUM CT
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -6268
$82.25
LUTHERIA WY
397 -24 -022
MOORE ELLEN D TRUSTEE
1089 S DANIEL WY
SAN JOSE
CA
95128 -3124
$197.78
3941 SHADOW OAKS WY
397 -34 -002
HAR WOHN Y AND SUE
13941 SHADOW OAKS WY
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -5541
$123.38
14553 VIA DE MARCOS
397 -40 -016
CIFFONE DONALD L JR AND JOY A
6547 TIMBERVIEW DR
SAN JOSE
CA
95120 -4531
$277.58
EDENCREST LN
503 -13 -033
HORVATH FRANK AND DAGMAR
15209 BLUE GUM CT
SARATOGA
CA
95070 - 6268
$395.74
MT EDEN RD
503 -13 -039
HORVATH FRANK AND DAGMAR
15209 BLUE GUM CT
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -6268
$212.42
MT EDEN RD
503 -13 -059
HORVATH FRANK J AND DAGMAR M
15209 BLUE GUM CT
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -6268
$212.42
2122 MT EDEN RD
503 -13 -115
HORVATH FRANK J AND DAGMAR M
15209 BLUE GUM CT
SARATOGA
CA
95070 - 6268
$447.54
MT EDEN RD
503 -13 -127
IRANY FRED Z AND CHRIS ET AL
13937 VISTA REGINA
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -4865
$164.51
MT EDEN RD
503 -13 -133
IRANY FRED Z AND CHRIS ET AL
13937 VISTA REGINA
SARATOGA
CA
9507011865
$82.25
1272 CHIQUITA WY
503 -15 -060
WILLIAMS PHILIP C AND DEBORAH L
21272 CHIQUITA WY
SARATOGA
CA
95070
$91.33
PARAMONT DR
503 -19 -067
TOUGAS DORIS G AND BERNARD E
20604 WARDELL RD
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -3719
$268.27
ELVA AV
503 -27 -081
ISIDORO FRANK W AND MERNA L
15041 PARK DR
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -6421
$234.30
0905 SULLIVAN WY
503 -28 -005
GIUSTI MARY
23500 CRISTO REY DR UNIT 2030
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
$164.51
7/26/96
1996 WEED ABATEMENT ASSESSMENTS BY THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Page 2 -
FOR THE CITY OF SARATOGA
SITUS
APN
OWNER
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
TAX ROLL AMT
0915 SULLIVAN WY
503 -28 -006
SWAIN SWAIN B TRUSTEE
20915 SULLIVAN WY
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -5723
$164.51
0931 CANYON VIEW DR
503 -28 -007
KIM TAE JA
20931 CANYON VIEW DR
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -5809
$82.25
20945 CANYON VIEW DR
503 -28 -008
MEHRANY M ET AL
105 DOVER CT
LOS GATOS
CA
95032 -3816
$329.01
DEER SPRING CT
503 -28 -117
DICAR INVESTMENTS INCORPORATED
4249 GRAPEVINE DR
NAPA
CA
94558 -2556
$229.63
DEER SPRING CT
503 -28 -118
DICAR INVESTMENTS INCORPORATED
4249 GRAPEVINE DR
NAPA
CA
94558 -2556
$181.22
TOLL GATE RD
503 -28 -123
LAND -CALL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
1802 CHENEY DR
SAN JOSE
CA
95128 -3608
$251.14
1421 SARATOGA HILLS RD
503 -29 -124
MCGREGOR SCOTT A AND GIRAND LAURIE J
21421 SARATOGA HILLS RD
SARATOGA
CA
95070
$212.42
PIERCE RD
503 -30 -002
WALKER THOMAS E AND SUSAN
1134 LITTLEOAK CL
SAN JOSE
CA
95129
$32.82
PIKE RD
503 -30 -010
POLITI JOSEPH E AND SANDRA
14447 DEER CANYON LN
SARATOGA
CA
95070
$185.01
1.1150 DORENE CT
503 -31 -054
FAN SHERMAN S AND LILY L
14150 DORENE CT
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -9727
$329.01
DORENE CT
503 -31 -055
BROWN JOHN P AND JACQUELINE
14372 OLD WOOD RD
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -5633
$250.08
14152 DORENE CT
503 -31 -056
SMITH DAVID M AND LORI A TRUSTEE
14152 DORENE CT
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -9727
$123.34
14142 DORENE CT
503 -31 -057
SEVILLA ALBERTO AND WELGE LYNN
14142 DORENE CT
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -9727
$123.34
14134 LORENE CT
503 -31 -058
ROSENBERG GERALD R AND BARRIE R
14134 DORENE CT
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -9727
$138.77
TEERLINK WY
503 -31 -061
TEERLINK ERMA TRUSTEE
1821 HOLLY OAK DR
MODESTO
CA
95354
$106.46
I IEIIER WY
503 -31 -065
SHENG NIN -CHUN AND ROUNDA
P O BOX 20011
SAN JOSE
CA
95160
$236.98
HEBER WY
503 -31 -067
VINTNER INVESTMENTS
P O BOX 20011
SAN JOSE
CA
95160
$12.12
1790 HERBER WY
503 -31 -069
KUNDTZ ROBERT A AND NANCY J TRUSTEE
21790 HERBER WY
SARATOGA
CA
95070
$191.86
4185 TEERLINK
503 -31 -076
ALFF WILLIAM H AND DENNY V
14185 TEERLINK
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -9735
$164.51
3957 ALBAR CT
503 -31 -087
MALANCZUK WILLIAM T AND DORENE G
13957 ALBAR CT
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -9718
$171.32
13947 ALBAR CT
503 -31 -088
HWANG LILY L AND JOSEPH J.
13966 ALBAR CT
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -9718
$580.24
ALBAR CT
503 -31 -090
BENEFICIAL CALIFORNIA INC
10265 S DE ANZA BL
CUPERTINO
CA
95015
$241.32
1761 HEBER WY
503 -31 -100
PALMER WILLIAM AND CHARLENE
21761 HEBER WY
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -9700
$82.25
SARAHILLS DR
503 -53 -061
DHAKA VIR A AND MOHINI
580 ARASTRADERO RD UNIT 105
PALO ALTO
CA
94306
$99.79
TOLL GATE RD
503 -55 -053
BLAIR JEROME C AND ARLENE
3549 MAURICIA AV
SANTA CLARA
CA
95051 -6617
$272.81
1175 BANK MILL RD
503 -55 -064
KIM KI Y
21175 BANK MILL RD
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -5706
$59.29
TOLL GATE RD
503 -62 -017
LIU VINCENT ET AL
14760 MASSON CT
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -9715
$267.27
1449 TOLL GATE RD
503 -62 -025
GENO RICHARD E
1042 W HEDDING UNIT 200
SAN JOSE
CA
95126
$113.07
1200 CHIQUITA WY
503 -66 -010
CHANG MU T AND LIN M
21200 CHIQUITA WY
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -4203
$29.70
4760 MASSON CT
503 -72 -008
LIU VINCENT L AND MEI CHEN Y
14760 MASSON CT
SARATOGA
CA
95070- 9715
$411.26
MASSON CT
503 -72 -014
MIAU MATTHEW F AND AHCHEN H
6 -F 75 MING, SHENG E RD
SEC 3 TAIPEI,
$863.33
21503 SARATOGA HEIGHTS DR
503 -72 -025
TANIGUCHI BEN T AND SACHIKO TRUSTEE
21503 SARATOGA HEIGHTS DR
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -5758
$17.90
1775 CONGRESS HALL LN
503 -72 -034
HSU FU -CHIEH AND CHENG -YIH
21775 CONGRESS HALL LN
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -9714
$84.46
7/26/96
1996 WEED ABATEMENT ASSESSMENTS BY THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Page 3'
FOR THE CITY OF SARATOGA
+
SITUS
APN
OWNER
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
TAX ROLL AMT
21770 CONGRESS HALL LN
503 -75 -008
DAVIS ANTHONY M AND ISHBEL TRUSTEE
21770 CONGRESS HALL LN
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -9714
$342.16
1764 CONGRESS HALL LN
503 -75 -009
LALLY JAMES AND LYNN Y
21764 CONGRESS HALL LN
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -9714
$164.44
21756 CONGRESS HALL LN
503 -75 -010
DELIZONNA HARRY
111 W ST JOHN ST UNIT 888
SAN JOSE
CA
95113
$244.49
1771 CONGRESS HALL LN
503 -75 -017
HOWE FREDERICK AND MARY S
21771 CONGRESS HALL LN
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -9714
$193.13
4930 VINTNER CT
503 -75 -018
FARSIO SHAHNAZ AND ALI
14930 VINTNER CT
SARATOGA
CA
95070 -9712
$332.28
1801 CONGRESS SPRINGS LN
503 -75 -020
SHENG STEVE N AND ROUNDA
P O BOX 20011
SAN JOSE
CA
95160
$316.75
1894 VILLA OAKS LN
503 -78 -004
LEUNG LILIAN
10605 MERRIMAN RD
CUPERTINO
CA
95014 -3923
$57.05
1952 VILLA OAKS LN
503 -78 -005
NGUYEN NGUYEN H AND HANG L
21952 VILLA OAKS LN
SARATOGA
CA
95070
$94.72
2188 QUARRY RD
503 -78 -009
HOMECRAFT BUILDERS INC
4085 ORME ST
PALO ALTO
CA
94306 -3137
$83.90
QUARRY RD
503 -78 -013
BURKE THOMAS E TRUSTEE
810 SOUTHAMPTON DR
PALO ALTO
CA
94301
$75.33
3575 DEER TRAIL CT
503 -78 -014
YEH DANNY ET AL
413 BARCELONA CT
MOUNTAIN VIEW
CA
94040 -3271
$74.77
DEER TL
503 -78 -023
WANG PAI H AND SHUN J
P O BOX 360363
MILPITAS
CA
95036
$15.66
QUARRY RD
503 -78 -029
SCHAAF ROGER L AND YEE C
1346 TULARCITOS DR
MILPITAS
CA
95035 -7614
$42.14
TAX ROLL AMT TOTAL
$14779.98
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2�1 S i AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: AUGUST 7, 1996 CITY MGR.:
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD:
SUBJECT: Pierce Road Bridge Replacement, Capital Project No. 953 -
Final Acceptance and Notice of Completion
Recommended Motion(s):
Move to accept the project as complete and authorize staff to
record the Notice of Completion for the construction contract.
Report SummarX:
All work on the Pierce Road Bridge Replacement (Capital Project No.
953) has been completed by the City's contractor, Jones Brothers,
Inc., and inspected by Public Works staff. The final construction
contract amount was $439,373.69, which is 6.7% above the awarded
contract amount of $411,694. The increased cost was due to
additional work required to expand the areas of slope protection
under the bridge abutments, and larger than estimated quantities of
structural concrete.
In order to close out the construction contract and begin the one
year maintenance /warranty period, it is recommended that the
Council accept the project as complete. Further, it is recommended
that the Council authorize staff to record the attached Notice of
Completion for the construction contract so that the requisite 30
day Stop Notice period for the filing of claims by subcontractors
or material providers may commence.
Fiscal Im accts:
The ten percent retention withheld from previous payments to the
contractor will be released 30 days after recordation of the Notice
of Completion assuming no Stop Notices are filed with the City.
The adopted budget contains sufficient funds in Capital Project No.
953, Account 4510 to cover the entire cost of the construction
contract. Also, recall that the cost of this project is to be
reimbursed to the City through the federal bridge replacement
program.
Follow Up Actions:
Staff will record the Notice of Completion for the construction
contract and release the contract sureties and retention thirty
days thereafter. The final claim for reimbursement will be filed
with Caltrans and the FHwA.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
The project would not be accepted as complete and staff would
notify the contractor of any additional work required by the City
Council before the project would be accepted as complete.
Advertising. Noticing and Public Contact:
Nothing additional.
Attachments:
1. Contract Summary.
2. Notice of Completion.
CONTRACT SUMMARY
PROJECT: Pierce Road Bridge Replacement, C.I.P. No. 953
CONTRACTOR: Jones Bros., Inc.
CONTRACT DATE: 10/04/95
CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE: 6/11/96
ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT: $411,694.00
CHANGE ORDER AMOUNT: $27,679.69
FINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT: $439,373.69
PERCENT +/- FROM ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT: +6.70
Recording requested by,
and to be returned to:
City of Saratoga
Department of Public Works
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the work agreed to be performed under
the contract mentioned below between the City of Saratoga, a
municipal corporation, whose address is 13777 Fruitvale Ave.,
Saratoga, CA 95070, as Owner of- property or property rights, and
the Contractor mentioned below, on property of the Owner, was
accepted as complete by the Owner on the 11th day of June, 1996.
Contract Number: N/A Contract Date: October 4, 1995
Contractor's Name: Jones Bros., Inc.
Contractor's Address: 1131 Luchessi Drive, San Jose, CA 95118
Description of Work: Pierce Road Bridge Replacement, C.I.P. 953
This notice is given in accordance with the provisions of Section
3093 of the Civil Code of the State of California.
The undersigned certifies that he is an
Saratoga, that he has read the foregoing
Completion and knows the contents therec
true of his own knowledge, except as to
therein stated on information or belief,
that he believes to be true.
officer of the City of
Notice of Acceptance of
f; and that the same is
those matters which are
and as to those matters
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct. Executed at the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara,
State of California on , 19
CITY OF SARATOGA
BY:
Larry I. Perlin
Director Of Public Works
ATTEST:
Grace E. Cory, Deputy City Clerk
Gov. Code 40814
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY N0.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
-ZISr
AGENDA ITEM
s� a,
MEETING DATE: August 7. 1996 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Managers Office
Paula Reeve, Public Services Assistant
SUBJECT: Request for Re- Allocation of Approved Funds for Tri -Aegis
Residential Services, Inc.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Approve Tri - Aegis request to reallocate $50,000 of FY 1996/97 CDBG
funds to utilize as a down payment on a residential care home for
disabled adults.
REPORT SUMMARY:
In fiscal year 1995/96, Tri -Aegis was granted $50,000 by the City
of Saratoga to use as a down payment to purchase the house on
Allendale Avenue which it has rented for five years. During
February 1996, the owner notified Tri -Aegis that she had decided
not to sell the home. Subsequently, Tri -Aegis made an offer on a
property at 18241 Vanderbilt Drive in Saratoga which was accepted
on July 9, 1996.
The City also awarded Tri -Aegis $50,000 from FY 1996/97 CDBG funds
to complete handicap accommodations for the occupants once the new
residence is acquired. Tri -Aegis recently submitted a cover
letter and a new application seeking permission from the City to
make a down payment on the home using a combination of 95/96 and
96/97 grant monies totaling $1001000. (Attachments A and B).
CURRENT CONSIDERATIONS:
Allowing Tri -Aegis to utilize the 1996/97 allocation for
acquisition will simplify record keeping and preclude both the City
and Tri -Aegis from having to comply with Davis -Bacon monitoring
requirements pertaining to labor standards for construction
projects. In effect, the real estate acquisition funds for this
project would be disbursed at close of escrow in August and the
project would be completed. Approval of this modification still
meets Council's policy objective of providing low to moderate
income housing within the community.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
Reallocating Tri- Aegis' approved 1996/97 CDBG funds for the
provision of real estate acquisition will not affect the CDBG
budget or impact the General Fund.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTIONS:
Tri -Aegis Residential Services, Inc. will be required to use its
reserve funds as part of the down payment, thereby risking the
organizational solvency.
ADVERTISING. NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Posting of Agenda
FOLLOW UP ACTIONS:
Notify Tri -Aegis of the City Council's decision; execute 1996/97
contract if request is approved.
