HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-15-1998 City Council packetJ
1 't 3 1
1' 4O3.
1+`
Public hearings will start promptly at 8:00, when the Council will m
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 15, 1998 6:00 p.m.
PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave.
TYPE: Regular Meeting
%p0 6:00 p.m. Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- EXISTING LITIGATION
Names of cases: Warfel v. Saratoga; San Francisco Baykeepers et al.
v. Saratoga; San Francisco Baykeepers et al. v. State Water Resources
Control Bd. et al.; City of Saratoga v. West Valley- Mission Community
College District; City of Saratoga v. Santa Clara County and
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(b) in three cases.
Mayor's Report on Closed Session.
7:30 Pledge of Allegiance
1,3k 1. ROLL CALL p
2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS rivr t
A. Resolution appointing Planning Commissioner
B Administration of Oath of Office
C. the Aire Resolution
S
D. Introduction of new Public Works Director, Christine
Fischer
REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was
properly posted on July 10.
41 4. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC
9=�
City Council Agenda 2 July 15, 1998
A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS vs--
'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.
c
i-° B. New Items
4
1) Planning Commission Actions, 7/8 Note and file.
2) Memo Authorizing Publicity for Upcoming Hearings
Weed Abatement; Zoning Ordinance Amendments
3) Approval of Check Register
4) Quarterly Report to Regional Water Quality Control
Board on City NPDES Activity
C.
i0 CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY None.
&J
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8:00 pm.
City
S
6`
S.
Council Agenda 3 July 15, 1998
A. Vessing Road Assessment District Protest Hearing (continued
from 4/15)
Recommended Action: Open hearing; continue to September
7 9�z
B. Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1: Public Hearing
on Proposed Assessments for FY 98 -99 (continued from 7/1)
Recommended Action: Continue to July 21.
g: 2-
rfri
oi,,- 5--
C. on ideration of Petition from Saratoga Vineyards
Homeowners Association for Vehicle Code Enforcement on
Private Streets by Sheriff's Department
Recommended Action: Adopt resolution.
/20- ./(9.
.d
D. Appeal of denial of request for Design Review approval to
construct a new two story, single family residence, 4,043
sq. ft. in size, 25 ft. in height, on a 29,020 sq. ft. lot
at 14265 Burns Way in the R -1- 15,000 Zoning District (APN
503 -23 -006; DR98 -007) (Appellant /applicant, Jayakumar)
(continued from 6/17)
Recommended Action: Deny
Commission's decision.
r e_ x30
2_,2-
appeal and reaffirm Planning
1/ I Lei Cu'�
/2_
Appeal of denial of Design Review Approval to construct
G'i, Q �a new 6,489 sq. ft., two -story home on a vacant 4.48 acre
gor lot at 22665 Garrod Road in the Hillside Residential
Zoning District (DR97 -060, APN503 -78-
038)(Applicant /appellant, Neogy)
Recommended Action: Deny appeal and reaffirm Planning
Commission's decision.
61„,_ /`:w r�� IZro'
-z/ r
A 0 T9 e 4,45,g4,_„„qa_if„,4)
City Council Agenda
11504. A. Oral Communications (continued) and instructions to staff
regarding actions on current oral communications
OLD BUSINESS
A. Village Valet Parking Ordinance (first reading and
introduction)
NEW BUSINESS None.
ROUTINE MATTERS (Note: City Attorney will be excused at this
point if no longer needed.) Air
A. Approval of Minutes 7/1; 7/7
5 0 10. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS
RAT (,,A
4
July 15, 1998
Agenda items for next adjourned regular meeting (Note: The
purpose of listing the items immediately following is not
to discuss or take action on them, but simply to decide
whether they are to be placed on the agenda for the meeting
of July 21.)
Quarterly Review of Major Programs and Projects
Commission Chair Reports
Presentation from West Valley Sanitation District on Sewer
System Rehabilitation Work
Zoning Ordinance Amendments (part of quarterly review by
James)
Mountain Winery Update (part of quarterly review by James)
LLA -1 Public Hearing
City Council Agenda 5 July 15, 1998
oS
l0` 12.
B. Other
t o', 049 11. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT.to next meeting at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 21,
at Adult Cake Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need
special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact Peter
Gonda at 408/868 -1221. 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]
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPOINTING A MEMBER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT THE following appointment is
made to the Planning Commission for a term expiring April 2001:
2A
WHEREAS, Richard Siegfried has resigned from the Planning
Commission and
WHEREAS, interviews have been conducted to fill the vacancy, and
it is now appropriate to do so.
CHUCK PAGE
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a
regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 15th day
of July, 1998, by the following vote:
Mayor
07-07 -1998 01 :39PM FROM COMMUNITY FOCUS
April 16, 1998
Bay Area Council Santa Clara Valley Manufacturing Group
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Dear Spare the Air City /County Candidate:
1U
14W0001 LOU r. u.)
Spare the Air is a program begun by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to reduce air pol-
lution on high smog days. Now in its eighth year, Spare the Air enjoys the participation dove: 500
Bay Area employers, who notify their employees of Spare the Air days and encourage them to cut back
on polluting activities. The program is remarkably successful— a recent survey found 65 percent of
Bay Area residents recognize the Spare the Air message and over 14 percent do something to reduce
air pollution on Spare the Air Days. Yet Spare the Air fees its greatest challenge this year, as weather
experts predict an unusually hot, dry summer on the heels of El Nifo just the right ingredients to
cook up unhealthy levels of smog.
The Spare the Air City and County Campaign can help! The Campaign focuses on increasing aware-
ness of air pollution and congestion issues by promoting Spare the Air throughout entire cities and
counties. This year, a special emphasis will be placed on residential outreach. Thirty-three cities and
counties signed up last year now is your chance to join them by becoming a 1998 Spree the Air City
or County.
If you participated in the 1997 campaign, your job in 1998 will be even easier. No need to pass a
new resolution; instead, just complete the attached Registration Form indicating the new areas of out-
reach you plan for the coming year and send it in.
To become a new Spare the Air City, follow the four easy steps outlined below:
Step 1 Use the attached Registration Form to register as a Spare the Air Employer (to promote Spare
the Air to your employees) and as a Spare the Air City or County.
Step 2 Pledge that your city or county will participate in up to three specific Spare the Air outreach
activities, as outlined in the Sample Resolution, including: (1) outreach to residents; (2) out
reach to Spare the Air employers in your jurisdiction; and (3) adoption of a new clean air policy
targeting city or county workers. Only category (1) it required; areas (2) and (3) are optional
Step 3 Prepare and adopt a Spare the Air Resolution incorporating the selected activities and send a
copy to the Sparc the Air City and County Committee.
Step 4 Implement the activities indicated in your city or county's Resolution.
Now more than ever we need to work together so that we can all breathe a little easier in the Bay Area
this summer. For further information on the 1998 Spare the Air City and County campaign, contact
Grier McCurdy, BayCAP 1998 Spare the Air City and County Committee
c/o Community Focus, 170 Columbus Avenue, Suite 200, San Francisco, CA 94133
TEL 415/956 -1811 FAX 415/956 -1813
A voluntary, public- private partnership helping to clean the air
acs
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
WHEREAS, the Bay Area Quality Management District is conducting its voluntary S'p.. 51...Aii,
from June 1 until October 2, 1998, in the nine counties that comprise the San Francisco Bay Area; and
WHEREAS, the Spare the Air is now in its eighth year and has more than 500 public and private
employers who have pledged to participate in the Spare the Air program; and
WHEREAS, the San Francisco Bay Area has experienced dramatic improvements in its air quality over
the last 40 years, but still sees a large number of days during the year when air pollution exceeds state and
national health standards; and
WHEREAS, the regional air pollution data for 1998 and 1999 will be especially critical because it will
be used to determine if the Bay Area meets the new national ozone standards adopted by EPA last
summer, adding greater urgency to voluntary air pollution reduction efforts; and
WHEREAS, the Bay Area Clean Air Partnership (BAY CAP) is a public private partnership that
supports voluntary efforts to improve the Bay Area's air, including the Spare The Air Program; and
WHEREAS, Bay CAP will recognize cities and counties that participate in the "1998 Spare the Air City".
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga pledges that the
City will do the following:
1998 Spare the Air City and County Activities:
Place Public Information to educate and notify Saratoga residents about the Spare the Air Program
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Saratoga City Council at a meeting
held on he 15 day of July, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: Mayor
Deputy City Clerk
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
ACTION MINUTES
DATE: Wednesday, July 8, 1998 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Roll Call
Present: Chair Pierce, Commissioners Bernald, Kaplan, Martlage, Murakami and Patrick
Absent: None
Staff: Director Walgren, Planning staff Crowley
.713(;)
Pledge of Allegiance
Minutes
June 10, 1998 APPROVED 5 -0 (MURAKAMI ABSTAINED)
June 24, 1998 APPROVED WITH CHANGES 5 -0 (MARTLAGE ABSTAINED)
Oral Communications
None.
Report of Posting Agenda
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on July 2, 1998.
Technical Corrections to Packet
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. DR -97 -066 (APN 503 -31 -055) COTRAN, 14158 Dorene Court; Request for Design Review
approval to construct a new 4,855 sq. ft., two -story single family residence, 20 ft., 9 in. in height, on a
vacant 1.05 acre parcel in the Hillside Residential zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 6/24/98).
APPROVED 5 -1 (PATRICK OPPOSED).
2. DR -98 -019 V -98 -005 (503 -22 -102) CAMPBELL, 20731 Marion Road; Request for Design
Review approval to add 2,216 sq. ft. to an existing 3,084 sq. ft. main residence at a height of 23.5 ft.
where 18 ft. is existing. The structure is known as the Pollard House and is listed on the City's Heritage
Inventory. The site is two acres, located within an R -1- 12,500 zoning district. Variance approval is
necessary to allow the square footage to exceed the maximum permitted for a parcel in the R- 12,500
zoning district. CONTINUED 6 -0 TO 7/22/98 STUDY SESSION.
Planning Commission Action Minutes Page 2
July 8, 1998
3. DR -98 -003 (APN 503 -78 -029) DOUGLASS, 22111 Villa Oaks Lane (Lot 11);. Request for Design
Review approval to construct a new 6,566 sq. ft., two -story residence on a vacant 4.89 acre parcel located
in a Hillside Residential zoning district. CONTINUED 6 -0 TO 8/12/98 REGULAR MEETING.
4. DR -98 -021 (APN 397 -18 -093) MORAN, 14725 Live Oak Lane; Request for Design Review
approval to construct a first and second story addition of 1,397 sq. ft. to an existing 4,188 sq. ft., single
story structure located in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. APPROVED 6 -0.
5. DR -96 -056.1 UP -96 -016.1 (APN 393 -01 -024, 025, 026, 027, 028 393 -02 -003) SARATOGA
COURTYARDS, LLC /ARGONAUT ASSOCIATES, Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road Blauer Drive;
Request for modification of Design Review and Use Permit approval to redevelop and expand the
Argonaut Shopping Center by adding approximately 10,000 sq. ft. to the existing Safeway Supermarket,
renovating the existing Center buildings and constructing two new free standing buildings. The
modification request is to allow the free standing building approved for Pad B at the southeast corner of
Saratoga Sunnyvale Road and Blauer Drive to be separated from the overall project approval so that they
may proceed with construction of that building independent of the overall project. The conditions of
approval required that construction of the free standing buildings occur simultaneously with the
renovation of the Center, in order to ensure that the renovation did occur. DENIED 5 -0 (MARTLAGE
ABSTAINED).
6. DR -96 -056.2 UP -96 -016.2 (APN 393 -01 -024, 025, 026, 027 028) WHITLOW /ARGONAUT
ASSOCIATES, Saratoga Sunnyvale Road Blauer Drive; Request for modification of an approved
project to remove or reduce a required soundwall between the Argonaut Shopping Center and adjacent
properties to the north and east. APPROVED 4 -2 (KAPLAN AND PATRICK OPPOSED).
7. DR -98 -017 (APN 397 -42 -018) PINN BROTHERS, 14168 Taos Court (Lot 6); Request for Design
Review approval to construct a new one -story, single family residence, 5,521 sq. ft. in size, 20 ft. in
height, on a vacant 59,289 sq. ft. lot in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. APPROVED 4 -2 (MARTLAGE
AND PATRICK OPPOSED).
DIRECTOR ITEMS
COMMISSION ITEMS
COMMUNICATIONS
Written
City Council Minutes dated June 17, 1998
Notices for Planning Commission Meeting of July 22, 1998
ADJOURNMENT AT 11:30 P.M. TO NEXT MEETING
Wednesday, July 22, 1998, Civic Theater
13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
Printed on recycled paper.
q 4 l
July 9, 1998
To:
is 4 04 0
City Council
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 868 1200
From: Deputy City Clerk
Subject: Publicity for Upcoming Hearings Weed
Ordinance Amendments
A. Weed Abatement
Grace E. Cory
g �z)
11'o�
Abatement; Zoning
Hearings have been scheduled on the above items for Wednesday,
August 5. Staff requests direction as to any publicity in addition
to that legally required which the Council wishes to have prepared.
In accordance with Council policy, most ordinances will be
introduced at noticed public hearings, including ordinances for
which State law does not require a public hearing. Notices of
appeals are published in the Saratoga News and mailed to all
property owners within 500 feet of the site.
Affected property owners are mailed notice of this hearing. Staff
recommends no further notice.
B. Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Proposed amendments include revisions to the Building Floor Area
and Average Site Slope definitions, the Building Floor Area
Reduction requirements, the Administrative Design Review and
Accessory Structure Review process, and the Sign Ordinance. New
regulations would include a restriction on the number of wood
burning fireplaces allowed and the creation of a creek protection
setback for new construction. In addition, amendments are being
proposed to the Lot Impervious Coverage requirements to match the
language of the Measure G initiative. Staff believes many of these
amendments would be of interest to the general public and
recommends notifying the Community Group List and KSAR and sending
a press release to the Saratoga News.
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Stan Bogosian
Paul E. Jacobs
Gillian Moran
Jim Shaw
Donald L. Wolfe
Fund
Fund
Name
Amount
Amount
7/3/98.
Void
Checks
Manual
Checks
Total
1
O:UANICE \CERTIFY
1 GENERAL
100 COPS -SLESF
110 Traffic Safety
150 Streets Roads
160 Transit Dev
170 Hillside Repair
180 LLA Districts
250 Dev Services
260 Environmental
270 Housing &Comm
290 Recreation
292 Facility Ops
293 Quarry Creek
300 State Park
310 Park Devlpmnt
400 Library Debt
410 Civic Cntr COP
420 Leonard Rd
700 Quarry Creek
710 Heritage Prsvn
720 Cable TV
730 PD #2
740 PD #3
800 Deposit Agency
810 Deferred Comp
830 Payroll Agency
990 SPFA
07- 1u1 -98
$54,571.89
1,831.69
429.48
2,780.20
16,177.18
13,932.13
22,249.71
300.00
2,038.00
$9,513.78 $64,085.67
$0.00
$0.00
$1,831.69
$0.00
$0.00
$429.48
$2,780.20
$16,177.18
$13,932.13
$22,249.71
$300.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,038.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Subtotal
$114,310.28
$9,513.78 $123,824.06
PAYROLL CHECKS: B23549 B23588
TOTAL
80,128.55
R,952:61.,
Prepared by:
Date: 7-
Approved by:
Date:
PREPARED 07/02/1998, 7:57:41
PROGRAM: GM339L
CITY OF SARATOGA
VEND NO VENDOR NAME
INVOICE. VOUCHER P.O. CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND- ISSUED
NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
0000006 A TO Z NURSERY
THU3000102 004671 18198 06/25/1998
THU3000085 004672 06/25/1998
EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 1
AS OF: 07/03/1998
001 3030 532.30 -01 REPLACEMENT PLANTS SUPPLI
180- 3040 532.40 -14 REPLACEMENT PLANTS- SUPPLI
0000005 AMERICAN ROOFING SYSTEM
66235 004674 06/25/1998 001 1040 413.05 -00 REFUND DUPLICATE BUS. LIC 45.00
0001448 ASCO AIR CONDITIONING, INC.
66197 004678 06/25/1998
66197 004677 06/25/1998
0000054 BOISE CASCADE
270450 004761
270450 -A 004762
0000005 CCEC
06/30/1998
06/30/1998
001 -1040- 413.05 -00 PERMIT REFUND
250- 4015- 422.01 -00 PERMIT REFUND
0000005 BRENNER, JANET
3542 004738 06/29/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND
VENDOR TOTAL
VENDOR TOTAL 45.00
VENDOR TOTAL
0000002 ATKINSON, MR. MRS.
004679 06/25/1998 250- 4010 444.02 -00 ARBORIST DEPOSIT 500.00
0000044 BECH, DAVE
004798 07/01/1998 290- 6010 564.40 -10 REFEREE FEES 180.00
001 1045 513.30 -01 OFFICE SUPPLIES
250- 4010 542.40 -41 OFFICE SUPPLIES
VENDOR TOTAL 500.00
VENDOR TOTAL 180.00
VENDOR TOTAL
VENDOR TOTAL
431.92
259.94
691.86
18.60
100.20
118.80
74.93
274.41
349.34
21.00
21.00
0001424 CALIFORNIA SPORT
1092 004795 07/01/1998 290 6005 564.30 -01 NUMBERING SPORTS JERSEYS 190.52
VENDOR TOTAL 190.52
0000005 CARPENTER, ELLIOT
1076 004807 07/01/1998 292- 0000 260.00 -00 RENTAL DEPOSIT REFUND 50.00
VENDOR TOTAL 50.00
004760 06/30/1998, 001 1045 513.40 -01 REGISTRATION FEE 8/12 &13 225.00
PREPARED 07/02/1998, 7:57:41 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 2
PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 07/03/1998
CITY OF SARATOGA
VEND NO VENDOR NAME
INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND- ISSUED
NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
0000005 CCEC
VENDOR TOTAL 225.00
0000078 CHA
004734 06/29/1998 001 0000 210.20 -01 2ND QTR CONTRIBUTIONS 175.50
VENDOR TOTAL 175.50
0000005 CHANG, YAO
2543 004739 06/29/1998 290 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 89.00
VENDOR TOTAL 89.00
0000005 CHASE, MATT
2851 004779 06/30/1998 290- 6005- 445.02 -00 CLASS REFUND 84.00
VENDOR TOTAL 84.00
0000005 CHEN, JANG -PING
004680 06/25/1998 290 6005- 445.02 -00 CLASS REFUND 504.00
VENDOR TOTAL 504.00
0001454 CITY OF SARATOGA
394 004790 07/01/1998 270 -7015- 463.01 -00 SHARP LOAN #1603264 13,932.13
VENDOR TOTAL 13,932.13
0000682 CITY OF SARATOGA -PETTY CASH
6/24 -6/28 004785 06/30/1998 290 6005 564.30 -01 REPLENISH PETTY CASH 116.46
VENDOR TOTAL 116.46
0000005 CITY OF SUNNYVALE -CACEO WORKSHOP
004758 06/30/1998 001 1045 513.40 -01 TRAINING SEMINAR ON 25.00
VENDOR TOTAL 25.00
0000002 CIVITAF
34443 004682 06/25/1998 250 -4010- 444.02 -00 1,258.91
VENDOR TOTAL 1,258.91
0000005 CLEARY, JEANETTE
004681 06/25/1998 290 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 66.00
0000091 COMMONWEALTH CREDIT UNION
VENDOR TOTAL 66.00
PREPARED 07/02/1998, 7:57:41 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 3
PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 07/03/1998
CITY OF SARATOGA
VEND NO VENDOR NAME
INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT
NO NO NO DATE NO
0000005 CVIETKOVICH, NICK
004796
0000108 DATA TICKET, INC.
7082 004775
0000005 DIBIASE, JAYNE
004683
0000005 FISH, DERIDRE
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
0000091 COMMONWEALTH CREDIT UNION
004802 07/01/1998 001 0000 210.20 -01 7/2/98 PAYROLL
VENDOR TOTAL
07/01/1998 290 6005 564.30 -01 REIMBURSE CAMP SUPPLIES
VENDOR TOTAL
06/30/1998 001 1040 452.01 -00 IN- PERSON HEARINGS
VENDOR TOTAL
06/25/1998 290 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND
VENDOR TOTAL
0000005 ESCOBAR, MARY ANN
1675 004741 06/29/1998 290 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND
VENDOR TOTAL
0000005 FARISS, GARY
2522 004788 06/30/1998 290 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND
VENDOR TOTAL
0000005 FERRAIR, BETH
2166 004740 06/29/1998 290 6005- 445.02 -00 CLASS REFUND
VENDOR TOTAL
0000153 FILESAFE
60172675 004727 06/29/1998 001 1030 511.40 -42 MICROFILM STORAGE FEE
VENDOR TOTAL
EXPENDITURE
AMOUNT
3,753.00
3,753.00
59.45
59.45
105.00
105.00
34.00
34.00
0000126 DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY
D00135500102 004784 06/30/1998 290 6005 564.30 -01 BALANCE ON SUPPLIES 27.01
VENDOR TOTAL 27.01
0000144 ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS
881772 004736 17986 06/29/1998 001 1060 513.30 -02 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 999.89
VENDOR TOTAL 999.89
79.00
79.00
80.00
80.00
21.95
21.95
91.37
91.37
HAND- ISSUED
PREPARED 07/02/1998, 7:57:41 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 4
PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 07/03/1998
CITY OF SARATOGA
VEND NO VENDOR NAME
INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND- ISSUED
NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
0000005 FISH, DERIDRE
0000155
1848
1962
3335 004742 06/29/1998 290 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND
FITZPATRICK BARRICADE
004663 17966 06/25/1998
004664 17966 06/25/1998
0000159 FRY'S ELECTRONICS
2574973 004730
0000165 GARROD FARMS
6/15 -6/24 004720
0000169 GHAFOURIFAR, ZAHRA
5/28 -7/02 004718
VENDOR TOTAL
150- 3015 532.30 -01 TRAFFIC CONT. B
150- 3015 532.30 -01 TRAFFIC CONT. B
VENDOR TOTAL
06/29/1998 001 1065 513.30 -01 MIS PARTS /EQUIPMENT
VENDOR TOTAL
0000162 G. N. RENN, INC.
238263 004670 17974 06/25/1998 001 1035 512.30 -20 PRODUCTS FOR FUEL TANKS 992.32
06/26/1998 290 6005 564.40 -10 INSTRUCTORS FEE
VENDOR TOTAL
06/26/1998 290- 6005 564.40 -10 INSTRUCTORS FEE
VENDOR TOTAL
94.00
94.00
141.35
189.22
330.57
999.83
999.83
VENDOR TOTAL 992.32
560.00
560.00
202.50
202.50
0000613 GREEN VALLEY RECYCLING CO INC
6/13/98 004653 200015 06/25/1998 260 5015 552.40 -10 STREET SWEEPING FOR MAY 5,033.18
VENDOR TOTAL 5,033.18
0000566 GUICHARD, ANNA MARIE
004799 07/01/1998 290 6010 564.30 -01 INSTRUCTOR FEES 38.00
VENDOR TOTAL 38.00
0001453 HARRIS, SHAUNA
00023 004800 07/01/1998 001 1045 513.40 -01 INSTRUCTOR FEES 50.00
VENDOR TOTAL 50.00
0000005 HIGASHIHARA, RYUZO
004684 06/25/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 35.00
VENDOR TOTAL 35.00
PREPARED 07/02/1998, 7:57:41 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 5
PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 07/03/1998
CITY OF SARATOGA
VEND NO VENDOR NAME
INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND- ISSUED
NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
0000005 HIGASHIHARA, RYUZO
0000005 HO, LING MAY
004685
0001449 HOBBS, CHRISTOPHER
6/20 -6/20 004714
0000005 HORN, RICH
004686
06/25/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND
VENDOR TOTAL
06/26/1998 290- 6005 564.40 -10 INSTRUCTORS FEE
VENDOR TOTAL
06/25/1998 290- 6005- 445.02 -00 CLASS REFUND
VENDOR TOTAL
0000005 JARIWALLA, SONAL
004687 06/25/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND
VENDOR TOTAL
0001264 JEFFERS, JAMES A.
6/15 THRU 6/26 004662 06/25/1998 250- 4010 542.40 -10 TREE INSPECTIONS
VENDOR TOTAL
0000211 JENKINS, TRACY
004797 07/01/1998 290 6010 564.40 -10 REFEREE FEES
VENDOR TOTAL
0000005 KOSCT, DENISE
004688 06/25/1998 290 6005- 445.02 -00 CLASS REFUND
VENDOR TOTAL
0001391 KOVACH, SONIA M.
6/15 -6/26 004791 07/01/1998 001 1040 513.40 -10 73 HRS ACCOUNTING SERVICE
VENDOR TOTAL
49.00
49.00
76.80
76.80
77.00
77.00
0001027 HUMAN BEHAVIOR ASSOCIATES
1485 004776 06/30/1998 001 1045 513.40 -10 EAP SVCS 4/98 360.00
VENDOR TOTAL 360.00
0000201 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST
004803 07/01/1998 001 0000 210.20 -01 7/2/98 PAYROLL 4,219.95
VENDOR TOTAL 4,219.95
34.00
34.00
200.00
200.00
360.00
360.00
5.00
5.00
2,190.00
2,190.00
PREPARED 07/02/1998, 7:57:41 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 6
PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 07/03/1998
CITY OF SARATOGA
VEND NO VENDOR NAME
INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND- ISSUED
NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
0001391 KOVACH, SONIA M.
0000867 LARKIN, NANCY EADIE
6/23 -6/30 004715
06/26/1998 290 6005 564.40 -10 INSTRUCTORS FEE
VENDOR TOTAL
0000005 LEE MURDOCK, MARIETTA
1020 004809 07/01/1998 292- 0000 260.00 -00 RENTAL DEPOSIT REFUND
VENDOR TOTAL
0000005 LEE, APNI
004689 06/25/1998 290 6005 445.02 -00 CLASS REFUND
VENDOR TOTAL
0000005 LEE, JEANNIE
3099 004744 06/29/1998 290 6005- 445.02 -00 CLASS REFUND
VENDOR TOTAL
0000005 LEE, JOHNSON
004690 06/25/1998 290 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND
VENDOR TOTAL
0000005 LEAN
02 -817 004783 06/30/1998 290 6005 564.30 -01 THE MARKETING MANUAL
VENDOR TOTAL
0000246 LIBERTY PEST CONTROL
81793 004691 17987 06/25/1998 001- 1060 513.40 -15 QUARTERLY PEST CONTROL
VENDOR TOTAL
0000005 LIU, FAITHE
1703 -38 004745
0000005 LORENZEN, TERESA
3616 004743
06/29/1998 290 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND
06/29/1998 290 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND
VENDOR TOTAL
VENDOR TOTAL
18.00
18.00
50.00
50.00
84.00
84.00
208.00
208.00
19.00
19.00
151.00
151.00
265.00
265.00
0000248 LINVILLE, DIANE
004768 06/30/1998 290 6005 564.40 -10 INSTRUCTOR FEES 148.50
VENDOR TOTAL 148.50
98.00
98.00
84.00
84.00
PREPARED 07/02/1998, 7:57:41 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 7
PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 07/03/1998
CITY OF SARATOGA
VEND NO VENDOR NAME
INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND- ISSUED
NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
0000005 LORENZEN, TERESA
0000005
1052
LOVINE, WINNIE
004811
0000258 LYONS, LEILANI
004772
0000259 MACON, JOHN
6/24/98 004737
0000005
1515
0000005
3364
0000005
0000267
5/98
5/98
MAIERS, LAURIE
004810
MARCUS, TAMARA
004746
MASTROGIACOMO, MARY
3428 004747
MAZE ASSOCIATES
004692
004693
0000272 METRO PUBLISHING INC.
410 004665 18016
CC411 004666 18016
CC412 004667 18016
0000273 MEYER, GREG
07/01/1998 292 0000 260.00 -00 RENTAL DEPOSIT REFUND
VENDOR TOTAL
06/30/1998 290 6005 564.40 -10 INSTRUCTOR FEES
VENDOR TOTAL
06/29/1998 290- 6010 564.30 -01 REIMBURSEMENT /TEEN CTR
VENDOR TOTAL
07/01/1998 292 0000 260.00 -00 RENTAL DEPOSIT REFUND
VENDOR TOTAL
06/29/1998 290 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND
VENDOR TOTAL
06/29/1998 290 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND
06/25/1998 001 1040 513.40 -10 ACCOUNTING SERVICES
06/25/1998 001 1040 513.40 -10 MILEAGE /OUT OF POCKET EXP
06/25/1998
06/25/1998•
06/25/1998
001 1030 511.40 -40 LEGAL NOTICES
001 1030 511.40 -40 LEGAL NOTICES
001 1030 511.40 -40 LEGAL NOTICES
VENDOR TOTAL
VENDOR TOTAL
50.00
50.00
45.00
45.00
115.53
115.53
50.00
50.00
152.00
152.00
89.00
89.00
3,551.00
150.50
3,701.50
0000005 MCLEOD, BEVERLY
004694 06/25/1998 290 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 26.00
VENDOR TOTAL 26.00
58.13
45.00
20.63
VENDOR TOTAL 123.76
PREPARED 07/02/1998, 7:57:41 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 8
PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 07/03/1998
CITY OF SARATOGA
VEND NO VENDOR NAME
INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND- ISSUED
NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
0000273 MEYER, GREG
004771 06/30/1998 290 6005 564.40 -10 INSTRUCTOR FEES 108.00
VENDOR TOTAL 108.00
0000005 MILLER, NANCY
004695 06/25/1998 290- 6005- 445.02 -00 CLASS REFUND 174.00
VENDOR TOTAL 174.00
0000005 MORRIS, JOHN
004696 06/25/1998 290- 6005 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 160.00
VENDOR TOTAL 160.00
0000005 MULLEN, SHARI
3455 004787 06/30/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 160.00
VENDOR TOTAL 160.00
0000292 NATIONAL PLAN COORDINATOR
004806 07/01/1998 001- 0000 210.20 -01 7/2/98 PAYROLL 2,187.01
VENDOR TOTAL 2,187.01
0000005 NETTLEMAN, BRIAN
2138 004748 06/29/1998 290 6005- 445.02 -00 CLASS REFUND 21.95
VENDOR TOTAL 21.95
0000005 NGAI, LEANNE
004697 06/25/1998 290 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 44.00
VENDOR TOTAL 44.00
0000005 NOON, ELLEN
004698 06/25/1998 290 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 152.00
VENDOR TOTAL 152.00
0000294 NORMAN PAUL PRINT CENTER
981256 004763 06/30/1998 001- 1050 513.40 -41 BUSINESS CARDS -R. GALINDO 96.05
980987 004661 06/25/1998 250- 4015 542.40 -41 CORRECTION NOTICES 740.04
VENDOR TOTAL 836.09
0001452 NORTHCUT, JENNIFER
004765 06/30/199.8 290 6005 564.40 -10 INSTRUCTOR FEES 126.00
VENDOR TOTAL 126.00
PREPARED 07/02/1998, 7:57:41 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 9
PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 07/03/1998
CITY OF SARATOGA
VEND NO VENDOR NAME
INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND- ISSUED
NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
0001452 NORTHCUT, JENNIFER
0000296 NUDELMAN, PAMELA
004767 06/30/1998 290 6005 564.40 -10 INSTRUCTOR FEES 15.00
VENDOR TOTAL 15.00
0000306 PACIFIC BELL
741 -2271 004781 06/30/1998 001 2005 521.40 -20 XEROX PHONE 53.39
741 -1527 004782 06/30/1998 001 2005 521.40 -20 EMP. EMERGENCY NUMBER 48.12
VENDOR TOTAL 101.51
0000307 PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC
JUNE 98 004659 06/25/1998 001 1035 512.30 -20 TUBE TRAILER NATAL GAS 31.23
JUNE 98 004658 06/25/1998 001 1060 513.40 -23 FACILITIES MAINT 2,502.46
JUNE 98 004660 06/25/1998 001 1060 513.40 -23 NATURAL GAS STATION 268.48
JUNE 98 004655 06/25/1998 001- 3030 532.40 -23 PARKS 117.57
JUNE 98 004654 06/25/1998 150- 3015 532.40 -23 TRAFFIC SIGNALS 480.01
JUNE 98 004656 06/25/1998 180- 3040 532.40 -23 157.70
JUNE 98 004657 06/25/1998 180- 3040-532.40 -23 11.84
VENDOR TOTAL 3,569.29
0000005 PATTON, LOIS
004699 06/25/1998 290- 6005- 445.03 -00 CLASS REFUND 128.00
VENDOR TOTAL 128.00
0000005 PENNER, WENDY
3020 004749 06/29/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 59.00
VENDOR TOTAL 59.00
0000005 PIERCE, BILL
3216 004750 06/29/1998 290 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 162.00
VENDOR TOTAL 162.00
0000593 PUB EMP RETIREMENT SYSTEM
496007 004735 06/29/1998 001- 0000 210.20 -01 LONG TERM CARE PREMIUM 11.08
VENDOR TOTAL 11.08
0000329 PUB. EMP. RETIREMENT SYSTEM
6/24/98 004756 06/30/1998 001- 0000 210.20 -01 HEALTH INSURANCE 7/98 13,890.01
0000330 PUBLIC EMPL RETIRE FUND
VENDOR TOTAL 13,890.01
PREPARED 07/02/1998, 7:57:41 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 10
PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 07/03/1998
CITY OF SARATOGA
VEND NO VENDOR NAME
INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND- ISSUED
NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
0000330 PUBLIC EMPL RETIRE FUND
5/30 -6/12 004713 06/25/1998 001 0000 210.20 -01 PERS P/R ENDING 6/18/98 CHECK 75353
004804 07/01/1998 001 0000 210.20 -01 7/2/98 PAYROLL 8,564.92
0000646 RAFI, YVONNE
6/18 -6/18 004716
0000005 RAPHAELIAN, TRICIA
004700
VENDOR TOTAL
06/26/1998 290- 6005 564.40 -10 INSTRUCTORS FEE 31.50
VENDOR TOTAL 31.50
06/25/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 59.00
VENDOR TOTAL 59.00
0000966 REDWOOD ATHLETIC BOOSTERS
004723 06/26/1998 290- 6005 564.40 -10 INSTRUCTORS FEE 1,400.00
VENDOR TOTAL 1,400.00
0000005 RIMLAND, PATTI
004701 06/25/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 64.00
VENDOR TOTAL 64.00
0000336 RIVERA, JUAN
6/30/98 004731 06/29/1998 001 1045 513.40 -03 RETIREMENT GIFT CHECK 75354
VENDOR TOTAL .00
0000337 RIXON, JAC
004769 06/30/1998 290- 6005 564.40 -10 INSTRUCTOR FEES 22.50
VENDOR TOTAL 22.50
0000005 ROBLES, WENDY
004702 06/25/1998 290 6005- 445.02 -00 CLASS REFUND 347.00
VENDOR TOTAL 347.00
0000005 ROEHRS, NICOLA
004703 06/25/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 89.00
VENDOR TOTAL 89.00
0000005 ROSE, CARRIE
004704 06/25/1998 290 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 68.00
VENDOR TOTAL 68.00
8,380.08
8,564.92 8,380.08
500.00
500.00
PREPARED 07/02/1998, 7:57:41 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 11
PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 07/03/1998
CITY OF SARATOGA
VEND NO VENDOR NAME
INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND- ISSUED
NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
0000005 ROSE, CARRIE
0000005 ROSENBERG, GERALD
2829 004780 06/30/1998 290 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 58.00
VENDOR TOTAL 58.00
0000005 RUBIO, MARIE
AS98241585 004712 06/23/1998 001- 1040 513.40 -60 SMALL CLAIMS JUDGEMENT CHECK 75352
VENDOR TOTAL .00
0000005 S S WORLDWIDE
2020991 -01 004764 06/30/1998 290- 6010 564.30 -01 SEASCAPES ON BACK ORDER 25.97
VENDOR TOTAL 25.97
0001450 SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
4/16/98 004724 06/26/1998 260 5015 552.40 -70 FY 1997 -98 ASSESSMENT 11,144.00
VENDOR TOTAL 11,144.00
0000495 SARATOGA EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION
004732 06/29/1998 001 0000 210.20 -01 2ND QTR MEMBERSHIP DUES 1,633.80
VENDOR TOTAL 1,633.80
0000002 SARATOGA RETIREMENT COMMUNITY
TUP 98 -004 004705 06/25/1998 250- 4010 444.01 -00 REFUND WITHDRAWN APP. 275.00
VENDOR TOTAL 275.00
0000358 SASO, VIRGINIA
004766 06/30/1998 290- 6005 564.40 -10 INSTRUCTOR FEES 36.00
VENDOR TOTAL 36.00
0000005 SETO, KOICHIRO
2937 004789 06/30/1998 290 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 90.00
VENDOR TOTAL 90.00
0000005 SHARMA, SHINKU
004706 06/25/1998 290 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 50.50
VENDOR TOTAL 50.50
0000005 SHERATON CONCORD HOTEL
004759 06/30/1998 001 1045 513.40 -01 HOTEL ROOM -8/12 8/13 165.00
VENDOR TOTAL 165.00
633.70
633.70
PREPARED 07/02/1998, 7:57:41 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 12
PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 07/03/1998
CITY OF SARATOGA
VEND NO VENDOR NAME
INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND- ISSUED
NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
0000005 SHERATON CONCORD HOTEL
0000368
34433
34509
SIGNAL MAINTENANCE, INC.
