HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-16-1992 City Council Agenda packetEXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 1 ;2 Sr
MEETING DATE: December 16, 1992
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM: V 4
ORIGINATING DEPT.: Planning CITY MGR. APPROVAL
SUBJECT: Appeal of a two -lot Tentative Parcel Map and Variance
condition of approval.
Recommended Motion: Uphold the Planning Commission's decision and deny
the appeal.
Report Summary: At the November 10, 1992 public hearing, the Planning
Commission approved a Tentative Parcel Map and Variance request to
subdivide a 22,910 sq. ft. parcel, currently developed with a single
residence, into two single family residential building sites. The
applicants are appealing a condition of approval which limited
construction on the newly created vacant parcel to 2,400 sq. ft.
This application was first heard at the October 14th public hearing.
Planning staff recommended denial of the map based on the difficulty in
making the necessary variance findings to support the proposed
substandard lot widths. Following public testimony in support of the
application, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the
request and directed staff to determine a reasonable square footage
limit, as well as other development restrictions, in order to ensure
that future construction on the newly created lot would be compatible
with the existing homes in the vicinity.
Staff's subsequent survey found that the immediately adjacent homes on
similar substandard parcels ranged from 1,600 to 2,400 sq. ft. (survey
exhibit attached). Based on this range, staff recommended that the
future residence on parcel A not exceed 2,400 sq. ft., including the
garage. This was accepted and adopted by the Planning Commission.
The applicants are appealing this limitation as an unnecessary burden.
Included in their appeal packet is an exhibit of a much larger survey
area than staff used, indicating homes ranging from 2,500 to 3,038 sq.
ft. (they have also included significantly larger parcels developed with
4,000 to 4,200 sq. ft. structures.) Staff's response to the applicants'
exhibit is that the great majority of larger homes they have identified
are built on either conforming parcels (in terms of lot size, frontage,
width and depth), and /or larger parcels.
Fiscal Impacts: none
Attachments:
1. Appeal application letter and exhibits
2. Planning Commission Resolutions SD -92 -007 V -92 -012
3. Planning Commission Minutes dated 11/10/92
4. Planning staff memo dated 11/10/92
Motion and Vote:
4
Appeal Application Letter
Grounds for Appeal
November 16, 1992
To: The City of Saratoga and Members of the City Council
Dear Councilmen:
Norma G. Behel, a resident and property owner of Saratoga, for over 37 years
recently made application to the Planning Commission for a division of her 22,910 square
feet. property into two equal parcels of 11,455 square feet. each. The location of her
property is 20241 Herriman Avenue, Saratoga, California.
This property was purchased by Norma Behel and her then living husband in 1952
with the intent of dividing it into three separate parcels, each parcel having a frontage and
width of approximately 82 feet. Her house was built in the middle of the property so that
when the time seemed appropriate she could sell or develop the property on side of
her house by dividing the property. She, in fact, did separate the property to the south from
her residence with a lot split many years ago, and a house was built on it.
Eleven years ago she applied to the Planning Commission to divide that portion of
her property to the north of her house. This split would complete the division of the
property into 3 equal parcels of 11,455 square feet and 82 front feet. She needed the
granting of a variance since the City of Saratoga had increased the width requirements to
85 feet. The Planning Commission approved her variance and granted her property division.
The approved tentative map expired prior to recording the necessary parcel map as the
conditions imposed by the Planning Commission were to heavy a financial burden on Norma
Behel, who had been a widow for some time. In the granting of the property division the
Planning Commission noted that this site is bracketed by non conforming sites of similar
width created by subdivisions previous to City incorporation. It was, therefore, decided that
she should have the same rights as her neighbors to divide her property as at the time of
purchase the then existing laws would permit the division. No special restrictions were
placed on the allowable square feet of structure to be built on the newly created lot.
Norma Behel is now 91 -years old and the time has come to make this final division
of her property as her needs for personal care are constantly increasing as are the costs of
this care. She has part -time help now, but looming on the horizon are the prospects of
either full -time care or a nursing home.
ti
Appeal Application Letter
November 14, 1992
Page 2
The planning Commission in this most recent Application made the required findings
necessary for the approval of the variance and therefore instructed the staff to prepare an
approval resolution for. the property division. In taking this action, the Planners had
concurred with the Commission of eleven years ago.
The problem NOW is that the Planners also decided to spot zone the newly created
lot by restricting the allowable square feetof a new structure to 2,400 square feet (including
a 400 square foot garage), When the allowable square feet (according to current zoning)
is 3,540 square feet. This means if one is to take advantage of the allowable 3,540 square
feet, it has to be done in two stages. This decision would seem to be arbitrary and
capricious, designed only to substantially increase construction costs.
The Planning Commission's reasoning for the imposition of the square footage
limitation is that it "would insure that the new structure on the newly created lot be
compatible with the neighborhood This is a very worthwhile consideration. Unfortunately,
This square foot limitation doesn't have much of anything to do with compatibility. In the
first place, given the fact that the lot is 82 feet wide, a 2,400 square foot single story
structure placed upon the lot would likely run the entire buildable width, and a larger
structure (up to 3,5.4osquare feet) would also run the entire buildable width, with the extra
size likely in the side or rear, visible only to the owner. Besides that, diversity of size adds
to the interest of the neighborhood and the biggest element of compatibility is assured by
the power of architectural and design review by governmental authorities.
Add to this that those closest eight neighbors most affected by this project have
signed a petition in support of the Applicant including their opinion that if size limitations
are imposed on new construction that they be in reference to minimum square feet, not
maximum square feet in order to protect property values in the neighborhood. Finally, let
us not forget that a larger house means larger tax revenues with no increase in governmental
services.
It would therefore appear that Norma Behel has been singled out to be persecuted
as the imposition of this square foot limitation neither benefits the City of Saratoga, the
neighborhood or Norma Behel.
Consequently, I, Norma Behel am appealing to you, the City Council, to modify the
Planning Commission's Approval Resolution to Norma Behel's Application by eliminating
that portion of condition #9, which initially limits future development of Parcel A to 2,400
square feet, allowing her the right to develop as determined by current zoning regulations
(now 3,540 square feet).
Sincerely, n
Norma Behel
TO: Members of the Saratoga Planning Commission
I understand that Norma Behel's lot located at 20241 Herriman Ave.,
Saratoga, California may be split into two equal lots each having
a frontage of approximately 82 feet.
I would like to state that as a neighbor and property owner in
the vicinity that I have no objection what so ever to the lot split
as the new lots would be the same as others both to the North and
South.
If there are any size limitations placed on any newly
constructed buildings they should be in reference to minimum square
feet not maximum square feet in order to protect the property
values in the neighborhood.
NAME:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
ADDRESS:
/1 ma c, ti fr/1P.
I n
yarmi
0• Ng Ixt W U'
4
5
t R f 4 1 1
TA Sc� SF
r....• p. 3P_I F. d.X
as
'3 QU rt. E r+A.E Lkr ParnokS ha t
oust. Thy `irb S
�'•tOltilr: 'JU t -r Net 7,800 S V),* 4 C�
tou��c ��1��T �c �wcE� miS o
Printing screen, please wait Press ESC to abort
JI M W
ig 4)-
24
25
5
d p
0
23 J2
k
133
11 ,4
04 411 07 I 0004 60 77
13.7.7
061 1
55‘
12 2 d
004 126511
‘P.
9 SARATOGA SUNNYVALE
I 1-? 5
1119 37
13
110
":4.3C1414
9 219 14
20 a 15
S
50
0
2
1 93 ;I: 6
26 LI
2 X- I s I: L
1 21: 5 -E" 4._ _J
/5
48 .41 17
Qs)
20 )Y
42 99 37
o
1
r .Li 8 L.2 t )::5 6 1 1
20 Z I
1 30. I 31
E... 107 90 40
TRACT N? 3034
1
100
0 6.3 i
I 4.0
s 4,,
AZ ..fl 11'41
i ISM t.
70 S
.1
39 I 39 1 40
.56
t00 ___L 1 (2
133 r 11, 35
g
1
c:5,7
gl
33
1
4.22 AC.
169 1 962
R.O.S /78 .54
9,
"44
4 4
RD
42
-55.. I
1395 4 S 11151
S—
DI
TRA CT IN! 1006
EEAUFOOLWI HEIGHTS
BEAUMONT
1Piu .umar wv
0 9 a
JO 100 T Ot7 r SD. 1 40 IC* r 7. 50
I i r 1 1
t it z 1 Jr 1 4 i 5.. i 1 r
I
_r I 1, i i r
m i si r e 4
1 1
110444 r 1 1 i_______T
Bo", 1 I 1 1 1
.12 r II
i I 7 I
•?,-(151 r 1 1
p 1 tal 9 3CP r '53 I le.% ip53` 1110 l o3
1 1
gg• ___21 j
Q 1 19 1 /V 17 1 .1 4 i 15
1 I
ntira e
Pa 1 el 1 0 9 I
411.. 1E1
&Tons
SARATOGA
me. OJOIK
VISTA
OVIVE
1
r 1P 3 ap
VILLA tut kin if--
J7
CAMINO
47
1
ave, OW
at at .1 30 1 •0 7 1. IP
41•113•• MIMS 011•77
TRACT 11° MT r. LI.
IIATIATOGA VISTA 663 :,..1
mpg,
MIN! f34317
7030 1 PO 1 1 90 1 99
CAP DMZ Oa* T a.10••■ .04.re
Oink,
I A I
1 2 1
1 •04.101
5 s S 1 t 1 1 1
P5 1, 9 X
13 12 lt;
1
I p3L49 1 ,-134Le: ao? too/ 1 s3. /1 9
ir 1
23 Z•P Ze1 ,rov 24, I EP i _0 1 tre I
4
I P i 1
19 24:1 p ZJ 22 t 23 1 r 2 J.2.0 i 2 :at
kaz
911
V11,1•4. 1
TA}, C I SI d I 4 1 6 i 4•4
il6( titoin 1 3 P/5 Po Pec if
41 i
ioes
&FA*
1 9 5‘.9 0
ppm easy 1 1
i 99 9 1 i i
tflt WIRD
TIUCT
a
1,
Printing screen, please wait Press ESC t. abort
Iti
YD
A
i
ii4 ge I an
1 4 h
j III 4 t.
h SNdiciPI 'H
I
iH V •IV
RESOLUTION NO. 8D -92 -007
RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP
OF HEMEL; 20241 Merriman Avenue
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency
under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under
the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for tentative
map approval of two (2) lots, all as more particularly set forth in
File No. SD -92 -007 of this City; and
WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed
subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and
improvement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with
all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision
and land use is compatible with the objectives, policies and
general land use and programs specified in such General Plan,
reference to the Staff Reports dated 10/14/92 and 11/10/92 being
hereby made for further particulars; and
WHEREAS, this body has heretofore received and considered the
Categorical Exemption for this project in accord with the currently
applicable provisions of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Government Code
Sections 66474 (a) (g) and 66474.6 exist with respect to said
subdivision, and tentative approval should be granted in accord
with conditions as hereinafter set forth; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed
public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a
full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the
hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated August 1992
and marked Exhibit "A" in the hereinabove referred file, be and the
same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said
approval are follows:
1. Prior to submittal of the Final Map to the City Engineer for
examination, the owner (applicant) shall cause the property to
be surveyed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or an authorized Civil
Engineer. The submitted map shall show the existence of a
monument at all external property corner locations, either
found or set. The submitted map shall also show monuments set
at each ne corner location, angle pint, or as directed by the
City Engineer, all in conformity with the Subdivision Map Act
and the Professional Land Surveyors Act.
2. The owner (applicant) shall submit four (4) copies of a Final
Map in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative
Map, along with the additional documents required by Section
14- 40.030 of the Municipal code and shall be accompanied by
the following items:
File No. 8D- 92 -07; 20241 Harriman Avenue
a. One copy of
b. Preliminary
ninety (90)
Map.
c. One copy of
d. One copy of
Map.
map checking calculations.
Title Report for the property dated within
days of the date of submittal for the Final
each map referenced on the Final Map.
each document /deed referenced on the Final
e. One copy of any other map, document, deed, easement or
other resource that will facilitate the examination
process as requested by the City Engineer.
3. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Map Checking fee, as
determined by the City Engineer, at the time of submittal of
the Final Map for examination.
4. Interior monuments shall be set at each lot corner either
prior to recordation of the Final Map or some later date to be
specified on the Final Map. If the owner (applicant) chooses
to defer the setting of interior monuments to a specified
later date, then sufficient security as determined by the City
Engineer shall be furnished prior to Final Map approval, to
guarantee the setting of interior monuments.
5. The owner (applicant) shall provide Irrevocable Offers of
Dedication for all required easements and /or rights of way on
the Final Map, in substantial conformance with the approved
Tentative Map, prior to Final Map approval.
6. The owner (applicant) shall file with the Santa Clara County
Recorder the requisite statement indicating that there are no
liens against the property or any part thereof for any unpaid
taxes or special assessments. A copy of the statement(s)
shall be provided to the City Engineer prior to Final Map
approval.
7. The owner (applicant) shall pay the applicable Park and
Recreation in -lieu fees prior to Final Map approval.
8. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the owner (applicant)
shall execute an agreement with the City waiving the rights of
the owner or any successive owners of any of the lots created
by the subdivision to protest the formation of an underground
utility district for the purpose of undergrounding existing
overhead utility lines in the vicinity of the property. The
agreement shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map
File No. 8D- 92 -07; 20241 Harriman Avenue
and reference to the agreement shall appear in the Owner's
Certification on the Final Map.
9. Future development on parcel A shall require design review
approval and shall be limited to a 2,400 sq. ft. single story
structure, not to exceed 20 feet in height. This restriction
shall expire at the time a Certificate of Final Occupancy is
issued for the residence. Any future additions thereto would
then be governed by current zoning regulations.