Attachments:
A. July 9, 1996 Tri -Aegis Request Letter
B. 1996/97 Project Application
F: \cdbg \counrpt.7 /96
�1
TRI AEGIS
Tri- Aegis, Inc.
Allendale House
18460 Allendale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
(408) 370 -0896
Camden House
5467 Camden Ave.
San Jose, CA 95124
(408) 265 -4645
De La Cruz House
3779 De La Cruz Blvd.
Santa Clara, CA 95054
(408) 988 -1073
Live Oak House
1020 Live Oak Dr.
Santa Clara, CA 95051
(408) 296 -6012
Orchard View House
1602 Orchard View Dr.
San Jose, CA 95124
(408) 448 -5411
Potrero House
1850 Potrero Dr.
San Jose, CA 95124
(408) 978 -2453
Ross House
2893 Ross Ave.
San Jose, CA 95124
(408) 978 -5540
July 9, 1996
Paula Reeve
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Ms. Reeve:
ATTACHMENT A
100 W. Rincon Ave. #100, Campbell, CA 95008
(408) 866 -5001 • fax (408) 866 -5372
As you are aware, Tri- Aegis' offer on the property at
18241 Vanderbilt Drive has been accepted by the seller.
We are currently pursuing removal of contingencies on
that offer and expect close of escrow August 9, 1996.
Tri- Aegis' application for CDBG funds outlined our plan
to use a combination of 95/96 CDBG funds and Tri- Aegis'
reserves for down payment. Tenant improvements would be
made with allocated 96/97 CDBG funds.
While the overall plan remains the same, Tri - Aegis
respectfully requests that the City consider allowing the
use of the 96/97 allocation along with the 95/96 funds
toward down payment. Tri- Aegis' reserves could then be
used for tenant improvements. This alternative would
serve to simplify record keeping while ensuring the same
outcome.
Thank you for your consideration of our request. If you.
need additional information, please contact me at 866-
5001.
Sincerely,
Diane Marcus
Executive Director
ATTACHMENT B
City of Saratoga
Community Development Block Grant Program/
Human Services Grant Program
1996/1997
PROPOSAL COVER PAGE
APPLICANT ORGANIZATION
NAME TRI -AEGIS RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, INC.
ADDRESS 100 W. RINCON AVENUE, SUITE 100
CAMPBELL, CA 95008
NAME/TITTLE OF PROPONENT Diane Marcus, Executive Director
SIGNATURE ��(Q o
TELEPHONE NUMBER (408) 866 -5001
PROJECT NAME ALLENDALE ( SARATOGA) PROJECT
DOLLAR AMT. OF FUNDS REQUESTED FROM CITY OF SARATOGA $50,000.00
PROJECT ABSTRACT.(Limit statement to space provided)
This project proposes to purchase a Saratoga single family home
for use as a group home for 6 persons with developmental
disabilities. Funds will be used towards the down payment.
The City of Saratoga does not.discriminate on the basis of race,
Color, national origin, sex, religion, age or disability in the
provision of serves and programs.
Project Name:
Allendale (Saratoga) Group Home
A. Description of Agency
Tri -Aegis Residential Services, Inc., the applicant agency, is a 501(c)3 organization.
The primary mission of the agency is to provide intermediate level homes for
persons with developmental disabilities. The agency serves primarily Santa Clara
County and has seven homes here. Four are located in San Jose, two in Santa
Clara and one in Saratoga. Resident placement and case management services are
provided through San Andreas Regional Center. The agency policy direction is set
by the Board of Directors and primary oversight rests with the Chief Executive
Officer. In addition, each home is supervised by a professional trained in the fields
of social work, psychology, speech, physical therapy, or a related discipline.
Twenty -four hour staffing care is given in each of the six person homes.
B. Past Performance:
Tri -Aegis has been providing homes for persons with challenging conditions for over
11 years. The past nine years have been serving solely persons with developmental
disabilities. These include persons with mental retardation, cerebral palsy, autism,
epilepsy and other neurological conditions that occurred before age 18. Each home
has a program of care for the six residents who live there. This program includes
assistance with health related needs as well as activities of daily living. Staff is
carefully selected and trained to provide 24 -hour supervision and care. The homes
are licensed by the State Department of Health Services and provide a very high
standard of care. The home in Saratoga has been in operation for five years.
In fiscal year 95/96, Tri -Aegis was granted $50,000 by the City of Saratoga-which
was to be used to purchase the house in Saratoga that the agency currently rents.
That owner has changed her mind and is keeping the house. Since this unfortunate
decision, we have been searching fora suitable home. Our results so far indicate
that to find a house in Saratoga for less than $400,000 is unlikely. Because of this
cost and the additional expense of modifying a conventional home to a group home,
Tri -Aegis is seeking additional funding from a number of sources to supplement what
the City has set aside.
The agency has had several state and local grants, and have always met the
requirements of the funding agencies. This same assurance would be given to the
City of Saratoga.
C. Project Purpose & Objectives:
The purpose of this project is to purchase a Saratoga single - family home, to make it
accessible to adults with disabilities.
The down payment on the home would be made with a combination of 95/96 City
grant monies and 96/97 grant monies now reserved for modifications. Modifications
would be funded from Tri -Aegis reserves.
This home would then replace the home on Allendale Avenue that the agency
currently leases. The terms of that lease provide for a rent increase annually. The
specific outcome sought is to stabilize the monthly payment and build an equity
asset for the agency. The benefit to the agency is a better financial situation, thus
releasing more funds for care and services for the residents served. The benefit to
the community is an excellent home to serve individuals close to their families.
D. Project Management:
The project will be given oversight by the Chief Executive Officer with specific
direction given by a Board Member familiar with mortgage financing and grant
administration and a Board Consultant familiar with the required renovations.
Technical support will be provided by agency clerical staff. Time frame is one year,
with monthly progress reports to the Board of Directors and funding source.
Effectiveness will be demonstrated by agency ownership of facility. The on -going
program of services to the residents will be supervised by the clinical staff of Tri-
Aegis and the supervisor of the home.
E. Community Need for Program:
San Andreas Regional Center provides services to adults with developmental
disabilities in the immediate four county area. Their five year plan indicates an
ongoing need for group homes. It has been demonstrated that individuals do better
in small home like settings, and for that reason, among others, decisions have been
made to close the larger institutional settings. However, particularly here in Santa
Clara valley where housing costs are very high, the development of the smaller
homes has not kept pace with the need. Currently, whenever a resident needs
placement outside the home or to move to another more appropriate setting, the wait
is from six months to two years. The continuance of the Allendale (Saratoga)
program will continue to help address this need.
F. Project Beneficiaries:
Allendale (Saratoga) project would serve six very low income persons. They are all
on Social Supplemental Income and Medi -Cal. Their families may not be low
income, but these persons are counted independently, since some have elderly
parents on retirement incomes or unable to continue as their family members sole
support due to the heavy medical needs and related expenses. The agency
currently serves three Saratoga residents, and a total of forty -two persons.
G. Financial Information:
See Attached budget narrative and financial information, 5 pages.
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
BUDGET NARRATIVE
Please provide the following information:
1. Human Services Grant request of $ 5n.nnn-_nn This request, as a
percentage of the total program budget equals percent.
2. On what basis* is the Human Services Grant portion computed? (Pro -rated
based on number of clients served, or other methodology ?)
Since this grant request is to purchase a.home, the methodology
used was to calculate the size of down payment necessary to
result in mortgage payments at or below current rent paid on
Allendale.
3. What is the average cost per Saratoga client to whom direct services are
provided?
$3,600.00
4. Has your organization ever had funds withdrawn or contract terminated
for cause, unsatisfactory performance or questionable costs on any
financial statements or audit? If yes, please explain.
NO
5. Is your organization, currently on probation or under investigation by
any agency which is or was a funding source within the past two years?
If yes, please explain.
6. Please complete:
NO
FUND BALANCES
* $50,000.00 City of Saratoga Block Grant now set aside
Unrestricted
Fund
Restricted
Fund
Land, Bldg, &
Equip. Fund
Endowment
Fund
Actual Fund
Balance
$199,874
0
0
0
End FY 94/95
Estimated
Fund Balance
$200,000
*
0
0
End FY 95/96
* $50,000.00 City of Saratoga Block Grant now set aside
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
PROGRAM BUDGET - EXPENSES
Note: All amounts should be rounded to the nearest dollar.
Actual Budget
FY 95
Projected Budget
FY 96
Expenses
PERSONNEL
152924
166608
BENEFITS
46016
33195
SUPPLIES
16007
16925
COMMUNICATIONS
PRINTING /ADVERTISING
921
UTILITIES
5235
5379 -
SPACE RENTAL
27000
27600
EQUIPMENT RENTAL .
TRAVEL (Local —
conferences, etc )
TRAVEL other M-AA5F,
�.q�n
6413
5462
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
INSURANCE
1443
1872
MISC.
1384
4270
EQUIPMENT
579
451
SUBSCRIP. /PUBLICATIONS
Subtotal Expenses
257922
255934
Capital Expenses
CAPITAL OUTLAY
2143
BUILDINGS LiAktL
1148
1939
EQUIPMENT
Subtotal Expenses
1148
4082
TOTAL EXPENSES AND
CAPITAL OUTLAY
259070
260016
Note: All amounts should be rounded to the nearest dollar.
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
ORGANIZATION BUDGET - EXPENSES .
Note: All amounts shouia' be rounded to the nearest dollar.
Actual Budget Projected Budget
FY 95 L FY 96
Expenses -l-�_
1148644 1279008
315094 249948
PERSONNEL
BENEFITS
SUPPLIES
119425
118476
f
COMMUNICATIONS
PRINTING /ADVERTISING
6450
UTILITIES
37376
37656
SPACE RENTAL
150800
152400
EQUIPMENT RENTAL
TRAVEL (Local —
conferences, etc
TRAVEL other
32899
38232
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
INSURANCE
15612
13104
MISC.
36674
87504
EQUIPMENT
2636
3156
SUBSCRIP. /PUBLICATIONS
Subtotal Expenses
1865610
1979484
Capital Expenses
CAPITAL OUTLAY
15000
BUILDINGS µAIWT
13522
13572
EQUIPMENT
Subtotal Expenses
13522
28572
TOTAL EXPENSES AND
CAPITAL OUTLAY
1879132
2008056
Note: All amounts shouia' be rounded to the nearest dollar.
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
PROGRAM BUDGET -- REVENUES
If the program for which funds are requested is one of two or more programs
sponsored by the.agency,_ then the program budget must be be completed. (Ali
agencies are required to complete the organization budget.)
NOTE: All amounts should be rounded to the nearest dollar.
Actual Budget
FY 95196
Projected Budget
FY 96/97
•CITY OF SARATOGA
OTHER CITIES:
STATE
ales
FEDERAL S S'
FEES FOR SERVICES
FUND RAISING,
DONATIONS (CASH)
RESERVE CONTINGENCY
FUND
ALL OTHER (LIST)
TOTAL INCOME
a %p
C2&61 ?70
NOTE: All amounts should be rounded to the nearest dollar.
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
ORGANIZATION BUDGET -- REVENUES
NOTE: All amounts should be rounded to the nearest dollar.
Actual-----,--
FY 9 /'
Proje d Budget
FY 6
t
•
CITY OF SARATOGA
OTHER CITIES:
STATE Mai - CA-tr
. 0 (o -77 %
09
FEDERAL�R�
FEES FOR SERVICES
FUND RAISING,
DONATIONS (CASH)
3�000
I�flOO
RESERVE CONTINGENCY
FUND -
ALL OTHER (LIST)
L15��L/
TOTAL INCOME
NOTE: All amounts should be rounded to the nearest dollar.
..
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: August 7, 1996 CITY MGR.
ORIGINATING DEPT.: FINANCE
SUBJECT: 1995/96 & 1996/97 BUDGET AMENDMENTS
r /
PAN' ce %
Recommended Motion(s): Approve resolutions amending the Fiscal Year
1995/96 and 1996/97 Budgets for year end clean up.
Report Summary: Attached are resolutions amending the 1995/96 and
1996/97 Budgets for the following four items: 1) increase revenues
and appropriations for the FY 95/96 Budget relative to Program 2029
- Development Regulation and Program 6067 - Community Access
Television, 2) transfer budget authority within the FY 95/96 Budget
for Environmental Services, Public Works and General Government
functional areas, 3) reduce appropriations authority in FY 95/96
and increase appropriations authority in FY 96/97 for carry over
encumbrances and 4) reduce appropriations authority in FY 95/96 and
increase appropriations authority in FY 96/97 for carry over
project balances. Also included with the resolutions are Budget
Resolution Supporting Worksheets and Resolutions Approved schedules
for each year.
The first item, amends the FY 95/96 General Fund revenue and
appropriations budget for: 1) additional geological and grading
permit fee revenues and Program 2029 - Development Regulation for
the related expenditures associated with processing the permits and
2) additional reimbursement monies and Program 6067 - Community
Access TV expenditures associated with administering the payroll
for KSAR. There is no impact to fund balance as a result of this
amendment.
The second item, authorizes transfers within the FY 95/96 Budget
functional areas to cover under budgeted line items, primarily in
the area of legal services, personnel services and public noticing.
As a result of internal savings, there is adequate budgetary
authority remaining within the functional areas to cover the
transfers. Accordingly, there is no impact to fund balance as a
result of this amendment.
The third item, reduces the FY 95/96 Budget and increases the FY
96/97 Budget for certain encumbrances, i.e. outstanding purchase
orders, that will be paid in FY 96/97. Most noteworthy of the
carry over items are $46 thousand in pavement management work, $28
1
thousand for a replacement truck on order and $32 thousand relative
to capital projects. A complete list of carry over encumbrances is
attached for your review.
The fourth and final item, reduces the FY 95/96 Budget and
increases the FY 96/97 Budget for certain projects where funds were
estimated to be expended in FY 95/96, but are now scheduled to be
expended in FY 96/97. The carry over amounts are $12,924 for
Project 9109 - Quarry Creek Landscape and $9,026 for Project 9601 -
Saratoga \Sunnyvale Road Landscape.
Fiscal Impacts: FY 95/96 - Overall revenues increase by $15,654.
Overall expenditures decrease by $122,512. As indicated
previously, $15,654 in General Fund costs associated with
development regulation and Cable TV operation will be recovered by
a like amount in revenue paid by developers and KSAR.
Specific changes by Fund for FY 95/96 are as follows:
Fund
Revenues
Expenditures
Transfers
O1- General Fund
$15,654
($94,142)
$0
14 -Gas Tax
$0
($14,891)
$0
61- Quarry Creek Trust
$0
($12,924)
$0
71- Landscape & Light
$0
($555)
$0
FY 96/97 - Overall expenditures increase by $138,166; $116,216 for
carry over encumbrances and $21,950 for carry over projects.
Specific changes by Fund for FY 96/97 are as follows:
Fund Revenues
Expenditures
Transfers
01- General Fund
$0
$109,796
$0
14 -Gas Tax
$0
$14,891
$0
61- Quarry Creek Trust
$0
$12,924
$0
71- Landscape & Light
$0
$555
$0
The unaudited fund balances as
of
6130196 were:
O1- General Fund
$4,242,000
14 -Gas Tax
$224,000
61- Quarry Creek Trust
$31,000
71- Landscape & Light
$87,000
Follow Up Actions: Post entries to system.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: Budget
variances at the program level will remain and lack of authority
will exist for payment of outstanding commitments and project work.
Attachments
c: \execsumm \exsm080l.96
2
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.: aG j AGENDA ITEM: !D A
MEETING DATE: August 7, 1996
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CommigilLty Development W
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
A - — -
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission approval of Design Review and
Variance requests to build a single family home at 15580 Peach Hill Rd.