004668 17932 06/25/1998
004669 06/25/1998
0000587 SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY
6/15 -6/19 004721 06/26/1998 290 6005 564.40 -10 INSTRUCTORS FEE 6,697.50
VENDOR TOTAL 6,697.50
0000005 SMIALEK, ELAINE
1045 004812 07/01/1998 292 0000 260.00 -00 RENTAL DEPOSIT REFUND 50.00
VENDOR TOTAL 50.00
0000119 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
004757 06/30/1998 001- 1040 413.05 -00 FINGERPRINT FEE 66.00
0000382 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
004805
0000005
3355
STREGGER, ANNA
004751
0000005 SUN, EKA
2346 004786
150 3015 532.40 -15 MAINT. FOR 9 INTERSECTION
150 3015 532.40 -14 UNSCHEDULED RECAIRS
06/30/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND
VENDOR TOTAL
07/01/1998 001- 0000- 210.20 -01 7/2/98 PAYROLL -TAX DEP.
VENDOR TOTAL
06/29/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND
VENDOR TOTAL
VENDOR TOTAL 66.00
VENDOR TOTAL
0000400 TOMAINO, ROBERTA
00035 004801 07/01/1998 001- 1045 513.40 -01 INSTRUCTOR FEES
VENDOR TOTAL
0000408 TREVISAN, CHRISTOPHER
6/22 -6/26 004722 06/26/1998' 290- 6005 564.40 -10 INSTRUCTORS FEE
824.22
196.89
1,021.11
2,701.25
2,701.25
66.00
66.00
39.00
39.00
0000395 THE PRUDENTIAL INS. COMPANY
0063941 004755 06/30/1998 001- 0000 210.20 -01 DENTAL INSURANCE 6/98 1,984.29
VENDOR TOTAL 1,984.29
50.00
50.00
1,992.00
PREPARED 07/02/1998,
PROGRAM: GM339L
CITY OF SARATOGA
7:57:41
EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 13
AS OF: 07/03/1998
VEND NO VENDOR NAME
INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND- ISSUED
NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
0000408 TREVISAN, CHRISTOPHER
0000409 TUCKER, BEVERLY
6/30/98 004793
6/30/98 004792
6/30/98 004794
0000412 UNITED WAY CHARITY
004733
0001376 VIDANAGE, SARATH LINDA
DR -96 -063 004778 06/30/1998
757 004777 06/30/1998
VENDOR TOTAL 1,992.00
07/01/1998 290 6005 564.30 -01 REIMBURSE TEEN SUPPLIES 37.43
07/01/1998 290- 6010 564.30 -01 REIMBURSE TEEN SUPPLIES 137.87
07/01/1998 290 6010 564.30 -01 REIMBURSE TEEN SUPPLIES 30.00
VENDOR TOTAL 205.30
06/29/1998 001 0000 210.20 -01 2ND QTR CONTRIBUTIONS 229.50
0000414 UNUM LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERICA
6/16/98 004754 06/30/1998 001 0000 210.20 -01 LTD INSURANCE 7/98 943.60
250- 4010 444.02 -00 ARBORIST FEES
800- 0000 260.10 -00 TREE SECURITY DEPOSIT
VENDOR TOTAL 229.50
VENDOR TOTAL 943.60
0000005 VAHABI, DEBBIE
2353 004752 06/29/1998 290 6005- 445.02 -00 CLASS REFUND 185.95
VENDOR TOTAL 185.95
0000005 VANATTA, YESSI
2 CLASSES 004707 06/25/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 116.00
VENDOR TOTAL 116.00
0000005 VEIS, ANNE
004708 06/25/1998 290 6005- 445.02 -00 CLASS REFUND 171.00
VENDOR TOTAL 171.00
1,068.36-
2,038.00
VENDOR TOTAL 969.64
0000005 VIDLOCK, DOROTHY
1070 004808 07/01/1998 292- 0000 260.00 -00 RENTAL DEPOSIT REFUND 50.00
VENDOR TOTAL 50.00
0000901 W.W. GRAINGER, INC.
732777121 -3 004728 06/29/1998 001 1060 513.30 -02 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 211.74
732605879 -4 004729 06/29/1998 001 1060 513.30 -02 CREDIT ON RETURNED ITEM 31.18-
PREPARED 07/02/1998, 7:57:41 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 14
PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 07/03/1998
CITY OF SARATOGA
VEND NO VENDOR NAME
INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND- ISSUED
NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
0000901 W.W. GRAINGER, INC.
0000005 WANG, DAVID
3655 004773 06/30/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND
0001423 WEST TEE GRAPHICS
0014191 004725 18636 06/29/1998
00141 -92 004726 06/29/1998
0000005 WEST, KAREN
3195 004774
0000005 WEST, KAREN
004709
0000988 WHALEN COMPANY, INC.
UP -98 -006 004673 06/25/1998 250- 4010 444.01 -00 ESE FEE 500.00
0000432 WHITLINGER, TENNIS
004770 06/30/1998 290 6005 564.40 -10 INSTRUCTOR FEES
VENDOR TOTAL
0000433 WILKINS, LARRY
6/22 -6/26 004719 06/26/1998 290- 6005 564.40 -10 INSTRUCTORS FEE
VENDOR TOTAL
0000005 WILSON, CATHY
2611 004753 06/29/1998 290- 6005- 445.02 -00 CLASS REFUND
VENDOR TOTAL
0000005 WONG, ALICE
004710 06/25/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND
0000005 YUMIBE, JEANETTE
290 6005 564.30 -01 500 CAMP SHIRTS
290 6005 564.30 -01 36 STAFF CAMP SHIRTS
06/30/1998 290- 6005- 445.02 -00 CLASS REFUND
06/25/1998 290- 6005- 445.02 -00 CLASS REFUND
VENDOR TOTAL 180.56
VENDOR TOTAL
VENDOR TOTAL
VENDOR TOTAL
VENDOR TOTAL
VENDOR TOTAL 500.00
VENDOR TOTAL
94.00
94.00
1,763.13
488.69
2,251.82
282.00
282.00
208.00
208.00
210.00
210.00
1,452.00
1,452.00
188.00
188.00
79.00
79.00
PREPARED 07/02/1998, 7:57:41 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 15
PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 07/03/1998
CITY OF SARATOGA
VEND NO VENDOR NAME
INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND- ISSUED
NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
0000005 YUMIBE, JEANETTE
004711 06/25/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 39.00
VENDOR TOTAL 39.00
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 114,310.28
GRAND TOTAL
9,513.78
123,824.06
Pnnted on recycled paper.
July 9, 1998
Dear Mr. West:
sE
O a uliVA/5°2\
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 868 -1200
John West
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
San Francisco Bay Region
2101 Webster Street, Suite 500
Oakland, CA 94612
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Stan Bogosian
Paul E. Jacobs
Gillian Moran
Jim Shaw
Donald L. Wolfe
Subject: Quarterly Report City of Saratoga Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program
Your File No. 2223.08 (AKM)
Transmitted herewith is the nineteenth report on the City of Saratoga's Nonpoint Source
Pollution Control Program for the quarter ending June 1998. The report is organized into
four sections corresponding to those items listed in the July 21, 1995 letter from Steven
Ritchie, former Executive Officer of the Board, to me. Each section provides a brief
description of the City's activities and accomplishments relative to the four items in Mr.
Ritchie's letter.
1. Reported incidents in Saratoga Creek, including a clear follow -up of who
responded, what action was taken, and any sampling results.
During the quarter, there were no discharge incidents within the Saratoga Creek
watershed area of the City.
2. Results on water quality monitoring in creeks and source identification, if
required.
The joint creek water sampling and testing program with the West Valley College
microbiology class continues after a two semester hiatus due to low student enrollment.
Dr. Berlani's Spring microbiology class took 5 sample tests from Calabazas Creek on
April 13. Test results will be provided in the next quarterly report.
3. Actions taken to inform the public of and encourage participation in nonpoint
source pollution control activities.
1. The West Valley Clean Water Program continues its public information
campaign by placing monthly advertisement in the Los Gatos Weekly and the
Saratoga News (Attachment 1). The combined mediums reach a large
segment of the West Valley Cities population. The goal of the public
information campaign is to distribute stormwater pollution prevention
information to the general public which may result in minimizing storm drain
pollution.
2. In early April, the City of Saratoga installed new signs along Saratoga Creek
which read, "CAUTION: DO NOT WADE OR PLAY IN SARATOGA
CREEK- Bacteria levels in excess of water quality objectives for water contact
recreation have been detected in Saratoga Creek. For more information,
contact Coyote Creek Riparian Station (408) 262 -9204 City of Saratoga
Previous signs read, "DO NOT WADE OR PLAY IN THE CREEK The City
is investigating the presence of possible pollutants in this area which may pose
a health hazard." A brochure has been developed and will be distributed to
residents along Saratoga Creek; Coyote Creek Riparian Station has been
contracted by the City to distribute creek brochures and answer questions
(Attachment 2).
3. Actions taken to implement public agency Nonpoint Source pollution control
measures.
1. The City renewed its FY 1998 -99 street sweeping contract with Green Valley
Recycling Company of Los Gatos.
2. The City continued its weekly arterial and monthly residential street sweeping
program.
3. The City continued its inspection and cleaning of storm water systems through
a contract with West Valley Sanitation District. The total work performed
from July 1, 1997 through June 12, 1998 consisted of 446 storm manholes
inspected /cleaned, 625 storm basins inspected /cleaned, 1,114 storm line
sections inspected /cleaned, 52 storm line inlets inspected /cleaned, 180 storm
line outfalls inspected/cleaned, and 11.39 cubic yards debris removed. The
cost for work performed totaled $47,826 (Attachment 3).
4. As requested by the City Council, attached please find minutes from the Santa
Clara Water District's Urban Creek Assessment Project (UCAP) meeting of
March 31 (Attachment 4).
This completes the report on the City's activities and accomplishments for the second
quarter of 1998. If you have any questions or comments about anything in the report,
please direct them to me. The report will be reviewed by the City Council on July 15. If
there are any corrections or changes directed by the Council, an amended report will be
transmitted to you on July 16. Otherwise, I will send you my next report on the third
quarter activities for 1998 by October 31, 1998.
Thank you for your and the Board's continuing interest and assistance.
I certify that the information submitted in the foregoing report was prepared either directly
by me, or under my direction or supervision, and that to the best of my knowledge and
belief, the information is true, accurate and complete.
Sincerely,
4aaft:
Larry I. Perlin
City Manager
Attachments:
1. Samples of Public Information Campaign
2. Copy of a Creek Brochure
3. West Valley Sanitation District Inspection Report
4. Urban Creek Assessment Project (UCAP) Minutes from March 31 Meeting
s
whether I'm truly in control of my own des-
tiny, let alone that of others. My conclu-
sion: I'm not really in control of much of
anything myself, my temper, my appetite
and especially of others toward me.
To paraphrase the poem, "I am not the
master of my fate, t am not the captain of
my soul."
Indeed, it has been a long time since I
When I mentioned child rearing,
although 1 thought I spoke from a per-
spective of some experience, I got an
answer that went roughly like this: You
raised your children in a time and place so
divorced from the present as to be as alien
as the surface of Mars.
As to controlling my spouse, that
stopped the day we were married. It was
The emphasis, it l heard it right; was any-
thing I wanted. Not anything I wanted oth-
ers to do. I thought about that for a while,
too. Well, I supposed, there were still some
things over which I had control.
Well, sort of.
I could get up by myself in the morning
if I got upearly enough—and if 1 ate by myself,
I could avoid dietary advice: "You're sure-
told me to do. Because then they certain
ly would be in control. And I would have
to do whatever they told me to do.
Certainly not willingly, but still certainly.
So I am trying to heed the advice I got.
I'm not trying to be in control of anyone
except myself, and I'm trying to do that for
as long as I can.
If possible, wash your car on a lawn, gravel driveway, or unpaved
area where soapy water will not run into the street or storm
drain. Otherwise, divert all wash water onto landscaped areas.
Use soap sparingly even biodegradable soap is toxic
to wildlife!
Pour your bucket of soapy water down the sink or into a land-
scaped area when you're clone not into a street, gutter, or
storm drain.
and Cleaner. ce
Tips for washing your car and preventing pollution
Use paper towels to wipe brake dust off of wheels before
washing.
Don't use spray -on wheel cleaners or rinse them off where
rinsewater might flow to a street or storm drain.
OR even better!
Use a commercial car wash.
For a free brochure with tips on maintaining your car and protecting local creeks and the Bay, call 354 -5385.
The West Valley Clean Water Program serves the communities
6 of Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, and Saratoga.
4 SARATOGA NEWS 25, f p98
SARATOGA
Information
HE1N'1 ZE
Bev's brothers all died at least 10 years
ago. He lived on, a hearty, bluff kind of
guy. Like his brothers, he was a master of
all trades. Like his brothers, too, Bev could
repair most anything. When it came to
semi skilled labor, they could do most any-
thing. I suppose this is because they all
grew up on a ranch, or what was called a
ranch in their day-65 acres of orchard
and another 65 of pasture.
It was a ranch owned by their father, a
ltees, walnuts auU peaLl s. It ��aa w
almost a completely independent, self -suf-
ficient community.
Under the stairs to the second story of the
house was a gun rack in which rested the
Hawken muzzle- loading rifle the ranch's
founder brought with him in the wagon train.
Next to it were the rifles and shotguns
Cousin Bev and his brothers used when
they went hunting. Although they never
belonged to the National Rifle Associa-
tion, they knew and respected guns, and
they hunted judiciously, butchering, clean-
ing and eating what they killed.
Me /until /tau 14c1 butt
become an anachronism.
They baled hay and stacked it in the barn;
they fed the cows and milked them every
night; they separated the cream and the milk.
They didn't make butter, but their moth-
er did. She also made all her own bread and
ice cream, the best ice cream I ever tasted.
They candled and gathered their own eggs,
killed and plucked their own chickens,
heart wasn t 010.11 was still sUTA u.•
the country, somewhere in the orchard or
the pasture that no longer existed.
I think that's sad. I know the family farm
Was neither efficient nor prosperous.
Instead, it was hard work with very little
monetary reward. But there was some-
thing about it, something intangible, the
kind of life that seems, in retrospect at
least, to have been worth the living. And
now it's gone, probably forever.
That's why I'm sad when I think of
Cousin Bev.
When You
Take Care
of Your
Y ard
Keep yard waste and garden chemicals out of streets,
gutters, storm drains, creeks, and the sewer system.
Think twice before using pesticides or herbicides. Read
pesticide labels carefully, and apply only the minimum
recommended amount. Try to use products that do not say
"Caution," "Warning!" or "Danger!" on the label.
If you must use garden chemicals, buy ready -to -use
products if available. Mixing concentrates can lead to spills.
...You Can
Take Care
of the
Bay, Too!
If you rinse empty pesticide containers, be sure to apply
the rinse water to your garden.
Use up leftover chemicals, or give them to a friend.
Never pour pesticides into a sink, gutter, or storm drain.
Dispose of all unusable pesticides at a household hazardous
waste drop -off event. Call 299 -7300 for times and locations.
For A free brochure about less -toxic alternatives to garden chemicals, call 354 -5385
I t The WestValley Clean Water Program serves the communities of
Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno and Saratoga
4 SARATOGA NEWS APRIL 22, 1998
SARATOGA
Information
or thinks he has, w th a proclamation stat-
ing that Saratoga's derived from an Iro-
quois Indian word meaning "Hillside
country of the great river, place of the swift
water." He has compiled considerable
documentary evidence from Saratoga
Springs, N.Y., to that effect.
Meanwhile, some of us cultural
Philistines are hanging tough with "float
ingscum upon the water," cited by Florence
Cunningham in Saratoga's First Hundred
Keep your pool and spa clean
and clear —and protect the Bay
Water from your pool, spa, or fountain often contains copper, one of the
pollutants that threatens aquatic life in San Francisco Bay. It's important
to keep pool water out of storm drains —which dump directly into local
creeks before flowing on to the Bay —and to minimize copper in the
sanitary sewer system too. Following these tips will keep your pool
clean and clear and also protect the health of the Bay!
When you or your maintenance service clean your pool
or spa, remember.
Control algae without copper algicides! Effective
non-copper alternatves are available for most algae
problems. If heavy chlorination and elbow grease
can't do the job, check into the range of non-copper
options stocked by your pool chemical supplier.
Clean your filter in an area where filter contents or
backwash will not run onto the street or into a storm
drain. Rinse cartridge filters onto a dirt area, and
spade residue into the soil. Backwash sand and
diatomaceous earth filters onto dirt. Put spent
diatomaceous earth in the trash.
When you or your contractor discharge pool, spa, or
fountain water, make sure it does not flow onto the street
or into a storm drain, creek, or seasonal stream. It is
almost always possible to discharge to a sanitary sewer
cleanout." If you have trouble locating your cleanout,
call your local sewer district.
West Valley Sanitation District (408) 378-2407
Cupertino Sanitary District (408) 253 -7071
For a free brochure with home maintenance
tips for protecting the Bay, call 354 -5385.
.4 The West. Valley Clean Water Program serves the communities
of Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, and Saratoga.
4 SARATOGA NEWS MAY 27,1998
had its own homonyms —words that sound
the same but have different meanings (e.g.
to, too, two; bow, bough)? I'm working on
it, and, in the ringing words of Yogi Berra,
it ain't over till it's over.
As to issues that really have divided the
town, nothing could match the antagonism
that flared more than 130 years ago when
the Civil War was raging and emotions
generated by the fierce fighting a continent
away were reflected in the peaceful sur-
roundings of McCartysville. Strictlyspeak-
ing, it was during the town's nine -month
identity as Bank Mills when, on a hot
October day in 1864, a large crowd gath-
ered here for a patriotic rally in support of
the Union cause.
There was good reason for such a ges-
ture. As described in Saratoga's First Hun-
dred Years, McCartysville was a hotbed of
Confederate sentiment, with Southern
are hanging tough
with `Floating scum
upon the water'
These regrettable manifestations of dis-
unity were brought into focus when sev-
eral of the town's leading citizens were
accused of having helped plan the robbery
of a stagecoach traveling from Virginia
City, Nev., to Placerville. The leader of the
bandits told passengers that money from
the holdup would be used for recruiting
Confederate troops.
Although they were not on the scene,
three of McCartysville's pioneer citizens,
including Henry Jarboe, the first blacksmith
in the village, were arrestedand held for trial
It was a real "uppei
of the Union, spe-
cial significance but was what the gave vote the taken amevent ong
those attending to change the name of Bank
Mills. Although never really accepted by
townspeople, Bank Mills was the post office
designation, having been promoted by
Charles Maclay, whose business and polit-
ical exploits were the stuff of legend.
It was proposed to name the town
Saratoga, after one of the springs in New
York, where the water was found to have
the same content as the mineral water
source discovered in the early 1850s up the
canyon from the village here.
In her First Hundred Years account, Flo-
rence Cunningham didn't record any dis-
cussion of floating scum or swift water.
Saratoga is just a good name, whatever its
origins. Those people at the patriotic rally
did the right thing when they voted it in.
1
i
I IJ:MI 7
kkl�l flfffilfffff fff llliltIl!
BAY AREA
SARATOGA MAIN: 12029 SARATI
Information on over 2,000 properties 51,
P
;Iv
e
4
Printed on recycled paper inks
5/1998/7500
.J11.2
onto Clara ValleOr
anta Clara County is home to
more than 700 miles of creeks and
rivers that travel from the hills into
San Francisco Bay and Monterey
Bay.These creeks have many jobs:
they drain storm and flood waters.
they enhance our neighborhoods,
and they serve as home for fish
and other animals.
While some urban creeks
look inviting, it is important to
know that they do pose some risks.
Even the most remote mountain rt rt
streams may contain contaminants
that are dangerous to humans.
Creeks can become polluted
by storm water that flows over rt
paved areas and picks up pollutants
like gasoline and oil, fertilizers and
pesticides, and pet and animal
waste.This polluted water travels
through the storm drain system
and into local creeks.
Cb
A nimals that live in or near our streams,
including raccoons, fish, crayfish, frogs, birds, deer,
ground squirrels and others, may leave behind bacteria
in their waste —the same bacteria that is found in
human waste.These and other bacteria are a natural
part of a creekside ecosystem. However, some bacteria
can cause infection or intestinal illness in humans who
ingest or come into contact with water containing
elevated levels of these contaminants.
Other sources of pollution in streams include
illegal discharges of industrial or commercial waste,
or sewage from failed septic systems or cracked or
blocked sewer lines.
In addition. creeks can present dangers such as
steep banks, swiftly flowing water, slippery rocks,
submerged hazards such as logs and shopping carts,
and natural hazards such as poison oak and wildlife.
For all of these reasons, the Santa ClaraValley
Water District encourages you to use caution when
in and around urban and suburban creeks.
The Santa Clara County Department of Environ-
mental Health offers the following safety precautions:
Do not drink the water. Even the purest mountain
stream water should be treated before drinking.
Carry a supply of drinking water if your creekside
visit will be lengthy.
Don't expose fresh cuts or other wounds to
stream water or soil.
Wash your hands with soap and potable
(drinking quality) water before eating.
Wear hard -soled footwear with good support
to prevent cuts, abrasions or sprains to the
ankles or feet.
Carry a basic first aid kit to treat minor injuries
that can occur when walking in the outdoors.
Avoid contact with water that is obviously
contaminated. Signs of unhealthy water include
stagnant, frothy black or brown water; cloudy or
milky colored water; or water that smells
unpleasant or unnatural.
What You Can Do
to Help Keep Our
Creeks Clean
any sources of pollution come from humans.
There's a lot that you can do to help keep creeks
clean and safe for future generations.
Never dump anything down a storm drain!
Storm drains lead directly to local creeks.
Recycle your used motor oil and other
automotive fluids.
Reduce your use of pesticides and fertilizers.
Never use them when rain is forecast.
Don't dump or store any materials into or on
the banks of a creek. Even "natural" materials like
leaves and pet waste will alter the chemistry of the
creek, endangering the habitat and adding poten-
tially harmful bacteria to the water.
Never drain your swimming pool, car radiator,
toilet tank, or soapy water from car washing into
the gutter. Instead, drain these into an indoor drain,
or into your sewer cleanout line.
AZIT
When hiking or picnicking in a creekside area,
remove all your trash and food scraps.
Don't build any structures or plant anything alor
the banks of a creek. It's illegal! Contact the wat
district's Community Projects Review Unit at
(408) 265 -2600 for permitting information.
Respect nature. Creeks are home to fish, frogs
and other wildlife. Don't touch, chase or pick up
these creatures, or you may harm them.This is
their home!
Don't feed the birds! Waterfowl
that live on Santa Clara County
creeks are mostly migratory birds.
Providing food encourages them to stay in place,
interrupting the natural cycle. It also increases
water pollution and the spread of waterborne
diseases. Oftentimes, birds who come to rely on
human food become overly aggressive, and have
to be destroyed. So, for their own good, don't
feed the animals!
Adopt a creek! It's simple! Call (408) 265 -2600
for information.
To report illegal dumping into a creek or storm
drain call: 9 -1 -1
For futher information about the City's Stormwater
Program call:
City of Saratoga (408) 868 -1200
For additional information on creek environment
and creek concerns call:
Coyote Creek Riparian Station (408) 262 -9204
(CCRS)
WEST VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
June 18, 1998
Joanna Fuller, Administrative Service /Finance Officer
Joe Spiteri, Superintendent of Maintenance /Operations
City of Saratoga Non -Point Source Program
Listed below and attached is information required for obtaining
reimbursement from the City of Saratoga for the non -point source
inspection and cleaning of storm systems for the fiscal year
1997 -1998, July 1, 1997 through June 12, 1998.
All information obtained on the project was recorded on the
proper forms. Photos were taken of conditions warranted.
Included in the total cost are storm work activities prior to the
main project. Items of immediate concern were forwarded to the
City of Saratoga public works personnel for their attention.
WORK PERFORMED BY DISTRICT MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL
1. Storm manholes inspected /cleaned
2. Storm basins inspected /cleaned
3. Storm sections inspected /cleaned
4. Storm line inlets inspected /cleaned
5. Storm line outfalls inspected /cleaned
6. Storm manhole frame /cover brought to surface
7. Storm line inspected by television
8. Amount of debris removed
EQUIPMENT HOURS CHARGED TO PROJECT
MV -37 water truck
MV -40 rod truck
MV -42 pick -up truck
MV -46 flat bed dump
MV -48 pick -up truck
MV -50 hydro /vac
MV -51 pick -up truck
MV -53 pick -up truck
MV -54 pick -up truck
MV -56 dump truck
MV-59 TV van
MV -61 Water /HVC truck
AC -3 Air compressor
Trailer arrow board
1.0 hours
18.5 hours
39.0 hours
14.0 hours
7.0 hours
49.0 hours
32.0 hours
66.0 hours
57.0 hours
254.0 hours
8.5 hours
4.5 hours
31.5 hours
2.0 hours
$37.50
$25.00
7.50
$12.50
7.50
$45.00
7.50
7.50
7.50
$12.50
$45.00
$45.00
7.50
$7 .50
Sub -total
Attachment 3-
446
625
1114
52
180
grade 23
398 ft.
11.39 cubic yds.
37.50
462.50
292.50
175.00
52.50
2,205.00
240.00
495.00
427.50
3,175.00
382.50
202.50
236.25
15.00
8,398.75
MATERIALS CHARGED TO PROJECT
Asphalt mix
Mortar mix
Concrete mix
3" riser ring
6" riser ring
Bricks
Quick set cement
LABOR HOURS CHARGED TO PROJECT
Gil Acosta
*Gil Acosta
Gary Bamber
Tony Cuevas
Mel Hoff
Ralph Johnson
Tom McCarty
Tino Mendoza
Rob Panelli
Joe Spiteri
Dave Swanson
*Out of class pay
OT LABOR HOURS CHARGED TO PROJECT
Gil Acosta
Gary Bamber
Mel Hoff
Ralph Johnson
(GA)
(GA)
(GB)
(TC)
(MH)
(RJ)
(TM)
(FM)
(RP)
(JS)
(DS)
(GA)
(GB)
(MH)
(RJ)
31 bags
30 bags
34 bags
10
10
48
8 buckets
64.0
256.0
68.5
63.5
44.0
100.5
101.05
0.5
72.5
38.0
57.0
14.0 hours
20.0 hours
29.0 hours
8.5 hours
DEBRIS DISPOSAL CHARGED TO PROJECT
11.39 cubic yards
WATER USED FOR CLEANING OPERATION
5,000 gallons 748 =6.68 CCF's X $1.26 per CCF 8.42
Sub -total 8.42
OVERTIME MEALS CHARGED TO PROJECT
7 meals $12.00
hours
hours
hours
hours
hours
hours
hours
hours
hours
hours
hours
4.16 128.96
2.92 87.60
1.73 58.82
$26.04 260.40
$31.39 313.90
.26 12.48
5.01 40.08
Sub -total 902.24
$35.33
$39.39
$35.33
$30.52
$48.59
$41.83
$35.33
$41.83
$35.33
$58.46
$41.83
Sub -total
2,261.12
$10,083.84
2,420.11
1,938.02
2,137.96
4,203.92
3,586.00
20.92
2,561.43
2,221.48
2,384.31
$33,819.11
$52.99 741.86
$52.99 1,059.80
$72.89 2,113.81
$62.74 533.29
Sub -total 4,448.76
$14.50 165.16
Sub -total 165.16
84.00
Sub -total 84.00
TOTAL COST $47,826.44
-Attachment 4-
MEETING MINUTES
SARATOGA CREEK URBAN CREEK ASSESSMENT PROJECT
Place: Rinconada Water Treatment Plant
400 More Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95032
Date/Time: Monday, March 30, 1998, 3 p.m.
Attendees: Meg Caldwell, Linda Elkind, Sam Mitchell, Trish Mulvey, Kelly Moran, Beau
Goldie, Jeff Schwartz (left meeting at 2:50 p.m.), Mike Heller, Carol Presley, Craig
Breon, Marjorie Foote, Don Whetstone, Lee Ellis
AGENDA
A. Review of October 3, 1997, Meeting Minutes
B. Ombudsman Program
C. Santa Clara Valley Water District Presentation to City Council
D. Fecal Coliform/Fecal Streptococci Ratio
E. Enterococci vs. Fecal Streptococci
F. Approval of Procedure for Notification of Sampling Events
G. Progress Report— Pinpointing Study
H. Outline for 3 -Year Bacteriologic Study Report
I. Discussion of Possible Increase in Frequency of Sampling to Meet Environmental Protection
Agency Requirements
J. Financial Report
K. Brochure Memo
L. Turnout Water
M. Dissemination of Sampling Results to Public
N. Adjournment
C O514b 1
Meeting Minutes Saratoga Urban Creek Assessment Project Committee
A. REVIEW OF OCTOBER 3, 1997, MEETING MINUTES
1. The Urban Creek Assessment Project (UCAP) Committee agreed to modify the minutes,
Section III 7c, to include an editor's note as follows: "There was no consensus on
dissemination of data to the public at the last meeting" (see October 3, 1997, minutes,
Section III 7c). Recollection of this item was unclear to some committee members.
2. Minutes were approved as modified in Ia above.
B. OMBUDSPERSON PROGRAM
1. Jeff Schwartz suggested acknowledgment of speculation that one reason Ombudsperson
Program is not fully utilized is that people are not aware of it. He suggested the phone
number be advertised.
2. Beau Goldie suggested the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) review how the
program is being used and explore options on how to increase public awareness of the
program.
Action Item
District will review how the Ombudsperson Program is being used and explore options on how
to increase public awareness of the program.
C. SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT PRESENTATION TO CITY COUNCIL
Meg Caldwell expressed her feelings that the District's presentation could have been more
effective if the District had conferred with the UCAP Committee first. Jeff indicated that the
overall presentation was positive.
D. FECAL COLIFORM/FECAL STREPTOCOCCI RATIO
Carol Presley stated that the Fecal Coliform/Fecal Streptococci ratio will not be used to interpret
data, but its use in the environmental microbiology field will be mentioned in the final report.
E. ENTEROCOCCI VS. FECAL STREPTOCOCCI
1. Don Whetstone expressed his concern over the inconsistencies between the values reported
for these two analyses.
2. Kelly Moran stated that inconsistencies between laboratories occurs frequently.
CT0514b 2
4
1
Meeting Minutes Saratoga Urban Creek Assessment Project Committee
3. Carol stated that Sequoia had been asked to provide an explanation as to how such
inconsistencies can occur. Carol pointed out that in the last few sampling reports prepared
by Sequoia, a brief explanation has been included with the certified analytical results.
Action Item
Discrepancies experienced in these two analyses will be discussed in the final report.
F. APPROVAL OF PROCEDURE FOR THE NOTIFICATION OF SAMPLING EVENTS (draft
was mailed to the Urban Creek Assessment Project Committee on January 2, 1998)
Sam Mitchell wishes to be notified of sampling events.
Action Item
Don will e-mail Sam notifying him of sampling events.
G. PROGRESS REPORT— PINPOINTING PILOT STUDY
1. Carol emphasized the objective of the Pilot Study and that the actual analytical results
obtained are ancillary to this objective. Right of way /access problems were discussed.
2. The UCAP Committee discussed the objective of the Pilot Study as stated on page 6 of the
agreement.
H. OUTLINE FOR 3 -YEAR BACTERIOLOGIC STUDY REPORT
1. Don sent Beau a letter inquiring why there are different criteria from the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Trish Mulvey
suggested this issue go before the Watershed Management Initiative (WMI) Committee and
the Urban Runoff Program.
2. Carol distributed and discussed the outline for the Bacteriologic Study Report.
3. Carol stated that the audience for the report will be varied, including the scientific
community, policy makers, and citizens.
4. Carol discussed the data presentation in the report, including the statistical methods and the
data tables. Discussion ensued on whether to show averaging of wet weather and dry
weather data. Suggestion was made to revise titles of wet weather and dry weather in the
table. It was suggested that the Regional Monitoring Plan prepared by the San Francisco
Estuary Institute be consulted for suggestions on presenting data. There was further
CT0514b 3
Meeting Minutes
Saratoga Urban Creek Assessment Project Committee
discussion regarding the usefulness of sampling surface water between Cox and Prospect
Avenues with regards to turnout water from the Stevens Creek Pipeline.