10. Design review approval shall be required for parcel A and
shall only be granted upon finding that the proposed structure
is compatible in terms of scale and design with the existing
adjacent residences, that it is in conformance with the City's
Residential Design Guidelines and that all of the necessary
Design Review findings can be made.
11. Future development on parcel A shall comply with the approved
site development plan, marked Exhibit "B
12. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant and /or property
owner shall file with the Planning Director, a written
statement by an I.S.A. Certified Arborist, that all pruning,
cabling and applicable fertilizing work has been performed
pursuant to the City Arborist Report dated 8/31/92.
13. All other applicable requirements of the City Arborist shall
be complied with at the time development is proposed for
parcel A.
14. The owner (applicant) shall, upon the City's request, defend,
indemnify and hold the City and its officers, boards, commis-
sions, employees and volunteers harmless from and against any
claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void or
annul this approval, or any of the proceedings, acts or
determinations taken, done or made prior to such approval,
which is brought within the time specified in Section 14-
85.060 of the Municipal Code. If a defense is requested, the
City shall give prompt notice to the applicant of any such
claim, action or proceeding, and shall cooperate fully in the
defense thereof. Nothing herein shall prevent the City from
participating in the defense, but in such event, the City
shall pay its own attorney's fees and costs.
15. The owner (applicant) shall furnish a written indemnity
agreement and proof of insurance coverage, in accordance with
Section 14- 05.055 of the Municipal Code, prior to Final Map
approval.
Pile No. SD- 92 -07; 20241 Merriman Avenue
16. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall
constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossi-
ble 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.
Section 1. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these
conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said
resolution shall be void.
Section 2. Conditions must be completed within 24 months or
approval will expire.
Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County,
City and other Governmental entities must be met.
Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of
Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall
become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis-
sion, State of California, this 10th day of November, 1992, by the
following vote:
AYES: ASFOUR, BOGOSIAN, CALDWELL, FAVERO, FORBES, MURAKAMI
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MORAN
The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted:
Applicant
ChaW nnC o
g C mmissio
ATTEST:
Date
RESOLUTION NO. V -92 -012
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CONNISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Rebel; 20241 Harriman Avenue
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received
an application for the Variance approval to allow two parcels to be
created with 82 ft. lot .widths in an R-1-10,000 zone district which
prescribes a minimum width of 85 ft; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed
public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a
full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to
support his said application, and the Planning Commission makes the
following findings:
That because of special circumstances applicable to the property,
including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict
enforcement of the specified regulations would deprive the
applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties
in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district, in that
all of the immediately adjacent lots were created with 82 ft.
widths.
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of
special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other
properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning
district, in that all of the immediately adjacent lots were created
with 82 ft. widths.
That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of
Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan,
architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in
connection with this matter, the application of Bohol for Variance
approval be, and the same is hereby granted, subject to the
following conditions:
1. All conditions of Resolution SD -92 -007 shall apply.
Section 2. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these
conditions within thirty (30) days of the passage of this
resolution or said resolution shall be void.
Section 3. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or
approval will expire.
File No. V -92 -012; 20241 Merriman Avenue
Section 4. All applicable requirements of the State, County,
City and other Governmental entities must be met.
Section 5. The applicant shall affix a copy of this
resolution to each set of construction plans which will be
submitted to the Building Division when applying for a building
permit.
Section 6. 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 10th day November, 1992, by
the following vote:
AYES: ASFOUR, BOGOSIAN, CALDWELL, FAVERO, FORBES, MURAKAMI
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MORAN
ATTEST:
wit", Gt_)a1 e,kn
Se tary, Planni Commission
The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted
Signature of Applicant Date
Chairper,. P arming Commission
Planning Commission M tes
Meeting of November 10, 1992
Page 2
FORBES /ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 1992,
AS AMENDED. PASSED 4 -0 (Bogosian and Favero abstained).
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Commissioner Favero noted the absence of legal counsel for the meeting.
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly
posted on November 6, 1992.
TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET
Planner Walgren had the following inclusion to the agenda under Commissioner
Items:
1. Review of modifications to design review application DR -92 -004
Svoboda, Mt. Eden Road (approved at the July 22, 1992 Planning
Commission meeting).
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. SD -92 -007 Behel; 20241 Herriman Ave., request for
V -92 -012 tentative map approval to subdivide a 22,910 sq. ft. parcel into
two (2) single family residential building sites of 11,455 sq. ft.
each. The variance request is to allow the parcels to be created
with 82 ft. lot widths in an R- 1- 10,000 zone district which
prescribes a minimum width of 85 feet. This public hearing
item was continued from the 10/14/92 meeting to have staff
prepare approval resolutions, development conditions and a tree
preservation plan. Pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act, the
City must act on this application by 3/23/93.
The Report dated November 10, 1992 was presented to the Planning Commission
by Planner Walgren. He also answered questions from the Commission with regard
to the application and the recommended conditions.
Chairperson Caldwell opened the public hearing at 7:42 p.m.
Iktra Cymbal, 14583 Big Basin Way, project engineer representing the applicant,
spoke in favor of the application.
John Behel, Uba City, Ca, representing the applicant, spoke in favor of the
proposed variance and tentative map. He expressed opposition for additional
Planning Commission M tes
Meeting of November 10, 1992
Page 3
restrictions, other than the standard zoning and building regulations, being placed
on future. development of the proposed lots. He also noted that a petition in favor
of the proposed variance and subdivision signed by neighbors had been submitted.
FAVERO /ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. PASSED 6 -0.
Commissioner Favero stated he could support the applications as recommend in
the staff report. He explained that the allowable lot coverage had been an issue to
him, but that Condition No. 9 in Resolution No. SD -92 -007 had addressed this
concern and with inclusion of this condition, he could support the application.
Commissioner Bogosian explained that he had read the materials and visited the
site and would be comfortable voting on the applications. He concurred with the
comments made by Commissioner Favero.
Chairperson Caldwell also concurred with her fellow Commissioners Favero and
Bogosian.
FAVERO /FORBES MOVED TO APPROVE V -92 -012 AS RECOMMENDED IN THE
STAFF REPORT. PASSED 6 -0.
FAVERO/FORBES MOVED TO APPROVE SD -92 -07 AS RECOMMENDED IN THE
STAFF REPORT. PASSED 6 -0.
2. DR -92 -027 McGregor /Girand; Saratoga Hills Rd., request
V -92 -011 for design review approval to construct a 5,756 sq. ft. two
story residence on a currently vacant 2.5 acre parcel located
within an R -1- 40,000 zone district. Pursuant to Chapter 15 of
the City Code, variance approval is also necessary to allow the
structure to be located on a slope in excess of 30 percent.
Planner Walgren presented the Report dated November 10, 1992 to the
Commission. He noted receipt of a letter from Bill Young expressing support for
the application. Planner Walgren also answered questions with regard to the
application and presented the material board to the Commission.
Commissioner Favero expressed concern regarding the safety of developing the
site because of its 42% slope at the proposed building footprint. He inquired as to
how an approval of an application such as this would effect the enforcement of the
City's ordinance which prohibits development on a site with a slope in excess of
30
Planner Walgren explained that the lot was recorded as a buildable lot prior to the
enactment of the "Slope Ordinance He further explained that geotechnical studies
had been conducted, and based on the findings of the study, staff had concluded
that the proposed building site was safe and acceptable.
Printed on recycled paper.
Background:
Development Criteria:
M E M O R A N D U M
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: James Walgren, Associate Planner
DATE: November 10, 1992
SUBJECT: Tentative Map #92 -007 and Variance #92 -012
Behel; 20241 Herriman Avenue
At the October 14th Planning Commission public hearing, the
Commissioners heard a request to subdivide a 22,910 sq. ft. parcel
into two single- family residential building sites. The proposed
lot split required variance consideration to allow the two parcels
to be created with 82 ft. lot widths in an R -1- 10,000 zone district
which prescribes a minimum width of 85 feet.
Following public testimony and Planning Commission deliberations on
the request, the Commission directed staff to prepare approval
resolutions, development conditions and a tree preservation plan
for consideration this evening.
In order to ensure compatibility of future development on parcel A
with the existing neighborhood, the Commission requested that staff
prepare an analysis of the size of existing homes within this area
in order to arrive at a reasonable square footage limitation for
the new lot. Staff's survey found that the immediately adjacent
homes on similar substandard parcels ranged from 1,600 to 2,400
square feet. Based on this range, staff is recommending that
future development on parcel A not exceed 2,400 sq. ft., including
the required 400 sq. ft. two -car garage (the allowable square
footage for these and adjacent lots, would otherwise be 3,200 sq.
ft.). Staff has also included conditions requiring that initial
construction be limited to single -story and not exceed 20 ft.. in
height.
These development restrictions have been incorporated into the
tentative map approval resolution.
Recommendation:
Approve the request, with conditions, by adopting Resolutions SD-
92 -007 and V -92 -012.
Attachments:
1. Resolutions SD -92 -007 and V -92 -012
2. Planning Commission minutes dated 10/14/92
3. Arborist Report dated 10/28/92
4. Area square footage map
5. Building Envelope Map, Exhibit "B"
6. Staff Report dated 10/14/92
7. Tentative Map, Exhibit "A"
Planning Commission M. Les
Meeting of October 14, 1992
Page 10
AT 10:57 P.M., FAVERO/MORAN MOVED TO RE -OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IN
ORDER TO HEAR COMMENTS FROM THE NEIGHBORS WITH REGARD TO THE
ABOVE MOTION AS AMENDED BY COMMISSIONER ASFOUR. PASSED 6-0.
Kathy McGoldrick, 12860 Paseo Presada, spoke in favor of basing the approval of the
application on a condition that the traffic problem be solved. She stated that without
this condition, there is no encouragement to the property owner to address the existing
problems.
FAVERO/MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:58 P.M. PASSED
6-0.
The amendment made by Commissioner Asfour to Commissioner Forbes. motion (above)
was accepted by Commissioner Forbes and the motion was restated as follows:
COMMISSIONER FORBES MOVED TO: 1) RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF GPA 92-001 AND ZC- 92-004; AND 2) DIRECT THE PLANNING
DIRECTOR TO GET TOGETHER WITH THE CONCERNED CITIZENS AND THE
PROPERTY OWNERS TO WORK OUT A MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION TO DEAL
WITH THE TRAFFIC SITUATION. IF A RESOLUTION CANNOT BE WORKED OUT,
THE PLANNING DIRECTOR SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION OF A RESOLUTION.
THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ASFOUR. THE MOTION PASSED
4-0 (FORBES AND MORAN OPPOSED.
3. SD -92-007 Behel; 20241 Herriman Ave., request for
V-92-012 tentative map approval to subdivide a 22,910 sq. ft. parcel into two
(2) single family residential building sites of 11,455 sq. ft. each.
The variance request is to allow the parcels to be created with 82
ft. lot widths in an R- 1- 10,000 zone district which prescribes a
minimum width of 85 feet.
Planner Walgren presented the Report dated October 14, 1992. He also noted that
Planning Commission meeting minutes from April, June and July of 1981 when the
tentative map was earlier approved, a letter of support from Mr. McLean, and
conditions of approval from Mr. McLean's similar, previously approved subdivision had
been distributed for the Commissions review.
At 11:05 p.m, Chairperson Caldwell opened the public hearing.
Mr. Cymbal, Project Engineer, spoke in favor of the application. He stated that should
the parcel be maintained as one parcel, it could potentially be developed with a large
home which would be inconsistent with the surrounding homes.
Planning Commission h rtes
Meeting of October 14, 1992
Page 11
John Behel, representing Norma Behel, the property owner, spoke in favor of the
application and explained that Mrs. Behel did not pursue the 1981 subdivision approval
because of financial reasons, but would now like to pursue subdividing the parcel. He
stated that a denial of the application would deny her the privilege enjoyed by other
property owners in the vicinity who have previously subdivided their property.
ASFOUR/MURAIJANII MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:15 P.M.
PASSED 6-0.
ASFOUR MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO DRAFT A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF SD- 92-007 AND V-92-012.
COMMISSIONER MORAN MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO CONTINUE THE
ITEM TO THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING IN ORDER TO ALLOW
STAFF TIME TO PREPARE A TREE PRESERVATION PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. THE AMENDMENT OF THE MOTION WAS ACCEPTED
BY COMMISSIONER ASFOUR. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
MURAKAMI.
Commissioner Favero stated that he was in agreement with the conclusion reached by
staff as represented in the staff report and therefore, could not support approval of the
application.
Commissioner Asfour stated that the application had been previously approved and that
the property, as is, could be developed with a large house which he would find to be
out of character with the surrounding homes.
Commissioner Favero inquired as to what size house could be built on the existing lot
versus the size of the homes that would be allowed on the two proposed parcels. He
expressed concern regarding potential increase in density.
Planner Walgren stated that an approximate 4,500 square foot home could be built on
the existing parcel and an approximate 3,200 square house could be built on each of
the proposed lots.
There was discussion among the Commissioners regarding imposing a floor area, height
and one -story limitation on future homes to be built on the parcels should the
subdivision be approved.
ALL PREVIOUS MOTION ON THIS ITEM WERE WITHDRAWN.
MORAN /ASFOUR MOVED TO RE -OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:29 P.M.
PASSED 6-0.
Mr. Behel, representing the applicant, informed the Commission that the existing homes
on the street averaged about 2,200 square feet and are situated on lots comparable in
size to the proposed lots.
Planning Commission M. i.es
Meeting of October 14, 1992
Page 12
MORAN /ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:30 P.M. PASSED
6-0.