Applicants: Wilson /Davison. Appellant: Giberson
Recommended Motion:
Deny the appellant's request and uphold the Planning Commission's grant
of Design Review and Variance approval.
Report Summar
Description:
Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 3,523 sq. ft. two -
story residence on an undeveloped hillside parcel pursuant to Chapter 15
of the City Code. Variance approval is also requested to allow the
structure to deviate from lot depth percentage -based setbacks and to
allow retaining walls within the required front yard in excess of 3 ft.
in-height. The 1.05 acre subject property was recently approved by the
City Council to be annexed to Saratoga and is now within the City's
Hillside Residential zoning district.
Background:
Robert Wilson and Deborah Davison met with planning staff early this
year to inquire about developing their vacant hillside lot. The
property was under Santa Clara County jurisdiction but contiguous with
Saratoga and within Saratoga's Urban Service Boundary. The City's
agreement with the County allows the City Council first -right to annex
contiguous parcels proposed to be developed. The Council's policy has
been to annex hillside lots in order to apply Saratoga's more
restrictive development standards. For example, under County guidelines
the Wilson /Davison home could have been up to three - stories tall and
still not have required public hearing review.
The applicants initially filed for an annexation waiver, which was
rejected by the City Council. The annexation was then approved by
Resolution in May, 1996 and sent to the County's Local Agency Formation
Commission for recordation. The annexation has now been certified as
complete.
Wilson /Davison Appeal
Page Two
Design Review and Variance requests to build a single family residence
on the site were then filed with the City. The plans, site conditions
and supporting investigations were reviewed by the City's Geotechnical
Consultant, who. determined that the property can be safely developed.
The plans have been reviewed by the City Arborist and his comments and
recommendations have either been incorporated into the plan set or
included as conditions of approval. Engineering staff and all
applicable public and private safety and utility providers have also
reviewed the proposal and their comments have also been incorporated.
The plans, as modified to address review comments, now comply with
Saratoga's development standards for the Hillside Residential zoning
district. The Variances requested can be supported given the special
circumstances associated with this parcel, as discussed in the attached
staff report. Finally, staff also found that the necessary Design
Review findings could be made to recommend approval of the proposal.
The Planning Commission visited the site, reviewed the staff report and
attachments, took public testimony at the June 26th hearing and approved
the proposal 5 -0. Issues raised by immediately adjacent neighbors who
spoke at the hearing were apparently addressed to their satisfaction.
Minutes from that meeting are attached.
Grounds for Appeal:
The appeal has been filed by Meg Giberson, a neighbor across the canyon
from the subject property. Her home is accessed off Glen Una Dr. and
under Santa Clara County jurisdiction. The following summary comments
are in response to the issues raised in her appeal letter.
No Exhibit "A" - The appellant has stated that there were no plans
(Exhibit "A ") available for public or Planning Commission review. Staff
had personally reviewed these plans with Mrs. Giberson well in advance
of the June 26th public hearing. These plans changed slightly during
staff's review in response to the City Arborist's recommendations, but
these were not significant changes. The revised plans were available in
the public file June 5th and reviewed and approved by the Planning
Commission at their June 26th public hearing.
Project subject to CEQA - The appellant has stated that the home
construction is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act and
that a "complete cumulative impact study" should be performed. Article
19 of the CEQA guidelines lists single family home construction as being
categorically exempt from mandated environmental analysis. This does.
not mean that no environmental review was performed. The proposal has
been reviewed by the City Geologist, City Arborist, engineering and
planning staff and all other applicable agencies - what other specific
studies should be performed is not suggested in the appeal letter.
Annexation - Lastly, the appeal questions the process the City went
through in annexing the property. Associate Planner George White, who
is responsible for reviewing and processing annexations requests for.the
City, has responded by the attached separate memorandum.
The focus of the appeal letter seems to be on the location of the
sanitary sewer connection. The applicants have stated that they will
connect to the sewer line along Peach Hill Rd., which will be uphill
Wilson /Davison Appeal
Page Three
from the home and require some type of a pump system. Since the June
26th hearing, the applicants have submitted construction drawings
showing this location - these plans are on hold pending the appeal
hearing. This is discussed since Mrs. Giberson is objecting to any
future connection by the Wilson /Davisons, or their neighbors, to the
downhill sewer line at the base of the property. The City does not have
the authority to tell a property owner that they cannot connect to a
public sewer system that is available to them. If the Wilson /Davisons
or their neighbors decide to pursue a different sewer connection in the
future it would subject to the review and .approval of the sanitation
district, not the City.
Public Notice:
Public notices were mailed to property owners within 500 ft. of the
subject properties and a notice was placed in the Saratoga News.
Follow -up Actions:
A Resolution will be prepared reflecting the City Council's action which
will be placed on the agenda of the next regular City Council meeting.
Attachments:
1. Giberson appeal letter
2. Memorandum from Associate Planner White
3. Staff Report with attachments dated June 26, 1996
4. Planning Commission minutes dated June 26, 1996
5. Plans, Exhibit "A"
July 10, 1996
ATTACHMENT TO APPEAL APPLICATION
TO: The Honorable Saratoga City Council
RE: Application No. DR -96 -015 & V -96 -003
15580 Peach Hill Rd.
APN 517 -23 -026
For the reasons set forth below, we object to the Planning
Commission's approval of Project DR -96 -015 & V -96 -003 for the
construction of a single family dwelling at 15580 Peach Hill
Road, Saratoga, and request a hearing to review the same
before the Saratoga City Council.
Insufficient descriRtion of 8roject 8recludes adequate
8ublic review.
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
adequate environmental review is required of projects which
may negatively affect the environment.
However, there was no Exhibit "A" (purporting to show
the manner in which the development was to be located and
constructed) either: 1) included (except by reference) in or
attached to the Planning Commission Resolution. No. DR -96 -015,
as it was presented in the packet for the public hearing on
June 26, 1996; or 2) included in the city file for DR -96 -015,
a copy of which the city delivered to us on July 8, 1996; or
3) included in the "annexation" file, a copy of which the
city delivered to us on June 24, 1996.
The details of the proposed development could not
therefore be ascertained in this case and, consequently,
meaningful and adequate public review and commentary on the
likely environmental impacts of the project could not occur
See, for example, the attached Giberson memorandum,
submitted on June 26, 1996, at the public hearing on the
project, for objections to the indefiniteness of 1) the
sewer hookup location and type, and 2) the driveway
location and configuration.
CEQA review is required for projects like single family
homes which — although potentially categorically exempt from
review —are found to have potential for significant effect(s)
on the environment because: a) unusual circumstances
indicate a reasonable possibility of a significant
environmental impact, b) cumulative impacts would be
significant, c) there are designated sensitive environments
involved (as is the riparian area bordered by this project).
As outlined in our June 26, 1996, memo, circumstances
a) -c) are present in this case and require CEQA review.
The historical Lack of effective environmental
review of:
• the Kennedy sewer project which was run
through Willow Creek ravine —under a Negative
Declaration issued by the Sanitation District which
subsequently acquired the sewer project;
• the devastating lack of environmental review
upon Saratoga's approval and lax supervision of the
Birenbaum project; and
• the present circumstances of the inadequate
description and review of this project present a pattern
which appears likely to project well into the future.
This project's approval will have cumulative effects by
increasing the potential for similar inappropriate
development in an environmentally sensitive zone.
At annexation: Saratoga incorrectly exempted the
project from CEQA review, making no studies or findings at
the annexation stage, with no provision for notice or
hearing. Adequate review at that time was thereby
incorrectly precluded.
Before the planning commission: Similarly, Saratoga
conducted no studies and made no findings concerning the
likely environmental impacts of the project when the issue
was before the Planning Commission on June 26, 1996, thereby
providing inadequate environmental review for the project at
the Commission level.
STUDY REQUESTED
Given these concerns, we request that the Council
require a complete cumulative impact study, and either an
environmental impact report or a study sufficient to support
a conclusion that a negative declaration for environmental
purposes may be made.
Respectfully s b /mitted,
Meg Gib s n
(for Al n and Meg Giberson)
June 26, 1996
Re: Application DR -96 -015 & V -96 -003; 15580 Peach Hill
Road
To the Honorable Planning Commission:
We are writing about the above applications for the
Wilson /Davison project. We are homeowners and neighbors of
the project and are concerned about the project's potential
impacts on us and the environment.
Several items which may.have considerable environmental.
impact appear to remain indefinite or undecided in these
applications:
1. the sewer hookup location and type (which have
not yet been determined —the owner is to choose between
pumping outflow about 30 -40' to the connection in Peach Hill
Road, or using gravity flow to the creekside terminus of the
Kennedy sewer extension);
2. the lot's apparent lack of access to the present
creekside sewer terminus alongside Willow Creek; and
3. the driveway location and configuration (which
are not yet definite, according to the information on page 23
of tonight's packet and per the City Geotechnical
Consultant's letter of May 28, 1996);
4. what kind of study or findings address the
project's environmental impacts;
5. no notice or hearing accompanied the lot's
annexation to Saratoga (per Saratoga City Council Resolution
No. 96 -25, reprinted at pages 27 -28 of tonight's packet), and
hence no chance for public environmental review was afforded
at that time (although such a lot annexation has been found
to be a "project" subject to CEQA review) .
SOME SPECIFIC CONCERNS
- sewer. hookup location and type:
• there has been no Pffpntive environmental review to
date of the sewer project which was run through Willow Creek
ravine —the present lack of review continues a pattern which
appears likely to project into the future:
-the Sanitation District claimed that the Peach
Hill Road extension along Willow Creek was its own (although
the extension was actually a private project to serve Jos.
Kennedy's projected development in the canyon, only being
sold subsequently to the Sanitation District) and issued a
Negative Declaration as to the project's potential effect on
the environment (although CEQA Guidelines indicate that
extending a sewer trunk line with capacity to serve new
development is a significant effect requiring CEQA review);
-the subsequent Birenbaum project was similarly
accomplished with merely a negative dec, and statements to
the effect that no untoward environmental effects would occur
(although the subsequent destruction of many feet of riparian
habitat, and the "rocking" of the creek were decried by City
Council members in subsequent public meetings);
• cumulative impacts of the canyon sewer project have
not been adequately assessed — although agencies are required
to assess impacts early and in a cumulative way, rather than
wait and assess items project by project:
- neighbors to the south of the Wilson /Davison lot
may need or want4lconnect to a sewer in the future, and this
project could set a precedent for those actions, opening the
way for future such development;
-the lack of environmental review has precluded the
required summary of the expected environmental effects from
past, present and. reasonably anticipated future projects in
the canyon which have or will produce related or cumulative
similar impacts;
-the Sanitation District claims that it needs
access (presumably vehicular) to such sewer installations as
Kennedy's Peach Hill sewer extension; what provision has the
city made for such access? cr
�`� Siy0 c!n<i �c-J14Gc i'ka
-if the City were to facilitate an extension of a
road along Willow Creek for access to sewer connections, it
would be fostering a greater consumption of land to
accommodate the same level of population, resulting in a loss
of important and sensitive riparian habitat when less
expensive andVfeasible alternatives were available.
Respectfully submitted,
AS.
Alan G. Giberson J`
M. Giberson
nA
SAR��O
Gn1
9
i�su 4,
r�lF 8),
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ann Marie Burger
Paul E. Jacobs
Gillian Moran
Karen Tucker
Donald L. Wolfe
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
MEMORANDUM
July 29, 1996
Paul Curtis, Community
George White, Associate
Developm t Director
Plann
SUBJECT: A -95 -001, Wilson /Davison, Peach Hill Road
Response to Appeal
Per your request, the following is a response to questions raised
regarding the processing of the above referenced annexation in the
appeal by Mrs. Giberson of DR -96 -013, V -96 -003.
In her appeal letter, Mrs. Giberson states that the annexation
process was "incorrectly exempted" from CEQA review. Current City
policy regarding all new development proposals on parcels
contiguous to the City boundary and within the designated Urban
Service Area is to annex such parcels for the purpose of
controlling the subsequent development.
The Wilson /Davison annexation was required by the City and,
therefore, constitutes a ministerial project which is exempt from
the provision of CEQA. The officially adopted resolution of
annexation for this project contained the appropriate finding of
exemption..
Mrs. Giberson also states that no provision for a public hearing
was allowed at the time of annexation. Pursuant to Government Code
Section 56837, City conducted annexations of vacant land in which
all of the property owners file a petition of annexation, as in the
Wilson /Davison case, require no public hearing.
I hope this adequately responds to the appeal questions. Please
advise if you need additional information.
Printed on recycled paper.
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application No. /Location: DR -96 -015 & V -96 -003; 15580 Peach Hill Rd.
Applicant /Owner: WILSON /DAVISON
Staff Planner: James Walgren, AICP
Date: June 26, 19 9 6
APN: 517 -23 -026 Director Approval:
1 Dz)zsv reach mi-11 Kd.
File No. DR -96 -015 & V -96 -003; 15580 Peach Hill Rd.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CASE HISTORY•
Application filed:
3/08/96
Application complete:
6/05/96
Notice published:
6/12/96
Mailing completed:
6/13/96
Posting completed:
6/06/96
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 3, 523 sq. ft.
two -story residence on an undeveloped hillside parcel pursuant to
Chapter 15 of the City Code. Variance approval is also requested
to allow the structure to deviate from lot depth percentage -based
setbacks and to allow retaining walls within the required front
yard in excess of 3 ft. in height. The 1.05 acre subject property
was recently approved by the City Council to be annexed to Saratoga
and will be in the Hillside Residential zoning.district.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the Design Review and Variance requests, with conditions,
by adopting the attached Resolutions.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Analysis
2. Resolutions DR -96 -015 and V -96 -003
3. Arborist.Report dated March 30, 1996
4. City - Council Annexation Report and Resolution
S. Plans, Exhibit "A"
File No. DR -96 -015 & V -96 -003; 15580 Peach Hill Rd.
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING: Hillside Residential
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential - Hillside Conservation
PARCEL SIZE: 1.05 acres
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 286
SLOPE AT BUILDING PAD: 266
GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 195 cu. yds. Cut Depth: 3.5 ft.
Fill: 195 cu. yds. Fill Depth: 7.5 ft.
MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Stucco exterior finish painted
medium -dark tan with dark green trim and terra cotta the roofing
per the submitted material board.
LOT COVERAGE:
HEIGHT•
SIZE OF STRUCTURE:
PROPOSAL
86 (3,800 sq. ft.)
26 ft.
Lower Level Floor:
585
sq.
ft.
First Floor & Garage:
1,784
sq.
ft.
Second Floor:
1,154
sq.
ft.
TOTAL:
3,523
sq.
ft.
SETBACKS: Front:
30
ft.
Rear:
>400
ft.
Right Side:
20
ft.
Left Side:
65
ft.
PROJECT DISCUSSION:
Overview:
CODE REQUIREMENT/
ALLOWANCE
256 (not to exceed
15.000 sq. ft.)
26 ft.
4,518 sq. ft
Front:
96
ft.
Rear:
120
ft.
Right Side:
20
ft.
Left Side:
20
ft.
The subject property is a vacant hillside lot located in the
foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains at the City's southern
boundary. The parcel is contiguous to Saratoga but is currently
under the jurisdiction of Santa Clara County. 'The City's agreement
with the County /Local Agency Formation Commission allows Saratoga
first right to annex properties directly contiguous to. the City and
File No. DR -96 -015 & V -96 -003; 15580 Peach Hill Rd.
within our Urban Service Boundary. This lot meets both criteria
and the City Council adopted a Resolution to annex the property at
their May 15, 1996 meeting. The City's policy is to annex
adjoining hillside lots when the opportunity arises in order to
have more control over design and site development issues. The
annexation procedure must still be formally accepted by LAFCO, but
staff's understanding is that this is just a procedural process and
staff is recommending approval of the proposal with the condition
that the annexation process be completed prior to issuance of
building permits.