5. Meg suggested that for each data table, footnotes be presented explaining the usefulness for
the various presentations of data.
6. Beau suggested creating another table inserting a column showing a comparison between
the regulatory guidelines.
Action Items
All members are to review the outline and provide comments and questions by
April 20, 1998 via e-mail to Carol for a second draft.
Beau to bring up how bacteria is integral to Watershed Management issues at the next WMI
Committee meeting and to the Urban Runoff Program staff.
I. DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE INCREASE IN FREQUENCY TO MEET
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS
1. Carol presented a chart showing expense of taking five samples within a 30 -day period.
2. The UCAP Committee agreed it would be beneficial to perform at least one sampling event
in accordance with the EPA requirements.
Action Item
The EPA sampling frequency will be followed around the August quarterly sampling event.
J. FINANCIAL REPORT
Discussion regarding the $125,000 budgeted for the project. Beau discussed justification for going
beyond the budget. The intent was to meet the conditions of the agreement. Beau stated we have
compiled a valuable report for future reference in bacteriological studies.
K. BROCHURE MEMO
Carol presented a draft brochure entitled "Creeks in Santa Clara County" in which bacterial levels
in urban creeks are discussed. The final brochure should be available in May 1998.
Meeting Minutes Saratoga Urban Creek Assessment Project Committee
L. TURNOUT WATER
There was discussion regarding the quality of sampling taken at locations L9 and L10 when
turnout water is introduced into Saratoga Creek (between Cox and Prospect Avenues).
Action Item
If possible, sampling events will be scheduled when the District is not turning out water into
Saratoga Creek.
M. DISSEMINATION OF SAMPLING RESULTS TO PUBLIC
1. Kelly expressed her concern over the fact that press releases were being distributed under
the UCAP Committee name Kelly stated that the City of Palo Alto does not condone city
employees participating as city representatives in committees that make statements relating
to other cities. She had previously expressed this concern at the last UCAP Committee
meeting. She reiterated her concern that any press releases should be released under
individual UCAP Committee members' names with their individual affiliations (not UCAP),
to reflect that she as a member of the UCAP Committee, did not wish to raise potential
conflict with her employer. She indicated that if informational releases to the public were
going to continue to be distributed in this manner that she would have to resign from the
UCAP Committee.
2. Craig Breon suggested that in future press releases, individual members could identify
themselves with both their primary affiliation (in Craig's case, the Audubon Society) and
also state that they are a member of the UCAP Committee. He stressed that informational
releases would carry more thrust if all of the respective members' affiliations were
emphasized.
3. Linda Elkind agreed that Craig's suggested procedure would allow Kelly to contribute to
and remain on the UCAP Committee and also allow for the UCAP name to be used in
informational releases.
4. Don and Meg expressed that this procedure would not be amenable to them.
5. Kelly regretfully resigned from the UCAP Committee.
N. ADJOURNMENT
The next UCAP Committee meeting will be held Friday, November 6, 1998; time and location
to be determined.
CT0514b 5
June 8, 1998
IDENTICAL LETTER SENT TO ATTACHED LIST OF ADDRESSES (Committee Members and
Interested Parties)
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Subject: Saratoga Urban Creek Assessment Project
This transmits the fmal minutes of the March 30, 1998, Urban Creek Assessment Project Oversight
Committee meeting. Also enclosed is an informational brochure prepared by the Santa Clara Valley
Water District (District) to provide general information to the public on contaminants, including bacteria,
that may be found in creek waters. The brochure addresses safety precautions to be used in and around
creeks and suggests ways for citizens to keep contaminants from entering storm drains and creeks.
If you have any questions, please contact me at the District's Camden Office, (408) 927 -0710,
extension 2691.
Sincerely,
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
Carol A. Presley
Associate Civil Engineer
Project Development
Enclosures
cc: A.C. Bennetti, D. Chesterman, L.M. Ellis, B. Goldie, M. Heller, C. Presley
CP: fd: CT0608f
Sanko Clara Valley Vikit
ya
Printed on recycled paper w
5/1998/7500
y -based inks
.-&M
anta Clara County is home to
more than 700 miles of creeks and
rivers that travel from the hills into
San Francisco Bay and Monterey
Bay.These creeks have many jobs:
they drain storm and flood waters,
they enhance our neighborhoods,
and they serve as home for fish
and other animals.
While some urban creeks
look inviting, it is important to
know that they do pose some risks.
Even the most remote mountain
streams may contain contaminants
that are dangerous to humans.
Creeks can become polluted
by storm water that flows over
paved areas and picks up pollutants
like gasoline and oil, fertilizers and
pesticides, and pet and animal
waste. This polluted water travels
through the storm drain system
and into local creeks.
Do not drink the water. Even the purest mountain
stream water should be treated before drinking.
Carry a supply of drinking water if your creekside
visit will be lengthy.
Don't expose fresh cuts or other wounds to
stream water or soil.
Wash your hands with soap and potable
(drinking quality) water before eating.
Wear hard -soled footwear with good support
to prevent cuts, abrasions or sprains to the
ankles or feet.
1 nimals that live in or near our streams,
including raccoons, fish, crayfish, frogs, birds, deer,
ground squirrels and others, may leave behind bacteria
in their waste —the same bacteria that is found in
human waste.These and other bacteria are a natural
part of a creekside ecosystem. However, some bacteria
can cause infection or intestinal illness in humans who
ingest or come into contact with water containing
elevated levels of these contaminants.
Other sources of pollution in streams include
illegal discharges of industrial or commercial waste,
or sewage from failed septic systems or cracked or
blocked sewer lines.
In addition, creeks can present dangers such as
steep banks, swiftly flowing water, slippery rocks,
submerged hazards such as logs and shopping carts,
and natural hazards such as poison oak and wildlife.
For all of these reasons, the Santa Clara Valley
Water District encourages you to use caution when
in and around urban and suburban creeks.
The Santa Clara County Department of Environ-
mental Health offers the following safety precautions:
Carry a basic first aid kit to treat minor injuries
that can occur when walking in the outdoors.
Avoid contact with water that is obviously
contaminated. Signs of unhealthy water include
stagnant, frothy black or brown water; cloudy or
milky colored water; or water that smells
unpleasant or unnatural.
What You Can Do
to Help Keep Our
Creeks Clean
M any sources of pollution come from humans.
There's a lot that you can do to help keep creeks
clean and safe for future generations.
Never dump anything down a storm drain!
Storm drains lead directly to local creeks.
Recycle your used motor oil and other
automotive fluids.
Reduce your use of pesticides and fertilizers.
Never use them when rain is forecast.
Don't dump or store any materials into or on
the banks of a creek. Even "natural" materials like
leaves and pet waste will alter the chemistry of the
creek, endangering the habitat and adding poten-
tially harmful bacteria to the water.
Never drain your swimming pool, car radiator,
toilet tank, or soapy water from car washing into
the gutter. Instead, drain these into an indoor drain,
or into your sewer cleanout line.
When hiking or picnicking in a creekside area,
remove all your trash and food scraps.
Don't build any structures or plant anything along
the banks of a creek. It's illegal! Contact the water
district's Community Projects Review Unit at
(408) 265 -2600 for permitting information.
Respect nature. Creeks are home to fish,frogs
and other wildlife. Don't touch, chase or pick up
these creatures, or you may harm them.This is
their home!
Don't feed the birds! Waterfowl
that live on Santa Clara County
creeks are mostly migratory birds.
Providing food encourages them to stay in place,
interrupting the natural cycle. It also increases
water pollution and the spread of waterborne
diseases. Oftentimes, birds who come to rely on
human food become overly aggressive, and have
to be destroyed. So, for their own good, don't
feed the animals!
Adopt a creek! It's simple! Call (408) 265 -2600
for information.
To report illegal dumping into a creek or storm
drain call:
I -888-BAY-WISE
in Gilroy call:
in Morgan Hill call:
For more information contact:
Santa Clara County Dept. of
Environmental Health:
Santa Clara Valley
Water District:
(408) 848 -0350
(408) 776 -7337
(408) 299 -6060
(408) 265 -2600
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
MEETING DATE: JULY 15, 1998
ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER
RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
REPORT SUMMARY:
FISCAL IMPACTS:
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM
CITY MANAGER:
DEPT. HEAD:
SUBJECT: Resolution authorizing CVC enforcement on private streets within The
Vineyards of Saratoga by the Sheriff's Department
There would be none as the required signage will be paid for and installed by the HOA.
After conducting the public hearing, move to adopt the attached Resolution authorizing CVC
enforcement on the private streets within The Vineyards of Saratoga by the Sheriff's Department.
The Board of Directors of The Vineyards of Saratoga HOA have filed the attached petition with
the City to have the provisions of the California Vehicle Code enforced on the private streets
within their development by the Sheriff's Department. Upon discussing this with Captain Wilson
of the Sheriff s Department, I am advised that this is a common circumstance within the territory
under the Sheriff's jurisdiction. The Sheriff already regularly patrols the private streets within the
Vineyards of Saratoga and elsewhere. The attached Resolution, if adopted, would merely
authorize the Sheriff to enforce the Vehicle Code on these streets while on patrol. In the past, the
City has adopted similar Resolutions for other private streets such as San Marcos Road and
Wildwood Way, so there appears to be sufficient precedent to do likewise in this instance.
Assuming the required public hearing demonstrates firm support for this request, staff
recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution as requested in the petition from
the HOA Board.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
All property owners within the Vineyards of Saratoga HOA were notified of the public hearing by
the HOA's management company (see attached notice).
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
The Resolution would not be adopted and the Sheriff could not enforce the CVC on the private
streets within the development.
FOLLOW UP ACTIONS:
The HOA Board will be notified of the Council's action on the Resolution. Once the necessary
signage is installed and inspected, the Sheriff will be notified of their authorization to enforce the
CVC on the private streets within the Vineyards.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution.
2. Petition from HOA Board.
3. Notice of Public Hearing.
4. CVC Sections 21107 21107.7(a).
5. Dictated telephone message from William Bailey, Vineyards of Saratoga property owner.
6. Letter from HOA management company.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA MAKING
APPLICABLE THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE TO PRIVATE
ROADS WITHIN THE VINEYARDS OF SARATOGA SUBDIVISION, TRACTS NUMBERED
4892 AND 5343, LOCATED WESTERLY OF AND ADJOINING SARATOGA AVENUE
WHEREAS, The Vineyards of Saratoga Subdivision, Tracts numbered 4892 and 5343, located
westerly of and adjoining Saratoga Avenue contains privately owned and maintained roads within the
City of Saratoga that are not generally held open for the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel,
but, by reason of their proximity to, or connection with highways the interests of any residents residing
along such roads and the motoring public will best be served by application of the provisions of the
California Vehicle Code to such roads; and
WHEREAS, there was filed with the City of Saratoga a petition requesting such application by
a majority of the Board of Directors of the Vineyards of Saratoga Homeowners Association, the owners of
such privately owned and maintained roads; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing with respect to such a petition was duly and regularly held by the
City Council of the City of Saratoga on the 15 day of July, 1998 after ten (10) days prior written notice
to all owners of such roads.
NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, State of
California, pursuant to section 21107.7 of the California Vehicle Code, that the provisions of the
California Vehicle Code shall apply to the privately owned and maintained roads hereinabove described,
provided appropriate signs are erected by the property owners at the entrance to such roads, of such size,
shape and color as to be readily legible during daylight hours from a distance of one hundred feet (100'),
to the effect that the road is subject to the provisons of the California Vehicle Code; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Director of Public Works of the City of Saratoga is
hereby authorized and directed to supervise the erection of any such signs by the property owners as well
as any additional signs which may be required to be erected in the future, all of which signs shall be
erected by the property owners at their sole cost and expense.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution may be rescinded and all signs at the
entrances to and upon such roads may be removed by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, after
holding a public hearing after ten (10) days written notice to the owners of such roads, if the City Council
finds and determines that it is no longer in the interest of any residents residing along such roads and
that the motoring public will not best be served by application of the California Vehicle Code to such
roads.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga
this day of 1998, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
City Clerk
Mayor
From
it of Saratoga, California
Dnnis, ice-Fles,ueh,
Petition
April 2. 1998
Honorable Members of the City Council
Board of Directors
Vineyards of Saratoga Homeowners Association
L
27 University Ave.
Los Gatos. CA 95010
The Board of Dire of thE. Vineyards of Saratoga Homeo‘vners:
hPrfobv petitions the City of Saratoga to adopt a resolution or ordinance
applungi the provisions of the California Vehicle Code to the private streets
within the Vineyards. as authorized by §21107.7i a) of the Vehicle Code.
The VI leVards of Saratoga is a Common interest Developmc as defined by
SL of the Civil Code, located entirely within the Cir: of Saratoga. It is
governed by thr Homeowners Association. with most policy and nr nage-
ment affairs handled bY an elected Board of Directors, as provi=der; by igw.
'The. .13cla.rd has found and declared that traffic and parl:ing prohtems within
our complex indicate the need for law enforcement: assistance. We have
been in contact ‘vith the city administration lisiorsley. Engineering) and
with the Sheriffs Department (Deputy Sontra) and understand that this pe-
tition for your authorizing resolution is a necessary first step. If ve receive
yt approval as anticipated, we will continue to work with the appropriate
officials to complete the remaining procedural steps.
A resolution authorizing this petition was unanimously approved by the
Board of DireCtOrS Of the Vineyards of Saratoga Homeowners Association on
March 4, 1998. The petitioners who sin below represent a fnajority of our
&Jai u.
date
Rita Stansberry. Seer_
Frank Hedges. Board 'iemher
====ses
Cari Earth. Board Member
chard 'vlatia I\. Board Member
date)
e
datP) 1/4
)date
JUN-30-1998 11:07 FROM COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT
ice If Public
TO 8681280 P.02
Heating
1
1
On Wednesday, .0 15, 1998 there will l a public I hearing to
i Consider the attached; petition to have the Saratoga Sheriffs
Department enforI ce triet California Vehicle Code !vvlithin the private
streets iofthe Vineyards: lof Saratoga.
1 I
i 1
11 l'o owners we1com to attend the iretirg, which Will begin
t 8:Od Filvl and ‘011 be held at:
ity Council Chamber
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
1 1 1 i Saratoga, CA 95070
Any hOmeowners may hive any question pe_ 'ning to how they
May participate m the public hearing may clontat the Deputy City
Clerk, Betsy Cory", at (4 8) 808-1269 for furthr information.
Any general questions! hom?owners may have can, be directed to
Association Manager .Karl NOve, at (408) 3951-96(6.
WV it 321103
to No ordinance or resolution :adopted pursuant to this section shall be
a►plemented in •a manner that adversely affects tbe operation of emergency
vphicdes: or the performance of municipal'services.
(g) No ordinance or resolution adopted pursuant to this section shall
restrict the access of certain members of .the public to the_ alley, while
permitting others unrestricted accesh to the alley.
.Added See. Y Ch '215, State. 1996:Effective January 1, 1996.
Wred 'y
nS
s+g
21103, Na orduiance or resolution enacted under Section 21161 shall be
effective .1 signs giving notice of the local traffic_ laws are posted at all
entrances to the highway or part thereof ideated.
':Amended Cb. 671, State. 1980: Effective January ;1,1981.
Approval of Local Regulations
21104:' No ordinance or resolution proposed to be enacted tinder Section
21101 or subdivision (d) df Section 21100 is effective as to any highway not
under the exclusive jurisdiction of the -local authority enacting the same
except that an ordinance or resolution which issubfnitted to the Departinnent
of Transportation by a local legislative body in complete` draft forts for
approval prior to the eaaetment thereof is effective as to any stitte highway
of pact thereof opecified in the written, approval of the departitie nt. No'auch
ordinance-or resolution enacted under subdivision (c) of Section 21101 which
applies to any state highway included in the national system of interstate
and defense highways; shall subsequently be disapproved until such
disapproval has been concurred in by a four -fifths vote of the California
Transportation Commission except that no such ordinance or resolution
enacted prior to January 1, 1969,- under subdivision (c) of Section 21101
which applies to any state- highway included in the national system of
interstate end defense highways, shall subsequently be disapproved until
such disapproval has been concurred in by both the local authority and by a
four fifths vote of the California Transportation Commission.
This section does not preclude the application of an ordinance or
resolution adopted tinder 21101 or subdivision (d) of Section .21100
to streets maintained by a community services district organized pursuant
to Division 3 (commencing with Section 61000) of Title 6 of the Government
Code.
Amended Ch. 598, S 1984 Effective January 1,1985.
Boundary Line Streets
21105. No rule or 'regulation adopted under Sections 21100 or 21101
shall be effective as to boundary line streets where portions thereof are
within different jurisdictions unless all authorities having jurisdiction of
such portions of the street concerned have approved the same.
E stablishment of Crosswalks
21106: (a) Local authorities; by ordinance or resolution, may establish
crosswalks between intersections.
(b) Local authorities may install signs at or adjacent to an intersection
directing that pedestrians shall not cross in a crosswalk indicated at the
intersection. It is unlawful for any pedestrian to cross at the crosswalk
prohibited by a sign.
Amended Ch. 417, State. 1959. Effective September 18, 1969.
Privates Roads P
21107. The provisions of this code shall not prevent any city from
adopting rules and regulations= by ordinance or resolution, regulating
vehicular trafficon privately owned and maintained roads located within the
121107.5 –586— Div. 1
boundary of such city, except that no such ordinance or resolution shall be
effective until signs giving notice thereof are posted on the roads affected.
The provisions of this section shall not apply to any city in which there are
publicly maintained city streets.
Private Roads Open for Public Use
21107.5. (a) Any city or county may, by ordinance or resolution, find and
declare that there are privately owned and maintained roads as described in
the ordinance or resolution within the city or county that are generally held
open for use by the public for vehicular travel and which so connect with
highways that the public cannot determine that the roads are not highways.
Upon enactment by a city or county of the ordinance or resolution, this code
shall apply to the privately owned and maintained road, except as provided
in subdivision (b).
(b) No ordinance or resolution enacted under subdivision (a) shall apply
to any road on which the owner has erected a notice of a size, shape and color
as to be readily legible during daylight hours from a. distance of 100 feet to
the effect that the road is privately owned and maintained and that it is not
subject to public traffic regulations or control.
(c) No ordinance or resolution shall be enacted under subdivision (a)
without a public hearing after 10 days' written notice to the owner of the
privately owned and maintained road involved.
(d) The department shall not be required to provide patrol or enforce any
provision of this code on any privately owned and maintained road, except
those provisions applicable to private property, other than pursuant to this
section.
Amended Ch. 160, State. 1989. Effective January 1,1990.
PNvate Roads Serving Commercial Establishments
21107.6. (a) Any city or county may, by ordinance, find and declare that
I there are privately owned and maintained roads as described in such
ordinance within the city or county which are generally held open to the
public for purposes of vehicular travel to serve commercial establishments.
Upon enactment
by a city or county of such an ordinance, the provisions of
this code shall apply to any such privately owned and maintained road. No
ordinance shall be enacted under this section without a public hearing
thereon and 10 days' prior notice to the owner of the privately owned and
maintained road involved.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision (a) no ordinance
enacted thereunder shall apply to any road described therein on which the
owner has caused to be erected a notice of such size, shape and color as to be
readily legible during daylight hours from a distance of 100 feet, to the effect
that the road is privately owned and maintained and that it is not subject to
public traffic regulations or control.
(c) The department shall not be required to provide patrol or enforce any
provisions of this code on any privately owned and maintained road
subjected to the provisions of this code under this section, except those
provisions applicable to private property other than by action under this
section.
Added Ch. 514, Stats..1968. Effective November 18, 1968.
Private Roads Not Open for Public Use
21107.7. (a) Any city or county may, by ordinance or resolution, find and
declare that there are privately owned and maintained roads as described in
the ordinance or resolution within the city or county that are not generally
held open for use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel but, by reason
Div. 11
—587— #21107.8
of their proximity to or connection with highways, the interests of any
residents residing along the roads and the motoring public will best be
nerved by application of the provisions of this code to those roads. No
ordinance or resolution shall be enacted unless there is first filed with the
city or county a petition requesting it by a majority of the owners of any
privately owned and maintained road, or by at least a majority of the board
of directors of a common interest development, as defined by Section 1351 of
the Civil Code, that is responsible for maintaining the road, and without a
public hearing thereon and 10 days' prior written notice to all owners of the
road or all of the owners in the development. Upon enactment of the
ordinance or resolution, the provisions of this code shall apply to the
privately owned and maintained road if appropriate signs are erected at the
entrance to the road of the size, shape, and color as to be readily legible
during daylight hours from a distance of 100 feet, to the effect that the road
is subject to the provisions of this code. The city or county may impose
reasonable conditions and may authorize the owners, or board of directors of
the common interest development, to erect traffic signs, signals, markings,
and devices which conform to the uniform standards and specifications
adopted by the Department of Transportation.
(b) The department shall not be required to provide patrol or enforce any
provisions of this code on any privately owned and maintained road
subjected to the provisions of this code under this section, except those
provisions applicable to private property other than by action under this
section.
(c) As used in this section, `Privately owned and maintained roads"
includes roads owned and maintained by a city, county or district that are
not dedicated to use by the public or are not generally held open for use of the
public for purposes of vehicular travel.
Amended Ch. 605, Stab. 1988. Effective January 1, 1989.
Private Parking Facilities
21107.8. (a) Any city or county may, by ordinance or resolution, find and
declare that there are privately owned and maintained offstreet parking
facilities as described in the ordinance or resolution within the city or county
that are generally held open for use of the public for purposes of vehicular
parking. Upon enactment by a city or county of the ordinance or resolution,
Sections 22350, 23103, and 23109 and the provisions of Division 16.5
(commencing with Section 38000) shall apply to privately owned and
maintained offstreet parking facilities, except as provided in subdivision (b).
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision (a), no ordinance or
resolution enacted thereunder shall apply to any offstreet parking facility
described therein unless the owner or operator has, caused to be posted in a
conspicuous place at each entrance to that offstreet parking facility a notice
not less than 17 by 22 inches in size with lettering not less than one inch in
height, to the effect that the offstreet parking facility is subject to public
traffic regulations and control.
(c) No ordinance or resolution shall be enacted under subdivision (a)
without a public hearing thereon and 10 days prior written notice to the
owner and operator of the privately owned and maintained offstreet parking
facility involved.
(d) Section 22507.8 may be enforced without enactment of an ordinance
or resolution as required under subdivision (a) or the posting of a notice at
each entrance to the offstreet parking facility as required under subdivision
(b).
(e) The department shall not be required to provide patrol or enforce any
provisions of thio code on any privately owned and maintained offstreet
7/8/98
RE: PHONE CALL CONCERNING VINEYARDS PETITION
William Bailey, who owns a unit in the Vineyards which is rented
out, says that on June 28 he drove to the Vineyards and his
friends' daughter took his friend and him to the airport.
He was gone for seven days, and his friend's daughter used his car
with his permission. The Vineyards security person called the
Sheriff's office to report that his car did not have a sticker on
it. The deputies said that calling them was "an absolute waste of
our time."
Mr. Bailey says this shows that the City should not "enter into
business" with the Vineyards administration. He therefore opposes
the petition.
Mr. Bailey pays property taxes, he pays "everything," he works the
Rotary Art Show free, and he is a friend of Harry Peacock and Don
Peterson. He requested that this message be typed and relayed to
the Council.
Betsy Cory
4
COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, INCORPORATED
Larry I. Perlin
City Manager
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mr. Perlin:
April 3, 1998
Re: Vineyards of Saratoga Homeowners Association
Enclosed please find a signed petition from the Vineyards of Saratoga Homeowners Association,
requesting that the City of Saratoga adopt a resolution to apply the California Vehicle Code to the
private streets within the Association.
The Board of Directors would like to request that this issue be placed on the agenda and considered
by the City Council Members at the next available opportunity.
The Board of Directors appreciates your cooperation with this matter. If you should have any
questions, please call the number listed below.
KN /mr
cc: Board of Directors
File #4
727 University Avenue
Los Gatos, California 95030
Bus: (408) 395 -9606
Sincerely,
Karl love, Association Manager
Vineyards of Saratoga Homeowners Association
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO: 30 ct AGENDA ITEM:
MEETING DATE: June 17, 1998 CITY MANAGER:
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Community Development
PREPARED BY: John Cook, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: Appeal of DR -98 -007; Jayakumar, 14265 Burns Way
Appeal of Planning Commission denial of a Design Review application to construct
a new 4,043 square foot, two -story house, 25 feet in height, on a 29,020 square foot
lot in the R -1- 15,000 Zoning District.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Deny the appeal and reaffirm the Planning Commission's decision.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Background:
During its May 13 regular public hearing, the Planning Commission considered the
application of Jay and Indu Jayakumar for Design Review approval to build a new 4,043
square foot, two -story residence at 25 feet in height. Applicants did not request any
Design Review exceptions, as the total floor area was below the allowable limit after
application of the floor area reduction formula for structures exceeding 18 feet in height.
Prior to the meeting, the Planning Commission visited the property and reviewed the
planning staff's analysis and recommendation. Staff had recommended approval of the
application in that it found the proposed design to be compatible with the neighborhood
and that the proposed structure's impacts on views and privacy had been mitigated to
reasonable levels through the reduction or relocation of windows, greater than required
setbacks for the proposed second story, and the incorporation of strong horizontal
elements into the design.
At its hearing, the Planning Commission heard testimony from the applicants, their
architect, and neighbors present at the public hearing. As the attached minutes from the
hearing indicate, there was a discussion of whether the applicants considered creating a
basement. Commissioners Martlage, Murakami, and Chair Pierce made positive
statements about the house's design but voiced concerns about its appropriateness for this
neighborhood. Commissioners Patrick and Murakami stated that they might have
approved a smaller two -story home. The applicants turned down the Commissioners'
offer for a continuance and/or a study session and requested a vote. The motion to deny
the application on the grounds of the project's height, size, and massiveness being
incompatible with its surroundings was approved 4 -0 with Commissioners Kaplan and
Bernald absent.
The Jayakumars appealed the denial on May 22. The applicants appellants request that
the City Council overturn the Planning Commission's denial of the Design Review
request. In their appeal application and attached letters to Mayor Wolfe and Councilor
Moran, the applicants appellants request an appeal of the decision in that the design is
compatible with its surroundings and that many of the neighbors who spoke in opposition
to the proposal misunderstood details of the proposal and were speaking against larger
homes in general.'
In addition to reiterating many of the points raised at the hearing by their architect, Mrs.
Jayakumar's letter to the Mayor of May 19 also states that they were unclear on the
meaning of the Commissioners' offer to continue the matter when the Commissioners
stated that they did not have enough votes to approve the project.
Further, in the letter the applicants appellants submitted to Community Development
Director Walgren on June 11, they state they are willing to make alterations to the
proposed design. They state a willingness to remove second story windows, to move the
house back on the site, to lower the maximum height of the structure, and to reduce the
house's overall square footage.
Issues:
An aspect worth noting is that the lot has an unusual shape and is traversed by a creek.
Long and relatively narrow, the half of the lot on the Burns Way side of the creek is about
12,700 square feet. However, the applicants' appellants' property extends across the
creek, for a total of 29,020 square feet. The perceived size (and therefore also the height
and massiveness) of the house is therefore increased by dint of all of the developed space
being on the Burns Way half of the property. Please refer to the attached Planning
Commission staff report for a fuller discussion of this issue.
The letters to Mayor Wolfe and Councilor Moran look similar, but the latter has additional information
worth noting.
Although the applicants' two -story proposal would have reduced the overall impervious
coverage, would have left untouched the existing bridge across the creek as well as the
portion of the lot across the creek, it led to a height found objectionable by the neighbors
and the Planning Commission. These objections can be found in the numerous letters
sent to the Planning Commission contained within the staff report. One such example is
that of Kurt and Barbara Voester, 14251 Burns Way, neighbors adjacent to the north of
the Jayakumars' property. In their letter, the Voesters state that their views and privacy
would be unduly compromised by a two -story house at this site. As the staff report
indicates, the required second story setback for this project would be 19 feet; the
proposed setback on the side adjacent to the Voesters is 26 feet, 6 inches.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
None foreseeable.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
A hearing notice was mailed to surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the
subject property and same notice was published in the Saratoga News on June 3, 1998.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
If the City Council reverses the Planning Commission's decision and approves the
appeal, the Council will need to prepare a Resolution granting Design Review approval.
FOLLOW UP ACTIONS:
The City Attorney shall prepare Resolutions for the next available meeting memorializing
the decisions of the City Council on this matter.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Minutes dated May 13, 1998
2. Staff Report dated May 13, 1998 (includes Resolution DR -98 -009 and
correspondence submitted prior to the public hearing)
3. Appeal Correspondence
4. Exhibit "A Plans (at 24" x 36
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3
May 13, 1998
The architect said that the applicant would agree to increase the height of the retaining wall, but that moving the
house 5 feet to the south would be problematic.
Murakami liked the design and the step -down, and was glad to see the neighbors in agreement. He appreciated the
view from Tollgate Road and noted that this house appeared to be lower than existing structures. The lot is
constrained and he felt it would be difficult to move the house.
Patrick was concerned about impervious coverage but was willing to approve the project, based on resolution of the
height of the retaining wall. She felt that neighbors should not demand an odd placement of the new house, and she
did not sense there was a privacy issue. She said she was able to support the project.
Martlage appreciated the work the architect had put in for the Study Session and will support the project.
Pierce suggested that the neighbors work together to resolve the issue of the retaining wall and was able to support
the project.
PATRICK/MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE DR -97 -062 WITH THE MODIFICATION THAT STAFF
WORK WITH THE APPLICANT ON HEIGHT OF THE RETAINING WALL; MOTION PASSED 4/0.
4. DR 98 007 (APN 503 23 006) JAYAKUMAR, 14265 Burns Way; Request for Design Review
approval to construct a new two -story, single family residence, 4,043 sq. ft. in size, 25 ft. in height, on a
29,020 sq. ft. lot in the R- 1- 15,000 Zoning District. A single story residence currently exists on the
property.
Walgren presented the staff report.
The applicant's architect presented color copies of renderings of the second story. He stated that an effort had been
made to respect neighbors' privacy by placing the second story away from the nearest neighbor and using low
pitched roof lines.
Patrick asked the architect if they had considered putting in a basement, and the applicant responded that a basement
had not been considered.
Murakami wondered why such a large balcony had been placed in the rear of the house, feeling there might be
privacy issues. The applicant stated this would be an eating area and a place for outdoor enjoyment.
Neighbors appreciated efforts to reduce the bulk of the house and to create a sensitive design, but expressed concern
about the precedent such a large house would set and submitted a letter with 11 signatures in agreement. They felt
the house should be built on a smaller scale, more in line with existing homes, and raised questions about the
compatibility and bulk of such a large 2 story house, including loss of sunshine and views.
The applicant maintained that the design is a good and sensitive one.
Martlage asked if neighbors had seen the colored renderings, and the architect responded that they had.
Martlage liked the design but not the deck, and wondered why no consideration had been given to a basement. She
felt the design was sensitive, but she was not sure that a 2 story home is appropriate in this neighborhood.
Patrick liked the neighborhood and felt she might agree to a smaller 2 story house. She felt that the design gave the
y
Planning Commission Minutes Page 4
May 13, 1998
applicant a great view at the expense of the neighbors. She was unwilling to impinge on the neighbors and
wondered why there had been no consideration of a basement.
Murakami noted that most of the opponents to the project live on Marion, not Burns Way. He felt that anything
would be an improvement from what is existing, especially since the applicant has worked with staff and neighbors
to mitigate privacy concerns. He felt the size could be reduced, or that a basement might be utilized.
Pierce liked the design of the house and felt it was considerate of the neighbors, but questioned whether the design is
appropriate to the lot. He did not want to take away from the uniqueness of the neighborhood, and felt that a 1 story
house with a basement might be more appropriate.
The Commissioners advised the applicant that there were not enough votes to approve the project, and they offered
the applicant the opportunity to re- design for presentation at a future public hearing. In lieu of a continuance, the
applicant asked for a vote.
PATRICK/MARTLAGE MOVED TO DENY DR -98 -007; MOTION PASSED 4/0.
5. UP 98 005 (403 24 001) CELLULAR ONE, East of Quito Road and Adjacent to Hwy 85; Request for
Use Permit approval to install 3 cellular panel antennas on an existing PG &E transmission tower with an
associated radio equipment shelter (approximately 160 sq. ft.) to be located directly beneath the tower. The
site is located within an R- 1- 10,000 residential zoning district. An Initial Study and Negative Declaration
have been prepared for this project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environment Quality Act.
Walgren presented the staff report.
Jennifer McCook of Cellular One, applicant's representative, said this project would provide service to Saratoga
residents and that the aesthetic impact would be minimal.
Martlage questioned the paint colors on the antenna and the structure.
Murakami raised questions and received confirmation that there would be no interference with radio transmission,
that additional cell sites were needed largely because of an increase in the use of phones in cars, and that application
for a site at West Valley College was a few months away.
Pierce said there was a similar configuration on Pollard Road, and the applicant confirmed that it belongs to Sprint.
He asked if co- location on this site might be a possibility, to which the applicant said that the landlord has requested
there be only one carrier.
The applicant requested that the Commission make an exception in the process for submitting building plans, as
they wished to submit before the end of the appeal period. Walgren said this might be a possibility and that a form
is available covering assumption of risk.
Cheriel Jensen, 13737 Quito Road, spoke in opposition to the project, raising issues that the Initial Study was
inaccurate and violated the City's and County's General Plan, also challenging the aesthetic and health impacts.
The applicant's representative responded that the area will be kept clean, that Cellular One is regulated by the PUC,
and that the Engineer's report is within the FCC Standards for cellular. antennas.
Martlage felt the location for this utility is a logical one but that the area needs landscaping. She suggested
ITEM 4
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Applicant No./Location:
Applicant/Owner:
Staff Planner:
Date:
APN:
DR-98-007, 14265 Burns Way
JAYAKUMAR
John Cook, Assistant Planner
May 13, 1998
503 -23 -006
Division Head:
File No. DR-98-007, 14265 Burns Way
CASE HISTORY
Page 1
Application filed: 02/20/98
Application complete: 04/21/98
Notice published: 04/29/98
Mailing completed: 04/30/98
Posting completed: 04/23/98
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,043 square foot residence, 25 feet in
height, on a 29,020 square foot parcel in the R -1- 15,000 Zoning District currently occupied by a
single story structure.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Design Review application by adopting Resolution DR 98 007.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Analysis
2. Resolution DR -98 -007
3. Correspondence
4. Aborist's Report, dated March 17, 1998
5. Plans, Exhibit "A"
File No. DR-98-007, 14265 Burns Way
STAFF ANALYSIS
Zoning: R- 1- 15,000
General Plan Designation: Residential: Medium Density
Measure G: Not applicable
Parcel Size: 29,020 square feet
Average Site Slope: 18 nearly level at building site
Grading Required: Cut: 110 cubic yards
Fill: 110 cubic yards
Materials and Colors Proposed:
Roofing: Brick -red asphalt shingles; wooden lap siding in tan (DE 3178); trim in off -white (SP
114), with pale tan stucco accent band and brick veneer entryway.