FAVERO /CALDWELL MOVED TO APPROVE SD- 92-007 AND V -92 -012 WITH THE
CONDITION THAT THE BUILDABLE AREA OF EACH LOT NOT EXCEED 2,200
SQUARE FEET OR BE REDUCED PROPORTIONATELY BY THE SQUARE FOOTAGE BY
WHICH THE LOT LACKS FROM QUALIFYING AS A STANDARD LOT.
City Attorney asked for clarification of whether the motion included a "sunset clause
Commissioner Favero indicated that the condition with regard to the size limitation be a
permanent condition.
Commissioner Forbes and Asfour stated that they could not support a 2,200 square foot
restriction. Commissioner Forbes supported a 3,200 square foot limitation.
COMMISSIONER MORAN SUGGESTED THAT THE MOTION BE AMENDED TO RE-
OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONTINUE SD- 92-007 AND V-92-012 TO THE
OCTOBER 28, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ALLOW STAFF TIME TO
PREPARE A RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL, A TREE PRESERVATION PLAN,
DEVELOPMENT CONDfFIONS OF APPROVAL WHICH WOULD INCLUDE A SIZE
ANALYSIS OF SIMILAR ONE -STORY HOUSES ON SIMILAR LOTS IN THE AREA AND
MAICE A RECOMMENDATION ON A FAIR SIZE RESTRICTION TO IMPOSE ON FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT ON THE PROPOSED PARCELS. THIS AMENDMENT WAS ACCEPTED
BY BOTH THE MAKER AND THE SECONDER..
Commissioner Favero indicated that he would not be in support of the variance and
subdivision application should the staff recommend a size (for future houses on the
sites) which is equal in size to a home on a standard lot.
THE MOTION PASSED 6
MORAN/FORBES MOVED TO CONTINUE THE REMAINING ITEMS ON THE PUBLIC
HEARING PORTION OF THE AGENDA TO THE OCTOBER 28, 1992 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING. PASSED 6-0.
Commissioner Moran suggested, because of the wide community interest in Item #4
TUP -92 -003 Prince of Peace Evangelical Lutheran Church, that staff be directed to re-
notice the item.
A member from the audience informed the Commission that the Prince of Peace
Evangelical Lutheran Church would be holding a neighborhood meeting to explain their
application and answer any questions and offer to inform the persons attending the
meeting that the item had been continued to the October 28, 1992 Planning
Commission Meeting.
I BARRIE D. CGSTE
and ASSOCIATES R E Horticultural Consultants C E I V E D 408 353 -1052
2 3 992
23535 Summit Road.. Los Gatos, CA 95030 NOV 4
PLANNING DEPT,
ANALYSIS OF THE TREES
AT 20241 HERRIMAN AVENUE
SARATOGA
Prepared at the Request of:
James Walgren
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Site Visit by:
Terence E. Welch
October 28, 1992
Job #10 -92 -343
1 BARRIE D. C G, TE
and ASSOCIATES
Horticultural Consultants
408 -353 -1052
2 3535 Summit Road., Los Gatos, CA 95030
General Comments
On October 28, 1992, our firm surveyed the Behel property at 20241 Herriman Avenue,
Saratoga. A lot split is proposed for this approximately one -half acre lot. Each lot will be a
rectangle 82 feet wide and 140 feet deep. The existing residence will remain entirely on the
newly created eastern lot. As it exists now, the proposed western lot will have no structures.
This report will discuss the trees which are of sufficient size to be covered by the City of
Saratoga Heritage Tree Ordinance. There are 9 such trees on the eastern -most lot. The trees on
the western lot will not be discussed since a residence already exists on this lot, and new
construction is not proposed for that lot.
Soil quality is excellent on this flat lot in a suburban residential neighborhood.
General Comments
ANALYSIS OF THE TREES
AT 20241 HERRIMAN AVENUE
SARATOGA
Trees #1 through 4, and trees #8 and 9 are outside of the building envelope. These trees should
be relatively unaffected by new construction. A temporary construction period fence as
described below will suffice to protect these trees during construction.
Trees #5, 6 and 7 are located within the building envelope. Trees #6 and 7 have been cut down
at some point in the past and have regrown with a thicket of sprouts. These two Coast Live Oaks,
Quercus agrifolia, have inferior structures and could be removed.
Tree #5, however, is a fine Coast Live Oak. Either the house will need to be designed in such a
way that it is possible to preserve 70% of the root zone inside the dripline of this tree, or this
tree should be removed, and an equivalent dollar value in trees should be planted. Both
possibilities have been considered in this report.
Because of the small size of this lot, all of the trees have been included in the bonding
calculations. Machinery will be operating in close proximity to the trees.
irrigation Before and After Root Destruction
Any tree which has had excavation occur within its driptine, or portions of its rootzone covered,
should be assumed to be stressed. This stress can be reduced by providing supplemental
irrigation to the rootzone which is still intact.
Irrigation is best provided using "ooze" -type soaker hoses. They are easily available at
hardware suppliers such as Orchard Supply Hardware, and Home Depot. These hoses dribble
water into the ground, providing deep watering wherever they are laid down. Where the
rootzone is intact, the soaker hose should be placed at the dripline. Where root destruction has
occurred, it should be placed over the cut ends of the roots. If left on over night, enough water
should easily be provided to penetrate 24 inches deep. Depth of penetration should be checked
with a soil probe or shovel.
Starting four weeks before any grading will occur near the tree, it should be irrigated weekly to
a depth of 24 inches, using soaker hoses as described above. Monthly irrigations during the dry
season should occur until one year after construction is completed.
Fencing Rootzones During Construction
ANALYSIS OF THE TREES
AT 20241 HERRIMAN AVENUE
SARATOGA
A temporary construction period fence should be erected around each tree which is to be
retained in the final landscape. This fence should be erected at the dripline of each tree. If
groves of trees are to be protected, one common fence can be erected around the entire grove.
Where construction intrudes into rootzones, this fence should be erected 24 inches from the
limits of that construction. It should consist of portable cyclone fencing, or wire mesh securely
attached to metal posts driven into the ground. It should not be easy for construction workers to
move, or take down.
This fencing should be erected before any construction machinery enters the site, and should not
be removed until final landscape grading is completed.
It cannot be emphasized enough how important these fences are. From our experience, soil
compaction and trenching through rootzones are the number one causes of tree stress in the post
construction period. It should be explained clearly to all contractors and workers on site that
-2-
Pruning, Cabling and Other Work
ANALYSIS OF THE TREES
AT 20241 HERRIMAN AVENUE
SARATOGA
these fences are sacred. If for any reason it becomes necessary for any machinery to enter the
fenced -in rootzone of a tree, an International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist should
be consulted first.
Trenching of any sort must be planned to avoid traveling beneath tree canopies. This should
include planning for P.G. &E., sewer lines, electrical power, cable T.V., and irrigation. Plans
should show specific locations of trenches, if possible.
No chemicals, solvents, paints, etc. should be dumped on site. No concrete residue should be
washed into the soil within 20 feet of a rootzone. All trash and debris should be removed from
the site, rather than dumped or buried where it might affect roots.
Pruning, cabling, and any other specific treatments recommended in our reports, should be
completed before construction is finished.
All pruning should be performed by an I.S.A. Certified Arborist, according to Western Chapter
I.S.A. Pruning Standards (see copy enclosed). No pruning should be performed by carpenters or
grading personnel, before, during or after construction. The Certified Arborist or Certified
Tree Worker should prune the trees in cooperation with the architect to provide clearances
where needed before grading equipment is allowed on site.
Fertilization
Where sub surface fertilization has been recommended, it should occur between May and
September, 1993, unless otherwise stated. A solution of 4 Ibs of Romeo Fertilizer's Greenbelt
22 -14 -14 per 100 gallons of water should be injected at the rate of 10 gallons per inch of
diameter at breast height (DBH). This fertilizer provides slow release nitrogen fertilization,
as well as trace elements such as iron, zinc, etc.
There are several seedlings on this lot of Coast Live Oaks and other trees which are smaller than
that which require protection under City of Saratoga Ordinance. These trees have not been
mentioned in the report and it Is assumed that they will be removed.
-3-
Care needed:
Dead wood removal
Removal of Ivy growing up the trunk
The equivalent dollar value in trees to replace tree #5 would be $4,902.00.
Specific Trees
ANALYSIS OF THE TREES
AT 20241 HERRIMAN AVENUE
SARATOGA
Tree #1, Coast Live Oak, Ouercus agrifolia
Present condition: This is a young tree with a good structure and in good health. Apparently it
is located immediately on the westem side of the property line with the adjacent property,
although it is presently growing on the eastern side of the wooden fence between the two
properties.
Construction impact and mitigation: The proposed driveway is designed to be constructed
approximately 7 to 8 feet from the trunk of this tree. A construction period fence should be
erected at the location shown on the enclosed map. Supplemental irrigation as described under
General Comments should be applied.
An 8 inch diameter limb at 3 feet above grade will need to be removed to provide the
necessary clearance for vehicles on this driveway. Although this will reduce the canopy of this
tree, there would still be an aesthetically satisfactory portion of it remaining. This pruning cut
should be performed by a Certified Arborist.
Tree #2, Coast Live Oak
Present condition: This tree has been affected by Branch Blight, Diplodia quercina, which has
killed several of the lower limbs. This tree has only a fair structure and is only in fair health.
It should be possible, however, to help it recover.
Care needed:
Prune out infected limbs.
Remove all Ivy from the area within the dripline.
Supplemental irrigation
-4-
r
ANALYSIS OF THE TREES
AT 20241 HERRIMAN AVENUE
SARATOGA
Construction impact and mitigation:
Provide with supplemental irrigation as described under "General Comments
Erect construction period fence at location shown on enclosed map.
Fertilize as shown under "General Comments
Trees #3 and 4, Coast Live Oak
Present condition: These trees have grown up close together and have formed a single canopy.
Tree #4 has a poorer structure than tree #3. However, neither of these trees is in poor
condition structurally. Both of these trees are in good health.
Care needed:
End weight removal and minor thinning should be performed on tree #3.
Dead wood removal on tree #3 and tree #4
Construction impact and mitigation: A construction period fence should be erected at the location
shown on the enclosed map. Otherwise, construction impact will be minor.
Tree #5, Coast Live Oak
Present condition: This is a young, maturing Coast Live Oak, in its' "teen -age" years. It has a
good structure and is in good health.
Care needed:
Dead wood removal.
Construction impact and mitigation: This tree is located within the building envelope, and
therefore could be retained, or removed. On the enclosed chart you will find its dollar value for
the purposes of replacing it within the equivalent amount of dollar value trees.
If a decision is to made to require the retention of this tree several measures should be
performed.
The root zone should be left open (bare soil) for 6 feet on the west side of this tree, 10 feet on
the south side of the tree, and 10 feet on the north side of the tree. The house will need to be
-5-
ANALYSIS OF THE TREES
AT 20241 HERRIMAN AVENUE
SARATOGA
designed in such a way that the only major limb (larger than 6 inches in diameter) which will
require removal will be a 10 inch limb at 13 feet above grade which points toward the west.
This will likely require that the structure be one -story within 10 feet of the tree in the
westerly direction.
All minor cuts which are necessary beyond the removal of that limb, of branches Tess than 6
inches in diameter will be permissible, as long as they are performed by a Certified Arborist.
In addition, the house will need to be constructed utilizing a pier and grade beam foundation.
Pier and Grade Beam Foundation
Special foundation construction may be required when too much of a rootzone will be disrupted,
or if large diameter roots will be cut, threatening the ability of a tree to hold itself erect. The
construction of pier and grade beam foundation adjacent to these trees will drastically reduce
major root destruction. Such a foundation rests on deeply set drilled piers, rather than a
perimeter footing. No drilling for piers should be allowed within 3 feet of the trunks of trees.
When drilling for piers within 10 feet of a trunk, a pilot hole should be dug by hand, 24 inches
deep, and the width necessary for the pier, to ascertain if any major roots over 3 inches in
diameter are present. If major roots are encountered, the location of the pier should be adjusted
to avoid them.
The grade beams should be laid as close to existing grade as possible. If they must be laid sub-
surface, a trench no deeper than 6 inches deep should be excavated with hand tools. If roots over
3 inches in diameter are encountered, they should not be severed without first consulting an
I.S.A. Certified Arborist.
Trees #6 and 7, Coast Live Oak
Present Condition: These trees were cut down at some point in the past and have resprouted with
many trunks. They have an inherently weak structure. They have been recommended for
removal.
Tree #8, Coast Live Oak
This is a fine Oak of approximately the same age as tree #5. It is in good health and has a fair
structure.
-6-
ANALYSIS OF THE TREES
AT 20241 HERRIMAN AVENUE
SARATOGA
Care needed:
Some structural pruning to train a dominant central leader.
Minor dead wood removal.
Construction impact and mitigation: Install a temporary construction period fence at the
location shown on the enclosed map.
Tree #9, Coast Redwood, Sequoia sempervirens
Present condition: This is a large, mature tree growing in the north easterly corner of the
property. A co- dominant emerges at 4 feet above grade. This is an inherently weak structure
which has the potential to split apart at some time in the future.
This tree has suffered from drought stress, and the canopy became very thin in the past.
However, it has recovered and will very likely fill in and become a fine tree once more.
Care needed:
Supplemental irrigation during construction as described under "General Comments
Sub surface fertilization.
Construction period fence at the location shown on the enclosed map.
If you have any questions please call our office.