The Urban Service Boundary for this area is designated as
Residential - Hillside Conservation in the City's General Plan. As
part of the annexation process, the property was pre- designated
with the City's corresponding Hillside Residential zoning
classification.
Design Review:
The design utilizes several of the techniques recommended to
minimize building bulk and mass in the City's Residential Design
Handbook. The structure's elevations and rooflines are articulated
to reduce the building's visual mass. Large wall expanses are
avoided as a result of the variations in the building footprint and
the architectural details that are incorporated into the design.
The building pad is 10 ft. to 30 ft. lower than Peach Hill Rd. and
the future home would be largely screened from public views by
topography and vegetation.
Variance:
The applicants' Variance requests
within the required 96 ft. front
tall retaining walls to be locate
setback in' excess of the City's
supporting the Variance requests
circumstances:
would allow the home to be built
yard setback and to allow 5 ft.
d within the required front yard
3 ft. height limit. Staff is
based on the following special
• Because of the unusual shape of the lot and its exceptional
depth, the City's current setback requirement of 200 of a
parcel's depth would result in a required front setback of
almost 100 ft. This large setback would push the structure
down the hill and eliminate any reasonable building area.
• The parcel was created in 1958 under earlier development
standards - the current percentage setback requirements were
not adopted until 1992.
• The proposal does meet the minimum 30 ft. front yard setback
requirement in place when the parcel was created. It.also
meets current side and rear yard setbacks.
File No. DR -96 -015 & V -96 -003; 15580 Peach Hill Rd.
• The building pad is constrained by a relatively steep drop
from Peach Hill Rd. which necessitates taller retaining walls
to provide a reasonable driveway approach and still retain as
many of the native trees as possible. The 3 ft. height limit
is intended to apply to lot frontages to minimize visual
obstruction - these walls will be below the road elevation.
Geologic and Geotechnical Review:
This development application has also undergone'geotechnical field
testing by the applicants' geologist. These tests have been
reviewed and analyzed by the City's Geotechnical Consultants,
William Cotton and Associates, who have concluded that the property
can be safely developed.
Tree Preservation:
The City's Consulting Arborist has reviewed the proposal and his
tree preservation recommendations have either been incorporated
into the site and grading plan or are included in the Resolution
conditions of approval. In those cases where tree impacts are
unavoidable, an appropriate tree replacement has been required in
the attached approval Resolution.
Summary:
Staff believes that the necessary Design Review and Variance
findings can be made to support the application. The project
complies with the Hillside Residential Specific Plan goals,
objectives and policies and the Hillside Residential Zoning
Ordinance development regulations regarding grading and tree
protection and allowable building size, lot coverage and height.
Therefore, staff recommends approval of the applicants' request to
construct a new two -story home on this vacant parcel.
RECOMMENDATION•
Approve the Design Review and Variance requests, with conditions,
by adopting the attached Resolutions.
RESOLUTION NO. .DR -96 -015
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Wilson /Davison 15580 Peach Hill Rd.
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received
an application for Design Review approval to construct a new 3,523
sq. ft. two -story structure; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing at which time all interested parties were given' a. full
opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to
support said application, and the following findings have been
determined:
- The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed
main or accessary structure, when considered with reference to: (i)
the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots
and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds will
avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy, in that the
structure is at a lower elevation than the roadway, is screened by
existing native vegetation and is situated well away from most
adjoining homes.
- The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by
designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and
minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized
and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring
developed areas and undeveloped areas, in that grade changes are
very minimal and tree protection measures are incorporated into the
conditions of project approval.
- The proposed main structure in relation to structures on adjacent
.lots, and to the surrounding region, will minimize the perception
of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural
environment, in that the home will be largely screened from public
views by topography and vegetation.
- The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in
terms of .bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures
on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and
within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment;.
and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent
properties to utilize solar energy, in that the home is proposed at
the most practical location in terms of minimizing grading and tree
removal and the general massing of the home is compatible with the
various architectural designs in the vicinity.
- The proposed site development and grading plan incorporates
current grading and erosion control standards used by the City.
File No. DR -96 -015 & V -96 -003; 15580 Peach Hill Rd.
- The proposed structure conforms to each of the applicable design
policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design
Handbook and as required by Section 15- 45.055.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of
Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1. After careful consideration of the submitted site
plan; architectural drawings and other exhibits, the application of
Wilson /Davison for Design Review approval be and the same is hereby
granted subject to the following conditions:
1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on
Exhibit "A incorporated by reference. Building materials
and colors shall be per the approved material board.
2. Prior to submittal for Building or Grading Permit, the
following shall be submitted to Planning Division staff in
order to issue a Zoning Clearance:
a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans and
engineered grading and drainage plans incorporating this
Resolution as a separate plan page.
b. All applicable requirements /conditions of the Resolution
and requirements /conditions of the City Arborist (e.g.
tree protective fencing) shall be noted on the plans.
C. Landscape plan indicating native tree planting and
irrigation equivalent to the valuation assigned by the
City Arborist of $2,432 for tree #1 in his report.
d. Verification that the parcel's annexation to the City of
Saratoga has been completed pursuant to the requirements
of City Council Resolution A -95 -001 and the Santa Clara
County Local Agency Formation Commission.
3. No ordinance size tree shall be removed without first
obtaining a Tree Removal Permit.
4. All requirements of the City Arborist's Report dated March 30,
1996 shall apply. This includes, but is not limited to:
a. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance:
• The applicant shall submit to the City, in a form
acceptable to the Community Development Director,
security in the amount of $5,000 pursuant to the
report and recommendation of the City Arborist to
guarantee the preservation of trees on the subject
site during construction.
File No. DR -96 -015 & V -96 -003; 15580 Peach Hill Rd.
• Four to six ft. tall chain link protective fencing
shall be shown on the plans as indicated in the
report with the note "to remain in place throughout
construction ".
• All proposed utility trenching shall be shown to be
located out of tree canopies.
• All other tree maintenance and protection
recommendations shall be noted•on the plans.
b. Prior to issuance of Grading or Building Permits:
• Tree protection fencing shall be installed.
• All other applicable tree protection measures shall
be complied with.
C. Prior to Final Inspection approval:
• The City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify
that the tree maintenance and protection measures
have been followed in order to determine whether
the tree protection security may be released.
• Any outstanding City Arborist fees shall be paid.
5. Any portion of a structure located under the dripline of a
tree shall have pier and grade beam foundation with the beam
poured at original grade.
6. Any future landscaping or irrigation installed beneath the
canopy--of an ordinance protected oak tree shall comply with
the "Planting.under Old Oaks" guidelines. prepared by the City
Arborist. No irrigation or associated trenching' shall
encroach into the driplines of any existing oak trees unless
approved by the City Arborist.
7. Property is located in a designated hazardous fire area.
a. A fire hydrant shall be installed in accordance with the
fire district's specifications, OR a fire sprinkler
system shall be provided throughout the entire dwelling.
b. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and
maintained in accordance with the provisions of Article
16 -60 City of Saratoga.
c. Early Warning Fire.-Alarm System shall have documentation
relative .to the proposed installation and shall be
submitted to the Fire District for approval.
File No. DR -96 -015 & V -96 -003; 15580 Peach Hill Rd.
d. Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building
Code.Class A prepared or built -up roofing.
e. Fast response fire sprinkler heads shall be installed in
garages and workshop areas.
8. The final development plans shall be submitted to the
applicants' geotechnical consultant shall review and - approve
all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e.,
site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and
design parameters for foundations and retaining walls) to
ensure that his final recommendations have been properly
incorporated.
The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the
geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City
Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of a
Grading Permit.
9. The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed),
and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construc-
tion. The inspection shall include, but not necessarily be
limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and
subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for founda-
tions, keyways and retaining walls prior to the placement of
steel, concrete and engineered fill.
The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions
of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consul-
tant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review
and approval prior to issuance of a Grading Permit.,
10. The applicant shall pay any outstanding City Geotechnical
Consultant review fees prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance.
11. All exposed slopes shall be contour graded.
12. All building and construction related activities shall adhere
to New Development and Construction - Best Management
Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing
storm water pollution.
13. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and
expenses incurred by the City or held to be the liability of
City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any
proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging
the City's action with respect to the applicant's project.
14. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall
constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is
impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the
File No. DR -96 -015 & V -96 -003; 15580 Peach Hill Rd.
violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this
City per each day of the violation.
Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or
approval will expire.
Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County,
City and other Governmental entities must be met.
Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of
Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall
become effective fifteen ( -15) days from the date of adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis-
sion, State of California, this 26th day of June, 1996 by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Abshire, Kaplan, Patrick, Pierce & Siegfried
NOES: None
ABSENT: Asfour & Murakami i
Chair, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Secretary, Planni g Commission
RESOLUTION NO. .V -96 -003
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Wilson /Davison; 15580 Peach Hill Rd.
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received
an application for the Variance approval to allow the home to
encroach into the required front yard setback and to. allow
retaining walls to be located within the required front yard
setback in excess of 3 ft. in height; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed
public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a
full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to
support his said application, and the Planning Commission makes the
following findings:
- That because of special circumstances applicable to the property,
including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict
enforcement of the specified regulations would deprive the
applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties
in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district,. in
that:
• Because of the unusual shape of the lot and its exceptional
depth, the City's current setback requirement of 200 of a
parcel's depth would result in a required front setback of
almost 100 ft. This large setback would push the structure
down the hill and eliminate any reasonable building area.
• The parcel was created in 1958 under earlier development
standards - the current percentage setback requirements were
not adopted until 1992.
• ' The proposal does meet the minimum 30 ft. front yard .setback
requirement in place when the parcel was created. It also
meets current side and rear yard setbacks.
• The building pad is constrained by a relatively steep drop
from Peach Hill Rd. which necessitates taller retaining walls
to provide a reasonable driveway approach and still retain as
many of the native trees as possible. The 3 ft. height limit
is intended to apply to lot frontages to minimize visual
obstruction - these walls will be below the road elevation.
- That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of
special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other
properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning
district based on the special circumstances applicable to the
property.
File No. DR -96 -015 & V -96 -003; 15580 Peach. Hill Rd.
- That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of
Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan,
architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted. in
connection with this matter, the application of'Wilson /Davison for
Variance approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the
conditions of Resolution DR -96 -015.
Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or
approval will expire.
Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County,
City and other Governmental entities must be met.
Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of
Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this resolution shall
become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning
Commission, State of California, this 26th day of June, 1996 by the
following vote:
AYES: Abshire, Kaplan, Patrick, Pierce & Siegfried
NOES: None
ABSENT: Asfour & Murakami
Chair, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Secretary, Planning Commission
BARRIE D. DATE RECEIVED
and ASSOCIATES
Horticultural Consultants APR - 91996
408 =353 -1052
23535 Summit Road., Los Gatos, CA 95030 PLANNING DEPT.
TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
AT THE PROPERTY OF WILSON/DAVISON
PEACH HILL ROAD
SARATOGA
Prepared at the Request of:
James Walgren
Associate Planner
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Site Visit By:
Michael L. Bench
March 30, 1996
Job #04 -96 -106
BARRIE D. DATE
and ASSOCIATES
Horticultural Consultants
408 - 353 -1052
23535 Summit Road., Los Gatos, CA 95030
TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
AT THE PROPERTY OF WILSON/DAVISON
PEACH HILL ROAD
SARATOGA
Assignment
At the request of James Walgren, Associate Planner, this report reviews the construction proposal to
construct a two -story residence in relation to adjacent trees. Information about the health and structure of
the trees on this property will be provided and recommendation will be made by which damaged to them
can be minimized during construction.
Abstract
This property contains 13 trees, most of which are native oaks.
Removal of one non - native acacia is recommended due to its hazardous structure. Its value is $348, which
is equivalent to three 15- gallon native trees.
The retention of one large oak tree depends on design and grading modifications.
The value of trees retained is $22,035. A 25% bond for the total value equals $5,509.
Findings
There are 13 trees on this site that meet city regulation size requirements for protection and would be
affected by construction. These trees are classified as follows:
1 1 coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia)
1 oak hybrid (Q. sp.)
1 silver wattle (Acacia dealbata)
These oak trees are all indigenous and are all healthy, although a few have structural weaknesses, some of
which can be corrected by pruning.
Specific Trees
Tree #1, a 14 -inch diameter coast live oak, has horizontally inclined lower branches that could be
improved by pruning. The method of pruning, called end - weight removal, would reduce the risk of branch
failure. This pruning must be regularly repeated every two years for two to three years.
The proposed garage is in conflict with the canopies of trees #1 and 2. It appears that severe pruning
would be required to install the garage. Tree #1 would be disfigured, become distorted over time, and this
pruning does not eliminate the conflict with the garage structure as the tree grows. The large wounds
created by this pruning invite disease (see recommendation #9).
... REE SURVEY AND PRESERVATI RECOMMENDATIONS 2
AT THE PROPERTY OF WILSONIDAVISON
PEACH HILL ROAD
SARATOGA
Trees #3 and 4 are healthy coast live oaks that have co- dominant leaders with included bark. This
condition frequently causes branch failure in this species. A pruning method called drop- crotch pruning
applied to one of the two main leaders of each tree would greatly reduce the risk of future branch failure.
These trees are relatively young and this pruning would probably avoid a serious wound being created
when branch failure occurs once these trees mature.
The proposed grading for tree #4 is within 6 feet of the tree's trunk. This tree needs a minimum of 7 feet
of undisturbed soil (extending outward from the outer bark on the trunk). A I -foot difference may not
appear to be much, but it can make a great difference in the percentage of absorbing root mass destroved
and the severity of structural root damage, as well. This is especially true on the uphill side of oak trees
where the greater root mass typically exists (see recommendation #8).
Tree #7, a 10 -inch diameter oak hybrid thought to be dead by surveyors, is a deciduous oak that appears
to be a hybrid between valley oak (Quercus lobata) and blue oak (Q. douglasii). This tree is indeed alive
and healthy. It has three bark injuries from grading, estimated to have occurred three to five years ago.
These three injuries will heal with time. However, the root collar is covered by fill soil which could cause
the development of a serious disease. The fill over root collar must be excavated carefully by hand so as
not to cause another bark injury or root damage.
Tree #9, a 13 -inch diameter coast live oak, has in infestation of the sycamore borer (Svnanthedon
resplendens) which causes the outer bark to be rough and pitted. This insect is not considered a serious
problem and no treatment is recommended.
Tree #11, a 20 -inch diameter coast live oak, needs a radius of 10 linear feet extending outward from the
trunk of undisturbed soil to remain a viable tree. The proposed grading encircling the root collar of this tree
under the canopy would remove an estimated 85 -90 percent of this tree's absorbing root mass and
.probably structural roots, as well. This grading would destroy this tree (see recommendation #7).
Tree ##12, a 29 -inch diameter silver wattle, has a very poor structure despite its good health. The central
leader is dead and clearly visible at the top of the canopy. The tree's only option now is to develop large
heavy side branches, which have weak attachments. When the branches become too heavy for the
structural connections, they will break out. This tree should be considered a hazardous tree and should be
removed.
Tree #10, a multi -trunk coast live oak, is a healthy tree that needs a minimum radius of 12 feet of
undisturbed soil (extending outward from its trunk).
Recommendations
1. The original grade beneath the canopy of each tree must be left undisturbed and under no
circumstances be rototilled, plowed or cultivated.