Height /Coverage /Setback Requirements:
Proposal Code Requirement/
Allowance
Lot Coverage: 21.8% (6,346 sq. ft.) 50%
Height: 25 ft. 26 ft.
Size of Structure: 1st floor: 2,551 sq. ft. 4,518 sq. ft. after slope
2nd floor: 1,492 sq. ft. reduction; 4,044 sq. ft. after
Total: 4,043 sq. ft. height reduction.
Setbacks:
Page 2
First floor
Front: 27 ft., 8 in.
Sides: 12 ft.
Rear: >190 ft.
Second floor
Front: 47 ft.
North Side: 26 ft, 6 in.
South Side:19 ft. 1 in.
25 ft.
12 ft.
30 •ft.
32 ft., 8 in.
19 ft.
19 ft.
'iCiCsc.
File No. DR-98-007, 14265 Burns Way
PROJECT DISCUSSION
The applicants request Design Review approval to construct a new 4,043 square foot two -story
residence on a 29,020 square foot lot in the R -1- 15,000 zoning district currently occupied by a
single story structure.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The subject lot is located at the end of Burns Way, a private, unpaved road. The applicants now
reside in the existing one -story structure. The property is split by a tributary of Saratoga Creek. but
the tributary is not under Santa Clara Valley Water District jurisdiction. The tributary has very
deep, steep banks, which give the site a very high average slope, although the building site is
practically level.
Some of the attached correspondence from neighbors raises the tributary bisection as an issue. In
particular, there is concern that only the street side of the lot should be taken into consideration in
calculating floor area given the relative small size of other homes and lots in the neighborhood.
Staff has worked out a couple of scenarios. If one were to exclude from the site the tributary and
the land west of it, one would have a net site area of about 12,700 square feet (81 ft. by 157 ft.).
This site area would lead to an allowable floor area of about 3,710 square feet at a single story;
3,320 square feet if the project were 25 feet in height (contrast with the full site yielding 4,518
square feet after the slope reduction; 4,044 square feet after the reduction for height. The applicants
are not requesting an exception to the floor area reduction for structures over 18 feet in height).
Although the proposed house would sit about 20 feet closer to the road than the existing house, the
proposed second story would begin approximately where the existing house now sits. Further, the
proposed structure will sit about 15 feet further away from the creek bank than the existing
structure (the rear deck will be 50 feet from the top of the creek bank).
If the applicants were restricted to a single story structure, either one based on the full lot size
(4,518 square feet) or only the portion of the lot east of the tributary (3,710 square feet), the
resultant design would almost certainly fill up the building envelope on the east side of the
property, almost certainly coming closer to the watercourse. If, as planning staff has recently
proposed, City Code were to be changed such that there is a minimum distance between a main
structure and the top of a creek bank, it could become very difficult to fit a house built to the site's
maximum allowable floor area.
Page 3
1 1 or
File No. DR-98-007, 14265 Burns Way
The applicants wish to retain an approximately 550 square foot deck connected to a 175 square foot
bridge spanning the watercourse, but plan to remove all other structures on the site, including the
main residence and two accessory structures.
Most of the residences in the vicinity are older and single -story.
DESIGN REVIEW ANALYSIS
This residence is proposed to have a Craftsman architectural style. The design includes low
pitched rooflines, a bracketed, gabled dormer, a wide, column- supported porch, and natural
materials and colors. Because of the age and size of other homes in the vicinity, practically any
structure built to today's standards and expectations would stand out. However, staff finds that the
design elements incorporated in this proposal help the structure blend in with the older, more rustic
homes in the neighborhood by minimizing the perception of the structure's newness.
Prior to submittal, the applicants and their architects consulted with planning staff on numerous
occasions; planning staff made numerous recommendations regarding building setbacks, floor area,
and height, almost all of which have been incorporated in some fashion in the final proposal. One
recommendation that was not incorporated was that the floor area of the house be further reduced
based on anticipated neighborhood concern, even though the applicants are not requesting a floor
area exception. Despite this, the applicants responded to numerous other areas of staff concern,
further discussed below.
One area of particular concern was the north facing side, given its proximity to a neighboring
residence. Applicants responded to staff and neighbor concerns by revising plans to shift the
second story building line on this side. The first story will sit 12 feet from the property line (the
required setback) and will be 11 feet in height at the northern most edge. It gradually rises (along a
4:12 pitch roof), to the second story building line, which begins 26 feet, 6 inches from the side
property line (a 19 foot setback is required). The top of the wall on this side will be 20 feet; the top
of the roof 22 feet. Maximum building height is 25 feet, but the tallest portion of the house is
further still from the northern side of the property.
Code would allow applicants to build up to 18 feet in height 12 feet from the property line. Staff
finds that the proposed arrangement, although two -story, is reasonably sensitive to the adjacent
property and reduces the impact the new structure will have on the views and solar access of its
northern neighbor.
Further, applicants also significantly reduced second story fenestration from earlier proposals.
With the exceptions of two small windows near the rear of the house and two in the front staircase
(in other words, not an inhabited room), all windows on this side of the house are clerestories,
mitigating privacy impacts on the neighboring property to the north.
Page 4
File No. DR-98-007, 14265 Burns Way
Staff also acknowledges as significant the applicants' reduction of the second story such that it is
set back approximately 20 feet from the front first story building line, yielding about 47 feet
between the second story building line and the street. Staff finds that this increased setback softens
the impact of the second story on the Bums Way streetscape; this impact is further mitigated by the
site's location at the end of a little -used private street.
Staff finds that this proposal reasonably meets all of the Design Review findings of Section 15-
45.080 of the City Code as well as conforms to the design policies and techniques of the
Residential Design Handbook.
GRADING
The grading proposed for the site will involve 110 cubic yards of cut and 110 cubic yards of fill.
The applicants propose to cut into the site to lay the building pad and driveway; they propose to
place the fill around the rest of the eastern portion of the property.
GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW
Not required.
TREES
The city arborist has identified 3 trees on site that will be impacted by the proposed project. He
suggests removal of a diseased Coast Redwood and the relocation of a proposed spa to better
protect an English Walnut. The applicants have stated their concurrence with the arborist's report.
The arborist suggests a 25% bond for the two preserved trees, a total of $1,999. All other tree
protective measures have been included as conditions of approval in the attached Design Review
resolution.
OTHER AGENCY REVIEW
The proposal was reviewed by the Saratoga Fire District, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and
the West Valley Sanitation District. All agencies have given their approval to the proposal, but
some had comments worth noting.
The Fire District found that Bums Way (a dirt road) was rutted with potholes, potentially impeding
emergency access. The applicants are therefore required to fill in the potholes all along the street to
the satisfaction of the Fire Chief.
Page 5
File No. DR-98-007, 14265 Burns Way
The Water District required that the structure be raised 2 feet from existing grade so as to reduce the
potential for damage from flooding. The plans reflect this requirement. All other comments of
interested agencies have been incorporated into the attached Resolution as conditions of approval.
LANDSCAPE PLAN
The applicants submitted a conceptual landscaping plan included with the site plan on page 2 of the
plan set. They propose to place a small fountain in front of the residence and patios around it.
Included as a condition of approval is the requirement for a more detailed landscaping plan.
including irrigation plans.
CORRESPONDENCE
The property owners to the north, the Voesters (14251 Burns Way), have submitted a letter
requesting that the application be denied on grounds of architectural incompatibility. excessive
bulk, and loss of solar capacity, privacy, and views. Phillip and Ilene Doppelt, residents of 20659
Marion Road, have also submitted a letter stating their concerns over the proposed structure's size
and bulk. Anne Bachtold, 20640 Marion Road, is concerned with the size and height of the
proposed structure. Farshid Zarbakhsh, owner of property at 14231 Bums Way, supports the plan,
but states concerns about its connection to the Bums Way sewer line. All correspondence is
attached.
CONCLUSION
The proposed residence is designed to reasonably conform to each of the policies set forth in the
City's Residential Design Handbook and to reasonably satisfy all of the findings required within
Section 15- 45.080 of the City Code. The project further satisfies all other zoning requirements in
terms of allowable floor area, minimum setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the application by adopting Resolution DR -98 -007.
Page 6
RESOLUTION NO DR -98 -007
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Jayakumar, 14265 Burns Way
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an
application for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,043 square foot two -story
residence with a maximum height of 25 feet on a 29,020 square foot parcel; 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 residence, 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 proposal meets or exceeds minimum required setbacks for the first story;
the second story of the structure has been set back additionally from its north and east
elevations (26 feet, 6 inches on the northern side)
the top of the wall of the second story on the north side has been kept to 20 feet from
grade;
the proposal calls for primarily clerestory fenestration on the structure's north elevation,
particularly on the second story;
-The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing the structure 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. The house will be built up two feet from existing
grade per requirements of the Santa Clara Valley Water District.
-The proposed residence 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
proposed colors and materials will soften the structure's overall visual impact;
facade and roof articulation will reduce the perception of the structure's bulk and mass;
the increased second story setbacks will minimize the perception of the structure's
height from adjacent properties and from the street.
File No. DR -98 -007, 14265 Burns Way
-The proposed residence 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 light and air of adjacent properties nor (ii) unreasonably impair the
ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy, in that:
the structure's design (including setbacks, placement, and elevation articulation)
minimizes the perception of its bulk and height both from the street and from
neighboring properties;
the increased second story setback minimizes the impact of this structure on the ability
of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy.
-The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion
control standards used by the City.
-The proposed residence will conform to each of the applicable design policies and
techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook and as required by Section 15-
45.055 especially in that:
the proposed Craftsman styled residence will be compatible with other designs in the
immediate neighborhood.
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 Jayakumar
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.
2. Prior to the arrival of any demolition or construction equipment, the applicant shall
install tree protective fencing as required by the city arborist, meaning five (5) ft. chain
link tree protective fencing (mounted on two -inch galvanized pipe, driven two feet into
the ground) shown at the dripline of each tree as recommended by the Arborist for trees
2 and 3 The fences are to remain in place for the duration of the project.
3. Prior to submittal for Building or Grading permits, the following shall be submitted to
Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance:
a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a
separate plan page. These shall include a landscaping and irrigation plan separate
from the site plan that emphasizes drought tolerant species. All landscaping and
irrigation shall be installed prior to final inspection approval.
File No. DR-98-007, 14265 Burns Way
b. Four (4) separate sets of engineered grading and drainage plans, also incorporating
this Resolution as a separate plan page.
c. The applicants shall revise plans to show any existing well or wells on the site.
Should any well exist, applicants shall contact the Santa Clara Valley Water
District at 265 -2607, ext. 2650, to register or abandon any wells on the property.
d. The applicants shall obtain two permits from the West Valley Sanitation District.
These permits must be presented to planning staff prior to issuance of a Zoning
Clearance.
4. No ordinance protected tree shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal
Permit, with the exception of tree 1, for .which the city arborist has determined a
replacement value of $105; replacement trees equalling this value must be planted on
site prior to Final Occupancy approval.
5. All requirements of the city arborist's report dated March, 17 1998, shall be met. This
includes, but is not limited to:
a. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance the site and grading plans shall be
revised to indicate the following:
1. A new sewer connection permit.
2. A demolition permit.
The arborist report shall be attached, as a separate plan page, to the
plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading
plan.
No trenching for landscape irrigation shall be permitted in the root
zones of retained trees (number 2 and 3). The minimum undisturbed
area from tree 2 is 25 feet from the trunk; for tree 3; 15 feet from the
trunk.
The plans shall be revised such that the proposed spa is a minimum
of 15 feet from the trunk of tree 3. No excavation, trenching, or any
other cutting into the soil may occur within 15 feet of this tree.
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 $1,999 pursuant to the report and
recommendation by the City Arborist to guarantee the maintenance
and preservation of trees on the subject site.
b. Prior to issuance of Building or Grading Permits:
File No. DR -98 -007, 14265 Burns Way
Tree protective fencing shall be reinspected by planning staff.
c. Prior to Final Occupancy approval:
Assuming the removal of tree 1, native replacement trees
equal to $161 (equivalent to one 15 gallon and one 5 gallon trees)
shall be planted on site. Planning staff shall inspect these trees prior
to approval.
All approved landscaping and irrigation shall be installed. This
work shall be inspected and approved by planning staff.
The city arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree
protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection, and approval
by the Community Development Director the bond shall be released.
6. Fences and walls shall comply with the R -1 district fencing requirements contained in
Article 15- 29.010 of the City Code,
7. Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class "A" prepared or
built -up roofing.
8. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance with
the provisions of Article 16 -60 City of Saratoga.
9. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed
installation and shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval.
10. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in the proposed attached garage (3 heads per
stall). The applicant is to contact the San Jose Water Company to determine the size of
service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements.
11. Automatic sprinklers are required for the new residential dwelling. A 4 -head calculated
sprinkler system is required. Documentation of the proposed installation and all
calculations shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval. The sprinkler system
must be installed by a licensed contractor.
12. All driveways shall have a minimum 14 foot width plus 1 foot shoulders. Driveway
shall have a minimum inside radius of 21 feet.
13. Prior to Final Occupancy Approval, applicant shall fill the potholes on Bums Way.
Applicant shall contact Saratoga Fire District at 876 -9001 for review and approval of
road resurfacing.
14. 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.
File No. DR- 98-007, 14265 Burns Way
15. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's
fees, 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 Feder al Court,
challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project.
16. 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
violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the
violation.
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 13th day of May 1998 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will
Chair, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Secretary, Planning Commission
aktd tat 1 -4A g5 k C
i4 25 i .w►-+) .UZL
(i J i O
tea -ca, Igq
54k rct h
Um/Ytki 4 'v u,)'u.c,t
i 3 771 1%r vute,
ra.+v5(.4_, 04 45070
C,}P'V" 503 `23 000 Ja
.u-`v Ellen/nu'
yyt
1 00 Stt tak.,r.- D t h e�,t c L' L duc► .h a-cc_. i- tL c a two 6±C
4,0
4 1 3 a, -t !t zatcteil liav2,- 4.0441A. <.v' 0A-1 e� J a2�i k
Qua c-n,
1 RReA I T EcTuRAL J JCOM PAT/ABILITY Wu., d-ct."t. 1OUQt
n,
L SZ 6.6' -i. %1i nc. 12 4 h Lei,; 1,800 0 G.)tc. 111/t +c-e e
ALL a,wc• t•-rw 47} m cz
4
4- Ole) A.
L4- U-11q- cu d LL 471- 4-k, `t -tut. eft u k1 �Gu�- �.�:2r�� crn `f-k ne�l br,-he v�.L..
K i hL. Lt w- At jke, -cf-- &u +t' tat.
.;:ak ‘1, of 64- t m e t it b ar6 cit) -u4 ✓r► Iit,curilu
b.�,i U.'�y.
�►crft e,) ur�u �L Diu t c 13,(,t,c.lc4 aLfx.. pc i
c ,4 10).O F..Q .0 vu.., eat L$1 I Up) CPI f ifi
`rtt at bttit6.i'`` it, 4,0 3 0 to 4111 c a I 0 2 00 V ail-4
lit- j 411/Liu, 114, air, cut-a,vtce, q•frk durry
Q:ti +1 c `�'In .c �c e.. i�'�,- �1'►'l c'Y n v►-
k.w yvvie... I 1 12 (k et,i,Nik,),-
3- SOLAR CA ?AC ITq; 1.4 h
0.Ato- in will cifk t`s tt,RV u. u
inn -6L-L, w-iix L ct
6 At), cola)/ 41.0 It,a- a/3, �z aw ‘t'fvLetic h.,
eL a, bzee a4,,
4-631 a
1/4trat
Math aft
bzeOc cry
1 u-n 1w) aivvd- J
it. 1-0 55 o F VIE 41; trz -rvt &w—t. m a, k; b,L ctAvcr --n exh
1 i `t1 -h poi /uJJ5 arrut 71L .dig k
4't1/0 1 c? uQ) 14.1 7 ri`ce. iZu.ry
tLil tat i- ''l,a n or arncL it
L055 OF PR 1ffA C y Sime t. hut: icew eAL wvnd cum
v�. Le r .c t;-zt. t,c1rn, 11,6_4 ti_
lug
t t h j atic. 1 t S+t LL'1-t,'oc l ti r P 'zt u 4 i
k r 5 44 tin 6-u.(.- t u.t-r 411 cut u. IkaL L
'WAIL 4tvte. Di do A'n'i4Wrt at -{t tt `rifICLi i et c
fottcetrii `-t'� Q `{'1- .h c puck, tl try av )t et
cLA btu ai>hi `tom O i vrbt t, c c 2
"tf hk e `n Ptaqv►u41 C 'vr►.rn.c akin,,, -K o:
&ithzcit tteA
City of Saratoga
Community development department
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: A.P. N.:503 -22 -084
DR -98 -007 (APN 503 -23 -006) Jayakumar, 14265 Burns Way
Dear Planning Commissioners:
We have some concerns about the proposed residence at 14265 Bums Way:
1. It appears to us to be incompatible with the other homes on Burns Way. The largest home presently
on that street is about 1800 square feet. There are currently no two story homes on the street. A
home in excess of 4000 square feet will certainly dwarf all the other homes.
Because of the particular lot, less than half of the lot is buildable. This portion is in the front part of
the lot and is the only portion visible from the street. There are no other homes in the neighborhood
that appear to use their entire lots. This rnzans the home will have very little setback and will look
like it uses the entire lot. This will make the home appear to be even larger than it is.
We appreciate your considering these issues and look forward to a new home on Burns Way that will be
more compatible with the neighborhood.
Sincerely yours,
Ilene Doppelt
Phillip Doppelt/
20659 Marion Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
May 2, 1998
MR1 07 -1999 09:51
James Walgren
Community Development Mgr
City of Saratoga
Saratoga, CA
Dear Mr Walgren,
Anne Bachtold
20640 Marion Rd
Saratoga, CA 95070
May 6, 1998
I am writing to provide feedback on the application for approval to build a 4043 square
foot home on Burns Way. For reference, I reside at 20640 Marion Rd. I am around the
corner from the property in question. My backyard has a distant view (2 small
backyards away) from the new construction.
I have two concerns regarding the application:
1) I am concerned that the home is too large for the surrounding
neighborhood.
Most of the homes on Burns way are 1200 to 2000 square feet in size, one story
cottage style homes. Properties like my own on Marion Road there are 3) that are
adjacent to the construction site are one story ranch style homes approximately 2000
to 2600 square feet in size.
I believe that a 4000 square foot two story home is incompatible with these existing
properties in the neighborhood
2) 1 am concerned that if a permit is granted to build such a large two
story home then it will set a precedent that will allow other large two
story homes to be built In our neighborhood.
Our neighborhood is a very special place. The last thing we want is to alter the
character of our streets and housing to the the point where it no longer resembles the
place we know and love. While I respect the rights of property owners to improve their
buildings and homes, it is important that it be done in such a way as to preserve the
environment that drew us all to this neighborhood in the first place.
There are.other homes on Burns Way that will no doubt be remodeled by current or
future property owners. This is a reality in our much sought after city. I am dismayed
to think that there could be large imposing two story homes that will block views,
intrude on neighbors, reduce yard size and impact the rural nature of our
MAY -07 -1996 419 :5
neighborhood.
For these reasons I cannot support the application for this construction.
In closing, I would like to say I support the Jayakumar family in their effort to build a
new home. I know how important it is to have a safe and workable home in which to
raise one's family. I wish them luck in designing a home that fits their needs and the
needs of the community in which they reside.
Anne Bechtold
Submitted May 7, 1998
Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
Regarding: DR -98 -007
In response to the notice of hearing on May 13, 1998, regarding
the proposed development at 14265 Burns Way (DR -98 -007),
I, Farshid Zarbakhsh, the owner of the property at 14231 Burns Way,
would like to bring to the attention of the commission, and to put
in records, the following recommendations and concerns.
RECOMMENDATION:
I have seen copies of the drawings of the proposed plan, and I support
Mr. Jayakumar's proposals to build the house subject to my concerns listed
separately below. I believe the proposed plan will be an improvement to
our neighborhood and I encourage the commission to pass the proposal.
CONCERNS:
I have the following concerns regarding the impact of the project
on Burns Way's •sewer line, and its surface condition.
Sewer line:
RECEIVED
MAY 0 7 1998
I
PLANNING DEPARTMENT r
The sewer line on Burns'Way ends in front of my house (14231 Burns Way).
It has been build by the original and previous owner of my house at her cost.
The line had not been extended to the other three houses on Burns way at the
time, apparently due to disagreements on how to share the costs.
Since I have paid for the cost of the line from Marion to my house,
if this line is going to become a shared line, its cost should be
shared equitably by the new users. My easement allowing tapping to this
line will be contingent upon reaching such an equitable cost sharing
agreement.
I should also be made exempt from all future repair costs to this
portion of the line due to problems caused by increased volume of
usage, or problems related to this expansion.
Road Condition:
Digging a major stretch of Burns Way to connect to the sewer line in
front of my house will be a major deterioration of Burns way and my
drive way. My consent allowing this work to proceed in front of my house
will be contingent upon mutually agreed written guarantees that the road
will be fully restored, and that the construction will be performed in a
minimum and agreed time frame.
Dr. Fars id Zarbakhsh
18938 Sara Park Circle
Saratoga, CA 95070
(408) 944 -7795
f
BARRIE D. COATE
and ASSOCIATES
Horticultural Consultants
408 353 -1052
Fax 408 -354 -3767
23535 Summit Road, Los Gatos, CA 95030
TREE SURVEY AND PROTECTION RECOMMENDATIONS
AT THE HOME OF
MR. AND MRS. JAYAKUMAR
14265 BURNS WAY
SARATOGA
Requested by:
John Cook, Assistant Planner
City of Saratoga
13777 Saratoga Ave
Saratoga, CA 95070
Prepared by:
Michael L. Bench
March 17, 1998
Job 03 -98 -048
Jayaknmar
14265 Burns Way
Saratoga
Assignment
At request of John Cook, Assistant Planner, City of Saratoga, this report reviews the
proposal to demolish an existing residence and to build a new residence in the context of
potential damage to adjacent trees. This report further provides information about the
health and structure, of the trees on site, and makes recommendations by which damage
to them could be minimized. Each tree is assigned a number, which is referenced
throughout this report.
The plan reviewed for this report is the site plan prepared by Archevson, Architect, sheet
3 dated, December 2, 1997.
Summary
Three trees are within the construction area that meets city ordinance requirements for
protection.
The three trees are classified as:
2 -Coast Redwoods (Sequoia sempervirens)
1- English Walnut (Juglans regia)
The overall condition of these trees is described as follows for each tree by its number:
Exceptional Fine Marginal Poor
Specimens Specimens Specimens Specimens
2,3 1
Removal of Tree #1 is suggested due to its hazardous condition. Replacement trees are
suggested.
Mitigation is suggested for retained trees #2 and #3 and a protection bond of 25%
($1,999) of their assessed value ($7,994) is recommended.
Observations
There are approximately 18 trees on this site, but only three trees are large enough to
meet the city ordinance standard and are within the construction envelope.
The front of the property faces northeast, and the area in which construction is proposed
appears to have a very gradual slope toward the southwest.
Tree 1 is a 7" diameter dual trunk coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) that has both
poor health and structure. This specimen has an advanced case of the disease
Prepared by: Michael L. Bench
2
March 17, 1998
Jayakumar
14265 Burns Way
Saratoga
botryosphaeria dothidea, which is common for this species when stressed. The disease on
this specimen is beyond the point that treatment would be effective, and the disease will
advance until the tree dies. If either of the two leaders were to break apart and fall there
would be at least moderate damage to property or persons. Consequently, I consider this
tree moderately hazardous.
Tree 2 is a multi -stem coast redwood (Sequoia Sempervirens) with the larger 3 leaders
measuring 20, 15 and 12" in diameter. This tree stands approximately 50' in height and
has overall spread of about 27'. It has excellent health but only fair structure. This
specimen is at a location that will likely suffer root damage during demolition of the
adjacent patio or root damage by soil compaction as a result of construction. Soil
compaction is an insidious problem that inflicts severe damage to trees at construction
sites, but the decline is not observed until two to three years following construction.
Many trees die as a result of soil compaction at construction sites.
Tree 3 is 13" diameter DBH English walnut (Juglans regia) that is in excellent health
and good structure. The height is approximately 30' and the spread is approximately 39'.
An outdoor spa and patio are proposed under the canopy of this tree on the northeast side.
Typically the greater mass of root structure exists on the upper edge of a slope. This is
presumed to be the case with this tree.
As a result, construction of the spa at this location would be fairly severe treatment to the
root zone of tree #3. Death would not likely occur, but would likely push this tree into a
cycle of decline if construction occurs as proposed without mitigation.
On the northeast side of the property stands an 11" at 2 feet Silk tree (Albizia julibrissin)
which is slightly under the city ordinance size requirement for city protection. If this tree
is to be retained I suggest an area within 12' from the trunk of this tree be undisturbed
without grading or excavation or trenching for utilities or other services within this 12'
guideline.
Install a fence around the root zone at 12 to 14' from the trunk to protect the root zone
from compaction until the patio is installed. Since this tree is not protected by city
ordinance these are only suggestions to the homeowners if the tree is to be retained. And
not intended to become a requirement.
3
P r e p a r e d by: Michael L. Bench M a r c h 17, 1998 f'4 J
Jayakumar
14265.Burns Way
Saratoga
Recommendations
1. Due to the fact Tree #1 poses a moderate hazard as a result of its poor condition, I
suggest this tree be removed.
2. In order to reduce the damage to Tree 3, I suggest that the spa be relocated
toward the proposed home and away from the trunk of this tree by a minimum of 15 feet.
This implies no excavations, trenches, or any other cutting into the soil occur within this
15' limitation.
3. In order to prevent root damage to Trees 2 and #3, I suggest the installation of a
protective fence a minimum of 15' from tree 2 and 12' from the trunk of tree 3. I
suggest the fence constructed of chain link mounted on steel posts that are driven into the
ground 18" to 2'. This protective fence must be installed prior to the arrival of materials
or equipment, and must remain in place throughout the entire period of construction.
4. I suggest that no trenching for landscape irrigation cut across the root zone of
retained trees. The minimum undisturbed area from Tree #2 is 25 feet for the trunk
nearest the cut, and the minimum clearance for Tree #3 is 15 feet from the trunk.
Value Assessment
Removal of Tree #1 is suggested due to poor condition. Its value is $161, which is
equivalent to 1 -15 gallon and 1 -5 gallon native trees.
The combined value of Trees #2 and #3 is $7,994. A protective bond of 25% of their
value or $1,999 is suggested for their protection.
MLB /sh
Respectfully sub
Michael L. Bench, Associate
B e D. Coate, Prin
Prepared by: Michael L. Bench March 17, 1998
4
,x. 1..'
1
BARRIE O. COATE
AND ASSOCIATES
Horticultural Consultants
(408) 353 -1052
Key Plant Name
I
sq. In 0 X $27 /sq. in. X sp. class 30 X cond. 3 X loc. 1
sq. in 0 X 327 /sq. in. 3 X sp. class 30 X cond. 3 X loc. 1
sq. In 133 X 327 /sq. in. 3,582 X sp. class 90% 33,224 X cond. 90% 3 2,901 X loc. 70% 2,031 I
Juglans Regis
English Walnut
I 900'7 t %0L 'Del X ELL'S %SL 'puoo X 0£9'L$ %OS Ssep "ds X 9L7'9 'ui 'bs /LZ$ X till ul bS
Coast Redwood
1 sq. In 385 X $27/sq. in. 1,039 X sp. class 90% 3935 X cond. 15% 3 140 X loc. 75% 3 105
[Seq_uoia sem
Coast Redwood
1
b
.#-R1
LZ 0S r� z 0'St I z t0 "OZ
x
c
DBH
MULTI-SYSTEM
DBH
I
DBH
DIAMETER @2 FEET
3
N
R
3
n
7
N
a
30 15
HEIGHT
SPREAD
F
a
w
d
a
HEALTH (1 -5)
STRUCTURE (1 -5)
CONDITION RATING (2 -10)
HAZARD RATING (3-9)
o
z
o'
2
CROWN CLEANING
CROWN THINNING
CROWN RESTORATION
CROWN RAISING
REMOVE END WEIGHT
CABLES NEEDED
PRUNING PRIORITY (1-5)
v
c
5
n
a
Z
n
s
INSECTS (1 -5)
TREE CROWN DISEASE (1.5)
DEAD WOOD (1.5)
TRUNK DECAY(1 -5)
ROOT COLLAR COVERED (1 -5)
ROOT COLLAR DISEASE (1 -5)
H
if
0 cr
3
x
NEEDS WATER (1.5)
NEEDS FERTILIZER
RECOMMEND REMOVAL
REMOVAL PRIORITY (1 3)
,x. 1..'
2.
4k.
If
4
PROJECT SUMMARY
ASSIISsoRS P.M. DO
ADDRFSS 01 PRIM. T
0.FA NA.
EXISTING USED
2051 OISTIIrt
Slit 01 LOT
Slit 0/ STOLIT1 RI
I MST FLOOR
SECONRJ090
TOTAL
LEGEND
I LOU R017 ORR MT
23)2) 1240415
3 00111/ PAIRS
4 .1 num
5707Pl%C STONES
LANDSCAPING
Corol1.1 DFFIC
OUTDOOR 4.1/2/1
TREWS
10 PATIO
11 2' -07 NIGH 01111 •ALI.
12 IF -0 1111.11 ROOD 11S1T
13 I !man 24520 410)
14 17,-0' SI LOVA LINE
15. itS11•111 51,10 51,11011
:2:0=
mit Ass FFrauum
R 1 15.000
WON SQ. R.
.1 Sq FT ilscnue C4.14.1
1.03. ..r!
4.042 04. It.
110104101, SITE (00 10407 01.4 50407 11415
GSM WU MIA Ts 4111150
ACRES 43.5. .020 IQ FT
IlLSITTUFT. 100.0000 0451401
00.020 sq 100 101
20020 Sq 11 •00 40 2? 21011 SO IT
CALF 14f1STy •0.i0005 07 UK ITWeLITT..
0.110 !TIT
0 00211% 120 !1.
S I". 1.
SIM SLOPE
SLOPE Al 01 Soil 11, 'NAN 141.101sT PLAT 1
O 10 FOs USW
10X 111.1 2.
211211 Sq n FeS 04 1T
2040 5021 0342I50 21
I
20010 42 7421
21 ow Ft Tr
100040.00000 Su.lasza 05040:m000
21.000 SIT -15.000 SPT 0 000 50 FT
2,3)75 004 fl 1.000 5321
s 71 SP IT 4101 Sq
4050 rr osa 0421 0.31104 FT
O 501001100 FOS 'SMUT OVUM 110120.0110 -Jr
07110201 ut PROPOSED 1111.
7 I 5 10 5X
40111 Sp 11. 471 39 57 IT
414:1111 Sq
T
400400 Pt
SITE PLAN
RECEIVED
F
RUDA, STATUS 1
11770(2,111.,11,
tft
4(11: NAN
2
0
c.
0
To: Don Wolfe
His Hon'ble Mayor of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave
Saratoga, CA 95070
1
Dated: 19 May, 1998
Introduction
Hello, I am lndu Jayakumar, the homeowner at 14265 Bums Way, Saratoga. I spoke to you over
the weekend by phone. This is just a follow -up letter, to give you details of our basic dilemma.
I work for NASA Ames Res Ctr and my husband Jay is a Computer Designer working for Sun
Microsystems. Our two children Shruti and Shamita study here at the Redwood School and Oak St
school. We are both professionals, and have decided that good education is one of the most important
gifts a parent can give a child. That is primarily why we moved from San Jose to Saratoga, although we
also truly love the atmosphere and community- spirit here. We enjoy the Saratoga Library, the Civic
Theatre, the Village events, the Wildwood and Sanbom Parks, etc. We could live anywhere, but we live
BY CHOICE in Saratoga...
Recently, we had applied to the the City Planning Commission for re- building our house on
Burns Way. This really was a simple project from our point of view, culminating in the request for
approval, after 2 years of planning, modifications and satisfying neighbors' concems.
But, our Application got DENIED! (DR -98 -007, on Wed, May 13, 1998)
History of the Design
A brief history of how we started the house design may help.
After having lived in the same old house in South San Jose for 10 years, with lots of repairs and
problems, and as our 2 daughters were growing up to need good schools, we started looking for a good
and relatively -new house in a good school neighborhood. We had to give up searching for newer homes
in Saratoga, and happened to come across this particular property in an idyllic setting at the end of the
cul -de -sac Burns Way. Our selling and buying real estate agents both worked at the same local Saratoga
office, and were thoroughly familiar with the property, and its prior history.
We were immediately referred to our current Architect, Mr Kartik Patel, and a suggested local
Builder Mr Mark Thomas Dumont, by our Realtor. So, even BEFORE we made the offer on the property,
all 5 of us visited the place together, discussed several advantages and short- comings of the area (such
as sewer line), and actually were fortunate enough to meet and inform 2 of the immediate neighbors of
our 2-story re- building intentions! We purchased the 1905 -built 1750 sq ft 3 -BR run -down property in an
"as is" condition, exclusively to demolish and re- build, i.e. the sellers sold it to us for the land value
We discarded the original intention of IMMEDIATELY starting the house design, soon after we
moved in, and instead opted to absorb the local culture for about a year, meet with all our neighbors, and
take our time in designing an appropriate home, that would reflect the local character of the area. So,
over the past 2 years, we have refined our plans, made the whole house smaller, and simpler in terms of
the basic 4 bedrooms plus library, carefully selected the exterior appearance, etc. Further, after
satisfying all the setback requirements, back in Jan 98 (working with John Cook's predecessor at the
City), we changed it dramatically for this reason: I actually visited our immediate neighbors' master
bedroom, with multiple high windows facing our new house, and realized that avoiding upstairs windows
on their side would be of immense mutual benefit, in terms of privacy. So, we moved our child's
bedroom to the opposite side, and avoided any overlooking windows.