TE W:la
Enclosures: Charts
Map
Bond sheet
Evaluation chart
-7-
Respectfully submitted,
Terence E. Welch, Associate
Barrie D. Coate and Associates
Key
2
3
4
BARRIE D. COATE ASSOCIATES
Horticultural Consultants
(408) 353-1052
Plant Name
(`.nact 1 ivn Oak
(]uarruc agrifnlia
X $27 sq/in
x sp. class x cond
xloc(
Final Value
enact 1 ive Oak
Cnact l ivP Oak
Cnact 1 ivP Oak
sq.in X $27 sq /in
d
L
U
C
2
CO
p
16
16
13
17
x
X
8
12
U
m
p
7
H
C7
w
25
30
30
25
35
35
30
1
3
1
1
2
31
3
2
x sp. class
3
1
i
x cond
2
/a)
1
1
sq.in X $27 sq/iin x sp. class x cond x loc
Final Value
xloc(
PAGE 1
OF 2
DIAMETER
2' ABOVE ORD.
and
COMMENTS
17"
Remove Ivy
15/11"
Dipiodia?
18"
One -sided
canopy
sq.in X $27 sq /in
x sp. class x cond
xloc(
Final Value
18"
JOB T TLE: Behel Property/20241 Herriman Avenue
JOB 10 -92 -343
DATE:10 -14 -92
1=best 5 =worst Sq. p
q. in. its determined with the formula:
Final Value
Total Value
This Sheet $4,902.00
Cnact I ivP Oak
17
35
40
1
2
18
227 sq.in X $27 sq/in $6,128 x sp. class 100%) $6,128 x cond (80%) $4,902 x loc 100% 4,902
Final Value
6
Cnact t iVA Oak
5
X
5
5
25
25
1
4
X
7/6/6"
X $27 /in sp. 0 loc
sq.in sq x class x cond x
Final Value
Key
2
3
4
BARRIE D. COATE ASSOCIATES
Horticultural Consultants
(408) 353-1052
Plant Name
(`.nact 1 ivn Oak
(]uarruc agrifnlia
X $27 sq/in
x sp. class x cond
xloc(
Final Value
enact 1 ive Oak
Cnact l ivP Oak
Cnact 1 ivP Oak
sq.in X $27 sq /in
d
L
U
C
2
CO
p
16
16
13
17
x
X
8
12
U
m
p
7
H
C7
w
25
30
30
25
35
35
30
1
3
1
1
2
31
3
2
x sp. class
3
1
i
x cond
2
/a)
1
1
sq.in X $27 sq/iin x sp. class x cond x loc
Final Value
xloc(
PAGE 1
OF 2
DIAMETER
2' ABOVE ORD.
and
COMMENTS
17"
Remove Ivy
15/11"
Dipiodia?
18"
One -sided
canopy
sq.in X $27 sq /in
x sp. class x cond
xloc(
Final Value
18"
JOB T TLE: Behel Property/20241 Herriman Avenue
JOB 10 -92 -343
DATE:10 -14 -92
1=best 5 =worst Sq. p
q. in. its determined with the formula:
Final Value
Total Value
This Sheet $4,902.00
BARRIE D. COATE ASSOCIATES
Horticultural Con
(408) 35;
DBH (inches) 1
MULTI -STEM 1
DBH (inches)
I DBH (inches)
I HEIGHT 1
OV ddS
HEALTH (1 -5) 1
I STRUCTURE (1 -5)
1 NEEDS THINNING 1
(REMOVE ENDWEIGHI
ROOT COLLAR I
COVERED (1 -5)
r a
I TRUNK DECAY 1
1 INSECTS (1 -5) 1
TREE CROWN
DISEASES(1 -5)
I DEADWOOD (1 -5)
a o_
1 CABLES NEEDED 4
1 NEEDS FERTILIZER
1 NEEDS WATER 1
RECOMMEND
REMOVAL
I REMOVAL PRIORITY 1
I PRUNING PRIORITY,
PAGE 2
OF 2
COMMENTS
Key
Plant Name
7
(;nast 1 iva Oak
7
6
5
25
25
1
4
X
6 ,7,7"
sq in X $27 sq/in
x sp. class x cond (0) x loc
Final Value
8
Cnast 1 ive Oak
16
X
12
j 3545
1
3
1
122"
sq.in X $27 sq /in
x sp. class x cond x loc
Final Value
g
Coast Rariwnnri
42
70
35
2
3
I
1
2
17"
Recovering from
drought stress
Slag! min Sampprviranc
sq.in X $27 sq/in
x sp. class xcondO xloc()=
Final Value
X $27
x sp. class x cond x loc
Final Value
sq.in sq/in
X $27
x sp. class x cond x loc
Final Value
sq.in sq/in
X
x sp. class x cond x loc
Final Value
sq.in $27 sq/in
JOB TITLE: Behel Property/20241 Herriman Avenue
JOB 10 -92 -343
DATE:10 -14 -92
1 =best 5 =worst Sq. in 954
q. in. is determined with the formula:
Total Value
Two Sheets= $4,902.00
BARRIE
D. COATE ASSOCIATES
Horticultural Consultants
ISA EVALUATION CITY OF SARATOGA
VALUE OF TREES WHICH WILL BE AFFECTED BY CONSTRUCTION
.1 (408) 353 -1052
DB H
sq/
(a. r2)
Value per
sq. inch
Basic
Adjustments
Total
Value
Species
Condition
Location
Key
Genus/species/class
$27.00
1
Coast Live Oak
16
201
$27.00
$5428
100%
80%
100%
$4,300
Quercus agrifolia
2
C:nact I hip flak
16,8,7
245
$27.00
$6625
100%
40%
100%
$2,600
3
Coast/ ive Oak
13/12
161
$27.00
$4347
100%
60%
100%
$2,600
4
C:nact I ivn flak
17
227
$27.00
$6128
100%
80%
100%
$4,900
5
RPp rPpnrt
6
(nast 1 ivp flak
5,5,5,
39
$27.00
$1058
100%
0
100%
0
7
Coats Live Oak
7/6
52
$27.00
$1417
100%
0
100%
0
8
C:nact 1 ivp flak
16/12
257
$27.00
$6,952
100%
60%
100%
$4,100
9
Coast Redwood
42
1385
$27.00
$37,407
100%
50%
100%
$18,700
Sit inia campPrvirpnc
JOB TITLE: Behel Property/20241 Herriman Avenue
TOTAL VALUE THIS PAGE $37,200
JOB 10-92 -343
SUGGESTED BOND 7,440
DATE: 10 -14 -92
Pg_1 of 1
Ale
BARRIE I. 2OATE
AND ASSOCIATES
1 23535 Summit Rd
Los Gatos, Ca 95030
(408)353 -1052
Horticultural Consultants
Consulting Arborists
An Analysis of Trees
At The Behel perty
Herriman Avenue
DATE: 10 92
SCALE: NONE
Prepared for
The City of Saratoga
Job: #10 -92 -343
sjoc /C,L/
LAWN eF
•N
Prcel
Z f acres
:.�Aorbeeue
Pi.
wood fence
(07
t 5
100
3 j1 to
L3
RICO
9045 79,59
1
!c+l
1 131 2 6 so
ISn m
U
1- 23oI ea.
4
t 46 6
1 1441 s P
/2 8 1 5 9
moo
4 t oo
0.1
2 c p e,
7 It 6 LQ
1/
r
11.5
37
rrs
61.22
s
40
2
88
6
1 w+i
1 19 r_I 59
1 i
1
1 3
1222 S•c•
I
2l S•.
4
42
:I to 48
'4
6. 4r 9 ,,I
•2230 227 s
5.4. r 12
10 2.30 rjt -89 031
-031.1
-J
M Ce
CC
2CO `a.
w
44 6
45 7
J 102 .30
-J
Q
ti U
218sS.
131 �1� 242.35
26' J jgP C L. A
7
OAS AC.
13811
^I 104.09
S D0. -1500
V
sa -cm -001
V- q2 o�Z
s t8g8 S•
0
I
!65'1 1 I 140
SD -157
A -1092
1 2 PCL. 8 fl
4 ip.45 AC.
1
242.30
1 trT80 r 15,02
1 5 1 4 i 3 1 v -19
1* .I ci 53
1( 58 NI. vI
.I t.I 37 116
85 714 1
137 13748 -/I 1 p
N° 3034 .a I� 2
I' 70
C at
g
ae
2
r
0•
9
1
1 1393 I �I
P.M. 545 -M- 9
R- I -I0000
IR:- i2sao1
1 1 0 0'
Nt-
A rcctoDe l .c lot( e
Mp
I MIN
r
I t
CL4R4
M
Oak
••11•11•1
HERR/MAN AP
ors•-
....VE NSA
u wN
'EIIOENCE
ihtl
/4rJ t4 Ito
Ai .II
EXHIbiT B
MI
Bice/ 4
Or
r ---rtp,•••••
1
'tr
1/J TO:
vim' FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Printed on recycled paper.
City Council
Planning Commission
December 16, 1992
M E M O R A N D U M
Appeal of a Decision by the Planning Commission Regarding
an Appeal of an Administrative Decision of the Heritage
Preservation Commission Concerning the Relocation of the
Historic Adobe Wall Located at 15229 Quito Road
At the November 24, 1992 regular Planning Commission meeting, a
decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission was upheld on
appeal by Mr.Sinsley of 15229 Quito Road. The consideration of
this appeal was culmination of a series of events dating back to
the April 22, 1992 regular Planning Commission hearing.
At that time the Commission received a verbal communication from
Mr. Ray Sinsley regarding the existing historic adobe wall located
on the subject property (Planning Commission minutes dated 4/22/92
are attached). Mr. Sinsley requested assistance from the Planning
Commission in determining the final placement for the relocation of
the wall into the open space easement as required by subdivision
condition (Resolution SD -87 -020). The Commission directed staff to
work with Mr. Sinsley and report back as to the status of the wall.
A detailed Staff Report concerning the history and circumstances
surrounding the wall issue was reviewed by the Commission at the
May 13 meeting. The report indicated that the Heritage Preservation
Commission had deliberated on the matter at length and, in October
of 1991, established final placement for the relocated portions of
the wall that was acceptable to Mr. Sinsley and to Mr. Boyle, the
owner of Casa Tierra (Staff Memo and Planning Commission minutes
dated 5/13/92 are attached for reference). Mr. Sinsley was advised
by the Planning Commission that, unless he made an application to
the Planning Commission to amend the subdivision condition
concerning the wall, the relocation plan approved by the Heritage
Preservation Commission would remain in effect.
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
Ann Marie Burger
Willem Kohler
Victor Monia
Karen Tucker
In September of this year, Mr. Sinsley submitted a proposed
revision to the previously approved wall relocation plan to the
Heritage Preservation Commission. The Commission urged the two
interested parties, Mr. Boyle and Mr. Sinsley, to make one final
attempt to come to some resolution on the matter. It was also
stipulated that, if no agreement was reached, the Heritage
Preservation Commission would decide, once again, upon the
appropriate final wall placement.
No accord was reached and, on October 14, the Heritage Preservation
Commission established a line on a site plan of the subject
property that represented the final approved placement of the
historic wall (Exhibit "A" attached).
The HPC believed that the approved relocation plan fulfilled both
the letter and intent of the original subdivision condition. The
Heritage Commission felt that the plan succeeded in placing the
wall completely within the open space easement while, at the same
time, maintained an appropriate and reasonable separation from the
adjacent Casa Tierra property which assisted in preserving the
character and context of this City designated historical site. Mr.
Sinsley disagreed with this determination and appealed to the
Planning Commission.
After reviewing the pertinent facts relating to the placement of
the wall, the Planning Commission concurred with the results of
the Heritage Preservation Commission's deliberations and moved to
uphold their decision and deny the appeal of Mr. Sinsley.
Resolution HPC -92 -1 and the minutes from the November 11 Planning
Commission meeting are attached for reference.
Recommendation:
Deny the appeal and affirm the decision of the Planning Commission
regarding the final relocation of the adobe wall as determined by
the Heritage Preservation Commission.
Ressestfully submitted,
George White
Associate Planner
Attachments:
1. Resolution HPC -92 -1
2. Planning Commission Minutes dated 4/22/92, 5/13/92 and 11/24/92
3. Staff Memo dated 5/13/92
4. Heritage Preservation Commission Minutes dated 10/14/92
5. Correspondence
6. Exhibit "A" Wall Relocation Plan Approved by HPC 10/14/92
adobe2
RESOLUTION NO. HPC -92 -1
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
UPHOLDING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OF THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION
COMMISSION
WHEREAS, on October 14, 1992, the Heritage Preservation Commission
conducted a hearing at which they determined final placement for
the relocation of the historic adobe wall, as required by condition
of SD -87 -020 located at 15229 Quito Road, and
WHEREAS, Ray Sinsley has appealed the decision of the Heritage
Preservation Commission to the Planning Commission, and
WHEREAS, on November 24, 1992, the Planning Commission conducted a
public hearing on said appeal, at which time any person interested
in the matter was given an opportunity to be heard, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the staff
report, minutes of previous hearings relating to said appeal, and
the written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission
in support of and in opposition to the appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the
City of Saratoga as follows:
The appeal of the decision of the Heritage Preservation
Commission is hereby denied and the decision of the
Heritage Preservation Commission is affirmed.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the
City of Saratoga Planning Commission at a meeting held on the 24th
day of November, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES: CALDWELL, ASFOUR, FORBES, MORAN
NOES: BOGOSIAN, MURAKAMI
ABSENT: FAVERO
1
CHAIR, P, ANNING COMMIS ION
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, PLANN NG COMMISSION
Planning Commission Mires
Meeting of April 22, 1992
Page Two
Page 7, second paragraph down from Item 6, the paragraph should read: "In
response to Commissioner Bogosian's question about winter aradinq
provisions, Ms. Adar stated..."