2. A temporary protective chainlink fence must be constructed at the dripline of each tree or group of
trees before any construction or grading equipment arrives on site and must remain in place until all
construction is completed, including cleanup operations (see notations on the plan). The protective fence
REE SURVEY AND PRESERVATIk RECOMMENDATIONS
AT THE PROPERTY OF WILSONIDAVISON
PEACH HILL ROAD
SARATOGA
must be left in place at all times during construction unless supervised by an arborist certified by the ISA
(International Society of Arboriculture). The chainlink fence must be 5 feet minimum height. mounted on
2 -inch galvanized pipe, driven 2 feet into the ground, and be able to keep out even foot traffic.
3. Install a soaker irrigation line on top of the undisturbed soil surface approximately'_ feet inside the
protective fencing. Irrigate each tree with approximately 20 gallons for each inch of trunk diameter even_• 2
weeks until at least 8 inches of rain has fallen. In the case of 5/8_ inch Aquapore Porous Pipe. a 10 -inch
diameter tree would require 7 hours of soaking with 100 linear feet of soaker line at a reduced pressure of
10 psi.
4. Install 3 inches of bark chips inside the protective fencing over the entire area under the canopy of
each tree with the exception of the 12 inches around the root collar, which must be left bare and dry. The
spreading must be done by hand and before the irrigation ( #3) begins. This insulating layer will reduce soil
compaction and further encourage root tip growth.
5. Tree branches that are in conflict with construction or with construction equipment should be
managed as follows:
Branches up to 3 inches in diameter may be cut by carpenters so as to leave a stub of at least one foot in
length from the branch's point of attachment to the larger branch. Branches larger than 3 inches must be
removed by an ISA - certified arborist. Any "stubs" from branches 3 inches in diameter or smaller must also
be removed by an ISA - certified arborist prior to project completion.
6. Any trenches for utilities or roof drains must be outside of the driplines of trees.
Tree #11 may be retained if:
A. The retaining wall is shifted to the southeast by 2 feet. This means a protective chainlink fence
would be installed 8 feet from the tree's trunk at the closest point, there would be 24 inches of
clearance between this fence and the excavation for the footing, which would start'at 10 linear
feet from the tree's trunk.
B . This must be done with absolutely no grading inside the protective fence.
8. Limit the grading change to contour 482 leaving contour 480 undisturbed. This could be
accomplished by relocating the opening of the proposed courtyard.
9. Relocate the pad for the garage to the north by a minimum of 4 linear feet to the north. This will not
eliminate the ever - present conflict, but it will avoid the tree's disfigurement and reduce the potential for a
serious disease site.
Value Assessment
Tree #12 is recommended for removal due to its condition. Its value is $348, which is equivalent to three
15- gallon native trees.
'REE SURVEY AND PRESERVATI RECOMMENDATIONS 4
AT THE PROPERTY OF WILSONIDAVISON
PEACH HILL ROAD
SARA TOGA
Tree #11, if removed, is valued at $4,960, which is equivalent to three 36 -inch box, two 24 -inch box, one
15- gallon and one 5- gallon native trees.
The combined value of trees retained is $22,035 which optimistically includes tree #11. A 25% bond for
this total amount equals $5,509.
Respectfully submitted,
Z.
Michael L. Bench, Associate
Barrie D. Coate and Associates
MLB:kc
Enclosures: Tree Evaluation Charts
Site Plan
Q 6 !
L 9 • ` - . .......
sz —��
`� PROTECTIIVNC E
' r
o - .: - � •466 �� "/ � �• ��'
— 468
10% ' 470
470.E - I •
_7 _
Ir Fr.
v \ / , 0 PAD,.�� /1 i I
*, 460.75
— \ PROTECTIVE FENCE " /
.� P - .481 QO 0•
12 — AO.a478 sQ ` I
\ 11 �.Ttp1T 8Q I
3.0.
co 00
0 00
�d• - .\. q
PROTECTIVE FENCE
13:
.ree nu,oers eorresperd tc ••\ ;�ti //, �\
eve iue -on cnarrs.
A. .1:^ensions and tre• :ocat:onr •• \ ,� /• ,.
nr. +rcroxcaace.
BARRIE D. COATE
NAND ASSOCIATES
LSJSSu La Rd
I-° 13D-1 2
I4Ot113 }��=
Homculnml Co nulum
Cunwlong .Arbmw
At the a::son.7avison Property
Saratoga
Prepared for:
C -tv of Sarat oqe 7'_enr::nq Department,
Job 006 -96 -106
Sce:e: none
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA
MEETING DATE: May 15, 1996
ORIGINATING DEPT.: Commun'ty Development
CITY MGR. APPROVAL
SUBJECT:
n
ITEM: �, J
A -95 -001, Petition of Annexation, Peach Hill Road, Wilson /Davison;
APN# 517 -23 -026.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the petition of annexation by adopting Resolution A -95 -001.
Report Summary:
Background:
On December 6, 1995, the City Council voted unanimously to deny the
requested waiver of annexation of the subject site. This action
effectively directed the applicant to apply for annexation in order to
further develop the property. The petition before the City Council is
required by the Government Code in order to complete the City conducted
annexation. Once the Council approves the annexation, the Local Agency
Formation Commission ( LAFCO) will be notified of the change and the City
boundaries will be officially modified.
Project'Summary:
The annexation request relates to a vacant, 1.014 acre parcel on Peach
Hill Road which is contiguous to the current City boundary and is
located within the City's Urban Service Area (USA) as depicted on the
attached Annexation Map, Exhibit "A ".
The property has direct access to the County maintained portion of Peach
Hill Road. This portion of roadway is required to be annexed along with
the subject parcel in accordance with LAFCO road annexation policies.
All needed services are available to the property as indicated in the
attached Municipal Plan for Services.
The property has been prezoned Hillside Residential (HR) . Once the
property is annexed it will be subject to the development regulations of
the HR zoning district. The applicant is currently working with Planning
staff to develop a single family home on the site.
Fiscal Impacts:
A small potential increase in road maintenance costs offset by increases
in property taxes and utility user'fees.
Follow -up Action:
Work with the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to finalize the
boundary adjustment process. Amend City Base, General Plan and Zoning
Maps accordingly.
Consecuences of not Acting on the Recommended Notion:
The property will not be annexed to the City and applicant will develop
the site under the jurisdiction of Santa Clara County.
Attachments:
1. Resolution A -95 -001.
2. Petition for Annexation.
3. Municipal Plan for Services.
4. Exhibit "A ", Legal Description and Annexation Map Certified by the
County Surveyor.
Motion and Vote:
RESOLUTION NO. 96 -2E
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAR.ATOGA APPROVING AND ORDERING ANNEXATION TO
THE CITY OF CERTAIN UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY
COMMONLY KNOWN AS:
Peach Hill Road, Wilson /Davison, APN# 517 -23 -026
WHEREAS, Wilson /Davison ( "Petitioners ") have submitted a petition
for annexation to the City of Saratoga of certain real property located
in the County of Santa Clara, as described in Exhibit "A ", attached
hereto and made a part hereof, commonly .known as Peach Hill Road,
Wilson /Davison, APN# 517 -23 -026; and
WHEREAS, the. City Council is the duly designated conducting
authority for proceedings to annex said property, pursuant to Section
56826 of the Government Code; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of Section 56826 of the
Government Code the City Council has found and determined as follows:
(a) That the petition has been executed by all of the owners of
the territory to be annexed;
(b) That the territory to be annexed is contiguous to the existing
limits of the City of Saratoga and located within the urban
service area of the City, as adopted by the Santa Clara County
Local Agency Formation Commission ( "the Commission ");
(c) That the territory to be annexed is uninhabited, as defined in
Section 56046 of the Government Code;
(d) That the surveyor for the County of Santa Clara has determined
the boundaries of said property to be definite and certain,
and in compliance with any applicable road annexation policies
of the Commission;
(e) That the .proposed annexation will not split lines of
.assessment or ownership,
(f) That the proposed annexation will not create islands or areas
in'which it would be difficult to provide municipal services;
(g) That the proposed annexation is consistent with the General
Plan as adopted by the City;
(h) That no conditions have been imposed by the Commission, or
remain to be satisfied by the City, for inclusion of said
property in the City's urban service area;
(i) That the land use designation of the territory to be annexed,
as contained in the City's General Plan, has not been changed
from the time the City's urban service area was adopted by the
Commission; and
WHEREAS, the proposed annexation is exempt from the requirements of
_the California Environmental Quality Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby
resolves and or -s that the property descx ad in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto, commonly xnown as Peach Hill Road, b..,lson /Davison, APN# 517 -23-
026, be and the same hereby is reorganized and annexed to the City of
Saratoga, such annexation to be effective on the date this resolution is
adopted.
The City Council, as conducting authority, reorganized suc:_
property as indicated above without notice or hearing, it being found
that the territory annexed hereby is uninhabited and all of the owners
of such territory have been filed a. written petition for the City
Council to initiate such reorganization.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Saratoga held on the 15th day of May, 1996, by the followinc_
vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Burger, Moran, Tucker, Wolfe and Mayor Jacobs
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
'--MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK'
DURYEA/CARROLL
Engineers and Surveyors
"EXMIT A"
Annexation to CITY OF SARATOGA
Name of Annexation PEACH HILL ROAD- WILSON/DAVISON
Date January. 1996. Revised March 1996. Revised April 23, 1996
Description
All that certain real property situate in the County of Santa Clara, State of California being
described as follows:
That certain Parcel of land conveyed to Raj K. Raheja and Kanak H. Raheja, husband and wife, as
joint tenants, by that certain Grant Deed Recorded on June 30, 1989 in Book L004, at Page 185,
of the Official Records of Santa Clara County and a portion of Peach Hill Road and being
described as follows;
BEGINNING at a point in the Northeasterly line of Peach Hill Road, as said road was realigned
and established in 1957, and as shown upon the Map of Record of Survey filed for Record on
May 15, 1958, in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, in
Book 93 of Maps, at Page 32, distant along the Southeasterly and Northeasterly line of said Peach
Hill Road North 4° 10' East 0.27 feet, North 200 18' East 89.53 feet and North 470 41' West
40.00 feet from the point of intersection of said line of Peach FEB Road with the Southwesterly
line of that certain Parcel of land conveyed by Roy Eugene Lowery, et ux, to William S.
Thompson, by Deed dated July 15, 1957, and Recorded July 16, 1957, in Book 3844 of Official
Records, Page 584, Santa Clara County Records, said point of beginning also being the most
Westerly corner ofthat certain 1.0014 acre parcel of land conveyed by William S. Thompson, a
single man, to W. R. McMahon, et ux, by Deed dated August 6, 1959 and Recorded August 19,
1959, in Book 4519, of Official Records at page 271; thence from said point of beginning running
along the Westerly and Northerly line of the parcel, so conveyed to McMahon the following three
courses and distances: North 270 13' 26" East 81.00 feet to an iron pipe, North 15° 34'33" East
120.25 feet to an iron pipe and North 84° 42'43" East 284.83 feet to a 2" x 3" hub set in the
Easterly line of Lot 32 as shown upon Map No. 2 of the Subdivision of part of the Glen Una
Ranch hereinafter referred to; thence along the Easterly line of said Lot 32 North 180 40'42" East
94.93 feet to an iron pipe and North 4° 2700" East 46.20 feet to an iron pipe set at the
Northernmost corner of that certain 2.56 acre Tract of land described in the Deed from H.B.Finch
Shaw, et vir, to Phillip T. Ortman, Jr., et ux, dated November 14, 1927, and Recorded November
16, 1927 in Book 344 of Official Records, Page 103, Santa Clara County Records, said point
being in the existing City Limit Line of the City of Saratoga as established by that certain
annexation PEACH HILL PROJECT; thence along said City Limit Line and leaving said
Easterly line of said Lot 32 and running Southwesterly along the Northwesterly line of said 2.56
acre Tract the following courses and distances: South 65° 09'25" West 297.40 feet to an iron
pipe, South 880 20' 13" West 155.78 feet to an iron pipe and South 34° 36' 13" West 115.36 feet
(116.35 feet per annexation) to the centerline of Peach Hill Road; thence leaving said 2.56 acre
Tract and continuing along said annexation PEACH HILL PROJECT South 81 ° 47' West 20 feet
more or less to the Westerly side of Peach Hill Road, 40 feet wide as shown upon the Map of
Record of Survey filed for Record on August 3, 1959, in the office of the recorder of the County
of Santa Clara, State of California, in Book 110 of Maps, at Page 13, and the City Limits of the
City of Saratoga as established by ORIGINAL INCORPORATION on October 22, 1956; thence
Southerly along the Westerly side of Peach Hill Road (40 feet wide) and said ORIGINAL
INCORPORATION South 18° 59'47" East 40.52 feet to a point which is on the Westerly right -
of -way line of Peach Hill Road at the Southerly line of said Record of Survey Map, said point also
being a point in the existing line of the City of Saratoga as established by that certain annexation
SARATOGA 1983 -1; thence South 18° 59'47" East 58.50 feet; thence South 47° 56' 27" East
43.50 feet; thence leaving the said existing city limit line of the City'of Saratoga South 47'56'27"
East 55.04; thence leaving the Westerly line of Peach Hill Road North 27" 13'26" East 41.47 feet
to the said point of beginning of this description, containing 1.21 acres, more or less, and being a
potion of the land shown upon the above mentioned Record of Survey, and also being a portion
of Lots 31 and 32 as shown upon that certain map entitled " Map No. 2 of the W. S. CLAYTON,
J. R. CHACE, E. SHILLINGSBURG and J.P. DORRANCE SUBDIVISION of the GLEN UNA
RANCH ", and which said map filed for record in the office of the Recorder of the County of
Santa Clara, State of California, on February 9, 1921, in Book "P" of Maps at Pages 53 and 54.
�• ��` ': t ��• •. l . ` , � \'ice
m�
le
•M•
NORTHERNMOST CORNER 2.56
ACRE TRACT (344 O.R. 103)
N
W7r00.
46.2p f ti
NORTHERLY LINE 2.56 ACRE TRACT
(344 O.R. 103) 1
EXISTING CITY LIMIT LINE
OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
AS ESTABLISHED BY ANNEXATION 1
( PEACH HILL PROJECT )
�I
N d
o
in 1 N
N 1
I
1
1
1
t5:,- j -
W
v
M
�'F F
0
0
SITE
14Tr� i
PO
Os
C4 PC
i
0
Ld
_F ' .
%4s� LOCATION MAP
.40\ 40"4)-
:,' %o SJ�tiF �O
V . /
N �.
co
2
NORTHERLY LINE
(4519 O.R. 271)
?0\
/ A.P.N. 517 -23 -026
/ AREA = 1.21 ACRES
EXISTING CITY LIMIT LINE
OF THE CITY 'OF SARATOGA
AS ESTABLISHED BY ANNEXATION �•� 'as.
( PEACH HILL PROJECT)
EASTERLY .LINE PEACH HI LL
Rnen _
S 87.41' W 20'f
LEGEND
— — PROPERTY LINE
- - - - -- -CITY LIMITS
CENTERLINE
REV. APRIL 1996
Design By. TRS
Drawn By. TRS
Check By. MJD
S
PEAC4/
WESTERLY LINE
(4519 O.R. 271)
ti
'>
cbo
CENTERLINE
ti�
V �y , •till
550,. �6F (Y0
.
8.599 4M WESTERLY LINE PEACH HILL ROAD
EXISTING CITY LIMIT LINE —�
OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
AS ESTABLISHED BY ANNEXATION
( SARATOGA 1983 -1 )
Z EXHIBIT B
PROPOSED ANNEXATION
TO THE CITY OF SARATOGA
ENTITLED
PEACH HILL ROAD— WILSON/DAVISON
DURYEA /CARROLL
Engineers and Surveyors
3150 Almaden Expmmnwoy. SuRe 103
San �Jqos G 95118
tel: 8 265 -4770
fox: 8 265 -4772
Scale: 1" = 80'
Date: JANUARY: 1996
Job No. 95 -301 1
PLANNING COMMISS' T MINUTES
JUNE 26, 1996
PAGE - 10 -
Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she could support the request with the added condition that
would require additional tree plantings along the driveway.