Inputs to Architect
We bought the property on Bums Way for the express purpose of building a newer home in a
nice neighborhood. When we hired our Architect, we explicitly asked him to take his time and address
any potential concerns that our neighbors may have, and to make the exterior of the house blend in with
the surroundings. The exact placement of the house, the rooflines, the setbacks, sun angles, the
potential views from windows for us AND for our neighbors were major issues throughout. We decided to
avoid cutting down any trees on the property and preserve the wild wooded nature of half our property
across the creek, where families of deer roam. We also opted to preserve the redwood deck and bridge
in our backyard, and adjust our family room windows to get a view of the creek. We wanted a
countryside feeling instead of a crowded suburban one, and being at the end of a cul -de -sac with most
neighbors situated far away really helped.
Inputs from Neighbors'
Some neighbors we've been talking to actually indicated a preference for larger houses, as they
claimed their potential property values would go up more! Our opposite house neighbor (who has rented
it out for years), over past year has indicated no resistance to our re- building, and in fact specifically said
that 'he'd given up on the view of the hills BEHIND and ABOVE our current 1 -story house some 8 or 10
years ago, as the tall trees way behind our property completely block his view of hills anyway." From his
house, some 4 or 5 large trees in his own frontyard completely block the view of our house, ensuring
good privacy for BOTH of us. Another neighbor has been concemed with the state of the private road
surface, and was hoping that, with my re- modeling, we would be able to fix the potholes on Bums Way. A
backyard neighbor (living in a probably more than 5000 sq ft house) encouraged us throughout,
explaining how he went through the City approval process for cutting down several trees adjoining our
property line to put in a new lawn.
Our immediate and closest 1 -story neighbor has been involved in the design process from Day
1, with my Architect and Builder explaining with detailed blueprints, and they indicated no direct
concerns.
Personal Family Needs
I don't know if we have to justify why we really want to design our house in this particular way,
but I'll make an attempt. We wanted a 4- bedroom house, as we have 2 pre -teen children, and often, our
parents or other elders visit us, who we thought could stay downstairs in the guest bedroom. We hoped
our mini library could house all our school books, documents, computers, etc. in one place. We are only
planning on features which we KNOW we will need and use, such as lots of shelves, 2-car garage, island
kitchen, etc while skipping things like master bedroom spa and fireplaces. There are no exotic elements
or expensive features in this design such as a media room, skylights, 3-car garages, grand stairways,
both due to a limited budget and land shape restrictions.
An important reason for us to re -build is the current complete lack of privacy between our 2
houses, wherein our bedroom and bathroom windows DIRECTLY FACE EACH OTHER!
Public Hearing
The City held a Public Hearing on our application on May 13th, 1998. Being later on the Agenda,
our Architect was barely given 10 minutes to present his case, and he did a wonderful job, objectively
explaining how we satisfied all Code F.A.R. requirements, much as the Analysis from the City Staff
recommended, and how we addressed our neighbors' potential concerns. He included a slide show and
color prints of new house, clearly showing how the dense vegetation around our property would preclude
any Toss of privacy: I mean, we can barely SEE our neighbors, except one!
But then, several of our neighbors (who had been so helpful and nice to us during the design
process for 2 years) tumed up, and made GENERALIZED remarks regarding the SIZE of our planned
house (4000 sq ft, including garage) and how a NEW house may not fit in, in a supposedly 'historic'
neighborhood! My husband and I were so much in shock at these sudden and weak complaints, that we
declined to comment or speak up on this, when we were given an opportunity to refute for "30 second?:
we are also by nature NOT the type to personalize and politicize in public, criticizing our own fellow
Saratogans quickly, as if they are our opponents!
So, when the Commissioner asked us whether we wanted a vote or to go to 'Study Session',
WITHOUT EXPLAINING what such a session is (nor is it explained in the letters from the City, and our
Architect didn't quite know either), we simplistically asked for a Vote, thinking the Members of the
Commission would Approve! But, since the first 2 Commissioners hesitated and decided to Deny, the
last 2 also "went with the flow" it seemed to us, although all 4 of them agreed THIS IS AN EXCELLENT
DESIGN, and makes the 2 -story house look like a 1 -story from the street and our neighbor's side!
We went into shock. This entire drama has been captured on our home videotape from Chan 6,
which we would love to show you to prove the points that: our Architect was brief and to the point, rattling
off distances, clearances and viewpoints; the Commissioners were barely giving him full attention, as
they watched the clock, and asked about why we hadn't considered a basement (to stuff our mother -in-
law or children to make it a 1 -story house; our neighbor brought out an old book of house- pictures with
supposedly historic Saratoga homes, and COULD NOT EASILY FIND the house in this area that could
be considered "historic
Some of our neighbors who were enthusiastic about our project were indeed at the Hearing (or
watched on TV), and since they did not feel it necessary to write us letters of support earlier (nor did we
beg them to) or speak up, they were also shocked at the outcome!
Conclusion
For us, it has been a long and expensive design process in order to get here. We have been
extraordinarily proactive over 2 years in frequently discussing our upcoming construction with our
neighbors and in welcoming their suggestions. We have never received any serious concems from them,
even after walking them through the set of blueprints with our Architect present, which is in itself quite
unusual, I would think.
We really consider this a fairly straightforward project, designed and RE designed carefully with
extensive verbal inputs from neighbors over two years, and hope that you can approve it for construction
immediately, as part of the Appeal Process. We love the neighborhood, our kids love the excellent
Saratoga school system and having been in the Bay Area for 16 years, we are no newcomers either: as
Saratoga residents, we have also been paying our share of property taxes (probably double our
neighbors' share, which will further double soon!) and would like the City to listen to our needs and inputs
too.
Since our own concerns in terms of new houses in our nice area IS exactly the same as our
neighbors' (i.e. we don't want large ugly stucco monsters either!), we designed our exterior and shape
carefully to really "fit in" to Saratoga...
Is this what we have come to: City approval process for every re- modeling and re- construction
pitting neighbor against neighbor, and dividing the community??
Thank you!
lndu Jayakumar
14265 Bums Way
Saratoga, CA 95070
Ph: 408 741 -8183
To: Ms Gillian Moran
Saratoga City Council Dated: 9 June, 1 998
Sub': Appeal of house construction DR 98
Introduction
Hello, I am Indu Jayakumar, the homeowner at 14265 Burns Way, Saratoga. I work for NASA
Ames Res Cir and my husband Jay is a Computer Designer working for Sun Microsystems. Our two
daughters study here at the Saratoga School. We are both professionals, and have decided that good
education is one of the most important gifts a parent can give a child. That is primarily why we moved
from San Jose to Saratoga, although we also truly love the atmosphere and small -town communfy- spirit
here. We enjoy the Saratoga Civic Theatre, the Library, the V events, the Wikiwood and Sanborn
Parks, YMCA, etc. We could Ilve anywhere, but we live here BY CHOICE In Saratoga...
Recently, we had applied to the the City Planning Commission for converting our 1-story house
to 2 -story on Bums Way. This really was a simple project from our point of view, culminating in the
request for approval, after 2 years of planning, design modifications and satisfying city codes and
neighbors' concerns.
But, although the City Staff had reoommended Approval, our application sudden)
at the Public Hearing! (OR- 08.007, on May 13. 1998). Our Appeal up y got DENIED Juno 1098,
The reason for the dental was that 'the combined on Wod� 17
house are
The re height, size and massiveness of the proposed
incompatible with lower, smaller and less massive residences In the immediate area.
As it turns out, this Is not true, and we are ready to justify it nowt We did not refute anything said
at the Hearing, due to lack of detailed neighborhood information and not knowing that we needed to
show support for this proposal!!
If you will please read this letter through, you will understand the special nature of this particular
house design and location, as well as how we lost Approval thanks to some neighbors' last- minute
activities in collecting apparent opposition. We hope you will vote strongly on our behalf/
History of the Design
A brief history of how we started the house design may help.
After having lived In the same old house in South San Jose for 10 years, with lots of repairs and
problems, and as our 2 daughters were growing up to need good schools, we started looking for a good
and relatively -new house in a good school neighborhood. We had to ive
ro g searching for newer homes
In Saratoga, and happened to come across this particular p
cul-de -sac Bums Way. Our sells and try i an idyllic setting at the end of the
office, and were thoroughly familiar withh erg �I estate agents both worked at the same local Saratoga
Property, and its prior history.
We were immediately referred to our current Architect, Mr Kartik Patel of Fremont, and a
suggested local Builder Mr Mark Thomas Dumont. by our Realtor. So, even BEFORE we made the offer
on the property, all 5 of us visited the place together, discussed several advantages
such as and short-comings
of the existing 1-story h0U8e
almost-leak) septic tank UNDER the Master Bedroom, termite Infiltration,
ng roof), and actually were fortunate enough to meet and inform 2 of the Immediate
neighbors of our rebuilding Intentions! We purchased the 1905 -built 1750 sq ft 3 -BR run -down property
in an 'as is' condition, exclusively to demolish and re- build, i.e. the sellers sold it to us for the land
value'.
We discarded the original intention of Immediately starting the house design, soon after we
moved In, and Instead opted to absorb the local culture for about a year, meet with all our neighbors, and
take our time in designing an appropriate home, that would reflect the local character of the area. So,
over the past 2 years, we have refined our plans, made the whole house smaller, and simpler in terms
of the basic 4 bedrooms plus library, carefully selected the exterior appearance to match surroundings,
etc. Further, after satisfying all the setback requirements, back in Jan 98 (working with John Cooks
predecessor at the Clty), we changed it dramatically for this reason: I actually visited our immediate
neighbors' master bedroom, with mufiple high windows facing our new house, and realized that
minimizing upstairs windows on their side would be of immense mutual benefit, in terms of priva. So,
we moved our child's bedroom to the opposite side, and avoided any directly overlooking window We
also moved our house forward on the lot, eo as to increase the view of the Saratoga foothills for our
neighbors, although limited by tali trees anyway.
Page 1
Inputs to Arehlteet d buildln a newer home in a
We bought the property on Bums Way for the express purpose 9
nice neighborhood. When we hired our Architect, we explicitly asked him to take his time and address
any potential concerns that our neighbors may have, and to make the exterior of the house blend In with
the surroundings. The exact placement of the house, the rooflines, the setbacks, sun angles, the
potential views from wi for us AND for our neighbors were major issues throughout. We decided to
avoid cutting down any trees on the property and preserve the wild wooded nature of half our property
across the creek, where families of deer roam. We also opted to preserve the redwood deck and bridge
In our backyard, and adjust our family room windows to get a view of the creek. We wanted a
countryside leafing Instead of a crowded suburban one, and being at the end of a cul-de -sac with all
neighbors (except one) situated far away or hidden by dense vegetation or both, really helped.
Inputs from Neighbors
Some neighbors we've been talking to actually indicated a preference for larger houses, as they
claimed their potential property values would go up morel Our opposite house neighbor (who has never
lived there but rented it out for years), has indicated no resistance over past year to our re- building, and
In fact specifically said that 'he'd given up on the view of the hills BEHIND and ABOVE o b c his view
story house some 8 or 10 years ago. as the tall trees way behind our property completely of hills anyway.' From his house, some 4 or 5 large trees in his own frontyard completely block the view
of our house, ensuring good privacy for BOTH of us. Another neighbor has been concerned with the state
of the private road surface (and the sewer line), and was hoping that, with my remodeling, we would be
able to fix the potholes on Burns Way. A backyard neighbor encouraged us throughout. explaining how
he went through the City- approval process for cutting down several trees adjoining our property to put in
a new lawn. process from Day
Immediate and closest 1-story neighbor has been involved In the design y
One, with my Architect and Builder explaining with detailed blueprints, and they indicated no direct
concerns to us at any time.
Personal Family Needs
I don't know If we have to justly why we really want to design our house in this particular way,
but 1'11 make an attempt. We are only planning on features which we know we will need and use. such as
4 bedrooms. mini library, lots of shelves, 2-car garage, island kitchen, etc while skipping exotic elements
or expensive features like master bedroom spa, media room, skylights, 3-car garages, grand stalrways,
Imposing fronts, both due to a limited budget and neighborhood characteristics!
To us, a 3400 sq ft house (plus garage double counting of stairs area puts it at 4043 sq ft, by
City code) for a growing family of 4, seems perfectly reasonable, and le consistent with this area, whin
then are squally largo houses on Marlon Rd, the closest street, and behind our backyardll
Public Hearing
The Clly held a Public Hearing on our application on May 13th. 1998. Being later on the Agenda,
our Architect was barely given 10 minutes to present his case, and he did a wonderful (if too technical)
job carefully explaining how we satisfied all Code requirements, much as the excellent Design Analysis
from the City Staff recommended, and how we addressed our neighbors' potential concerns. He Included
a slide 'how and large color prints of new house, clearly showing how the dense vegetation around our
property would preclude any loss of privacy: I mean, wo can barely as' our neighbors, except one!
And, at the end of a cube -sac. no neighbor is ever going 10 drive past our housel
But then, three of our neighbors (who M had lied remarks re n rcelv�id of our
process for 2 years) turned up, and made M gang the
planned house (4000 sq ft, Including garage) and how a NEW house may not fit In, In a supposedly
'historic' neighborhood! My husband and I were so much In shock at these sudden and weak
complaints, that we declined to comment or refute anything said, when we were given an
opportunity to refute for '30 seoonds': we are also by nature NOT the type to personalize and politicize in
public, criticizing our own fellow- Saratogans quickly, as if they are our opponents!
So, when the Planning Commissioner asked us whether we wanted a vote or to go to 'Study
Session', WITHOUT EXPLAINING what such a session is (nor is it explained In the letters from the City,
and our Architect didn't quite know either; his first design in Saratoga). we simplistically asked for a Vote,
thinking the Members of the Commission would Approve! All 4 of the Commissioners AGREED THIS
IS AN EXCELLENT HOUSE DESIGN, and that It made the 2-story house look like a 1 -story from the
Page 2
street and on our neighbor's side. But, probably to avoid any controversy, and convinced by our
neighbors' comments, they denied Approval sayIng -'this home will be too big for the area.`
We went into shock. This entire drama has been captured on our home videotape from Chan 6,
which we would love to show you to prove the points that: our Architect was precise and to the point,
rattling off distances, clearances and viewpoints; the Commissioners, as they watched the clock, only
asked about why we hadn't considered a basement to make it a 1-story house (would be prohibitively
expensive right next to the creek which flows through the middle of our property).
Some of our neighbors who were enthusiastic about our project were Indeed at the Hearing (or
watched on TV), and since they did not feel k necessary to write us letters of support (nor did we beg
them to) or speak up, they were also shocked at the outcome!
Objections (PLEASE READ THIS!)
Addressing the main objections that came up at the Hearing from lihInformed neighbors, of:
(1) apparent bulk,
(2) modem style of design,
(3) loss of privacy to neighbor, and
(4) precedence of such construction:
(1) the second -story has been pushed back AND away from immediate neighbor, as much as possible,
and lowered In height to 23 ft above grading; besides, there are already taller and lamer houses on
Bums a Marlon anyway There's a huge two -story stucco home right at the comer of Bums and Marion.
The first home on Bums Is partly two -story tool
(2) the Craftsman -style design has been fully accepted by City Staff as indeed being compatible,
alongwith wood siding, similar color to neighbor, red -brick finish, white picket fence, fountain and mini
statue;
(3) existing lack of pdvaoy with directly facing bedroom and bathroom windows on both sides Is
abominable, and will be rectified by low garage wall, and no large windows upstairs; and
(4) Currently there are three two -story homes on Marion and plenty of others In the neighborhood, on all
our other neighboring streets. This is NOT a predominantly one -story neighborhood. Mr. James Waigren
agreed on -stage that the houses in this neighborhood Is a very mac/actic mix' already. We hope to set a
precedence for such well- designed homes which would Only Improve this neighborhood.
Conclusion
For us, It has been a long and expensive design process In order to get here. We have been
extraordinarily proactive over 2 years in frequently discussing our upcoming constriction with our
neighbors and in welcoming their suggestions. We have never received any serious ooncems from them,
even after walking them through the set of blueprints with our Architect present, the week before the
Hearing, which Is In Itself quite unusual, I would think.
We really consider this a fairly straightforward project, designed and RE- designed carefully with
extensive verbal inputs from neighbors over two years, and hope that you can approve It tor
construction immediately, as part of the Appeal Process. We love the neighborhood, our kids love the
excellent Saratoga school system and having been in the Bay Area for 16 years, we are no newcomers
either. As Saratoga residents, we have also been paying our share of property taxes (probably double
our neighbors' share, which will further double soonl) and would like the City to listen to our needs and
Inputs too.
Is this what we have come to: City approval process for every re- modeling and re- constriction
pitting neighbor against neighbor, and dividing the community??
Thank vout
Ul.
Indu Jayakuma
14265 Bums Way
Saratoga, CA 96070
Ph: 408- 741 -8183
I :.ICI
1. Prtceden
Are there other two -story large homes in the immediate neighborhood?
a. Yes. The house right at the corner of Burns and Marion has a two-story addition on
Burns way.
b. There is a huge stucco home on Marion again at the comer of Burns and Marion.
c. An older rather tall two -story structure is directly posite the above stucco home.
d. Them is a huge newer two -story home with over 111 square feet in area at the end of
Marion -with whom we share fences with.
e. There are plenty of two-story homes that are quite large (largest being 6000 square feet)
on Brookwood, Springer and Paul who are all directly behind or adjacent to us.
2. likielitYSALW
Did we consider a one-story home on this lot?
Yes...we did. We felt that a one -story structure looked too massive on this lot due to the
narrowness of the lot. The City Staff report says the same too. We have designed the
house with low hip roofs to reduce the impact on the street the staff report clearly states
this too! A one -story will be around 21 feet in height by today's standards which is not
very much different from our current two story plan which is 23 feet in height.
3. Comnntihility:
Did we design somethiotaljy uncharacteristic of the neighborhood?
No...we did not. We took great care to match the surrounding houses. The house has
wood siding with brick finish, arbor entrance and white picket -fence like most of the
houses in the area. We even coordinated the colors with our neighbors. The second story
is set back so that it will appear like a one -story from the front.
4. I qsa o ew. Dr'iyacv ght for immedi jw
Did make care of the immediate neighbor's concerns?
Yes...we did. We have been working with them closely and even moved a bedroom
around to respect their privacy. We moved the whole house 5 feet forward so that they
wont lose their light and view. We have taken great pains to keep most of the house one-
story (only 12 feet in height) on their side.
3. eiphliLIrs, [)nooaition:
Did we show and discuss the planith the neighbors?
Yes...we did. But, unfortunately only to our immediate neighbors on Burns Way. They
were very happy with the design at that time and expressed no concerns at all. They got
protest signatures from neighbors on Marion Road who had not seen our house plans and
our house at the end of this secluded private road is not visible to them anyway. But, after
I showed the design to everybody in the neighborhood, after the hearing, most of them
changed their minds and actually apologized for protesting against such a well designed
house.
Mayor Wolfe, City of Saratoga
City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Foothill Faint
Subdivision established January 13, 1891 by W.D.Pollard from Quito Rancho
Stephen and Roselye Williams, 1937 -1966, Grandparents of Gary Campbell
Gary and Jan Campbell, Owners, 1967 present
June 10, 1998
20731 Marion Road
Saratoga, California 95070
Subject: Support for Planning Commission denial of new two -story residence on Burns Way
APN 503 -23 -006 appeal to City Council for Design Review by Mr. and Mrs. Jayakumar
Dear Mayor Wolfe and City Council Members,
We appreciate the democratic process of communication on this matter to allow our comments as 31 -year property
owners to support the Planning Commission denial of a new two -story residence proposed by Mr. and Mrs.
Jayakumar for their property at 14265 Burns Way. This is a serious issue of infringement on an adjacent neighbor.
Please note that we have never previously objected to any of the housing improvements or building construction
that have been in our area during the last 30 years. Each of them have been well considered for their site, their
neighbors and in conformance with City guidelines. This proposal by Mr. and Mrs. Jayakumar is seriously different
from any of the other design reviews that we have experienced in our area.
We are frequent visitors to their neighbors and hence know all negative issues related to the height and location of
their proposed structure. These negative issues were completely expressed in the recent open forum Planning
Commission meeting and were considered by our representatives in denying the two -story residence.
The Appeal Process to the City Council is fair and just hence the following issues further support denial of the
proposed design:
The Jayakumar's knew that a two-story house design had been previously rejected by the Planning Commission
when they bought the property. They were not, therefore, denied potential nor misled in their investment
The size of the property is misleading for the zoning of R- 1- 15,000 because the creek splits it in the middle and
forces development in a small, narrow part of the parcel next to Burns Way that is close to their neighbors on
the north. The downward view from the proposed two-story house would have a very negative impact on the
peace and tranquility of these neighbors. This would distress us greatly if such a thing could be allowed to
occur by our Council members after public review and rejection by the Planning Commission.
We commend the Jayakumar's for wanting to improve their residence and recommend they review the findings of
the past two rejections for 2 story designs and then reconsider the opportunities for alternative single story designs
that would fit the size of the avajlable site as well as hftrmony with their neighbors.
cc: Grace Cory, Deputy City Clerk
ampbell Jan Campbell
APN 503 -22 -102
To
Mr James Walgren
Director, Community Development
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave
Saratoga, CA 95070
Mr Walgren:
Thanking
y
t7
Ji Indu Jakumar
14265 Burns Way
Saratoga, CA 95070
Ph: 408 741 -8183
Dated: 6/11/98
Subj: Concessions toward Appeal of Denial of construction
at 14265 Burns Way (DR -98 -007)
RECEIVED
JUN 1 1 1998
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
We are the homeowners Jay and Indu Jayakumar, who planned on the 25 -feet
high 2 -story 4043 sq ft new home on Burns Way, which was denied by the Saratoga
Planning Commission on May 13,1998, due to some neighbors' concerns regarding
bulk and privacy issues.
After attending several Planning Commission Hearings on other similar projects
over the past few weeks, and talking to several neighbors as well as local architects and
builders thoroughly familiar with this area, we fully realize what the "hot" issues are, in
terms of new construction in Saratoga!
Therefore, we are offering to make these following concessions, (although
difficult to do at this stage,as you know), as part of the process of Approval of the
Appeal, due to be heard before the Saratoga City Council on Wed, June 17, 1998.
1) Completely remove the 2 small upstairs bedroom windows facing our
immediate neighbors on right side.
2) Move the entire house backwards (away from Burns Way) on our lot by say, 6
feet, in order to increase sunlight and hill view for our immediate neighbors.
3) Lower the maximum height of roof from the current 25 feet above ground to
23 feet.
4) Reduce the overall square footage of house by another 50 sq ft or so.
We hope you would pass on this critical information to the City Council as
soon as possible so that they could approve our home design for construction.
May 11, 11998
City of Saratoga
Community Development Department
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: Notice of Hearing
DR -98 -007 (APN 503 -23 -006) JAYAKUMAR, 14265 Burns Way
I am concerned about the size of the proposed new two -story
residence which the Jayakumar family wishes to construct. The
immediate surrounding neighborhood consists of lovely, one -story
homes, and it seems to me that a 4,043 square foot house, two stories,
25 feet in height just wouldn't fit into the area.
I have been aware of new construction all over our valley, and
notice that so many of the new homes are huge, two -story and more.
Doesn't anyone consider building a sensible, one -story any more?
I would think that the lot on Burns Way is large enough that it
would accommodate a home to meet the needs of the Jayakumar family
without it having to be two stories.
Sincerely,
\dre,
Dorothy StaYnper
20562 Marion Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
June 11, 1998
City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fraitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: Appeal of denial for Design Review
DR98-007 (APN 503 -23 -006)
JAYAKUMAR, 14265 Burns Way
I was surprised and also puzzled to receive the notice of hearing
before the City Council concerning the above appeal. Puzzled,
because the design review presented to the Community Development
Department a couple of weeks ago was rejected inanimously.
Surprised, because it appears the plans are the same as the ones
submitted originally same square footage, same height, etc.
I assume my letter of May 11 is still on file. My opinions have
not changed since I wrote it. I hope you give serious consideration
to the impact that the construction of a large house will have on
the immediate surrounding neighbors.
Sincerely,
Dorothy Stamper
20562 Marion Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
June 11, 1998
Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
Regarding: DR -98 -007 appeal
Dear members of the Planning Commission,
I am writing this to you again, on behalf of Mr. Jayakumar, supporting his proposal
for building a new house on his lot on Burns Way. I urge the commission to consider
the plan based on its merits, and vote for its passing if it satisfies the city regula-
tions.
I am not supporting the building of this house because of ulterior motives. I am sup-
porting it because in my nine years of residence on Burns Way, this house, then a
rental and owned by another owner, was the single source of noise and traffic and
multitude of various renters (4 setat least). If in its current condition, the house
becomes a rental again, the nuisance and neighborhood deterioration will continue.
Also, I do not believe 4000+ sq -ft (including garage) as excessive, but about aver-
age for a reasonable house built anywhere, especially Saratoga.
I hope the commission will reconsider ittposition.
Sincerely,
2/
Dr. Farshid Zarbakhsh
18938 Sara Park Circle
S aratoga
J6
We, the undersigned, believe that the proposed house at the above address is too large to be
compatible with the surrounding houses on Burns Way and Marion Road. The buildable portion
of the lot has an area of around 12,000 square feet. Thus the 4,043 square foot structure will
occupy a large proportion of that buildable area and will appear much larger than if it were to be
set further back; which, of course, it cannot.
The neighborhood we live in consists almost entirely of single story homes and has a charm that
has existed for decades. We would like to preserve that charm but believe that the proposed
structure will detract from it.
.f
zcvszo Qua_ 9'swito
.oSso 'maw.) 1Zot Scerct, -1*y0- G4► 9s7:72'
2-0 510 /Yi oA) W. sa GA 95
414 nc. 2 oLG l fan. Rd ,San.4t 6 G.t 9$o70
"ale •t °t o) 2 tv S Re oQi CR 9sb70
v t i e,tz. o 6 1 ii2,6-6-424. `A 1 ti C g 5 a 1 0
P f j. ad ya ci 10 axd -S ALA o1 c;avtis)
a 0 6, I s' /n? aK.) S a.�, 1 Cm- 95 c)
Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: DR -98 -007. Jayakumar, 14265 Burns Way.
May 13, 1998
E eikta/t/d0 0205414 11/114RioNI
(kale /4/3l Sanz10961 Sonny�.l' 2 ed kyla)'IOYI)
fiz 1461 (Itet
-2/26A Oilk
It IL ll
qsb740
/04ai z j://e,1 75.;;-*7-
Mayor Wolfe, City of Saratoga
City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
GERALD N. PATRICIA A. RENN
5061 Cabrillo Point
Discovery Bay, Ca. 94514
June 8, 1998
Subject: Jayakumar Appeal to Planning Commission
Dear Mayor Wolfe and City Council Members,
Marion and Burns Avenue neighbors have been heard and you
made your decision, we are writing now only in hopes you can up
hold the will of the majority.
We have owned our home at 20625 Marion since 1953 and still
intend to live our last years in our Saratoga home. That i s why we
have decided to speak out at this late date. Jayakumar's lot i s not
the place for a 4,000 square foot house and this would be the only
two story on Burns.
We would like to see the rural setting of this neighborhood
remain the same. Thank you for your consideration.
Gerald N. Renn
Patricia A. Renn
4 )(;14-1,-/
June 11, 1998
City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: Appeal of denial for Design Review
DR98-007 (APN 503 -23 -006)_
JAYAKUMAR, 14265 Burns Way
I was surprised and also puzzled to receive the notice of hearing
before the City Council concerning the above appeal. Puzzled,
because the design review presented to the Community Development
Department a couple of weeks ago was rejected inanimously.
Surprised, because it appears the plans are the same as the ones
submitted originally same square footage, same height, etc.
I assume my letter of May 11 is still on file. My opinions have
not changed since I wrote it. I hope you give serious consideration
to the impact that the construction of a large house will have on
the immediate surrounding neighbors.
Sincerely,
Dorothy Stamper
20562 Marion Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
City of Saratoga
Community development department
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: A.P. N.:503 -22 -084
DR -98 -007 (APN 503 -23 -006) Jayakumar, 14265 Burns Way
Appeal
Dear Planning Commissioners:
I attended the meeting the Jayakumar's held for the neighbors. I still feel the home is too big for the
buildable portion of their lot and the surrounding structures. Indu Jayakumar indicated in her letters to the
city Council that all the neighbors supported their new home after the meeting. That just isn't so. I still
think the home is too big and set too close to the street.
I have some other concerns regarding inaccurate statements Indu Jayakumar has made in her letters to the
City Council:
1. The Jayakkumar's do not share a property line with a neighbor who owns a large home on Marion.
2. There is no huge two -story stucco home on the corner of Burns and Marion.
3. The home on the corner of Burns and Marion does not have a two -story addition. It has a two story
water tower —it is a very old historic home that has been remodeled.
4. Our neighborhood consists of Burns Way and Marion. That is the only neighborhood to consider.
I anticipate the home at 14265 Burns Way will be rebuilt. I hope the new structure will not overpower all
the other homes nearby.
I appreciate your considering these issues.
Sincerely yours,
Ilene Doppelt
20659 Marion Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
June 14, 1998
June 28, 1998
Mayor Don Wolfe, City of Saratoga
City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mayor Wolfe and City Council members:
Re: The Jayakumar's appeal of denial by Planning Commission.
My husband, Bob, and I have lived in the Prides Crossing area of
Saratoga for nearly twenty -seven years. We have visited the neighborhood
of Marion and Burns Way many, many times over these twenty -seven years.
It is a quaint, delightful area of small homes and cottages, some over one
hundred years old. All the homes on Burns Way, and most of those on
Marion, are one -story dwellings.
We feel that the Jayakumar's planned home would be entirely
incompatible with this neighborhood. The privacy of the Voester family,
who live next door, would be violated, and the charming, rural atmosphere
for which the current residents chose the area, would be compromised.
We would suggest a single story plan be used for the front portion
of this lot.
We understand that the larger, rear portion of the lot extends to an
area of very large, two -story homes, and perhaps that would be the better
place for the Jayakumar home to be built.
Virginia K. Cowie
19443 Melinda Circle
Saratoga, CA 95070
Virginia K. Cowie
Mayor Wolfe, City of Saratoga
City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
July 2, 1998
Dear Mayor Wolfe and City Council Members,
I am writing to voice my concern about the appeal to
the City Council regarding Jay Jayakumar's proposed two story
home on Burns Way.
We own the home at 14264 Burns Way directly across from
Jayakumar's property. This house has been in our family for
forty -nine years. It was built by my uncle and brothers in
what has become a quaint, charming and quiet neighborhood.
A large two story home on this street, which has 90%
single story dwellings, would be incompatible with the country
style of the other homes.
A new dwelling across the street would be a great improve-
ment, however there must be some compromise with the size and
height. Perhaps building the house on the other side of the
creek would be the answer.
Please do not overturn the Planning Commission's denial.
Thank you.
Sincerely
Melva M. Irvine
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
July 6, 1998
Dear Mayor Wolfe and members of the City Council,
We are twenty -five year residents of Sarataga and have visited the
Voesters at 14251 Burns Way often. The adjacent property development
planned by Jayakumar is incompatible with existing homes in the
neighborhood. We believe the Planning Commission's disapproval of the
plans should stand.
Sincerely,
/"&.,tit„.
0 0
Brian and D'Anne Carleton
20542 Wardell Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
John Cook, Assisstant Planner
Saratoga Planning Commission
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
July 6, 1998
Dear Mr. Cook,
We are twenty -five year residents of Sarataga and have visited the
Voesters at 14251 Burns Way often. The adjacent property development
planned by Jayakumar i s incompatible with existing homes in the
neighborhood. We believe the Planning Commission's disapproval of the
plans should stand.
Sincerely,
:N. 1 iT,
Brian and D'Anne Carleton
20542 Wardell Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
To: The Saratoga Planning Commission
13777 Fruitvale Ave
Saratoga, CA 95070 July 6, 1998
Cc 4 fYAyok woe -FE 4 CITY COUnrGa_ MEMSERs
Subj: Development at 20731 Marion Rd, Saratoga (DR -98 -019 V -98 -005): Campbells
As a resident of Saratoga and an immediate neighbor of this particular property, I would like to
express my feelings towards this project. Before I declare whether I'm in support or opposition of this Design
Review, I hope you will read this letter through! There is much irony in what 's happening here...
My wife and I live at 14265 Burns Way, at the very end of the private cul -de -sac off of Marion Rd,
close to the Campbells' "historic farmhouse" at the end of Marion. We have personally received a letter from
the City requesting our inputs on this matter, as we are within a 500 -foot radius. We have not been shown
any drawings for this proposed major re- design.
Our gm house re- construction plans came up before the Planning Commission in May, and got
DENIED! It was mainly due to these same neighbors' protests that what WE are planning to build is "too big
and incompatible" with this particular area. Our Appeal comes up next week, which got postponed from last
month, when the owners of this property, the Campbells, actually protested strongly against us!
The fact is, we are proposing a replacement of our existing 1750 sq ft home with a 4000 sq ft one
(incl garage and stairs counted twice) in a R- 1- 15,000 zoning district, while the Campbells are proposing an
addition of some 2200 sq ft to their existing 3000 sq ft house plan, in a smaller R -1- 12,500 zoning district.
And, they are requesting a Variance Approval!!
The few selected neighbors who protested against us claimed houses on this street ranged in size
from 800 to 2500 sq ft only (ignoring the 4800 sq ft house immediately opposite the Campbells as well as
this addition to be done soon!) and asked for denial of our 3400 sq ft plan (plus garage, and stairs twice).
They also claimed Marion Rd is an 'almost- historic area' due to the Campbells' existing home, and another
smaller house. We lost Qur Design Review (as we were not prepared for such a political emotional battle of
wits at that time, and refuted nothing)... but now, the historic farmhouse itself is getting modernized,
completely changed and expanded
The Campbells personally gave us a guided tour of their property, and enthusiastically raved about
how new high -power floodlights will light up their redwood eucalyptus trees and asked my wife to do the
honor of switching on the lights for the very first time! After personally promising us that they have to
opposition to our project (but would not sign a letter of support either, due to not wanting to 'spoil' their
friendship with other protesting neighbors), they wrote the enclosed letter to the Council the very next day!
Our little Marion -Burns property- rights situation has since made the Mayor declare on -stage that
he's "not seen such a controversy over a house plan in the last four years in Saratoga!'
So, we ask you Commissioners: if you approve this Design Request, would it not surely be
inconsistent with your own denial of ours in May? If you approve simply because there are enough
signatures of apparent support, and not much written opposition, aren't you really rewarding a "31 -year
property owner with more local friends, than us, as 2 -year newcomer immigrant residents of Saratoga
and, isn't that a terrible basis for such City land use decisions
Having pointed out all this, we would like to state our own true views on the Campbells' request for
construction: since (a) their property is several houses away from ours, (b) we won't even be able to
their house at anytime, (c) we believe this originally -good idea of taking neighbors' inputs has gone too far in
Saratoga. where a person who simply doesn't like your face can try and kill your Project at no cost to hire,
we have no reservations in fully supporting it!