BOGOSIAN /FAVERO MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 7, 1992, AS
AMENDED ABOVE. Passed 4-0-3 (Comm. Durket, Forbes and Tucker abstained.)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Ray Sinsley, 12280 Farr Ranch Road, spoke in regard to the house at 15229 Keydora
which he is presently constructing. He stated that the parcel was a result of a 3 -lot
split and after the approval was granted, the Planning Commission in reviewing the
landscaping plans granted the developer at the time, Peter Olsen, permission to save
the old Adobe wall and move it into the easement. When Mr. Sinsley began budding
the house he discovered that the wall was not accurately identified on the map. He
received a red tag to halt construction and was advised by staff that the wall had to
be moved to the easement before he could continue construction. He had met
several times with staff and the Acting Planning Director, Eisner, and had not received
adequate direction /assistance with working out the problem with the wall and its
placement. Mr. Sinsley stated that he did not think it fair for him to pay a fee in order
to put the issue on the Planning Commission agenda since he did not create the
original problem.
Chr. Caldwell expressed understanding for his problem and stated that the City now
has a new Planning Director and that the matter should be taken up with the Director.
Mr. Sinsley agreed to do so.
Comm. Bogosian directed staff to write a memo for next Planning Commission packet
informing the Commission of the status of this issue.
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly
posted on February 7, 1992.
Technical Corrections to Packet
There were no technical corrections to the packet.
PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR
1. DR_92 -006 Black, 18532 Paseo Pueblo, request to construct a 796 sq. ft.
second -story addition and 175 sq. ft. of first floor area to an
existing 2,284 sq. ft. one -story residence, per Chapter 15 of the
City Code. The parcel is approximately 11,543 sq. ft. and is
Planning Commission M..yeb
Meeting of May 13, 1992
Page Eight
Commissioner Moran stated that she did not feel that the application was consistent
with the settlement agreement. She also stated that because of the size of the
proposed structure in comparison to the main structure and its independent
accessibility she did not feel the proposed structure could be defined as a guest
house. She expressed support for directing staff to draft a resolution for denial of the
application.
Chairperson Caldwell stated that she did not find the proposed structure to be a
subordinate use, but a dominant use. She also stated that the structure would be
inconsistent with the settlement agreement and could not support an approval of the
application.
Commissioner Bogosian suggested that the applicant look to some type of
underground parking in order to re- locate the proposed structure to the area which is
currenity use for the driveway. He also stated that he did not feel the proposed
structure complied with the spirit of the code in regard to a guest cottage and could
not support approval of the application.
Commissioner Tucker stated that she concurred with her fellow Commissioners'
comments and could not support an approval of the application.
Commissioner Durket expressed support for denial of the application based on the
reasons stated by the previous Commissioners.
MORAN/TUCKER MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO DRAFT A RESOLUTION FOR
DENIAL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, OF DR -91 -057 FOR ON THE REASONS
MENTIONED (ABOVE) BY THE COMMISSIONERS. PASSED 5-0.
DIRECTOR'S ITEMS
1. DR -91 -070; Neuhaus, 12246 Woodside Dr; Review of Final Landscape Plan.
Planner Walgren gave a brief report on the proposed landscape plan and answered
questions from the Commissioners in regard to the plan.
Commissioner Moran stated she was in favor of the staff asking the applicant to
provide more landscaping in the front yard.
Planner Walgren stated that two more large trees could be required. This was
acceptable to Commissioner Moran and the rest of the Planning Commissioners.
2. Informational report related to historic adobe wall at 15321 Quito Road
Planner Adar gave an informational report on the background of the adobe wall issue
and answered questions from the Commission.
Planning Commission M> ds
Meeting of May 13, 1992
Page Nine
Mr. Sinsley, 12280 Far Ranch Road, stated that the issue of the wall did not come up
at the meeting of March 3, 1988, as indicated in the May 13, 1992, staff report. He
explained, as he recalled, the events surrounding the issue of the adobe wall. He
stated that the Planning Commission did not consider the preservation of the wall in
any of public hearings that took place on the subdivision. Mr. Sinsley asked that he
be presented with a document that shows were the wall must be placed.
Planner Adar explained that the landscape map was reviewed by the Planning
Commission at a time after the approval of the subdivision map and it was during the
review of the landscape plan that the issue of preserving the wall arose. The Planning
Commission referred the wall issue to the Heritage Commission for review. The
Heritage Commission recommended preservation of the wall and sent the issue back
to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission then added a condition #42)
specifying preservation and location of the wall.
Commissioner Tucker stated that she was on the Planning Commission during the
course of events surrounding the -wall. She stated that the issue of the wall came up
at the March 3, 1988 Planning Commission meeting and the Commission did not have
strong feelings one way or the other about preserving the wall so the issue was
referred to the Heritage Commission.
Mr. Boyl, 15231 Quito Road, presented a handout to the Commission. He also
recalled the past events regarding the wall and explained that the wall is a historical
land mark to the home and the property. He spoke in favor of preserving the wall and
stated that he thought an agreement had been made as to where the wall was to be
located. He stated he was willing to move the wall to the agreed upon location.
Following discussion among the Commissioners and the staff, Chairperson Caldwell
stated that the placement of the wall had been determined at the October 23, 1991,
meeting of the Historical Preservation Committee, a map showing this location had
been prepared, and a condition #42) regarding the location of the wall had been
imposed on the subdivision by the Planning Commission. Chairperson Caldwell
explained that Mr. Sinsley may file an application requesting the Planning Commission
to modify the subdivision condition with regard to the wall location if he so desired.
She concluded that unless Mr. Sinsley filed an application for modification of the
subject condition, the condition (regarding the wall location) as it is written in
Resolution in SD -87 -020, shall be met.
COMMISSION ITEMS
Commissioner Moran stated that she was in favor bringing the fire safety issues into a
more visible place within upcoming revisions of the tree ordinance with regard to tree
removal permits.
Planning Commission Minutes
Meeting of ((c24 (q a_
Page 9
FORBES/MORAN MOVED TO CONTINUE 92 -033 IN ORDER TO ALLOW TIME FOR
THE APPLICANT TO REDESIGN THE STRUCTURE SPECIFICALLY TO REDUCE IT TO
A MAXIMUM OF 1,400 SQUARE FEET AND RELOCATE IT AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO
THE MAIN STRUCTURE. PASSED 6 -0.
4. DR-92-035 Marshall; 20100 Hill Ave., request for design
V -92 -014 review approval to construct a 14 ft. tall detached studio, which
exceeds the 12 ft. height limit established in the zoning ordinance.
Pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code, variance approval is also
requested to allow the detached studio, and a minor addition to the
main residence, to encroach into a required exterior side yard
setback. The subject property is approximately 32,653 sq. ft. in
area and is located within an R -1- 20,000 zone district.
Planner
Walgren presented the report dated November 24, 1992 and answered questions with
regard to the application.
The public hearing was opened at 9:55 p.m.
Bob Rockwood, 14573 Big Basin Way, project designer, spoke in favor of the
application. He explained the proposed location of the structure is the least impactful
location and the proposed 14 -foot height is necessary to accommodate a window
needed for light. He stated that the property owner is an artist and abundant light is
essential to his work. Mr. Rockwood also stated that the proposed location was chosen
in order to preserve an existing fig tree.
MORAN /ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:58 P.M. PASSED 6-
0.
MORAN/MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE V-92-014. PASSED 6-0.
MORAN/FORBES MOVED TO APPROVE DR-92-035. PASSED 6 -0.
5. Appeal of Sinsley; 15229 Quito Rd., applicant is appeal
Administrative ling a decision of the Heritage Preservation
Decision Commission regarding final placement of a historic adobe wall
within an open space easement as required by subdivision condition
per Chapter 14 of the City Code.
Planning Director Curtis presented the Report dated November 24, 1992 and answered
questions with regard to the appeal.
In response to Commissioner Bogosian's question regarding the use and limitations of
an easement, the City Attorney explained that uses and limitations depend on the type
of easement that exists. He stated there are many different types of
Planning Commission Minutes
Meeting of November 24, 1992
Page 10
easements such as access easements which grant certain parties access, or utility
easements which grant use of the land for utility wires /cables and etc. He stated that
generally an easement prohibits the property owner to do any thing or construct
anything that would result in obstruction of the use of the easement by the owner of
the easement right.
Planning Director Curtis further explained that the subject easement specifies Mr.
Sinsley's right to plant and maintain landscaping in the easement and that the owner of
Parcel A has the responsibility to maintain the wall.
At 10:05 p.m., Chairperson Caldwell opened the public hearing.
Mrs. Sinsley, 12280 Farr Ranch Road, appellant, presented a written statement and a
diagram (of a new wall location proposal which had been presented to the Heritage
Preservation Commission) to the Planning Commission. She gave a brief history of the
adobe wall, discussed the requirement to relocate the wall, and the disagreement over
the proposed new location of the wall. She stated that the decision reached by the
Heritage Preservation Commission regarding the location of the wall would result in a
portion of her land being on the Boyles' side of the wall thus denying the Sinsley's the
right to use and enjoy that portion of their land. She noted 33% of her (Sinsley) land
currently exists on the opposite side of the wall. She stated that Mr. Boyle was in favor
of the Heritage Preservation Committee's decision because it would create the illusion
that Mr. Boyles' property is larger than it actually is. She responded to the letters
included in the packet by stating that she and Mr. Sinsley had fulfilled the landscape
requirements specified in the conditions of the subdivision.
Commissioner Asfour asked Mrs. Sinsley if they had changed their mind regarding the
agreed upon location of the wall after signing the agreement.
Mrs. Sinsley explained that at the time they felt they had no other option and were
unaware of the process to present the issue to other commissions for a more amiable
solution. She expressed her concern that the Boyles would utilize, landscape and want
access to the Sinsley's strip of land on the Boyles' side. In response to the Commission's
inquiry regarding the diagram Mrs. Sinsley distributed, Mrs. Sinsley stated that the
diagram presents a solution agreeable to the Sinsley's, but that Mr. Boyle would only
agree to the proposed diagram if the Sinsley's would grant the Boyles' certain access
and landscaping rights to the strip of land on the Boyle side of the wall. She indicated
an unwillingness to grant these rights to Mr. Boyle.
Mr. Sinsley, 12280 Farr Ranch Road, appellant, concurred with the statement made by
Mrs. Sinsley and answered questions from the Commission. He also noted that should
the decision of the Heritage Preservation Committee be upheld, 21% of his property
would be on the other side of the wall.
Planning Commission Minutes
Meeting of November 24, 1992
Page 11
Larry Fine, Saratoga Heritage Preservation Commissioner, reported on the Heritage
Preservation Committee's deliberation on the issue. He stated that the object of the
Heritage Preservation Committee was to preserve the open space easement, protect the
historic wall, protect existing trees, maintain the existing ambiance of the property and
consider the aesthetics of the historic wall, but not to involve themselves in the
legalities of property rights. He further explained that at the last meeting the two
parties had an approximate agreement, but did not want to record the agreement. Mr.
Fine also answered questions from the Planning Commission with regard to the
Heritage Preservation Commission;s consideration of the item..
Planning Director Curtis noted 19% of the Sinsley's lot fell within the easement.
Daryl Boyle, 15231 Quito Road, urged the Planning Commission to uphold the decision
of the Heritage Preservation Commission with regard to the location of the adobe wall.
He stated the easement was specified in the subdivision conditions for the purpose of
providing addition space on one side and in which to place the adobe wall in order to
preserve the original integrity of Casa Tierra.
Mr. Sinsley stated that creation of the easement was not for the purpose of re- location
of the adobe wall. He requested either the City Attorney or staff to verify his
comment.
AT 9:43 P.M., MORAN /ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. PASSED
6 -0.
City Attorney noted that the first easement was created to provide an open space buffer
for Parcel A and the second easement was intended to allow the owners of Parcel A
access for maintenance of the wall. He also noted, in response to Commissioner
Bogosian's question, that no designation for the location of the wall was specified.
Commissioner Moran expressed support for the decision made by the Heritage
Preservation Committee.
Chairperson Caldwell noted the Planning Commission had delegated the decision to the
Heritage Preservation Committee and that a decision had been reached.
Commissioner Bogosian stated he felt the wall had been placed in the easement because
of a default situation. The decision of the wall's location was then passed on by the
Planning Commission to the Heritage Preservation Commission which came to a
decision which is unsatisfactory to the Sinsleys and does not deal with the issues of
both parties. He stated he felt that the Planning Commission had a responsibility to
consider other alternatives and come to a decision.
Commissioner Forbes noted that the Planning Commission's responsibility is to either
approve of deny the decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission, not come up
with other options for placement of the wall.
Planning Commission Minutes
Meeting of November 24, 1992
Page 12
Commissioner Moran stated she is confident the Heritage Preservation Commission's
decision deals with the issues of both parties.
Planning Director Curtis noted the decision made by the Heritage preservation
Committee had to be based on certain criteria.
FORBES/MORAN MOVED TO RE -OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:55 P.M.
Chairperson Caldwell stated that she disagreed with the comment made by
Commissioner Bogosian. She stated it was her opinion that the Heritage Preservation
Commission did take into consideration both parties and thus came to their decision.
She expressed support for upholding the Heritage Preservation Commission's decision.
Commissioner Murakami stated that he appreciated the work done by the Heritage
Commission, but that he notices that a large proportion of the wall is being torn down
and moved and would deprive the Sinsleys of a good portion of their land. He stated
that he could support moving the wall in order to give the Sinsleys more use of their
property.
THE MOTION PASSED 6-0.
Mr. Boyle stated that the proposal, as depicted on the diagram submitted by the
Sinsleys, was presented and reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Commission. He
stated that he felt the Heritage Preservation Commission carefully considered the
contours of the land, visited the site, worked to preserve the original character of the
site, contacted the original designer of the wall and then came to the current decision.
Mr. Boyle stated he was not interested in utilizing the easement, but only interested in
being able to walk around his house without being accused of trespassing. He noted
that the cost of relocating the wall was Mr. Sinsley's responsibility and he (Boyle) had
offer to pay for half of the relocation cost if an acceptable agreement on the placement
of the wall had been reached. Mr. Boyle indicated that he was not willing to pay for
the relocation of the wall under the conditions as proposed.