Community Development Director Curtis clarified that the additional planting of native
trees would occur towards the top of the bank to provide screening. Planner Walgren
indicated that a condition was included that required that the landscape plans be modified.
noting that the condition could be modified to require additional screening along the
driveway area.
Community Development Director Curtis stated that he would be looking for a series of
trees that would provide a breaking up of the building and not a solid row of trees to screen
the entire building.
Chairwoman Kaplan clarified that the trees are to provide screening for the driveway so that
it does not appear to be prominent.
COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO.
DR -96 -003 WITH AN ADDED CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT BE REQUIRED
TO INSTALL LANDSCAPING ALONG THE DRIVEWAY AND THE PARKING
AREA. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND
MURAKAMI ABSENT.
4. DR- 96-015 & V- 96-003 - WILSON /DAVISON,15580 PEACH HILL RD.; Request for
Design Review approval to construct a new 3,523 sq. ft. two -story residence on an
undeveloped hillside parcel pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. Variance
approval is also requested to allow the structure to deviate from lot depth
percentage -based setbacks and to allow retaining walls within the required front yard
in excess of 3 ft. in height. The 1.05 acre subject property was recently approved by
the City Council to be annexed to Saratoga and will be in the Hillside Residential
zoning district.
Planner Walgren presented the staff report.
Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 9:17 p.m.
Michael Garibaldi, architect, provided the Commission with a schematic model of the
proposed home. He indicated that the site contained constraints due to the slope of the lot
and its irregularity. He indicated that he was sensitive towards any view blockage from
adjacent properties, minimizing the building height /grading and respected the privacy of the
adjacent, parcels. He noted that the site is wooded but that it is not an evergreen -type forest.
He felt that the site had a Mediterranean feel as does the home. Simple forms and simple
materials are to be used to provide a comfortable feeling. He indicated that the backside
of the structure is one and a half story and that the front of the home is a two story
structure.
PLANNING COMMIS )N MINUTES .
JUNE 26, 1996
PAGE - 11 -
Bob Gorski, 15600 Peach Hill Road, indicated that he resides across the driveway and stated
his support of the project. However, he opposed the location of the garage due to the
combination of setback and privacy. He felt that the setbacks appear to be wrong according
to a survey he conducted on his property in 1993. He felt that there would be a major
invasion of privacy. The proposal is for a two story garage and that it would be visible from
his living areas (i.e., kitchen, living, and dining rooms). Also of concern were the two mature
oak trees that are 14 inches in diameter that may be at risk. He requested' that the lot lines
be verified as there are two conflicting surveys. He requested that windows be minimized
in the garage that are overlooking his living areas. He reiterated 'that he did not object to
the home but requested that the garage structure be setback as far as possible taking into
account the constraints of the slope.
Chairwoman Kaplan indicated that she recognized the name of the next speaker (Mr.
Massone) and that she was not sure if this was the name of the family who were friends to
one of her sons. She indicated that this fact would not influence her decision.
William Mussone, 15590 Peach Hill Road, indicated that he is the Wilson's nearest
neighbors to the east. He indicated that he was not opposed to the structure. However, he
had concerns regarding oak trees 1 and 2. It was his belief that oak tree 1 was going to die
and that there was some question as to how tree 2 would be pruned. He felt that his curb
appeal would be impacted if oak tree 2 dies. He indicated that there are questions as to
where the proper lot lines are situated. He requested the opportunity to speak with the
Wilsons to resolve this problem. He requested that the structure be setback as far as
possible to the west, keeping the slopes and their constraints under consideration.
Scott Jaunich, Berliner -Cohen Attorneys at Law, informed the Commission that he was
retained by William Musson and the Gorskis who are concerned with the location of the
garage and the property line. He indicated that the property was measured and that it
appears to be less than 20 feet setback. He requested that this item be continued so that the
proper boundary lines can be defined. Also of concern were trees 1 and 2. He noted that
the staff report identifies compensation for the loss of tree 1 but that there is no discussion
regarding tree 2 other than its pruning. He indicated that the City does not have jurisdiction
of this parcel as the. annexation process has not yet been completed.
Meg Giberson, 15561 Glen Una Drive, expressed concern with the possible impacts of this
project to the sewer system and the driveway location. She indicated that her concerns were
outlined in the two page document she submitted to the Commission. She asked what
studies or findings addressed the project's environmental impacts. She indicated that the
annexation of the property went unnoticed and that there was no hearing nor information
provided. She indicated that there have been problems with sewer going up the road. She
felt that environmental review was warranted in view of the past history and the future right
of way impacts from the sewer extension.
Mr. Garibaldi indicated that the issue of privacy has been discussed with the neighbors. He
acknowledged that this was a complex site. The garage is located as close to the road as
possible. Shifting the house around would either increase the slope of the driveway or raise
PLANNING COMMIS` v MINUTES.
JUNE 26, 1996 .
PAGE - 12 -
the garage structure, noting that it was at its height limit. He did not feel that there was a
lot of latitude to accommodate the shifting of the garage, noting that the garage angles away
from the property line. He felt that the removal of the windows from the wall would create
a blank wall. He indicated that the oak trees have been protected as much as possible,
compromising one of the trees. He requested that the item not be continued because doing
so would delay construction into next year. Regarding sewer hook -up, he indicated that the
sewer would be
going to the street (Peach Avenue sewer system).
Chairwoman Kaplan stated that it was her understanding that the only windows proposed
in the garage area are located in the bedroom above the garage. Mr. Garibaldi confirmed
that the windows were located in the bedroom above the garage.
Chairwoman Kaplan indicated that the windows cannot be eliminated from a bedroom. She
did not believe that individuals would stand at their bedroom windows looking at other
individual's property.
Mr. Wilson, applicant, indicated that he has in his possession a survey map, noting that his
surveyor has located the iron pipes that mark the. boundary lines. He felt that the
discrepancies were limited to one or two feet.
COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PIERCE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
AT 9:40 P.M.
Chairwoman Kaplan asked what should be done about the issue of the property lines.
Planner Walgren responded that as a survey has been prepared by a registered civil engineer
that shows the property lines noting that there is no reason to believe that this survey is not
accurate.
.Commissioner Pierce recommended that the applicant's surveyor meet with the neighbor's
surveyors to confirm property lines.
Commissioner Patrick acknowledged the neighbors' concerns. However, in looking at the
plans, it was her belief that the house was sited such that it would be least intrusive to the
neighbors. Therefore she could support the request.
Commissioner Pierce indicated that he visited the site and the he wished that the garage
could be further away from Mr. Gorski's property. He felt that it was unfortunate that the
parcel was a narrow lot. He stated that he could support the request.
Chairwoman Kaplan felt that the home was designed nicely on the lot and that she could
make the variance findings.
COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION
NO. V -96 -003 WITH THE FINDINGS AS INDICATED IN THE STAFF REPORT THE
MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND MURAKAMI
PLANNING COMMIS: N MINUTES.
JUNE 26, 1996
PAGE - 13 -
ABSENT.
COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION
NO. DR -96 -015. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR
AND MURAKAMI ABSENT.
DIRECTOR'S ITEMS
Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that its next meeting -
is scheduled for July 9 at 7 p.m. He indicated that it would be a joint meeting with the City
Council. Topics to be discussed are as follows: the hillside plan, Saratoga /Sunnyvale specific
plan, and a design review task force presentation.
COMMISSION ITEMS
Chairwoman Kaplan addressed the actions taken by the Council at its last meeting. She
stated that in listening to the Council's review of the Costa's request, she noted that Mr.
Costa changed his plans after review /action by the Planning Commission. The Council felt
that Mr. Costa cooperated and compromised. She felt that if an applicant states that they
are proposing a dream home, it gets approved by the Council, irrespective of the design
review findings or anything else that the Commission has to say. She asked if the City
Council is swayed by the applicant's comments that they (applicant) rely on staff's
recommendationin the staff report to the Planning Commission. She recommended that
staff not make a recommendation one way or another to the Commission.
Community Development Director Curtis indicated that it was his job to make a
recommendation to the Commission when appropriate.
COMMUNICATIONS
Written
1. City Council Minutes dated 6/1; 6/5; 6/7; 6/11
2. Notices for 7/10/96 Planning Commission meeting
Oral
City Council
ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:48 p.m.
to 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, July 10, 1996, EOC Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Ave.,
Saratoga, CA
Respectfully Submitted,
August 7, 1996
TO: Honorable Saratoga City Council
RE: Appeal of Wilson /Davison project approval for
development on Peach Hill Road, Saratoga;
NEED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CEQA: LONG -TERM PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
CEQA exists because the California legislature
determined that the long -term protection of the environment
should be a guiding principle behind public decision - making.'
As a result, CEQA requires state and local agencies to
identify, consider, and avoid —or minimize, with appropriate
explanatory disclosure —the environmentally - harmful impacts
of their actions. A public agency should not approve a
project with significant adverse impacts, when feasible
alternatives or feasible.mitigation measures can
substantially lessen such effects.2
CITIZEN DUTY UNDER CEQA
CEQA protects not only the environment, but also
informed self- government. 3 Citizens have the duty and
responsibility to review and comment on the potential
environmentally - harmful effects of an agency's actions and
decisions.4
TIME FOR REVIEW
The environmental review should occur "as early as
feasible in the planning process to enable environmental
considerations to influence project program and design .... /15
A "study conducted after approval of a project will
inevitably have a diminished influence on decision - making.
Even if the study is subject to administrative approval, it
is analogous to the sort of post hoc rationalization of
agency actions that has been repeatedly condemned in
decisions construing CEQA.6" (Emphasis added.)
When such a study is done early on, it can reduce delay
and paperwork.' Unfortunately, Saratoga did not do such a
study for this and other projects in this canyon, thereby
incurring the present delay.
'Pub.Res.Code § 21000 al sea.
2Pub.Res.Code § 21002; Guidelines §§ 15091 - 15094; Zi rra_Club v. Gilr
City Council, 111 Cal.App.3d 30, 41, 271 Cal.Rptr. 393 (1990).
3CitizPns of Goleta Valley v Board of Supervisors, 52 Cal.3d 553, 564,
276 Cal.Rptr. 410 (1990).
4Pub.Res.Code § 21000(e)(f)
5Guidelines § 15004(b)
6Mt. Siatrn Defense Comm, v Regents of h of a; , 77 Cal.App.3d
20, 35, 143 Cal.Rptr. 365 (1978).
Guidelines § 15006
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS MUST BE ASSESSED
Significant adverse impacts which must be addressed
include potential cumulative environmental impacts, which the
approving agency should assess before the project gains
irreversible momentum.
Significant cumulative impact of successive projects of
the same type in the same place, over time will preclude
applicability of a categorical exemption, which otherwise
might apply to a single- family residence.8 A project that,
viewed by itself may seem limited, may cumulate previously
harmful impacts and /or function as a catalyst for foreseeable
future development.
LEAD AGENCY — SARATOGA
Saratoga holds the position of "lead agency" for both
annexation and design- review /variance- approval aspects of
this project. (Cities become lead agencies for purposes of
annexation proceedings when they engage in prezoning.) The
lead agency determines what documents will be required in
order to disclose fully all the potential environmental
impacts of a project.
Other "responsible agencies" (such as the Sanitation
District) have some discretionary approval power over the
project, but do not have the main responsibility for
overseeing the project.9
As lead agency, it is thus Saratoga's responsibility to
evaluate all reasonably foreseeable, potentially- harmful
impacts of the project in the context of existing
circumstances, before project approval.
SARATOGA'S INADEQUATE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Experience shows that Saratoga's process of
project review, its decisions on critical
environmental issues delayed until after project
approval, its reliance on its code provisions, and its
own supervision of projects have been inadequate to
provide the legally- required environmental review and
protection of the sensitive Willow Creek riparian
area, as the following discussion and supporting
documents show. Therefore the appropriate review
should occur now. By establishing appropriate project
parameters at the design review and approval stage, the City
can avoid further delays and entanglements.
CEQA VIOLATIONS CHARACTERIZE WILLOW CREEK PROJECTS
Multiple violations of CEQA have characterized the
review and supervision (by Saratoga and some other local
agencies) of similar project(s) in the Willow Creek canyon
bordered by the Wilson /Davison (W /D) property. The
cumulative impacts of all these projects must be identified,
8Guidelines § 15300.2(b)
9CEQA Guidlines § 15367.
2
considered and avoided, if possible. Otherwise the pattern
of piecemeal development and inadequate environmental review
will foreseeably continue.
• INADEQUACY OR ABSENCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
-W /D PROJECT
• PROJECT REQUIRING REVIEW: The design review and
request for variance approval stage of the W/D development is
a separate "project" under CEQA,10 and requires assessment as
to its potential effect(s) on the environment.
- However, the W/D design review application_
indicated that the Environmental Assessment Questionnaire was
"NA "- -not applicable. (Question 2.b. of the "Application
Procedure ") and there was no other documentation of review
for environmental impact in the design review file.
• NO RECORD of review accompanied the project,
although the city was well aware of the connection to other
disputed projects.
- "This property is next door to that Parcel
Map by Nowack that we were all involved in for Birenbaum in
1991." (3 -22 -96 Memo, written on City of Saratoga stationery
to Planner James Walgren, from Mike McDowell re: "SUBJECT:
Wilson /Davison application DR -96 -015 & V -96 -003; Peach Hill
Road, Certificate of Compliance, Yes or No.... ")
- Even the bare statement that the project was
exempt, which was made at the time of annexation, is missing
from the design review stage record.
-City states for the first time in this appeal
packet that it was claiming a categorical exemption because
this project involved the approval of a single - family
residence.
• PROJECT INDEFINITE: The W/D project— according
to the documentation available in the city files and in the
June 26 packet when the project came before the Planning
Commission —was so indefinite that an adequate and informed
decision, comment and review could not take place.
- "Owner's choice" to connect to sewer in
Peach Hill Road (PHR) or creekside terminus, per city
document.
- "It is not clear to us at this time whether
the proposed development will be connected to the sanitary
sewer, or to a septic tank and leachfield system. "-- 5 -28 -96
Memo to L. Perlin, Public Works Director, p.1, from City
Geotechnical Consultant, RE: W /D, DR 96 -015, Peach Hill Road
-The first time the public record contained
any suggestion as to the location of the likely sewer hookup
was when the proponents' architect so stated in response to a
Planning Commissioner's question, after the public
opportunity for comment and review had been closed.
- "It is our understanding that the driveway
alignment and associated grading may be altered from that
loSince it is a "discretionary" "project" proposed to be ... approved by
[a] public agency...."
3
shown on the gradingand drainage plan dated March 1, 1996.
The final development plans shall be submitted to the
applicant's geotechnical consultants, and the project
engineering geologist and project geotechnical engineer shall
review and approve all geotechnical aspects of final
development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading site
drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations
and retaining walls to ensure that their recommendations have
been properly incorporated." Id., p.2.)
- There was no attachment "Plans, Exhibit `A "'
purporting to show the manner in which the development was to
be located and constructed in the packet for the June 26,
1996, hearing.
• What, then, does Resolution No. DR -96-
015, re: Wilson /Davison, 15580 Peach Hill Road, refer to in
specifying that "[t]he development shall be located and
constructed as shown on Exhibit "A ", incorporated by
reference "?
• See, please, the copy of the June 26
resolution in tonight's packet, p. 000008, section 1, para.
1. The only attachment marked "Exhibit `A "' in the June
packet was /is a property description dated January, 1996, by
Duryea /Carroll, p.000029.)