We believe the proposal would be a good improvement to our neighborhood and we encourage the
Planning Commission to objectively ensure their satisfying of all City Codes and can only HOPE that all
will be tastefully done, to fit in with this area. Of course, we also hope our own Project will be Approved next
week by the City Council...
Thanking you,
tk ,r3lf(1111./.1‘1/, \Jul
Jay lndu Jayakumar
14265 Burns Way, Saratoga, CA 95070
Ph: (408) 741 -8183
Mayor Wolfe, City of Saratoga
City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Dear Mayor Wolfe and City Council Members,
Foothill Farm
Subdivision established January 13, 1891 by W.D.Pollard -from Quito Rancho
Stephen and Roselye Williams, 1937 -1966. Grandparents of Gary Campbell
Gary and Jan Campbell. Owners, 1967 present
June 10. 1998
20731 Marion Road
Saratoga. California 95070
Subject: Support for Planning Commission denial of new two -story residence on Burns Way
APN 503 -23 -006 appeal to City Council for Design Review by Mr. and Mrs. Jayakumar
We appreciate the democratic process of communication on this matter to allow our comments as 31 -year property
owners to support the Planning Commission denial of a new two -story residence proposed by Mr. and Mrs.
Jayakumar for their property at 14265 Burns Way. This is a serious issue of infringement on an adjacent neighbor.
Please note that we have never previously objected to any of the housing improvements or building construction
that have been in our area during the last 30 years. Each of them have been well considered for their site, their
neighbors and in conformance with City guidelines. This proposal by Mr. and Mrs. Jayakumar is seriously different
from any of the other design reviews that we have experienced in our area.
We are frequent visitors to their neighbors and hence know all negative issues related to the height and location of
their proposed structure. These negative issues were completely expressed in the recent open forum Planning
Commission meeting and were considered by our representatives in denying the two -story residence.
The Appeal Process to the City Council is fair and just hence the following issues further support denial of the
proposed design:
The Jayakumar's knew that a two -story house design had been previously rejected by the Planning Commission
when they bought the property. They were not, therefore, denied potential nor misled in their investment.
The size of the property is misleading for the zoning of R- 1- 15,000 because the creek splits it in the middle and
forces development in a small, narrow part of the parcel next to Burns Way that is close to their neighbors on
the north. The downward view from the proposed two -story house would have a very negative impact on they
peace and tranquility of these neighbors. This would distress us greatly if such a thing could be allowed to
occur by our Council members after public review and rejection by the Planning Commission.
We commend the Jayakurnar's for wanting to improve their residence and recommend they review the findings of
the past two rejections for 2 story designs and then reconsider the opportunities for alternative single story designs
that would fit the size of the ava)Zable site as well as harmony with their neighbors.
cc: Grace Cory, Deputy City Clerk
ampbell
APN 503 -22 -102
Jan Campbell
Mayor Wolfe, City of Saratoga
City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Appeal of DR -98 -007; Jayakumar, 14265 Burns Way
Dear Mayor Wolfe and City Council Members,
xU izz voc5ze1,
142_51 13U121 WA y
SA1ZAZOA,Ck1..1 F. 95070
July 8, 1998
Some of the Jayakumar correspondence sent to Saratoga City officials as well as an informational sheet
distributed by them at their house contain misrepresentations and distortions that I feel compelled to correct
for the record.
Please refer to the letter signed by Indu Jayakumar and sent to Mayor Wolfe dated May 19, 1998. A copy
of this letter is in the packet for the June 17, 1998, City Council meeting.
Page 1; History of the Design; paragraph 4. In Jan98... I.actually visited our immediate neighbors'
master bedroom... we moved our child's bedroom to the opposite side, and avoided any overlooking
windows."
FACT: Indu Jayakumar did not visit my master bedroom until April 29, 1998.
FACT: The plans show 8 overlooking windows ABOVE the first floor; 2 double hung windows in a
second story bedroom and 6 windows in a staircase.
Page 2; Inputs from Neighbors; paragraph 1. "Our opposite house neighbor. .specifically said that `he'd
given up on the view of the hills BEHIND and ABOVE our current 1 -story house some 8 or 10 years ago,
as the the tall trees way behind our property completely block his view of the hills anyway."
FACT: Mr. Irvine denies having made the quoted statement.
Page 2; Inputs from Neighbors; paragraph 2. "Our immediate and closest 1 -story neighbor has been
involved in the design process from Day 1, with my Architect and Builder explaining with detailed
blueprints, and they indicated no direct concerns."
(Note: My wife and I are the neighbors referred to.)
FACT: We have never been invited to review any designs. My wife was first shown the plans on April 29,
1998, by the Jayakumars and their architect and the Jayakumars first made their plans available to me at
their house on May 22, 1998. PRIOR to the purchase of the property by the Jayakumars I had introduced
myself to them, an architect and a builder. I have never met their architect or builder unless they were the
gentlemen present at that time.
Page 2; Public Hearing; paragraph 1. "...our Architect was barely given 10 minutes to present his case.
FACT: A careful review of the video tape of the meeting shows that the architect was given more than 16
minutes for his presentation. Chairman Pierce said that if the applicant wanted to speak that would be fine
but "you have gone well over 10 minutes Furthermore he said, "The presentation was excellent, though
long."
1
Sr
Page 2; Public Hearing; paragraph 2. "...several of our neighbors (who had been so helpful and nice to us during
the design process for 2 years) turned up..."
FACT: Not one neighbor presently opposed to this project says that he /she was aware of any design process until
receipt of the official notice of design review before the Planning Commission.
Page 2; Public Hearing; paragraph 3. "...all 4 of them (commissioners) agreed THIS IS AN EXCELLENT
DESIGN, and makes the 2 -story house look like a 1 -story from the street and our neighbor's side!"
FACT: A careful review of the video tape of the meeting shows that not even one commissioner made a statement
that the two story looks like a single story from the street or the neighbor's side.
Page 2; Public Hearing; paragraph 4. our neighbor brought out an old book of house pictures with
supposedly historic Saratoga homes, and COULD NOT EASILY FIND the house in this area that could be
considered `historic'..."
(Note: I am the neighbor referred to.)
FACT: The book is Saratoga's Heritage, A Survey of Historic Resources, City of Saratoga, Historic
Preservation Commission, 1993. The Stamper House (20570 Marion) and the Pollard House (20731 Marion) are
featured on pages 38 and 39, respectively. I had the pages bookmarked and turned to them without difficulty. This
book is still being sold at City Hall.
Page 3; Conclusion; paragraph 1. "We have been extraordinarily proactive over 2 years in frequently discussing
our upcoming construction with our neighbors and in welcoming their suggestions."
FACT: Neighborly questions about the project engendered replies that nothing had been done yet and how
difficult it was to get a surveyor to survey the property. Upcoming construction was not discussed nor were any
suggestions or concerns asked for until January 1998.
Page 3; Conclusion; paragraph 1. "We have never received any serious concerns from them, even after walking
them through the set of blueprints with our Architect present, which is in itself quite unusual, I would think."
FACT: If this reference is to the April 29, 1998, visit to my house when only my wife was at home, it should be
pointed that on that same day the notice for the design review by the Planning Commission had arrived. A
somewhat tardy showing of plans to next door neighbors! _If the reference is for some prior time, it is patently
false.
Page 3; Conclusion; paragraph 2. designed and RE- designed carefully with extensive verbal inputs from
neighbors over two years..."
FACT: There were no verbal inputs possible as the plans were not revealed.
Page 3; Conclusion; paragraph 3. "Since our own concerns in terms of new houses in our nice area IS exactly the
same as our neighbors'
FACT: The Jayakumars concerns are in opposition to those of 15 families living on and/or owning property on
Burns /Marion. If Jayakumars concerns were exactly as those of their neighbors, there would be no controversy.
2.
Please refer to the letter signed by Indu Jayakumar and sent to Council Member Moran dated June 9, 1998. A
copy of this letter is in the packet for the June 17, 1998, City Council meeting. Since much of this letter is
identical to the letter sent to Mayor Wolfe, only new issues will be addressed.
Page 1; History of the Design; paragraph 4. "We discarded the original intention of immediately starting the
house design, soon after we moved in, and instead opted to absorb the local culture for about a year, meet with all
our neighbors
FACT: Jay Jayakumar told me that the reason he wanted to delay construction was to establish his girls in school
before he might have to move them to a different school. Furthermore, most of the Marion neighbors met the
Jayakumars for the first time AFTER the Planning Commission denial. The Jayakumars invited the neighbors to
their house on May 22, 1998, to show the house plans. When this meeting generated resistance, rather than the
support they had hoped for, they canvassed Marion Rd. for support and in the process met some additional
residents.
Page 1; History of the Design; paragraph 4. "We also moved our house forward on the lot, so as to increase the
view of the Saratoga foothills for our neighbors..."
FACT: This is a contradiction of what the Jayakumars wrote two days later. See letter to James Walgren dated
June 11, 1998, and signed by both Jayakumars, item (2) {This letter is also in your June 17, 1998, packet.}
"Move the entire house backwards (away from Burns Way) on our lot by say, 6 feet, in order to increase sunlight
and hill view for our immediate neighbors." What a contradiction! Which way increases the view? Forwards or
backwards?
Page 2; Personal Family Needs; paragraph 2. "...a 3400 sq ft house..."
FACT: It is a 4,043 square foot house. The application is NOT for a 3,400 square foot house.
Page 2; Public Hearing; paragraph 2. "...three of our neighbors. .made generalized remarks... how a NEW
house may not fit in"
FACT: To the contrary! At the public hearing statements were made that new construction on that lot would be
welcome. Mr. Irvine called the present structure unsafe and expressed his wish that it be replaced soon.
Page 3; Objections; First sentence. "...objections...from ill- informed neighbors..."
FACT: I don't consider myself ill informed just because I don't agree with the Jayakumars' plans. There should
be no room for name calling nor sarcasm in this process. It is not about personalities.
Page 3; Objections; paragraph 2(1). "There's a huge two -story stucco home right at the corner of Burns and
Marion."
FACT: There is no two story house at the corner of Burns and Marion. If the reference is to the house at 20615
Marion it should be noted that the area is about 2,600 square feet. It sits on a large parcel and has a setback that
minimizes the appearance of bulk. If this house is described as huge what adjective would be appropriate to
describe the Jayakumar's proposed house?
Page 1; History of the Design; paragraph 3. "We purchased the 1905 built
FACT: The house was built by Dan Burns in or about 1947.
Page 3; Objections; paragraph 2(1). "The first home on Burns is partly two -story too!"
FACT: This is a very old single story home that predates water service. It had a well and tank house. A previous
owner made a room out of the tank house and built an enclosed connection to the main house. My estimate is that
this two story room has an area of 144 square feet (12x12).
Page 3; Objections; paragraph 2(4). "This is NOT a predominantly one -story neighborhood."
FACT: Only 3 out of 27 houses are two story. One of these has an area of 780 square feet is located on a 1.1
acre parcel and is over 100 years old. 89% of the houses are one story.
The following are from the sheet entitled "Some Concerns It is in your June 17, 1998, packet.
Item ld. "There is a huge newer two -story home ...at the end of Marion -with whom we share fences with."
FACT: This is the Wilson property on Marion. A quick look at the site map shows that the Jayakumars do not
share property lines with any Marion Rd. properties. My lot lies squarely between Wilson and Jayakumar.
Item 2. "We felt that a one -story structure looked too massive on this lot The City Staff report says the same
too."
FACT: A careful reading of the staff report in the packet does not support this assertion.
The following are from a sheet entitled "SOME POINTS TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION" that was
distributed to those of us who attended the meeting at the Jayakumar house on May 22, 1998. The sheet is an
attachment to this letter.
Sq ft: "4043 sq ft really 3200 sq ft home; garage about 600 sq ft;
FACT: The Jayakumars' application is for 4,043. In the letter to Council Member Moran they want this to be
considered as 3,400 square feet. Now the number has dropped to 3,200 square feet.
FACT: On page 3 of the plans the area of the garage is listed as 459 square feet.
Height: "Max height 23 ft above grading..."
FACT: Staff report shows height as 25 feet. In the letter to James Walgren dated June 11, 1998, the Jayakumars
offer to "Lower the maximum height of roof from the current 25 feet above ground to 23 feet." Item (4).
Potholes: "Burns Way ...needs repairs..."
FACT: For the past 20 years, or so, the Burns Way residents have seen to annual road repair. In the summer of
1997 no annual repairs were done as we believed that construction trucks would soon tear up our road surface as
would extending the sewer line. We were kept in the dark concerning any plans for construction. Then El Nino hit.
We want to wait with our 1998 repairs until the Jayakumars have, or have been denied, the approval to start
immediate construction.
Balcony: "Backyard balcony overlooks only our own creek deck, far from neighbor's windows
FACT: The proposed balcony not only affords a direct line of vision into our bedroom windows but also
overlooks our back yard. Our privacy would be severely compromised.
This is a long document. If you have made it this far, you have my heartfelt thanks.
Sincerely,
('tos) so LyLt
f 44/ houlizAmm.am. 4-o Atuivi,444, a 0L198
SOME POINTS TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION
Sq ft: 4043 sq ft really 3200 sq ft home; garage about 600 sq ft; stairs living room
area counted twice, as per City rules, for area above 18 ft
Height: Max height 23 ft above grading, same as other 2 -st houses on Marion; garage
floor sunken.
View: Personally visited neighbor's bedroom, re- designed, pushed our second story to back,
to give them as much view of hills, minimized windows
Rooms: Rooms are the standard 4 BR, Lib, LR, FR, DR, 2 -car garage... no bonus room, no
spa, no 3 -car
1 story: We considered 1 -story seriously: max ht will still be 21 ft, as wider house, roof
angles different; bedrooms WILL have more windows on neighbor's side
Exterior: Matches neighbors: wood siding not stucco, brick facade, brownish -red roof;
white picket fence, arbor, statue, mini fountain
Potholes: Burns Way road surface can be cleaned up, needs repairs desperately, garbage -:r
struggling to pick up, Fire Dept concerned
Privacy: Current house with neighbor has absolutely NO privacy for both; bedrooms and
bathrooms directly face each other; HAVE to re- design with garage wall high windows
Current house: Practically unsafe, unsanitary, added to without permit, L- shaped rooms,
bedroom over septic tank, sloping floors, leaky sub floors in bathrooms kitchen, roof
Backyard: Hot -tub in design may or may not be built, •protected by hedges for privacy;
already has been moved closer to our house under City Arborist's requirement
Balcony: Backyard balcony overlooks only our own creek deck, far from neighbor's
windows; hot -tub balcony both circular in documents was confusing?
Neighborhood: Houses BEHIND us are all 2 -st and LARGER than our planned home
Construction: Sometimes houses are worth re- modeling, sometimes adding to, and sometimes
demolish re- building: many expert opinions recommended re- build; however, retaining
all trees, backyard deck, bridge and wooded acreage; no pool, no tennis court
Future: For future projects in this area, WE will fight against them too, if not done to
properly fit in: we believe in the same Saratoga style too
Finances: We have already spent some $25,000 on Architecture, Civil Engrg and City fees,
and have got absolutely nothing in return except the potential enmity of our
neighbors. We could have repaired the house or street with that kind of money... also,
we are spending our next 30 -yrs of income
Options: We may Appeal to City; we may look at our legal options; we are getting hounded
by local Realtors to sell to cash -rich "dream -house builders we may rent to tenants
who don't care about maintenance of this old house...
Stress: We have already gone through so many sleepless nights, and the construction
nightmare just begins with delays, rules, inspections mortgages; our lives will be
disrupted, we have to rent temporarily, our children's schooling will suffer, our
careers are on hold.
FINALLY, THE CITY'S DETAILED ANALYSIS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL
5
May 22, 1998
Paul Jacobs, Member, City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
1'<U iz voESt R
14151 8U1 25 WA
5A 1ZAZOA, CALI F. 95070
July 8, 1998
RE: Appeal of DR -98 -007; Jayakumar, 14265 Burns Way
Dear'Mr. Jacobs,
You are probably aware that the Jayakumar's application for a 4,043 square foot, two story house on Burns Way
has caused a great deal of controversy and divisiveness in our neighborhood. I would like to submit for your
consideration a compromise that might eliminate the overwhelming opposition among the neighbors, while at the
same time allowing the Jayakumars the opportunity to build their desired house.
Let them build their house on the western portion of their lot (see grading plan). There should be no opposition from
the new neighbors farther west. I quote from Indu Jayakumar's letter to Mrs. Moran dated June 9, 1998 (page 4,
item 1 e) "There are plenty of two -story homes that are quite large (largest being 6000 square feet) on Brookwood,
Springer and Paul who are all directly behind or adjacent to us." Furthermore, while I can't speak for the other
residents opposed to the present plan, I do believe their objections would be greatly diminished by relocating the
new house. Their opposition was mainly based on an additional two story house, its size and building it 20 feet
closer to the street than the existing house. Also as the adjacent northside neighbor my objections of loss of view,
light and privacy would no longer exist.
This relocation would require that a driveway be built to the western side of the property and that the small creek
that divides the property be diverted through a culvert. The creek already flows through a 36" culvert under Canyon
View, Elva and St. Nicholas Orthodox Church.. Downstream it flows through a rectangular culvert under
Brookwood that is the equivalent of a 36" diameter round culvert. Beyond Brookwood the creek empties into
Saratoga Creek. Actually, the creek is a drainage ditch. On my property water flows in it only during heavy rain
and sometimes for a few days afterward.
The compromise for the neighbors would be an unwanted, additional two story house; the second large one on
Burns /Marion. For the Jayakumars, there most certainly would be additional expense. However, if the additional
expense were to be amortized over a 40 year life the amount would not be great and the Jayakumars would be able
to build the house of their dreams.
I hope that after you have had ample opportunity to consider input from both sides of this issue you will suggest to
the Jayakumars at the time of your vote that they develop a single story plan or that they relocate their house to the
western portion of the property.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
KUkt
Saratoga Planning Commission
Concerning: A.P.N. 503 -22 -091
Request for Design Review of two -story, single family residence of 4,043sq.ft. in size and
25ft height.
Dear Planning Commission Members,
Taking a walk by the parcel site and observing adjoining homes, the proposed home would
not fit the area. More importantly a two story home would negatively impact both closest
neighbors. The size of the home to the lot appears that it would not fit other newer
construction in the area that has been previously approved.
A new home is very good for the property owners and surrounding community. Values
increase as pride of ownership is displayed along with modern conveniences, size and
landscaping. Critically important is the continuity of the new home to, not only fit the
existing area, but that it is sensitive to the immediate and surrounding neighbors.
In conclusion, I object to the construction of this home as proposed on this parcel. I am
sure, with revision, that an acceptable design will work for both the lot owner and the
neighbors.
Sincerely,
James and Mary Payne
20631 Marion Rd
Saratoga, CA 95014
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO:
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM:
MEETING DATE: July 15, 1998 CITY MANAGER:
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Community Development
PREPARED BY: John Cook, Assistant Planne
SUBJECT: Appeal of DR -97 -060; Neogy, 22665 Garrod Road
Appeal of Planning Commission denial of a Design Review application to construct
a new 6,489 square foot, two -story house, 26 feet in height, on a vacant 4.48 acre lot
in a Hillside Residential zoning district.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Background:
During its May 27 regular public hearing, the Planning Commission considered the
application of Rathin and Geraldine Neogy for Design Review approval to construct a
new 6,489 square foot, two -story residence at 26 feet in height. The application was
initially scheduled for hearing on April 22, but Commissioners requested it be continued
to May 13 on the basis that they found the installation of story poles and building site
stakes to be inadequate.
The applicants then requested a further continuance until May 27 to revise the plans. The
applicants submitted slightly different plans for each hearing. The version presented at
the first hearing on April 22 was 6,699 square feet. On their own initiative, the applicants
reduced the square footage to about 6,200 square feet, but then decided to request a
continuance from May 13 until May 27. The last version, which the Planning
Commission denied at the May 27 hearing, had been further revised for a total of 6,489
square feet. This late addition of square footage was not encouraged by staff.
After the applicants improved the configuration of staking and story poles but before the
May 27 hearing, the Planning Commission revisited the property and reviewed the
planning staff's analysis and recommendation.
As detailed in the enclosed staff report, the staff had recommended approval of the
application, albeit noting that the proposed structure's bulk and height was considerable,
but mitigated somewhat by the lot's relatively remote location.
At its hearing, the Planning Commission heard testimony from the applicants. As the
attached minutes from the hearing indicate, there was a discussion of whether the
applicants considered lowering the height of the structure or utilizing a basement to
maintain square footage while decreasing its above -grade size. Commissioners raised
concerns over the orientation of the house on the lot, the location of the swimming pool,
and size of the house relative to the building pad.
The applicants turned down the Commissioners' offer for a further continuance. The
motion to deny the application on the grounds of the incompatibility of the proposal's
size and bulk as well as the orientation of development on the property was approved 4 -0
with Commissioners Patrick and Martlage absent.
In an attached letter dated June 10, the Neogys appealed the denial to the City Council.
In their appeal application, the applicants appellants request an appeal of the denial on the
grounds that the height and bulk of the proposed structure are compatible with other
properties in the vicinity, the size and bulk of the structure do not unreasonably
compromise views and privacy, and that the orientation of the structure and swimming
pool are compatible with other nearby properties.
Issues:
Although the subject property is 4.48 acres, about four -fifths of it is in a scenic easement
and is further constrained from development by slopes greater than 30% and stands of
significant native trees, especially Coast Live Oaks. Staff estimates that the graded
building pad on the site is approximately 30,000 to 35,000 square feet in size. If this pad
were the entire site, the maximum allowable square footage would be between 5,100 and
5,500 square feet. While the allowable floor area based on the full lot size adjusted for
slope is 6,780 square feet, the relatively smaller size of the pad increases the perception of
the size and bulk of the proposed 6,489 square foot structure.
This is not to say that a structure of this square footage could not be built on this site. A
structure of comparable size could be designed so as to minimize the perception of the
structure's bulk and height, minimize interference with views and privacy, and be
arranged more compatibly with other developed properties in the vicinity.
0
The Planning Commission found that the design did not adequately respond to the
conditions and challenges of this particular site. A great deal of the structure's roofline
reaches up to the 26 foot limit prescribed by code; a lower roofline would not appear to
compromise the design and would simultaneously decrease the structure's impacts on
views from other places in the neighborhood. The amount of articulation proposed for
the structure's elevations seems minimal and does little to mitigate the perception of the
structure's massing. Design elements, such as columns, Palladian windows, and the use
of stucco facing only exacerbate the aforementioned problems with the perception of bulk
and height.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
None foreseeable.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
A hearing notice was mailed to surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the
subject property and was published in the Saratoga News on June 17, 1998, as the project
was initially scheduled to be heard on July 1.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
If the City Council reverses the Planning Commission's decision and approves the
appeal, the Council will need to prepare a Resolution granting Design Review approval.
FOLLOW UP ACTIONS:
The City Attorney shall prepare a Resolution for the next available meeting
memorializing the decisions of the City Council on this matter.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Denial Resolution DR -97 -060
2. Planning Commission Minutes dated April 22, May 13, and May 27, 1998
3. Staff Report dated April 22, 1998, and a memorandum to the Planning Commission
dated May 27.
4. Appeal Correspondence
5. Exhibit "A Plans
RESOLUTION NO. DR -97 -060
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DENIAL OF DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION by NEOGY
22665 Garrod Road
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an
application for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,489 square foot two story
residence with a maximum height of 26 feet on a 4.48 acre parcel; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing
at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present
evidence; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to
support said application, and the following finding has been determined:
1. The structure's size and bulkiness are found to be incompatible with the site as well as
with other residential structures in the vicinity.
2. The structure's size and bulkiness are further found to be unreasonably obtrusive to off
site views.
3. The placement and orientation of the main structure and the proposed swimming pool
are found to be incompatible with the site as well as with other developed properties 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 Neogy for Design Review approval be and the same is hereby denied.
Section 2. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of
the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the
date of adoption.
File No. DR -97 -060, 22o65 Garrod Road
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission,
State of California, this 27 day of May 1998 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bernald, Kaplan, Murakami, and Chair Pierce
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Martlage, Patrick
ATTEST:
Planning Commission Minutes Page 7
April 22, 1998
Commissioner Murakami said the design was well balanced but that not enough changes were made in response to
the Commission's requests. He felt this design does not fit in and cannot support the project.
Chair Patrick concurred and appreciated the balance in the design. She felt the lot is big enough to expand and that a
second story addition is not needed.
The public hearing was reopened and the item was continued at the applicant's request to 5/27/98 for
resubmittal of a single story design.
10. DR -97 -060 (APN 503 -78 -038) NEOGY, 22665 Garrod Road; Request for Design Review approval to
construct a new 6,699 sq. ft., two -story home on a vacant 4.48 acre lot in the Hillside Residential zoning
district.
Walgren presented the staff report.
The public hearing was opened at 10:10 p.m.
Rathin Neogy, resident, said the lot is private and doesn't interfere with others, stating he had worked with staff to
preserve existing trees and maintain required setbacks.
The public hearing was closed at 10:15 p.m.
Commissioner Murakami noted that during the Commission's site visit, the height poles were down and there was
no visual picture of the size of the house.
Commissioner Pierce felt the applicant should spray paint the corners of the project to show the size of the home.
Chair Patrick confirmed that the driveway will be made of a pervious material. She noted that there were four gas
fireplaces with gas starters, and that they would be gas- burning only, not wood. She would prefer to have no
wood burning fireplaces, or possibly only one.
Commissioner Bernald liked the house but felt it was very large.
Chair Patrick said the Commission would need to see proper markings to determine size before they go further.
The public hearing was reopened and the item was continued at the applicant's request to 5/13/98 to better
demarcate the building footprint and to revisit the site.
11. SD -98 -003 (APN 393 -40 -020) BOISSERANC, 13650 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road; Request for
Subdivision approval to subdivide a 1.67 net acre parcel of land into four single family lots. The residence
existing at the property would be relocated to one of the new lots. A new cul -de -sac would be extended from
Franklin Avenue and the lots would be accessed from that street. The proposed lots range in size from 12,500
sq. ft. to 20,000 sq. ft. The property is located in an R -1- 12,500 zoning district.
Walgren presented the staff report.
The public hearing was opened at 10:28 p.m.
DATE: Wednesday, May 13, 1998 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Roll Call Present: Chair Pierce, Commissioners Martlage, Murakami, Patrick
Absent: Commissioners Bernald, Kaplan
Staff: Walgren, Ratcliffe
Pledge of Allegiance
Minutes April 22, 1998
At the request of Chair Pierce, consideration of the minutes of the previous meeting was postponed until the May
27, 1998 public hearing.
Oral Communications
None.
Report of Posting Agenda
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on May 8, 1998.
Technical Corrections to Packet
Regarding Public Hearing item No. 5 (Cellular One), condition #6 was stricken from the approval Resolution.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. DR -97 -060 (APN 503 -78 -038) NEOGY, 22665 Garrod Road; Request for Design Review approval
to construct a new 6,699 sq. ft., two -story home on a vacant 4.48 acre lot in the Hillside Residential
zoning district.
PATRICK/MARTLAGE MOVED TO CONTINUE DR -97 -060 AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, TO 5/27/98;
MOTION PASSED 4/0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
2. DR -97 -028 (503 -16 -090) BLACKWELL BROTHERS, 18850 Bella Vina Court; Request for Design
Review approval to construct a new 5,219 sq. ft. two -story home on a vacant lot. The site is
approximately 75,000 sq. ft. gross, 34,438 sq. ft. net (accounting for the Santa Clara Valley Water
District easement). It is accessed by a bridge across Calabazas Creek from Bella Vina Court and is
located within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. This application was previously heard at the Planning
Commission meeting of January 28, 1998, and the study session of February 11, 1998. The parcel is Lot
3 of the recently approved Blackwell 6 Lot Subdivision.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2
May 27, 1998
2. Item 5 (Fitzsimmons): (a) The signature page was not included with the Resolution. (b) Subsection 15 of the
Initial Study should show a net increase of 4 new homes, rather than the 12 homes stated.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. DR -98 -001 (APN 386 -06 -040) CHEN, 12491 Woodside Drive; Request for Design Review approval to
construct a second story addition of 946 sq. ft. to an existing 2,397 sq. ft. house on an 11,900 sq. ft. lot in the R -1-
10,000 zoning district. Proposal will change building height from 14 feet, 6 inches to 21 feet, 6 inches.
(CONTINUED FROM 4/22/98 APPLICANTS REQUEST FURTHER CONTINUANCE TO 6/10/98 TO
COMPLETE PLAN REVISIONS)
2. DR -97 -067 (APN 386 -53 -006) LUI, 20380 Seagull Way; Request for Design Review approval to construct
a first story addition totaling 1,807 sq. ft. to an existing 1,840 sq. ft. house on a 12,291 sq. ft. lot in the R -1-
10,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 4/22/98)
KAPLAN/BERNALD MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR; MOTION PASSED 4/0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. DR -97 -060 (APN 503 -78 -038) NEOGY, 22665 Garrod Road; Request for Design Review approval to
construct a new 6,489 sq. ft., two story home on a vacant 4.48 acre lot in the Hillside Residential zoning
district. (CONTINUED FROM 4/22/98)
Walgren presented the staff memorandum.
The public hearing was opened at 7:40 p.m.
The applicant was present and responded to questions raised by the Commissioners.
Kaplan asked if the applicant had considered lowering the profile of the house and using a basement. The
applicant responded that the size of the lot makes this difficult.
Kaplan asked Walgren what would be involved to lower the house, and how visible it would be.
Walgren responded that the house would have to be a one -story with a basement, or a stepped two -story, and that
the property is screened by Coast Live Oak and other trees.
The public hearing was closed at 7:45 p.m.
Kaplan was not happy with the project; she did not like the pool being located in the front of the property; she also
felt the house is too big and would like to see it re- designed.
Murakami was not comfortable with the way the house sits, feeling the appearance is bulky, and that the
modifications did not improve the design. He wondered if a work session might be considered and was not ready
to approve.
Bernald concurred with Kaplan and Murakami, feeling the location of the pool was not suitable and that the house
was not compatible with the lot and the neighborhood.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3
May 27, 1998
Pierce was concerned with the size of the house, stating that while the lot was large, the building pad was small.
The size reduction of 200 square feet on a 6,600 square foot house was not enough of a reduction to make a
difference in the bulk of the house.
The applicant was given the option to have the Commission vote or to continue the project.
KAPLAN/MURAKAMI MOVED TO DENY DR -97 -060; MOTION PASSED 4/0.
4. SM -98 -001 (APN 517 -23 -020) BIRENBAUM, 20052 Sunset Drive; Request for Site Modification approval
to construct a new rear yard pool with associated spa, arbor and decking on a 2.96 acre parcel located in a
Hillside Residential zoning district. The property is currently developed with a 5,111 sq. ft. two -story
residence.
Walgren presented the staff report.
Kaplan clarified that the 4,000 square foot fenced area excluded the pool.
The public hearing was opened at 7:50 p.m.
Jeff Werner, applicant's designer, said that, after a long discussion, the pool had been proposed on the flattest portion
of yard.
The public hearing was closed at 7:57 p.m.
Bernald was able to support the application, given the dense vegetation.
Murakami had no objection.
Kaplan concurred; she had been concerned about the slope but after the geotechnical report and inspections, she felt
these concerns had been addressed.
Pierce felt the isolated location chosen for the pool was a good one.
BERNALD/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE SM -98 -001; MOTION PASSED 4/0.
5. SD -98 -001 (APN 389 -34 -003) FITZSIMMONS/YAMAOKA DEVELOPMENT, 1 Saratoga
Avenue; Request for Tentative Subdivision Map Approval to divide one 3.24 acre parcel into five single
family residential lots. The lots would range in size from 20,012 sq. ft. to 24,051 sq. ft., permitting home sizes
of 4,518 to 4,830 sq. ft. (including garages).
An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been previously noticed pursuant to the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Walgren presented the staff report.
Kaplan was concerned about trees #13, 14, 15 and 16. Bernald asked Walgren if some of the trees could be
moved. Walgren responded that they could be transplanted.
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Applicant No./Location: DR -97 -060, 22665 Garrod Road
Applicant /Owner: NEOGY
Staff Planner: John Cook, Assistant Planner
Date: April 22, 1998
503 -78 -038
APN:
Division Head:
ITEM 10
File No. DR -97 -060, 22665 Garrod Road
CASE HISTORY
Page 1
Application filed: 11/11/97
Application complete: 03/31/98
Notice published: 04/08/98
Mailing completed: 04/09/98
Posting completed: 04/02/98
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. Staff Analysis
2. Resolution DR -97 -060
3. Aborist's Report, dated December 17, 1997
4. Plans, Exhibit "A"
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,699 square foot residence, 26 feet in
height, on a vacant 4.48 acre parcel in the Hillside Residential District.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Design Review application by adopting Resolution DR -97 -060.
ATTACHMENTS
File No. DR -97 -060, 22665 Garrod Road
Zoning:
General Plan Designation:
Measure G:
Parcel Size:
Average Site Slope:
Grading Required:
Materials and Colors Proposed:
STAFF ANALYSIS
Hillside Residential
Hillside Conservation Single Family
Not applicable
195,148 square feet (4.48 acres)
Nearly level building site; average slope exceeds 30%
None proposed (with the exception of pool excavation)
Roofing: Concrete tiles in "Bark Brown stucco siding in dark tan (KM 114 -2); trim in off
white (KM OW15) all per submitted material boards.
Height /Coverage /Setback Requirements:
Proposal Code Requirement/
Allowance
6.2%(11,119 sq. ft.) 15,000 sq. ft.
26 ft. 26 ft.
Lot Coverage:
Height:
Size of Structure:
Setbacks:
1st floor: 3,972 sq. ft.
2nd floor: 2,727 sq. ft.
Total: 6,699 sq. ft.
Front: 159 ft.
West Side: 20 ft.
East Side: 138 ft.
Rear: 382 ft.
6,780 sq. ft. after 60% site area
reduction for slope
30 ft.
20 ft.
20 ft.
50 ft.l
Although the lot is vacant, standard setbacks apply because the proposal is located on an approved padded building
site.
Page 2
File No. DR -97 -060, 22665 Garrod Road
PROJECT DISCUSSION
The applicants request Design Review approval to construct anew 6,699 square foot residence, 26
feet in height, on a vacant 4.48 acre parcel in the Hillside Residential District.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The subject lot is located at the end of the cul -de -sac of Garrod Road (which has also been known
as both Edencrest Lane and Nina Road). There is a level, graded building site adjacent to the street
frontage, but the rest of the property is characterized by steep, heavily wooded slopes, most of
which are within a protected open space easement. The site has commanding valley views to the
south and southeast and looks northwards at Garrod's vineyards.