City Attorney responded to Commissioner Bogosian's request for clarification as to the
party responsible for the relocation costs by explaining that this was not specified in the
subdivision conditions. In his judgement, the City Attorney, concluded that the owner
of Parcel B, Mr. Sinsley, would be responsible for the cost of relocating the wall.
MORAN/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:05 P.M.
PASSED 6-0.
FORBES/MORAN MOVED TO UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE HERITAGE
PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND ADOPT RESOLUTION HPC -92 -1. PASSED 42
(BOGOSIAN AND MURAIKANII OPPOSED).
Printed on recycled paper.
Background
g TVW o4�°
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Planning Commission nn
FROM: Tsvia Adar, Associate Plannerli'�
DATE: May 13, 1992
SUBJECT: Historic Adobe Wall at 15321 Quito Road
Informational Report
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
Martha Clevenger
Willem Kohler
Victor Monia
Francis Stutzman
At the 4/28/92 Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Sinsley addressed
the Commission, under the oral communication section of the agenda,
regarding an existing historic wall on his property. Per
subdivision condition, the wall is required to be relocated within
a dedicated open space easement on the subject property.
The Commission requested staff to prepare a report for their
review, explaining the issues related to the wall.
On 3/23/88 the Planning Commission approved a tentative map for a
three -lot subdivision at 15321 Quito Road. The site contained an
historic adobe home "Casa Tierra" surrounded by an adobe wall.
Historic background of the property is attached.
One of the conditions for approval requires preservation of the
adobe wall as an integral part of the historic home and the site.
In order to ensure preservation of the wall, the Heritage
Preservation Commission recommended that portions of the wall that
are outside the open space easement, be relocated inside the
easement. A condition to that effect was added by the Planning
Commission; however, the condition did not specify the exact
location of the wall and time schedule for compliance with this
condition. The amended and approved resolution SD -87 -020.1 with
the subject condition #42 is attached.
The current owner, Mr. Sinsley, bought the two vacant lots from the
original owner before the wall was moved. He is currently building
a home on one of the vacant lots (Lot C). As the new owner, Mr.
Sinsley was required to comply with the subdivision condition
related to the wall, prior to issuance of final occupancy.
Mr. Sinsley wishes to move the entire wall to the property line
shared with Lot A, on which Casa Tierra is located.
Since the subdivision conditions did not specify the location of
the wall, staff requested clarification from the Heritage
Preservation Commission. In its meeting of 9/25/91, the HPC
determined that the intention was to move only the portion of the
wall outside the easement to the easement area, in order to
preserve the wall and the historic integrity of the adobe home and
the site. Minutes from HPC meetings are attached.
In a recent review, and in response to Mr. Sinsley's concerns with
the proximity of the wall to the new structure, the HPC agreed to
recommend approval of relocating the entire wall further into the
easement. On 10/23/91, a map indicating a new location for the
wall was presented to the HPC by Mr. Sinsley, his representative
Mr. Kolstad and Mr. Boyle the owner of "Casa Tierra The wall
location as shown on the map was agreeable to both parties, Sinsley
and Boyle, and acceptable to the HPC. In accordance with the HPC
requirement, a surveyed map was prepared reflecting the approved
wall location. The City Attorney also prepared an amendment to the
Wall Maintenance Agreement to include reference to the wall
location and the map. The map and the amended agreement were
required to be recorded with the County Recorder.
Mr. Boyle signed the map and the agreement. However, Mr. Sinsley
decided that after all, this location of the wall is unacceptable
to him. Mr. Sinsley discussed the matter with a number of Council
members and Planning Commissioners. The issue was again referred
to the City Attorney with all the background material. The City
Attorney reviewed the information and concluded that the Planning
Commission and Heritage Preservation Commission minutes clearly
indicate the purpose and intention for the subdivision condition.
The City Attorney's opinion is that the condition requires the
relocation of portions of the wall inside the easement. He also
clarified that Mr. Sinsley may file an application requesting the
Planning Commission to modify the subdivision condition.
The available alternatives and process of application were
explained to Mr. Sinsley. However, Mr. Sinsley was reluctant to
file a formal application and chose to address the Heritage
Preservation Commission again on 4/8/92 and the Planning Commission
under oral communication, on 4/22/92. Mr. Sinsley also requested
that the HPC schedule this issue on the next meeting agenda
(5/13/92), to provide the Commission with additional information.
Unless directed differently by the Planning Commission, Mr. Sinsley
will be required to relocate the wall into the easement in
accordance with the outline recommended by the Heritage
Preservation Commission as shown on the attached map, Exhibit "A
Attachments:
1. Resolution SD -87 -020.1 with the related condition #42.
2. Planning Commission Minutes from 6/22/88 and 7/27/88.
3. Heritage Preservation Commission minutes from 10/23/91,
9/25/91, 7/6/88 and memo to PC from 7 /21/88.
4. Map with wall location approved by the Heritage Preservation
Commission on 10/23/91
5. Adobe Wall Maintenance Agreement, recorded with the County
Recorders Office.
6. Historic background of the property.
DATE: Wednesday, October 14, 1992, 8:30 a.m.
PLACE: Warner Hutton House
TYPE: Regular Meeting
I. ROUTINE ORGANISATION
A.
Present:
Absent:
Staff:
Guests:
Roll Call
CITY OF SARATOGA
HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES
Koepernik, Peck, Peepari, Davis, Fine, Sabin, Ansnes
None
Director Curtis, Secretary White, Planner Riggs
Mr. and Mrs. Boyle, Mr. and Mrs, Sinsley, Mrs. Fanelli
B. Approval of Minutes of 9/2/92 and 9/16/922
The minutes of 9/2/92 were approved unanimously. M/S Sabin /Fine
The minutes of 9/16/92 were approved unanimously. M/S Sabin /Fine
C. Posting the Agenda
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda was posted at City
Hall on 10/9/92.
D. Oral and Written Communications
1. Staff presented a letter from the Heritage Council of Santa
Clara asking for nominations for its Board of Directors.
2. A final landscape plan for the Warner Hutton House was presented
as a review item. The Commission concluded that the plan was
almost identical to the plan previously reviewed at the special
meeting on September 16. They asked that, for maintenance
purposes, the proposed trees be non bearing fruit trees.
II. OLD BUSINESS
1. Placement of the adobe wall adjacent to Casa Tierra
located at 15231 Quito Road.
Staff presented a brief overview of the previous meeting and
indicated that no private agreement had been reached between the
Boyles and the Sinsleys concerning the placement of the wall. Mrs.
Fanelli, representing the Sinsleys, presented an alternative to
the lines previously drawn by the Commission. She indicated that,
except for some disputed wording over access to the easement by the
Boyles that this line was agreeable to both parties. Mr. Boyle,
however, indicated that, without the wording, the location was
unacceptable. A general discussion ensued regarding the previously
drawn lines, the alternative proposed by Mrs. Fanelli and the
restrictions provided by the Open Space easement agreement on the
property. The Commissioners were polled as to their preference
regarding the proposed placement of the wall. The consensus was
for the blue line on the staff Exhibit "A "which represented a line
drawn by the Commission at the September meeting. A motion passed
6 -1 to accept the blue line as the final placement for the wall.
M/S Fine/ Peepari, Davis opposed.
2. Extension of Heritage Lane designation on Saratoga
Avenue Discussion of the response from the City
Attorney
Staff advised the Commission that the City Attorney, after
reviewing Chapter 13 of the City Code, indicated that the HPC could
act as applicant to amend the Heritage Lane on Saratoga Avenue
without any further authorization. A discussion ensued in which it
was suggested that Commissioners Fine and Koepernik would
coordinate to make the proper application to the City.
3. Heritage Preservation Incentive Program
Staff asked the Commission to review the proposed text of the
Heritage Preservation Incentive Program at the next HPC meeting in
November.
4. Heritage Inventory Update
Staff indicated that the photographer was ready to take the
additional photos needed to complete the Inventory book and asked
if one of the Commission would aid staff in the finalizing of the
text for these photos. Commissioner Ansnes indicated that she had
been working on the text for the additional resources and would be
able to assist. It was agreed that all efforts should be made to
publish the book by early 1993.
III. NEW BUSINESS
1. Heritage Preservation Commission authority relating to
the modifications of Historic Resources.
Commissioner Davis spoke to the materials provided in the HPC
packet. She suggested that proper procedures should always be
followed, especially in regard to Heritage Lanae Designations. A
discussion ensued regarding Chapter 13 of the City Code, Planning
and Heritage Preservation Commission authority and various aspects
of how the HPC reviewed projects on the Historic Inventory list.
It was suggested that the form letter that is sent to all inventory
resources be rewritten to better clarify the Commission's authority
regarding these resources. The Commission agreed that the letter
should be rewritten as soon as possible. M/S Peck /Davis.
Date Received: 11/0-67
Hearing Date:
Fee: $161.00
Iz�lb��'Z
Receipt No.: .2 S y 0
APPEAL APPLICATION
Name of Appellant: -S /NS CO .41 srie Uc-riQN
Address: J PARk RANc.W ,2 b
Telephone: 7a l 7,3 d
Name of Applicant (if
different from Appellant:
Project File Number and Address:
Decision Being Appealed: ]).4 4 J» I Aa, 6), AL
Grounds for Appeal (letter may be attached):
.J L
*Appel' ant's Signatur
THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED BY 5:00 P.M. WITHIN FIFTEEN (15)
CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION.
*Please do not sign until application is presented at City offices. If you
wish specific people to be notified of this appeal, please list them on a
separate sheet.
City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Councilmembers:
Re: APN 397 -07 -015
15200 Oriole Way
Saratoga, CA 95070
December 5, 1992
WIDEOWIEff
DEC 71992
CITY OF SARATOGA
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
We, the undersigned, are the bordering neighbors of the old
Tripp property which was subdivided in early 1988 by Mr.
Olson and Mr. Zambetti. This letter serves to state our
support of the Heritage Preservation Commission
recommendation for final placement of a historic adobe wall
at 15229 Quito Road. Mr. Sinsley's attempt to have the wall
placed on the property line is a transparent effort by him
to use the Open Space Easement for his own benefit and not
for the purpose the easement was meant. We quote from
"Acceptance of Open Space Easement "Retaining the land as
open space is necessary in order to preserve and enhance the
designated historic structure located on Lot A by providing
a landscaped area between the historic structure and the
improvements constructed upon Lots B C." In other words,
there was recognition that the Open Space Easement should
enhance the historic structure. This is what the Heritage
Preservation Commission is trying to do.
If Mr. Sinsley would follow the Heritage Preservation
Commission recommendation regarding wall placement and would
abide by the agreements which he signed when he purchased
Lots B C all the properties would be enhanced, including
his own.
We would like to make some points from a historical
perspective: In 1988 there was a strong push by
Olson Zambetti and the Heritage Preservation Commission to
preserve the adobe structure because it was thought to have
historic significance. To accomplish this, the land was
subdivided into three building sites which did not strictly
conform to lot -split codes. One lot is very long and narrow
and on Lot A, the adobe structure does not adhere to set
back codes in one or two places. The Open Space Easements
were established to "...preserve the rural character of the
area in which the land is located." Also from the
Acceptance "The land is essentially unimproved and if
retained in its natural state has scenic value to the
public."
In 1988 and 1989 there were multiple meetings with the
Planning Commission, agreements made, and approved by the
City Council. So far the owners of the lots, first
Olson /Zambetti and now Sinsley, have not performed as they
agreed. The Greenbelt consists of a few plants -most have
died because Mr. Sinsley chooses not to water them. His
watering system consists of a spigot or two with NO water in
the pipe. During the recent Planning Commission appeal the
Sinsleys asserted that the greenbelt plantings were in place
and thriving. One look by a city representative will refute
this assertion. We urge you to send the City Arborist or
someone from the Planning Department to evaluate how well
the greenbelt landscaping conforms to the adopted Landscape
Plan. They will find that most of the greenbelt consists of
vacant land.
We urge you, the members of the City Council to reject this
Appeal. It may seem complex, but it really isn't. These
lot split conditions were made by thoughtful people trying
to preserve a historic structure and a rural character of an
area of our city.
We also urge the City Council to direct Mr. Sinsley to plant
the greenbelt per the Landscape Plan and maintain it per the
Landscape Agreement.
Thank you for your consideration.
Clark Beck
15300 Sobey Rd.
15315 Sobey Road
Sincerely,
Arthur H. Iversen in cent hil
15200 Oriole Way
City Counsel
City of Saratoga
Re: APN 397 -07 -110 Appeal Sinsley; 15229 Quito Road
Dear Counsel Members:
1
December 8, 1992
This letter references the historic wall dispute on Quito Road. Lauren Boyle and
I are the owners of the historic adobe known as Casa Tierra located at 15231
Quito Road. We strongly urge that the City Counsel reaffirm the historic wall
location decision made by Heritage Preservation Commission This decision
was upheld by the City Planning Commission; it was recommended by the City
Planning Department; and it is supported by all of the neighbors of the
subdivision (reference letter from Beck, Iversen and Philbrick).
The City approved a subdivision on 7/27/88 which defined a scenic easement
and historic wall surrounding Casa Tierra with the intent to ensure the
preservation of the historic adobe home and its surroundings. As stated, "The
general setting of the home, the vegetation around the structure and the existing adobe
wall on the property are all part of the historical characteristics of the home."