-SEWER CONNECTION: Saratoga's claim in today's
packet would appear to imply that a property owner has carte
blanche power to proceed with any sewer connection it should
choose. (The claim relates to Saratoga's purported inability
to "tell a property owner that they [sic] cannot connect to a
public sewer system that is available to them. ")
• If the city's claim that it "does not have the
authority to tell a property owner that they [sic] cannot
connect to a public sewer system that is available to them"
is correct, then a creekside hookup to the sewer terminus
along Willow Creek is a foreseeable reality, and its
foreseeable environmental impacts should be identified,
studied and avoided now, rather than administratively."
- However, no record of review as to the
foreseeable impacts of a creekside sewer connection has
accompanied this project.
-This lack is especially critical since this
property is a crucial link and next step in the foreseeable
extension of a sewer line to service properties, both
developed and undeveloped, to the south and west. (Map of
vacant /developable properties in the immediate neighborhood
is attached.)
11If the city's claim that it "does not have the authority to tell a
property owner that they [sic] cannot connect to a public sewer system
that is available to them" is correct, the city would still, as lead
agency, have the power to condition approval so as to require the least
environmentally - harmful connection.
- However, no such condition has been appended to this
project.
51
-A W/D sewer connection to the Willow Creek
terminus would represent not a mere lateral connection, but
rather an extension southward, and would advance by another
parcel the sewer trunk line constructed in 1985 by J.
Kennedy12 and modified by the Birenbaum project .13
-A creekside sewer extension would be
redundant, because a sewer connection is available in Peach
Hill Road (PHR) & will need to be extended S along PHR to
serve properties to the S & W along Peach Hill.
• The Sanitation District claims that it
needs access (presumably vehicular) to such sewer
installations as Kennedy's Peach Hill sewer extension along
Willow Creek.
• Yet, if the City were to facilitate an
extension of a road along Willow Creek.for access to
creekside sewer connections, it would be fostering a greater
consumption of land to accommodate the same level of
population, resulting in a loss of important and sensitive
riparian habitat when a less expensive and more feasible
alternative (PHR) was available.
• PHR is the alternative of choice for
the southward extension of a sewer line, as such a line
already exists there; PHR is an existing road and will need
to continue in existence to serve properties which take
access from it.
- Neighbors to the south of the W/D lot have
expressed to us an interest in hooking up to the sewer, since
it will now be one parcel closer to them. Now is therefore
the proper.time for review of the appropriate sewer
connection in order to avoid the piecemeal and destructive
crawl of a redundant facility, with attendant infrastructure,
up a formerly pristine creekbed and canyon.
-OTHER WILLOW CREEK PROJECTS, evidence of the
inadequacy or absence of environmental review:
-The neighboring Birenbaum (B.) project, to the
immediate north, also was found to be "exempt" from CEQA
review by Saratoga, although under CEQA Guidelines § 15304(a)
"grading shall not be exempt [from CEQA review] in a
waterway...." (Emphasis added.) Since the B project required
grading in the creekbed from the design stage onward (please
see attached documents, pictures) the City thus clearly knew
of the creekbed impact, should have identified it as such,
and should have acted to study fully the impact in a formal
written manner.
12where the environmental review suffered from a misrepresentation as to
the true identity of the party responsible for the construction, and was
accomplished with only a Negative Declaration
13The Birenbaum project, as is discussed later in this memo, was
constructed pursuant to an exemption from environmental review granted
by the City of Saratoga, even though it involved waterway /creekbed
grading and thus could not be exempted from environmental review.
Gd
-A piecemeal approach to environmental review
characterizes the neighboring B. Willow Creek project. At the
time of Planning Commission and City Council review of the B.
project, the City of Saratoga refused to consider the
cumulative impact (on the Willow Creek riparian area) of
Kennedy's (JK's) likely development (immediately to the N of
the B. parcel) until JK presented a current development
proposal - -in the face of documents submitted that showed his
ongoing intent to develop his property, of which the B parcel
had been part.
- Failure to assess .cumulative impacts
adequately at the time of the B. project, even though B.
property had been part of JK's property holdings in the
Willow Creek canyon, was planned by JK as part of his
development in the past — witness his sewer installation to
that property and plans filed for its development and access
over it to the rest of his development —and was sold by JK
for development to a developer.
-B. project: Saratoga sought jurisdiction & control
from County in order better to "monitor /protect" exactly as
it did for the W/D project. Owners of B. project similarly
spoke of their commitment and sensitivity to environmental
issues.
• Reality of what happened: devastation of the
creekbed environment which was decried by some City Council
members in a subsequent public meeting (please see attached
pictures); physical /nearly irreversible destruction
accompanied a project which, according to the city engineer
was pretty much going according to plan.
• See also eventual non - compliance with City
arborist Coates' tree protection report
-A mature specimen oak was removed from the
Giberson property pursuant to a "decision" made at an illegal
after -hours City Council meeting, held after midnight on
August 7 -8, 1991.14
- PROJECT ULTIMATELY BUILT IS NOT "APPROVED"
PROJECT
• June 17, 1991: After B. project had started,
W.V. Sanitation District letter to L.B. re surprise keyway
which had not appeared on any plans pre - project approval:
14The specimen oak removal reflects the kind of study and decision
conducted after approval of a project which represent the sort of
post hoc rationalization of agency actions that has been
repeatedly condemned in decisions construing CEQA. Despite a
written city policy that no new items would be taken up after midnight,
the City Council took up an appeal of the administrative approval of a
material change in the B. driveway, which approval had occurred after
project approval. The City, through city engineer Perlin, stated it
could not delay the decision because the next meeting was not until 2( +)
weeks later and there was danger from winter rains. The record,
however, demonstrates that the next meeting was a supplemental meeting
which was to occur in only a week.' The tree removal decision could thus
have been delayed a week, as final decisions on other items that night
were.
R.
• "9 -foot deep key will be installed for your
proposed driveway. This key is in conflict with the existing
6 -inch PVC sewer main." - "Have your engineer to [sic]
prepare a profile plan showing the proposed cuts and fills."
• L. Birenbaum statement in late May this year
(1996) that there is no accurate record of the subdrains
installed in the easement on the Giberson property because
the plans were changed in the field.
• A document submitted by Gibersons to S. City
Council at the final building site approval hearing in April,
1990, from a registered soils engineer, assessed and reported
the real need for excavating and re- compacting that would
have to occur before the road could be built.
- However, Saratoga's City Engineer and B's
hired consultants insisted that the B. driveway across the
neighbors' ( Giberson and Molineux) property would involve
minimal construction. Saratoga's geotechnical consultant
also signed off on the project after B's engineer said the
road through the easement crossing over neighbors' property
would be "just an overlay" and would represent just a sliver.
- REALITY: months of construction and
bulldozing of creekbed
OTHER ISSUES:
-NO PRIVATE W/D ACCESS ACROSS OUR PROPERTY
• There is no demonstrated access for sewer
maintenance, which the Sani Dist claims is necessary, across
our property to W/D property. Similarly, there is no access
to other properties up the canyon.
-NO PUBLIC ACCESS ACROSS OUR PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC ROAD
- PROPERTY VALUES
• Our property value will decline if this
particular development, or others along the Willow Creek
canyon, were to connect to a canyon sewer extension which
necessitated a road construction for access, further
implicating the liability the city will incur due to its
promoting such development, and particularly in view of the
City's previous private approval of the Agreement between
Kennedy & Carey, October, 1985, re contract for improvement
of Sunset Avenue and Sunset Court.
- APPLICABLE CITY CODE
-Over 200' feet to existing sewer terminus in.
Willow Creek
-per City ordinance (§ 7- 10.030 Connection to
public sewer), "Every building where persons reside ... which
abuts a street ... in which there is an approved public
sanitary sewer,... shall be connected to such sewer in the
most direct manner possible...." "Shall" only hook up to
approved public sanitary sewer if it is within 2001, and
where permissible access. Thus, the appropriate sewer access
per city code is on Peach Hill Road.
7
- ENDANGERED SPECIES REVIEW
- Likely habitat ( ?): Tier salamander:
-as our family can, and does, attest from having
resided along the borders of Willow Creek canyon for almost
20 years, the following critical conditions for reproduction
are present in Willow Creek canyon:
-the salamanders are known to breed in stream
courses (breeding restricted to quiet pools)
- successful tiger salamander reproduction
requires at least 3 months
- EXPENSE OF ROAD BUILDING: CONNECTION TO PEACH HILL
MOST COST EFFECTIVE
The B driveway construction across the neighbors'
properties involved deep keyway excavation and recompaction.
The upkeep of such streets on steep slopes and creeksides is
also of great concern. In difficult and financially
uncertain times, it is foolish for the town to take on new
financial liabilities that all town citizens would be
responsible for, so that a few may prosper. A vote might be
required to change the land -use designation in the canyon.
- PATTERN OF INEFFECTIVE REVIEW FOR ALL PROJECTS IN
CANYON
CITY INADEQUATE SUPERVISION OF PROJECTS:
- Coates' suggested plantings not required of Bs --
many still missing -- neighbors to East had to spend thousands
of dollars mitigating impacts of B residence instead
-LACK OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
P.C. mtg. minutes 2/9/83
-1 commissioner requested an EIR for Lauer /Peach Hill
project, saying NegDec inadequate & EIR would have answered
many of the citizens' questions at that time. No EIR. Only
NegDec.
- Resol. No. SD- 1509 -1, March 23, 1983: P.C.
Conditionally Approving the Tentative Map of Peach Hill
Development pursuant to a Negative Declaration.
- tentative map dated the 18th day of March, 1983, and is
marked Exhibit "B -7" in SD -1509 file; conditions per Exhb.
A„
- inadeq. envt'l. review (cumulative impacts not addressed) as
far back as 1983 when Sara. P.C. granted conditional approval
of a previous owner's development proposal for a subdivision
in Willow Creek canyon.
-See: Resolution No. SD- 1509 -1, Resolution
approving tentative map of peach hill development (Tom
Lauer) , passed on March 23, 1983, with only a Negative
Declaration prepared for the project.
-See: Sani Dist. NegDec for Kennedy Sewer
extension
-See: B. proj. exemption
-See pictures of bulldozing in creek by Sanco (for
JK sewer), by LB workers
- SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE EFFECTS (requiring environmental
review)
- Appendix G:
-(a) Conflict with adopted environmental plans and
goals of the community where it is located
-see Art. 16 of Sara. Code: flood plain to be
kept in natural state
-(p) Increase substantially the ambient noise.
levels for adjoining areas: a new road in the canyon would
demonstrably increase noise. (See Wong EIR done for City of
Saratoga; see also Pack Acoustical reports done re Birenbaum
project)
-(q) Cause substantial flooding, erosion, or
siltation (See pictures attached for siltation accompanying
Birenbaum project)
-(s) Extend a sewer trunk line with capacity to
serve new development; this was accomplished when J. Kennedy
extended a sewer line along Willow Creek.
SUMMARY
The crux of the problem is the city's inadequate
environmental review, both historically and at present, and
inadequate description of the project; this results in a
piecemeal approach which fails to take into account the
cumulative impacts of these and future projects over time.
- Saratoga should deal with the project in the context of
the development projects which have occurred and which have
been approved in the canyon, as well as projects which are
foreseeable.
Respectfu submitted,
64_97��� �_, c,14�
Alan and Meg Giberson
4
ATTACHMENTS
I
WEST VALLEY SANITATION ::',,IS -iRlIC,
-)F -SANTA CLARA :C, U.N T`
M East Sunnyoaks A�enua
-amooeii. Califomia 95oo3
081 373-2 Z
June 17, 1991
,-Mr..Larry Birenbaun
Sullivan Way
C '9$070
)
Proposed SIngle-rdAily Residence
-Ock Hill"Road
C, AA-Ct;--S ?�- t
,ERV1NGRES1Cz1,,r.1.
"M OF
Is - WIr-Itc,
--j 9-199,
-MG 14, Your graitari contractor broug ht: t'.'
O'NY attention that
00t'��de4p key wl It t,., L tol Cot. your ?r-00019d .drivivay
—�—key. 14,jn.cC,-.fljct Vi C�il th 4 I.0 i- Lriq 6-Lnch Pvc
a Tht,
.,the Orr4oing work was halted until thi,-*,jjjuje of
ex protecting
main is addressed. This confUSJ6�;,Can g
.....4OL*tftciEhhaw'&. Chance to review the.final ..'be avoided if
lov Pl&n.s'bef ore
7,
At
require the f '.1i
... 4t�r' I 9
7~7?an4inar to prepare a profile -sh
plan�
the. proposed
2 must be installed for axistifi
7,t.qsVer...,C*UmGctions.
*r7rOUnd contractor vill
rebuild' main.
:sever reconstruction plan met
be;approved,by this
POCtion deposit extim&ted
t $50 jo.needed.
concerns with your civil
Gngineersi.� and we are
T SilmiWited any delay.
ineer
41V
X. Lee
Civil Zngineer
y. Perlin, Saratoga
L LY a:/ UNA •tl.1 11 I �A� L1TnAc lt,e]c '.
Ii < i • � f •� � i 9 ;tsi _� •� �.
[.^ Q.� � 1 �• ,. -�. } ITT♦ AC a 4l
Inc •1 O 97 AC •:f °j S?
lOn4l1 16i sc 1�._� Z a 41 •� ` J
/✓ ' ITS AC . - - 1 !klr : Ct 5P094`
y \�\•`•, ft-- t,♦ ..l:l .. .>. , .lilt • � '
MIN = r1.�r Cr. ,�.fnlf• x,C
V R•1_� .� S 2^ •I- �. 6 2.3.3 Ac
'/•S7tAU� ICTkC y��IOOK� '+�•Y)
J
ti 26 j7 IPYaN _ ',c- ✓.' TZ� 1 67 0 1,
b'IL1lAY,TA7N I = (j = 1001,E .i tf N f TGCC. Q"
P. b. I.oS ►C L :r7ED
550 M- 31/32 -- _ _ _ LOO HILL
ImAdl zv / 6 t:f•
2veA
CANON ` /2
/ / I a + ?/ �. < / /5 �• ~ REU HILL —, `
// / / i�jY:r.ai j rc�2�`,�S? M� / /// I • <`r� „nr �� ;t �.. -(/ n.� {
P E �I / f��tn. r.._ I� ,,, H NIL + . -i. i '.i d• ROgO �� •7.•i . (1GC71:) s
7 MAC
he
zz
Aav . r ,�`i � 32 "••�� � ..� 14 tls u TaT►L
4 2 ' •NJ tYw• � �'�' _ II , yr Ilk, 27
/ / %/? '' C I :sal. 4r rE �]A, • 11 - 4MAC i o +i •+�', `$
, r • _ �,,.•. ••l ' �t.r1,C! 5t ' I.t /l AC t 6% ~ • •aru f `A 109 A.. 1 F KL j '' • ♦ b
L;@SAC Np %Ut At ! 14T _ w. v. 1
•.a. .. ,' •. 4/ 1.03 A.. 4141 At GIN
~, fsa• ~- - i :�:: 1 �`... atot 7 :n r.. u•w ` 2too At VU `' -•• 4
' �• ;may // �` � �/ a 7LRC:1 B �// 1TO.SL 1 1DS // �'
�., Zs G tt' .;'F'•�::. 1 Pl0.:EC ► •.if FCL 3 CL. rCL. �. '� L11 AC
�7� ♦ �w.1 !:
467 Ac- ,t. 2.22 AC (10.90At GR.)
7 `S 17.AC I •. • '/ 8.6 AC. a' s� ^'• o
3.0. � �.