DESIGN REVIEW ANALYSIS
The proposed 6,699 square foot residence is in a contemporary villa style. Staff consulted
extensively with the applicants and their architect as staff felt it could not support earlier iterations
of the proposed design. Staff has been concerned with the proposal's perceived bulk and height, its
location on the building site, its exterior materials and colors, and numerous design elements.
Staff has determined that the necessary Design Review findings can be made to support the
modified proposal now before the Commission. In general, staff finds that the relative remoteness
of this lot and its large front yard setback are germane mitigating factors in evaluating the
perception of the structure's bulk and its potential impact on views and privacy.
The proposed structure would have potentially significant view and privacy impacts on only one
other residence, that to the west on Garrod Road. View and privacy impacts are mitigated by the
proposed structure's adherence to minimum side yard setbacks for the first story and an increased
second story setback on the west side (although there is no requirement for such in the HR district).
Further, the proposed house is sufficiently set back on the building pad such that the impact on the
adjacent residence's easterly views will be minimized. Staff finds that any other location on the
building pad would have greater impacts on views and privacy.
Since the applicants are requesting no additional grading beyond swimming pool excavation, there
will be no alteration of the surrounding landscape with the notable exception of hand excavation as
required by the City Arborist as a means to preserve trees whose trunks were negatively impacted
by the grading that created this building site.
Staff found that earlier designs of this house did not adequately minimize the perception of the
structure's bulk. Both front and rear elevations contained large areas of unbroken shear wall;
numerous columns, stone, and tile quoins also exaggerated the structure's size. The applicant has
Page 3
File No. DR -97 -060, 22665 Garrod Road
taken many of staffs recommendations and made significant, positive changes. The proposal
before the Commission today has reasonably well articulated elevations; only a few vertically
exaggerating elements remain. Were this structure in a more intensely developed neighborhood,
staff would recommend more significant mitigation of bulk, but given the very large parcel size and
great distances from most current and potential home sites, staff finds that the current proposal
meets the intent of the Design Review ordinance.
The proposal will have reasonably compatible bulk and height with neighboring structures. This
area of the city has both very large lots and some of the largest residences in the city. The adjacent
residence is 26 feet tall and 5,504 square feet in size; other new homes in the area are 5,000 square
feet and larger.
Staff feels that this proposal reasonably meets all of the Design Review findings of Section 15-
45.080 of the City Code as well as conforms to the design policies and techniques of the
Residential Design Handbook.
GRADING
The applicants are not requesting any grading; staff finds that the pre graded building site is more
than adequate and that additional grading would need significant justification. The applicants are
proposing that a pool be built behind the house. A previous iteration of the plan showed the pool
being cut into the downward slope, but the applicants have moved it such that it is entirely on the
building pad. Therefore, beyond the pool's excavation, there will be no need for grading on this
site.
GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW
The subject property has undergone geotechnical field testing by the applicants' geologist. These
tests have been reviewed and analyzed by the City's Geotechnical Consultant, who has concluded
that the property can be safely developed. Appropriate recommendations from the geotechnical
consultant have been incorporated into the attached Design Review resolution.
TREES
Although the entire site contains scores of significant trees, the City Arborist has identified 13 trees
near the proposed structure and/or on the building pad that will be potentially affected by its
construction. Among these are some identified as exceptional specimens of Coast Live Oak.
The City Arborist recommended that the house be relocated so as to be at least 18 feet from the
trunk of one of these trees (tree 4). The plans show, however, that the proposed construction
remains about 10 feet from this tree's trunk. As his attached report indicates, the City Arborist
Page 4
File No. DR -97 -060, 22665 Garrod Road
suggested that in such a case 50% of the value of the tree be forfeited. Staff concurs with this
recommendation and therefore will require the applicants to plant one 36" box and one 48" box
native trees elsewhere on the site as conditions of approval.
In addition, the arborist recommends bonds of $19,675 to ensure the protection during construction
of the other ordinance -size trees near the building site. All other tree protective measures have been
included as conditions of approval in the attached Design Review resolution.
LANDSCAPE PLAN
The applicants' submitted plan is on page A9 of Exhibit "A Installation of this landscaping prior
to Final Occupancy Inspection shall be included in the Resolution as a condition of approval.
CORRESPONDENCE
None received
CONCLUSION
The proposed residence is designed to reasonably conform to each of the policies set forth in the
City's Residential Design Handbook and to reasonably satisfy all of the findings required within
Section 15- 45.080 of the City Code. The project further satisfies all other zoning requirements in
terms of allowable floor area, minimum setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the application by adopting Resolution DR -97 -060.
Page 5
BARRIE D. C TE
and ASSOCIATES
Horticultural Consultants
408 353 -1052
Fax 408 354 -3767
23535 Summit Road, Los Gatos, CA 95030
AN ASSESSMENT OF TREES
AT 22665 GARROD ROAD
SARATOGA
Prepared at the Request of:
Carol Deming
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95074
Site Visit.by:
Michael L" Bench
December 1/, 1997
Job 11 -97 -3.76
4
BARRIE D. C TE
and ASSOCIATES
Horticultural Consultants
408 353 -1052
Fax 408 354 -3767
23535 Summit Road, Los Gatos, CA 95030
AN ASSESSMENT OF TREES
AT 22665 GARROD ROAD
SARATOGA
Assignment
At the request of Carol Deming, Assistant Planner, City of Saratoga, this report reviews
the proposal to construct a new home on a vacant lot in the context of potential damage to
adjacent trees. This report further provides information about the health and structure of
the trees on site, and makes recommendations by which damage to them can be
minimized.
The plan reviewed for this report is the site plan prepared by Kirkeby Engineering, San
Jose, sheet Al-A7, dated July 1997.
Summary
Of the many trees on site, it appears that only the 13 trees near construction would be
affected.
Removal of one tree is suggested due to poor condition.
Removal of another tree is suggested if any activity would occur under its canopy.
Mitigation suggestions are provided for protection of retained trees.
Trees #4, 6, and 12 are exceptionally fine specimens which should be preserved and
carefully protected. Their value is $25,020. A 50% bond is recommended which is
$12,510.
Other retained trees are valued at $39,995. A 25% bond of $9,989 for protection is
recommended. These bonds total $22,499.
It should be made clear to the developer that these bonds are not directly for the purpose
of ensuring the trees lack of damage since damage symptoms may not appear for several
Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Arborist December 17, 1997
AN ASSESSMENT OF TREES
AT 22665 GARROD ROAD
SARATOGA
years, but to ensure compliance with tree protection requirements including timely
installation and maintenance of fences and avoidance of equipment activity beneath
canopies.
Observations
There are numerous trees on this site, but it appears that only 13 would be affected by
construction. Additional trees may have to be added to this list at a later time if changes
are made to plans. The attached map shows the location of these trees and their canopy
dimensions. Each tree has been tagged with a metalic label indicating its assigned
number, which is referred throughout this report. The data sheets following this text
provides a health and structure rating for each tree.
The 13 trees are classified as follows:
12- coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia)
1 California bay (Umbellularia californica)
Both of this species are native to this area.
2
The site is located at the end of a ridge that has been previously graded to be relatively
level. The site overlooks canyons toward the north, toward the east, and toward the south.
The access is across the corner of the adjacent property from the west from Garrod Road.
During the grading of the ridge, much of the soil appears to have been pushed over the
edge of banks. The root collars of the majority of the trees near the top of the ridge have
been covered by fill soil. The trees on the north slope have been affected more severely
than those trees on the south facing slope. Trees on the south facing slope have their root
collars covered by 8 to 12 inches. The trees on the north facing slope have their root
collars covered by 3 to 4 feet of soil. This condition makes these native specimens highly
susceptible to several types of fungus diseases that frequently kill them.
Trees #1, 2, and 4 have fill soil covering their root collars by an estimated 2 to 4 feet in
depth.
Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Arborist December 17, 1997
AN ASSESSMENT OF TREES
AT 22665 GARROD ROAD
SARATOGA
Trees #7, 8, and 13 have been covered by 8 to 12 inches of fill. All of these trees are at
high risk of fungus infection.
Trees #4, 11, and 13 have suffered bark injuries that are suspected to have occurred
during grading of the ridge.
Tree #1 is a multi -stem California bay that has fair health and poor structure. If this tree
were to survive construction, its structure will become more hazardous in time.
Tree #2 is a 23 inch diameter coast live oak in excellent health but has only fair structure.
The proposed roadway would require grading within about 7 feet of the trunk on the
south side. If this tree is to be retained, grading must be limited to 12 feet from the trunk
in order to retain sufficient roots for survival.
Tree #3 is a multi coast live oak in only fair health and has very poor structure. This trees
canopy is entirely composed of watersprout growth from a stump that has mostly rotted
away. The center of the three trunks is located down slope about 10 feet. The three
leaders are very hazardous. If any activity would be expected under the canopy, this tree
must be removed. If no activity is expected, or if neither of the south or west facing
leaders would damage tree #4 when they fall, then tree #3 could be retained.
Tree #4 a large multi stem coast live oak is in good health and ahs excellent structure.
This specimen is one of two best trees at this site. However, the root collar is covered by
3 -4 feet of soil. The structure is proposed about 6 feet from the trunk. If this tree is to be
retained, a minimum radius of 18 linear feet from the trunk must be preserved on the side
facing the structure.
Tree #5 is a dual leader coast live oak in good health but has only fair structure. The root
collar is covered by soil that has moved down slope.
Tree #6 is a small dual leader coast live oak in excellent health and has good structure.
The root collar is covered and if additional fill soil from construction excavation is
allowed to move down this slope, the risk of fungus infection could be greatly increased.
Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Arborist December 17, 1997
3
AN ASSESSMENT OF TREES
AT 22665 GARROD ROAD
SARATOGA
Tree #7 is a 38 inch diameter coast live oak in good health and has excellent structure.
This is the largest and best specimen on site near construction. The root collar is presently
covered by fill soil on the up hill side.
Tree #8 is a large dual leader coast live oak that has excellent health but only fair
structure. The root collar is covered b fill soil on the uphill side.
Trees #9, 10, and 11 are coast live oaks that have only fair health and structure.
Tree #11 has a large bark injury that is suspected to have occurred during original
grading.
Tree #12 is a 32 inch diameter coast live oak in excellent health but has only fair
structure. It is obvious that grading equipment has been used on the west side of tree #12
and on the south and west sides of trees #9 and #11. This appears to have been done
during the original grading. Fill soil and compaction have damaged not only these trees
but also several of the coast live oak trees on the adjacent property to the west. All of the
affected trees on both properties are expected to have a significantly shortened life span
unless these conditions are corrected by handwork.
Tree #13 is a dual leader coast live oak that has only fair health and fair structure. The
north facing leader has multiple bark injuries suspected to have occurred during original
grading of the pad. Due to the size, quantity, and locations of these bark injuries, the
health and structure is expected to continue to decline. One of the leaders is practically
girdled by these bark injuries just above the root collar. As a result, the open wounds are
highly vulnerable to disease and insect infestation. Presently the overall condition is not
severe enough to recommend removal but there is a little hope for recovery.
Recommendations
1. I suggest that tree #1 be removed regardless of construction.
2. I suggest that tree #3 be removed if any activity would be expected under its
canopy.
3. I suggest that the root collars of trees #1 -8 and 13 be excavated by hand by a
professional experienced with this procedure ISA (International Society of
4
Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Arborist December 17, 1997
AN ASSESSMENT OF TREES
AT 22665 GARROD ROAD
SARATOGA
5
Aboriculture) such as an arborist or a qualified landscape contractor. The
finished root collar clearing must leave all 5 -6 buttress roots visible to 12"
away from the trunk. It will be essential to prevent soil slippage after
excavations. For this purpose, I suggest the installation of dry layed cobble
stones without a footing on the new cut slope up hill from those tree trunks in
which an 18 inch depth of soil or more must be retained.
4. I recommend that grading including scraping and leveling within 12 linear
feet of tree #2 be done by hand tools and a wheelbarrow and that any portion
of the new driveway within this 12 foot limitation be constructed of pervious
materials (see enclosures). Base rock containing granite fines is not
sufficiently pervious and must not be used as a base material.
5. Tree #4 will not tolerate construction as show on the enclosed plan without
major loss of roots. Either the building must be redesigned or a significant
proportion of this tree's value should be forfeit (as 50% of its $11,295 value). I
suggest that any portion of the structure beneath any part of the canopy of tree
#4 be constructed of a pier and on -grade beam design.
6. It will be essential that no more than one -third of the canopy of tree #4 be
removed to allow for construction of the new residence. That pruning must be
distributed evenly over the canopy. Excessive pruning must be cause for
forfeiture of a portion of the tree's value.
7. If tree #13 is to be retained, it will be essential that any portion of the new
foundation within 15 feet of the root collar be constructed of pier and on-
grade beam design. However, I do not believe that the tree's poor condition
would justify the expense.
8. It will be essential that all retained trees be protected from damage by the
installation of temporary protective fencing. I suggest a chainlink fence that is
a minimum height of five feet, mounted on steel posts driven 2 feet into the
ground. Fencing must be installed prior to the arrival of materials or
equipment and remain in place until construction is completed.
Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Arborist December 17, 1997
AN ASSESSMENT OF TREES
AT 22665 GARROD ROAD
SARATOGA
9. It will be essential that the soil resulting from foundation excavation be
prevented from moving down slope by installation of a silt fence at the top of
the bank.
10. It will be essential that the discharge from the drainage system be either
directed away from the trunk of any tree down slope or be a minimum of 100
feet from the trunk of any tree located down slope.
11. It is essential that no trenching or excavation occur within 10 times the trunk's
diameter of retained trees.
Value Assessment
We recommend removal of trees 1 and 3.
The value of tree #1 is $279, which is roughly equivalent to two 15- gallon native trees.
If tree #3 is removed, its value is $2,364, which is equivalent to one 36 -inch boxed,
2 to 24 -inch boxed, one 15- gallon, and two 5- gallon native trees.
It tree #13 is not retained, its value is $1,823, which is roughly equivalent to one 36 inch
boxed, one 24 -inch boxed, and one 15- gallon native trees.
Native trees which qualify are:
Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia)
Valley Oak (Quercus lobata)
Interior Live Oak (Quercus wislizenii)
Black Oak (Quercus kelloggii)
Only on north or east facing slopes:
Canyon Live Oak (Quercus chrysolepis)
Only on north or east- facing slopes:
California Buckeye (Aesculus californica)
Big Leaf Maple (Acer macrophyllum)
Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens)
Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Arborist December 17, 1997
6
AN ASSESSMENT OF TREES
AT 22665 GARROD ROAD
SARATOGA
The total value of the three exceptional trees (#4, 6,and 12) is $25,020. A 50 bond of
$12,510 is suggested to assure their protection.
The value of the balance #2, 5, 7 -11 is $39,955. A 25% bond is $0,989.
The values of the trees at this site were accessed according to ISA standards, 7 edition.
MLB/la
Enclosures: Evaluation Charts
Map
Respectfully submitted,
Michael L. Bench, Associate
s cm4
Barrie D. Coate, Principal
7
Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Arborist December 17, 1997
BARRIE D. COATE
AND ASSOCIATES
Los Gatos, CA 95030
0 23535 Summit Road
(408) 353 -1052
HorticulturalConsultanu
Consulting Arbonsts
Evaluation of Trees
22665 Gar -od Road
Neogy Property
Prepared for:
City of Saratoga
Job 111 -97 -376
Date:12 -17 -97
Scale
F. r,tt.,
Pew- P E .A P5.p•
E
6.
OARROD ROAD
Rb°d
(bo 1•L
aft s7—nee
-s
.01
4
r.4.
74
Protective Fence;
VC
Gale
6
0
Tree numbers correspond to evaluation charts.
A11 dimensions and tree locations are approximate.
iS
a:' or
'ouk
aa.
5
o �l:::14-7-q,:i
Seu s!
1 r /i d e \u I I ^4 9 1 1 1
I I I 0 l 11. .i.-.y4 n b
s f 1
East Dirt Access Road l
vii t M "t
01.'„' ,age I ti
1j41/ 1/ 1
i r
4 '40'04 4.- ,..?5 2 4
r✓ tt oo �n ..t
a7i b! o� .1
Protective Fence
-),,en .7uoce
%3' h �s .a
oct
vauw (Do ucoo
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 868 1200
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: John Cook, Assistant Planner,
DATE: May 27, 1998
SUBJECT: DR -97 -060; NEOGY, 22665 Garrod Road
Request for approval of revised plans
Lot coverage has been reduced from 11,119 square feet to 10,579 square feet.
ITEM 3
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Stan Boaosian
Pau' P. Ja000s
Gillian Mora.;
JIM Snaw
Donald L. Wolfe
DESCRIPTION: The subject application was heard by the Planning Commission on April 22,
1998. At that meeting, the Planning Commission continued the matter because the site had not
been adequately staked nor were the story poles sufficiently indicative of the height of the proposed
structure. The project was then continued to the May 13 meeting, but the applicants requested a
continuance until May 27 to complete plan revisions.
DISCUSSION: The applicants have significantly modified their proposal since its first hearing.
The following changes have been made to the plans:
The floor area of the house has been reduced from 6,699 square feet to 6,489 square feet
(6,780 square feet allowable). Much of this reduction was achieved through the
elimination of space on the eastern elevation such that the house is now set back 18 feet
from tree #4. The arborist had recommended that 50% of the tree's value be forfeited if
the structure were any closer than 18 feet; this provision has been struck from the
Resolution.
The reduction described above resulted in some reconfiguration. Specifically, the
western end of the family room (at the front elevation) now has a gabled instead of a
hipped roof; it also now has large clerestory windows in addition to its conventional
windows.
The swimming pool has been moved from behind the house to between the cul -de -sac
and the street (it is set back approximately 120 feet from the front property line).
The three car garage was relocated from the eastern to the western side of the structure.
This reduces the amount of intensely used residential space on the western side of the
residence, reducing privacy conflicts with the adjacent structure.
Memo to the Planning Commission
May 27, 1998
RECOMMENDATION: The revised plans meet all relevant City Code requirements and staff
has determined that the findings can be made to support the application. Staff therefore
recommends approval of the application by adoption of Resolution DR -97 -063.
Attachments:
The front entryway has an increased Palladian fanlight over the door. The small hip
flanking the entryway has been removed.
The decorative quoins have been removed from the second story elevations.
The plans call for the driveway to be of pervious paving material.
First story fenestration on the eastern elevation has been increased.
1. Revised Resolution DR -97 -060
2. Minutes from Planning Commission meeting of April 22, 1998
3. Exhibit A Originally submitted plans
4. Exhibit B Revised plans
The City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
Subject Proposed Neogy Residence (DR -97 -060)
Ladies and Gentlemen:
June 18, 1998
I am a resident of Saratoga since 1977. I own three properties in Saratoga one on Surrey Lane, one on
Oak Street and one on Pike Road. My business, Floreat, Inc. has been operating in downtown Saratoga since
1970. My roots in Saratoga run deep.
I have known Rathin and Geraldine for more than 15 years. Their daughter and my son graduated from
Saratoga High this month. Rathin also has his business in Saratoga and is the President of Astrec, Inc.
I was very surprised' a few weeks ago when the Council turned down his petition to build his new
residence. I was watching the proceedings on TV and could not understand any of the objections. I have
been to Rathin's site and viewed his elevation designs and the proposed location of the house. I think that the
location is very private and consistent with the Garrod Road neighborhood. It does NOT obstruct off -site
views. The proposed house is only 5800 square feet (excluding the garage) and is significantly smaller than
most of the new houses that have come up recently. On the way to my Surrey Lane house, two new houses
have come up on Pike Road on what used to be part of the Kennedy vineyards. Both houses are monstrous
and bulky, are in plain view of the considerable traffic on Pierce Road, and in my opinion are too big in
relation to their relatively small lot sizes. In comparison, the Neogy residence is at the end of a cul de sac and
is quite small relative to the 4.5 -acre parcel.
I strongly urge the City Council to approve the plans, so that Rathin and Geraldine can start building
their house before the next winter rains.
Sincerely,
2 L Ge/LS3k .6 kr?„_:.
Dr. Sidhartha Maitra
President
Floreat, Inc. 14375 Saratoga Avenue Suite H Saratoga California 95070
(408) 867 -0202 FAX (408) 867 -8168
GOL,DWCL L
BANI(CR 0
CORNISH CAREY
RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE
June 18, 1998
City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruit vale Avenue
Saratoga Calif 95070
Honorable Mayor and members of the City Council
12175 SARATOGA/SUNNYVALE ROAD
SARATOGA CA, 95070
(408) 996 -7100 BUS
(408) 996 -1717 FAX
This letter is being written in reference to the Neogy Residence APN 503 -78-
030/031 in the hope that his appeal for reconsideration will be given favorable review
by you the members of the council.
My background is that I have been a real estate broker for the past 21 years and my
area of concentration has been Saratoga. I am employed by Coldwell Banker-
formerly Cornish and Carey and reside on Blauer Drive in Saratoga. I was the agent
who assisted Mr. Neogy with the purchase of this lot. I have reviewed the plans for his
home and have also gone to the site and looked at the two homes presently in
construction on the neighboring lots. Yes, they are all bulky but Mr. Neogy's seems
very much in keeping with the other two. Having sold homes on Villa Oaks area I
went to the bottom of the hill to see if it would be obtrusive from below and to the best
of my eyes it did not appear to be visible. My only word of advise to Mr. Neogy is that
the pool location would be better in another area. It would please me if you would
give his proposal reconsideration.
Sincerely yours,
Dee Dawn, Associate Broker
Coldwell Banker
SARATOGA OAK CREEK
May 27, 1998
The City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Subject: Appeal to denial of DR -97 -060; Neogy, 22665 Garrod Road
Request for approval of revised plans
Copy: /The Mayor of Saratoga; the Planning Department
Dear Sir/ Madam,
I would like to formally appeal the subject denial ruling made on
May 27, 1998. The original hearing occurred on April 22, 1998. At that meeting, the
Planning Commission continued the matter because the site had not been adequately
staked nor were the story poles sufficiently indicative of the height of the proposed
structure.
We significantly modified the proposal to take into account the comments made by the
Planning Commission. Our revised plans meet all relevant City Code requirements as
determined by the Planning Department of the City of Saratoga (see attachment). The
Planning Department recommended approval of the application by adoption of
Resolution DR -97 -063.
I do not understand why the Planning Commission refused to approve the application.
Various comments were made by individuals of the Commission which were
subjective in nature. I would like to discuss these individually.
One comment was that the house was too massive. The size of 6,489 square
feet is less than the allowable 6,780 square feet. This is a very private parcel of
only four lots on a flat ridge. Two other homes are nearing completion and both
of the owners; John Stringer of Lot #1 and David Anderson of Lot #3 were
pleased with our detailed elevation drawings and site plan. The third owner Mr.
Wu is a developer and has not yet decided on plans for his spec. home on Lot
#2.
The other comment by one of the Commisioners was that they did not like the
swimming pool in the front of the house. As Lot #4 is the last on the cul -de -sac,
the pool would not be visible from the road. Furthermore appropriate
landscaping would make this extremely private. Our Geotechnical Engineer, Mr.
Burt Hardin, had recommended not to build the pool on the slope in front of the
house primarily for geotechnical reasons.
Another Commissioner commented that they would have liked to see the house
on two levels, making use of the slope below. Again this was not considered
because of the recommendations made by our Geotechnical Engineer.
At the beginning of the Hearing Commissioner Pierce asked me where I lived and if I
had any comments to make. I stated I lived in Saratoga.
Having met all the City Code requirements, I am at a complete loss as to why my
revised plans were not approved. I would especially request the Appeal Board to
playback the Hearing of April 22nd in which most of the objections that were made
today, were not expressed then and also to note the significant revisions that I made to
satisfy all earlier concerns.
It was apparent to me and my wife as well as some of my friends who heard the
Hearing on television, that the decision to deny the application was made even before
the Hearing began. I have lived in Saratoga since 1983, unfortunately however, I have
to ask the question as to whether the fact that I am of East Indian origin had any
bearing on this decision.
I would respectfully request that this appeal be studied fairly at your earliest
convenience and a judgement made.
Yours sincerely,
t 2,1„
r
Rathin Geraldine Neogy
13703 Saratoga Vista Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Printed on recycled paper.
oauw g2 UOCEI
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 868 -120
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: John Cook, Assistant Planner
DATE: May 27, 1998
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: DR -97 -060; NEOGY, 22665 Garrod Road
Request for approval of revised plans
ITEM 3
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Stan B000sian
Paul E. Jacobs
Gillian Moran
Jim Snaw
Donald L. Wolfe
DESCRIPTION: The subject application was heard by the Planning Commission on April 22,
1998. At that meeting, the Planning Commission continued the matter because the site had not
been adequately staked nor were the story poles sufficiently indicative of the height of the proposed
structure. The project was then continued to the May 13 meeting, but the applicants requested a
continuance until May 27 to complete plan revisions.
DISCUSSION: The applicants have significantly modified their proposal since its first hearing.
The following changes have been made to the plans:
The floor area of the house has been reduced from 6,699 square feet to 6,489 square feet
(6,780 square feet allowable). Much of this reduction was achieved through the
elimination of space on the eastem elevation such that the house is now set back 18 feet
from tree #4. The arborist had recommended that 50% of the tree's value be forfeited if
the structure were any closer than 18 feet; this provision has been struck from the
Resolution.
The reduction described above resulted in some reconfiguration. Specifically, the
western end of the family room (at the front elevation) now has a gabled instead of a
hipped roof; it also now has large clerestory windows in addition to its conventional
windows.
Lot coverage has been reduced from 11,119 square feet to 10,579 square feet.
The swimming pool has been moved from behind the house to between the cul -de -sac
and the street (it is set back approximately 120 feet from the front property line).
The three car garage was relocated from the eastern to the western side of the structure.
This reduces the amount of intensely used residential space on the western side of the
residence, reducing privacy conflicts with the adjacent structure.
Memo to the Planning Commission
May 27, 1998
Attachments:
The front entryway has an increased Palladian fanlight over the door. The small hip
flanking the entryway has been removed.
The decorative quoins have been removed from the second story elevations.
The plans call for the driveway to be of pervious paving material.
First story fenestration on the eastem elevation has been increased.
RECOMMENDATION: The revised plans meet all relevant City Code requirements and staff
has determined that the findings can be made to support the application. Staff therefore
recommends approval of the application by adoption of Resolution DR -97 -063.
1. Revised Resolution DR -97 -063
2. Minutes from Planning Commission meeting of April 22, 1998
3. Exhibit A Originally submitted plans
4. Exhibit B Revised plans
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SARATOGA ADDING ARTICLE 4 -80 TO
CHAPTER 4 OF THE SARATOGA MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO VALET PARKING
The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby adds
Article 4 -80 to Chapter 4 of the Saratoga Municipal Code to read as follows:
Sections:
4- 80.010
4- 80.020
4- 80.030
4- 80.040
4- 80.050
4- 80.060
4- 80.070
4- 80.080
4- 80.090
4- 80.100
4- 80.110
4- 80.120
4- 80.130
4- 80.140
4- 80.150
ORDINANCE NO. 71-
Article 4 -80
Valet Parking Service
7,L
Definition of Valet Parking Service
Definition of Valet Parking Loading Zone
Definition of City Manager
Operation Allowed Only in Valet Parking Loading Zone
Permit Required
Application for Permit; Fee
Receipt and Determination by City Manager
Liability Insurance
Qualifications of Parking Valets; Permits
Transferability of Permit
Authority of City to Designate Street Parking
Locations and Times
Suspension or Revocation of Permit
Appeals to City Council
Violation of Article; Penalties
Annual Review
4- 80.010 Definition of "Valet Parking Service."
As used in this Article, the term "valet parking service" means the business of
using the city streets for the purposes of loading and unloading passengers to and
from vehicles and for the parking of those vehicles.
4- 80.020 Definition of "Valet Parking Loading Zone."
As used in this Article, the term "valet parking loading zone" means a public
place along side the curb of the street or elsewhere, designated by the City as a valet
parking/loading zone and reserved exclusively for the use of valet parking service and
persons using such service.
4- 80.030 Definition of "City Manager."
As used in this Article, the term "City Manager' means the City Manager or
his designee.
4- 80.040 Operation Allowed Only in Valet Parking Loading Zone.
A valet parking service shall only be operated in connection with a designated
valet parking loading zone.
4- 80.050 Permit Required.
(a) No person shall engage in the business of operating a valet
parking service in the City without first obtaining a permit pursuant to this Article.
(b) Any person desiring to operate a valet parking service for which a
permit is required under the provisions of this Article shall also apply for and obtain a
business license pursuant to Article 4 -05 of this Chapter and pay the license fee
specified in Section 4- 05.100. No such business license shall be issued unless and
until the applicant has first obtained a valid permit under this Article.
4- 80.0650 Application for Permit: Fee.
(a) Any person desiring to obtain a permit shall make application
therefor to the City Manager, which application shall contain the following
information:
1
(1) The name, age, business address and residence of the
applicant if a natural person; if a corporation, its name, date and place of
incorporation, address of its principal office, and the names of its principal officers
together with their respective addresses; if a partnership, association or other
unincorporated entity, the names of the partners or persons comprising the
association or company, with the place of business and residence of each.
(2) The experience of the applicant in the provision of valet
parking service and whether or not any such similar permit, or license held by the
applicant or any of the principals of the applicant has ever been revoked, and if so,
the circumstances of such revocation.
(3) The uniform or insignia to be used to designate the
employees of the applicant.
(4) The street number and location of the place or places
desired by the applicant as valet parking loading zones.
(5) Whether the applicant or any of its principal officers or
any of its employees have ever been convicted of a felony, or the violation of any
narcotic or other penal law involving moral turpitude.
(6) Such further information as the City Manager may require.
(b) The application shall be accompanied by a processing fee in such
amount as established from time to time by resolution of the City Council.
4- 80.070 Receipt and Determination by City Manager.
(a) Upon receipt of the completed application and other documents
and the fee as required in Section 4- 80.060, the City Manager shall conduct such
investigation as he deems appropriate to determine whether a permit should be
issued.
(b) In making his determinations, the City Manager shall take into
consideration the number of valet parking services already in operation, the number
of valet parking loading zones already designated, and whether existing services and
zones are adequate to meet the public need, the probable effect of increased service
on local traffic conditions, and the character, experience and responsibility of the
applicant.
3
4- 80.080 Liability Insurance.
(a) No permit shall be issued or continued in operation, and no
person shall operate any valet parking service in the City unless and until there is in
full force and effect a motor vehicle liability insurance policy or policies insuring such
owner and covering each employee thereof, and unless and until such owner shall file
with the City Clerk a written certificate or certificates of insurance showing that such
policy or policies are in full force and effect and that an endorsement has been issued
to each such policy or policies therein cited that the same shall not be canceled and
no reduction in the amount of coverage shall be made except upon thirty days' prior
written notice to the City. Such policies shall insure the owner and any other person
loading/unloading and/or driving or parking a vehicle in the course of operating the
valet parking service, against loss from the liability imposed on any of them by law
for injury to, or death of, any person or damage to property, arising from or growing
out of the operation of such service, with coverage limits of not less than one million
dollars ($1,000,000.00) in public liability coverage for death or injury in any one
occurrence, and property damage coverage of not less than one hundred thousand
dollars ($100,000.00) in such amount as approved by the City Manager.
(b) In addition to the insurance required under Paragraph (a) of this
Section, the owner shall also furnish to the City, at his own cost and expense, a policy
or policies of liability and other insurance coverage as may be required under the
applicable insurance standards of the City for consultants or contractors. Such policy
or policies shall be maintained in full force and effect in accordance with said
insurance standards during the entire term of the permit.
4- 80.090 Qualifications of Parking Valets; Permits.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to act as a valet for a valet
parking service in the City unless he fulfills the following requirements:
(1) Holds a current, active (not suspended or revoked) motor
vehicle operator's license from the State;
(2) Is at least eighteen years of age.
(b) It shall be the obligation of the owner or permit holder to engage
only such parking valets as fulfilling the above requirements.
4
4- 80.100 Transferability of Permits.
No permit, issued pursuant to this Article, shall be sold, assigned or otherwise
transferred, and any attempted sale, assignment or transfer shall invalidate the
permit.
4- 80.110 Authority of City to Designate Street Parking Locations and
Times.
(a) The City reserves the right to determine and designate
appropriate street locations and times for the operation valet parking services.
(b) Once the City has determined and designated appropriate street
locations and times for the operating of valet parking services, the service shall be
limited to parking or loading vehicles only at those street locations and time.
(c) The City may add, modify or eliminate street locations and times
authorized for the operating of valet parking services, at any time, for any reason.
4- 80.120 Suspension or Revocation of Permit.
(a) Any valet parking service permit issued under this Article may be
suspended or revoked by the City Manager for any reason that would justify a refusal
to issue the permit originally, or by reason of any failure by the permittee to comply
with the provisions of this Article, or any other provision of this Code, or any
condition of such permit. City Manager or his designee be granted a hearing upon
the merits of the suspension or revocation. If after such hearing the permit is ordered
suspended or revoked, the holder shall have the right to appeal such action to City
Council.
(b) The holder of a valet parking service permit shall be given prompt
notice of the intention to suspend or revoke his permit. Such notice shall fix a time
and place, not less than five nor more than thirty days after service thereof, at which
the holder of the permit may appear before the City Manager or his designee and be
granted a hearing upon the merits of the suspension or revocation. If after such
hearing the permit is ordered suspended or revoked, the .holder shall have the right to
appeal such action to the City Council.
5
4- 80.130 Appeals to City Council.
Any decisions rendered pursuant to this Article with respect to the issuance,
denial, suspension or revocation of a permit, or the conditions thereof, may be
appealed to the City Council by the applicant or permittee in accordance with the
procedure set forth in Section 2- 05.030 of this Code.
4- 80.140 Violation of Article: Penalties.
The violation of any provision contained in this Article, or the violation of any
condition of a permit issued hereunder, is hereby declared to be unlawful and shall
constitute a misdemeanor and a public nuisance, subject to the penalties as prescribed
in Chapter 3 of this Code. The enforcement of this Article pursuant to Chapter 3
shall be in addition to any proceedings conducted under Section 4- 80.120 for
revocation or suspension of the permit or any proceedings under Article 4 -05 of this
Chapter to revoke a business license by reason of the same violation.
4- 80.150 Annual Review.
Commencing in June 1999, and in June of every year thereafter, the provisions
of this Article shall be reviewed and a separate report made to the City Council by
the City Manager at a public hearing, setting forth an analysis of the effectiveness of
the valet parking service operations, including whether the public convenience and
necessity require the continuation of the valet parking service operations and/or
whether the provisions of this Article should be modified or repealed.
6
1
SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall go into effect and be
in full force and operation from and after thirty (30) days after its final passage and
adoption.
The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the
waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting
of the City Council of Saratoga held on the day of 1998, by the
following vote.