The subdivision called for the adobe wall to reside in the scenic easement, which
was designated to be 30' wide on the north border and 25' on the west boundary
of Casa Tierra (because the property line runs closer to the house on the north
side more room was needed to keep the wall away from the adobe home). The
wall was to meander between trees and landscaping and follow the contours of
the gently sloping land, using the same design created by the ladies who built the
house and the wall. Fortunately, much of the wall did not have to be moved, and
the portion that was relocated was moved often only a few feet and positioned in
a way to preserve the walkways used to explore the different gardens around the
property. Considerable effort by the previous owners, the neighbors, City
employees and numerous Commissioners resulted in a subdivision that both
preserved the historic adobe home (on lot A) and enabled the subdivision of two
new lots (B and C). In creating the subdivision, restrictions were placed upon
lots B and C to accommodate the scenic easement. We purchased Casa Tierra (lot
A) in June of 1989. Mr. Sinsley had purchased lots B and C some time earlier.
In early spring 1991, Mr. Sinsley notified Boyle that a portion of the wall was in
the wrong place. Using engineering drawings, we were able to verify that some
of the wall was in fact out of the easement. We marked a relocated wall location,
adhering to the flow of the original wall but compromising to the benefit of us
both. Lauren and I thought the problem was solved (as neighbors would solve
it). Mr. Sinsley changed his mind, however, and this process was later repeated
with Mr. Colstadt (acting as Mr. Sinsley's agent), but Mr. Sinsley subsequently
changed his mind again. Later in the fall of 1991, Mr. Sinsley stated his real
intent and demanded the right to move the wall to the property line. After two
meetings of the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC), on -site visits by
several of the Commission members, $2500 spent by the Boyle's on surveys and
consultant fees, we once again thought we had an agreement, one that would
result in recording the exact location of the wall (survey dated 10/31/91).
In spite of agreeing to the above action, Mr. Sinsley changed his mind for a third
time, and this summer asked the HPC to again review his recommendation.
Based upon Commissioner (and architect) Peter Sabin's knowledge of the
property and his design experience, the HPC proposed a compromise wall
location and asked both parties to either agree to it or reach their own acceptable
solution. This new proposal called for the wall to be placed closer to the adobe
home (and farther away from the Sinsley house) than any of the previous
agreements. We were not able to reach a different agreement with Mr. Sinsley so
the issue was brought back before the HPC on October 14, 1992 at which time the
HPC approved the "blue line" which was proposed earlier. This decision was
reaffirmed by the Planning Commission in November.
In spite of agreeing to them, Mr. Sinsley now thinks that the restrictions placed
upon him by the subdivision are unfair. If this were an issue of fairness, the
hundreds (perhaps thousands) of hours of thoughtful work and the actions taken
by dozens of City employees and Commissioners would stand above reproach.
Further, the way Lauren and I worked to secure three previous agreements with
him, as well as the way we responded to our Historic Wall Maintenance
responsibilities after the 1989 earthquake (spending $20,000 to rebuild the wall)
would stand on their own. Surprisingly, Mr. Sinsley seems to have forgotten he
was able to pay a lower price for the lots because of the restrictions placed on
them, paying about $375,000 per lot while the adjoining lot sold for over
$550,000. The reasons for the restrictions on lots B and C were to preserve the
building, the wall and the surroundings that all together comprise Casa Tierra.
Sinsley's lots would not have been allowed to exist without these restrictions. I would be
happy to argue about fairness on this issue, but that has already been done, again
and again and again. The City Counsel nows needs to decide if the bodies
designated to make decisions on this issue acted properly. It seems clear to a lot
of people that they did indeed do the right thing.
We strongly urge that the City Counsel reaffirm the HPC decision and the action
of the Planning Commission. It is consistent with the letter of the subdivision,
and, equally important, it is consistent with the spirit of the agreement which
was to preserve the historic integrity of Casa Tierra.
Respec ully yours,
R. Darre
oyle
2
Lauren R. Boyle
December 8, 1992
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 02 a AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: December 16, 1992 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering
doe
SUBJECT: Abandonment of Light and Air Easement at
14855 Baranga Lane (Lin)
Recommended Actions Adopt resolution vacating the easement.
Discussion: Dr. and Mrs, Robert Lin, the property owners of 14855
Baranga Lane, are requesting the abandonment of a Light and Air
Easement on their property which was offered for dedication to the
public via the subdivision map for Tract No. 1206 recorded on
September 23, 1953, prior to the City's incorporation. The offer
of dedication has never been accepted by either the City or the
County and it would appear that the 25 year rule affecting such
offers would automatically nullify the offer. However, to clear
title of the property, the Lin's are requesting a formal
abandonment of the easement by the City.
Two similar easements affecting lots 5 and 7 in the subdivision
have previously been abandoned by the City. The first abandonment
of the easement on lot 5 occurred in 1959 and the second
abandonment of the easement on lot 7 occurred in 1985.
To abandon the easement on Lot 3 (the Lin's property) the City may
use the procedures in the Streets and Highways Code for a summary
vacation. The attached resolution, if adopted, would cause a
summary vacation of the easement as requested by the Lin's.
Fiscal Impacts; None.
Attach ents: 1. Resolution vacating the easement.
2. Letters from Dr. Mrs. Lin and Mrs. Fanelli.
3. Portion of map of Tract Ro 1206.
Motion vote:
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
November 19, 1992
Mr. Larry Perlin
City Engineer
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA. 95070
Dear Larry:
Sincerely yours,
DR. LIN
Robert Lin, M.D.
ROBERT K. C. LIN, M.D., M.P.H.
20895 JOLLYMAN LANE
CUPERTINO. CA 95014
(408) 253.6789
4082439009 P.01
This letter is to state that Mrs. Virginia Fanelli is
authorized to represent us for the approval on our
property at 14855 Baranga Lane, Saratoga, CA. 95070.
Cafnie Lin
Fanelli Consulting, Inc.
Land Planning Property Management Real Estate Broker
November 19, 1992
Mr. Larry Perlin
City Engineer
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Larry:
On behalf of Dr. and Mrs. Robert Lin, owners of Lot 3 of
Sunshine Slopes, Tract Number 1206 recorded and filed in Book
46 of Maps at Page 8 on September 23, 1953, in the County of
Santa Clara, we are requesting the easement for light and air
between the property lines and the lines designated "building
line" or "B /L" be vacated by the City of Saratoga.
We have researched both the County of Santa Clara and
the City of Saratoga records, and can find no acceptance of
the original offer of dedication. Since the offer was made
in 1953, the 25 year period for acceptance has elapsed.
Additionally, we find that the subject easement for light and
air has not been continuously used as an easement for light
and air for the five consecutive years immediately preceding
this request.
The similar easements on Lot 5 and Lot 7 of this
subdivision have been vacated, the first in 1959 and the
second in 1985. (see attachments)
Please let us know if you need any additional
information to accompany this request.
Very truly yours,
Vir nia L. Fanelli
10052 Pasadena Avenue, Suite B Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 996 -8188 Fax (408) 996 -8261
O
Z[4 N•A Y A/l ep
04
A.r4: 1C1 .1T1
71�2� -A-r
F �1
M111111 r
100..1
J
JAN 9 re
4
11 /•A
.4110
N*31'11 IM
1,e1.
CNAOIIJ W. n/ISSIE 14 !I /WHOP
TRACT NQ 1206
SUNSHINE SLOPES
BuILD/ 5C7
UtIJE
SITUATED 114 SECTION T. T. S S.,R. 1 W. M.D. L M SANTA CLARA COUNTY. CAU /ORNIA
PARK L.VLRNER, LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR
SCALE r• 100' AUGUST 1163
z
ar
TN r K! wAr
N r4... 16..4.0., •w..... 000,0.
..I rn. •.w.v•Ay OCh.
r. ...mrw,.r A 0.,pn..r s. 1..313. .,44..:401..4 4 dt ry,
/rii 444, A.I31 .,row,. n ,n 1.., n.•/ r1..nW. l0.
_..Soo." few sr /n. 0' u
This prat is for information only and is not a
Surrey of !ho lend, nor is it a part of the report
or policy to which it may be attached.
ore No Iry 3_.43.• d A... .r.4 N w
hl• ...../i'.. ...✓3. A 0.3 r.Np.w.r.•• few 4.4r.
n .000 0..• .n r e.v1 040 M re Ins My I.4'4..•
..*r 1 :s.w3 /..no Aaos. eN•re /.•.p./y,
rod M orr.ns.n. 4 IM ..•..A..•, of Y nowt der! J.eyo n .I
I`.r..r4.rrs end s' 'v d../eoes Ape40. Wr
*411041 /AM/ one TICS, /y.o NM Ind Mr .404.4 deelmnNow moue
r.4o rn_.y+ 0.14 ON 4 too ANN.. yr. ea./npp a..0..•
I{nlwn.rw Mrrbyr.d•.0.4 4. /4 use coo oenw,N 4' ..4
.r.
en r ...r, /hole 0.3/4,4 JIM..3 N 4.00 A•J,y3.
)444.( N,3heo 0p•r...rn1 'e. 'Po, r 03 J••••• Mr, 41 ✓n4. ..1h+.
Mr./ /•r I.•h .0..N or Nee/ e• Ow NI N A'.. /rPw
*3.•:.,. era In vh, Nor, *..o/ IN 040. wr dri/.h Ar
r_6. /.M O.V•e..' N.A.; on s..1* /leaf 009 1
443 N AA.. 43.4 /..s.r... F. *5.4 a0 OAU V.0 [Al one the 4.rri
•.s h. W.. MM or Or OA 3000, p0., 2••0 MOM.
Mee;/ X *Or,. r Ned 4 be ...of leo. n.... 4.10
,1 3 4.. 4.3 /.•r0 ••I any •.00 epl.%r, ..,.,./,.w r./ ANNA
Airy .•y,1,04 o- '.,54W.. -0*.d se5..A O.ler.a ...d
1_ .3•' N4.v11
y JAN AU I Nos, NIMM a CMA►w. 4�..4M•l 1
_GahAJ01a.1,,t4e4 _]LJ
N o* ofew401w•W
d 30..4 CM 40.
e *4A.5y /MM ...are M C•...' .0 JMA C*3. J r4Ar O
Ce400 00 10..3.4 ..•.r.
O..Ie.✓..w0,/f'•
NNW/,y 000,0,0 rem/Pall I. 3rtw..r AAA .y0 ✓NJ /.4401,
I... •.Ii pan [P Name. .t .l A04441•4 1 41444444,, A
w.A 1.3...4 A.... AM /rr/wrs ess who., .4.044 N 044‘ls+Nwl
A/0. aw /0.n .:r..nw.4.0/ .00(43 4 Po ere IAN/ 1049r
.3dN Mr .44Y94.
w ..,were. 14.. hwet ie Ja /r•y. hand owl Ofrnld
"'yam ..1..4.1 /1w elegy )3.0 /0 0..4 e4.4.4.4.4144 64•14 pea.
N4 /.r Ari
.1 A. 04 C :AA*
•••3303.0..4 ,4.'.s A'•.. 711011•
1•017 .C.4
CN
NIV,..0..A CM3.
•J.wh4w.w MAW 7 04.,
M. .r .r✓ 444 (00..00OJ.W CM..,JhA Ce*-
A.n .44./ n• n h /7. 3wr end 440...
A,.r.4, n
ay,Nwn /A. ./S..ww M rr A/v 1303 .3 /i_anb
A' 4
/yI 4.444/ 1
.n Arnw A N /M J4 wen,N11
.4 J.1
•0111 I /se r t s_ //r ...r..4hr. terns..".•
w Rh.n .n1.5•,.wrn/ l 54.•4 *Anne A .0. ne IM l•,rnvu ,433.44/
eon.
•.4 I..s. /1 .I 1..4.3.4. w.
..n✓ nN....a....rlwr.
M.It, *.5...
s.
�„N I v ..Myv3. .....e... ,ry1
.1.I.T Ian.
......1.Y1.‘,7.10..411••00 74-■
IIjillj i`Ill ill 11t l IIgI11114y 181111NIlulu11111 �1i 1110�1trip111111111
0.1... I, r!T.fn
11 I I I I li I I I I I Iy1 W.,I lJ l y 1,1- 14 /.111��111 1
1 Agee F 44n1e. N.III, ewe/ for 01 Oa,
144. fa* ...3 .0.4..:41.- .l.. Naar
..00•4 4a+.•• n.... ...vr. ••.v'.1 J.vw w /1. A4/ M. lr•
•4
0,../ one rs•1r.M.'. .4 J 1r.w NW /M t Nom.. 040.
(Pose. n.� J,ro4e.41 .e/q I/..1 0..d tt.r Mew /y~An1.
Ara .row. .44... e.v 0,.0 M 0.0 00 •Nadi
for mow,. 1. .4
,r•r.y. ...+.y Woo, 1 M..,...r..w A4Io•w MONO 44.1 IN 01.1.
Moe I.b 00#003 O4 ..h.... wr•I.•. •••••3..01. IM M
••••5.dw... o. ••••I M•.1n/ odsT.yP.O..d AI11'4t3eaej
1 0.1../ .1 /A.O!•....ens .1 M M./. A., and a" Pow. e.3.....••
es_•al 4* nv I.••v .4 1 *4 00r.e/ or /0. I.r.A/•i. nowt MwM N
0*..O /5r./ •..M e.d .0.1 eon aNnle, MN J0.11•••• .rn.+1r44y
capw
I ru•••• A.•,...wII 0.. J. r.. y.r Jn.Y Ob.. CA•.w/x
c C.FA3w�
ATr e p
11 N o.0.../ MO/ 94 ^3.e d neel M /A. M Ow/1M 4.4•44 +rely
Or.O.•4.d. IN/ la
e•.. LAW es 4..40 woo 001 e.•N rV Mw
5 4
../,4.N Au. M .nI /h....v .1 3031 0010 04.009.14IL•
/4rer.r. el ?noes 1orr4 w 4t 4 0.5.31,0105 4'0441
r... row 30 se...ones wan 3../44.. aweAft*5w .M..r it
4444.1.r .b5 /4.444.• 1. /,4.4 S M 41444444444.44414 04.4.114Y 4.044
31y ...*.tid.. A.rw
•.4 Cow•. /10. Awn OJF•.4 r.1A4.04444 •.oP. 4444 0••••1
'nap dery el Now ono./ ..N..4A.eA/31y IM A.•/e/ Ms le.•0 aI
sJ
r..31, ce40.4y 0..41 /M A.. ardor s NNW." NI
Moen," Nee ore. •ry `4.314•(
NSeA 9.71313. cm. .1 N Nye
.5..•w•v• el Nos 1....ryr Pe ..•nes Clow, JWW d 0.441.•48
Ai /p.rR./L.t[r YTS
V/ t \y.ni. l wi MIA
JNCI r ONC 0*.r
9114(1$44
Iwo, IN 4- ..re•d en/ ara.r4Ad !4e• 1eI MM.. Ayr j
/n 10. .41.4 J 11.4 C.rdy Wycombe of M4 e/ .N+.3.