.la.A4 .0 { , •, fC'`' `� �'; /l / l�._� !I I /_� AC
ar-✓ `S+fJ _o t; c..:G 51•0"j • . 32/ i nor.
S t
000, HC•RD -
'i, ''. �,``• •7 1 r. _
r 4�
24 7 :4 T'r� -- •i : • , ... P. m. 473- M - 24 15
1 :,osi
pC:L. A �
Wilson /Davison lot
= Indicates vacant /devel9pable lot
(not including parcels at en
of Glen Una which are also develo(\61
ra
Iq A
IK.
-Q� m
Ve
AIV if
vo
vs
im
Ila
ox
44,
'i
Tv'*
.4.4
. �er
Y
Av
Iv
JC
4e
1 ZIP
44
102.
4L 1 .4
41
v
ir
44
' It
A
rf
it
All
J;z
."'
it.
Nt
.4
IL
OAF
r 1f
XVhi
L41t
Ado
N
4
Ar
Ilk
S4
P
y�
,� +/►r-
Cr� - .:..- ,e _ - � ,• p� 1 � . � it " w , " � Alw
j��� � Via. � . �` y'� ? .� ' ` l -t- ',ty - _ - r. .•_ ��
1. � r F f. '� �.6� -. / � _ it •� x,�- •� '
AP
�S
��l
C I�OG�s Utj ewe-
0-4 -4
son
•
c Lzev- vim
of �tpkj Ca-,
15 T �F 4 �- � I
(0i ((C(02�; (NI -6 �
�vo\ r- �� = I qq,
Al
.. � � _ ��� � ,� , "�� t. � .rte a•�• R`
- ,-ell
lie
r y a}
\ `
lk
441
0 lot
iw
4L 41 Oh
l� �
iL ��v✓� W t L C C%�9 e�12 tA
4r...^', .
10707 Santa Lucia Road
Cupertino, CA 95014
July 30,1996
To the Honorable Members of the Saratoga City Council:
Plans which we submitted on March 7, 1996, for a 3500 s.f. single family home
to be built on a one acre parcel on Peach Hill Road in Saratoga on March 7,
1996 were approved by the Saratoga Planning Commission On June 26, 1996. On
the last day of the 15 -day appeal period, our neighbor, Meg Giberson, appealed
the Planning Commission decision by challenging the City's procedure in
annexing our property to Saratoga and in granting design review approval.
At the Planning Commission meeting Ms. Giberson expressed concern that
connecting to a sewer line at Sunset Lane would endanger the ecology of the
nearby creekbed. We stated at the meeting what we had said earlier to the City
staff, that we planned to hook up to the sewer connection available uphill of
the building site, on Peach Hill Road. Our several reasons included the shorter
distance going uphill and the problem of negotiating a 4" pipeline between
the many oak and other trees near the creek.
On the Sunday following notification of Ms. Giberson's appeal, not having
their phone number, we stopped by the Gibersons' home hoping to have the
chance to discuss their concerns with them. We were surprised by the appeal
since the issue of the sewer line was the only one which had been raised at the
Planning Commission Meeting and since no objection to our proposed solution
had been made at that time. Ms. Giberson said that one of her concerns was
that there was no legal requirement for us to connect to city sewer in the way
we had said that we would. We explained the details of our extensive
investigation into the matter and assured her that we intended to follow
through on our verbal commitment to the City. We also offered to consider
signing a legally binding document prepared by her that met with her
satisfaction, in the interest of expediting the removal of her objections to our
project so that we could begin building as soon as possible.
Ms. Giberson replied that her objections were not directed at us or our project
but at the City's handling of our building application. While she expressed
willingness to consider drafting the relevant document, she also said in
response to our question whether this was her main concern that the sewer
issue was only "the first issue that came to mind." Later we received a letter
from her, a copy of which is attached, in which she asked us to draft a
statement covering her concerns. However, in the meantime we had obtained
a copy of the Gibersons' appeal. On having learned that the issues raised in
the appeal were directed not at any specific aspect of our proposed
development design but at bureaucratic issues of City procedure, we now feei
unable to comment on ways to resolve them.
We are writing to you now to present our viewpoint. Since no site visit to the
lot is scheduled, we would be pleased if members of the City Council could find
time to visit the lot and allow us to show them the story poles and the location
of the creek and sewer connections. We intend to phone the City Council
members to request phone appointments or site visits at their convenience, at
any time before the August 7 City Council meeting.
We feel strongly that we and our architect proceeded diligently throughout
the design review process to follow City building and design review
requirements and to address neighbors' environmental sensitivities. Ever
since enrolling our children, now almost middle school age, in the Los Gatos -
Saratoga Observation Nursery School when they were two, we have enjoyed
the serenity and beauty of the Saratoga woods. We consider ourselves to be
strong supporters of environmental issues and contribute annually to Bay
Area environmental defense funds. To the extent possible, we wish to avoid
compromising the natural environment in the course of developing our lot.
Our house size is modest, it is located far from ecologically and geologically
sensitive areas on the site, and is the product of extensive consultations with
City geologists, arborists and planners in order to locate the house and
driveway so as to minimize seismic and ecological risk.
We also wish to reiterate our concern, expressed at the December 6, 1995, City
Council meeting hearing our request for a waiver of annexation (which was
denied), that a very significant reason for our desiring not to be annexed was
so as to avoid undergoing a public hearing, required by the City but not the
County, and resulting risk of exposure (ours as well as the City's) to protracted
and costly challenges and lawsuits from a previously litigious neighbor. With
all due respect to our neighbors and their environmental commitments, we
feel that this is precisely the situation which we now face. A copy of our
submittal detailing our concern to the City Council at the annexation hearing
is attached.
Thank you for your attention. We would be extremely grateful if the City
Council members would find time to contact us and meet us concerning the
issues raised by the Gibersons' appeal. Our phone numbers are given below.
Yourrss, sinncerely,,' ( (,
I bert J. ilson
Deborah S. Davison
cc: Ms. Ann Marie Burger, Mr. Paul Jacobs, Ms. Gillian Moran, Ms. Karen
Tucker, Mr. Donald Wolfe, Alan & Meg Giberson
Phone numbers:
Home: 408 9731770
Robert (work): 4089272417
Deborah (work): 4153296803
Davison- Wilson Rnnexation Waiver Request
Saratoga City Council Regular Meeting, December 6, 1995
New Business Item
Davison- Wilson Application for Waiver of Rnnexation
Peach Hill Road RPN 516 -23 -826
INTRODUCTION
This irregularly shaped 1.04 -acre parcel is a vacant legal lot of
record in the County of Santa Clara,
• contiguous to the City of Saratoga, and
• in the City's Urban Service Brea.
Rs such, the property is eligible for annexation by the City under
existing County and LRFCO regulations. However, we claim that
extenuating circumstances argue in favor of the City's granting a waiver
of annexation in this eHCepf oval Case, iii arder to facilitate maximally
attractive, appropriate, safe, and cost - effective development of the
site.
MRP
GigERSd�J
P. M. 625 -M -40
►- 3
GD r : I S CO
=__2 IT
a ( 2-791 AC. PER P.m.
Tin 2.96 AC 621
s
W I (.SON
RO.. 22//
N
cc
I &I BiR��RA 20
1 2
PCL.
1.92 AC
,..LAME LINE
f
kE)�N Eby
fL�
ILIS AC
P
N,pqy•r
•
PFq C� •
22
R0S.9JIJ2
I
100Ac
�}•?�
i�wssvN
100 Ac.
25
'
O�
N - •�,.~- 1411
~ A`•- i.
1207ACC +"
� ~
1
-
:_ ... bill,
HILL- -
ti
1.12 AC.NET
7Q Y3 _N:
��� • �7 k • ` /J6f0 .
L
J
T
dr
32
� r
Dauison- Wilson Rnnexation Waiuer Request
THE EXCEPTIONRL NATURE OF THE PERCH HILL HORD SITE
I. CONDITIONS OF MRNY RNNEHflBLE SITES NOT FOUND ON THIS SITE
The following suite of conditions generally obtains of properties
which have been annexed by the City of Saratoga in the past ten years,
under existing regulations, and have been cited as reasons
supporting annexation:
• hillside is visible
• sets precedent for annexation of entire area
• no adequate water and fire protection
None of these conditions obtains in the case of the Peach Hill
Road parcel. On the contrary:
• development site is screened from view, possibly
excepting the easterly neighbor (see staff report)
• neighborhood is completely built -in with the
exception of this parcel (see map); no property within
at least 590 yards of the parcel is undeueloped and
eligible for annexation
• fire hydrant across the street from the parcel;
County requirements for sprinklers, non -shake roof,
etc., apply
II. CONSTRRINTS OF THE SITE LIMIT DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS TO THOSE FRUORED
BY THE CITY
Rnother consideration favoring annexation bU the City is
maintenance of site development control. However, the
constraints of the building site location and topography of
the parcel are such as to prevent deuelopment counter to
what are cited by staff as primary concerns: maximum 4300
s.f. _floor area and 26' hei ht restrictions.
Regarding floor area due to the irregular shape of the lot, only one
building site is possible, as indicated on the map. The portion of the
lot eas. of its narrowest poini along the east -west axis is too narrow
for deuelopment. Rs for the westerly portion, John Coyle, the
geological consultant recommended to us by the City, observed that
its easternmost end possessed characteristics possibly indicative of
landslide risk. The remaining available footprint assuming the
standard setbacksl is at most 60' x 35' = a maximum 2100 s.f. Because
of the steepness of the slope in this region (25 -30 %), only a split -level
design at any point is feasible, resulting in a maximum possible floor
couerage of 2100 x 2 = 4200 s.f. Thus constraints of the building
site prohibit more than the maximum of 4300 s.f. floor space
projected bU the City on its assumption of the (unlikely) worst
I j" Lelaa..
Davison- Wilson Annexation Waiver Request
case scenario in which average slope of the entire lot turns out to be
greater than 30 %. (It had been our stated intention from the outset
to build no larger than a 3000 -3500 s.f. home, hence the suitability of
the site for our purposes.)
Hs for height, though in principle discretionarU, a low - slung,
split -level design with minimum cut and height is the
safest, most cost - effective, and most aestheticallU
appropriate one for such a steeplU sloped site. The resulting
design is a maximum of two stories at any point. For fire safety and
aesthetic reasons we are proceeding with a classical Mediterranean
(stucco and tile) style of design, characterized by a shallow roof. The
characteristics of the desired stole combined with height
limitations imposed to access light along the split -level
'steps' fauor a 2 -story structure of maximum height 26'.
Precedent: The property slopes downhill from the road. The four homes
immediately south of it, all built in the County, occupy the same ridge.
Two are built stepping down the hillside, as we plan to do, and two are
built at the bottom of the hillside. Due to the irregular boundary and
geological considerations mentioned earlier building at the bottom of
the hillside is not an option for us. The other two county -built split -
level homes conform to the City's height restrictions.
111. TO LOCATE THE HOME ON THE ONLY FEASIBLE BUILDING SITE ON THE
PARCEL, CITY (BUT NOT COUNTY) SETBACK REQUIREMENTS CALL FOR R
URRIANCE, WITH ACCOMPANYING LEGAL EXPOSURE
The City's current setback requirements applied to vacant lots of this size
are: front 30', side 28', rear 50/60', or front: 20% of lot depth, side:
10% of lot width, rear: 25% of lot depth, whicheuer is greater. City
staff confirmed that applying the 20% of lot depth requirement to this
lot locates the house at the narrowest portion of the lot, which is
unbuildable. The City's recommendation is to request a variance for
permission to use the 30' -20'- 58/68' setbacks. These setbacks are
virtually the same as the County's, with RHS residential development
standards at 30'- 20' -25'. The difference between back setbacks is
unimportant, since the parcel is hundreds of feet long in that
dimension. Front and side setbacks required by County and
recommended by City are thus identical, once the impossibility of
applying the formulaic version of the City setback calculation to the
lot is accepted. Indeed, Building Site Approval granted by the County
for this lot in 1970 and 1971 applications was to the same triangular
footprint as the one on the enclosed map for development identified
by the City during the past month. I.e., City and CountU agree on
the same, identical location as the parcel's uniquely
appropriate, acceptable building site.
The fact that to build on this site requires a variance in the
Citq,while it does not in the County, concerns us, especially in
light of the history of what virtually all interested parties describe as
spurious litigation against home builders, in this neighborhood . For
example, voluminous city records trace the arduous process of
Dauison- Wilson Hnnexation Waiuer Request
development of the Birenbaums' parcel (see map), contiguous to ours,
in 1990 -2. The main point of contention was the legality of an access
easement. The result was that uirtually euery detail of the objections
to the Birenbaums' development was overturned. The cost to the
owners was two years' delay in beginning building and upwards of
$400,000.00 in legal expenses. R comparably extreme number of man
hours and legal fees was incurred by the City.
While on the one hand that unfortunate family receiued an admirable
degree of support and understanding from the City during its long
ordeal, on the other this case might be expected to greatly concern
the City as an example of what to auoid in future. In the present
instance, we feruently hope that the City Council will carefully assess
the pros and cons of denying our waiver request so as maintain control
of deuelopment of our one single family dwelling, in light of the legal
exposure incurred by the need for a uariance. We have attempted to
show that the constraints of the site and chosen design leave oniq a
negligible amount of leeway within which to deviate from the City's
General Plan, which in any case we haue no intention of doing. It may
be appropriate to add at this point that earlier we uolunteered to
follow the City Handbook guidelines in addition to the County's, and
that our architect, a Saratoga natiue, is prepared to do so, despite
that City staff told us that they cannot legally bind us to do so. We
also intend to proceed with maximum early input from our neighbors,
as the attached copy of a letter sent to each of them indicates.
CONCLUSION
In sum, we hope the City Council thoroughly evaluates whether the
original intent of the annexation principles, setback laws, and
variance regulations is being met when applied to the situation we
haue described for the development of this Peach Hill Road parcel,
before making a decision on our waiver application. We haue
attempted to show that arguable it is in the Citu's best
interest as well as our own to avoid unnecessary waste of time
and moneu . One avenue to accomplish this would be to
permit development of this parcel in the County by waiving
or delauing its annexation bu the City
Rs noted aboue constraints of the site as well as the owners'
building obiectiues conform to those of the Citu's General
Plan. In addition no other neighboring properties are
impacted bu the annexation decision on this property
Therefore, we argue that the impact of granting a waiuer of
annexation in this exceptional case is minimal
Respectfully submitted,
Deborah S. Davison & Robert J. Wilson
15561 Glen Una Drive
Los Gatos, CA 95030
July 18, 1996
Deborah S. Davison
Robert Wilson
10707 Santa Lucia Road
Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear Deborah and Robert,
We are responding to your surprise visit to our home
this past Sunday.
You expressed concern during that visit about our appeal
of your development proposal, and about having your project
reviewed in the course of that appeal. You asked what we
would propose in order to avoid such occurrences and
mentioned concern about possible delays. You suggested
several conditions that might be appended to your project
which might answer the questions we have raised, but,
unfortunately, we did not fully comprehend your suggestions,
tired and hungry as we were from our morning's projects.
(Perhaps you should have taken us up on our offer of iced
tea, which would have refreshed everyone; we might all have
been capable of more attention!) Try as we may, we have not
been able to re- create the language you suggested.
We propose, therefore, that to save time and make
further communications more productive, you might send us a
copy of the conditions you were thinking of, together with
any changes which may have occurred to you since then. If
you have any record of the language you proposed, we would
appreciate receiving that as well.
In order to address the issues as fruitfully as possible
in the future, we also.request that you arrange such
conferences in the future through advance agreement with as
on times and dates which would be most convenient for all.
We know that would be best for us. You, as busy
professionals, can probably appreciate the advantages as
well.
Very truly yours,
A n nd Meg Giberson