AYES:
NAES:
a
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
July 2, 1998
MSR:apn
J: \W PD\MNRSW\273 \ORD.98 \VALETPAR.98
7
Mayor
MINUTES
BARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
TIME: Wednesday, July 1, 1998 6:30 p.m.
PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave.
TYPE: Regular Meeting
6 tA
Administration Conference Room
6:30 p.m. Special meeting for the purpose of:
Planning Commission Interviews
6:30 Andres; 6:40 Page
7:10 p.m. Closed session pursuant to Government Code Section 54957:
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT
Title: Public Works Director
Civic Theater
Mayor's Report on Closed Session None.
7:30 Pledge of Allegiance Led by Vice Mayor Jim Shaw.
1. ROLL CALL
Councilmembers Bogosian, Jacobs, Moran, Shaw and Mayor Wolfe were
present. Staff members present were City Manager Perlin, City Attorney
Riback, Administrative Analyst Loft, and Deputy City Clerk Cory.
2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS
A. Budget Award Presentation
John de Russy, Finance Director of the City of San Mateo, presented a
Budget Presentation Award on behalf of the Government Finance Officers
Association. He noted that Saratoga could also apply for a GFOA
Financial Reporting Award.
B. Resolution commending Jack Grantham for Service on Library
Commission
BOGOSIAN MORAN MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION. Passed 5 -0.
C. Resolution appointing Members of Board of Trustees of
Hakone Foundation
SHAW /JACOBS MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 98 -18. Passed 5 -0.
D. Administration of Oath of Office to the Above
None were present to take the oath of office. (City Clerk's note: The
oaths will be administered by the Deputy City Clerk at a later date.)
3. REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON PORTING OF AGENDA
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was
properly posted on June 26.
4. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC
A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None.
B. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS None.
C. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Previously Discussed Items
1) Resolution denying Jensen Appeal
SHAW /MORAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 98 -19. Passed 4 -1 (Jacobs
abstaining because he had been absent).
City Council Minutes 2 July 1, 1998
B. New Items
1) Planning Commission Actions, 6/24 Note and file.
2) Memo Authorizing Publicity for Upcoming Hearings
Neogy Appeal
3) Renewal of Household Hazardous Waste Agreement
4) Approval of Check Register
C. CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY None.
Since the hour for public hearings had not yet been reached, Mayor
Wolfe proceeded to items following public hearings on the agenda.
4. A. Oral Communications (continued) and instructions to staff
regarding actions on current oral communications None.
7. OLD BUSINESS None.
8. NEW BUSINESS
B. Election Issues to be Decided before Nomination Period
Deputy City Clerk Cory reviewed the staff report.
After discussion, there was consensus to allow 400 words for the
candidate's statement and collect the fee for it in advance.
9. ROUTINE MATTERS
A. Approval of Minutes 6/17
On page 4, Councilmember Bogosian asked that the sentence under 4.A.
beginning "Councilmember Bogosian..." be amended to read "believed
that the voters have a right to know where a candidate stands on the
issue of taxes."
On page 4, Councilmember Moran asked that the sentence beginning "Mayor
Wolfe Proposal:..." be amended to read "...she felt the Finance
Commission has been asked by the Council to provide the answers to
these questions."
MORAN /JACOBS MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMENDED. Passed 4 -0 (Jacobs
abstaining because he had not been at the meeting).
10. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS
A. Agenda items for next adjourned regular meeting No new
items added. City Manager Perlin noted that the meeting
was to be telecast live.
B. Other
Mayor Wolfe noted that the Hometown Celebration was to take place this
Friday at Villa Montalvo.
Councilmember Shaw reported that he had attended the first meeting of
playfield task force.
11. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
Director of Public Works: Noted that during the closed session the
Council had approved an offer of employment to Chris Fischer; she will
start July 13.
GFOA Award for Financial Reporting: Reported that the City had applied
for and was to be given this award to which Mr. de Russy had referred.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Since the hour of 8:00 p.m. had arrived, Mayor Wolfe returned to public
City Council Minutes
3 July 1, 1998
hearings on the agenda. Because public hearing 6.B. was expected to
be continued to another date, it was considered first.
B. Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -i: Public Hearing
on Proposed. Assessments for FY 98 -99 (continued from 6/17)
JACOBS /BOGOSIAN MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO JULY 15.
Passed 5 -0.
Mayor Wolfe then returned to public hearing 6.A.
A. Review of Village Valet Parking Program
City Manager Perlin introduced Administrative Analyst Loft, who
reviewed the report and the history of the issue.
Councilmember Bogosian suggested that a requirement for a noticed
public hearing be incorporated into the annual review.
The public hearing was opened at 8:06 p.m.
Michael Petteruti, representing Corinthian Parking, described how he
had dealt with complaints about the traffic cones.
Councilmember Jacobs felt that the valet parking service should not
compete with ordinary drivers for parking spaces, but rather utilize
the less -used spaces.
In answer to Councilmember Shaw, Mr. Petteruti stated that they were
considering a standing cylindrical traffic device rather than a cone.
Deputy Tarabetz spoke about the need for cones for safety reasons.
Bill Cooper, Big Basin Way, favored the plan, including the annual
review, which would take account of changes in the Village.
In answer to Gregory Pache, City Attorney Riback explained that the
proposed fee was a one -time fee for the permit.
The public hearing was closed at 8:20 p.m.
MORAN /JACOBS MOVED TO APPROVE THE PLAN WITH A NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING
REQUIRED FOR THE ANNUAL REVIEW INCLUDED IN THE ORDINANCE. Passed 5-
0
There was consensus to direct the City Attorney to bring back the
ordinance in final form for first reading at the next regular meeting.
C. City of Saratoga Budget, 1998 -2000, including Various
Personnel Actions (continued from 6/1)
City Manager Perlin displayed overheads describing various aspects of
the budget.
The public hearing was opened at 8:50 p.m. No one appearing to speak,
it was closed at 8:51 p.m.
1) Resolution amending City's Classification Plan
BOGOSIAN /JACOBS MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 85- 9.111. Passed 5 -0.
2) Resolution implementing a Reorganization Plan and
authorizing permanent positions in City service
JACOBS BOGOSIAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 85- 9.112. Passed 5 -0.
3) Resolution establishing the FY 98 -99 Appropriations
Limit
JACOBS /MORAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 98 -20. Passed 5 -0.
4) Resolution establishing a schedule of fees
City Council Minutes
JACOBS /BOGOSIAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 98 -21. Passed 5 -0.
5) Resolution adopting the budget for FY 98 -99 and 99-
00, making appropriations and authorising carry -overs
thereto and expenditures therefrom
JACOBS /MORAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 98 -22. Passed 5 -0.
12. ADJOURNMENT
At 8:55 p.m. the meeting was adjourned to 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July
7, at the Adult Care Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue.
Respectfully submitted,
Grace E. Cory
Deputy City Clerk
4 July 1, 1998
TIME: Tuesday, July 7, 1998 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: Adult Care Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue
TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting
1. Roll Call
MINUTES
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
q (,z)
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Mayor Wolfe noted that
this was the first time an adjourned regular meeting had been telecast
live.
Councilmembers Bogosian, Jacobs, Moran, Shaw and Mayor Wolfe were
present. Staff members present were City Manager Perlin, City Attorney
Riback, Community Development Director Walgren, and Deputy City Clerk
Cory.
2. Report of City Clerk on Posting of Agenda
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was
properly posted on July 2. The notice of adjournment from the July 1
Council meeting was properly posted on July 2.
3. Oral Communications from the Public on Non Agendized Items
None.
4. Measure G Implementation Policy
City Manager Perlin introduced City Attorney Riback, who reviewed the
staff report. He emphasized that the City Council can place a General
Plan Amendment on the ballot without California Environmental Quality
Act review.
Councilmembers discussed whether applicants should go through the City
review process before a General Plan Amendment was placed on the
ballot.
Community Development Director Walgren stated that an applicant for a
simple project might as well go through the City review process first
because it is relatively easy, inexpensive, and quick.
Mayor Wolfe opened up discussion to the public at 7:40 p.m.
Barry Swenson spoke in favor of allowing an applicant to go to the
ballot before going through the City review process. He said that a
large project could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to go through
the review process and still might lose at the polls, while going
through an election first could settle the issue at much lower cost.
No one further appearing to speak, Mayor Wolfe closed discussion to the
public at 7:46 p.m.
Councilmembers expressed their preferences for the various alternatives
the staff had suggested.
Shaw /Bogosian moved to approve option 1 (city review process first)
with a policy statement to be drafted to make it clear that this
Council and future Councils reserve the right to allow the applicant
to have an election first in certain situations.
Councilmembers discussed how a policy statement could be worded to
allow exceptions and decided that it would be best to reagendize the
matter for a later date and give the staff time to write the statement.
Councilmember Jacobs noted that it should be clear to Mr. Swenson that
the Council agreed that he would have to go through the City review
process first in any case.
Councilmembers Shaw and Bogosian withdrew the motion and second.
City Council Minutes 2 July 7, 1998
There was consensus to direct the staff to agendize this matter again
on Tuesday, September 8, and to prepare a staff report with a policy
requiring most applicants to go through the City review process before
an election and suggesting possible wording for a policy statement
allowing for exceptions.
5. Mayor's Proposal for Blue Ribbon Panel on City's Financial
Future
Mayor Wolfe distributed copies of the "Vision for Saratoga" and related
it to his proposal. He believed the timing of the panel would allow
for a ballot measure in June 1999.
Councilmembers in general felt the proposal was premature, and long-
term financial concerns were already being addressed by the 5 -year plan
to be prepared by the Finance Commission. If a panel was needed, it
would have more credibility if it was composed of groups that had not
necessarily favored the Utility User Tax.
Vic Monia, Granite Way, stated that the current Council lacked
credibility because the City is surviving despite the Utility User Tax
loss. He believed the Council needs to make a case that the. City needs
the money, and it should be an issue at the City Council election.
City Manager Perlin commented that the Finance Commission needs more
clear direction as to what should be included in the five -year plan.
6. Election Resolutions:
A. Resolution calling Election on November 3, 1998
MORAN /BOGOSIAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 98 -23. Passed 5 -0.
B. Resolution confirming Decisions on Candidates Statements
MORAN /BOGOSIAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 98 -23.1. Passed 5 -0.
7. Discussion of Possible Dates for City Attorney Evaluation
After discussion of schedules of the parties involved, there was
consensus to schedule the evaluation for 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday,
September 8.
8. Self Evaluation of Previous Meeting July 1
There was consensus that the meeting had proceeded quickly, which was
desirable.
9. Agency Assignment Reports
Councilmember Moran reported on sewer rehabilitation.
Councilmember Bogosian reported on his letter to Barbara Conant
concerning the placement of the computer menu and filtering software
on an agenda for the Library Joint Powers Authority.
Councilmember Shaw felt he that he, as Council liaison to the Hakone
Foundation, should be receiving copies of correspondence from the City
and the Foundation so that he could be informed. He stated that KSAR
had done a good job with cablecasting equipment. He also noted that
Mary Richards has made a smooth shift to the Saratoga Area Senior
Coordinating Council, with Ciky Garcia -Rose taking over the Adult Care
Center.
Mayor Wolfe reported that the Saratoga Business Development Council was
not meeting in the summer. He also reported on his speech for the
Hometown Celebration on July 3. He noted that the Celebration would
be held at West Valley College next year because Villa Montalvo was
unavailable.
City Council Minutes
10. Other
3 July 7, 1998
Councilmember Bogosian requested an update on the Paul Masson Mountain
Winery development proposal at the next meeting.
Councilmember Shaw requested that a closed session on a staff member
requesting early retirement be agendized. Councilmember Moran agreed.
Councilmember Shaw also suggested that City Manager evaluations be
conducted more frequently, perhaps quarterly. Councilmember Moran
agreed that a special evaluation schedule should be arranged.
City Manager Perlin reported that the presentation from West Valley
Sanitation District was scheduled for July 21.
He also reported that the City had received a check from the County for
Tax Equity Allocation funds.
He then stated that a significant number of complaints from citizens
about TCI's dropping the FM broadcasting were being received.
City Manager Perlin then stated that the new Public Works Director
would begin employment on Monday, July 13.
He also noted that since the State had not yet adopted a budget, City
revenues from the State could be disrupted. He and the Interim Finance
Director will be evaluating the potential effects of this on the City's
cash flow.
11. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:02 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Grace E. Cory
Deputy City Clerk
4. Measure G Implementation Policy
TIME: Tuesday, July 7, 1998 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: Adult Care Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue
TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting
1. Roll Call
MINUTES
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
2. Report of City Clerk on Posting of Agenda
qt1 (.T0
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Mayor Wolfe noted that
this was the first time an adjourned regular meeting had been telecast
live.
Councilmembers Bogosian, Jacobs, Moran, Shaw and Mayor Wolfe were
present. Staff members present were City Manager Perlin, City Attorney
Riback, Community Development Director Walgren, and Deputy City Clerk
Cory.
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was
properly posted on July 2. The notice of adjournment from the July 1
Council meeting was properly posted on July 2.
3. Oral Communications from the Public on Non Agendized Items
None.
City Manager Perlin introduced City Attorney Riback, who reviewed the
staff report. He emphasized that the City Council can place a General
Plan Amendment on the ballot without California Environmental Quality
Act review.
Councilmembers discussed whether applicants should go through the City
review process before a General Plan Amendment was placed on the
ballot.
Community Development Director Walgren stated that an applicant for a
simple project might as well go through the City review process first
because it is relatively easy, inexpensive, and quick..
Mayor Wolfe opened up discussion to the public at 7:40 p.m.
Barry Swenson spoke in favor of allowing an applicant to go to the
ballot before going through the City review process. He said that a
large project could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to go through
the review process and still might lose at the polls, while going
through an election first could settle the issue at much lower cost.
No one further appearing to speak, Mayor Wolfe closed discussion to the
public at 7:46 p.m.
Councilmembers expressed their preferences for the various alternatives
the staff had suggested.
Shaw /Bogosian moved to approve option 1 (city review process first)
with a policy statement to be drafted to make it clear that this
Council and future Councils reserve the right to allow the applicant
to have an election first in certain situations.
Councilmembers discussed how a policy statement could be worded to
allow exceptions and decided that it would be best to reagendize the
matter for a later date and give the staff time to write the statement.
Councilmember Jacobs noted that it should be clear to Mr. Swenson that
the Council agreed that he would have to go through the City review
process first in any case.
Councilmembers Shaw and Bogosian withdrew the motion and second.
City Council Minutes
2 July 7, 1998
There was consensus to direct the staff to agendize this matter again
on Tuesday, September 8, and to prepare a staff report with a policy
requiring most applicants to go through the City review process before
an election and suggesting possible wording for a policy statement
allowing for exceptions.
5. Mayor's Proposal for Blue Ribbon Panel on City's Financial
Future
Mayor Wolfe distributed copies of the "Vision for Saratoga" and related
it to his proposal. He believed the timing of the panel would allow
for a ballot measure in June 1999.
Councilmembers in general felt the proposal was premature, and long-
term financial concerns were already being addressed by the 5 -year plan
to be prepared by the Finance Commission. If a panel was needed, it
would have more credibility if it was composed of groups that had not
necessarily favored the Utility User Tax.
Vic Monia, Granite Way, stated that the current Council lacked
credibility because the City is surviving despite the Utility User Tax
loss. He believed the Council needs to make a case that the City needs
the money, and it should be an issue at the City Council election.
City Manager Perlin commented that the Finance Commission needs more
clear direction as to what should be included in the five -year plan.
6. Election Resolutions:
A. Resolution calling Election on November 3, 1998
MORAN /BOGOSIAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 98 -23. Passed 5 -0.
B. Resolution confirming Decisions on Candidates Statements
MORAN /BOGOSIAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 98 -23.1. Passed 5 -0.
7. Discussion of Possible Dates for City Attorney Evaluation
After discussion of schedules of the parties involved, there was
consensus to schedule the evaluation for 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday,
September 8.
8. Self Evaluation of Previous Meeting July 1
There was consensus that the meeting had proceeded quickly, which was
desirable.
9. Agency Assignment Reports
Councilmember Moran reported on sewer rehabilitation.
Councilmember Bogosian reported on his letter to Barbara Conant
concerning the placement of the computer menu and filtering software
on an agenda for the Library Joint Powers Authority.
Councilmember Shaw felt he that he, as Council liaison to the Hakone
Foundation, should be receiving copies of correspondence from the City
and the Foundation so that he could be informed. He stated that KSAR
had done a good job with cablecasting equipment. He also noted that
Mary Richards has made a smooth shift to the Saratoga Area Senior
Coordinating Council, with Ciky Garcia -Rose taking over the Adult Care
Center.
Mayor Wolfe reported that the Saratoga Business Development Council was
not meeting in the summer. He also reported on his speech for the
Hometown Celebration on July 3. He noted that the Celebration would
be held at West Valley College next year because Villa Montalvo was
unavailable.
City Council Minutes 3 July 7, 1998
10. Other
Councilmember Bogosian requested an update on the Paul Masson Mountain
Winery development proposal at the next meeting.
Councilmember Shaw requested that a closed session on a staff member
requesting early retirement be agendized. Councilmember Moran agreed.
Councilmember Shaw also suggested that City Manager evaluations be
conducted more frequently, perhaps quarterly. Councilmember Moran
agreed that a special evaluation schedule should be arranged.
City Manager Perlin reported that the presentation from West Valley
Sanitation District was scheduled for July 21.
He also reported that the City had received a check from the County for
Tax Equity Allocation funds.
He then stated that a significant number of complaints from citizens
about TCI's dropping the FM broadcasting were being received.
City Manager Perlin then stated that the new Public Works Director
would begin employment on Monday, July 13.
He also noted that since the State had not yet adopted a budget, City
revenues from the State could be disrupted. He and the Interim Finance
Director will be evaluating the potential effects of this on the City's
cash flow.
11. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:02 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Grace E. Cory
Deputy City Clerk
MBF
MARTIN BRANT FENSTER ATTORNEY AT LAW
14625 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 TELEPHONE (408) 867 -8600 FAX (408) 867-8260
Mayor of Saratoga
City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, C-A 95070
July 9, 1998
Subject: Neogy Residence (APN 503 -78- 030/031)
DR -97 -060
APPEAL FROM PLANNING COMMISSION
Date of Appeal: July 15, 1998
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
NOTICE OF REPRESENTATION
Please be advised that this office represents Rathin Neogy relative to his Appeal of the denial
of a project at 22665 Garrod Road, Saratoga, CA.
ADDITIONAL MATERIALS
In accordance with the letter dated June 11, 1998, from Grace E. Cory, Deputy City Clerk
to Rathin Neogy, Mr. Neogy is submitting additional materials for the Council packet to review in
connection with this Appeal. Generally, the additional materials consist of letters supporting the
position of Rathin Neogy that the design of the home including the structure, size and bulkiness are
compatible with the site as well as other residential structures in the vicinity, that the structure's size
and perception of bulkiness are not obtrusive to offsite views and that the placement and orientation
of the main structure is compatible with the site as well as other developed properties in the vicinity.
There are letters from the two (2) owners of the residences that are currently being built on Garrod
-Road (the immediate neighbors), from realtors, from Warren Heid, AIA (Architect), from a bank and
-interested parties. In addition, photographs are being submitted that visually show that the proposed
structure is compatible with the site, with other residential structures in the vicinity, and that further
reveal that the proposed home is not obtrusive to offsite views nor is its placement and orientation
incompatible with the site and other developed properties.
Mayor of Saratoga
City Council
City of Saratoga
July 9, 1998
Page 2
LETTERS FROM NEIGHBORS
John Stringer owns the property with the home being currently built at 22635 Garrod Road
which is shown as Lot #1 on the drawing that has been submitted to the City Council. As stated in
his letter, he has reviewed the floor plans of Mr. Neogy's residence and found them to be acceptable
fitting into the community.
Mr. David Anderson owns the property that is shown as Lot #3. He is the neighbor who is
immediately next door to Mr. Neogy's proposed residence. He reviewed the architectural drawings
for the Neogy residence and found them not objectionable. From his view and that of his spouse, the
elevation drawings were acceptable.
As stated in the Appeal, a contractor owns and plans to put a six thousand plus (6,000
square foot home on Lot #2. He has also indicated his approval of the Neogy residence.
The four (4) Lots comprise the entire Garrod Road neighborhood. These are the people that
would be impacted to the greatest extent by the proposed Neogy residence. There is unanimity in
acceptance and support of the proposed structure from each of the owners.
LETTERS FROM REALTORS
Dee Dawn of Coldwell Banker who has sold homes in the Villa Oaks area and was the agent
for Mr. Neogy indicates that the Neogy residence is in keeping with the other two (2) homes on
Garrod Road and that the proposed Neogy residence would not be visible from the homes in the Villa
Oaks area.
Gary Matos of Margo Gary, Alain Pinel Realtors is concerned with the application of the
rules indicating that the Stringer's home is over 6,000 square feet with the garage, the Anderson's is
over 5,000 square feet and that Lot #2 will be building out to 6,200 total square feet. He has indicated
his support for the Neogy Residence.
BANKING COMMUNITY
The letter from the construction lending manager of Cupertino National Bank Trust
indicates that the bank has financed several homes in the Mr. Eden Road area and that the Neogy plan
is consistent with homes in that neighborhood. She recommends approval as to design.
Mayor of Saratoga
City Council
City of Saratoga
July 9, 1998
Page 3
PIKE ROAD RESIDENT
Dr. Maitra has visited the Neogy site, reviewed the design and finds that there is no
obstruction of offsite views, that the proposed residence is consistent with the neighborhood and is
indeed quite small relative to its 4.5 acre parcel.
EXPERT OPINION
Attached to this letter is a copy of the letter from Warren Heid, Architect.
Mr. Heid's letter speaks for itself. In rendering his opinion, he finds that the home is
compatible with the approved residences in the neighborhood and will not be offensive when
completed. Mr. Heid reviewed the surrounding areas and found the residence not to be really visible
from surrounding properties, especially those below because of the trees. He confirms that it would
be visible from the immediate neighbors on Garrod Road who have approved the design.
There has been objection to the placement of the swimming pool. Mr. Neogy is willing to
move the location of the swimming pool to another area on the property after a proper geotechnical
review.
PHOTOS SHOWING VIEWS FROM VILLA OAKS NEIGHBORHOOD
TYPICAL HOMES
SWIMMING POOL
The photos are marked where appropriate to show the location of the proposed Neogy
residence with an "X". They are also marked to show approximate location of where the photos
where taken from.
PHOTOS SHOWING VIEWS FROM GARROD ROAD AND IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS
These photos show the immediate four (4) home neighborhood.
CONCLUSION
The conclusion is compelled that the proposed Neogy residence is compatible with and is
harmonious with the neighborhood and surrounding area. That is true as to bulkiness and
Mayor of Saratoga
City Council
City of Saratoga
July 9, 1998
Page 4
comparability as to size. It is not obtrusive to offsite views. The structure is oriented on the property
so that geotechnically it sits on bedrock and occupies only a small fraction of the four and one -half
(41/2) acre parcel. It is consistent with what has happened in the Saratoga hills which is clusters of
large substantial homes adjacent to wide open space areas. The Neogy residence itself is a microcosm
of this plan.
We thank you in advance for your consideration of this Appeal. It is our attention to offer
testimony to explain any positions taken in the Appeal and to provide further visual aids to help with
your decision making process.
MBF /ng
Very july yours,
Martin Brant Fenster,
Attorney for Mr. Mrs. Rathin Neogy
LETTERS
FROM
NEIGHBORS
JUN .517 1V7.18 2U: i ASTREC
June 26, 1998
The City of Saratoga
Department of Planning
Dear Sir or Madam:
This is letter is to site that 1 have reviewed the initial floor plans of the proposed
residence at 22665 Garrod Road in Saratoga and find them acceptable as to fitting the
community. It appears to be of a comprarabte size and in the same general price /cost
range as the others too; thus 1 support the owners plan to build the house.
My family is now 3-4 months from completing construction at 22635 Garrod Road,
which will be two house from house 22665,
If you wish to contact me, please do so at the above or email me at
JSTRINGR @r AOL.COM.
Sincerely,
.Nr
ohn R. Stringer
JOHN R. STRINGER
19915 Bella Vista
Saratoga, CA. 93070
408.867.8643 or 408.202.2145 (c)
P.02
TOTAL P.02
JUN -23 -98 02:52 PM TELESAT IfBS OFFICE
I a t CITY OF SARATDEA /ADrIN.
tno2
Aprl15,:996
City of Salttopa
13777 Fnutvalr Ave.
SarzMne C alms
��r r�u.v
Alien: Planning nepartment
Subject: Neogfe Residence
Gentlemen,
Davld P. Anderson
408 742 7943 P.01
408 86E 1280 P. 0l its
Post4r Fax Note 7871 Date
r i r• Meow t tip!" (Ida i
t)a
C0.,pc s... A
phOAQ R 4 t Ptture 6 1
Raj[ R Z L "f n w r� c•.
/.Y Tai
My wife and I have reviewe 1 the architectural drawings for the proposed new house to le
built on lot rrcrnt four of C�ntrod Rte c! i S top mg M... J U_ ti
eras to the• r" �n� vv�ccuun6i►Ic
a
P proposal From cur vie«. Int number tom. the elcv atiOn drawings appear
be aceeprable.
Sincerely,
TOT*LL P. JI
LETTERS
FROM
REALTORS
JUL
COLDw
DAN KeR Q
CORNISH CAREY
RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE
June 18, 1998
City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruit vale Avenue
Saratoga Calif 95070
Sincerely yours,
ASTREC
Honorable Mayor and members of the City Council
This letter is being written in reference to the Neogy Residence APN 503 -78-
030/031 in the hope that his appeal for reconsideration will be given favorable review
by you the members of the council.
My background is that 1 have been a real estate broker for the past 21 years and my
area of concentration has been Saratoga. I am employed by Coldwell Banker
formerly Comish and Carey and reside on Blauer Drive in Saratoga. I was the agent
who assisted Mr. Neogy with the purchase of this lot. I have reviewed the plans for his
home and have also gone to the site and looked at the two homes presently in
construction on the neighboring lots. Yes, they are all bulky but Mr. Neogy's seems
very much in keeping with the other two. Having sold homes on Villa Oaks area I
went to the bottom of the hill to see if it would be obtrusive from below and to the best
of my eyes it did not appear to be visible. My only word of advise to Mr. Neogy is that
the pool location would be better in another area. It would please me if you would
give his_p QpQ aL_reconsideration.
Dee Dawn, Associate Broker
Coldwell Banker
SARATOGA OAK CREEK
12175 SARATOGA/SUNNYVALE ROAD
SARATOGA CA. 95070
(406) 996-7100 BUS
(408) 996-1717 FAX
P. 02
TOTAL P.02
JUN 1b =I77t$ 1 4 fib I KEC:
Gary Matos
MARGO GARY
Alain Time—Realtors
12772 Seratop-Surnyvais Reed .ores Ca. 96010
408- 741 -1111 fax 408.741 -1199
The City of Saratoga
June 15,1998
I am concerned that the compliance standards for allowable floor
area we abide by, provided to the public by the planing
department, are not the truth. When we are told that a home
doesn't conform to the neighborhood when there are three other
large homes going in next door; what are we to believe The
Stringers home is over 6000 with the garage, the Andersons' is
over 5000 and could be bigger if they had built a two story, and
Lot #2 will be building up to 6200 total square feet. These lots are
2 acres in size. Lot #4 is over 4112 acres and the floor area of the
home is allowable for the lot size. I am confused. Is size really the
issue here. As a realtor who and what should I believe. How do
explain that rules don't always apply when you are building.
P.02
TOTAL P.02
LETTER
FROM
BANKING
COMMUNITY
CcPERTINO NATIONAL BANK TRUST
20230 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino. CA 95014 -1350
(408) 996 -1144 Fax (408) 996 -0657
60 South Market Street, Suite 100, San Jose, CA 95113
(408) 286 -1595 Fax (408) 971 -4233
June 17, 1998
Subject Proposed Neogy Residence on 22665 Garrod Rd., Saratoga, CA.
To Whom It May Concern:
I have reviewed the Neogy house design plans with respect to a construction loan.
Cupertino National Bank have financed several homes in the Mt. Eden Road area and
find that the Neogy plan is totally consistent with homes in that neighborhood and
recommend that the plan be approved as designed.
Sincerely
ecilia K. Fu
Sr. Vice President
Construction Lending Manager
LETTER
FROM
PIKE ROAD
RESIDENT
JUN lei 1Y9E3 1Y:.51 H5TREC
The City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
Subject Proposed Neogy Residence (DR -97 -060)
Ladies and Gentlemen:
June 18, 1998
P. 02
I am s resident of Saratoga since 1977. r own three properties in Saratoga one on Surrey Lane, one on
Oak Street and one on Pike Road. My business, Florcat, Inc. has been operating in downtown Saratoga since
1970. My roots in Saratoga run deep.
I have known Rathin and Geraldine for more than 15 years. Their daughter and ray son graduated from
Saratoga High this month. Rathin also has his business in Saratoga and is the President of Astzec, Inc.
I was very surprised a few weeks ago when the Council turned down his petition to build his new
residence. I was watching the proceedings on TV and could not understand any 4f the objections I have
been to Rathin's site and viewed his elevation designs and the proposed location of the house. I think that the
location is very private and consistent with the Garrod Road neighborhood It does NOT obstruct off-site
views. The proposed house is only 5800 square feet (excluding the garage) and is significantly smaller than
most of the new houses that have tome up reccndy. On the way to my Surrey lane house, two new houses
have come up on Pike Road on what used to be part of the Kennedy vineyards. Both houses are monstrous
and bulky, are in plain view of the considerable traffic on Pierce Road, and in my opinion are too big in
relation to their relatively small lot sizes. In comparison, the Neogy residence is at the end of a cul de sac and
is quite small relative to the 4.5 -acre parcel.
I strongly urge the City Council to approve the plans, so that Rathin and Geraldine can tart building
their house before the neer winter rains.
Sincerely,
GelL-9"/v' ei/41\-*-. k-ark....: A, 4
De Sidhartha Maitrs
President
Floreat, Inc. 14375 Saratoga Avenue Suite H Saratoga California 95070
(408) 867 -0202 FAX (408) 867 -8168
TOTAL P.01
LETTER
FROM
WARREN HEID
WARREN B. HEID AIA ASSOCIATES
A R C H 1 T E C T S
July 8, 1998
Mayor and City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: Neogy Residence (APN 503 -78- 030/031)
DR -97 -060
P L A N N E R S
14630 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CALIFORNIA 95070 408 867 9365
WARREN B. HEID AIA STEVEN M. BENZING AIA FAX 408 867 3750
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
This letter is to confirm that this firm has been retained as
architect by Mr. and Mrs. Rathin Neogy to assist them with the
subject project. I have been requested to assist them to fine tune
the current design, to review the denial resolution by the Planning
Commission, and to complete with working drawings /specifications
for the building permit and construction. There are some very
important factors that, in my opinion as their architect, should be
brought to your attention for their appeal.
The project is on 4.48 acres in an approved subdivision with an
approved building pad of limited size due to the topography of the
area.
The Staff Report states that the design reasonably conformed to
policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook and
recommended approval.
The size of the residence was reduced from 6,699 sq.ft. to 6,489
sq.ft., which is well below the allowable 8,000 sq.ft. for this
zoning and the code reduction allowable of 6,780 sq.ft based on the
slope density reduction formula.
The design of the residence was complicated by Tree No. 4 and it
was redesigned to meet the commission's request and requirements to
save this tree. The Arborists Report states that this coast live
oak is in good health, however it also states that the root collar
is covered with 3 to 4 feet of soil and it has suffered bark
damage. The report states that this damage occurred when the
approved pad was produced.
Due to the limited size of the building pad the residence needed to
be a designed as a two story building. There are many two story
homes in this general neighborhood so this was a reasonable
approach. The design submitted for approval followed a design
technique of softening the height of the two floors with one story
roof elements on all sides and a one story area at the front
elevation. This method has been accepted with many of the Saratoga
homes.
City Council, City of Saratoga
Appeal for DR -97 -060 Neogy Residence
July 8, 1998 Page 2.
The drawings are produced with flat elevations and it is sometimes
difficult to separate the one story elements from the rest of the
two story residence. The roof plan does show the different areas.
Flat elevations make buildings appear bulky. It is my opinion that
this residence is less bulky than many in the neighborhood, and far
less eclectic.
The denial was based on the opinion that the size and bulkiness of
this residence was incompatible with the other residential
structures in the vicinty, and further found to be unreasonably
obtrusive to off -site views. Speaking to the size, as mentioned
above in this letter, it is far less than the allowable and less
than other residence in the area. I have reviewed the surrounding
areas and have found that this residence will not be really visible
from surrounding properties, especially those below because of the
trees. It will be visible from the street by the immediate
neighbors on Garrod Road and it is my understanding that they have
approved the design of this residence.
As stated above, the denial was also based on the bulkiness of the
residence. Bulkiness is, in my opinion, subjective and is a
personal opinion based on expertise and taste. An applicant should
be able to express their personal concept for their home's
appearance and should, if not completely ignoring the basic
principals of design, be able to construct a residence that meets
their needs and taste. That is why there are so many different
types of homes in Saratoga and elsewhere. It is my opinion that
this home is compatible with the approved residences in the
neighborhood and will not be offensive when completed. The fine
tuning that this firm plans is to make minor changes to the
exterior treatment including, but not limited to, the front entry
porch, roof and horizontial treatment at the area where Tree No. 4
is to be saved, and review of eave details.
With regards to the swimming pool, the appropriate location is to
the rear of the home, but this area must be studied with a report
of a geologist during the Construction Document Phase. The
location shown on the plot plan appears at this time to be the most
effective location for the building pad, however this area may not
afford the owners with the best location for privacy.
I appreciate the opportunity to respond with my opinions of the
design of this residence as I feel that the design that was denied
is compatible with the neighborhood. Your realistic consideration
of this appeal by Mr. and Neogy is appreciated and that you will
make the finding to overturn the denial by the Planning Commission.
Than you.
Ver
Heid AIA
WBH:hw
cc: Mr. and Mrs. Rathin Neogy
VILLA OAKS
AREA
1
CITY LIMITS
LOT EN6�_ 6 3 cot.c0
0
Pstoff‘ 0:Xieta0
(St' u
i v<
P
b(
N' e
fl
L, �o
SITE
v Ey.) F-op'
t.
mon■plunisff_
kS, NE (6 1-1464U
....4111111111111111111
s
01t
tO(' gES
u-i re u.'7. TEO
M I
1 e
�rs \i/c_LA cS E (60 560-100r)
ti
s W
0
T
J
'1
W
U
Q
GARROD ROAD
AREA
►)C'
H
f ey
0)
-(X'vl 7)-7
1334/!
Odo-/
VAOW