04r4 34.4:94 aft d -t' _1 /I9J
C.0./ A 441449, 4,-14 A oe /M Cry .1.4.•A CM
AWah
.7h
589 52 L 254.46
3
/62 Ac.
258.5/
Vic+,
t% AP/
4'466
20 8 1/
Defray/ of Cv -de sac
SAUNDEQS
Li
R -20
44
O
W/L
N co 45' E 6/
98 e i' �p
N
Vi
6
:04
5\
/09 As
S .59 °52'E• 3/:
Pub /ic city/it/es .Ei7scnn".
STEW4Q)
/69 AG. CV.
/:00
/87 /78.00,
.ALL.:..
WEST' 3405.
DUNBAR
2. %6 Ac. Gr.
2.00 Ac. Ne
CNARL£5 W. ..iES5 /E H. S TEWA!?T
/83.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 5 AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: December 16, 1992 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering g
SUBJECT: Bonnet Way Soundwall, Capital Project
No. 9113 Award of Construction Contract
Recommended Action:
1. Declare Serrano Cone, Inc. of San Ramon to be the lowest
responsible bidder on the project.
2. Authorize staff to execute the attached construction
contract with Serrano Cone, Inc. for $355,393.75.
3. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract
up to $24,375.
4. Approve a budget adjustment of $35,000 for the project and
direct staff to return with the necessary appropriation resolution.
Discussion: Per previous Council direction, staff has solicited
bids for the Bonnet Way Soundwall, Capital Project No. 9113, from
the four freeway contractors working within Saratoga. Three of the
four contractors submitted bids and a summary of the bids is
attached. Serrano Cone, Inc. of San Ramon submitted the lowest
bid of $355,393.75, and their unit price for the wall, $10.25 per
square foot, falls within the $9.75 $10.25 unit price which staff
was expecting. Staff has carefully checked the bids and has
determined that the low bid is responsive to the Call for Bids
dated October 21. Therefore, it is recommended that the Council
declare Serrano Cone, Inc. to be the lowest responsible bidder on
the Bonnet Way Soundwall Project and authorize staff to execute the
attached construction contract with Serrano Cone, Inc. in the
amount of $355,393.75. Further, it is recommended that the Council
authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract up to
$24,375 to cover any unanticipated circumstances which may arise
during construction.
Landscaping and Trees: As I have previously reported to you,
construction of the Bonnet Way Soundwall will interfere with 101 of
the redwood, pine and strawberry trees growing along the edge of
Bonnet Way. Staff has identified these trees in the field with a
red ribbon. These trees, along with all of the other similar trees
growing along Bonnet Way, were originally planted back in 1985
86 and were paid for by the 41 Bonnet Way, Kodiac Place and
Alvarado Place property owners via Landscaping and Lighting
District assessments. The property owners were annexed to the
City's Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District as Zone No. 15
through Annexation No. 1985 1 in FY 1985 -86. The initial two
years of assessments were $222.00 and $170.76 per parcel to
primarily cover the installation costs of the trees and an
irrigation system. Since then, the annual assessments have ranged
from $83.76 to $126.18 to cover the landscape maintenance costs.
Since the problem with the trees became apparent, staff has been
working to seek a solution that will preserve as many of the trees
as possible at a minimum cost to the project. Among the options
staff has studied include relocating the wall back into the
Southern Pacific Railroad right -of -way or removing and relocating
the trees.
Initially it would appear that relocating the wall makes the most
sense. However, aside from the time delay and cost that would
result from securing the necessary easement from the Southern
Pacific Transportation Co., this option by itself does not solve
the problem with the trees. The reason is because the contractor
must build the soundwall primarily from the Bonnet Way side of the
project and the trees make this virtually impossible for the
contractor to do. There is insufficient space for the contractor
to handle materials and maneuver equipment among the trees which
are growing within 12 18 inches of where the wall is to be built.
Incidentally, this problem would exist no matter what type of
soundwall is built so there should be no reason to reconsider the
type and design of wall previously selected by a majority of the
neighborhood.
There are three alternatives staff has considered for removing and/
or relocating the trees. The first involves arranging with a tree
nursery to trade the trees for new trees upon completion of the
project. Staff has been able to locate one such nursery which has
expressed an interest in up to 25 of the large redwood and pine
trees and all of the strawberry trees. As of yet however, the
nursery has not formalized an offer to the City.
The second alternative involves removing the trees to an offsite
location, storing and caring for them during the construction of
the wall, and then replanting them at the completion of the job.
Staff has located one such firm capable of doing this work and a
copy of their proposal for $32,600 is attached. Not mentioned in
the proposal is a $500 per month charge for watering, fertilizing
and trimming the trees, so assuming three months of storage is
necessary, I would expect the total cost to rise to $34,100. I
would also note that the tree mover will not guarantee any survival
rate for the trees although Barrie Coate has indicated that because
of the very good condition of most of the trees, the survival rate
should be high if proper tree moving procedures which he would
recommend are followed.
The third alternative would involve simply removing the trees and
replanting new trees at the completion of the job. Assuming an
equal number of 15 gallon, 24 inch box and 36 inch box trees were
replanted, the total cost to replant trees would most likely be
somewhere between $30,000 and $35,000 or nearly equivalent to the
cost of removing, storing and replanting the trees. Regardless of
which alternative is selected, there will be an additional cost of
probably around $3,000 to restore and retrofit the irrigation
system serving the trees.
At this point I am not yet recommending any of the three
alternatives until I know the extent that the nursery mentioned in
the first alternative is interested in trading trees. Depending on
the level of interest, trading as many as 25 of the larger trees
along with the strawberry trees could reduce the cost of dealing
with the trees by as much as one third.
The Traffic Authority has indicated that the City can utilize the
discretionary landscaping funds for Route 85, curently estimated to
be $117,060 (see attached chart), to offset the costs of removing
and replanting the Bonnet Way trees. Knowing this, I believe the
City Council should award the construction contract for the project
as recommended above at this time so that the Contractor can begin
to process the necessary paper work, secure bonds and gear up for
construction. This usually takes a couple of weeks to do and
during this time, staff can finalize a recommendation for handling
the trees for the Council to consider at your January 6 meeting.
Also, in the mean time, I have arranged another meeting of the
Bonnet Way neighborhood on December 15th to discuss all of this
with them (see attached meeting notice).
Fiscal Impacts: The adopted budget contains $288,000 in Capital
Project No. 9113 for the Bonnet Way soundwall. As of the end of
November, a balance of $267,770 remains in the project. The
Traffic Authority has advised staff that an additional $77,000 will
be transferred to the City to allow the wall to be extended across
the properties on the east and west ends as requested by the four
property owners, a full credit for the corresponding reductions in
soundwalls along Route 85. This still leaves a shortfall of
$10,623.75 to fund the base contract. In order to cover
unanticipated contingencies as well, staff recommends that the
Council approve a budget adjustment of $35,000 to complete the
project. No additional funds need be added to the project to cover
the landscaping costs since those costs can be paid for with
"discretionary" landscape funds from Route 85. If the Council
approves the recommended budget adjustment, staff will return with
the required appropriations resolution at your January 6 meeting.
Attachments: 1. Bid Summary.
2. Construction Contract.
3. Proposal from Coast to Coast Tree Movers.
4. Neighborhood Meeting Notice.
Motion Vote:
ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNITS
1. CLEARING AND GRUBBING
2. MASONARY BLOCK SOUNDWALL
LS LS
34,575 SF
CITY OF SARATOGA
BONNET WAY SOUNDWALI
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 9113
BID SUMMARY
Serrano Cone, Inc.
UNIT PRICE TOTAL UNIT PRICE
n/a
$10.25
GRAND TOTAL
C.A. Rasmussen, Inc. Dan Caputo Co.
TOTAL UNIT PRICE TOTAL
$1,000.00 n/a $11,000.00 n/a $637.00
$354,393.75 $10.62 $367,186.50 $11.20 $387,240.00
$355,393.75 GRAND TOTAL $378,186.50 GRAND TOTAL $387,877.00
To e ;ty SArNAo
W Pore e e k-A- 5v1o.Ai t-
O'J r rYG)c&A\ f c
0 i Sa,� o esk
(w you 4-
COAST TO COAST WILL PROVIDE: ,q,/ -took, ft J /vw}errus lo e4 31eK tL c .IA
Y/Ree 11 b e p fi Move I-c iMy Akiscv -y RePlikA i
TR cc: ArC PO f- s tuur AvNivk
I R e es Wfl h t S }orecK fug 5 [)o. 00 per vnd4 fit Si--- t.- w1At 0461.
l v %h "VW a G T'S P 4 1°13 4 011 Frsf Ac I'
'"t E 1 C o 6N 1 C tT ie
wcc\c 3 L 0
Pill 1 4wt
l..✓ 10 G 40
(D Pro recA 547J 4
TOTAL 32, LOO
16 A(►rYe r
10 io i�L App
-to
A
JOB NUMBER.0 l2 (1
TAX
CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS
OWNER OR GENERAL CONTRACTOR WILL PROVIDE: sec=
22 t u I Ap/' i
0 13
1. 1 5u CO (DE r 4r-cc
`V3 .0 per rQG
Os 200. co ec. rc�:
COAST TO COAST
Tree Movers
x.70 -75-U ∎Ja •-ge RD
s' To.se. C.4 7501
Experts in Relocation of Large Trees
On and Off Site
A-4
4- x50.00 c kvec CecL
4 V76-.00 .00 C �r
er e�
Ar 150.00 ef.r ec.
h rL Yo
GLI
(408) 365 -3581
I9/ .7 CD 1 I
(Cc/f (rU C 0 ci.S
AX <,4 k k
Wit+I
e Ayj AN'N-AN ttlrY Ail ?)0
NOTE: The owner or general contractor will be responsible for all underground obstacles (electric, water, gas, irrigation, etc...).
Printed on recycled paper.
When:
Where:
Why:
You are invited to attend one
soundwall project. The meeting
December 15 at 7:00 p.m. in the
room. Please enter the Library
book drop (see map on reverse).
At the meeting, I will explain the impacts of the project on the
existing landscaping and trees along Bonnet Way and how the City
proposes to mitigate the impacts. Additionally, I will present a
schedule for completion of the project.
Since this is purely an informational meeting, there will be no
votes taken on any issues. This means that previous decisions made
by the neighborhood regarding the design and type of soundwall will
not be brought up for reconsideration.
As a resident of Bonnet Way in the vicinity of Highway 85, I
encourage your attendance at the meeting. However if you cannot
attend but would like more information about the project, please
call either John Cherbone of my staff or myself at 867 -3438.
Otherwise, I look forward to meeting with you again on the 15th.
Sincerely,
.,414
Larry I. Perlin
City Engineer
cc: City Council
oaufw %1] o C�
NOTICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
7:00 p.m., Tuesday, December 15, 1992
Saratoga Community Library Meeting Room
To receive additional information about the Bonnet Way
soundwall and the impacts of the project on the existing
landscaping
final meeting on the Bonnet Way
will be held this coming Tuesday,
Saratoga Community Library meeting
through the side entrance near the
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
Ann Marie Burger
Willem Kohler
Victor Monia
Karen Tucker
Dollar Allocation Rate
(per Acre)
Landscape
Acreage
Landscape
Construction Cost
Landscape
Construction Costs Not it
TA Contract 331
Total Landscape
Construction Cost
0 acre
0.5
0
26.1
000,000
15,000 acre
18.1
271,500
271,500
25,000 acre
6.1
152,500
391,500
152,500
30,000 acre
1.5
45,000
45,000
35,000 acre
6.6
231,000
231,000
Subtotal
32.8
700,000
700,000
P.G. E. Poles
N.A.
2,940
2,940
Total Allocated to Date
32.8
702,940
N.A.
702,940
Total Landscape Budget
820,000
Remaining Budget to Date
117,060
PLANTING AREAS
CITY
VISIBLE INTER- LOCAL LOCAL AREA AREA SNDWL SOUND- TOTAL
FRWY CHNGS/ STRTS MDNS BEHIND BEHIND TO ROW WALLS PLNTNG
W /IN LOCAL LNDSCP WHERE SNDWL SNDWL NOT VIS. ACRES
SOUND- STREET AREA CREATD VSBL TO ON TO
WALLS XINGS CREATD PUBLIC HNG PT PUBLIC (MILES)
r
LAND-
SCAPE
BUDGET
($25,000/
ACRE)
MINIMUM
PLANTING
BUDGET
($15,000
VISIBLE
ACRE)
DISCRE-
TIONARY
BUDGET
(TOTAL
MINIMUM)
SARATOGA
26.1
2.9
2.0
1.6
0.2
32.8
820,000
391,500
428,500
ROUTE 85 LANDSCAPING AREAS SARATOGA
(IN ACRES)
Estimates taken from reduced preliminary lay -out maps
Not included in acreage totals
ORSEE DESIGN ASSOC.
4/6/92
'�'z REM itt IN am 6
D isc ffnotoey'
ida tos CA 114
FvNPs